Overall, Cruz seems to have done about 10% better than expected in terms of delegates.
Trump won't have a 2:1 dominance, as once seemed possible at this stage.
Indeed it looked early on that Trump did worse than the opinion polls by 5 points, Rubio was too far behind to win in most states but Cruz snatched victory in some.
Anyway we know that Trump will roughly lose every state west of the Mississippi river and win roughly every state east of the river.
On CNN now Cruz woman accuses Trump being a liberal, Rubio woman accuses Trump being a liberal and a fascist. Hillary guy attacks Trump as being too conservative.
Thanks for that. Trump can do it, but it ain't going to be plain sailing.
What do you make of CLinton vs Sanders ?
An amusing sideshow.
I mean bettingwise. Does Sanders have any chance at all ?
I really don't have an opinion on that I'm afraid. I'll go with what Betfair says - 5% chance?
I haven't gone through the relevant states/delegates/demographics/polls like I have in the GOP race.
Basically, I have no reason to take an alternative view to the market.
I did that today, on Trump & Cruz - I was correct that cruz was underestimated for the nomination and proved incorrect that Trump was underestimated for POTUS.
I think 3/1 trump.potus is fair value, so I've traded out.
So, does anyone disagree that, FBI prosecutions or mad convention stitch-ups excepted, it's going to be Hilary Clinton v Donald Trump for the top job in November?
Is 2016 set to be the most exciting political year in a couple of decades?
I've just backed another £50 on cruz.potus at 149/1
should be more like 40/1
Brave. What do you see as Cruz's path to the nomination? He needs Rubio to drop out ASAP but after tonight, that's less likely. Rubio is surely in the game now until Florida at least, by which time an awful lot of delegates have gone. Also, is a brokered convention likely to award Cruz the nomination over Trump, particularly if Trump has more delegates?
Hilary's states are BIG and she's running up the score in the big ones.
She's won already - there is no competition here, her only potential problem is the FBI.
Yes, although tonight wasn't the procession she'd have hoped for. She'd have been wanting a clean sweep outside Vermont. As it is, she's going to have to keep fighting Sanders for the time being rather than Trump.
The next round of Democrat elections on Saturday is Kansas, Louisiana and Nebraska. Those two prairie states might look interesting after Oklahoma today. It's true that the polls in Kansas give Hillary a big lead but (1) it's a caucus so harder to model, (2) there's been very little polling done there and none in Nebraska, and (3) the campaign has its own dynamic.
The following Tuesday, Maine will give Sanders another potential win. Each round is likely to move Hillary closer to the nomination but there should be enough in each one to keep Sanders' show on the road for now too.
I've ditched most of my Rubio red, can see that slimy little shit coming back after his "big win" in Minnesota.
Sold a touch of Cruz at 20 too.
'Stay in' rather than 'come back', I suspect. He is still a long way shy of Trump in Florida. Unless he can win that on March 15, his campaign is over.
Cruz and Rubio have killed each others' remaining slim chances by winning enough to remain in the game.
It will inch away again once the WTA states kick in. Had tonight been WTA rather than pseudo-proportional, Trump would have fairly comfortably outscored Cruz and Rubio, even with Cruz's Texas.
There are three phases with three roles to the primary campaign.
1. The early states. Their purpose is to clear the field of dead wood and produce a slate of credible candidates with a running order. 2. Super Tuesday and the non-WTA states: their job is to produce a clear leader in the field. 3. WTA states: their job is to push the leader over the line (or, if no clear leader has emerged, to produce one quickly and then push them over the line).
Trump's lead across so many demographics of Republican voters should be sufficient to give him a large majority of state wins and hence an overwhelming majority of delegates. He doesn't need to say anything else outrageous now, he can (and will) coast on a campaign which is still working pretty well for him, albeit one that didn't deliver a knock-out blow tonight as a best-case scenario would have.
1. The early states. Their purpose is to clear the field of dead wood and produce a slate o credible candidates with a running order.
What's Kasich still doing in the race then?
Very little. Hoping against hope that he might have become the establishment choice would be my guess. He is, after all, the only remaining mainstream candidate in the contest. I'd expect him to drop out pretty quickly now, given that Rubio has finally won a state and so won't be going any time soon.
It will inch away again once the WTA states kick in. Had tonight been WTA rather than pseudo-proportional, Trump would have fairly comfortably outscored Cruz and Rubio, even with Cruz's Texas.
There are three phases with three roles to the primary campaign.
1. The early states. Their purpose is to clear the field of dead wood and produce a slate of credible candidates with a running order. 2. Super Tuesday and the non-WTA states: their job is to produce a clear leader in the field. 3. WTA states: their job is to push the leader over the line (or, if no clear leader has emerged, to produce one quickly and then push them over the line).
Trump's lead across so many demographics of Republican voters should be sufficient to give him a large majority of state wins and hence an overwhelming majority of delegates. He doesn't need to say anything else outrageous now, he can (and will) coast on a campaign which is still working pretty well for him, albeit one that didn't deliver a knock-out blow tonight as a best-case scenario would have.
He can afford to dismiss his fellow candidates and aim all his fire at Clinton. Which should prove popular with his party. And it is quite clear Hillary will do the same. The race for November starts here, although it has been a rather-less-than-Super Tuesday.
It will inch away again once the WTA states kick in. Had tonight been WTA rather than pseudo-proportional, Trump would have fairly comfortably outscored Cruz and Rubio, even with Cruz's Texas.
There are three phases with three roles to the primary campaign.
1. The early states. Their purpose is to clear the field of dead wood and produce a slate of credible candidates with a running order. 2. Super Tuesday and the non-WTA states: their job is to produce a clear leader in the field. 3. WTA states: their job is to push the leader over the line (or, if no clear leader has emerged, to produce one quickly and then push them over the line).
