politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Time to bet against the Donald
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Time to bet against the Donald
Back in October, I tipped Ted Cruz for the Republican nomination as a trading bet. As always with such bets, the trick is trading out at the right time. So with Cruz now at less than 2/1 across the board, when is that time?
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Cruz is a professional nasty.
I know which candidate would worry me the most.
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
More remarkably and given the author's job, it's not very well written.
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.
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/
If Trump will be the republican nominee then Clinton is nailed on for the democrats.
Trump will be the GOP candidate and lose comfortable to Clinton in November. PBers should take their positions accordingly.
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.
Talk is cheap.
It won't shut up the crazies, but then nothing will.
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.
Typical after dinner speech is 20 mins
Average public speaker is around 120 words per minute
She is earning $93 per word!
Trump 54 .. Kasich 29 .. Cruz 16
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Donald-Trump-John-Kasich-Ted-Cruz-Wall-Street-Journal-Marist-Poll-NY-375886561.html
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 she had another name would she be anywhere near the front row of this pantomime?
The pretenders "Mary II and William III" ....
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 yes, the most dominant factor in her becoming president is that she's married to the 42nd president. Same as the 43rd was the son of the 41st. What are the chances, eh?
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.
Look, roofers, pop stars and estate agents are all subject to market forces, if customers don't buy their stuff they go out of business. State employed doctors are the polar opposite.
This is the lunatic economy we live in, people have been brainwashed into believing that state employees are market driven, its just ludicrous. Doctors are an essential part of society and must be respected, subject to market forces - complete bollox.
The question is: is there one?
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!
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.
But I am glad that you are now in favour of freedom of movement.
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?
State employees don't operate in a vacuum of economic activity. Specifically doctors as higher educated individuals will not choose the profession if the economic package on offer isn't commensurate with a broad level of acceptance by them in general financial comparisons and expectations.
The state must set the pay at levels to attract and retain doctors within that context. If the state doesn't buy doctors services at the market level the end result is clear but obviously not to you.
'No-one goes into politics for the money'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/15/tony-blair-used-secret-fund-to-manage-multi-million-pound-fortun/
The restriction on locuming and the low rates is one of the reasons* there will be a worsening staffing crisis. Those rota gaps are now unfillable, and will particularly affect out of hours services. It is all part of the perfect storm that Hunt has arranged. I can see why some of my colleagues believe it to be a deliberate scheme to crash the NHS.
*there are other important reasons. Improvements in some of the non-financial terms and conditions of employment could boost recruitment significantly.
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.
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?
In other words only the very rich, or the richly supported can afford to become nominated, let alone elected as president of the United States.
No more quiet geniuses born in log cabins or the like, likely to be elected. The Left thought that they had found their Lincoln in Obama, only to find that he's screwed up America and them as well.
Whoever is elected, is going to face stormy times, made worse by science increasing to destruction, mankind's runaway population numbers.
The question of capability is an odd one for presidents (or indeed PMs). Who decides? What are the criteria? There's been some pretty rum presidents over the years. Getting nominated and winning is no guarantee of capability, nor it seems is decades of experience.
George P bush may be annoyed jeb's poor showing means some of the same people dont back him for his no doubt inevitable run. Although maybe they needed to renew those links this time to ensure they were still in place for George.
Personally, I think it has to be Selina Meyer.
We have had a few Australians come for certain bits of niche work, but they tend to have a patriality stamp (ie one British grandparent) so are exempt. It is a long way from 1932 when my grandparents migrated to Britain, they didn't even need a passport, just a ticket on the ship.
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.
There is a worldwide shortage of medical graduates in general and specialists in particular.
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.
I like the idea of the booklets though. It presumably means all candidates get at least one chance to get their message out without preventing those with armies of supporters pushing their message better.
Looking it up, FDR was related to 5 previous presidents by blood & 6 others by marriage.
Firstly, the deadline for independent candidates tends to be far earlier than the deadlines for party-supported candidates. I don't know but I'd presume that there's a similar provision for the registration of new parties as well, to prevent independents from side-stepping the deadline in that way. Many deadlines fall before the convention. So yes, in effect there is a blank space for 'Republican' and 'Democrat', should they opt to use it.
And secondly, several states have 'sore loser' rules that prevent any candidate that ran in a primary within one party from contesting the general election for any other or as an independent. In other words, Trump could only stand as a Republican. A brokered convention wouldn't be affected by the rule even if the ultimate candidate hadn't contested the primary at all (all that matters is that he or she hadn't contested one for a different party).
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?
We get a similar booklet with our BMA council elections, and it certainly helps choose between candidates.
Zac is toast IMHO.
Did any candidate come out in favour of Heathrow expansion or is that electoral suicide?
How can Jews vote for Corbyn, asks former BBC chief Danny Cohen http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/ex-bbc-chief-jews-should-not-back-corbyns-labour-27xlhlq3x
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.
The leader of striking junior doctors pleaded with colleagues to exempt sick children from the first total walkout in NHS history, but was overruled. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/strike-doctors-ignore-leaders-plea-to-protect-sick-children-df8wv77jf
Say, NHS PLC relocated the production of 66,000 hip replacements to Eastern Europe? LatvianHS or PolishHS could almost certainly produce the same work for a third of the UK price.
Secondly, the rule as it stands only requires the majority support of eight delegations - not wins in eight states. Once delegates become unbound, other candidates could enter the race if they can generate the necessary support. Personally, I think that's unlikely - the bar is very high - but it is a possibility.
This is more difficult in the USA as it does seem to be social rather than economic issues that divide the two parties. A Republican who advocated a more tolerant approach to abortion, immigration and the role of religion in national life and who concentrated on the economy is hard to imagine. Ironically Trump for all his many flaws actually is rather more moderate on these issues.
Yes, booklet is good, though would perhaps be better sent with the voting papers. Reminds me of Swiss system for referenda, a booklet on every subject, with equal space for supporters, opponents and government, so they too load the dice for whoever the government is backing, though the Swiss are notably impervious to being told what to do.