politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Rubio the big betting gainer and Bush the big loser after a

System · November 2015

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Rubio the big betting gainer and Bush the big loser after a week that saw the 3rd Republican nominee WH2016 debate

Because there is a general clampdown down in the US on online betting many US observers are having to look at what is happening on the UK markets in order to get a sense of the betting sentiment on the White House Race.

Read the full story here

Morris_Dancer · November 2015

Mr. Rentool, 'pooled'?

Ha.

On-topic: I am mildly irked that my 50/1 bet on Rubio was for the preceding election. Morris Dancer = ahead of the times! [If Greening or Patel become the leader after next of the Conservatives I shall be very annoyed].

TheScreamingEagles · November 2015

Jeb is running a truly dire campaign. You'd think Ed Miliband was his campaign chief.

Plato_Says · November 2015

I'm seeing double.

rottenborough · November 2015

TheScreamingEagles said:
Jeb is running a truly dire campaign. You'd think Ed Miliband was his campaign chief.

There's been speculation in some newspapers that he doesn't actually want it. Just going through the motions for family reasons.

JEO · November 2015

I was reading something yesterday saying that Bush's support would entirely shift across to Rubio if he dropped out. Carson and Trump need to keep Bush in the race.

Tissue_Price · November 2015

TheScreamingEagles said:
Jeb is running a truly dire campaign. You'd think Ed Miliband was his campaign chief.

The slogan was only the start of it
He wrote it, and now he's a part of it

JEO · November 2015

HurstLlama said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

DavidL said:
But this is an EU problem, not a Greek or Hungary or Italy problem and we will need to help to clean up the mess. As you say it is in our interests to do so.
It could come out of the aid budget, so it needn't mean a net increase in our spending.
By the same token why cannot the EU take the money it needs from existing budgets, perhaps spend less in one area in order to increase spending in another? Why is it that the EU's seemingly only solution to any problem is to demand more cash from its members' taxpayers.

The Common Agricultural Policy is 40% of the entire EU budget. I don't see how we can possibly justify taking money away from people suffering in Africa, yet still leave wealthy French farmers untouched.

TheScreamingEagles · November 2015

Tissue_Price said:

TheScreamingEagles said:
Jeb is running a truly dire campaign. You'd think Ed Miliband was his campaign chief.
The slogan was only the start of it
He wrote it, and now he's a part of it

Jeb'll fix it with an 8 foot 6 inch limestone policy obelisk.

TheScreamingEagles · November 2015

rottenborough said:

TheScreamingEagles said:
Jeb is running a truly dire campaign. You'd think Ed Miliband was his campaign chief.
There's been speculation in some newspapers that he doesn't actually want it. Just going through the motions for family reasons.

That would explain a lot.

Roger · November 2015

FPT. Charles.

Partly the way my post was formatted. I was mainly aiming at Max's "Lazy Pakis vote Labour-Hard working Hindus vote Tory". You just joined in....

The problem with this site when it becomes completely Tory is that conversations which would normally be 'entre nous' you feel emboldened to say out loud

Morris_Dancer · November 2015

Mr. Roger, 'entre nous'?

Roger · November 2015

MD

Entre nous='between ourselves'

TheScreamingEagles · November 2015

Morris_Dancer said:
Mr. Roger, 'entre nous'?

Between ourselves

watford30 · November 2015

Morris_Dancer said:
Mr. Roger, 'entre nous'?

'entre nous' - openly slagging off English waitresses when one thinks we're amongst like minded bigoted souls.

Morris_Dancer · November 2015

Cheers, Mr. Roger, Mr. Eagles, and Mr. 30.

Anorak · November 2015

TheScreamingEagles said:

Tissue_Price said:

TheScreamingEagles said:
Jeb is running a truly dire campaign. You'd think Ed Miliband was his campaign chief.
The slogan was only the start of it
He wrote it, and now he's a part of it
Jeb'll fix it with an 8 foot 6 inch limestone policy obelisk.

Ooooo! We should have a competition for best suggested inscription (or engraving?).

Having said that, I'm drawing a blank

isam · November 2015

Would be interesting to hear what 'les indecideds' made of an Arron Banks funded film shown on the BBC that depicted a post EU Britain of social harmony, flourishing economy, zero crime and constant sunshine

TheScreamingEagles · November 2015

Anorak said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Tissue_Price said:

TheScreamingEagles said:
Jeb is running a truly dire campaign. You'd think Ed Miliband was his campaign chief.
The slogan was only the start of it
He wrote it, and now he's a part of it
Jeb'll fix it with an 8 foot 6 inch limestone policy obelisk.
Ooooo! We should have a competition for best suggested inscription (or engraving?).

Having said that, I'm drawing a blank

I'm putting together a thread on the Edstone.

I describe the Edstone as the most important obelisk in human history, even more so than the obelisk at the start of 2001

DavidL · November 2015

To me, Rubio looks the obvious choice for the Republicans. I think he would have an excellent chance of beating Hillary.

But I am quite a long way from a republican voter, let alone the average republican voter, and find it very hard to judge their thinking. What I can't help thinking is that these markets are getting driven more by people like me (who thinks Trump is a joke, more so than Corbyn even) than the people who are actually going to vote.

Or to put it another way, the markets are running dangerously far ahead of the polling. They may be right, I think they probably are, but it assumes not just common sense but a common frame of reference and I think that is missing.

Sean_F · November 2015

TheScreamingEagles said:
Jeb is running a truly dire campaign. You'd think Ed Miliband was his campaign chief.