Trump's lead across so many demographics of Republican voters should be sufficient to give him a large majority of state wins and hence an overwhelming majority of delegates. He doesn't need to say anything else outrageous now, he can (and will) coast on a campaign which is still working pretty well for him, albeit one that didn't deliver a knock-out blow tonight as a best-case scenario would have.
He can afford to dismiss his fellow candidates and aim all his fire at Clinton. Which should prove popular with his party. And it is quite clear Hillary will do the same. The race for November starts here, although it has been a rather-less-than-Super Tuesday.
Agree with that analysis. Trump was talking about tax cuts for middle America tonight, his first sign of tracking toward the centre.
He will probably hold the big guns off Hillary for a couple of weeks, until he knows he'll be over the line, then she will have the proverbial forces of Hell rain down upon her. It's not going to be a very nice campaign, that is for sure.
It will inch away again once the WTA states kick in. Had tonight been WTA rather than pseudo-proportional, Trump would have fairly comfortably outscored Cruz and Rubio, even with Cruz's Texas.
There are three phases with three roles to the primary campaign.
1. The early states. Their purpose is to clear the field of dead wood and produce a slate of credible candidates with a running order. 2. Super Tuesday and the non-WTA states: their job is to produce a clear leader in the field. 3. WTA states: their job is to push the leader over the line (or, if no clear leader has emerged, to produce one quickly and then push them over the line).
Trump's lead across so many demographics of Republican voters should be sufficient to give him a large majority of state wins and hence an overwhelming majority of delegates. He doesn't need to say anything else outrageous now, he can (and will) coast on a campaign which is still working pretty well for him, albeit one that didn't deliver a knock-out blow tonight as a best-case scenario would have.
He can afford to dismiss his fellow candidates and aim all his fire at Clinton. Which should prove popular with his party. And it is quite clear Hillary will do the same. The race for November starts here, although it has been a rather-less-than-Super Tuesday.
They will both hope to do that but need to be careful. Hillary, for example, would have a lot of questions to answer about complacency should she lose either of the next two rounds 2-1, which can't be entirely ruled out if the electorate thing she's taking them for granted. It wouldn't do much to the big picture but would prove embarrassing all the same.
It will inch away again once the WTA states kick in. Had tonight been WTA rather than pseudo-proportional, Trump would have fairly comfortably outscored Cruz and Rubio, even with Cruz's Texas.
There are three phases with three roles to the primary campaign.
1. The early states. Their purpose is to clear the field of dead wood and produce a slate of credible candidates with a running order. 2. Super Tuesday and the non-WTA states: their job is to produce a clear leader in the field. 3. WTA states: their job is to push the leader over the line (or, if no clear leader has emerged, to produce one quickly and then push them over the line).
Trump's lead across so many demographics of Republican voters should be sufficient to give him a large majority of state wins and hence an overwhelming majority of delegates. He doesn't need to say anything else outrageous now, he can (and will) coast on a campaign which is still working pretty well for him, albeit one that didn't deliver a knock-out blow tonight as a best-case scenario would have.
He can afford to dismiss his fellow candidates and aim all his fire at Clinton. Which should prove popular with his party. And it is quite clear Hillary will do the same. The race for November starts here, although it has been a rather-less-than-Super Tuesday.
They will both hope to do that but need to be careful. Hillary, for example, would have a lot of questions to answer about complacency should she lose either of the next two rounds 2-1, which can't be entirely ruled out if the electorate thing she's taking them for granted. It wouldn't do much to the big picture but would prove embarrassing all the same.
She will win Louisiana - other two are tiddlers, so no biggie to lose. She has this thing sewn up.
It will inch away again once the WTA states kick in. Had tonight been WTA rather than pseudo-proportional, Trump would have fairly comfortably outscored Cruz and Rubio, even with Cruz's Texas.
There are three phases with three roles to the primary campaign.
1. The early states. Their purpose is to clear the field of dead wood and produce a slate of credible candidates with a running order. 2. Super Tuesday and the non-WTA states: their job is to produce a clear leader in the field. 3. WTA states: their job is to push the leader over the line (or, if no clear leader has emerged, to produce one quickly and then push them over the line).
Trump's lead across so many demographics of Republican voters should be sufficient to give him a large majority of state wins and hence an overwhelming majority of delegates. He doesn't need to say anything else outrageous now, he can (and will) coast on a campaign which is still working pretty well for him, albeit one that didn't deliver a knock-out blow tonight as a best-case scenario would have.
He can afford to dismiss his fellow candidates and aim all his fire at Clinton. Which should prove popular with his party. And it is quite clear Hillary will do the same. The race for November starts here, although it has been a rather-less-than-Super Tuesday.
Agree with that analysis. Trump was talking about tax cuts for middle America tonight, his first sign of tracking toward the centre.
He will probably hold the big guns off Hillary for a couple of weeks, until he knows he'll be over the line, then she will have the proverbial forces of Hell rain down upon her. It's not going to be a very nice campaign, that is for sure.
Trump should now start getting a flood of backers.
Out of curiosity, do we know how much Trump spent for Super Tuesday? Did he do it on the cheap again, or has he started flashing the serious cash?
It will inch away again once the WTA states kick in. Had tonight been WTA rather than pseudo-proportional, Trump would have fairly comfortably outscored Cruz and Rubio, even with Cruz's Texas.
There are three phases with three roles to the primary campaign.
1. The early states. Their purpose is to clear the field of dead wood and produce a slate of credible candidates with a running order. 2. Super Tuesday and the non-WTA states: their job is to produce a clear leader in the field. 3. WTA states: their job is to push the leader over the line (or, if no clear leader has emerged, to produce one quickly and then push them over the line).
