politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The GOP nomination race is effectively now down to just 5

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The GOP nomination race is effectively now down to just 5

What a night and what an outcome. The contender who was deemed to have “won” the last debate, Chris Christie failed to make an impact in NH and returned to New Jersey to consider his position.

Read the full story here

Mortimer

First?

Pulpstar

Why should Christie have turned his fire on Trump ?

Marco Rubio attacked Chris Christie's record (And boy did that provide all the ammunition Christie needed), and Christie finds some of Marco's social views abhorrent (And his poor senate voting record). Chris Christie was never going to go after Trump, Rubio was always his target as he has a visceral dislike for him.

williamglenn

Ted Cruz is surprisingly short.

Wanderer

williamglenn said:

Ted Cruz is surprisingly short.

5'8" according to Google. A stand-on-a-box President.

Plato_Says

Wanderer said:

williamglenn said:

Ted Cruz is surprisingly short.

5'8" according to Google. A stand-on-a-box President.

Theuniondivvie

Rubio not really countering the 'robotic' narrative in that pic.

Plato_Says

Great from General Boles

'you're playing all the wrong notes'

'we're playing all the right notes, you're just not hearing them properly' https://t.co/pr2wYasYpr

MarqueeMark

Wanderer said:

williamglenn said:

Ted Cruz is surprisingly short.

5'8" according to Google. A stand-on-a-box President.

Where's John Major's soap-box these days?

Wanderer

Surely the biggest question mark about Trump was whether his supporters would turn up at the polls. That has been answered. Yes they will. His poll leads are not bullshit. He should be odds-on unless one thinks the establishment have the means to stop him.

Barnesian

FPT but relevant to this thread

I think the narrative may now move to the Bush Rubio battle.

Bush seems to be upping his game and Rubio is being exposed as an empty suit.

Bush in the Nevada caucus and SC primary look good value to me as he again is being seen as a contender. A safe pair of hands with fire in his belly at last.

Here he is last night.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/02/09/jeb_bush_new_hampshire_reset_the_race.html

"We need someone who has been tested and I'm that guy".

Wanderer

Pulpstar said:

Why should Christie have turned his fire on Trump ?

Marco Rubio attacked Chris Christie's record (And boy did that provide all the ammunition Christie needed), and Christie finds some of Marco's social views abhorrent (And his poor senate voting record). Chris Christie was never going to go after Trump, Rubio was always his target as he has a visceral dislike for him.

Though in some ways Rubio self-destructed (no-one forced him to repeat himself like a recorded announcement) the way Christie drew attention to it was brutally effective.

Plato_Says

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/02/09/trump-pulls-off-huge-win-but-kasich-will-be-media-darling.html?intcmp=hpbt1

A billionaire who had never run for office, he scored a big win that is no less impressive because it was “expected” by the press. And the way Trump did it will ease the sting of his second-place finish in Iowa, whose demographics and complicated caucuses were never a good fit for him.

Yet the media darling of the moment will undoubtedly be John Kasich, who slogged his way to the second spot in New Hampshire the old-fashioned way—by working his butt off in town halls and diners. In edging his way to the front of the gubernatorial pack, Kasich used a meat-and-potatoes style and what used to be called a compassionate conservative message that helped him among late deciders.

Still, Kasich has run such a one-state campaign that it’s not clear where he goes from here.

stodge

FPT

One of the aspects of the primary/caucus process which intrigues me is how a candidate who does unexpectedly well in one contest "carry momentum" to the next state which might be demographically, socially, culturally, economically and politically very different.

Take Kasich, who did very well last night. Does he have a ground campaign in SC, would he be "known" in that state - he's the Governor of OH if memory serves. Can he buy radio and tv advertising time at such short notice - how does he promote himself across a constituency where he wouldn't be well known ?

I would imagine success leads to money coming in to the campaign from donors but does that money "transfer" from one campaign to another easily - would Kasich get money that might have gone to another anti-Trump candidate for example ?

On-topic: this is pretty much what I and others have said.

Bush did just enough to survive (given his backers) and Kasich broke through to some degree while neither Cruz nor Rubio was able to establish themselves as the clear anti-Donald candidate.

Cruz should do well in SC and it's hard to see Kasich doing as well as in NH.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Meeks, you have a fixation on Second World War references.

The Roman Empire appeased barbarians. The Saxons appeased the Vikings with Danegeld.

MTimT

Lessons from New Hampshire (given that it is very representative of the GE election vote, if not of GOP primaries):

1. Trump supporters vote
2. The pundits' analysis works for traditional style candidates, but not for Bernie and Trump. Rubio was hit by his debate performance.
3. The GOP is split roughly evenly between those supporting rebel candidates (Trump, Cruz, Carson) and the rest of the field.
4. Trump will win the nomination unless Bush, Kasich and Rubio sit down a do a deal very soon.
5. Hillary needs to shake up her campaign three months ago. Bernie now has a real chance of winning provided he can find black and latino politicians to champion him in those communities.

AlastairMeeks

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Meeks, you have a fixation on Second World War references.

The Roman Empire appeased barbarians. The Saxons appeased the Vikings with Danegeld.

What do you think most of our specially selected 100 respondents would think of when the word "appeasement" was mentioned?

Richard_Nabavi

Plato_Says said:

"Still, Kasich has run such a one-state campaign that it’s not clear where he goes from here."

Unfortunately, I think he goes to South Carolina and flops, and then to Nevada and flops, and then he drops out either before or immediately after Super Tuesday.

A pity, because I think he's the best candidate of the whole lot from either party.