Then, he turns to Jimmy Saville for inspiration.

I think Donald Trump, Herman Cain, or Christine O'Donnell would all make better candidates than Jeb.

Charles · November 2015

@Roger

Thank you

Pulpstar · November 2015

JEO said:

HurstLlama said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

DavidL said:
But this is an EU problem, not a Greek or Hungary or Italy problem and we will need to help to clean up the mess. As you say it is in our interests to do so.
It could come out of the aid budget, so it needn't mean a net increase in our spending.
By the same token why cannot the EU take the money it needs from existing budgets, perhaps spend less in one area in order to increase spending in another? Why is it that the EU's seemingly only solution to any problem is to demand more cash from its members' taxpayers.
The Common Agricultural Policy is 40% of the entire EU budget. I don't see how we can possibly justify taking money away from people suffering in Africa, yet still leave wealthy French farmers untouched.

Because the French will say "NON"

It is a "Little Europe" policy that is well past it's sell by date.

MikeSmithson · November 2015

DavidL said:
To me, Rubio looks the obvious choice for the Republicans. I think he would have an excellent chance of beating Hillary.

But I am quite a long way from a republican voter, let alone the average republican voter, and find it very hard to judge their thinking. What I can't help thinking is that these markets are getting driven more by people like me (who thinks Trump is a joke, more so than Corbyn even) than the people who are actually going to vote.

Or to put it another way, the markets are running dangerously far ahead of the polling. They may be right, I think they probably are, but it assumes not just common sense but a common frame of reference and I think that is missing.

My money's split between Rubio and Trump with some speculative bets from some time ago on Fiorina who, to my mind at least, s by far the best candidate.

HurstLlama · November 2015

@CycleFree

Mrs. Free, we spoke last night about cat food. Herself has just come home having done some shopping. Whilst helping to unpack (i.e. rummaging through the bags to see what goodies there are) I found a pack of frozen Crab Au Gratin. Naturally I made appreciative noises as a good husband should when his wife has bought him a treat. "Get off", she said, "Those aren't for you! They are for Thomas".

Good quality cat food is so expensive these days it is actually cheaper to feed the moggie on human food. A Waitrose roast chicken may not have the right mix of vitamins and minerals a cat needs but they only cost a fiver and when the moggie is over 18 years old does it matter.

MTimT · November 2015

FWIW, punditry here thinks it is essentially between Rubio and Cruz at this point with Rubio the clear front runner and Cruz really just the flag bearer for the angry and ultra conservatives. Christie and Kasich are seen, as I voiced before this became the received wisdom, as the back ups in case Rubio falters.

Interesting to see Kasich's numbers have improved significantly as Bush has fallen.

Feeling smug to have been saying all along (at least since he announced and did not assume a commanding lead) that Jeb would not get it.

Morris_Dancer · November 2015

F1: last time I'll put this up, but it was a bit late so you may have missed my post-race rambling about the Mexican Grand Prix, which went reasonably well:
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/mexico-post-race-analysis.html

MTimT · November 2015

rottenborough said:

TheScreamingEagles said:
Jeb is running a truly dire campaign. You'd think Ed Miliband was his campaign chief.
There's been speculation in some newspapers that he doesn't actually want it. Just going through the motions for family reasons.

I think that is re-writing history. Barbara Bush, who rules the family like an old-fashioned matriarch, was strongly opposed to Jeb running and had to be persuaded by him to give her blessing. He did not announce until he got it.

MTimT · November 2015

Anorak said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Tissue_Price said:

TheScreamingEagles said:
Jeb is running a truly dire campaign. You'd think Ed Miliband was his campaign chief.
The slogan was only the start of it
He wrote it, and now he's a part of it
Jeb'll fix it with an 8 foot 6 inch limestone policy obelisk.
Ooooo! We should have a competition for best suggested inscription (or engraving?).

Having said that, I'm drawing a blank

Why not some good old Bush family sayings:

"Read my lips - no new taxes"

and

"Mission accomplished"

Anorak · November 2015

TheScreamingEagles said:

Anorak said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Tissue_Price said:

TheScreamingEagles said:
Jeb is running a truly dire campaign. You'd think Ed Miliband was his campaign chief.
The slogan was only the start of it
He wrote it, and now he's a part of it
Jeb'll fix it with an 8 foot 6 inch limestone policy obelisk.
Ooooo! We should have a competition for best suggested inscription (or engraving?).

Having said that, I'm drawing a blank
I'm putting together a thread on the Edstone.

I describe the Edstone as the most important obelisk in human history, even more so than the obelisk at the start of 2001

Tut! 2001 had a monolith; obelisks are tapering. And you claim to be a classicist...

AlastairMeeks · November 2015

JEO said:

FPT You keep on arguing against strawman arguments I haven't said, like the BBC bidding for EU grants, or the EU being involved creatively in the programme. Those things are irrelevant. The only things you need to believe for my statement to be true are points 1 through 3. And you openly admit you don't know at least two of those points. But despite not knowing the facts, you insult someone that does know the facts for the conclusion that results from them.

What rot. You sought to taint the BBC's neutrality with wild accusations and minimal evidence. If you don't want derision heaped on you, don't conjure up absurd conspiracy theories.

Richard_Nabavi · November 2015

isam said:
Would be interesting to hear what 'les indecideds' made of an Arron Banks funded film shown on the BBC that depicted a post EU Britain of social harmony, flourishing economy, zero crime and constant sunshine

That it doesn't sound like compelling viewing. In other words, exactly what we made of the programme which JEO was getting so excited about.