Trump's lead across so many demographics of Republican voters should be sufficient to give him a large majority of state wins and hence an overwhelming majority of delegates. He doesn't need to say anything else outrageous now, he can (and will) coast on a campaign which is still working pretty well for him, albeit one that didn't deliver a knock-out blow tonight as a best-case scenario would have.
He can afford to dismiss his fellow candidates and aim all his fire at Clinton. Which should prove popular with his party. And it is quite clear Hillary will do the same. The race for November starts here, although it has been a rather-less-than-Super Tuesday.
They will both hope to do that but need to be careful. Hillary, for example, would have a lot of questions to answer about complacency should she lose either of the next two rounds 2-1, which can't be entirely ruled out if the electorate thing she's taking them for granted. It wouldn't do much to the big picture but would prove embarrassing all the same.
She will win Louisiana - other two are tiddlers, so no biggie to lose. She has this thing sewn up.
I don't question that she's going to win but the media tends to report states rather than delegate allocations and if Sanders keeps winning states here and there - particularly if he out-states Hillary in any given round - then that will look bad for her. As you say, she will be nominated but I think it would look presumptuous for her to focus on the general election right now.
Minnesota going for Rubio and Sanders seems to show the state is still left leaning and Trump don't have a particular appeal there to cause an eight point swing. If Clinton wins Virginia, Trump can't win without Pennsylvania.
Why would any state schedule its primary for May/June in full knowledge that its vote will likely be irrelevant? Why not have ALL states (other than the traditional early ones) have their primary on Super Tuesday?
Well my Trump bet on Texas did not come through. Overall, he has not done as well as expected but he has still probably done well enough.
Rubio's last chance is his own Florida but he is so far underwater. He really should give up.
Hillary will also be slightly disappointed albeit she has again probably done enough. On the popular vote she has clocked up some massive wins in the south which justifies the super delegates backing her. She is already more than half way there but Sanders is showing her weaknesses with the young, the less affluent and the more radical parts of the Democratic party.
Hilary's states are BIG and she's running up the score in the big ones.
She's won already - there is no competition here, her only potential problem is the FBI.
Yes, although tonight wasn't the procession she'd have hoped for. She'd have been wanting a clean sweep outside Vermont. As it is, she's going to have to keep fighting Sanders for the time being rather than Trump.
The next round of Democrat elections on Saturday is Kansas, Louisiana and Nebraska. Those two prairie states might look interesting after Oklahoma today. It's true that the polls in Kansas give Hillary a big lead but (1) it's a caucus so harder to model, (2) there's been very little polling done there and none in Nebraska, and (3) the campaign has its own dynamic.
The following Tuesday, Maine will give Sanders another potential win. Each round is likely to move Hillary closer to the nomination but there should be enough in each one to keep Sanders' show on the road for now too.
Kansas and Nebraska are both caucuses. With them being on Saturday, this should be a good test of the "Bernie does well when college students have time to drive back to their hometown" theory.
Well my Trump bet on Texas did not come through. Overall, he has not done as well as expected but he has still probably done well enough.
Rubio's last chance is his own Florida but he is so far underwater. He really should give up.
Hillary will also be slightly disappointed albeit she has again probably done enough. On the popular vote she has clocked up some massive wins in the south which justifies the super delegates backing her. She is already more than half way there but Sanders is showing her weaknesses with the young, the less affluent and the more radical parts of the Democratic party.
Trump gets Democrats to turn out for Hillary though, doesn't he? I imagine that if Trump is the Republican candidate Bernie will give Hillary a very clear endorsement.
Why would any state schedule its primary for May/June in full knowledge that its vote will likely be irrelevant? Why not have ALL states (other than the traditional early ones) have their primary on Super Tuesday?
The US presidential election is an abomination to democracy, from non-secret caucus votes to large parts of the country having effectively no say in the choices of the parties, to the anachronism of the electoral college and so on.
There are at least two good arguments against one single national primary. Firstly, they would tend to be dominated by money and/or name recognition - though Trump and Sanders both suggest this isn't quite as strong a tendency as might previously have been thought. Secondly, there'd be a large number of primary races either won on a very small share of the vote (say sub-25%), or in a brokered election, depending on the mechanics of the race.
I quite like the multi-round system which tests candidates in lots of different ways and in different parts of the country. Caucuses, however, serve no good purpose and should be done away with and a decent system would rotate the states in the calendar so as not to give much more weight to Iowa and NH than California (for example).
The idea of Boris becoming Tory leader before the next election is terrifying. The only shaft of light is that it's likely to galvanize non Tories to get behind whoever is the opposition leader most likely to beat him even if that person turns out to be Corbyn.
Pretty much the same as the Trump effect on the US I suspect
Why would any state schedule its primary for May/June in full knowledge that its vote will likely be irrelevant? Why not have ALL states (other than the traditional early ones) have their primary on Super Tuesday?
The US presidential election is an abomination to democracy, from non-secret caucus votes to large parts of the country having effectively no say in the choices of the parties, to the anachronism of the electoral college and so on.
There are at least two good arguments against one single national primary. Firstly, they would tend to be dominated by money and/or name recognition - though Trump and Sanders both suggest this isn't quite as strong a tendency as might previously have been thought. Secondly, there'd be a large number of primary races either won on a very small share of the vote (say sub-25%), or in a brokered election, depending on the mechanics of the race.
I quite like the multi-round system which tests candidates in lots of different ways and in different parts of the country. Caucuses, however, serve no good purpose and should be done away with and a decent system would rotate the states in the calendar so as not to give much more weight to Iowa and NH than California (for example).
You are however talking as if this were a unified political system where there can be one electoral plan imposed from the centre. This is a federal system with each state deciding itself when and how it should choose it's delegates. Anyone who sought to tread on States' toes would, I think, find themselves in a world of pain.
