Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Extraordinary scenes at the GOP convention as Ted Cruz does
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Extraordinary scenes at the GOP convention as Ted Cruz doesn’t back Trump and says “Vote with your conscience”
Overnight in Cleveland, Ohio, the contender who had run Trump closest in the primaries, Senator Ted Cruz, had a different approach and refused to back the man who 24 hours beforehand had officially become the nominee. Cruz was also speaking in prime time, that part of the night’s proceeding that were getting the most TV time.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I am off to Putin's Russia - St Petersburg to be precise - in a couple of hours.
Last time I left the country Brexit happened. Let's hope nothing equally momentous happens this time!
Foreign policy messups have more potential to be difficult for him.
Trump is Monty Brewster and I claim my five pounds.
For him:
- Hillary is a crap campaigner.
- 'Crooked Hillary' will stick because it has enough basis to
- He has more positive messages than she does (even if they're either vacuous or daft)
- He has more chance of landing a knock-out punch in the primaries because there's more chance of him doing or saying something unexpected that she wasn't ready to respond to
- Hillary's favourability ratings have headed steadily south during the campaign; Trump's have fluctuated
For her:
- Trump gives himself far more opportunity to sabotage his own campaign
- Hillary's campaign team is much less likely to make basic mistakes
- Trump's ratings are even worse than hers, and have been throughout
- Trump's support is generally too narrow and seems unlikely to break through much beyond what he has; he's relying on Obama supporters abstaining or going third-party
- She has been ahead in the head-to-heads pretty much throughout, across the country and in the swing states
- Trump has a problem with women on the campaign trail and could easily be too personally offensive, making an attack on her sound like one on all women.
Logically, if it's hard to call then the value ought to lie with the one at 5/2 but whether it does relies on how solid Hillary's lead is. If, ignoring minor candidates, Trump can easily reach 46 but struggles to pass 48 then her lead, narrow though it might be, is solid.
Is that the case? My gut instinct is not. That her general crapness introduces a weakness to her figures based not on switching but on the risk of losses to outside the two main candidates. She should still be favourite but I wouldn't give her much more than a 60% chance.
I watched the clips and thought he just appeared silly and mean. Trump waving from the back upstaged him, and looked much more in touch.
On 4, I fell for the "Trump will never break through his ceiling" thing when he was at 17% in the primaries, arguing he could not get above 20-25%. I won't make that mistake again. Although he will have a tougher time with the whole electorate than he did in the primary selectorate, who knows how he'll fair with independents faced with the devil's choice of him vs Hillary?
By all reasonable analysis, there should never have been a Trump campaign beyond September 2015. That he is the candidate means that everything political observers knew is not applicable.
Guido did some work on that address in Shad Thames.
He says it is the home of one Jon Lansmann.
http://order-order.com/2015/11/02/peoples-momentum-promotes-our-values-with-million-pound-flat/
Bought when Mr Lansmann moved from his previous address:
http://order-order.com/2016/03/21/through-the-keyhole-lansmans-1-5-million-pad/
A £4 enquiry to the Land Registry for the Deeds may not go amiss.
Some of the millions may have come from activities involving developing former community hostels etc into flats, through tax efficient corporate structures!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/12060177/The-cheerleader-for-Corbyn-who-supports-sons-schemes-to-sell-off-homeless-hostels.html
Property activities would be all of a muchness with eg Michael Meacher.
Of coures the orthodoxy is that the EU would never allow it, given its central pillar status, but these are negotiations. The more we hear from DD et al that this is to be our position, the more likely your nightmare scenario will transpire.
What happens after that? Well it would be a first ("the UK model") and would require some contortions by the EU. But the EU is after all a collection of individual states, each sovereign (!), so they might decide it is in everyone's best interest.
A tail event, IMO, but not impossible. But of course by that time everyone will have lost interest and if DD goes marching into battle under the flag of Single Market no Free Movement, only about 1.5% of the population will be following what actually happens next.
Trump isn't altering the field of play in any meaningful sense. Every US election I've followed the Republicans target MI, PA and talk excitedly about NJ. Every time all of them end up reliably in the Dem column. I don't see much altering from the 2012 map tbh
Little less sweltering, which is super.
Mr. Submarine, the PMQs performance must've been good to terrify your subconscious so
On-topic: hard but not impossible to see Trump winning. I wonder which result would be best for Britain.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36847893
The other odd thing is that while Denis complained, there is no evidence Mrs Thatcher herself even heard it.
If Ted said "vote Trump" then he really would be "Lyin' Ted".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/36848200
I tipped Trump early on because once he'd been in the lead for three months (which was still 2015), it was clear that his campaign had staying power and - crucially - that no-one else's seemed to. But he does have a limit; we only need to look at how deeply he's disliked by a lot of people to know that. His chance is that Hillary is nearly as deeply disliked by nearly as many. We really need to think about this election in terms of millions of voters, rather than in terms of percentages. Turnout will be absolutely key.