MTimT · November 2015

MikeSmithson said:

DavidL said:
To me, Rubio looks the obvious choice for the Republicans. I think he would have an excellent chance of beating Hillary.

But I am quite a long way from a republican voter, let alone the average republican voter, and find it very hard to judge their thinking. What I can't help thinking is that these markets are getting driven more by people like me (who thinks Trump is a joke, more so than Corbyn even) than the people who are actually going to vote.

Or to put it another way, the markets are running dangerously far ahead of the polling. They may be right, I think they probably are, but it assumes not just common sense but a common frame of reference and I think that is missing.
My money's split between Rubio and Trump with some speculative bets from some time ago on Fiorina who, to my mind at least, s by far the best candidate.

I think you are wrong on Fiorina. She is not a good campaigner and has way too much baggage in the closet which has not yet been fully deployed because she has not really cracked into the top tier.

The natural politicians - those for whom it is 'easy' - in the GOP race are Rubio, Christie and Huckabee, although Huckabee could never get the nod.

Anorak · November 2015

MTimT said:

Anorak said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Tissue_Price said:

TheScreamingEagles said:
Jeb is running a truly dire campaign. You'd think Ed Miliband was his campaign chief.
The slogan was only the start of it
He wrote it, and now he's a part of it
Jeb'll fix it with an 8 foot 6 inch limestone policy obelisk.
Ooooo! We should have a competition for best suggested inscription (or engraving?).

Having said that, I'm drawing a blank
Why not some good old Bush family sayings:

"Read my lips - no new taxes"

and

"Mission accomplished"

I can't think of any way to get the Deliverance banjo music into words. Maybe just "squeal like a pig".

DavidL · November 2015

MikeSmithson said:

DavidL said:
To me, Rubio looks the obvious choice for the Republicans. I think he would have an excellent chance of beating Hillary.

But I am quite a long way from a republican voter, let alone the average republican voter, and find it very hard to judge their thinking. What I can't help thinking is that these markets are getting driven more by people like me (who thinks Trump is a joke, more so than Corbyn even) than the people who are actually going to vote.

Or to put it another way, the markets are running dangerously far ahead of the polling. They may be right, I think they probably are, but it assumes not just common sense but a common frame of reference and I think that is missing.
My money's split between Rubio and Trump with some speculative bets from some time ago on Fiorina who, to my mind at least, s by far the best candidate.

Fiorina should be a strong candidate, in the same way as Huntsman should have been the last time, but sometimes it just doesn't happen. I think that once Trump starts falling it could be precipitous but I am conscious that I just found him ridiculous from day 1 and obviously many far more relevant Americans did not.

AlastairMeeks · November 2015

isam said:
Would be interesting to hear what 'les indecideds' made of an Arron Banks funded film shown on the BBC that depicted a post EU Britain of social harmony, flourishing economy, zero crime and constant sunshine

We get the text version of that on pb every day.

isam · November 2015

antifrank said:

isam said:
Would be interesting to hear what 'les indecideds' made of an Arron Banks funded film shown on the BBC that depicted a post EU Britain of social harmony, flourishing economy, zero crime and constant sunshine

We get the text version of that on pb every day.

Even if that were true, you criticise it!

But I don't really remember anyone suggesting any of that, it's normally that it wouldn't be much different, but we'd be in control

As I said yesterday, I'd rather Corbyn PM and open borders outside the EU ham the status quo. At least we could vote him out and he couldnt do the Cameron/May routine of blaming their hands being tied by some EU bureaucrat

isam · November 2015

Richard_Nabavi said:

isam said:
Would be interesting to hear what 'les indecideds' made of an Arron Banks funded film shown on the BBC that depicted a post EU Britain of social harmony, flourishing economy, zero crime and constant sunshine
That it doesn't sound like compelling viewing. In other words, exactly what we made of the programme which JEO was getting so excited about.

It doesn't I agree, but it wouldn't get shown and that's the difference

AlastairMeeks · November 2015

On topic, the UK betting markets on the US seem to me to be lagging rather than leading.

I'd not be comfortable betting against Ted Cruz at present.

MTimT · November 2015

isam said:
... a post EU Britain of ... constant sunshine

Sounds like you subscribe to global warming.

Danny565 · November 2015

It's very hard to see what the argument for Jeb Bush is. Not conservative enough to get the core vote enthused, has a last name which is toxic for swing voters, little charisma or likability to compensate for any of that.

MTimT · November 2015

antifrank said:
On topic, the UK betting markets on the US seem to me to be lagging rather than leading.

I'd not be comfortable betting against Ted Cruz at present.

I think they are wholly unreliable. On average, I'd say that in political markets, people tend to bet on outcomes they want, rather than on what really will happen (of course, PB betters excepted). That is bad enough when the betters are voters. But when they are not even citizens of the country in which the election is to be held, and cannot have that gut feeling for elections that comes with living in the country, I'd strongly caution against placing much credence in them at all as predictors.

Danny565 · November 2015

antifrank said:
On topic, the UK betting markets on the US seem to me to be lagging rather than leading.

They've been ahead of the polls in forecasting Marco Rubio's rise.

Richard_Nabavi · November 2015

Rubio is, perhaps, rightly favourite, but the current odds are too short. There are still many banana skins in his path. These include fundraising (he hasn't done much), organisation (he hasn't got much), relative inexperience, a patchy Senate record, and his position on immigration.