Why would any state schedule its primary for May/June in full knowledge that its vote will likely be irrelevant? Why not have ALL states (other than the traditional early ones) have their primary on Super Tuesday?
The US presidential election is an abomination to democracy, from non-secret caucus votes to large parts of the country having effectively no say in the choices of the parties, to the anachronism of the electoral college and so on.
There are at least two good arguments against one single national primary. Firstly, they would tend to be dominated by money and/or name recognition - though Trump and Sanders both suggest this isn't quite as strong a tendency as might previously have been thought. Secondly, there'd be a large number of primary races either won on a very small share of the vote (say sub-25%), or in a brokered election, depending on the mechanics of the race.
I quite like the multi-round system which tests candidates in lots of different ways and in different parts of the country. Caucuses, however, serve no good purpose and should be done away with and a decent system would rotate the states in the calendar so as not to give much more weight to Iowa and NH than California (for example).
Primaries and Caucuses in an idiosyncratic order of States is indeed odd, but it does sort out the wheat from the chaff and generally produces a couple of good candidates. Trump, Cruz and Rubio are not to my taste, but I don't think that I am their target audience.
When you compare it with the system of how we come up with party leaders (Jezza, Farage, Ed Miliband, IDS, Brown, etc) it is not as daft as it seems.
Why would any state schedule its primary for May/June in full knowledge that its vote will likely be irrelevant? Why not have ALL states (other than the traditional early ones) have their primary on Super Tuesday?
The US presidential election is an abomination to democracy, from non-secret caucus votes to large parts of the country having effectively no say in the choices of the parties, to the anachronism of the electoral college and so on.
You should try comparing it to the way we choose our head of state!
I've just backed another £50 on cruz.potus at 149/1
should be more like 40/1
Brave. What do you see as Cruz's path to the nomination? He needs Rubio to drop out ASAP but after tonight, that's less likely. Rubio is surely in the game now until Florida at least, by which time an awful lot of delegates have gone. Also, is a brokered convention likely to award Cruz the nomination over Trump, particularly if Trump has more delegates?
Me? Brave?
You think Cruz's chance of becoming potus is less than 0.7%? I think that's a brave prediction. If the GOP/POTUS race between now and November were simulated 150 times, one of those times Cruz would walk into the white house. That's all I'm saying. Do you think it would take many more simulations? Is trump now *that* certain? Is Hillary *that* bulletproof?
Cruz is a viable, well funded not-trump candidate, with ~220 delegates against trump's ~240 and he's going to the convention come hell or high water.
IMO, you'd be far braver to lay that bet @ 149/1, than to back it like I did.
But each to their own, eh?!
Edit; apologies for the grumpiness. Been up all night & now I've got work to do. meh.
Why would any state schedule its primary for May/June in full knowledge that its vote will likely be irrelevant? Why not have ALL states (other than the traditional early ones) have their primary on Super Tuesday?
The US presidential election is an abomination to democracy, from non-secret caucus votes to large parts of the country having effectively no say in the choices of the parties, to the anachronism of the electoral college and so on.
You should try comparing it to the way we choose our head of state!
The idea of Boris becoming Tory leader before the next election is terrifying. The only shaft of light is that it's likely to galvanize non Tories to get behind whoever is the opposition leader most likely to beat him even if that person turns out to be Corbyn.
Pretty much the same as the Trump effect on the US I suspect
Did I not predict this? All BoJo has to do is get LEAVE over 40%, and put in a decent personal performance in euroref, and he will be leader and PM
Quite the irony. Cameron's lamentable deal has scuppered his friend Osborne and gifted the leadership to his bitter rival. Or so it seems right now.
The Tory leadership is effectively under AV, add up Osborne, May and Javid and Morgan's totals (all of whom back Remain) and you get to 49%, ahead of Boris' 43%
That's not how it works.
Agree, when we get to the final two, the simple choice is,"who stood with me on the defining issue of the day?"
59% of members are for leave. As long as the leave candidate is a figure with stature, like Boris or Gove, they win every single time.
In 2019? Obviously people will be using their opinion poll response to send a message right now. But the referendum will have faded in 3 years time (though of course to some it will still be defining).
I'm sure it will, but I'm not sure how Cameron will last another 3 years to hold off a contest.
Why would any state schedule its primary for May/June in full knowledge that its vote will likely be irrelevant? Why not have ALL states (other than the traditional early ones) have their primary on Super Tuesday?
The US presidential election is an abomination to democracy, from non-secret caucus votes to large parts of the country having effectively no say in the choices of the parties, to the anachronism of the electoral college and so on.
You should try comparing it to the way we choose our head of state!
Our system is a paragon of equality by comparison: everyone's vote counts the same!
But seriously, the like-for-like comparison is with the head of government, which the US president also is.
The idea of Boris becoming Tory leader before the next election is terrifying. The only shaft of light is that it's likely to galvanize non Tories to get behind whoever is the opposition leader most likely to beat him even if that person turns out to be Corbyn.
The idea of Boris becoming London Mayor before the next election is terrifying. The only shaft of light is that it's likely to galvanize non Tories to get behind whoever is the opposition leader most likely to beat him .....
Why would any state schedule its primary for May/June in full knowledge that its vote will likely be irrelevant? Why not have ALL states (other than the traditional early ones) have their primary on Super Tuesday?
The US presidential election is an abomination to democracy, from non-secret caucus votes to large parts of the country having effectively no say in the choices of the parties, to the anachronism of the electoral college and so on.
You should try comparing it to the way we choose our head of state!
Our head of State is a non-executive.
That's true and it does show a certain wit if not a very good example to schoolchildren learning the ways of the world
The idea of Boris becoming Tory leader before the next election is terrifying. The only shaft of light is that it's likely to galvanize non Tories to get behind whoever is the opposition leader most likely to beat him even if that person turns out to be Corbyn.
