politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Super Tuesday: Trump and Clinton didn’t quite get the predi
Comments
-
"Quite well" isn't good enough in a very important swing state. Trump's negatives are horrible with the growing demographics that are burgeoning even more in Virginia as the DC suburbs sprawl out.Pulpstar said:
I thought Trump did quite well in VA. Minnesota seems to be the one dark spot for him.JackW said:
The CNN exit polls says different.taffys said:
For me, Hillary Clinton needs a rainbow coalition of Blacks, hispanics and whites to win what is increasingly an election based on race.JackW said:
It's reflected in the GOP race with Trump the insurgent winner. However there are difficulties for Trump as whilst he brings blue collar white voters to the table some conservatives will sit on their hands in November on account of some of Trump's positions.taffys said:
I saw a poll that showed almost 60% of Republicans feel betrayed by their party. The GOP establishment are essentially completely ignoring those numbers.JackW said:
That's the problem.Wanderer said:Regarding a GOP establishment stitch-up, surely it's a major problem that the establishment isn't united behind the project.
Some establishment figures are pivoting behind Trump but the majority remain horrified that Trump will be the GOP nominee.Their concern is genuine. Not only do they think that Clinton will win but they are also gravely worried about down ticket losses.
I just don't see her stitching that together in the way Obama did. Not in the mood America is in right now. It won;t work.
Clinton won massively with AA and hispanics and her numbers with whites are good. Where she was weaker was with younger voters. However with with Trump as a motivator she will comfortably pull together the Obama coalition together with the WWC that was weaker for Obama.
Worrying for Trump was his poor performance in the swing state of Virginia and also the oft stated target of Minnesota.
Losing Virginia means Trump has to pick up elsewhere. I'm just not seeing it presently.
0 -
Cruz looks a worthwhile trading bet at 25-1. He didn't do badly - thumped Trump in Texas, won two more and came a decent 2nd elsewhere. If he made an effort to seem a bit less extreme - maybe made some polite signals towards Kasich, hinting he might be VP - I could see the establishment swinging behind him. It's not especially probable, but it's also not 25-1!
Not sure any of us know lots of American Democrats (MaxPB seems very confident, does he?), but my understanding of those that I know is that the Sanders camp will swing 90% behind Hillary if and when it comes to it, especially against Trump or Cruz. Neither Clinton nor Sanders has burned any bridges and a harmonious love-feast TV interview to wrap it up at convention time is perfectly feasible.0 -
This could all be avoided if the various Leave groups put their egos to one side and unitedMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Eagles, I am not necessarily overwhelmed with persuasion by that argument.
0 -
Florida; Ohio; Pennsylvania; North Carolina ?JackW said:
"Quite well" isn't good enough in a very important swing state. Trump's negatives are horrible with the growing demographics that are burgeoning even more in Virginia as the DC suburbs sprawl out.Pulpstar said:
I thought Trump did quite well in VA. Minnesota seems to be the one dark spot for him.JackW said:
The CNN exit polls says different.taffys said:
For me, Hillary Clinton needs a rainbow coalition of Blacks, hispanics and whites to win what is increasingly an election based on race.JackW said:
It's reflected in the GOP race with Trump the insurgent winner. However there are difficulties for Trump as whilst he brings blue collar white voters to the table some conservatives will sit on their hands in November on account of some of Trump's positions.taffys said:
I saw a poll that showed almost 60% of Republicans feel betrayed by their party. The GOP establishment are essentially completely ignoring those numbers.JackW said:
That's the problem.Wanderer said:Regarding a GOP establishment stitch-up, surely it's a major problem that the establishment isn't united behind the project.
Some establishment figures are pivoting behind Trump but the majority remain horrified that Trump will be the GOP nominee.Their concern is genuine. Not only do they think that Clinton will win but they are also gravely worried about down ticket losses.
I just don't see her stitching that together in the way Obama did. Not in the mood America is in right now. It won;t work.
Clinton won massively with AA and hispanics and her numbers with whites are good. Where she was weaker was with younger voters. However with with Trump as a motivator she will comfortably pull together the Obama coalition together with the WWC that was weaker for Obama.
Worrying for Trump was his poor performance in the swing state of Virginia and also the oft stated target of Minnesota.
Losing Virginia means Trump has to pick up elsewhere. I'm just not seeing it presently.0 -
Mr. Eagles, quite. And if lawyers weren't politicians we'd probably have a thinner legal code
It's snowing, and I think I just heard thunder. Hmm.0 -
I do like this tweet by Dan Hannan
David Cameron called a referendum with a fair question and franchise, allowing Tories to vote either way. We sceptics should remember that.0 -
I'm not so sure. The party is very polarised at the moment, Bernie supporters really, really loathe Hillary and aspects of the Trump campaign appeal to them. The fact that Hillary's major donors is made up of a list of Wall Street banks while Trump is self funded, the fact that Trump would "speak truth to power" like Bernie while Hillary is as establishment as it gets. The difference between Trump supporters and Bernie supporters is not that large. Trump is already economically closer to Bernie than Hillary, if he moves closer to the centre socially then it is all to play for.OllyT said:MaxPB said:
You would be surprised as to the number of Sanders people who will stay home or vote Trump. They really, really despise Hillary.JackW said:
You think Sanders voters will vote Trump? ....MaxPB said:Hillary winning in red states and Bernie winning in blue states. This does not bode well for her in November.
The nomination game is a whole different matter from the general election. Clinton will mop up Sanders voters virtually en-mass just as Obama did to Clinton in 08.
They might not like Hilary but it is nothing to what they think about Trump - the vast majority will vote Democrat by November I have absolutely no doubt.0 -
MaxPB said:
Because Hillary has a problem in blue states. Winning in deep crimson territory doesn't help her for the real race. Usually a New York liberal such as her would have to be looking at a southern running mate, she is going to need to look to her left to ensure the ticket can pick up liberals in blue states who are voting for Sanders.Pulpstar said:Clinton has actually moved back marginally in the betting, whereas Trump has gone forward in the Nom race and stayed the same for Pres.
Betfair makes very little sense.
Max, seriously, have a look at a site like RCP or 538 and take a look at the polling in the blue states in the event of a Trump v Clinton election. Then tell which blue state you think Clinton will be in trouble in in November. Don't let wishful thinking cloud your judgement!0 -
He is right. If we do vote to Leave then I'd want Osborne to be the fall guy and Dave to stay on as PM with chancellor Gove and Foreign Secretary Boris.TheScreamingEagles said:I do like this tweet by Dan Hannan
David Cameron called a referendum with a fair question and franchise, allowing Tories to vote either way. We sceptics should remember that.0 -
@MrHarryCole: Tory MPs circulating this fascinating PoliticalBetting post. Top line: Osborne "utterly shot" unless remain win BIG: https://t.co/VeiZbGLaBP0
-
That refers to something nearly 6 months old. In some individual states (south carolina for instance) post primary a figure was 50% and its a bit of a loaded question.taffys said:
60% of republicans party feel betrayed by their party. You cannot get away from that number.flightpath01 said:
Correct ... she gave up her political career in deference to Bill. She has already spent 8 years in the white house and 2 I think as new york senator and 4 as SoS.NorfolkTilIDie said:
Similar to the odds of UK PM, Chancellor and Mayor of London all going to the same school. The reason the Clintons met is they both studied law at Yale, which is equivalent of PPE at Oxford. Hillary was always considered to have great political potential.TGOHF said:All a bit dull really - now a one horse race for the presidency.
The most suitable person to run the best country in the world just happens to be the wife of the former President ? What are the odds of that ?
YAWN.
Trump meanwhile has bankrupted his inheritance 4 times and is a loud mouth reality tv star.
How did the republicans get into this mess? Two words? Tea Party.
The same post primary polls show that 43% think that Trump fought the most unfair campaign...
0 -
Dan argung for a United States of Europe????Theuniondivvie said:Can't quite put my finger on what's wrong with this tweet..
Daniel Hannan @DanHannanMEP 6 mins6 minutes ago
There hasn't been a major war in North America since 1847. How on Earth have they managed that without being in the EU?0 -
Pennsylvania.OllyT said:MaxPB said:
Because Hillary has a problem in blue states. Winning in deep crimson territory doesn't help her for the real race. Usually a New York liberal such as her would have to be looking at a southern running mate, she is going to need to look to her left to ensure the ticket can pick up liberals in blue states who are voting for Sanders.Pulpstar said:Clinton has actually moved back marginally in the betting, whereas Trump has gone forward in the Nom race and stayed the same for Pres.