MTimT

Wanderer said:

Pulpstar said:

Why should Christie have turned his fire on Trump ?

Marco Rubio attacked Chris Christie's record (And boy did that provide all the ammunition Christie needed), and Christie finds some of Marco's social views abhorrent (And his poor senate voting record). Chris Christie was never going to go after Trump, Rubio was always his target as he has a visceral dislike for him.

Though in some ways Rubio self-destructed (no-one forced him to repeat himself like a recorded announcement) the way Christie drew attention to it was brutally effective.

If this were the olden days when party honchos steered things from the shadows, I'd be trying to persuade Bush to take the veep slot on Kasich's ticket, and telling Rubio that if he ran for Governor of Florida, he'd be in line for the nomination after two terms.

MonikerDiCanio

Theuniondivvie said:

Rubio not really countering the 'robotic' narrative in that pic.

We are Rubiots;
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eY0T07hxJYM

malcolmg

FPT.
OchEye said:

» show previous quotes
Nice try Malkie, here's a little quiz you might like : http://www.workersliberty.org/node/26236

Enjoy!

what is taking so long then , seen lots of hot air spoken but yet to see or hear of anyone being interviewed by police etc or any sign of any wrongdoing. Happy for you to prove otherwise rather than just yellowbelly unionist smearing of course.

PS unionist Tories or Labour decrying people for making money is a laugh. Some people do need help to save them being stupid but at the end of the day if you have a willing seller and a willing buyer then you cannot whinge afterwards. If those were not the rules then the courts would be full of Tory and Labour parasites. SNP follow exactly the same rules as them.

Plato_Says

Why Labour should be worried about the #EUref: One in four of its voters want to leave https://t.co/fafISMiESJ https://t.co/40ptYawusr

Wanderer

MTimT said:

Lessons from New Hampshire (given that it is very representative of the GE election vote, if not of GOP primaries):

1. Trump supporters vote
2. The pundits' analysis works for traditional style candidates, but not for Bernie and Trump. Rubio was hit by his debate performance.
3. The GOP is split roughly evenly between those supporting rebel candidates (Trump, Cruz, Carson) and the rest of the field.
4. Trump will win the nomination unless Bush, Kasich and Rubio sit down a do a deal very soon.
5. Hillary needs to shake up her campaign three months ago. Bernie now has a real chance of winning provided he can find black and latino politicians to champion him in those communities.

Good morning!

Concerning 4, as you can see some of us are wondering if there is life in Bush yet. Wouldn't he be the obvious beneficiary of such a deal, given his resources, the decline of Rubio and (I assume) difficulty for Kasich in making headway in the South?

Pulpstar

Who will Fiorina supporters go to btw - not really sure of her politics, is she in the Cruz/Carson lane or more mainstream ?

MTimT

I like this from Mark Steel on twitters:

"Hillary Clinton's argument seems to be 'don't all vote for Sanders, you idiots, can't you see no one will vote for him'."

MTimT

Pulpstar said:

Who will Fiorina supporters go to btw - not really sure of her politics, is she in the Cruz/Carson lane or more mainstream ?

I think more mainstream.

malcolmg

Wanderer said:

MTimT said:

Lessons from New Hampshire (given that it is very representative of the GE election vote, if not of GOP primaries):

1. Trump supporters vote
2. The pundits' analysis works for traditional style candidates, but not for Bernie and Trump. Rubio was hit by his debate performance.
3. The GOP is split roughly evenly between those supporting rebel candidates (Trump, Cruz, Carson) and the rest of the field.
4. Trump will win the nomination unless Bush, Kasich and Rubio sit down a do a deal very soon.
5. Hillary needs to shake up her campaign three months ago. Bernie now has a real chance of winning provided he can find black and latino politicians to champion him in those communities.

Good morning!

Concerning 4, as you can see some of us are wondering if there is life in Bush yet. Wouldn't he be the obvious beneficiary of such a deal, given his resources, the decline of Rubio and (I assume) difficulty for Kasich in making headway in the South?

Problem is he is crap, could not beat a carpet.

williamglenn

MTimT said:

Wanderer said:

Pulpstar said:

Why should Christie have turned his fire on Trump ?

Marco Rubio attacked Chris Christie's record (And boy did that provide all the ammunition Christie needed), and Christie finds some of Marco's social views abhorrent (And his poor senate voting record). Chris Christie was never going to go after Trump, Rubio was always his target as he has a visceral dislike for him.

Though in some ways Rubio self-destructed (no-one forced him to repeat himself like a recorded announcement) the way Christie drew attention to it was brutally effective.

If this were the olden days when party honchos steered things from the shadows, I'd be trying to persuade Bush to take the veep slot on Kasich's ticket, and telling Rubio that if he ran for Governor of Florida, he'd be in line for the nomination after two terms.

And then all their plans will come to nothing when 2024 sees Sheryl Sandberg elected President. The future will not belong to time-marking politicians.

Pulpstar

Carly and Christie should endorse John Kasich ASAP methinks

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Meeks, most people might think Basil referred to a fictitious Torquay hotelier rather than the Bulgar-Slayer.

Appeasement has happened all through history. It rarely ends well for the appeasers, and this is an entirely legitimate point to make.

MTimT

Wanderer said:

MTimT said:

Lessons from New Hampshire (given that it is very representative of the GE election vote, if not of GOP primaries):

1. Trump supporters vote
2. The pundits' analysis works for traditional style candidates, but not for Bernie and Trump. Rubio was hit by his debate performance.
3. The GOP is split roughly evenly between those supporting rebel candidates (Trump, Cruz, Carson) and the rest of the field.
4. Trump will win the nomination unless Bush, Kasich and Rubio sit down a do a deal very soon.
5. Hillary needs to shake up her campaign three months ago. Bernie now has a real chance of winning provided he can find black and latino politicians to champion him in those communities.

