Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Looking ahead to the 2016 US Presidential Election
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Looking ahead to the 2016 US Presidential Election
My strategy has been to lay Chris Christie, even before his bridge problems. Some in the Republican Party have never forgiven him for his hug of President Obama during Hurricane Sandy and that’s influenced my thinking.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
The headline ONS 'Unemployment Rate' is the number of unemployed people (aged 16+) divided by the economically active population (aged 16+). The economically active population is defined as those in employment plus those who are unemployed.
So the rate involves:
1. The numerator: the number of people who are unemployed (aged 16-64, who have sought work during the past four weeks and who are available to work within two weeks).
2. The denominator: Number of people in employment (16+) plus 1. above.
Unemployment can fall at the same time as the unemployment rate rises if the number of people actively seeking employment increases faster than any increase in the number of people employed.
In the case of today's figures:
Between Sep-Nov 2013 the 'economically active' numbers fell by -3,881.
Between Oct-Dec 2013 the 'economically active' numbers increased by 17,676.
The difference between the two periods in the numbers of people employed was 3,523.
Bearing in mind the figures are 'seasonally adjusted' in accordance with the ONS model and are rolling quarterly averages, the difference between this month's unemployment rate being 7.2% and last month's being 7.1% is virtually insignificant.
The trend is your friend, Mike, and the employment trend is as upward as Nigel's index finger.
http://election-data.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/which-voters-went-from-labour-to-ukip.html?m=1
Lab to UKIP switchers
1. If Hillary runs she wins both the nomination and the Presidency.
2. If Hillary doesn't run all bets are off if the GOP choose a member of the human race.
3. Remember it's a state by state FPTP race and battleground demographic trends are moving blue. (See end of the previous thread).
Ah, if I use this link then it works. The difference is between mobile and desktop.
Cooling seems to remain an issue.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2562957/Muslim-leaders-issue-fatwa-against-living-MARS-no-righteous-reason-there.html
Daft sods. Maybe they have a bet with Westboro Baptist Church to see who can be the maddest.
In a story that’s so weird his has to be considered true, a leading Saudi Arabian cleric has declared Mickey Mouse to be an “agent of Satan.” As such, he has put a fatwa, or death sentence , on the Mouse’s head.
http://www.newsarama.com/1071-saudi-cleric-places-fatwa-on-mickey-mouse.html
Re point 3, I did mention that in the thread header.
On the other hand, if she doesn't run, then what? The Democratic nomination looks wide open in that case. The shortest odds other than on Hillary are on Andrew Cuomo, Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Martin O'Malley and Kirsten Gillibrand, but none of those looks an obvious front-runner if Hillary does back off, and no doubt others could take to the ring. I've got a chunk on a Female Winner at 4/1 and 7/2, from a while back, which I went for on the basis that, even if it wasn't Hillary, she'd be likely to throw her machine behind a female candidate. I still think that is the best bet around, although the 15/8 now available is getting a bit mean given the time you have to tie your money up for.
As for the GOP - who knows?
- Her health may not hold up.
- Democratic front-runners never seem to make it.
- Her polling is artificially inflated by people who see her in opposition to Obama, but that won't last once Obama is on his way out and the right-wing attacks focus back on her and Bill.
- Winning a third term is tough, what with Time For A Change people and supporters narked off about x, y and z.
- She seems to have highly-developed cocking it up skills.
I predict that Mitt Romney will not be the next US president!!!
The Republicans will likely retake the Senate in November, and strengthen their lead at State legislative level. That could either give them momentum in 2016, or provoke a reaction against them.
(Actually, do they even have a guy who isn't?)
1) He has the gutsiness / shamelessness that characterises successful insurgents.
2) He's actually running.
lol!
Maybe you could work the same rain spell on California as you did the UK...
The hangmen or scimitar chaps would get awfully tired.
If Hillary runs, yes, I expect her to win the nomination. The election? That's a different matter and an establishment, moderate Republican should win.
Yes, as TSE said, the GOP have only won the popular vote once in six elections, but (1) Ross Perot, (2) Barack Obama.
It is possible that if the Republicans go centrist again there could be a third-party candidate from the right but the Tea Party's momentum has been checked a little of late and if they do that then it really would be a sign of weakness representing a last, hopeless, roll of the dice. I don't think the budget stand-off and other like stuff has damaged them so badly as to make that kind of play worthwhile.
On the second reason for recent Democrat dominance, as TSE says, is there another Obama in the field? I can't see it. Obama galvanised a whole demographic to register and vote. Would Hillary (or AN Dem Other) keep them or would they drift back to unregistered abstentions?
US Presidential fact of the day. The Democrats have only retained the White House more than once in succession once since the Civil War. That sequence involved four successful retentions but each won involved a sitting president. The last Democrat to win as a new candidate, and retain the White House for the Democrats for at least a third term was Martin van Buren in 1836.
Gillibrand was on the Blue Dog right of the party before she became a senator for lefty NY. She has proved she is versatile. She is also attractive, which is part of her appeal even if it shouldn't matter. A good trading bet perhaps!
I only backed Magnussen on Ladbrokes, but at 50/1. Put a smidgen on Rosberg at 17, and at 24 on Betfair. Have to see how things go. The Mercedes looks nice and reliable, and the sharing of data with McLaren should help both teams.
Edited extra bit: Betfair has the Australian market up. Unless you can spot something at huge odds I think you'd be crackers to touch it at this stage.
Titters .....
Vote Hillary; get Bill.
On what grounds do you base the statement "a moderate Republican should win".
If Hillary runs, she walks it.