Betfair makes very little sense.
Max, seriously, have a look at a site like RCP or 538 and take a look at the polling in the blue states in the event of a Trump v Clinton election. Then tell which blue state you think Clinton will be in trouble in in November. Don't let wishful thinking cloud your judgement!0 -
Sanders and Trump are the most anti-war of the candidates. Hillary is a warmonger of Blairite proportion.MaxPB said:
I'm not so sure. The party is very polarised at the moment, Bernie supporters really, really loathe Hillary and aspects of the Trump campaign appeal to them. The fact that Hillary's major donors is made up of a list of Wall Street banks while Trump is self funded, the fact that Trump would "speak truth to power" like Bernie while Hillary is as establishment as it gets. The difference between Trump supporters and Bernie supporters is not that large. Trump is already economically closer to Bernie than Hillary, if he moves closer to the centre socially then it is all to play for.OllyT said:MaxPB said:
You would be surprised as to the number of Sanders people who will stay home or vote Trump. They really, really despise Hillary.JackW said:
You think Sanders voters will vote Trump? ....MaxPB said:Hillary winning in red states and Bernie winning in blue states. This does not bode well for her in November.
The nomination game is a whole different matter from the general election. Clinton will mop up Sanders voters virtually en-mass just as Obama did to Clinton in 08.
They might not like Hilary but it is nothing to what they think about Trump - the vast majority will vote Democrat by November I have absolutely no doubt.0 -
Politicians without egos? Name me one. Just one...TheScreamingEagles said:
This could all be avoided if the various Leave groups put their egos to one side and unitedMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Eagles, I am not necessarily overwhelmed with persuasion by that argument.
0 -
This move doesn't make much sense. We are moving into the prime Biden window, as identified by David Herdson. Sanders being well beaten helps Biden, and I don't believe the number of delegates Clinton wins will make any difference to the FBI's conclusions.Pulpstar said:
Betfair doesn' think that either, Biden has gone out to 200s.MonikerDiCanio said:
Maybe they think the FBI will do its duty and arrest Hillary.Pulpstar said:Clinton has actually moved back marginally in the betting, whereas Trump has gone forward in the Nom race and stayed the same for Pres.
Betfair makes very little sense.
As Mike says, it's a long shot. But it feels more like a 12/1 chance than 50/1.0 -
Rubio looks done after last night.0
-
Yes, that's another major one. Bernie supporters are not traditional Dems, they won't all just fall in line because the establishment tells them to after they stitch up the nomination race or Hillary.MonikerDiCanio said:
Sanders and Trump are the most anti-war of the candidates. Hillary is a warmonger of Blairite proportion.MaxPB said:
I'm not so sure. The party is very polarised at the moment, Bernie supporters really, really loathe Hillary and aspects of the Trump campaign appeal to them. The fact that Hillary's major donors is made up of a list of Wall Street banks while Trump is self funded, the fact that Trump would "speak truth to power" like Bernie while Hillary is as establishment as it gets. The difference between Trump supporters and Bernie supporters is not that large. Trump is already economically closer to Bernie than Hillary, if he moves closer to the centre socially then it is all to play for.OllyT said:MaxPB said:
You would be surprised as to the number of Sanders people who will stay home or vote Trump. They really, really despise Hillary.JackW said:
You think Sanders voters will vote Trump? ....MaxPB said:Hillary winning in red states and Bernie winning in blue states. This does not bode well for her in November.
The nomination game is a whole different matter from the general election. Clinton will mop up Sanders voters virtually en-mass just as Obama did to Clinton in 08.
They might not like Hilary but it is nothing to what they think about Trump - the vast majority will vote Democrat by November I have absolutely no doubt.0 -
No it doesn't. I quoted a CBS poll this morning with 57% GOP voters saying they felt betrayed by their Party.flightpath01 said:
That refers to something nearly 6 months old. In some individual states (south carolina for instance) post primary a figure was 50% and its a bit of a loaded question.taffys said:
60% of republicans party feel betrayed by their party. You cannot get away from that number.flightpath01 said:
Correct ... she gave up her political career in deference to Bill. She has already spent 8 years in the white house and 2 I think as new york senator and 4 as SoS.NorfolkTilIDie said:
Similar to the odds of UK PM, Chancellor and Mayor of London all going to the same school. The reason the Clintons met is they both studied law at Yale, which is equivalent of PPE at Oxford. Hillary was always considered to have great political potential.TGOHF said:All a bit dull really - now a one horse race for the presidency.
The most suitable person to run the best country in the world just happens to be the wife of the former President ? What are the odds of that ?
YAWN.
Trump meanwhile has bankrupted his inheritance 4 times and is a loud mouth reality tv star.
How did the republicans get into this mess? Two words? Tea Party.
The same post primary polls show that 43% think that Trump fought the most unfair campaign...0 -
I'd ignore the delegate totals above which are very incomplete.
As far as I can see, out of the 707 delegates decided, including the early states, it's approximately:-
Trump 334
Cruz 228
Rubio 118
Kasich 27
Carson 9
[I know, that totals more than 707, as it looks like some of the super delegates are going to be allocated also by the electoral result]
Versus the polls/model forecast, I make that about.
Trump -50
Cruz +60
Rubio +10
Kasich +10
Carson -30
The model performs well, but the polls were seriously out in a few places. Cruz outperformed significantly in TX and OK, and to some degree in some other southern states. Rubio was slightly underestimated across the board too. Carson came nowhere, and unfortunately his older polls remained in the forecast too long.0 -
No he called a referendum with an unfair question and then after the EC and a lot of back benchers complained, he changed it. There have been other abortive attempts to gerrymander the franchise as well, it doesn't look like the cleanest attempted at consulting the electorate ever attempted.TheScreamingEagles said:I do like this tweet by Dan Hannan
David Cameron called a referendum with a fair question and franchise, allowing Tories to vote either way. We sceptics should remember that.0 -
Harry Cole tweets: Tory MPs circulating this fascinating PoliticalBetting post. Top line: Osborne "utterly shot" unless remain win BIG: http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/02/23/the-impact-of-the-euref-onbetting-on-the-next-con-0
-
I had to read that twice before I grasped quite the level of wrongness in it.Theuniondivvie said:Can't quite put my finger on what's wrong with this tweet..
Daniel Hannan @DanHannanMEP 6 mins6 minutes ago
There hasn't been a major war in North America since 1847. How on Earth have they managed that without being in the EU?
I thought he was supposed to be an intellectual?0 -
The dread thought struck me that the single most important finger-in-air predictor of Republican success at presidential elections over the last 40 years is the amount of liberal incredulity directed towards their nominee. (And one could argue that the exception, Bush snr, rode substantially on Reagan's coat tails)
On that basis, perhaps it is entirely logical that Republican electors are deciding in the way that they are, because Trump should be a shoo in.0 -
I do like the way you confess you are only interested in internal party politics and not europe or rhe country.MaxPB said:
He is right. If we do vote to Leave then I'd want Osborne to be the fall guy and Dave to stay on as PM with chancellor Gove and Foreign Secretary Boris.TheScreamingEagles said:I do like this tweet by Dan Hannan
David Cameron called a referendum with a fair question and franchise, allowing Tories to vote either way. We sceptics should remember that.0 -
I'm sorry but you are re-running the Obama/Clinton themes from 08. Many PBers told me that Clinton voters would not swing behind Obama and Dem turnout would suffer. Wrong big time.MaxPB said:
In your mind, the GOP establishment will never back Trump. I think you underestimate their desire to win after 8 years of Obama. If Trump gives them a shot, which he will, they will take it and get behind him.JackW said:
Utter drivel.MaxPB said:
Indeed, her coalition is nowhere near as broad as Obama's was in '08 and '12. The only group she can really count on is young, single women.taffys said:
For me, Hillary Clinton needs a rainbow coalition of Blacks, hispanics and whites to win what is increasingly an election based on race.JackW said:
It's reflected in the GOP race with Trump the insurgent winner. However there are difficulties for Trump as whilst he brings blue collar white voters to the table some conservatives will sit on their hands in November on account of some of Trump's positions.taffys said:
I saw a poll that showed almost 60% of Republicans feel betrayed by their party. The GOP establishment are essentially completely ignoring those numbers.JackW said:
That's the problem.Wanderer said:Regarding a GOP establishment stitch-up, surely it's a major problem that the establishment isn't united behind the project.