Good morning!

Concerning 4, as you can see some of us are wondering if there is life in Bush yet. Wouldn't he be the obvious beneficiary of such a deal, given his resources, the decline of Rubio and (I assume) difficulty for Kasich in making headway in the South?

You have a point there, but for the GE there is no doubt in my mind that Kasich is the more electable. So for me the question is which is better for getting him to the nomination - a deal with Bush or with Rubio. Bush has more money and more organization. Rubio is younger and has better reach with conservatives, but could be more easily bought off and can afford to bide his time for another bid down the road.

Perhaps just wishful thinking on my part, and I am unsure that the Bush clan/donors would go for such a deal for their man. However, those same supporters would probably prefer Kasich to any other candidate on offer.

Pulpstar

What we really need are some South Carolina polls, and perhaps a few Nevada ones.

The polls actually got it right for once ! (Perhaps Bernie and Trump slightly understated but nothing too poor)

DecrepitJohnL

Traditionally the EU was never a left/right issue (indeed, it has generally been the Conservative Party which has taken us further and further in). Corbyn himself is at best lukewarm on Europe.

But why should Labour be worried any more than any other party?

Plato_Says said:

Why Labour should be worried about the #EUref: One in four of its voters want to leave https://t.co/fafISMiESJ https://t.co/40ptYawusr

CarlottaVance

malcolmg said:

SNP follow exactly the same rules as them.

Oh, but I thought the SNP were better than the Tories & Labour

Thanks for clearing that up.....

AlastairMeeks

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Meeks, most people might think Basil referred to a fictitious Torquay hotelier rather than the Bulgar-Slayer.

Appeasement has happened all through history. It rarely ends well for the appeasers, and this is an entirely legitimate point to make.

It often ends in enforced Anschluss?

DecrepitJohnL

Pulpstar said:

Who will Fiorina supporters go to btw - not really sure of her politics, is she in the Cruz/Carson lane or more mainstream ?

Mainstream but an outsider. As she had very few voters or donors, the point is moot.

Pulpstar

Who is funding the Bushes btw, I've checked their total net worth and it seems to be around $50-$60 million or so (HW + W +1.3 mill from Jeb), but $86 million got spent in New Hampshire alone !

Not even Trump can (or did) afford to keep up with that rate of burn.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Meeks, barbarians ended up taking over and destroying the Western Roman Empire. The Vikings conquered most of England.

History didn't begin in 1939.

Richard_Nabavi

Hard to argue with this assessment, which is based on a sensible-sounding review of the next few races:

So far, the establishment has been trying to beat Trump with wishful thinking. It keeps not working. Trump could self-destruct or drop out for no reason at all. He could be abducted by aliens. Who knows? But merely hoping for those things is not a plan. The plain reality is that right now he is on course to win the nomination unless some concerted effort is made to stop him. And so far, there's no sign that any such effort is underway. Republican leaders not actively involved in the campaign simply seem baffled and stunned into indifference. And they're running out of time.

http://www.vox.com/2016/2/9/10955728/new-hampshire-results-trump-winning

malcolmg

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

SNP follow exactly the same rules as them.

Oh, but I thought the SNP were better than the Tories & Labour

Thanks for clearing that up.....

Only people like you make out that they should be, whilst your idols have feet of clay yet you still worship them.
Scottish people are well aware the SNP are not perfect but compared to the Tories and Labour they are a breath of fresh air and they actually care about Scotland.

malcolmg

Pulpstar said:

Who is funding the Bushes btw, I've checked their total net worth and it seems to be around $50-$60 million or so (HW + W +1.3 mill from Jeb), but $86 million got spent in New Hampshire alone !

Not even Trump can (or did) afford to keep up with that rate of burn.

at a waste of money on a loser

MTimT

stodge said:

FPT

One of the aspects of the primary/caucus process which intrigues me is how a candidate who does unexpectedly well in one contest "carry momentum" to the next state which might be demographically, socially, culturally, economically and politically very different.

Take Kasich, who did very well last night. Does he have a ground campaign in SC, would he be "known" in that state - he's the Governor of OH if memory serves. Can he buy radio and tv advertising time at such short notice - how does he promote himself across a constituency where he wouldn't be well known ?

I would imagine success leads to money coming in to the campaign from donors but does that money "transfer" from one campaign to another easily - would Kasich get money that might have gone to another anti-Trump candidate for example ?

On-topic: this is pretty much what I and others have said.

Bush did just enough to survive (given his backers) and Kasich broke through to some degree while neither Cruz nor Rubio was able to establish themselves as the clear anti-Donald candidate.

Cruz should do well in SC and it's hard to see Kasich doing as well as in NH.

For the money, Super PACs can buy ad time. In theory, they are established either for a named candidate or for an issue. In practice, while they cannot overtly coordinate with the political campaigns, they seem to be outgrowths of the campaigns. They get around this by coordinating through the media, or by having ex-aides run the Super PAC. That said, I don't know of any rules per se that stop a Super PAC switching candidates or even supporting more than one.

However, SuperPACs cannot fund campaigns directly (paying staff, travel and hotel bills for campaign workers), which requires hard money. That is what Walker ran out of. Kasich would need a bare minimum injection of cash to cover these expenses - which increase dramatically with the size of the ground game - if he is to go deep in the nomination process.