Pretty much the same as the Trump effect on the US I suspect
Corbyn - a humourless zealot stuck in the early 1980s, who will not share a platform with a Tory PM but will happily do so with apologists for terrorism and people who believe in killing homosexuals and subjugating women - would be a gift for Boris. It would be a massacre.
The idea of Boris becoming Tory leader before the next election is terrifying. The only shaft of light is that it's likely to galvanize non Tories to get behind whoever is the opposition leader most likely to beat him even if that person turns out to be Corbyn.
Pretty much the same as the Trump effect on the US I suspect
Most voters like Boris.
They may like him as the Clown Prince of London, but as PM? Nah! - unless the alternative is Jezza, but frankly anyone could beat Corbyn.
The idea of Boris becoming Tory leader before the next election is terrifying. The only shaft of light is that it's likely to galvanize non Tories to get behind whoever is the opposition leader most likely to beat him even if that person turns out to be Corbyn.
Pretty much the same as the Trump effect on the US I suspect
Most voters like Boris.
Hell, I like Boris, but as PM? I dunno about that!
The idea of Boris becoming Tory leader before the next election is terrifying. The only shaft of light is that it's likely to galvanize non Tories to get behind whoever is the opposition leader most likely to beat him even if that person turns out to be Corbyn.
The idea of Boris becoming London Mayor before the next election is terrifying. The only shaft of light is that it's likely to galvanize non Tories to get behind whoever is the opposition leader most likely to beat him .....
I think I would draw a distinction between choosing the desirability of a bendy bus and being PM
If he wanted world leaders not to scupper the Referendum, the time to do it would have been vetting Angela Merkel's "come on in, everybody" speech last year...
I've just backed another £50 on cruz.potus at 149/1
should be more like 40/1
Brave. What do you see as Cruz's path to the nomination? He needs Rubio to drop out ASAP but after tonight, that's less likely. Rubio is surely in the game now until Florida at least, by which time an awful lot of delegates have gone. Also, is a brokered convention likely to award Cruz the nomination over Trump, particularly if Trump has more delegates?
Me? Brave?
You think Cruz's chance of becoming potus is less than 0.7%? I think that's a brave prediction. If the GOP/POTUS race between now and November were simulated 150 times, one of those times Cruz would walk into the white house. That's all I'm saying. Do you think it would take many more simulations? Is trump now *that* certain? Is Hillary *that* bulletproof?
Cruz is a viable, well funded not-trump candidate, with ~220 delegates against trump's ~240 and he's going to the convention come hell or high water.
IMO, you'd be far braver to lay that bet @ 149/1, than to back it like I did.
But each to their own, eh?!
Edit; apologies for the grumpiness. Been up all night & now I've got work to do. meh.
No, I don't think I'd be backing or laying at that price which looks about right.
I really don't see a route to the White House for Cruz. He has to get past Trump and Rubio, and then Clinton. Clinton is the easiest part of that equation and that's some way from an evens bet.
Even of Cruz goes to the convention, how does he get the delegates? He's way behind in the polls at the moment and is unlikely to pick up a net transfer from any of the other candidates as they drop out. If it comes down to a head-to-head with Trump, the GOP establishment would be more likely to go with the New Yorker.
But I simply don't see how he can push to a brokered convention (and, as I say, it'd be hard for him to win there if he could). As things stand, I believe Trump has ~285 delegates to Cruz's ~160 with ~120 elsewhere. Cruz may well take Alaska but his total is boosted by Texas which is a home-state gain he can't repeat. Any other win has to be done the hard way.
Stuff may happen but while he's nominally had a good day with some state wins, the big picture remains unaffected.
Thought Donald speech was pretty measured. Lots of fun hearing establishment GOP trying to undo him, whilst his voters get ever more uppity at the prospect of their candidate being knobbled.
The idea of Boris becoming Tory leader before the next election is terrifying. The only shaft of light is that it's likely to galvanize non Tories to get behind whoever is the opposition leader most likely to beat him even if that person turns out to be Corbyn.
The idea of Boris becoming London Mayor before the next election is terrifying. The only shaft of light is that it's likely to galvanize non Tories to get behind whoever is the opposition leader most likely to beat him .....
I think I would draw a distinction between choosing the desirability of a bendy bus and being PM
I think I would draw a distinction between hosting 'Have I Got News For You' and being London Mayor.
Why would any state schedule its primary for May/June in full knowledge that its vote will likely be irrelevant? Why not have ALL states (other than the traditional early ones) have their primary on Super Tuesday?
The US presidential election is an abomination to democracy, from non-secret caucus votes to large parts of the country having effectively no say in the choices of the parties, to the anachronism of the electoral college and so on.
There are at least two good arguments against one single national primary. Firstly, they would tend to be dominated by money and/or name recognition - though Trump and Sanders both suggest this isn't quite as strong a tendency as might previously have been thought. Secondly, there'd be a large number of primary races either won on a very small share of the vote (say sub-25%), or in a brokered election, depending on the mechanics of the race.
I quite like the multi-round system which tests candidates in lots of different ways and in different parts of the country. Caucuses, however, serve no good purpose and should be done away with and a decent system would rotate the states in the calendar so as not to give much more weight to Iowa and NH than California (for example).
You are however talking as if this were a unified political system where there can be one electoral plan imposed from the centre. This is a federal system with each state deciding itself when and how it should choose it's delegates. Anyone who sought to tread on States' toes would, I think, find themselves in a world of pain.
Sure, I recognise the practical difficulties. That said, the EU states manage to hold a single election for the European parliament with just two polling days and with no count beginning before the polls have closed on the second day, so agreement must be possible if the will was there.