See here for a useful summary of his position and the field as a whole:

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/republicans-2016-oct-28-debate/

DecrepitJohnL · November 2015

MTimT said:
FWIW, punditry here thinks it is essentially between Rubio and Cruz at this point with Rubio the clear front runner and Cruz really just the flag bearer for the angry and ultra conservatives. Christie and Kasich are seen, as I voiced before this became the received wisdom, as the back ups in case Rubio falters.

Interesting to see Kasich's numbers have improved significantly as Bush has fallen.

Feeling smug to have been saying all along (at least since he announced and did not assume a commanding lead) that Jeb would not get it.

To this longtime Bush-sceptic, it is no surprise he's going nowhere but it still looks murky. It may be a mistake to treat Carson and Trump as the same. From the far side of the Atlantic, it looks like Carson has the religious and rural right who might have gone to Huckabee, whereas the ideologically uncertain Trump has NOTA and voters who might otherwise go to Cruz (and for that reason, Cruz might be worth a look as VP candidate to a centrist at the top).

The GOP Establishment has not jumped one way or the other. Bush remains in the race. Ryan as new Speaker might even make a difference if a more confrontational Congress pushes the candidates that way.

MTimT · November 2015

Anorak said:

MTimT said:

Anorak said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Tissue_Price said:

TheScreamingEagles said:
Jeb is running a truly dire campaign. You'd think Ed Miliband was his campaign chief.
The slogan was only the start of it
He wrote it, and now he's a part of it
Jeb'll fix it with an 8 foot 6 inch limestone policy obelisk.
Ooooo! We should have a competition for best suggested inscription (or engraving?).

Having said that, I'm drawing a blank
Why not some good old Bush family sayings:

"Read my lips - no new taxes"

and

"Mission accomplished"
I can't think of any way to get the Deliverance banjo music into words. Maybe just "squeal like a pig".

The Bushes are old money Kennenbunkport - true WASPs, for all their Texas and Florida connections. Deliverance is hardly their style.

Plato_Says · November 2015

This sounds a harrowing debate http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3301966/Tory-MP-Antoinette-Sandbach-chokes-tears-relives-harrowing-moment-five-day-old-son-died.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490

Sunil_Prasannan · November 2015

MTimT said:

Anorak said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Tissue_Price said:

TheScreamingEagles said:
Jeb is running a truly dire campaign. You'd think Ed Miliband was his campaign chief.
The slogan was only the start of it
He wrote it, and now he's a part of it
Jeb'll fix it with an 8 foot 6 inch limestone policy obelisk.
Ooooo! We should have a competition for best suggested inscription (or engraving?).

Having said that, I'm drawing a blank
Why not some good old Bush family sayings:

"Read my lips - no new taxes"

and

"Mission accomplished"

"Some people call you the Elite. I call you my base"

dr_spyn · November 2015

Roger said:
FPT. Charles.

Partly the way my post was formatted. I was mainly aiming at Max's "Lazy Pakis vote Labour-Hard working Hindus vote Tory". You just joined in....

The problem with this site when it becomes completely Tory is that conversations which would normally be 'entre nous' you feel emboldened to say out loud

Dear Bill,

Entre nous...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dear_Bill

You are a Private Eye Reader from the 1980s, and I claim my five gold sovereigns.

JEO · November 2015

antifrank said:

JEO said:

FPT You keep on arguing against strawman arguments I haven't said, like the BBC bidding for EU grants, or the EU being involved creatively in the programme. Those things are irrelevant. The only things you need to believe for my statement to be true are points 1 through 3. And you openly admit you don't know at least two of those points. But despite not knowing the facts, you insult someone that does know the facts for the conclusion that results from them.
What rot. You sought to taint the BBC's neutrality with wild accusations and minimal evidence. If you don't want derision heaped on you, don't conjure up absurd conspiracy theories.

Once again, you completely fail to engage with my arguments or the facts of the debate. As soon as the argument paints you into a corner, where you're forced to either deny something obviously true or concede the argument, you just avoid answering and start insulting the other person.

I don't actually care if you deride me. There are a great number of informed voices on this board from all over the political shop, whose opinions I respect. But then there are a handful of individuals like yourself, Dair or malcolmg who allow emotion to overflow critical thinking, and when challenged start name-calling.

Sean_F · November 2015

FPT Charles, I always find Edith Cavell's story moving.

I think it's wrong to view her as victim and martyr, as wartime propaganda portrayed her; rather as a woman of exceptional courage and resourcefulness, who knew very well that she was gambling her life, in order to rescue her countrymen.

JEO · November 2015

antifrank said:

isam said:
Would be interesting to hear what 'les indecideds' made of an Arron Banks funded film shown on the BBC that depicted a post EU Britain of social harmony, flourishing economy, zero crime and constant sunshine

We get the text version of that on pb every day.

But not funded with taxpayer's money.

AlastairMeeks · November 2015

JEO said:

antifrank said:

JEO said:

FPT You keep on arguing against strawman arguments I haven't said, like the BBC bidding for EU grants, or the EU being involved creatively in the programme. Those things are irrelevant. The only things you need to believe for my statement to be true are points 1 through 3. And you openly admit you don't know at least two of those points. But despite not knowing the facts, you insult someone that does know the facts for the conclusion that results from them.
What rot. You sought to taint the BBC's neutrality with wild accusations and minimal evidence. If you don't want derision heaped on you, don't conjure up absurd conspiracy theories.
Once again, you completely fail to engage with my arguments or the facts of the debate. As soon as the argument paints you into a corner, where you're forced to either deny something obviously true or concede the argument, you just avoid answering and start insulting the other person.