Plato_Says

AFP
Thai cops bust gang sending fake passports to migrants to Europe https://t.co/xDeAcpofHb https://t.co/KUzx9X7Px7

Tissue_Price

Richard_Nabavi said:

Hard to argue with this assessment, which is based on a sensible-sounding review of the next few races:

So far, the establishment has been trying to beat Trump with wishful thinking. It keeps not working. Trump could self-destruct or drop out for no reason at all. He could be abducted by aliens. Who knows? But merely hoping for those things is not a plan. The plain reality is that right now he is on course to win the nomination unless some concerted effort is made to stop him. And so far, there's no sign that any such effort is underway. Republican leaders not actively involved in the campaign simply seem baffled and stunned into indifference. And they're running out of time.

http://www.vox.com/2016/2/9/10955728/new-hampshire-results-trump-winning

If it comes down to Cruz v Trump, which way does the GOP establishment jump?

Plato_Says

We've seen commentary almost wishing these inconvenient people would die or become too ill to continue.

That's a level of desperation I've not seen before.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Hard to argue with this assessment, which is based on a sensible-sounding review of the next few races:

So far, the establishment has been trying to beat Trump with wishful thinking. It keeps not working. Trump could self-destruct or drop out for no reason at all. He could be abducted by aliens. Who knows? But merely hoping for those things is not a plan. The plain reality is that right now he is on course to win the nomination unless some concerted effort is made to stop him. And so far, there's no sign that any such effort is underway. Republican leaders not actively involved in the campaign simply seem baffled and stunned into indifference. And they're running out of time.

http://www.vox.com/2016/2/9/10955728/new-hampshire-results-trump-winning

MTimT

Richard_Nabavi said:

Hard to argue with this assessment, which is based on a sensible-sounding review of the next few races:

So far, the establishment has been trying to beat Trump with wishful thinking. It keeps not working. Trump could self-destruct or drop out for no reason at all. He could be abducted by aliens. Who knows? But merely hoping for those things is not a plan. The plain reality is that right now he is on course to win the nomination unless some concerted effort is made to stop him. And so far, there's no sign that any such effort is underway. Republican leaders not actively involved in the campaign simply seem baffled and stunned into indifference. And they're running out of time.

http://www.vox.com/2016/2/9/10955728/new-hampshire-results-trump-winning

See my post on lessons of NH up thread - alas, I came to the same conclusion.

LondonBob

So the independents and moderates, the blue collar Reagan Democrats, did come out in force and give Trump a yuge victory. 35% in an 8 man field, polls underestimating him. Looks very good for SC, just natural Trump territory, big poll lead already coupled with a strong ground game. Remember winner takes all the delegates there which will put him well ahead in delegate count. Should be able to top that 35% comfortably in SC and knock Cruz out of the running, setting him up well for the rest of the South. Should be directing all his fire that way now, would suit Trump for Bush to come second.

The new Reagan.

watford30

malcolmg said:

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

SNP follow exactly the same rules as them.

Oh, but I thought the SNP were better than the Tories & Labour

Thanks for clearing that up.....

Only people like you make out that they should be, whilst your idols have feet of clay yet you still worship them.
Scottish people are well aware the SNP are not perfect but compared to the Tories and Labour they are a breath of fresh air and they actually care about Scotland.

Except for those members of the SNP who care more about enriching themselves to the detriment of their fellow countrymen dying from cancer.

OchEye

malcolmg

what is taking so long then , seen lots of hot air spoken but yet to see or hear of anyone being interviewed by police etc or any sign of any wrongdoing. Happy for you to prove otherwise rather than just yellowbelly unionist smearing of course.

PS unionist Tories or Labour decrying people for making money is a laugh. Some people do need help to save them being stupid but at the end of the day if you have a willing seller and a willing buyer then you cannot whinge afterwards. If those were not the rules then the courts would be full of Tory and Labour parasites. SNP follow exactly the same rules as them.

Er! sorry for the delay Malkie, had some work to do.

Let's see, with McGarry, the problem lies with her. If she had just given over her PayPal password and copies of her bank statements to the auditors then there would be no problems in proving her innocence. She hasn't, for whatever reason. I suspect that PS are trying to get the information from PayPal, which since it is based in the litigous US is very wary about releasing information to, to them, overseas legal authorities. Also PS have to get McGarry's bank statements. I would be very surprised if Anwar had not investigated ways of delaying the information to be released to PS.

Remember, it was the 20 odd SNP supporters who clyped on her, if they hadn't, they could have been due for prison time. I have been surprised at how unpopular McGarry is amongst SNP members, but not, for some reason, amongst the hierarchy.

As to Thomson, even Sturgeon as a practised solicitor, and with even a small amount of conveying experience could see Thomson was not just skating on thin ice, she was trying to walk on water with concrete boots on. PS, the Procurator Fiscal, the Legal Society and the SG are dancing around each other. Again, Anwar would not be doing his job if he could not cause a bit of confusion and delay things until after May.

Wanderer

MTimT said:

Wanderer said:

MTimT said:

Lessons from New Hampshire (given that it is very representative of the GE election vote, if not of GOP primaries):

1. Trump supporters vote
2. The pundits' analysis works for traditional style candidates, but not for Bernie and Trump. Rubio was hit by his debate performance.
3. The GOP is split roughly evenly between those supporting rebel candidates (Trump, Cruz, Carson) and the rest of the field.
4. Trump will win the nomination unless Bush, Kasich and Rubio sit down a do a deal very soon.
5. Hillary needs to shake up her campaign three months ago. Bernie now has a real chance of winning provided he can find black and latino politicians to champion him in those communities.