What surprises me is that there isn't more pressure from inside the system; that voters are happy to go along with caucuses when other states have primaries, that late states are happy for their votes not to count in effect - and so on.
I've always thought that the privilege that Iowa and New Hampshire have is probably unconstitutional under equal protection of the laws yet no-one seems bothered by it. Their call, I guess.
What this shows is that the immediate reduction in the field to two candidates would have shafted Trump, even Kasich alone would have taken the shine off. Unfortunately nobody ever drops our when they enough votes to matter.
Why would any state schedule its primary for May/June in full knowledge that its vote will likely be irrelevant? Why not have ALL states (other than the traditional early ones) have their primary on Super Tuesday?
The US presidential election is an abomination to democracy, from non-secret caucus votes to large parts of the country having effectively no say in the choices of the parties, to the anachronism of the electoral college and so on.
There are at least two good arguments against one single national primary. Firstly, they would tend to be dominated by money and/or name recognition - though Trump and Sanders both suggest this isn't quite as strong a tendency as might previously have been thought. Secondly, there'd be a large number of primary races either won on a very small share of the vote (say sub-25%), or in a brokered election, depending on the mechanics of the race.
I quite like the multi-round system which tests candidates in lots of different ways and in different parts of the country. Caucuses, however, serve no good purpose and should be done away with and a decent system would rotate the states in the calendar so as not to give much more weight to Iowa and NH than California (for example).
You are however talking as if this were a unified political system where there can be one electoral plan imposed from the centre. This is a federal system with each state deciding itself when and how it should choose it's delegates. Anyone who sought to tread on States' toes would, I think, find themselves in a world of pain.
Surely the National parties have full control of the primary dates though? I remember in 2008 reading that some states' parties (can't remember if it was GOP or Dem, might have been both) being fined delegates by the national party for daring to bring their primary earlier so that it would actually count.
Why would any state schedule its primary for May/June in full knowledge that its vote will likely be irrelevant? Why not have ALL states (other than the traditional early ones) have their primary on Super Tuesday?
The US presidential election is an abomination to democracy, from non-secret caucus votes to large parts of the country having effectively no say in the choices of the parties, to the anachronism of the electoral college and so on.
There are at least two good arguments against one single national primary. Firstly, they would tend to be dominated by money and/or name recognition - though Trump and Sanders both suggest this isn't quite as strong a tendency as might previously have been thought. Secondly, there'd be a large number of primary races either won on a very small share of the vote (say sub-25%), or in a brokered election, depending on the mechanics of the race.
I quite like the multi-round system which tests candidates in lots of different ways and in different parts of the country. Caucuses, however, serve no good purpose and should be done away with and a decent system would rotate the states in the calendar so as not to give much more weight to Iowa and NH than California (for example).
You are however talking as if this were a unified political system where there can be one electoral plan imposed from the centre. This is a federal system with each state deciding itself when and how it should choose it's delegates. Anyone who sought to tread on States' toes would, I think, find themselves in a world of pain.
Sure, I recognise the practical difficulties. That said, the EU states manage to hold a single election for the European parliament with just two polling days and with no count beginning before the polls have closed on the second day, so agreement must be possible if the will was there.
What surprises me is that there isn't more pressure from inside the system; that voters are happy to go along with caucuses when other states have primaries, that late states are happy for their votes not to count in effect - and so on.
I've always thought that the privilege that Iowa and New Hampshire have is probably unconstitutional under equal protection of the laws yet no-one seems bothered by it. Their call, I guess.
Presumably there is some central coordination going on actively to preserve the status of Iowa and New Hampshire. Otherwise California or New York would have moved their own primaries to the same day, which would be the last we heard of Iowa.
Why would any state schedule its primary for May/June in full knowledge that its vote will likely be irrelevant? Why not have ALL states (other than the traditional early ones) have their primary on Super Tuesday?
The US presidential election is an abomination to democracy, from non-secret caucus votes to large parts of the country having effectively no say in the choices of the parties, to the anachronism of the electoral college and so on.
There are at least two good arguments against one single national primary. Firstly, they would tend to be dominated by money and/or name recognition - though Trump and Sanders both suggest this isn't quite as strong a tendency as might previously have been thought. Secondly, there'd be a large number of primary races either won on a very small share of the vote (say sub-25%), or in a brokered election, depending on the mechanics of the race.
I quite like the multi-round system which tests candidates in lots of different ways and in different parts of the country. Caucuses, however, serve no good purpose and should be done away with and a decent system would rotate the states in the calendar so as not to give much more weight to Iowa and NH than California (for example).
Primaries and Caucuses in an idiosyncratic order of States is indeed odd, but it does sort out the wheat from the chaff and generally produces a couple of good candidates. Trump, Cruz and Rubio are not to my taste, but I don't think that I am their target audience.
When you compare it with the system of how we come up with party leaders (Jezza, Farage, Ed Miliband, IDS, Brown, etc) it is not as daft as it seems.
Though not one of those leaders that you just mentioned ever became PM at an election*.
We like the Americans have a two-phase process to vet our potential leaders, first to become party leader and then to become the countries leader. So compare losers like IDS to losers like Dukakis. While if you put Farage in the list then compare to all the third party candidates America has had.
* Yes Brown became PM mid-term but some pretty shocking VP's have existed who could have done the same, even more have reached the general election like Sarah Palin.
You'd really have to fear for Britain if he became PM, after Boris' 8 year tenure as Mayor of London caused this once great city to slide into the Thames, its house prices to slump, everybody without work, a vibrant mix of cultures subsumed into one grey mass of conformity, causing it to attain pariah status, shunned by the world as a tourist destination. And all the luvvies upped sticks and left as promised.
Why would any state schedule its primary for May/June in full knowledge that its vote will likely be irrelevant? Why not have ALL states (other than the traditional early ones) have their primary on Super Tuesday?