Trump endorses Erdogan's crackdown and threatens to not meet NATO obligations. How does this "Make America Great Again"?
A Trump Presidency really is a destabilising force in an unstable world.
It seems that the conventional wisdom is that a strong Johnson campaign will hurt Trump and let Hillary win relatively easily. But what if that is wrong, what if the effect is the exact opposite and Johnson eats into Hillary's vote letting Trump squeeze through the middle.
Surely the mainstream Democrat position is much closer to the Libertarian one than the Libertarian position is to Republicans? Are mainstream Republicans really going to be drawn to someone who wants to end the war on drugs and is avowedly pro-choice?
If Sanders was the Democrat candidate, offering a progressive economic platform, then there wouldn't be a risk but Hillary is a mainstream economically conservative Democrat which offers little separation from what the mainstream Republicans offer.
In basic terms, there really isn't a whole lot of difference between the economic platforms of Hillary, Trump and Johnson. While on the social platform, Trump might be a liberal historically but he has pivoted to at least say conservative things, meanwhile in terms of socially liberal policy, Johnson is a far more attractive option to a lot of potential Democrats than Hillary.
The leaning over the dispatch box 'Remind you of anybodY/' looked liked gloating. She'd won the point already. The public forgives many things but gloatig sticks in the craw.
And of course Trump could motivate voters belonging to groups that are scared of him becoming president (e.g. minorities) to turn out more than usual as well.
The irony being that the US might prove to be a far less stable administration for HMF to be under command of.
Mr. Kendrick, I did think it may have been overdoing things.
However, she might only see Corbyn (for PMQs) a few times, and it was her first outing, so she will have wanted to lay down a marker.
"I am not making this up, I promise. In the weeks before polling day last year the deputy prime minister spent several days, and almost £8,000 of party funds, starring in a shot-for-shot re-creation of the video for I Really Like You by Carly Rae Jepsen, the Canadian singer."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3700175/British-nuclear-submarine-forced-dock-Gibraltar-crashing-merchant-vessel-training-mission-Med.html
Although the DM has a strange definition of "undamaged" judging from the picture.
Very good!
I can also bet that she will have come away from that uber-planned joke thinking somewhere "that isn't me".
But you could be right and its just the headline that's confusing.
Isolationist - check
Of course, the irony is that by saying you wouldn't defend Estonia, for instance, you encourage Putin's Russia - which is suffering from the low oil price and the fact that the Europeans can now buy gas from Australia, Qatar and the US - to invade. Your desire to avoid entanglements ultimately encourages them.
Dear god she is awful.
Bloomberg - Trump Says US May Not Defend NATO Allies Against Russia Attack http://bloom.bg/29Xdadc
Trump endorses Erdogan's crackdown and threatens to not meet NATO obligations. How does this "Make America Great Again"?
A Trump Presidency really is a destabilising force in an unstable world.
Did he mean all allies or just Turkey?
The closest analogy I can think of is Scottish nationalists who want independence, but only within the safety of EU. They want Brexit, but only under Pax Americana.
I suspect Trump is just positioning himself to exert more spending from Europe on defence - and I don't blame him.
To be serious, these people infest politics. Two backfiring stunts from Gordon Brown: the trip to Iraq, after he'd won because he was not Tony Blair, and having Mrs Thatcher round for tea. David Cameron cycling to work with a chauffeur in tow, from his windmill-powered home. I just wish someone would pay me a hundred grand a year for fatuous advice.
"If the liberal left didn't have a habit for getting overworked by every little stupid thing in the world then we would not be in this position."
Hyperbole is the stock-in-trade of the Jezzarites too. No one is ambivalent, they are either comrades or Nazis. They don't differentiate between LDs and the National Front. As was said earlier, they are always the boy who cries Wolf.
When you are seventeen, you see the world in black and white, and some people never grow up.
They're freeloading - and if they're serious about keeping Russia at bay, well they need to put their money where their mouth is.
I think the Baltic states are safe - Putin is no madmen, he isn't going to take a punt on global war just to gain some old territory. Non EU /NATO states however are at much higher risk, as NATO is able to shy away from those invasions.
The wording of some of the sites was cute, though:
"Sometimes if you just had £25 to help towards something important it would make all the difference. There are many people who could probably spare £25 for someone who needs it much more than they do. This group is about bringing those categories of people together. Don’t think of it as begging, just think of it as direct socialism"
As you said, Putin isn't a madman so it's highly hypothetical. Something like this could only happen after a chain of other events that are themselves unlikely.
It's media bubble stuff like makes me roll my eyes and ignore them.