Good morning!

Concerning 4, as you can see some of us are wondering if there is life in Bush yet. Wouldn't he be the obvious beneficiary of such a deal, given his resources, the decline of Rubio and (I assume) difficulty for Kasich in making headway in the South?

You have a point there, but for the GE there is no doubt in my mind that Kasich is the more electable. So for me the question is which is better for getting him to the nomination - a deal with Bush or with Rubio. Bush has more money and more organization. Rubio is younger and has better reach with conservatives, but could be more easily bought off and can afford to bide his time for another bid down the road.

Perhaps just wishful thinking on my part, and I am unsure that the Bush clan/donors would go for such a deal for their man. However, those same supporters would probably prefer Kasich to any other candidate on offer.

From the outside it seems obvious that they should make a deal and also that the Presidency is just sitting there waiting for the Republicans to pick it up. I reality will Rubio accept that it's too early for him and will Bush accept Kasich's greater electability? I think if I'm Bush I'm arguing that Kasich's second place wasn't that emphatic after a very NH-focused campaign.

Tissue_Price

So, Trump at 6/4 for the nomination, or 6/1 for the Presidency? That's making him an implied 7/4 shot to beat whoever the Democrats put up.

Plato_Says

Ireland Elects
Ireland: Implosion of #Labour in #Ireland? #GE2016 election this month. Might get worst result ever (8/158 seats): https://t.co/D1gzRMd1cL

MTimT

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Meeks, barbarians ended up taking over and destroying the Western Roman Empire. The Vikings conquered most of England.

History didn't begin in 1939.

True, but words get tainted. At negotiations in Geneva, I always shuddered whenever, in meetings of the Western Group, the German Ambassador suggested that we should 'collaborate' on an issue.

The good thing is, there are always other good words to fall back on. Cooperate and coordinate for collaborate. Compromise for appease. Although I do have a soft spot for Ambrose Bierce's definition: "Compromise: two grown men agreeing to do what they both know to be wrong."

OldKingCole

Betting post. I’m told, by someone who claims to know the trainer, that White Dog in the 5.25 at Kempton is good for an each-way bet.

calum

A new Scottish poll on it's way:

http://scotgoespop.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/ipsos-mori-look-set-to-report-snp-lead.html

richardDodd

Rosie..oh dear.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. T, compromising and appeasing are different things, though. Appeasement means giving in to bullying, throwing dinner money at a thug in the hope he'll stop hitting you. Or paying off Vikings so they stop setting fire to monasteries.

MonikerDiCanio

Trump is the runaway Republican winner, I'm sure he'll be the nominee.
The Democratic race is interestingly close. Bernie is far more attractive, intelligent and principled but Hillary has the lumpen ethnic blocks.

Wanderer

calum said:

A new Scottish poll on it's way:

http://scotgoespop.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/ipsos-mori-look-set-to-report-snp-lead.html

And, from that URL, it looks like a shock

Alanbrooke

Osborne inaction

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/12149849/Shock-fall-in-UK-industrial-output-lays-bare-plight-of-sector.html

Tissue_Price

Here are the implied chances in a general for all the main runners. Basically, if you think the implied chance looks high, you're better off backing them in the primary, and if you think it looks low, you should go for the general.

Sanders looks very high, Biden, Rubio & Kasich all look low. Trump is an enigma, and Hillary's chance is increasingly tied up with his.

          Primary   General   Implied Chance
Clinton    1.28      1.99          64%
Sanders    5.45      11.2          49%
Biden       33        70           47%

Trump      2.55      7.30          35%
Rubio      4.35      10.2          43%
Bush       8.70      16.7          52%
Cruz       5.75      19.2          30%
Kasich      31        75           42%

Tissue_Price

Completely forgot about PMQs. Apparently Corbyn is wearing a badge.

Scott_P

Tissue_Price said:

Completely forgot about PMQs. Apparently Corbyn is wearing a badge.

https://twitter.com/joemurphylondon/status/697393748876066816

philiph

Tissue_Price said:

Completely forgot about PMQs. Apparently Corbyn is wearing a badge.

Is it his birthday?

Edit:

I see the image now.

Unions??? Hmmm, an oblique reference to Diane all those years ago?

Plato_Says

Stephen Bush
Cameron going for the novel approach of attacking Corbyn for being insufficiently critical of New Labour. #PMQs

Scott_P

@JohnRentoul: Embarrassing oppositionist rant from Corbyn.

malcolmg

watford30 said:

malcolmg said:

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

SNP follow exactly the same rules as them.

Oh, but I thought the SNP were better than the Tories & Labour

Thanks for clearing that up.....

Only people like you make out that they should be, whilst your idols have feet of clay yet you still worship them.
Scottish people are well aware the SNP are not perfect but compared to the Tories and Labour they are a breath of fresh air and they actually care about Scotland.

Except for those members of the SNP who care more about enriching themselves to the detriment of their fellow countrymen dying from cancer.

keep spouting smears and lies, you will get some low life's similar to yourself to believe you one day

JohnLilburne

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Meeks, barbarians ended up taking over and destroying the Western Roman Empire. The Vikings conquered most of England.

The English were barbarians and actually played a part in ending the Roman Empire. Our Norse cousins didn't turn up for another 300-400 years.

Plato_Says

Well that was another walkover for Cameron.

philiph

Plato_Says said:

Well that was another walkover for Cameron.

That shouldn't be possible for him this week!