Some establishment figures are pivoting behind Trump but the majority remain horrified that Trump will be the GOP nominee.Their concern is genuine. Not only do they think that Clinton will win but they are also gravely worried about down ticket losses.
I just don't see her stitching that together in the way Obama did. Not in the mood America is in right now. It won;t work.
If Clinton could only count on "young single women" she'd be barely polling double figures. Where do you get this nonsense from?
The difference for the GOP is that Trump isn't from the traditional base and he represents a wrecking ball to much of the GOP. Most of the establishment will eventually fall behind him but a significant minority will be unreconciled to Trump.
However the biggest problem for Trump are his horrible negatives especially with important growing demographics in swing states. Also "Reagan Democrats" are not enough for Trump - they represents less than half the demographic that the "Gipper" pulled in back in the 80's.
0 -
Or even last weekflightpath01 said:
That refers to something nearly 6 months old. In some individual states (south carolina for instance) post primary a figure was 50% and its a bit of a loaded question.taffys said:
60% of republicans party feel betrayed by their party. You cannot get away from that number.flightpath01 said:
Correct ... she gave up her political career in deference to Bill. She has already spent 8 years in the white house and 2 I think as new york senator and 4 as SoS.NorfolkTilIDie said:
Similar to the odds of UK PM, Chancellor and Mayor of London all going to the same school. The reason the Clintons met is they both studied law at Yale, which is equivalent of PPE at Oxford. Hillary was always considered to have great political potential.TGOHF said:All a bit dull really - now a one horse race for the presidency.
The most suitable person to run the best country in the world just happens to be the wife of the former President ? What are the odds of that ?
YAWN.
Trump meanwhile has bankrupted his inheritance 4 times and is a loud mouth reality tv star.
How did the republicans get into this mess? Two words? Tea Party.
The same post primary polls show that 43% think that Trump fought the most unfair campaign...
https://twitter.com/frankthorpNBC/status/7023435858577981440 -
Is like that Daily Express story inside the paper about Josef Fritzl. It was headlinedAlistair said:
I had to read that twice before I grasped quite the level of wrongness in it.Theuniondivvie said:Can't quite put my finger on what's wrong with this tweet..
Daniel Hannan @DanHannanMEP 6 mins6 minutes ago
There hasn't been a major war in North America since 1847. How on Earth have they managed that without being in the EU?
I thought he was supposed to be an intellectual?
'Meet the worst Austrian in history'0 -
-
But they want different things after leaving. If you add the Remainers into the mix of course then we would in all probability Leave to the EEA and clearly there would be little difference to the lives of anybody.TheScreamingEagles said:
This could all be avoided if the various Leave groups put their egos to one side and unitedMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Eagles, I am not necessarily overwhelmed with persuasion by that argument.
The conclusion can only be its ALL about egos and self justification in the Leave camp.0 -
I'm assuming it is a typo - 1847 when it should have been 1867. The Civil War was indeed the only MAJOR war in N. America.0
-
Obama lost NC in 12 so isn't required. PA and OH look unlikely and Trump's hispanic problem is a major handicap in FL.Pulpstar said:
Florida; Ohio; Pennsylvania; North Carolina ?JackW said:
"Quite well" isn't good enough in a very important swing state. Trump's negatives are horrible with the growing demographics that are burgeoning even more in Virginia as the DC suburbs sprawl out.Pulpstar said:
I thought Trump did quite well in VA. Minnesota seems to be the one dark spot for him.JackW said:
The CNN exit polls says different.taffys said:
For me, Hillary Clinton needs a rainbow coalition of Blacks, hispanics and whites to win what is increasingly an election based on race.JackW said:
It's reflected in the GOP race with Trump the insurgent winner. However there are difficulties for Trump as whilst he brings blue collar white voters to the table some conservatives will sit on their hands in November on account of some of Trump's positions.taffys said:
I saw a poll that showed almost 60% of Republicans feel betrayed by their party. The GOP establishment are essentially completely ignoring those numbers.JackW said:
That's the problem.Wanderer said:Regarding a GOP establishment stitch-up, surely it's a major problem that the establishment isn't united behind the project.
Some establishment figures are pivoting behind Trump but the majority remain horrified that Trump will be the GOP nominee.Their concern is genuine. Not only do they think that Clinton will win but they are also gravely worried about down ticket losses.
I just don't see her stitching that together in the way Obama did. Not in the mood America is in right now. It won;t work.
Clinton won massively with AA and hispanics and her numbers with whites are good. Where she was weaker was with younger voters. However with with Trump as a motivator she will comfortably pull together the Obama coalition together with the WWC that was weaker for Obama.
Worrying for Trump was his poor performance in the swing state of Virginia and also the oft stated target of Minnesota.
Losing Virginia means Trump has to pick up elsewhere. I'm just not seeing it presently.
Trump is certainly a motivator but for Clinton as well as himself come November.0 -
Indeed, I admired John Mason for not deleting his tweet at the weekend.Theuniondivvie said:0 -
So Trump got Sarah Palin to fly in and endorse him in Iowa before losing the caucus to Cruz, now he's lost Alaska to Cruz. How many votes did she cost him?0
-
He's spoofing BSE criticising Canada as an alternative model for the UK outside the EU:Alistair said:
I had to read that twice before I grasped quite the level of wrongness in it.Theuniondivvie said:Can't quite put my finger on what's wrong with this tweet..
Daniel Hannan @DanHannanMEP 6 mins6 minutes ago
There hasn't been a major war in North America since 1847. How on Earth have they managed that without being in the EU?
I thought he was supposed to be an intellectual?
https://twitter.com/StrongerIn/status/704971123532894208
Following through their logic, Canada should join the EU (along with virtually everyone else)
That'd be the Canada that's in the top ten economies in the world, and even higher on the UN Human Development Index, a member of NATO, the G8, the Group of Ten, the G20, NAFTA Organisation of American States, and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum.
Oh, and it has full control over migration policy too.0 -
Nope, he was taking the end of the Mexican-American war. Probably looking at a list of foreign military attacks on the USA so left out the teeny tiny American Civil war.Patrick said:I'm assuming it is a typo - 1847 when it should have been 1867. The Civil War was indeed the only MAJOR war in N. America.
Would also mean he skips the Spanish-American war of 1898 as well.0 -
Pennsylvania is always one of the closer run states but the Dems have won it in every Pres Election since 1988. You really think Trump is going to do it this time . I certainly don't.MaxPB said:
Pennsylvania.OllyT said:MaxPB said:
Because Hillary has a problem in blue states. Winning in deep crimson territory doesn't help her for the real race. Usually a New York liberal such as her would have to be looking at a southern running mate, she is going to need to look to her left to ensure the ticket can pick up liberals in blue states who are voting for Sanders.Pulpstar said:Clinton has actually moved back marginally in the betting, whereas Trump has gone forward in the Nom race and stayed the same for Pres.
Betfair makes very little sense.
Max, seriously, have a look at a site like RCP or 538 and take a look at the polling in the blue states in the event of a Trump v Clinton election. Then tell which blue state you think Clinton will be in trouble in in November. Don't let wishful thinking cloud your judgement!
Towards the end of the 2012 election there were a number of articles on Pa saying it was going to be a surprise, and the GOP were pouring in resources. In the end it wasn't a surprise the Democrats won comfortably. With hindsight Pa was the GOPs best hope of a surprise which is very different from it actually being a surprise. Early days but I know where my money would go for 2016.