The US presidential election is an abomination to democracy, from non-secret caucus votes to large parts of the country having effectively no say in the choices of the parties, to the anachronism of the electoral college and so on.
There are at least two good arguments against one single national primary. Firstly, they would tend to be dominated by money and/or name recognition - though Trump and Sanders both suggest this isn't quite as strong a tendency as might previously have been thought. Secondly, there'd be a large number of primary races either won on a very small share of the vote (say sub-25%), or in a brokered election, depending on the mechanics of the race.
I quite like the multi-round system which tests candidates in lots of different ways and in different parts of the country. Caucuses, however, serve no good purpose and should be done away with and a decent system would rotate the states in the calendar so as not to give much more weight to Iowa and NH than California (for example).
You are however talking as if this were a unified political system where there can be one electoral plan imposed from the centre. This is a federal system with each state deciding itself when and how it should choose it's delegates. Anyone who sought to tread on States' toes would, I think, find themselves in a world of pain.
Sure, I recognise the practical difficulties. That said, the EU states manage to hold a single election for the European closed on the second day, so agreement must be possible if the will was there.
What surprises me is that there isn't more pressure from inside the system; that voters are happy to go along with caucuses when other states have primaries, that late states are happy for their votes not to count in effect - and so on.
I've always thought that the privilege that Iowa and New Hampshire have is probably unconstitutional under equal protection of the laws yet no-one seems bothered by it. Their call, I guess.
Presumably there is some central coordination going on actively to preserve the status of Iowa and New Hampshire. Otherwise California or New York would have moved their own primaries to the same day, which would be the last we heard of Iowa.
I'd heard Iowa passed a law saying they must be first, so if anyone moves theirs they get, um, trumped by Iowa. What would be funny is if they all passed laws to say they must be first.
You think Cruz's chance of becoming potus is less than 0.7%? I think that's a brave prediction. If the GOP/POTUS race between now and November were simulated 150 times, one of those times Cruz would walk into the white house. That's all I'm saying. Do you think it would take many more simulations? Is trump now *that* certain? Is Hillary *that* bulletproof?
So I don't want to make a judgment on whether Cruz has a chance or not, but I don't agree with this analysis. Elections are not like football games. If I back Laurent Koscielny for last goal scorer tonight at 25-1 I know that he should probably be something like a 50-1 shot. That is, roughly he'll score the last goal once if the game was rerun 50 times.
With elections, I think the result will be the result however many times you run it. When Mike puts up implied chance of something happening I don't think you can interpret it as "something like 30 times out of a hundred something will happen." Yes, there are unknowns and perhaps the FBI will move on Hillary or the GOP will stitch up Trump. But I don't think these variables can be treated like football matches.
If he wanted world leaders not to scupper the Referendum, the time to do it would have been vetting Angela Merkel's "come on in, everybody" speech last year...
All that famous 'influence' we're told the UK has in the EU didn't seem able to stop Merkel's madness did it.
Thought Donald speech was pretty measured. Lots of fun hearing establishment GOP trying to undo him, whilst his voters get ever more uppity at the prospect of their candidate being knobbled.
What great entertainment.
Don't think its Sanders' weakness but Clinton's strength. Remember Bill Clinton was joked to be "first black president", they did very well under his presidency, and it was hard work for Obama to convince black voters to support him over Clinton in 2008.
The idea of Boris becoming Tory leader before the next election is terrifying. The only shaft of light is that it's likely to galvanize non Tories to get behind whoever is the opposition leader most likely to beat him even if that person turns out to be Corbyn.
The idea of Boris becoming London Mayor before the next election is terrifying. The only shaft of light is that it's likely to galvanize non Tories to get behind whoever is the opposition leader most likely to beat him .....
I think I would draw a distinction between choosing the desirability of a bendy bus and being PM
Johnson is probably more qualified than Cameron was when he became party leader and ultimately PM. I suspect that you were one of the many lambasting the latter politician's qualifications for office, citing his only experience as being the bag carrier for Norman Lamont on Black Wednesday.
I don't care much for Boris, but if the alternative is the smirking Osborne, it's not a tricky choice as to which one to vote for.
Comments
Trump won't have a 2:1 dominance, as once seemed possible at this stage.
Anyway we know that Trump will roughly lose every state west of the Mississippi river and win roughly every state east of the river.
Hillary guy attacks Trump as being too conservative.
They will fry him.
Cruz 31% and 2 states.
Rubio 21% and 1 state.
An underwhelming night for Trump.
Sanders wins 4 states
Hillary 7 states, i'm calling Mass. for Hillary.
Hillary still safe.
The civil war in the GOP goes on, Trump has to beat Fox News now.
Goodnight.
I haven't gone through the relevant states/delegates/demographics/polls like I have in the GOP race.
Basically, I have no reason to take an alternative view to the market.
I did that today, on Trump & Cruz - I was correct that cruz was underestimated for the nomination and proved incorrect that Trump was underestimated for POTUS.
I think 3/1 trump.potus is fair value, so I've traded out.
I'm keeping my cruz positions.
should be more like 40/1
Rubio won something!
Is 2016 set to be the most exciting political year in a couple of decades?
The next round of Democrat elections on Saturday is Kansas, Louisiana and Nebraska. Those two prairie states might look interesting after Oklahoma today. It's true that the polls in Kansas give Hillary a big lead but (1) it's a caucus so harder to model, (2) there's been very little polling done there and none in Nebraska, and (3) the campaign has its own dynamic.
The following Tuesday, Maine will give Sanders another potential win. Each round is likely to move Hillary closer to the nomination but there should be enough in each one to keep Sanders' show on the road for now too.
Cruz and Rubio have killed each others' remaining slim chances by winning enough to remain in the game.
There are three phases with three roles to the primary campaign.