Plato_Says

BBC
All claims in the tribunal against Bexhill and Battle MP Huw Merriman - relating to his previous job in finance - have been withdrawn.

TheWhiteRabbit

Tissue_Price said:

Here are the implied chances in a general for all the main runners. Basically, if you think the implied chance looks high, you're better off backing them in the primary, and if you think it looks low, you should go for the general.

Sanders looks very high, Biden, Rubio & Kasich all look low. Trump is an enigma, and Hillary's chance is increasingly tied up with his.

          Primary   General   Implied Chance
Clinton    1.28      1.99          64%
Sanders    5.45      11.2          49%
Biden       33        70           47%

Trump      2.55      7.30          35%
Rubio      4.35      10.2          43%
Bush       8.70      16.7          52%
Cruz       5.75      19.2          30%
Kasich      31        75           42%

Let's assume Trump gets the nomination.

He's seen off Rubio's charm; Bush's money; Cruz's religious appeal; and navigated any major blunder. Why can't he see off Clinton?

Scott_P

@holyroodmandy: PM tells @AngusRobertson "I want [@thesnp] to get rid of grievance agenda & get onto governing agenda & then we'll see what you're made of"

malcolmg

OchEye said:

malcolmg

what is taking so long then , seen lots of hot air spoken but yet to see or hear of anyone being interviewed by police etc or any sign of any wrongdoing. Happy for you to prove otherwise rather than just yellowbelly unionist smearing of course.

PS unionist Tories or Labour decrying people for making money is a laugh. Some people do need help to save them being stupid but at the end of the day if you have a willing seller and a willing buyer then you cannot whinge afterwards. If those were not the rules then the courts would be full of Tory and Labour parasites. SNP follow exactly the same rules as them.

Er! sorry for the delay Malkie, had some work to do.

Let's see, with McGarry, the problem lies with her. If she had just given over her PayPal password and copies of her bank statements to the auditors then there would be no problems in proving her innocence. She hasn't, for whatever reason. I suspect that PS are trying to get the information from PayPal, which since it is based in the litigous US is very wary about releasing information to, to them, overseas legal authorities. Also PS have to get McGarry's bank statements. I would be very surprised if Anwar had not investigated ways of delaying the information to be released to PS.

Remember, it was the 20 odd SNP supporters who clyped on her, if they hadn't, they could have been due for prison time. I have been surprised at how unpopular McGarry is amongst SNP members, but not, for some reason, amongst the hierarchy.

As to Thomson, even Sturgeon as a practised solicitor, and with even a small amount of conveying experience could see Thomson was not just skating on thin ice, she was trying to walk on water with concrete boots on. PS, the Procurator Fiscal, the Legal Society and the SG are dancing around each other. Again, Anwar would not be doing his job if he could not cause a bit of confusion and delay things until after May.

I agree Thomson was sailing close to the wind law wise and pretty crap morals wise but been lots of lawyers at same game , she obviously learned that from a Tory. Distasteful as it is she did it with willing sellers , they were not forced to sell at gunpoint. Buying low from someone foolish enough or desperate enough to sell is not a crime. Most of them would likely have got zero when they were evicted or non payment in any event.
McGarry I have no idea, I think that whole group all thought they were something special and having fallen out certain cliques are finger pointing. Sounds like they were just absolute crap at admin and accounting, whilst busy playing bigshots, for the money they spent.

Pulpstar

Tissue_Price said:

Here are the implied chances in a general for all the main runners. Basically, if you think the implied chance looks high, you're better off backing them in the primary, and if you think it looks low, you should go for the general.

Sanders looks very high, Biden, Rubio & Kasich all look low. Trump is an enigma, and Hillary's chance is increasingly tied up with his.

          Primary   General   Implied Chance
Clinton    1.28      1.99          64%
Sanders    5.45      11.2          49%
Biden       33        70           47%

Trump      2.55      7.30          35%
Rubio      4.35      10.2          43%
Bush       8.70      16.7          52%
Cruz       5.75      19.2          30%
Kasich      31        75           42%

Bush is 7.60 16.7 btw.....

Well he was when I started the post, he is now 8.6 16.7 !

malcolmg

Wanderer said:

calum said:

A new Scottish poll on it's way:

http://scotgoespop.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/ipsos-mori-look-set-to-report-snp-lead.html

And, from that URL, it looks like a shock

Will just be increased SNP lead, BAU.

richardDodd

Stroll..park..again..Cameron..

Scott_P

@DPJHodges: Labour. The party that hates the Spitfire. Even by current standards, that takes some doing.

malcolmg

Scott_P said:

@holyroodmandy: PM tells @AngusRobertson "I want [@thesnp] to get rid of grievance agenda & get onto governing agenda & then we'll see what you're made of"

Maybe he should stop trying to rob the Scottish people and get on with implementing his VOW.

watford30

malcolmg said:

watford30 said:

malcolmg said:

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

SNP follow exactly the same rules as them.

Oh, but I thought the SNP were better than the Tories & Labour

Thanks for clearing that up.....

Only people like you make out that they should be, whilst your idols have feet of clay yet you still worship them.
Scottish people are well aware the SNP are not perfect but compared to the Tories and Labour they are a breath of fresh air and they actually care about Scotland.