With Trump as nominee the GOP will have much greater difficulty holding its coalition together in Pa than the Dems. There will be great numbers of young professional republicans in the suburbs around Philadelphia and Pittsburg that will be horrified at the idea of a Trump presidency.0 -
Jack, if you can't see the difference between supporters of the establishment candidate getting behind the insurgent and supporters of the insurgent getting behind the establishment candidate then I'm not sure if this is a discussion worth having. Obama was the insurgent in '08, Sanders the insurgent now. They had/have the backing of the "anti-establishment" types, the party then turning around to them and asking them to support Hillary, no questions asked isn't the same as the other way around. Especially when the opponent, Trump, has the same anti-establishment credentials as Sanders.JackW said:I'm sorry but you are re-running the Obama/Clinton themes from 08. Many PBers told me that Clinton voters would not swing behind Obama and Dem turnout would suffer. Wrong big time.
The difference for the GOP is that Trump isn't from the traditional base and he represents a wrecking ball to much of the GOP. Most of the establishment will eventually fall behind him but a significant minority will be unreconciled to Trump.
However the biggest problem for Trump are his horrible negatives especially with important growing demographics in swing states. Also "Reagan Democrats" are not enough for Trump - they represents less than half the demographic that the "Gipper" pulled in back in the 80's.0 -
Who determined the 2 letter shorthand for american states. What is it for Hawaii?JackW said:
Obama lost NC in 12 so isn't required. PA and OH look unlikely and Trump's hispanic problem is a major handicap in FL.Pulpstar said:
Florida; Ohio; Pennsylvania; North Carolina ?JackW said:
"Quite well" isn't good enough in a very important swing state. Trump's negatives are horrible with the growing demographics that are burgeoning even more in Virginia as the DC suburbs sprawl out.Pulpstar said:
I thought Trump did quite well in VA. Minnesota seems to be the one dark spot for him.JackW said:
The CNN exit polls says different.taffys said:
For me, Hillary Clinton needs a rainbow coalition of Blacks, hispanics and whites to win what is increasingly an election based on race.JackW said:
It's reflected in the GOP race with Trump the insurgent winner. However there are difficulties for Trump as whilst he brings blue collar white voters to the table some conservatives will sit on their hands in November on account of some of Trump's positions.taffys said:
I saw a poll that showed almost 60% of Republicans feel betrayed by their party. The GOP establishment are essentially completely ignoring those numbers.JackW said:
That's the problem.Wanderer said:Regarding a GOP establishment stitch-up, surely it's a major problem that the establishment isn't united behind the project.
Some establishment figures are pivoting behind Trump but the majority remain horrified that Trump will be the GOP nominee.Their concern is genuine. Not only do they think that Clinton will win but they are also gravely worried about down ticket losses.
I just don't see her stitching that together in the way Obama did. Not in the mood America is in right now. It won;t work.
Clinton won massively with AA and hispanics and her numbers with whites are good. Where she was weaker was with younger voters. However with with Trump as a motivator she will comfortably pull together the Obama coalition together with the WWC that was weaker for Obama.
Worrying for Trump was his poor performance in the swing state of Virginia and also the oft stated target of Minnesota.
Losing Virginia means Trump has to pick up elsewhere. I'm just not seeing it presently.
Trump is certainly a motivator but for Clinton as well as himself come November.0 -
I'd love to know how Jeb is 950/1000. Must be someone doing some book balancing.0
-
Sanders is "done" to a turn.Pulpstar said:
I disagree, I 'll have to do some maths but I think Sanders looks done actually.DanSmith said:Rubio looks done after last night.
Apart from the huge disparity in the delegate count, including Super Delegates, the upcoming states are in the main states where Clinton will rack up big numbers.
Sanders will stay in the race to ensure influence with the convention platforms.0 -
Rubio into 6-1. How much money are some people losing on this thing.0
-
Best not get your Lilacs & Peaches mixed up when you're 'in the Ballot Box':
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sm9O1gOuYRM&feature=youtu.be&app=desktop0 -
Oh, the threats to move to Canada have started - from BBC live feed:
"Americans threaten to 'move to Canada'
It's become a bit of a tradition on Super Tuesday, and Americans are once again threatening to “move to Canada” if a candidate they dislike wins the US presidency. Canadian broadcaster CTV News says it's unclear how many Americans actually follow through on such threats, but Canada saw a 20% year-on-year increase in new residents from the US in 2005, the year after Republican George Bush won re-election."0 -
Trump is no Gipper.JackW said:
I'm sorry but you are re-running the Obama/Clinton themes from 08. Many PBers told me that Clinton voters would not swing behind Obama and Dem turnout would suffer. Wrong big time.MaxPB said:
In your mind, the GOP establishment will never back Trump. I think you underestimate their desire to win after 8 years of Obama. If Trump gives them a shot, which he will, they will take it and get behind him.JackW said:
Utter drivel.MaxPB said:
Indeed, her coalition is nowhere near as broad as Obama's was in '08 and '12. The only group she can really count on is young, single women.taffys said:
For me, Hillary Clinton needs a rainbow coalition of Blacks, hispanics and whites to win what is increasingly an election based on race.JackW said:
It's reflected in the GOP race with Trump the insurgent winner. However there are difficulties for Trump as whilst he brings blue collar white voters to the table some conservatives will sit on their hands in November on account of some of Trump's positions.taffys said:
I saw a poll that showed almost 60% of Republicans feel betrayed by their party. The GOP establishment are essentially completely ignoring those numbers.JackW said:
That's the problem.Wanderer said:Regarding a GOP establishment stitch-up, surely it's a major problem that the establishment isn't united behind the project.
Some establishment figures are pivoting behind Trump but the majority remain horrified that Trump will be the GOP nominee.Their concern is genuine. Not only do they think that Clinton will win but they are also gravely worried about down ticket losses.
I just don't see her stitching that together in the way Obama did. Not in the mood America is in right now. It won;t work.
If Clinton could only count on "young single women" she'd be barely polling double figures. Where do you get this nonsense from?
The difference for the GOP is that Trump isn't from the traditional base and he represents a wrecking ball to much of the GOP. Most of the establishment will eventually fall behind him but a significant minority will be unreconciled to Trump.
However the biggest problem for Trump are his horrible negatives especially with important growing demographics in swing states. Also "Reagan Democrats" are not enough for Trump - they represents less than half the demographic that the "Gipper" pulled in back in the 80's.
0 -
I laid a trap on here once, changing something Cameron said to make it look as though Farage had said it, to see who was obviously playing the man not the ballTheuniondivvie said:
It was one of the first comments on a new thread... @Scrapheap_as_was will remember it
5 minutes later, after the trap had worked, the thread was deleted, flushed down the memory hole forever along with all the evidence...0 -
https://twitter.com/jamesaalongman/status/704976104952602625Casino_Royale said:Oh, the threats to move to Canada have started - from BBC live feed:
"Americans threaten to 'move to Canada'0 -
Again, getting the establishment to support the insurgent candidate is easy, they still want to win. A GOP POTUS is better than any Dem POTUS. You are also discounting the very real possibility that Trump will shift to the centre once he gets the nomination, that will ease a lot of the concern among centrist GOP supporters. Hillary can't become the anti-establishment candidate, Trump can move to the centre.OllyT said:
Pennsylvania is always one of the closer run states but the Dems have won it in every Pres Election since 1988. You really think Trump is going to do it this time . I certainly don't.MaxPB said:
Pennsylvania.OllyT said:MaxPB said:
Because Hillary has a problem in blue states. Winning in deep crimson territory doesn't help her for the real race. Usually a New York liberal such as her would have to be looking at a southern running mate, she is going to need to look to her left to ensure the ticket can pick up liberals in blue states who are voting for Sanders.Pulpstar said:Clinton has actually moved back marginally in the betting, whereas Trump has gone forward in the Nom race and stayed the same for Pres.
Betfair makes very little sense.
Max, seriously, have a look at a site like RCP or 538 and take a look at the polling in the blue states in the event of a Trump v Clinton election. Then tell which blue state you think Clinton will be in trouble in in November. Don't let wishful thinking cloud your judgement!
Towards the end of the 2012 election there were a number of articles on Pa saying it was going to be a surprise, and the GOP were pouring in resources. In the end it wasn't a surprise the Democrats won comfortably. With hindsight Pa was the GOPs best hope of a surprise which is very different from it actually being a surprise. Early days but I know where my money would go for 2016.
