politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Time to bet against the Donald

CarlottaVance said:

Well, maybe.....

Release of Clinton’s Wall Street Speeches Could End Her Candidacy for President

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/release-of-clintons-wall-street-speeches_b_9698632.html

matt said:

CarlottaVance said:

Well, maybe.....

Release of Clinton’s Wall Street Speeches Could End Her Candidacy for President

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/release-of-clintons-wall-street-speeches_b_9698632.html

The best thing I can say about that article is that Hunchman would thoroughly agree with it.

More remarkably and given the author's job, it's not very well written.

AlastairMeeks said:

I can't see how the Republicans can ignore both their first and second placed candidates if no one else is anywhere near them in delegate numbers and the rules would need to be changed to do so (unless one or both of them willingly stepped aside). It would be an affront to democracy.

The question of Ted Cruz's eligibility is a red herring, which is why it has gone away. Indeed, a New Jersey court ruled this week that he is eligible. This link gives details and explains why it's unlikely to be a showstopper:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/04/14/new-jersey-court-rules-that-ted-cruz-is-a-natural-born-citizen-eligible-to-become-president/

weejonnie said:

Fourth - 3 lower than Leicester or Middlesbrough

david_herdson said:

DavidL said:

Not persuaded David. The Republican party is totally dysfunctional but remains or at least needs to look as if it remains a democratic body at heart. If Trump arrives with 1150 delegates as you suggest, having put himself out there around the entire country and having defeated all comers by a comfortable margin if not a plurality he wins. Any other result is pressing the self destruct button. It really is.

And it is not as if Cruz is even popular with the establishment. They loathe him and its mutual. So why would they destroy their party to defeat the FPTP winner? It really makes no sense to me at all. Trump will be the republican nominee.

I agree with your first paragraph, which is why I wrote my piece last week asking whether Dumping the Trump was worth it, and concluding 'no'.

However, what you and I think are by the by. The question we need to answer is whether the GOP think it's worth trying, which to be fair, is the question you ask next.

However, there our views diverge. Cruz and the establishment did cordially hate each other but the straws in the wind suggest to me a tactical alliance is forming. Now as you rightly point out, that may well be a miscalculation on the establishment's part but we can't ignore the facts. Cruz is getting endorsements from well beyond his natural Tea Party fringe, for example.

More significantly, Cruz is doing extremely well at delegate selection; far better than Trump, who only recently seems to have realised that it's worth paying any attention there. Whether or not it's in the establishment's interest to ally with Cruz, it's certainly in Cruz's interest to ally with them, particularly if, given the maths, he's the only hope they have of stopping Trump; he will barely need to conceded anything.

Now it might be that the GOP bigwigs are trying to play what they think is a very clever game in backing Cruz but only to a point that keeps both him and Trump short of the target, so that after several deadlocked rounds a third, unity, candidate can enter the field. If that is the thinking, I suspect it'll be too clever by half. A convention with a clear majority of genuine Cruz and Trump supporters is unlikely to be keen to ride in behind Ryan, Kasich or Romney.

But they have to ride in behind someone. Like you, I think that despite his unpopularity, their least worst option given where they are now remains Trump. But on balance, I don't think it's the one they're going to go for.

blackburn63 said:

FPT

Got to chuckle at NHS workers talking about market forces. I'd be absolutely delighted for us to let in doctors from abroad who would happily work for a fraction of what our junior doctors are grizzling about.

Then we'd see market forces in action.

This is the thing about freedom of movement and the fatuous nature of the argument, pull factors have to be taken into account. Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm sure we are perfectly welcome in most places in the world where we are not entitled to benefit payments and housing.

Oh and please, NHS doctors, you do a good job, thanks, please don't patronise us by saying your pay is subject to market forces.

Innocent_Abroad said:

blackburn63 said:

A question about Hilary, bearing in mind I know nothing about her. The probability of a husband and wife both being capable of running the most powerful country in the world is extraordinary.

If she had another name would she be anywhere near the front row of this pantomime?

Augustus and Livia?

blackburn63 said:

JackW said:

blackburn63 said:

FPT

Got to chuckle at NHS workers talking about market forces. I'd be absolutely delighted for us to let in doctors from abroad who would happily work for a fraction of what our junior doctors are grizzling about.