I don't actually care if you deride me. There are a great number of informed voices on this board from all over the political shop, whose opinions I respect. But then there are a handful of individuals like yourself, Dair or malcolmg who allow emotion to overflow critical thinking, and when challenged start name-calling.

Your "argument", as you choose to call it, is that EU funding tentacles into the BBC are tainting the debate. The evidence that you've produced? The production company of one film that ultimately appeared on the BBC may have received EU funding - though there's no evidence that it had anything to do with the content and the funding may well have been for entirely technical matters.

And you wonder why I deride you?

DavidL · November 2015

MTimT said:

antifrank said:
On topic, the UK betting markets on the US seem to me to be lagging rather than leading.

I'd not be comfortable betting against Ted Cruz at present.
I think they are wholly unreliable. On average, I'd say that in political markets, people tend to bet on outcomes they want, rather than on what really will happen (of course, PB betters excepted). That is bad enough when the betters are voters. But when they are not even citizens of the country in which the election is to be held, and cannot have that gut feeling for elections that comes with living in the country, I'd strongly caution against placing much credence in them at all as predictors.

That's really what I was saying. Just because Americans speak a kind of English we think we understand them much more than we do.

JEO · November 2015

Pulpstar said:

JEO said:

HurstLlama said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

DavidL said:
But this is an EU problem, not a Greek or Hungary or Italy problem and we will need to help to clean up the mess. As you say it is in our interests to do so.
It could come out of the aid budget, so it needn't mean a net increase in our spending.
By the same token why cannot the EU take the money it needs from existing budgets, perhaps spend less in one area in order to increase spending in another? Why is it that the EU's seemingly only solution to any problem is to demand more cash from its members' taxpayers.
The Common Agricultural Policy is 40% of the entire EU budget. I don't see how we can possibly justify taking money away from people suffering in Africa, yet still leave wealthy French farmers untouched.
Because the French will say "NON"

It is a "Little Europe" policy that is well past it's sell by date.

This is why Cameron's renegotiation is so important. If we mange to get the critical reforms needed to the EU, it will show that an Anglo-German axis can overcome the historic Franco-German one.

Cromwell · November 2015

DavidL said:
To me, Rubio looks the obvious choice for the Republicans. I think he would have an excellent chance of beating Hillary.

But I am quite a long way from a republican voter, let alone the average republican voter, and find it very hard to judge their thinking. What I can't help thinking is that these markets are getting driven more by people like me (who thinks Trump is a joke, more so than Corbyn even) than the people who are actually going to vote.

Or to put it another way, the markets are running dangerously far ahead of the polling. They may be right, I think they probably are, but it assumes not just common sense but a common frame of reference and I think that is missing.

============================

I lived in America for 25 yrs in 8 western states and have followed US politics extensively
RUBIO is indeed the obvious choice for the Republicans with at least a 50/50 chance of beating Hillary ..he's probably the only one who can beat her ; he's young , dynamic and ''Kennedy-esque ''and offers the best contrast to the aging establishment figure (Hillary) who has a smug and preening sense of entitlement that is sure to tempt fate
He is in some ways a Republican Obama and Obama beat Hillary ...American politics are intertwined with Hollywood and Rubio looks and sounds like someone from the entertainment industry ...sounds like a recipe for success to me

Pulpstar · November 2015

When does the renegotiation start btw ?

Cromwell · November 2015

antifrank said:
On topic, the UK betting markets on the US seem to me to be lagging rather than leading.

I'd not be comfortable betting against Ted Cruz at present.

=========================

If Rubio fails then Cruz is the backup , but Cruz seems too provincial and Texan , too Elmore Gantry for the under 40 crowd in the swing states

Pulpstar · November 2015

Cromwell said:

antifrank said:
On topic, the UK betting markets on the US seem to me to be lagging rather than leading.

I'd not be comfortable betting against Ted Cruz at present.
=========================

If Rubio fails then Cruz is the backup , but Cruz seems too provincial and Texan , too Elmore Gantry for the under 40 crowd in the swing states

Rubio and Cruz are the same age !

I do like Cruz's plans for US space exploration tho ;p

DavidL · November 2015

Cromwell said:

DavidL said:
To me, Rubio looks the obvious choice for the Republicans. I think he would have an excellent chance of beating Hillary.

But I am quite a long way from a republican voter, let alone the average republican voter, and find it very hard to judge their thinking. What I can't help thinking is that these markets are getting driven more by people like me (who thinks Trump is a joke, more so than Corbyn even) than the people who are actually going to vote.

Or to put it another way, the markets are running dangerously far ahead of the polling. They may be right, I think they probably are, but it assumes not just common sense but a common frame of reference and I think that is missing.
============================

I lived in America for 25 yrs in 8 western states and have followed US politics extensively
RUBIO is indeed the obvious choice for the Republicans with at least a 50/50 chance of beating Hillary ..he's probably the only one who can beat her ; he's young , dynamic and ''Kennedy-esque ''and offers the best contrast to the aging establishment figure (Hillary) who has a smug and preening sense of entitlement that is sure to tempt fate
He is in some ways a Republican Obama and Obama beat Hillary ...American politics are intertwined with Hollywood and Rubio looks and sounds like someone from the entertainment industry ...sounds like a recipe for success to me

Well that's good to hear but why is he not polling better, fundraising better and organising better?

Cromwell · November 2015

I suspect that the Republicans will win Florida , Ohio , Iowa , Nevada and Colorado ...they could possibly even win Penn ...the Dems must win either Florida , Ohio or Penn

DecrepitJohnL · November 2015

Rubio may not be the beneficiary if Bush withdraws. Someone like Kasich is more likely (imo) to pick up his support. Rubio and Bush may both come from Florida but that is where it ends, so far as I can see. Kasich is more like Bush politically, representing centrist pragmatism, so may pick up Bush voters and more importantly, Establishment and donor support.