With Trump as nominee the GOP will have much greater difficulty holding its coalition together in Pa than the Dems. There will be great numbers of young professional republicans in the suburbs around Philadelphia and Pittsburg that will be horrified at the idea of a Trump presidency.0 -
Sanders voters 2016 are very similar in demographics to Howard Dean voters in 2004. Dean primary voters backed the Democrat in overwhelming numbers in the GE as I recall. I doubt Sanders will be much different.MaxPB said:
Yes, that's another major one. Bernie supporters are not traditional Dems, they won't all just fall in line because the establishment tells them to after they stitch up the nomination race or Hillary.MonikerDiCanio said:
Sanders and Trump are the most anti-war of the candidates. Hillary is a warmonger of Blairite proportion.MaxPB said:
I'm not so sure. The party is very polarised at the moment, Bernie supporters really, really loathe Hillary and aspects of the Trump campaign appeal to them. The fact that Hillary's major donors is made up of a list of Wall Street banks while Trump is self funded, the fact that Trump would "speak truth to power" like Bernie while Hillary is as establishment as it gets. The difference between Trump supporters and Bernie supporters is not that large. Trump is already economically closer to Bernie than Hillary, if he moves closer to the centre socially then it is all to play for.OllyT said:MaxPB said:
You would be surprised as to the number of Sanders people who will stay home or vote Trump. They really, really despise Hillary.JackW said:
You think Sanders voters will vote Trump? ....MaxPB said:Hillary winning in red states and Bernie winning in blue states. This does not bode well for her in November.
The nomination game is a whole different matter from the general election. Clinton will mop up Sanders voters virtually en-mass just as Obama did to Clinton in 08.
They might not like Hilary but it is nothing to what they think about Trump - the vast majority will vote Democrat by November I have absolutely no doubt.0 -
Interesting. Piers Morgan is a fan:
"Piers Morgan, who has known Donald Trump for 10 years, tells the BBC Radio 4's Today programme the Republican presidential candidate as someone "pretty smart" with "warmth", "good humour" and a "sense of perspective".
The TV presenter also thinks that Trump's controversial comments are just to "grab media attention"."0 -
Do you think?JackW said:
Sanders is "done" to a turn.Pulpstar said:
I disagree, I 'll have to do some maths but I think Sanders looks done actually.DanSmith said:Rubio looks done after last night.
Apart from the huge disparity in the delegate count, including Super Delegates, the upcoming states are in the main states where Clinton will rack up big numbers.
[snip].
On Saturday, she'll score big in Louisiana but Sanders ought to be looking at Kansas and Nebraska as places where he could at least be competitive.
Then next Tuesday, Hillary will gain another big win in Mississippi but Maine ought to be a Sanders win and Michigan a state where he's within sight at least.
There's no way he can win overall but he does have a bit of an opportunity this next week to dent her procession towards Philadelphia.0 -
Casino_Royale said:
He's spoofing BSE criticising Canada as an alternative model for the UK outside the EU:.Alistair said:
I had to read that twice before I grasped quite the level of wrongness in it.Theuniondivvie said:Can't quite put my finger on what's wrong with this tweet..
Daniel Hannan @DanHannanMEP 6 mins6 minutes ago
There hasn't been a major war in North America since 1847. How on Earth have they managed that without being in the EU?
I thought he was supposed to be an intellectual?
At least someone is spelling out what the alternatives might be......Hardly REMAIN's job to make them look attractive......0 -
Indeed. I had thought of criticising Hannans brain power but decided against it. I can however honestly say I only read it the once to understand its stupidity.Alistair said:
I had to read that twice before I grasped quite the level of wrongness in it.Theuniondivvie said:Can't quite put my finger on what's wrong with this tweet..
Daniel Hannan @DanHannanMEP 6 mins6 minutes ago
There hasn't been a major war in North America since 1847. How on Earth have they managed that without being in the EU?
I thought he was supposed to be an intellectual?0 -
Also, what about the ground game? I can't see the establishment GOP swinging to far behind a Trump run and getting people organized out on the door knockers. They will concentrate on trying to save 'down-ticket' candidates.OllyT said:
Pennsylvania is always one of the closer run states but the Dems have won it in every Pres Election since 1988. You really think Trump is going to do it this time . I certainly don't.MaxPB said:
Pennsylvania.OllyT said:MaxPB said:
Because Hillary has a problem in blue states. Winning in deep crimson territory doesn't help her for the real race. Usually a New York liberal such as her would have to be looking at a southern running mate, she is going to need to look to her left to ensure the ticket can pick up liberals in blue states who are voting for Sanders.Pulpstar said:Clinton has actually moved back marginally in the betting, whereas Trump has gone forward in the Nom race and stayed the same for Pres.
Betfair makes very little sense.
Max, seriously, have a look at a site like RCP or 538 and take a look at the polling in the blue states in the event of a Trump v Clinton election. Then tell which blue state you think Clinton will be in trouble in in November. Don't let wishful thinking cloud your judgement!
Towards the end of the 2012 election there were a number of articles on Pa saying it was going to be a surprise, and the GOP were pouring in resources. In the end it wasn't a surprise the Democrats won comfortably. With hindsight Pa was the GOPs best hope of a surprise which is very different from it actually being a surprise. Early days but I know where my money would go for 2016.
With Trump as nominee the GOP will have much greater difficulty holding its coalition together in Pa than the Dems. There will be great numbers of young professional republicans in the suburbs around Philadelphia and Pittsburg that will be horrified at the idea of a Trump presidency.0 -
How soft in the head are these people?Casino_Royale said:Oh, the threats to move to Canada have started - from BBC live feed:
"Americans threaten to 'move to Canada'
It's become a bit of a tradition on Super Tuesday, and Americans are once again threatening to “move to Canada” if a candidate they dislike wins the US presidency. Canadian broadcaster CTV News says it's unclear how many Americans actually follow through on such threats, but Canada saw a 20% year-on-year increase in new residents from the US in 2005, the year after Republican George Bush won re-election."0 -
At least the Cruz-Rubio disparity has become a bit more sane. A week ago Rubio was about 3.4 and Cruz about 70!Pulpstar said:Rubio into 6-1. How much money are some people losing on this thing.
0 -
Trump's protectionist agenda might play well in PA and OH.
Is MN a bit different to those two, richer a bit more white collar ?0 -
LOL. 10 our of 10 to BSE for bare faced audacityCasino_Royale said:
He's spoofing BSE criticising Canada as an alternative model for the UK outside the EU:Alistair said:
I had to read that twice before I grasped quite the level of wrongness in it.Theuniondivvie said:Can't quite put my finger on what's wrong with this tweet..
Daniel Hannan @DanHannanMEP 6 mins6 minutes ago
There hasn't been a major war in North America since 1847. How on Earth have they managed that without being in the EU?
I thought he was supposed to be an intellectual?
https://twitter.com/StrongerIn/status/704971123532894208
Following through their logic, Canada should join the EU (along with virtually everyone else)
That'd be the Canada that's in the top ten economies in the world, and even higher on the UN Human Development Index, a member of NATO, the G8, the Group of Ten, the G20, NAFTA Organisation of American States, and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum.
Oh, and it has full control over migration policy too.
I suppose the message from that poster is that if you are going to lie then lie big.
Utter bollocks would be too polite a way to describe their claims.0 -
@Scott_P - and how many follow through on it?
"When you go into the ballot box?"CarlottaVance said:Best not get your Lilacs & Peaches mixed up when you're 'in the Ballot Box':
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sm9O1gOuYRM&feature=youtu.be&app=desktop
The far-left trying to rig the election as usual.0 -
Casino_Royale said:
He's spoofing BSE criticising Canada as an alternative model for the UK outside the EU:Alistair said:
I had to read that twice before I grasped quite the level of wrongness in it.Theuniondivvie said:Can't quite put my finger on what's wrong with this tweet..
Daniel Hannan @DanHannanMEP 6 mins6 minutes ago
There hasn't been a major war in North America since 1847. How on Earth have they managed that without being in the EU?
I thought he was supposed to be an intellectual?
https://twitter.com/StrongerIn/status/704971123532894208
Following through their logic, Canada should join the EU (along with virtually everyone else)
That'd be the Canada that's in the top ten economies in the world, and even higher on the UN Human Development Index, a member of NATO, the G8, the Group of Ten, the G20, NAFTA Organisation of American States, and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum.
Oh, and it has full control over migration policy too.