Then we'd see market forces in action.

This is the thing about freedom of movement and the fatuous nature of the argument, pull factors have to be taken into account. Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm sure we are perfectly welcome in most places in the world where we are not entitled to benefit payments and housing.

Oh and please, NHS doctors, you do a good job, thanks, please don't patronise us by saying your pay is subject to market forces.

If NHS doctors aren't subject to market forces then why are they not on the minimum wage and why are many of them emigrating to countries like Oz or transfering to the private sector?

Before I respond I need to clarify: do you believe NHS doctor's pay is subject to market forces?

blackburn63 said:

FPT

Got to chuckle at NHS workers talking about market forces. I'd be absolutely delighted for us to let in doctors from abroad who would happily work for a fraction of what our junior doctors are grizzling about.

Then we'd see market forces in action.

This is the thing about freedom of movement and the fatuous nature of the argument, pull factors have to be taken into account. Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm sure we are perfectly welcome in most places in the world where we are not entitled to benefit payments and housing.

Oh and please, NHS doctors, you do a good job, thanks, please don't patronise us by saying your pay is subject to market forces.

david_herdson said:

DavidL said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I can't see how the Republicans can ignore both their first and second placed candidates if no one else is anywhere near them in delegate numbers and the rules would need to be changed to do so (unless one or both of them willingly stepped aside). It would be an affront to democracy.

The question of Ted Cruz's eligibility is a red herring, which is why it has gone away. Indeed, a New Jersey court ruled this week that he is eligible. This link gives details and explains why it's unlikely to be a showstopper:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/04/14/new-jersey-court-rules-that-ted-cruz-is-a-natural-born-citizen-eligible-to-become-president/

But, but Rod told us....

As I have said before when you go back to the 60s there were relatively few states who put the matter to the vote so the party at conference could choose. Now the people have spoken and these fantasises of someone who didn't put their head above the parapet, didn't get tested by the debates, didn't eat all the corndogs and didn't put in the miles is somehow an acceptable substitute is just old fashioned thinking.

I tend to agree with that, which is why Cruz is by far the clear alternative and, to my mind, Kasich ought to be next in line.

However, Trump's ratings do provide a legitimate argument for dropping him, irrespective of the primaries; arguably, the primaries have failed to do their job in that instance. The rules are that you have to cross the finishing line, not just get furthest before the flag falls. If Trump does end up on 1150 (say) then he hasn't crossed the finishing line and it remains game on.

blackburn63 said:

foxinsoxuk said:

blackburn63 said:

FPT

Got to chuckle at NHS workers talking about market forces. I'd be absolutely delighted for us to let in doctors from abroad who would happily work for a fraction of what our junior doctors are grizzling about.

Then we'd see market forces in action.

This is the thing about freedom of movement and the fatuous nature of the argument, pull factors have to be taken into account. Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm sure we are perfectly welcome in most places in the world where we are not entitled to benefit payments and housing.

Oh and please, NHS doctors, you do a good job, thanks, please don't patronise us by saying your pay is subject to market forces.

Glad to see you convert to free movement of workers to the UK. Heaven has a place for the sinner who repents!

Doctors are pretty relaxed about migrant doctors coming here to work. We all work with foreign colleagues as about 40% of British registered doctors trained abroad.

Junior doctors jobs are not a free market, the government is a monopoly employer for training posts, and is enforcing that monopoly position. When the Foundation Trusts (who have the freedom to depart from national terms and conditions) started floating the idea of sticking with the old contract rather than imposing the new contract they were threatened by Health Education England with not getting any junior staff.

One characteristic of this govt is that it only likes market forces when it benefits them, not when it benefits the employee.

Not too far from Blackburn this hospital has had to close its Emergency dept because it cannot staff it: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-36042951

Not many foreign doctors responding to those adverts - and if unfillable by a UK or EU candidate for 4 weeks any doctor in the world could apply.

Convert to freedom of movement?

Listen, why do you need to tell lies? I am PRO freedom of movement, its you that doesn't want doctors from the sub continent coming in and exposing you.

foxinsoxuk said:

Not many foreign doctors responding to those adverts - and if unfillable by a UK or EU candidate for 4 weeks any doctor in the world could apply.

