Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A week to go until Iowa: the Great American Gamble – to Tru

7 days till Iowa. How the polls did in previous elections
https://t.co/d28erYivkh pic.twitter.com/iTFgroQNXF
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Almost unbelievable that he could be the next POTUS.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/26/upshot/bernie-sanders-is-very-dependent-on-infrequent-voters.html
The same may be true of Trump, but I suspect less so.
Hillary should win Iowa. Sanders will probably win NH but I expect the Sanders Surge to subside thereafter. The nomination is in the bag for Hillary, unless the emails get her.
That's the 23rd February.
Ne Hampshire goes to the polls on February 9. So two weeks for someone to be crowned the Establishment victor.
I just don't see it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoJn8TJhJzA
Today:
https://twitter.com/matthewjdowd/status/691369109905235968
http://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2016/01/blind-item-1-1210.html
http://www.ibtimes.com/election-2016-what-was-marco-rubio-arrested-age-18-miami-2276157
And the rumour has it he got arrested with a gay hustler, but of course no one knows because the police file got destroyed as the rumour goes.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3416056/Labour-MP-Simon-Danczuk-reported-fraudulent-expenses-claims.html
Clinton 45% Trump 45%
Clinton 44% Bush 39%
Clinton 44% Carson 40%
Clinton 45% Rubio 39%
Clinton 44% Kasich 38%
Clinton 44% Christie 40%
Sanders 45.5% Trump 44.5%
Sanders 46% Bush 36%
Sanders 44% Carson 35%
Sanders 44% Rubio 37%
Sanders 46% Kasich 32%
Sanders 44% Christie 37%
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnzogby/2016/01/25/zogby-analytics-clinton-45-trump-45/#74e17c7ba226
Ron Paul was on his way to victory but Romney got him with some racist newsletters.
Paul couldn't respond as it was Christmas, and the evangelicals gathered for Christmas and New Year parties and meetings and decided to support Santorum.
Romney was caught flat footed, there wasn't any time for him to get rid of Santorum like he got rid of everyone else, although he did manage to delay the publication of Santorum's victory until way after.
If you post a rumour, I'll post a rumour, but it's better we don't since it's all crap at this point.
Now today they had 71% - not spectacular but a bit higher than the 66% ish level they have had on some important votes in recent months.
Con peers were 72% today - significantly lower than the 80% area they have hit several times recently - so they didn't make a big effort today. They would have lost today anyway given the Crossbenchers were heavily with Lab.
They would have to conspire to stay in the race, winning delegates who will vote for the top candidate among them
And there is little chance he would actually bar Muslim tourists, cleaners, academics, etc
He has simply worked out that the route to power for a moderate Republican is through the id
I think you mentioned this on twitter once, and I still suggest
"My Eyes Have Seen You"
although re reading your plot summary it could be "Son of Rebecca"!
But ultimately, he's a liberal with a fabulous sense of self-promotion.
He may, quite simply, mean every word he says.
While Clinton is where she needs to be with fellow Democrats (82%-13%), Trump does equally well with fellow Republicans (81% to 8%). As for now, Trump has a nine point edge with independents (46%-37%). Both liberals (88%-8%) and moderates (51%-38%) support Clinton, however (leading conservatives arguing otherwise) conservative voters are backing Trump (73%-18%). Clinton relies on both Hispanic voters (58%-33%) and African American voters (77%-12%) to offset her deficit with white voters (Trump leads 53%-36%).
Trump is ahead among Catholics – a group that Democrats have won every election since 1992. He also draws an impressive 66% support among evangelicals (to Clinton’s 25%). He also leads among NASCAR Fans (48%-42%), Investor Class voters (49%-44%) and Weekly Wal-Mart Shoppers (50%-42%) – a group President Barack Obama won twice. Trump even is drawing 37% of union households (to Clinton’s 56%).
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnzogby/2016/01/25/zogby-analytics-clinton-45-trump-45/#74e17c7ba226
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/01/trump-is-the-nightmare-version-of-gop-reform.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/03/opinion/sunday/confessions-of-a-columnist.html?_r=1
"that faction has turned out to include precisely the kind of voters Romney needed in 2012 and who stayed home instead: Blue-collar whites with moderate views on economics and a weak attachment to the institutional G.O.P. (So weak, a recent New York Times analysis makes clear, that many are still registered Democrats.) These “missing white voters” might not have put Romney over the top, but they certainly would have helped his chances in states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan — all places where Trump is running strongly at the moment."
The reality is that the average voter doesn't really care about abortion and conservative orthodoxy if his wallet is empty.
Trump is winning because he promises to fill those wallets by pinching money from the corrupt class and foreigners.
If he wins the presidency, he would still need to deliver for his re-election.
Obama still delivered on healthcare in time for his re-election, even if it was a mess.
But it would bankrupt the Mexican economy to pay for all of it. And no Mexican politician would get re-elected if they agreed to fund the wall. Imagine a politician who said "Ladies and gentlemen, because the US has forced us - with threats of invasion - to pay for this wall, income tax will increase by 5%".
He cannot deliver on making Mexico pay for the wall.
Omnium said:
'Hats off to Cecil Parkinson.
The sort of politician that makes politics an acceptable profession.'
A smarmy odious little creep. Bloody good riddance as he joins Thatcher in the pits of Hell!
Or he could get the president of Mexico in an embarrassing situation that forces him to sign a deal.
With Trump you could never know, but I suspect that nothing will stop him from getting his way.
