politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The race for the Republican nomination could be clearer aft
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The race for the Republican nomination could be clearer after tonight’s final debate of 2015
Judging by the size of the TV audiences for the debates this coming fight for the Republican nomination is attracting more public attention than any previous White House race at the stage.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Anyone but Trump
Anyone but Clinton
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NjbGr2nk2c
If Trump wins in New Hampshire and Iowa goes Cruz, this becomes a two horse race with Trump the favourite.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428515/conservative-leaders-ted-cruz-earns-allegiance-private-meeting
To be honest ALL the 'establishment' candidate's odds are wrong.
Rubio, Bush, Christie all far too short.
1) Beat Trump in New Hampshire
2) Overtake Cruz nationally and convincingly as the 'Stop Trump' candidate, continued good polling for Cruz will place Cruz in that position.
3) Get some better advertising, I thought "My Dad's a bartender" was awful.
He has a chance but methinks it is more of the ~ 7-2 variety rather than the 6-4 one.
You would count such a thing ridiculous in most cases, but with Trump nothing seems too out there.
Folks need to stop focussing on polls and follow the news, trends and momentum. Polls are merely a snapshot and don't track trends etc.
Why are folks on here obsessed with polls yet don't follow what's happening?
This is talking about the 2001 Tory leadership contest, yes?
I went deep on Rubio a while ago, but I'm having doubts now: he couldn't have asked for better media attention in the past few months, yet he's still barely above 10% in the polls.
Hello Nick:
I saw your reply, for which many thanks. I didn't want to make you reply, though I do appreciate it. I just wanted to make clear that I had replied to your question, which was a fair one.
I think that a different Labour party to the one we have now would have a reasonable chance of persuading me and people like me to vote for it.
I think it a shame that you - or the current Labour party - don't seem to think so.
Part of my heart - as my post on some of the work I have done and causes I have adopted - beats left, in the best sense of what the left can be, or so I would like to hope. And I am pretty good friends with a reasonably well known Labour person with whom I've discussed many of the same issues and who seems to share quite a lot of my concerns.
Civil liberties (not just ID cards) are a key issue for me and Labour's adoption of policies which I intensely dislike was the start of a process whereby it seems to me that Labour's default instinct - its moral compass, if you will - has moved away from the best of itself to something really quite ghastly, irrespective of whether individual policies are attractive or not.
The embrace of Islamism is not a recent matter - it started, in a small way, when the Rushdie fatwa was issued and people like Roy Hattersley were somewhat reluctant to criticise those who seemed to think that attacking a writer in such a way was understandable. That point of view leads - eventually, as we have seen - to writers and cartoonists being murdered in an office in Paris.
Christopher Hitchens in his autobiography describes very well his reaction to the fatwa and I find many echoes in what he wrote in my own reactions at the time.
Anyway, clearly I won't be able to persuade you but I would hope that some of what I say may, just may, resonate. I don't assume that all lefties are somehow evil but I think that now too many of them have ended up- perhaps without realising it or without wanting to - in a morally repulsive cul de sac.
At any event, I don't want to derail this thread. I appreciate your answers. No doubt we will resume the debate at some point, or perhaps in person at a PB meet.
It's still clearly a lay though, IMO.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35103383
I especially enjoyed the last section about Mao. Compare the first and last sentences there.
Very interesting that the Times editorial (apparently) is pro votes of 16-17 year olds. The Times have clearly become massive lefties now.
And you have to really despair at the Labour party at this minute. Not because of Labour MPs. Or even those (including Milne) at Labour party HQ right now. But because of the kind of people now a part of the activist and membership base. That is, at least if The Guardian was anything to go by. CIFers have surely go to be among the most intolerant people in Britain alongside Daily Mail readers. They really cannot bare any kind of criticism against Corbyn. The comments under the Jess Philips article speak for themselves, and I can't bring myself to see how they've responded to Stella Creasy's recent piece. Sometimes, I almost want Labour to do rubbish in May purely to put two fingers up to them. It's one thing disagreeing, it's another thing to believe the only people only earth worth anything are Corbyn supporters, which is what a fair amount of people in the Labour party appear to believe these days.
But if you are not here, familiar with the ebbs and flows of the US political environment - as most on here are not - it's of diminished value. Hence the slavish devotion to opinion polls. It's like betting on a Bolivian betting exchange on the outcome of an election in Botswana.
You didn't answer my question. - and your criteria would be, as a US citizen?
Reminded me of the second die hard film. Let's hope it turns out to be a hoax....