Philip_Thompson said:

If he gets 1150 then won't he have achieved a majority of elected delegates? To fail due to unbound delegates only (I don't think the GOP uses the term superdelegates) is inappropriate.

ReallyEvilMuffin said:

blackburn63 said:

JackW said:

blackburn63 said:

JackW said:

blackburn63 said:

FPT

Got to chuckle at NHS workers talking about market forces. I'd be absolutely delighted for us to let in doctors from abroad who would happily work for a fraction of what our junior doctors are grizzling about.

Then we'd see market forces in action.

This is the thing about freedom of movement and the fatuous nature of the argument, pull factors have to be taken into account. Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm sure we are perfectly welcome in most places in the world where we are not entitled to benefit payments and housing.

Oh and please, NHS doctors, you do a good job, thanks, please don't patronise us by saying your pay is subject to market forces.

If NHS

Before I respond I need to clarify: do you believe NHS doctor's pay is subject to market forces?

Yes and if you don't you need a basic lesson in economics.

So teachers, ambulance men and soldiers are all subject to market forces?

Look, roofers, pop stars and estate agents are all subject to market forces, if customers don't buy their stuff they go out

The new contract has a specific clause removing ALL market forces. If a doctor wishes to locum, unless their usual employer gives them an agreement in writing they cannot locum legally. This is also combined with locum caps (admittedly only for agencies, but most hospitals are putting them out accross the board) means that if you don't want to do your own hospital locum at the pathetic rate they are offering, you are not allowed to work for a different provider offering more.

Definitely no market forces at play there!

As for standard salaries, fox already stated there is a monopoly employer and there is a national pay scale - hospitals are not allowed to entice juniors with different pay offers which would be a market economy, although with the way we are employed through deaneries and almost sub contracted out to hospitals this would not be a practical way of employing people.

Anyways my shift begins soon!

Philip_Thompson said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Not many foreign doctors responding to those adverts - and if unfillable by a UK or EU candidate for 4 weeks any doctor in the world could apply.

Why a 4 week delay?

We keep hearing about all these British trained doctors going to Australia allegedly. Why would an Australian who wants to come this way be discriminated against?

kle4 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

If he gets 1150 then won't he have achieved a majority of elected delegates? To fail due to unbound delegates only (I don't think the GOP uses the term superdelegates) is inappropriate.

Many may think so, but even having unbound or super delegates who do not even have to pay lip service to any public vote in the first place would indicate the parties never promised to make it a straight democratic contest and, presumably, it never has been before either. Bit late for people to complain about unbound delegates, Byzantine rules and inconsistent state methods for assigning delegates.

malcolmg said:

blackburn63 said:

A question about Hilary, bearing in mind I know nothing about her. The probability of a husband and wife both being capable of running the most powerful country in the world is extraordinary.

If she had another name would she be anywhere near the front row of this pantomime?

That has no bearing on the US bean feast , it is all down to how much money and pork barrel friends you can muster.

matt said:

It's hard to see any conclusion other than HC wins both the Dem nomination and then the Presidency. Republican manoeuvring appears to be about maintaining power below the White House level, which given the strength of feeling both Cruz and Trump inspire appears to be the sensible approach. Both of them require a long spoon though, albeit for different reasons.

The interesting question from the HC side is who would be the VP. I remember seeing HC in 2012 and she looked one step away from the grave largely from the pressure I would think. It would not surprise if she fell over during her first term.

malcolmg said:

blackburn63 said:

A question about Hilary, bearing in mind I know nothing about her. The probability of a husband and wife both being capable of running the most powerful country in the world is extraordinary.

If she had another name would she be anywhere near the front row of this pantomime?

That has no bearing on the US bean feast , it is all down to how much money and pork barrel friends you can muster.

AlastairMeeks said:

david_herdson said:

DavidL said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I can't see how the Republicans can ignore both their first and second placed candidates if no one else is anywhere near them in delegate numbers and the rules would need to be changed to do so (unless one or both of them willingly stepped aside). It would be an affront to democracy.