1. The early states. Their purpose is to clear the field of dead wood and produce a slate of credible candidates with a running order.
2. Super Tuesday and the non-WTA states: their job is to produce a clear leader in the field.
3. WTA states: their job is to push the leader over the line (or, if no clear leader has emerged, to produce one quickly and then push them over the line).
Trump's lead across so many demographics of Republican voters should be sufficient to give him a large majority of state wins and hence an overwhelming majority of delegates. He doesn't need to say anything else outrageous now, he can (and will) coast on a campaign which is still working pretty well for him, albeit one that didn't deliver a knock-out blow tonight as a best-case scenario would have.
He will probably hold the big guns off Hillary for a couple of weeks, until he knows he'll be over the line, then she will have the proverbial forces of Hell rain down upon her. It's not going to be a very nice campaign, that is for sure.
Out of curiosity, do we know how much Trump spent for Super Tuesday? Did he do it on the cheap again, or has he started flashing the serious cash?
Tonight's actual vote totals:
Clinton: 3.381M
Trump: 2.839M
Cruz: 2.358M
Sanders: 2.158M
Rubio: 1.818M
Rubio's last chance is his own Florida but he is so far underwater. He really should give up.
Hillary will also be slightly disappointed albeit she has again probably done enough. On the popular vote she has clocked up some massive wins in the south which justifies the super delegates backing her. She is already more than half way there but Sanders is showing her weaknesses with the young, the less affluent and the more radical parts of the Democratic party.
There are at least two good arguments against one single national primary. Firstly, they would tend to be dominated by money and/or name recognition - though Trump and Sanders both suggest this isn't quite as strong a tendency as might previously have been thought. Secondly, there'd be a large number of primary races either won on a very small share of the vote (say sub-25%), or in a brokered election, depending on the mechanics of the race.
I quite like the multi-round system which tests candidates in lots of different ways and in different parts of the country. Caucuses, however, serve no good purpose and should be done away with and a decent system would rotate the states in the calendar so as not to give much more weight to Iowa and NH than California (for example).
Pretty much the same as the Trump effect on the US I suspect
When you compare it with the system of how we come up with party leaders (Jezza, Farage, Ed Miliband, IDS, Brown, etc) it is not as daft as it seems.
On the Democratic side Clinton has won 7 states and Sanders 4
You think Cruz's chance of becoming potus is less than 0.7%? I think that's a brave prediction. If the GOP/POTUS race between now and November were simulated 150 times, one of those times Cruz would walk into the white house. That's all I'm saying. Do you think it would take many more simulations? Is trump now *that* certain? Is Hillary *that* bulletproof?
Cruz is a viable, well funded not-trump candidate, with ~220 delegates against trump's ~240 and he's going to the convention come hell or high water.
IMO, you'd be far braver to lay that bet @ 149/1, than to back it like I did.
But each to their own, eh?!
Edit; apologies for the grumpiness. Been up all night & now I've got work to do. meh.
But seriously, the like-for-like comparison is with the head of government, which the US president also is.
The idea of Boris becoming London Mayor before the next election is terrifying. The only shaft of light is that it's likely to galvanize non Tories to get behind whoever is the opposition leader most likely to beat him .....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3471653/Downing-Street-demands-vet-speeches-planned-WORLD-LEADERS-make-sure-don-t-damage-David-Cameron-s-bid-Britain-EU.html
I really don't see a route to the White House for Cruz. He has to get past Trump and Rubio, and then Clinton. Clinton is the easiest part of that equation and that's some way from an evens bet.
Even of Cruz goes to the convention, how does he get the delegates? He's way behind in the polls at the moment and is unlikely to pick up a net transfer from any of the other candidates as they drop out. If it comes down to a head-to-head with Trump, the GOP establishment would be more likely to go with the New Yorker.
But I simply don't see how he can push to a brokered convention (and, as I say, it'd be hard for him to win there if he could). As things stand, I believe Trump has ~285 delegates to Cruz's ~160 with ~120 elsewhere. Cruz may well take Alaska but his total is boosted by Texas which is a home-state gain he can't repeat. Any other win has to be done the hard way.
Stuff may happen but while he's nominally had a good day with some state wins, the big picture remains unaffected.
Thought Donald speech was pretty measured. Lots of fun hearing establishment GOP trying to undo him, whilst his voters get ever more uppity at the prospect of their candidate being knobbled.
What great entertainment.
What surprises me is that there isn't more pressure from inside the system; that voters are happy to go along with caucuses when other states have primaries, that late states are happy for their votes not to count in effect - and so on.
I've always thought that the privilege that Iowa and New Hampshire have is probably unconstitutional under equal protection of the laws yet no-one seems bothered by it. Their call, I guess.
We like the Americans have a two-phase process to vet our potential leaders, first to become party leader and then to become the countries leader. So compare losers like IDS to losers like Dukakis. While if you put Farage in the list then compare to all the third party candidates America has had.
* Yes Brown became PM mid-term but some pretty shocking VP's have existed who could have done the same, even more have reached the general election like Sarah Palin.
Oh....
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/271387-fbi-director-i-am-closely-involved-with-clinton-email-investigation
With elections, I think the result will be the result however many times you run it. When Mike puts up implied chance of something happening I don't think you can interpret it as "something like 30 times out of a hundred something will happen." Yes, there are unknowns and perhaps the FBI will move on Hillary or the GOP will stitch up Trump. But I don't think these variables can be treated like football matches.
I don't care much for Boris, but if the alternative is the smirking Osborne, it's not a tricky choice as to which one to vote for.
YouGov/Times (#EUref, Conservative members):
REMAIN 31
LEAVE 59
N=1,005
Writeup from @SamCoatesTimes https://t.co/Zvkl1euy85
#EUreferendum