Except for those members of the SNP who care more about enriching themselves to the detriment of their fellow countrymen dying from cancer.

keep spouting smears and lies, you will get some low life's similar to yourself to believe you one day

Are you claiming that Thompson didn't profit from a 'cash back' payment after the purchase and back to back sale of the property of a 77 year old cancer sufferer?

williamglenn

Richard_Nabavi said:

Hard to argue with this assessment, which is based on a sensible-sounding review of the next few races:

So far, the establishment has been trying to beat Trump with wishful thinking. It keeps not working. Trump could self-destruct or drop out for no reason at all. He could be abducted by aliens. Who knows? But merely hoping for those things is not a plan. The plain reality is that right now he is on course to win the nomination unless some concerted effort is made to stop him. And so far, there's no sign that any such effort is underway. Republican leaders not actively involved in the campaign simply seem baffled and stunned into indifference. And they're running out of time.

http://www.vox.com/2016/2/9/10955728/new-hampshire-results-trump-winning

Trump has an obvious trump card to snuff out any deal against him: his VP slot. He will most likely be looking for an establishment politician. At one point he seemed to be dangling this as a carrot to Cruz and then went Cruz started attacking, he switched to trying to take Cruz out of the race altogether.

Plato_Says

Norman Smith
Jeremy Hunt says 43% of junior doctors turned up for work today #JuniorDoctorsStrike

Plato_Says

David Boothroyd
A cheery thought: it's now a full ten years since the Liberal Democrats last gained a seat in a Parliamentary byelection

malcolmg

watford30 said:

malcolmg said:

watford30 said:

malcolmg said:

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

SNP follow exactly the same rules as them.

Oh, but I thought the SNP were better than the Tories & Labour

Thanks for clearing that up.....

Only people like you make out that they should be, whilst your idols have feet of clay yet you still worship them.
Scottish people are well aware the SNP are not perfect but compared to the Tories and Labour they are a breath of fresh air and they actually care about Scotland.

Except for those members of the SNP who care more about enriching themselves to the detriment of their fellow countrymen dying from cancer.

keep spouting smears and lies, you will get some low life's similar to yourself to believe you one day

Are you claiming that Thompson didn't profit from a 'cash back' payment after the purchase and back to back sale of the property of a 77 year old cancer sufferer?

I am not claiming anything other than stating that you are a LIAR. YOU have no clue what you are talking about and are just regurgitating some crap from a right wing rag. Now F Off loser and bother someone else with your pathetic rubbish.

Scott_P

@JohnRentoul: Labour MPs seem to think football ticket prices more important than the junior doctors' strike #pmqs

RodCrosby

Plato_Says said:

David Boothroyd
A cheery thought: it's now a full ten years since the Liberal Democrats last gained a seat in a Parliamentary byelection

Only another nineteen to go, to beat their own record...

Plato_Says

It was this bad

Kevin Maguire
Easy win for Cameron at #PMQs. Corbyn should've skewered him on the housing crisis, dissecting dishonest answers. He didn't

Sean_F

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. T, compromising and appeasing are different things, though. Appeasement means giving in to bullying, throwing dinner money at a thug in the hope he'll stop hitting you. Or paying off Vikings so they stop setting fire to monasteries.

Appeasement, combined with military strength, works well enough.

The Romans, Byzantines, Chinese, really any empire, often paid subsidies to one tribe on the frontier to attack another; or paid them to keep the peace, while carrying out punitive military action against a tribe that took the money and then raided across the frontier. That way, the tribe that's getting paid receives a benefit from keeping the peace, at the same time as receiving a warning that they'll be punished if they don't keep their side of the bargain.

OldKingCole

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Tissue_Price said:

Here are the implied chances in a general for all the main runners. Basically, if you think the implied chance looks high, you're better off backing them in the primary, and if you think it looks low, you should go for the general.

Sanders looks very high, Biden, Rubio & Kasich all look low. Trump is an enigma, and Hillary's chance is increasingly tied up with his.

          Primary   General   Implied Chance
Clinton    1.28      1.99          64%
Sanders    5.45      11.2          49%
Biden       33        70           47%

Trump      2.55      7.30          35%
Rubio      4.35      10.2          43%
Bush       8.70      16.7          52%
Cruz       5.75      19.2          30%
Kasich      31        75           42%

Let's assume Trump gets the nomination.

He's seen off Rubio's charm; Bush's money; Cruz's religious appeal; and navigated any major blunder. Why can't he see off Clinton?

Because he’ll be facing Bernie?
I do suspect that his choice of VP candidate will make a difference. Sarah Palin, anyone?

HYUFD

The GOP race is really down to two, Trump and Cruz, the winners of New Hampshire and Iowa as no Republican has won the party's presidential nomination since 1976 without winning one of those 2 states. Whichever of Trump or Cruz wins South Carolina will almost certainly be the nominee

YossariansChild

Looking at last nights results its clear that Trump will win the GOP nomination. He'll then easily beat Hillary in the general. Only way to stop Trump is for Hillary to drop out and for a brokered convention to draft in someone else (no idea who TBH).

In more exciting news Gillmore not just has passed the three digit milestone but sits smugly on a pile of 151 votes. It's ON!

Plato_Says

JeremyCorbyn4PM
A leader who wears a union badge with pride at #pmqs is a true leader of the people. RT if you agree #heartunions https://t.co/dfu2tnDNJX

DavidL

malcolmg said:

OchEye said:

malcolmg

what is taking so long then , seen lots of hot air spoken but yet to see or hear of anyone being interviewed by police etc or any sign of any wrongdoing. Happy for you to prove otherwise rather than just yellowbelly unionist smearing of course.

PS unionist Tories or Labour decrying people for making money is a laugh. Some people do need help to save them being stupid but at the end of the day if you have a willing seller and a willing buyer then you cannot whinge afterwards. If those were not the rules then the courts would be full of Tory and Labour parasites. SNP follow exactly the same rules as them.