It might be someone riding a bicycle without lights, but this tends to be more serious when it's dark.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_Hard_with_a_Vengeance
Still, stay safe, Rob!
I think you're think of Die Hard 3
That's how bad Die Hard 5 was.
Mr. Eagles, I haven't seen the fifth one. I may watch it if it's on TV.
Four was weakened by the terminal decline in villain quality. The first had a German super-thief. The fourth had a disgruntled ex-IT worker.
Hans Gruber shot people in the head when he was calm. Fourth-Villain-Whose-Name-I-Do-Not-Know swept some paper onto the floor when he was angry.
Just because you're sponsoring men with beards to blow things up rather than putting boots on the ground doesn't mean you're not intervening.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-swing-the-election/
Awful. I hope everyone involved got paid enough to salve their consciences.
I thought the fourth Indiana Jones film got a slightly rough reception (though one hopes Shia Laboeuf's[sp] character gets killed off).
Mr. 1983, that may have occurred in the fifth, but he also took down a helicopter with a car in the fourth.
He gave an Oval Office address last week, and it got panned because he had nothing new to say about a policy everyone knows has failed. He went to the Pentagon yesterday and then gave an address, also panned because he still had nothing new to say about his failed policy.
Trump wants to "bomb the shit out of ISIS". Obama's air campaign is minimal at best. Hardly comparable.
Any idea which GOP candidate yr state is likely to go for ?
These aren't the sequels you're looking for!
I would love that to be my favourite Carly Fiorine, to me she is the one that 'gets it' That actchaly seems to have an understanding of what the role of government in a free society should be. And could be somebody that the rest of the would looked up to when looking at the leader of the 'free would'
But I am also realistic if you are polling at under 5% both nationally and in the early states at this stage, well, its going to be hard to say the least.
Just hoping that she shines in tonight's debate, and is not overshadowed by idiots making outlandish remarks that will dominate the news cycle for the next few days.
Gosh, sounds familiar
It's not as bad as SPECTRE, but it is a disgrace to the Die Hard franchise
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35031313
Hilary would be the 2nd oldest;
Trump the oldest.
Shutting down an entire school district like this is almost unprecedented.
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/why-islamic-state-will-haunt-obamas-successor-14583
"Obama, as Peter Beinart noted recently in a column in The Atlantic, tends to view the threat of ISIL differently than his Republican counterparts. In Obama’s view, while ISIL has indeed proved problematic, the organization’s threat to the security of the U.S. homeland remains minimal. So ISIL is Europe and the Middle East’s problem. This viewpoint has been consistently echoed in his approach to Syria and Iraq—treating Baghdad’s political challenges and Syria’s civil war and its effects as problems that he may have underestimated, but not ones that merit any deep policy commitment from the U.S."
"The American Enterprise Institute recently published the most comprehensive anti-ISIL strategy to date, in collaboration with the Institute for the Study of War. While a number of elements of the strategy are cogent, it’s unclear whether either President Obama or his potential successors will assume the political risk of adopting them.
If they do, they risk committing the U.S. into an open-ended strategy with an end goal that isn’t fiscally, strategically or politically sustainable. As much as Washington has tried to use its diplomatic and military tools to support regional states and parties in these states to resolve conflicts and deny ISIL a safe haven, there’s also a limit to what the U.S. can realistically do in these situations."
However, be that as it may, I would profoundly disagree that the limited bombing campaign against ISIS represents non-intervention. On the contrary, it allowed ISIS to metastasize, allowed its oil trade to grow, allowed its sponsors to continue to ressuply it, and allowed it to continue to take territory from the Assad government. At the same time, it represented the beginnings of a 'no fly zone' strategy in Syria that would almost certainly have led to the downfall of Assad - the USA's original objective.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3pnp3URpfw
Mike Huckabee = gelatinous cube
Marco Rubio = paladin, 18 charisma, all other stats 9, cursed broadsword
Ben Carson = necromancer, 19 intelligence, 4 wisdom
Jeb Bush = NPC with 8s in all attributes and leather armor
Rand Paul = halfling thief
Carly Fiorina = level 5 Drow elf with a + 1 Ring of Vampiric regeneration
Chris Christie = shambling mound
John Kasich = level 4 fighter with standard plate armor and a standard long sword, 10 strength
Ted Cruz = dwarf cleric with 3 Charisma
The extent may be piss-taking, so they can be conciliatory (ahem) and graciously allow countries a mile or two of coastal water to call their own.
One's gast is not flabbered.
Iowa, four years ago:
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2011/12/14/has-the-gingrich-surge-run-out-of-steam/
Caveat punter.