JEO · November 2015

antifrank said:

Your "argument", as you choose to call it, is that EU funding tentacles into the BBC are tainting the debate. The evidence that you've produced? The production company of one film that ultimately appeared on the BBC may have received EU funding - though there's no evidence that it had anything to do with the content and the funding may well have been for entirely technical matters.

And you wonder why I deride you?

Sure, a fake documentary showing how the collapse of the EU caused catastrophe for Europe was funded by the EU for entirely technical matters.

I know why you deride me. You have a habit of deriding everyone that disagrees with you. It substitutes for critical thinking.

Pulpstar · November 2015

DecrepitJohnL said:
Rubio may not be the beneficiary if Bush withdraws. Someone like Kasich is more likely (imo) to pick up his support. Rubio and Bush may both come from Florida but that is where it ends, so far as I can see. Kasich is more like Bush politically, representing centrist pragmatism, so may pick up Bush voters and more importantly, Establishment and donor support.

Kasich definitely seemed slightly to the left of Bush from what I could pick up in the debates.

DavidL · November 2015

On American politics I really like to read Chris Cillizza. This was his piece on Ryan becoming speaker: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ryan-has-a-lot-going-for-him-but-hes-still-unlikely-to-heal-a-broken-house/2015/11/01/6e73549a-80a9-11e5-9afb-0c971f713d0c_story.html

He says:

"A 2014 study by the Pew Research Center showed that 92 percent of Republicans are more ideologically conservative than the median Democrat, and that 94 percent of Democrats are more liberal than the mean Republican. Compare that with a 1994 Pew study that found that the median Democrat was to the left of 64 percent of Republicans, and the median Republican to the right of 70 percent of Democrats. There is just not much middle ground left in America anymore."

I think this is right and it gives more extreme candidates in both parties a considerable edge that they would not have with the population as a whole. Like antifrank, and for this reason, I would not rule out Cruz.

AlastairMeeks · November 2015

JEO said:

antifrank said:

Your "argument", as you choose to call it, is that EU funding tentacles into the BBC are tainting the debate. The evidence that you've produced? The production company of one film that ultimately appeared on the BBC may have received EU funding - though there's no evidence that it had anything to do with the content and the funding may well have been for entirely technical matters.

And you wonder why I deride you?
Sure, a fake documentary showing how the collapse of the EU causing catastrophe for Europe was funded by the EU for entirely technical matters.

I know why you deride me. You have a habit of deriding everyone that disagrees with you. It substitutes for critical thinking.

As I said previously, you're welcome to your conspiracy theories but I won't be subscribing to your newsletter.

Morris_Dancer · November 2015

Mr. JEO, nonsense.

I also enjoyed this FIFA documentary:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Passions

PAW · November 2015

I think the reason why the BBC has lost so much in reputation is that they simply don't care about thruth in evidence. A dozen years ago the BBC Panorama team came to Bournemouth to cover a story on rough sleepers under one of the Bournemouth piers. They presented a 23 year old man as one of the rough sleepers - but he had a council flat, on benefits with alcholism - the BBC interviewed him in the road outside his flat and paid for the interview with bottles of vodka. The program made me question the BBC's honesty.

Whether or not there is/was a problem with rough sleepers in Bournemouth I don't know.

MTimT · November 2015

DecrepitJohnL said:
Rubio may not be the beneficiary if Bush withdraws. Someone like Kasich is more likely (imo) to pick up his support. Rubio and Bush may both come from Florida but that is where it ends, so far as I can see. Kasich is more like Bush politically, representing centrist pragmatism, so may pick up Bush voters and more importantly, Establishment and donor support.

Indeed, that already appears to be happening.

I'd still like to see a Kasich/Rubio ticket, but at this stage it is more likely to be Rubio at the top, and someone else on the bottom. Probably a woman.

Alistair · November 2015

Danny565 said:
It's very hard to see what the argument for Jeb Bush is. Not conservative enough to get the core vote enthused, has a last name which is toxic for swing voters, little charisma or likability to compensate for any of that.

The argument is unless the republicans pull out a candidate with a surname of Nixon then their amazing record will continue.

MTimT · November 2015

Alistair said:

Danny565 said:
It's very hard to see what the argument for Jeb Bush is. Not conservative enough to get the core vote enthused, has a last name which is toxic for swing voters, little charisma or likability to compensate for any of that.
The argument is unless the republicans pull out a candidate with a surname of Nixon then their amazing record will continue.

Not sure I follow. Can you expand?

Alistair · November 2015

MTimT said:

Alistair said:

Danny565 said:
It's very hard to see what the argument for Jeb Bush is. Not conservative enough to get the core vote enthused, has a last name which is toxic for swing voters, little charisma or likability to compensate for any of that.
The argument is unless the republicans pull out a candidate with a surname of Nixon then their amazing record will continue.
Not sure I follow. Can you expand?

I'm not really being serious but when was the last time the Republicans won a presidential election without a Nixon or Bush on the ticket?

Cromwell · November 2015

Rubio has had a slow start due to the fact that he has been overshadowed by Jeb who has most of the financial support but the big donors are quickly losing confidence in Jeb and are about to abandon ship and support Rubio ..Sheldon Adelson is about to back Rubio
Trump is just a lot of noise and bluster , while the hapless Carson seems like he is promoting his books ; neither have any real intentions of becoming President ...I suspect that Rubio will win New Hampshire

JEO · November 2015

Morris_Dancer said:
Mr. JEO, nonsense.