The question of Ted Cruz's eligibility is a red herring, which is why it has gone away. Indeed, a New Jersey court ruled this week that he is eligible. This link gives details and explains why it's unlikely to be a showstopper:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/04/14/new-jersey-court-rules-that-ted-cruz-is-a-natural-born-citizen-eligible-to-become-president/

But, but Rod told us....

As I have said before when you go back to the 60s there were relatively few states who put the matter to the vote so the party at conference could choose. Now the people have spoken and these fantasises of someone who didn't put their head above the parapet, didn't get tested by the debates, didn't eat all the corndogs and didn't put in the miles is somehow an acceptable substitute is just old fashioned thinking.

I tend to agree with that, which is why Cruz is by far the clear alternative and, to my mind, Kasich ought to be next in line.

However, Trump's ratings do provide a legitimate argument for dropping him, irrespective of the primaries; arguably, the primaries have failed to do their job in that instance. The rules are that you have to cross the finishing line, not just get furthest before the flag falls. If Trump does end up on 1150 (say) then he hasn't crossed the finishing line and it remains game on.

1150 isn't 1236. If Donald Trump hasn't reached 1236 nominees, he has no inalienable right to the nomination. He has the moral right in such circumstances to be considered first, but if once considered he appears inappropriate, he can be passed over in favour of a more suitable eligible candidate.

The question is: is there one?

NickPalmer said:

Just tactically, I'd wait to lay him until after he's had a crushing NY victory, as it seems he's about to do. Whether I'd lay him then I'm not sure.

Is there a link to Cruz's more outrageous positions, by the way? - I have a general impression of nastiness and fanaticism, but I don't really know the details.

O/T: the Mayoral information leaflets (not yet the postal voting papers) have arrived, a neat little booklet. Everyone gets two A5 pages, in randomly-selected order. They are:

Sophie Walker, Women' Equality - professionally done, highlights equal pay, combating violence vs women, childcare and transport. Could well get a decent 1st preference share.

Lee Harris, Cannabis is Safer Than Alcohol - amateur effort

Zac Goldsmith - homes, transport, environment, neighbourhood policing. Positive pitch, Tories only mentioned in passing at the end. I like it but it's quite text-heavy

David Furness, BNP - immigration, Christianity. BNP highlighted, very little about the candidate. Cites Archbishop of Canterbury approvingly, but won't appeal beyond the traditional BNP vote.

Caroline Pidgeon, LibDem - housing, more police, child minders, transport. Lots of pictures, not bad.

Paul Golding, Britain First - immigrants, anti-EU, anti-Islamist, hate preachers, Christianity. Nasty IMO but turbocharged BNP style, could outpoll Furness.

George Galloway, Respect - very text-heavy and even a bit hard to read. Vote me for peace, justice, equality, better deal for everyone. Vague.

Peter Whittle, UKIP - immigration, housing, stop translation services, back stop and search, and immigration again. Pictured with Farage. Reinforces impression that UKIP is only about immigration.

Sadiq Khan - links policies to person - council estate boy to fix housing, bus driver's son to freeze fares, Muslim to fight extremists, business experience to support business, family man to fight pollution. Layout not great and handicapped by late position, but content well packaged. Almost only candidate to mention business.

Sian Berry, Green - homes, fares, bank of small business, community policing, green energy. Text-light but does the job.

MarqueeMark said:

david_herdson said:

DavidL said:

But, but Rod told us....

As I have said before when you go back to the 60s there were relatively few states who put the matter to the vote so the party at conference could choose. Now the people have spoken and these fantasises of someone who didn't put their head above the parapet, didn't get tested by the debates, didn't eat all the corndogs and didn't put in the miles is somehow an acceptable substitute is just old fashioned thinking.

I tend to agree with that, which is why Cruz is by far the clear alternative and, to my mind, Kasich ought to be next in line.

However, Trump's ratings do provide a legitimate argument for dropping him, irrespective of the primaries; arguably, the primaries have failed to do their job in that instance. The rules are that you have to cross the finishing line, not just get furthest before the flag falls. If Trump does end up on 1150 (say) then he hasn't crossed the finishing line and it remains game on.