I was aware of it but I think it's going to come as something of a shock to many LEAVERS that Norway & Switzerland pay into the EU budget and have freedom of movement!0 -
I did a 50 50 swap at Cruz 40; Rubio 4 or something like that.Richard_Nabavi said:
At least the Cruz-Rubio disparity has become a bit more sane. A week ago Rubio was about 3.4 and Cruz about 70!Pulpstar said:Rubio into 6-1. How much money are some people losing on this thing.
0 -
Actually that's a very fair summary of the four options.Richard_Tyndall said:LOL. 10 our of 10 to BSE for bare faced audacity
I suppose the message from that poster is that if you are going to lie then lie big.
Utter bollocks would be too polite a way to describe their claims.0 -
Mr. T, perhaps. Judging by media coverage, it'll surprise some Remainians that it's possible to be outside the EU but still go there on holiday.0
-
Can they refuse free health treatment and welfare payments for non Norwegians and Swiss?OllyT said:Casino_Royale said:
He's spoofing BSE criticising Canada as an alternative model for the UK outside the EU:Alistair said:
I had to read that twice before I grasped quite the level of wrongness in it.Theuniondivvie said:Can't quite put my finger on what's wrong with this tweet..
Daniel Hannan @DanHannanMEP 6 mins6 minutes ago
There hasn't been a major war in North America since 1847. How on Earth have they managed that without being in the EU?
I thought he was supposed to be an intellectual?
https://twitter.com/StrongerIn/status/704971123532894208
Following through their logic, Canada should join the EU (along with virtually everyone else)
That'd be the Canada that's in the top ten economies in the world, and even higher on the UN Human Development Index, a member of NATO, the G8, the Group of Ten, the G20, NAFTA Organisation of American States, and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum.
Oh, and it has full control over migration policy too.
I was aware of it but I think it's going to come as something of a shock to many LEAVERS that Norway & Switzerland pay into the EU budget and have freedom of movement!0 -
Of course Obama was the insurgent candidate in 08. But an insurgent from the mainstream of the party. Sanders is an insurgent but again from within the party.MaxPB said:
Jack, if you can't see the difference between supporters of the establishment candidate getting behind the insurgent and supporters of the insurgent getting behind the establishment candidate then I'm not sure if this is a discussion worth having. Obama was the insurgent in '08, Sanders the insurgent now. They had/have the backing of the "anti-establishment" types, the party then turning around to them and asking them to support Hillary, no questions asked isn't the same as the other way around. Especially when the opponent, Trump, has the same anti-establishment credentials as Sanders.JackW said:I'm sorry but you are re-running the Obama/Clinton themes from 08. Many PBers told me that Clinton voters would not swing behind Obama and Dem turnout would suffer. Wrong big time.
The difference for the GOP is that Trump isn't from the traditional base and he represents a wrecking ball to much of the GOP. Most of the establishment will eventually fall behind him but a significant minority will be unreconciled to Trump.
However the biggest problem for Trump are his horrible negatives especially with important growing demographics in swing states. Also "Reagan Democrats" are not enough for Trump - they represents less than half the demographic that the "Gipper" pulled in back in the 80's.
Trump is the insurgent but certainly not from the mainstream, which is one of his strengths but also a significant weakness for some in the GOP.
The GOP establishment are desperate for the win in November. So why are they equally desperate for Trump not to be the candidate. No prizes for the answer !!0 -
@OllyT - we know that.
Incidentally, FYI, Switzerland has voted against freedom of movement and is in negotiations with the EU at the moment.0 -
Not if you are a First Nations American, or are we gently brushing genocidal wars of extermination under the carpet?Patrick said:I'm assuming it is a typo - 1847 when it should have been 1867. The Civil War was indeed the only MAJOR war in N. America.
0 -
Can anyone remind of the name of the guy who ramped mercilessly for Romney right till the end in 2012 and was never heard of again after November? I am beginning to think he might have returned under another name!!.0
-
@RichardTyndall - Australia/New Zealand/USA/China/Japan:
Must obey EU rules with no say or veto.
Access to single market restricted.
Has to pay tarrifs and obey quotas.
Everyone should join the EU.0 -
They'll change their mind once BSE tells them how awful their relationship with the EU is.Casino_Royale said:Oh, the threats to move to Canada have started - from BBC live feed:
"Americans threaten to 'move to Canada'
It's become a bit of a tradition on Super Tuesday, and Americans are once again threatening to “move to Canada” if a candidate they dislike wins the US presidency. Canadian broadcaster CTV News says it's unclear how many Americans actually follow through on such threats, but Canada saw a 20% year-on-year increase in new residents from the US in 2005, the year after Republican George Bush won re-election."
0 -
Bring it on. I'd love to be like Canada.CarlottaVance said:Casino_Royale said:
He's spoofing BSE criticising Canada as an alternative model for the UK outside the EU:.Alistair said:
I had to read that twice before I grasped quite the level of wrongness in it.Theuniondivvie said:Can't quite put my finger on what's wrong with this tweet..
Daniel Hannan @DanHannanMEP 6 mins6 minutes ago
There hasn't been a major war in North America since 1847. How on Earth have they managed that without being in the EU?
I thought he was supposed to be an intellectual?
At least someone is spelling out what the alternatives might be......Hardly REMAIN's job to make them look attractive......0 -
The irony is that they'd have had a very good chance against Hillary with a decent candidate, and they started with a field containing several better-than-average possibilities.JackW said:The GOP establishment are desperate for the win in November. So why are they equally desperate for Trump not to be the candidate. No prizes for the answer !!
0 -
Stuart 'nothing but the' Truth, I think.OllyT said:Can anyone remind of the name of the guy who ramped mercilessly for Romney right till the end in 2012 and was never heard of again after November? I am beginning to think he might have returned under another name!!.
0 -
Perhaps the GOP establishment is stupid.JackW said:
Of course Obama was the insurgent candidate in 08. But an insurgent from the mainstream of the party. Sanders is an insurgent but again from within the party.MaxPB said:
Jack, if you can't see the difference between supporters of the establishment candidate getting behind the insurgent and supporters of the insurgent getting behind the establishment candidate then I'm not sure if this is a discussion worth having. Obama was the insurgent in '08, Sanders the insurgent now. They had/have the backing of the "anti-establishment" types, the party then turning around to them and asking them to support Hillary, no questions asked isn't the same as the other way around. Especially when the opponent, Trump, has the same anti-establishment credentials as Sanders.JackW said:I'm sorry but you are re-running the Obama/Clinton themes from 08. Many PBers told me that Clinton voters would not swing behind Obama and Dem turnout would suffer. Wrong big time.
The difference for the GOP is that Trump isn't from the traditional base and he represents a wrecking ball to much of the GOP. Most of the establishment will eventually fall behind him but a significant minority will be unreconciled to Trump.
However the biggest problem for Trump are his horrible negatives especially with important growing demographics in swing states. Also "Reagan Democrats" are not enough for Trump - they represents less than half the demographic that the "Gipper" pulled in back in the 80's.
Trump is the insurgent but certainly not from the mainstream, which is one of his strengths but also a significant weakness for some in the GOP.
The GOP establishment are desperate for the win in November. So why are they equally desperate for Trump not to be the candidate. No prizes for the answer !!0 -
I couldn't see what was specifically wrong with those but on the politics, if there's something your opponent is trying to avoid talking about, you can make bold, dubious claims about it. If they don't engage then you get away with it, if they do then everybody's talking about what you want them to be talking about.Richard_Tyndall said:
LOL. 10 our of 10 to BSE for bare faced audacityCasino_Royale said:
He's spoofing BSE criticising Canada as an alternative model for the UK outside the EU:Alistair said:
I had to read that twice before I grasped quite the level of wrongness in it.Theuniondivvie said:Can't quite put my finger on what's wrong with this tweet..
Daniel Hannan @DanHannanMEP 6 mins6 minutes ago
There hasn't been a major war in North America since 1847. How on Earth have they managed that without being in the EU?
I thought he was supposed to be an intellectual?
https://twitter.com/StrongerIn/status/704971123532894208
Following through their logic, Canada should join the EU (along with virtually everyone else)
That'd be the Canada that's in the top ten economies in the world, and even higher on the UN Human Development Index, a member of NATO, the G8, the Group of Ten, the G20, NAFTA Organisation of American States, and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum.