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/2016-presidential-ratings-update-nothing-but-questions-on-the-republican-side/
In the Democrat race, I'd rather not take part.
Need a quote
Do not tarry
Call U-Va.
And ask for Larry
(© Washington Post)
2. Time for a change. From the Democrats, from the administration (yes, she's not there now but she was), and from the Clintons.
3. There's a large part of the electorate who have no love for her. See Healthcare etc. The GOP base will be motivated and it won't look racist this time (it won't even really look sexist as she's one half of a double-act).
4. She's a good but not spectacular campaigner. Obama was a superb campaigner and still didn't win by all that much.
5. The GOP are well capable of winning nation-wide elections, as proven by their current position in the House and the likely position in the Senate after November.
6. Democrats have a poor record of winning the White House post-Civil Rights. Only three have done so: Carter, who beat a discredited and unelected Ford, Bill Clinton, who never won half the vote with Perot's interventions, and Obama.
All of which still relies on the GOP picking someone who has fewer negative points than Hillary, and that's far from guaranteed. Even so, she has plenty of targets of her own.
On what grounds do you make your assertion that "If Hillary runs, she walks it"? I would be very sceptical of polls at this stage, which are often little more than name-recognition exercises.
That used to be true but America's demographics have changed the game surely.
Booming hispanic vote + black vote + blue collar vote = power.
The repubs haven't even begun to even consider how they might crack that equation.
Larks : Christie, Paul, Bush
Boring : Rubio, Cruz, Jindal.
Which one would wind up the leftosphere most ? Paul or Bush - so lets hope they are the next president.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2559776/This-week-Eurocrat-told-Britain-benefit-tourism-myth-read-Rudi-huge-Romanian-family-say-new-home-Your-benefits-crazy-Its-like-finding-sackful-cash-left-road.html
Obama didn't win by that much? He won by 126 electoral votes. He got to 270 votes in states he won by more than five points. And demographics will give the Democrats an extra point or two in 2016.
EDIT: Comparing mid-term elections with presidential ones is also ridiculous. The former are far lower turnout, and the demographics are thus older and whiter as a result.
‘I have never been told to look for work by the job centre. I have never called back there after I got the National Insurance number. Why would I want a real boss when I get £300 put into my bank account each week for nothing?
As with defrauding the immigration system, there seems to be a whole industry around this stuff.
Likewise, winning 270 votes in states he won by 5+ points still brings the game into balance with a swing of just 3%. It's far from landslide territory.
I agree that demographics should help the Democrats structurally but their candidate not being Obama (or at least, the Obama of 2008 or even 2012), will hurt.
And the party won't moderate by 2016, because they're likely to win seats this year.
At least Iraq turned out well.
*tears of laughter etc.*
That said, if they can't find the right person to get behind - and it's certainly proven difficult so far - it will be embarrassing for the Republicans. Indeed, some of their leaders might be forgiven for wondering whether it's time the party learned its 1964 lesson all over again. (Though they wouldn't go through with that unless the scenario were forced on them).
Wrong. Obama won a landslide in the electoral college.
"We know from research across Europe that voters in most EU countries defect to more Eurosceptic parties at European elections, and regardless of the local political conditions. Moreover, studies also show how this switch of loyalty is not simply a response to ‘hard’ concerns over the economic cost of EU membership, but is motivated just as strongly, if not more so, by so-called ‘soft’ concerns over threats to national identity, values and the national community.
This matters because with immigration now back at the top of the British political agenda, and the increasing debate over Britain’s EU membership, the elections in May will actually offer Ukip a more fertile climate than the campaigns in 2004 and 2009. The eurozone and financial crises have continued to erode public support for the EU, while voter dissatisfaction with how the main parties have handled these two issues –immigration and the economy- is intense.
Even in the absence of a scandal, Ukip will campaign under very favourable conditions, and have plenty of potential to surge once again. But as the data makes clear, this point may still be several months off."
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukipwatch/100260326/before-you-predict-defeat-for-ukip-in-the-euro-elections-remember-its-a-party-with-a-history-of-late-surges/
Of course, it is still early days, and Stuff Happens, so maybe things will look very different by, say, late 2015.
Like I said below, even dear old George HW Bush won by 426 to 111 ECVs. Obama's victories were relatively modest in historic terms and only look large as they followed Bush's two knife-edge victories. Bill Clinton won more ECVs in each of his elections than Obama did in either of his.
Where is John Galt when you need him?
Or rather; who is the real John Galt?
Easy to cure by tapering away WTC - which should be done as tax thresholds rise - inflate them down if required.
http://www.paulnuttallmep.com/?p=3144
Wither Ukraine?
MineForNothing @minefornothing 5m
UKRAINE ARMY GIVEN POWER TO USE WEAPONS ON UKRAINIANS: MINISTRY
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/02/cbo-and-the-bizarre-partisan-jobs-debate.html
Meanwhile, they defend interventions in the free market for the advantage of banks, pharma companies, agrobusiness etc..
http://news.sky.com/story/1213843/ukraine-announces-anti-terror-operation
But that only leaves us fence sitters (to hesistant to make good predictions) and, if they exist, the incredibly objective. It will be tough to find such people to make realistic predictions.
On the subject of american politics, I'm still a little burnt out from the exhaustive amounts of noise from the last round, but are there any prominent female republicans who might be on the horizon for 2016, or will such a person have to emerge later?
If it was, say, May 2015 I'd say a consistent 5-7 point lead was more convincing :-).
http://zapatopi.net/afdb/
Is there somewhere we can discuss too hot for PB topics today?