But at least he was in the race - and handily beat the other people in the race. And I suspect that many of Kasich's delegates would be more likely to support Trump than Cruz, who., let's remember, was the most detested of the main candidates by the Republican great and good before Trump took the mantle.

There is one thing that people might be able to help me with. We are told that Trump couldn't stand as an independent because he wouldn't be on the ballot paper in about 45 states. So how does the brokered convention candidate get on the ballot paper? Is there just a space reserved for The Republican Party Candidate (whosoever they be)? Or is it far messier than that?

Pulpstar said:

wait till after 26th to lay Trump I think - he has a great run of states incoming

Indigo said:

Freedom of movement for qualified, useful people that will contribute to society from anywhere in the world, for criminals, terrorist supporters and spongers, not so much... or as it is known in Canada and Australia, a points based system.

Theuniondivvie said:

Indigo said:

Freedom of movement for qualified, useful people that will contribute to society from anywhere in the world, for criminals, terrorist supporters and spongers, not so much... or as it is known in Canada and Australia, a points based system.

The 2 Glasgow airport bombers were respectively a doctor and an PHD engineering student (though the former was in fact UK born). Not simple to winnow out the contributors from the 'criminals, terrorist supporters and spongers'.

Jonathan said:

Woke up feeling a bit LEAVE-y this morning. Odd.

peter_from_putney said:

If one is prepared to at least consider the increasingly held view that the eventual Republican Nominee is not yet even in the race and that one also discounts also the chances of those who have already fallen by the wayside, incl Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, Ben Carson, Chris Christie, etc. as well as the sometimes touted Paul Ryan who I find deeply unimpressive, one is then left with some very tasty odds on offer from Betfair for the next raft of possible contenders including the following sextet:

Mitt Romney .............. 250
Scott Walker .............. 900
Mike Pence ................ 860
Michael Bloomberg .... 880
Rick Santorum .......... 1000
John Huntsman ........ 1000

Might it be worth just a few quid backing such as these (and possibly a handful of others in addition to or instead of the above-named) for the minimum Betfair stake of £2 apiece?

JackW said:

foxinsoxuk said:

malcolmg said:

blackburn63 said:

A question about Hilary, bearing in mind I know nothing about her. The probability of a husband and wife both being capable of running the most powerful country in the world is extraordinary.

If she had another name would she be anywhere near the front row of this pantomime?

That has no bearing on the US bean feast , it is all down to how much money and pork barrel friends you can muster.

Yes, British politics is a little better in that respect.

I cannot see a way out of this mess for the Republicans. They have to have a candidate, and if anything other than Trump there will be accusations of a backroom fix, and no point in a fix if it is likely to fall apart or be inadequate. Probably the best option is to accept the inevitable and get on board with Trump and hope to soften his rougher edges.

I am green on this race but best with Cruz or Kasich. I cannot see much value either backing or laying Trump at this point.

Hillary will be an excellent President.

The mess the GOP are in is squarely of their own making. They failed to heed their own report post the 2012 defeat and have retreated to their continued reliance on white males which is a shrinking demographic generally and more importantly in several swing states.

It's been some time coming but the writing was on the wall in New Mexico that George Bush II won but is now solidly blue. The trend is now the same in hispanic rich and growing states such as Nevada, Colorado, Florida and Arizona. Long term we will also see this in Texas. The DC suburbs are trending Virginia blue and slowly North Carolina is moving too.

Presently the GOP cannot and appears unwilling to square this POTUS circle.

Indigo said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Indigo said:

Freedom of movement for qualified, useful people that will contribute to society from anywhere in the world, for criminals, terrorist supporters and spongers, not so much... or as it is known in Canada and Australia, a points based system.

The 2 Glasgow airport bombers were respectively a doctor and an PHD engineering student (though the former was in fact UK born). Not simple to winnow out the contributors from the 'criminals, terrorist supporters and spongers'.

The 7/7, Brussels and Paris terrorists were also not migrants. Even the 9/11 terrorists had legitimate study visas to be in the USA.

Yes yes... so what is your point, that because we can't make a system perfect we shouldn't make it better ? Would like you like to bet if the 9/11 terrorists could get a study visa to the USA now, under the current regime ? Or is it because something about controlling who comes into the country offends your liberal values you are waving your hands around.