Oh, and it has full control over migration policy too.
I suppose the message from that poster is that if you are going to lie then lie big.
Utter bollocks would be too polite a way to describe their claims.0 -
The Dems will have a goldmine of Trump quotes from the primaries that will be replayed endlessly in the attack ads. No one will take any attempts for him to be seen as a centrist seriously.MaxPB said:
Again, getting the establishment to support the insurgent candidate is easy, they still want to win. A GOP POTUS is better than any Dem POTUS. You are also discounting the very real possibility that Trump will shift to the centre once he gets the nomination, that will ease a lot of the concern among centrist GOP supporters. Hillary can't become the anti-establishment candidate, Trump can move to the centre.OllyT said:
Pennsylvania is always one of the closer run states but the Dems have won it in every Pres Election since 1988. You really think Trump is going to do it this time . I certainly don't.MaxPB said:
Pennsylvania.OllyT said:MaxPB said:
Because Hillary has a problem in blue states. Winning in deep crimson territory doesn't help her for the real race. Usually a New York liberal such as her would have to be looking at a southern running mate, she is going to need to look to her left to ensure the ticket can pick up liberals in blue states who are voting for Sanders.Pulpstar said:Clinton has actually moved back marginally in the betting, whereas Trump has gone forward in the Nom race and stayed the same for Pres.
Betfair makes very little sense.
Max, seriously, have a look at a site like RCP or 538 and take a look at the polling in the blue states in the event of a Trump v Clinton election. Then tell which blue state you think Clinton will be in trouble in in November. Don't let wishful thinking cloud your judgement!
Towards the end of the 2012 election there were a number of articles on Pa saying it was going to be a surprise, and the GOP were pouring in resources. In the end it wasn't a surprise the Democrats won comfortably. With hindsight Pa was the GOPs best hope of a surprise which is very different from it actually being a surprise. Early days but I know where my money would go for 2016.
With Trump as nominee the GOP will have much greater difficulty holding its coalition together in Pa than the Dems. There will be great numbers of young professional republicans in the suburbs around Philadelphia and Pittsburg that will be horrified at the idea of a Trump presidency.0 -
Cromwell must have deep pockets to be supporting that Rubio price.OllyT said:Can anyone remind of the name of the guy who ramped mercilessly for Romney right till the end in 2012 and was never heard of again after November? I am beginning to think he might have returned under another name!!.
0 -
0
-
Yes. Of course it can be argued that if there were an obvious winner among the other candidates they would already be beating Trump. If you stitch it up for Rubio you are achieving what? Outraging Trump's supporters in favour of someone who came fifth in New Hampshire.JackW said:
Of course Obama was the insurgent candidate in 08. But an insurgent from the mainstream of the party. Sanders is an insurgent but again from within the party.MaxPB said:
Jack, if you can't see the difference between supporters of the establishment candidate getting behind the insurgent and supporters of the insurgent getting behind the establishment candidate then I'm not sure if this is a discussion worth having. Obama was the insurgent in '08, Sanders the insurgent now. They had/have the backing of the "anti-establishment" types, the party then turning around to them and asking them to support Hillary, no questions asked isn't the same as the other way around. Especially when the opponent, Trump, has the same anti-establishment credentials as Sanders.JackW said:I'm sorry but you are re-running the Obama/Clinton themes from 08. Many PBers told me that Clinton voters would not swing behind Obama and Dem turnout would suffer. Wrong big time.
The difference for the GOP is that Trump isn't from the traditional base and he represents a wrecking ball to much of the GOP. Most of the establishment will eventually fall behind him but a significant minority will be unreconciled to Trump.
However the biggest problem for Trump are his horrible negatives especially with important growing demographics in swing states. Also "Reagan Democrats" are not enough for Trump - they represents less than half the demographic that the "Gipper" pulled in back in the 80's.
Trump is the insurgent but certainly not from the mainstream, which is one of his strengths but also a significant weakness for some in the GOP.
The GOP establishment are desperate for the win in November. So why are they equally desperate for Trump not to be the candidate. No prizes for the answer !!0 -
chris_g00 as wellTheuniondivvie said:
Stuart 'nothing but the' Truth, I think.OllyT said:Can anyone remind of the name of the guy who ramped mercilessly for Romney right till the end in 2012 and was never heard of again after November? I am beginning to think he might have returned under another name!!.
0 -
The best strategy for Leave is to push Remain onto the defensive by making bold claims about what staying in the EU could mean.edmundintokyo said:
I couldn't see what was specifically wrong with those but on the politics, if there's something your opponent is trying to avoid talking about, you can make bold, dubious claims about it. If they don't engage then you get away with it, if they do then everybody's talking about what you want them to be talking about.Richard_Tyndall said:
LOL. 10 our of 10 to BSE for bare faced audacityCasino_Royale said:
He's spoofing BSE criticising Canada as an alternative model for the UK outside the EU:Alistair said:
I had to read that twice before I grasped quite the level of wrongness in it.Theuniondivvie said:Can't quite put my finger on what's wrong with this tweet..
Daniel Hannan @DanHannanMEP 6 mins6 minutes ago
There hasn't been a major war in North America since 1847. How on Earth have they managed that without being in the EU?
I thought he was supposed to be an intellectual?
https://twitter.com/StrongerIn/status/704971123532894208
Following through their logic, Canada should join the EU (along with virtually everyone else)
That'd be the Canada that's in the top ten economies in the world, and even higher on the UN Human Development Index, a member of NATO, the G8, the Group of Ten, the G20, NAFTA Organisation of American States, and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum.
Oh, and it has full control over migration policy too.
I suppose the message from that poster is that if you are going to lie then lie big.
Utter bollocks would be too polite a way to describe their claims.
And to then make the vote a vote of confidence in the EU.0 -
The only misleading thing is that it doesn't make clear that Canada's obligation to obey EU rules only applies to exports to the EU. Otherwise it's accurate, if necessarily a bit simplified.edmundintokyo said:I couldn't see what was specifically wrong with those but on the politics, if there's something your opponent is trying to avoid talking about, you can make bold, dubious claims about it. If they don't engage then you get away with it, if they do then everybody's talking about what you want them to be talking about.
0 -
The uncharitable of a cynical disposition might suggest that the lack of specificity on the part of the LEAVE campaign and some LEAVErs is not accidental......OllyT said:Casino_Royale said:
He's spoofing BSE criticising Canada as an alternative model for the UK outside the EU:Alistair said:
I had to read that twice before I grasped quite the level of wrongness in it.Theuniondivvie said:Can't quite put my finger on what's wrong with this tweet..
Daniel Hannan @DanHannanMEP 6 mins6 minutes ago
There hasn't been a major war in North America since 1847. How on Earth have they managed that without being in the EU?
I thought he was supposed to be an intellectual?
https://twitter.com/StrongerIn/status/704971123532894208
Following through their logic, Canada should join the EU (along with virtually everyone else)
That'd be the Canada that's in the top ten economies in the world, and even higher on the UN Human Development Index, a member of NATO, the G8, the Group of Ten, the G20, NAFTA Organisation of American States, and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum.
Oh, and it has full control over migration policy too.
I was aware of it but I think it's going to come as something of a shock to many LEAVERS that Norway & Switzerland pay into the EU budget and have freedom of movement!0 -
Nice attempt at deflection!isam said:
Can they refuse free health treatment and welfare payments for non Norwegians and Swiss?OllyT said:Casino_Royale said:
He's spoofing BSE criticising Canada as an alternative model for the UK outside the EU:Alistair said:
I had to read that twice before I grasped quite the level of wrongness in it.Theuniondivvie said:Can't quite put my finger on what's wrong with this tweet..
Daniel Hannan @DanHannanMEP 6 mins6 minutes ago
There hasn't been a major war in North America since 1847. How on Earth have they managed that without being in the EU?
I thought he was supposed to be an intellectual?
https://twitter.com/StrongerIn/status/704971123532894208
Following through their logic, Canada should join the EU (along with virtually everyone else)
That'd be the Canada that's in the top ten economies in the world, and even higher on the UN Human Development Index, a member of NATO, the G8, the Group of Ten, the G20, NAFTA Organisation of American States, and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum.
Oh, and it has full control over migration policy too.