Er! sorry for the delay Malkie, had some work to do.

Let's see, with McGarry, the problem lies with her. If she had just given over her PayPal password and copies of her bank statements to the auditors then there would be no problems in proving her innocence. She hasn't, for whatever reason. I suspect that PS are trying to get the information from PayPal, which since it is based in the litigous US is very wary about releasing information to, to them, overseas legal authorities. Also PS have to get McGarry's bank statements. I would be very surprised if Anwar had not investigated ways of delaying the information to be released to PS.

Remember, it was the 20 odd SNP supporters who clyped on her, if they hadn't, they could have been due for prison time. I have been surprised at how unpopular McGarry is amongst SNP members, but not, for some reason, amongst the hierarchy.

As to Thomson, even Sturgeon as a practised solicitor, and with even a small amount of conveying experience could see Thomson was not just skating on thin ice, she was trying to walk on water with concrete boots on. PS, the Procurator Fiscal, the Legal Society and the SG are dancing around each other. Again, Anwar would not be doing his job if he could not cause a bit of confusion and delay things until after May.

I agree Thomson was sailing close to the wind law wise and pretty crap morals wise but been lots of lawyers at same game , she obviously learned that from a Tory. Distasteful as it is she did it with willing sellers , they were not forced to sell at gunpoint. Buying low from someone foolish enough or desperate enough to sell is not a crime. Most of them would likely have got zero when they were evicted or non payment in any event.
McGarry I have no idea, I think that whole group all thought they were something special and having fallen out certain cliques are finger pointing. Sounds like they were just absolute crap at admin and accounting, whilst busy playing bigshots, for the money they spent.

Thomson's problem is not in the purchases (that is just a moral issue of whether it is appropriate to seek to profit from someone's misfortune) but in what she told her lenders.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. P, what's the Spitfire reference?

watford30

malcolmg said:

watford30 said:

malcolmg said:

watford30 said:

malcolmg said:

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

SNP follow exactly the same rules as them.

Oh, but I thought the SNP were better than the Tories & Labour

Thanks for clearing that up.....

Only people like you make out that they should be, whilst your idols have feet of clay yet you still worship them.
Scottish people are well aware the SNP are not perfect but compared to the Tories and Labour they are a breath of fresh air and they actually care about Scotland.

Except for those members of the SNP who care more about enriching themselves to the detriment of their fellow countrymen dying from cancer.

keep spouting smears and lies, you will get some low life's similar to yourself to believe you one day

Are you claiming that Thompson didn't profit from a 'cash back' payment after the purchase and back to back sale of the property of a 77 year old cancer sufferer?

I am not claiming anything other than stating that you are a LIAR. YOU have no clue what you are talking about and are just regurgitating some crap from a right wing rag. Now F Off loser and bother someone else with your pathetic rubbish.

All recorded by the Registers of Scotland.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/SNP/11908966/Records-indicate-more-back-to-back-Michelle-Thomson-deals.html

Perhaps you should lay off the hooch.

richardDodd

Why does Corbyn bother to turn up at PMQs

Richard_Nabavi

Plato_Says said:

BBC
All claims in the tribunal against Bexhill and Battle MP Huw Merriman - relating to his previous job in finance - have been withdrawn.

Excellent. It always looked like a spurious claim.

Plato_Says

I really do hope he doesn't drop out, it's too much fun.

OMRLP candidates here get more voters in a single seat, nevermind a whole state.

YossariansChild said:

Looking at last nights results its clear that Trump will win the GOP nomination. He'll then easily beat Hillary in the general. Only way to stop Trump is for Hillary to drop out and for a brokered convention to draft in someone else (no idea who TBH).

In more exciting news Gillmore not just has passed the three digit milestone but sits smugly on a pile of 151 votes. It's ON!

Tissue_Price

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Tissue_Price said:

Here are the implied chances in a general for all the main runners. Basically, if you think the implied chance looks high, you're better off backing them in the primary, and if you think it looks low, you should go for the general.

Sanders looks very high, Biden, Rubio & Kasich all look low. Trump is an enigma, and Hillary's chance is increasingly tied up with his.

          Primary   General   Implied Chance
Clinton    1.28      1.99          64%
Sanders    5.45      11.2          49%
Biden       33        70           47%

Trump      2.55      7.30          35%
Rubio      4.35      10.2          43%
Bush       8.70      16.7          52%
Cruz       5.75      19.2          30%
Kasich      31        75           42%

Let's assume Trump gets the nomination.

He's seen off Rubio's charm; Bush's money; Cruz's religious appeal; and navigated any major blunder. Why can't he see off Clinton?

I think you may well be right.

Pulpstar

@Tissue_Price Exercise implies odds as follows for DEM of

1.59 (2.68 GOP)

The current price is 1.71/1.72 so implied value on the GOP side in the POTUS race, and Sanders is certainly best backed for the nomination and not POTUS.

logical_song

HYUFD said:

The GOP race is really down to two, Trump and Cruz, the winners of New Hampshire and Iowa as no Republican has won the party's presidential nomination since 1976 without winning one of those 2 states. Whichever of Trump or Cruz wins South Carolina will almost certainly be the nominee

I disagree, I don't think we'll know until after Super Tuesday, if then.
Once a Republican establishment candidate breaks from the others things will become clearer. Cruz is Tea Party and is hated by the Republican establishment
http://www.vox.com/2016/1/28/10846212/ted-cruz-republicans-hate
Maybe they could tolerate Trump, but would prefer Kasich, Bush or Rubio. If none of those break free expect a Clinton presidency.