I don't believe Trump has the slightest intention of getting Mexico to bankrupt itself. Do remember that Mexican exports to the US are part of US companies supply chains. Closing off the Mexican border to try and force the government there would turn an ally into an enemy and cause mass disruption to companies in the US.
He'll build the wall. He'll get the Mexican government to contribute or help. But, ultimately, the US government will pay, because there would be a revolution in Mexico if they hiked taxes to pay for Trump's wall.
He can definitely find a way to squeeze Mexico, it's within his powers as president regarding foreign affairs.
Apple is a private company though, it will require a lot of cunning, but I suspect that he will mount an all out publicity campaign on Apple so at least to make it's stock tumble, like what he did to Macy's.
Their stock halved in value since Trump declared war on it in July.
Of course he might find other ways too, Apple is dependant on bond sales since they can't get hold on their cash, since Ichan will be his treasury secretary he'll know all the tricks to bring down a company financially.
But of course all this is speculation at this point.
As an example, reduce the corporation tax rate down from 35% to 25%, in return for a quarter of their world production in value being moved to the US? Reduce it more for more world production.
Shareholders, Apple, the US government, and US employees would all benefit.
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/09/this-is-what-trumps-border-wall-could-cost-us.html
It's 1.2% .
Why shouldn't it apply to the Donald
Even I would brave the wind chill to give her..........my vote !
Also, brining Apple even partially down might cause more damage to the US economy than the benefit of the factories would bring.
The Mexican border used to be very permeable. I drove from Tuscon to Puerto Vallatta on one road trip, crossing the border at Nogales. No one looked at my passport on either side of thd border, maybe because I was riding in a car with Arizona plates. It did cause a bit of trouble when I next went to the USA as they thought I was an overstayer on previous visit. The Mexican exit stamp convinced them.
The Sonora desert was beautiful, and the train to the Copper Canyon one of the most scenic rail jouneys ever. I think the line is closed now.
But the reason they build them in China is not principally because wages are lower there (although that helps), it's because the entire supply chain has been build around the factories. You could build a factory in the US, but you would then be 5,000 miles from where your LCD panel was made, your chips were fabricated, your flash was made, etc. Those distances are the problem.
Right now, Hon Hai / Foxconn can run with essentially zero inventory because they tell SMIC to increase producion, and the hit the factory 24-36 hours later. If you insert a 5,000 mile supply chain into the equation - with goods needing to go through ports and inspection processes and the like - you remove a massive amount of flexibility. Either you increase the amount of inventory carried by 10s of billions of dollars, or you deal with sometimes being out of stock, or you pay your suppliers more to deal with the hassle. Plus you'd increase your transport costs markedly: better to ship one finished iPhone to the US, then to deal with Flash, various component chips, etc. separately. (Not to mention the fact that tariffs on many of these items are *higher* than on fully completed iPhones.)
It will cripple the chinese economy and Apple bondholders though.
It will be a relative test of how much a company that bases it's entire production out of a country, pays no taxes and has few employed, can affect a country's economy if something happens to it.
LovelyBoyski1983 and MoscowBob will be apoplectic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sara_Keays
However, they would have to repay from the US any funds borrowed into the US.
Trump will plaster it all over the papers: "Trump forces Apple to finally pay taxes"
Perhaps that's his plan.
'They' wrote off the Tories
'They' wrote off Corbyn
'They' wrote off Trump.
'They' wrote off Leicester xD
I'm trying to find the oldest one.
Here's one from July 17th:
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/17/trump-wont-win-but-yes-he-matters.html
"This reporter is already on record pledging to eat a bag of rusty nails if the real estate tycoon with the high hair manages to snag the GOP nomination, much less takes down likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton next fall."
AIUI one of the first thing Jobs did when he came back to Apple in 1997 was reduce the amount of stock held, and introduced JIT working for some suppliers.
The tariff problem you mention is one we also suffer from, as Raspberry Pi found out: Although they are made in the UK (Wales, I think) now. I don't know if the tariff problem was sorted.
http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/ken-livingstone-london-needs-to-vote-for-jeremy-corbyn-s-vision-of-a-better-city-a3164281.html
And there is a heck of a lot of US investment in Mexico, which would be a hostage to fortune.
Getting money out of Mexican taxpayers is, of course, a completely different story.
And some people seem to be forgetting NAFTA. Which operates almost entirely in the interests of of the USA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_Brennan-Jobs
And who described him as "a self-confessed adulterer and a damned fool"? (That will be Googleable but I'm sure someone here will know anyway.)
http://archive.spectator.co.uk/article/15th-october-1983/5/notebook
Ivor Stanbrook.
Google helped me find that quote.
I note that Jezza seems to get through spouses and concubines too, as did Bojo and Red Ken.
June 1st:
http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/scott-walker-maintains-healthy-lead-in-gop-poll-454853187847
"He's solidified his position in Iowa"
"Scott Walker is where he wants to be right now"
"Marco Rubio has a lot of room to grow"
"Bush has bad numbers" (the only thing consistent)
http://bracknellblog.blogspot.co.uk/2010/09/john-leech-mp-told-me-he-abstained-from.html
The Labour leader was involved in moves to deselect at least 20 London councillors while another 130 Labour moderates stepped down after the party moved radically to the left.
The revelation is likely to increase fears among moderate Labour councillors and the central wing of the parliamentary Labour party that Corbynistas may seek to oust them
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4674271.ece