I also enjoyed this FIFA documentary:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Passions

I'm sure FIFA chose to fund that documentary for technical reasons, and it was nothing to do with showing FIFA in a positive light.

HurstLlama · November 2015

Alistair said:

MTimT said:

Alistair said:

Danny565 said:
It's very hard to see what the argument for Jeb Bush is. Not conservative enough to get the core vote enthused, has a last name which is toxic for swing voters, little charisma or likability to compensate for any of that.
The argument is unless the republicans pull out a candidate with a surname of Nixon then their amazing record will continue.
Not sure I follow. Can you expand?
I'm not really being serious but when was the last time the Republicans won a presidential election without a Nixon or Bush on the ticket?

Regan?

Cromwell · November 2015

MTimT said:

DecrepitJohnL said:
Rubio may not be the beneficiary if Bush withdraws. Someone like Kasich is more likely (imo) to pick up his support. Rubio and Bush may both come from Florida but that is where it ends, so far as I can see. Kasich is more like Bush politically, representing centrist pragmatism, so may pick up Bush voters and more importantly, Establishment and donor support.
Indeed, that already appears to be happening.

I'd still like to see a Kasich/Rubio ticket, but at this stage it is more likely to be Rubio at the top, and someone else on the bottom. Probably a woman.

That sounds about right , but it could be Rubio/Kasich as a way to win ohio

isam · November 2015

A neutral look at what might happen if we leave

http://youtu.be/9ZLHi0bRkeU

Pulpstar · November 2015

Kasich makes sense as a VP due to his Ohio links.

Sunil_Prasannan · November 2015

HurstLlama said:

Alistair said:

MTimT said:

Alistair said:

Danny565 said:
It's very hard to see what the argument for Jeb Bush is. Not conservative enough to get the core vote enthused, has a last name which is toxic for swing voters, little charisma or likability to compensate for any of that.
The argument is unless the republicans pull out a candidate with a surname of Nixon then their amazing record will continue.
Not sure I follow. Can you expand?
I'm not really being serious but when was the last time the Republicans won a presidential election without a Nixon or Bush on the ticket?
Regan?

Reagan had George HW Bush as VP.

Sunil_Prasannan · November 2015

No Rod Crosby to tell us Rubio isn't eligible?

JEO · November 2015

isam said:
A neutral look at what might happen if we leave

I'm trying to work out what technical aspects won the funds: the quality special effects of a toy plane or the sophisticated acting of a sighing Angus Deayton.

logical_song · November 2015

Don't know much about Rubio yet.
He doesn't look too rabid, though.
http://votesmart.org/candidate/political-courage-test/1601/marco-rubio/#.VjjjQPnhDcs

Lennon · November 2015

Alistair said:

MTimT said:

Alistair said:

Danny565 said:
It's very hard to see what the argument for Jeb Bush is. Not conservative enough to get the core vote enthused, has a last name which is toxic for swing voters, little charisma or likability to compensate for any of that.
The argument is unless the republicans pull out a candidate with a surname of Nixon then their amazing record will continue.
Not sure I follow. Can you expand?
I'm not really being serious but when was the last time the Republicans won a presidential election without a Nixon or Bush on the ticket?

Appreciate it's a satirical question, but Herbert Hoover, 1928

HurstLlama · November 2015

Sunil_Prasannan said:

HurstLlama said:

Alistair said:

MTimT said:

Alistair said:

Danny565 said:
It's very hard to see what the argument for Jeb Bush is. Not conservative enough to get the core vote enthused, has a last name which is toxic for swing voters, little charisma or likability to compensate for any of that.
The argument is unless the republicans pull out a candidate with a surname of Nixon then their amazing record will continue.
Not sure I follow. Can you expand?
I'm not really being serious but when was the last time the Republicans won a presidential election without a Nixon or Bush on the ticket?
Regan?
Reagan had George HW Bush as VP.

Ah, sorry.

Pulpstar · November 2015

Ford/Rockefeller ?

Sunil_Prasannan · November 2015

Alistair said:

MTimT said:

Alistair said:

Danny565 said:
It's very hard to see what the argument for Jeb Bush is. Not conservative enough to get the core vote enthused, has a last name which is toxic for swing voters, little charisma or likability to compensate for any of that.
The argument is unless the republicans pull out a candidate with a surname of Nixon then their amazing record will continue.
Not sure I follow. Can you expand?
I'm not really being serious but when was the last time the Republicans won a presidential election without a Nixon or Bush on the ticket?

Herbert Hoover, 1928 (VP was Charles Curtis)

EDIT: got beaten to it!

MTimT · November 2015

Alistair said:

MTimT said:

Alistair said:

Danny565 said:
It's very hard to see what the argument for Jeb Bush is. Not conservative enough to get the core vote enthused, has a last name which is toxic for swing voters, little charisma or likability to compensate for any of that.
The argument is unless the republicans pull out a candidate with a surname of Nixon then their amazing record will continue.
Not sure I follow. Can you expand?
I'm not really being serious but when was the last time the Republicans won a presidential election without a Nixon or Bush on the ticket?

Reagan didn't do too badly. I doubt Bush on the bottom of the ticket helped in the slightest.

flightpath01 · November 2015

Alistair said:

MTimT said:

Alistair said:

Danny565 said:
It's very hard to see what the argument for Jeb Bush is. Not conservative enough to get the core vote enthused, has a last name which is toxic for swing voters, little charisma or likability to compensate for any of that.
The argument is unless the republicans pull out a candidate with a surname of Nixon then their amazing record will continue.
Not sure I follow. Can you expand?
I'm not really being serious but when was the last time the Republicans won a presidential election without a Nixon or Bush on the ticket?