I was aware of it but I think it's going to come as something of a shock to many LEAVERS that Norway & Switzerland pay into the EU budget and have freedom of movement!0 -
Looks like Texas will split C102:T48:R50
-
What is specifically wrong for a start is the claim that Norway has no input and no veto on EU legislation applied to it. It is an outright lie.edmundintokyo said:
I couldn't see what was specifically wrong with those but on the politics, if there's something your opponent is trying to avoid talking about, you can make bold, dubious claims about it. If they don't engage then you get away with it, if they do then everybody's talking about what you want them to be talking about.Richard_Tyndall said:
LOL. 10 our of 10 to BSE for bare faced audacityCasino_Royale said:
He's spoofing BSE criticising Canada as an alternative model for the UK outside the EU:Alistair said:
I had to read that twice before I grasped quite the level of wrongness in it.Theuniondivvie said:Can't quite put my finger on what's wrong with this tweet..
Daniel Hannan @DanHannanMEP 6 mins6 minutes ago
There hasn't been a major war in North America since 1847. How on Earth have they managed that without being in the EU?
I thought he was supposed to be an intellectual?
https://twitter.com/StrongerIn/status/704971123532894208
Following through their logic, Canada should join the EU (along with virtually everyone else)
That'd be the Canada that's in the top ten economies in the world, and even higher on the UN Human Development Index, a member of NATO, the G8, the Group of Ten, the G20, NAFTA Organisation of American States, and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum.
Oh, and it has full control over migration policy too.
I suppose the message from that poster is that if you are going to lie then lie big.
Utter bollocks would be too polite a way to describe their claims.
0 -
I hope Nicola doesn't find out...chestnut said:More SNP tax rises on property
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-35702374
https://twitter.com/kdugdalemsp/status/7049742090265313280 -
God no.Casino_Royale said:
Bring it on. I'd love to be like Canada.CarlottaVance said:Casino_Royale said:
He's spoofing BSE criticising Canada as an alternative model for the UK outside the EU:.Alistair said:
I had to read that twice before I grasped quite the level of wrongness in it.Theuniondivvie said:Can't quite put my finger on what's wrong with this tweet..
Daniel Hannan @DanHannanMEP 6 mins6 minutes ago
There hasn't been a major war in North America since 1847. How on Earth have they managed that without being in the EU?
I thought he was supposed to be an intellectual?
At least someone is spelling out what the alternatives might be......Hardly REMAIN's job to make them look attractive......
They've got French minority separatists ruining it for everybody else.
You want the UK to have more Frenchie pains in the arse?
I must question if you truly are an Englishman/Brit?0 -
Bollocks.Richard_Nabavi said:
Actually that's a very fair summary of the four options.Richard_Tyndall said:LOL. 10 our of 10 to BSE for bare faced audacity
I suppose the message from that poster is that if you are going to lie then lie big.
Utter bollocks would be too polite a way to describe their claims.0 -
Lindsey Graham on CBS just now: "we may be in a position where we have to rally around Ted Cruz."0
-
You mean the same Bernie Sanders who was an independent until late last year and the same Bernie Sanders who refused to join the party for his whole political career until he had to. He is from within the party? Really, Jack?JackW said:
Of course Obama was the insurgent candidate in 08. But an insurgent from the mainstream of the party. Sanders is an insurgent but again from within the party.MaxPB said:
Jack, if you can't see the difference between supporters of the establishment candidate getting behind the insurgent and supporters of the insurgent getting behind the establishment candidate then I'm not sure if this is a discussion worth having. Obama was the insurgent in '08, Sanders the insurgent now. They had/have the backing of the "anti-establishment" types, the party then turning around to them and asking them to support Hillary, no questions asked isn't the same as the other way around. Especially when the opponent, Trump, has the same anti-establishment credentials as Sanders.JackW said:I'm sorry but you are re-running the Obama/Clinton themes from 08. Many PBers told me that Clinton voters would not swing behind Obama and Dem turnout would suffer. Wrong big time.
The difference for the GOP is that Trump isn't from the traditional base and he represents a wrecking ball to much of the GOP. Most of the establishment will eventually fall behind him but a significant minority will be unreconciled to Trump.
However the biggest problem for Trump are his horrible negatives especially with important growing demographics in swing states. Also "Reagan Democrats" are not enough for Trump - they represents less than half the demographic that the "Gipper" pulled in back in the 80's.
Trump is the insurgent but certainly not from the mainstream, which is one of his strengths but also a significant weakness for some in the GOP.
The GOP establishment are desperate for the win in November. So why are they equally desperate for Trump not to be the candidate. No prizes for the answer !!0 -
They'll run his own dog-whistle campaign for him?not_on_fire said:The Dems will have a goldmine of Trump quotes from the primaries that will be replayed endlessly in the attack ads. No one will take any attempts for him to be seen as a centrist seriously.
Trump only needs to convince enough of the target group that he was just putting on an act to get the nomination, or even trolling the Republican party.0 -
We all have our separatists.TheScreamingEagles said:
God no.Casino_Royale said:
Bring it on. I'd love to be like Canada.CarlottaVance said:Casino_Royale said:
He's spoofing BSE criticising Canada as an alternative model for the UK outside the EU:.Alistair said:
I had to read that twice before I grasped quite the level of wrongness in it.Theuniondivvie said:Can't quite put my finger on what's wrong with this tweet..
Daniel Hannan @DanHannanMEP 6 mins6 minutes ago
There hasn't been a major war in North America since 1847. How on Earth have they managed that without being in the EU?
I thought he was supposed to be an intellectual?
At least someone is spelling out what the alternatives might be......Hardly REMAIN's job to make them look attractive......
They've got French minority separatists ruining it for everybody else.
You want the UK to have more Frenchie pains in the arse?
I must question if you truly are an Englishman/Brit?
The only thing that might make me change my mind about the EU is if the French honoured the Treaty of Troyes.0 -
No it isn't accurate. And after being proved wrong over the whole EEA accession question yesterday I would have thought you would have kept your head down for a while.Richard_Nabavi said:
The only misleading thing is that it doesn't make clear that Canada's obligation to obey EU rules only applies to exports to the EU. Otherwise it's accurate, if necessarily a bit simplified.edmundintokyo said:I couldn't see what was specifically wrong with those but on the politics, if there's something your opponent is trying to avoid talking about, you can make bold, dubious claims about it. If they don't engage then you get away with it, if they do then everybody's talking about what you want them to be talking about.
0 -
That was me. Though I did not ramp for him as such, I wanted him to lose.OllyT said:Can anyone remind of the name of the guy who ramped mercilessly for Romney right till the end in 2012 and was never heard of again after November? I am beginning to think he might have returned under another name!!.
0 -
I think that's right, but they need to be credible claims.Casino_Royale said:
The best strategy for Leave is to push Remain onto the defensive by making bold claims about what staying in the EU could mean.edmundintokyo said:
I couldn't see what was specifically wrong with those but on the politics, if there's something your opponent is trying to avoid talking about, you can make bold, dubious claims about it. If they don't engage then you get away with it, if they do then everybody's talking about what you want them to be talking about.Richard_Tyndall said:
LOL. 10 our of 10 to BSE for bare faced audacityCasino_Royale said:
He's spoofing BSE criticising Canada as an alternative model for the UK outside the EU:Alistair said:
I had to read that twice before I grasped quite the level of wrongness in it.Theuniondivvie said:Can't quite put my finger on what's wrong with this tweet..
Daniel Hannan @DanHannanMEP 6 mins6 minutes ago
There hasn't been a major war in North America since 1847. How on Earth have they managed that without being in the EU?
I thought he was supposed to be an intellectual?
https://twitter.com/StrongerIn/status/704971123532894208
Following through their logic, Canada should join the EU (along with virtually everyone else)
That'd be the Canada that's in the top ten economies in the world, and even higher on the UN Human Development Index, a member of NATO, the G8, the Group of Ten, the G20, NAFTA Organisation of American States, and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum.
Oh, and it has full control over migration policy too.
I suppose the message from that poster is that if you are going to lie then lie big.
Utter bollocks would be too polite a way to describe their claims.
And to then make the vote a vote of confidence in the EU.0
![[Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/d2ea526b1b06ed109333f390c7ae956b_100.png)