That turns out to be a smart question and as the answer shows, its getting on for 100 years

JackW · November 2015

Hillary Clinton Will Be The Forty Fifth President Of The United States.

HCWBTFFPOTUS

flightpath01 · November 2015

PAW said:
I think the reason why the BBC has lost so much in reputation is that they simply don't care about thruth in evidence. A dozen years ago the BBC Panorama team came to Bournemouth to cover a story on rough sleepers under one of the Bournemouth piers. They presented a 23 year old man as one of the rough sleepers - but he had a council flat, on benefits with alcholism - the BBC interviewed him in the road outside his flat and paid for the interview with bottles of vodka. The program made me question the BBC's honesty.

Whether or not there is/was a problem with rough sleepers in Bournemouth I don't know.

I agree with you, but I'm guessing part of the problem is the way the bbc farms its programmes out to independent production companies who have sensationalism as a motive.
The BBC is also obsessed with ratings when it should not be. As a mega multi billion pound organisation with no requirement to make a profit the BBC is at leisure to pay itself very comfortable salaries indeed.

Lennon · November 2015

MTimT said:

Alistair said:

MTimT said:

Alistair said:

Danny565 said:
It's very hard to see what the argument for Jeb Bush is. Not conservative enough to get the core vote enthused, has a last name which is toxic for swing voters, little charisma or likability to compensate for any of that.
The argument is unless the republicans pull out a candidate with a surname of Nixon then their amazing record will continue.
Not sure I follow. Can you expand?
I'm not really being serious but when was the last time the Republicans won a presidential election without a Nixon or Bush on the ticket?
Reagan didn't do too badly. I doubt Bush on the bottom of the ticket helped in the slightest.

Not sure that Nixon on the bottom of Eisenhower's ticket was really necessary to winning either...

flightpath01 · November 2015

Pulpstar said:
When does the renegotiation start btw ?

I thought they had. Do you think that when various bodies finally gather around the table they will not have actually sorted out the main points before hand?

MP_SE · November 2015

OMG. Shock resignation of one of UKIP's leading and most valuable members:

Winston McKenzie

http://www.itv.com/news/london/2015-11-03/high-profile-ukip-member-quits-party/

The question is, who will he join next?

runnymede · November 2015

The EU funds this really brilliant stuff as well

http://www.captaineuro.eu/comic-strips/david-cameron-and-the-f-word/

http://www.captaineuro.eu/comic-strips/the-norway-option-is-not-an-option/

Note the second one in particular..

flightpath01 · November 2015

MTimT said:

rottenborough said:

TheScreamingEagles said:
Jeb is running a truly dire campaign. You'd think Ed Miliband was his campaign chief.
There's been speculation in some newspapers that he doesn't actually want it. Just going through the motions for family reasons.

I think that is re-writing history. Barbara Bush, who rules the family like an old-fashioned matriarch, was strongly opposed to Jeb running and had to be persuaded by him to give her blessing. He did not announce until he got it.

Jeb has greater hopes for his son than himself. The establishment persuaded him to run. When you look at the rag tag and bobtail if the other candidates you can see why.
You also have to question why the GOP think it clever to line up a dozen or more prospective candidates, half of them self publicists, on national TV to make the party look stupid in public.

chestnut · November 2015

Britain Elects ‏@britainelects 31 mins31 minutes ago
EU referendum poll:
Remain: 44% (-1)
Leave: 38% (-)
(via ICM / Oct 30 - 01 Nov)

MP_SE · November 2015

chestnut said:
Britain Elects ‏@britainelects 31 mins31 minutes ago
EU referendum poll:
Remain: 44% (-1)
Leave: 38% (-)
(via ICM / Oct 30 - 01 Nov)

All to play for.

Sunil_Prasannan · November 2015

chestnut said:
Britain Elects ‏@britainelects 31 mins31 minutes ago
EU referendum poll:
Remain: 44% (-1)
Leave: 38% (-)
(via ICM / Oct 30 - 01 Nov)

Broken, sleazy Remain on the slide?

MonikerDiCanio · November 2015

JackW said:
Hillary Clinton Will Be The Forty Fifth President Of The United States.

HCWBTFFPOTUS

Listen to your Arse, Jack. Your Hillary prediction is your Ass speaking. That ghastly woman will never be President.

isam · November 2015

chestnut said:
Britain Elects ‏@britainelects 31 mins31 minutes ago
EU referendum poll:
Remain: 44% (-1)
Leave: 38% (-)
(via ICM / Oct 30 - 01 Nov)

Time for a sequel to the "Great European Disaster Movie"?

Maybe this time instead of race riots w Farage and Le Pen in charge of England and France they can make it even more scary

The Ghost of Adolf Hitler and Nick Griffin agree to increase Global Warming?

RobD · November 2015

MP_SE said:

chestnut said:
Britain Elects ‏@britainelects 31 mins31 minutes ago
EU referendum poll:
Remain: 44% (-1)
Leave: 38% (-)
(via ICM / Oct 30 - 01 Nov)
All to play for.

Paraphrasing someone formerly of this parish: An utterly sensational poll for Leave. Their highest poll ever received by ICM on the first day of a month!

I'll get my coat....

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Categories

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Rubio the big betting gainer and Bush the big loser after a

Comments