Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » After the latest Trump-Cruz blow-up David Herdson suggests
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » After the latest Trump-Cruz blow-up David Herdson suggests a 50/1 punt on Kasich
It’s probably all over: the sex scandal now engulfing Ted Cruz means that Donald Trump is highly likely to be the Republicans’ nominee for president. Highly likely but not certain.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Matthew Doyle, 46, of south Croydon, was charged on Friday morning under Section 19 of the Public Order Act.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-35898029
If this is true, then this assists PB.com. GBP/USD varies naturally during the day, so let's do it over a day. Take a note of GBP/USD at 9pm the day before voting day. Take a note of GBP/USD at 9pm on voting day itself. If GBP has fallen, LEAVE is ahead. If it has risen, REMAIN is ahead.
If SPIN follows GE practice, SPIN will shut down briefly at about 9:45pm before coming back up at about 10:15pm with post-exit poll odds. So we'll have a 45-minute window between 9pm and 9:45pm to pile in using GBP/USD as a proxy indicator.
Conversely of course, we could just bug John Curtice's phone...
I sure hope so. Croydon pol need their collective nose publically tweaked.
It's counterintuitive but it does seem that it could be bad for Trump if Cruz self-destructs. It would force Never Trump to rally around Kasich and Kasich is, potentially, a more formidable opponent than Cruz. Unlike Cruz, he polls far better against Hillary than Trump and he is someone the Republican establishment wouldn't have to hold its nose to support.
As others have said, there is a world of difference between Trump being, say, 20 delegates short and him being 100 short. In the latter case it will be very hard for him to claim that he has "really" won and to paint anyone else as a "loser". He'd be a loser himself.
I think Kasich is value if Cruz pull outs or dwindles into an irrelevance. Thing is, how likely is that part of the deal? Cruz could well fend this off.
Head north, away from the deadly virus.
Basically where we're heading is that Trump should get enough votes to win the thing outright, and even if he comes up a bit short he only has to swing a small proportion of the swingable delegates, some of whom will be amenable to the argument that he got the most votes.
If he somehow manages to lose the first ballot then he's still the overwhelming favourite for the next one, and failing that Cruz is next in line and still controls most of the non-Trump delegates, and if they don't go for Cruz it seems more likely they'd pick somebody who didn't run than somebody who ran and didn't get many votes.
So it could happen but I reckon it's more like 100/1.
Fitter and way smarter, as well as older, than Reagan too...
His odds with Betfair are currently 44, the equivalent of 41/1 after their 5% commission charges, which compares with the best bookie's odds of 40/1 from BETFRED, while the likes of Wm. Hill have him at a measly 20/1.
Having backed Kasich at over 100/1,these odds at this stage of the game just aren't big enough for me. Certainly he possesses most of the attributes to be considered as serious POTUS material, but in this game timing and strategy are everything and these are the two aspects he sadly got wrong in the earlier stages of the contest ...... so this one's not for me.
http://hollywoodlife.com/2016/03/25/reporter-confirms-ted-cruz-cheating-scandal-washington-times-drew-johnson/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35903066
It's worth noting that the article you linked to doesn't even get the story right, referring to the women as 'hookers', which none of them are (unless any woman who has sex with a married man is a prostitute in their eyes).
We won't have confirmation of this story unless either Cruz or one of his alleged partners confirms it. So far all of them, including the one who works for Donald Trump, have flatly denied it. That could change but right now this looks more likely to be mud slinging by a man with a grudge. If that's the case I hope for his sake the slinger in question has a good lawyer and plenty of insurance.
I think Clinton will beat Trump, although it wouldn't surprise me if it were closer than people expect. Therefore I agree with your article of a few weeks ago that only the FBI can stop her now.
Considering she is old, allegedly corrupt, undoubtedly arrogant, lazy, incompetent and is the only person for fifty years who has advocated the use of nuclear weapons as an instrument of US foreign policy, that's not great. But we are where we are.
TBH, though, I would think that the FBI aren’t now going to find enough to do anything.
Now, Trump might well get 1200+. Just because a discredited Cruz (and he isn't that yet) might back Kasich, it doesn't mean that all his supporters would - Trump would only need a small proportion of them to retain a clear lead over JK in the remaining states. But Kasich could win over the majority of Cruz's support, he might well win enough to take it to the convention.
Yeah, well. The apostrophe stands for something. I just put the something back!
There's reportedly video of Cruz and the same woman leaving a hotel together on several Tuesday and Thursdays. Assuming this is released then that's hard to handwave away.
The other is the fact of $500k PAC donation to Carly campaign - that looks really strange.
Interesting if Meeks claims these people are mad, infantile and irrational.
It's only certain specific names that get attention such as security experts like Dearlove or the CIA chap. The rest are just news porridge.
The Republicans haven't found a way to stop him destroying the credibility of the rest of the field (although to be fair, they mostly did that by their own words or deeds). Why do folk think the Democrats will have better fortune in stopping Trump? Because their choice has ovaries?
In an age of anti-politics, Trump's edge is that just about nobody in the political mainstream says he should be the candidate. Meaning he comes with zero baggage of Entitlement. Hillary oozes it. She is a wretched candidate. So bad that Red-under-the-Bed Saunders has run her embarrassingly close. He should be a rounding error on the spoilt ballots, not winning states.
Or, put another way, if Trump fails to win on the first ballot, expect his delegate count to head south on the second and keep going thereafter. Presumably, this is one reason why candidates 'suspend' their campaign rather than fully withdraw: their delegates can remain bound. If Trump does fall short, I wouldn't be surprised to see Cruz, Rubio formally reactivate their campaigns just to ensure that their delegates cannot vote for Trump initially.
However, I disagree with your third paragraph. If Cruz does fall and Trump doesn't make 1237, then Kasich will likely have 500+ delegates by the convention: probably more than Cruz. He would have to win the overwhelming majority of non-Trump delegates. That will make his case far more formidable than it was last week, say. He'd also have several more states under his belt (would he have the eight necessary for Rule 40 compliance? Possibly, but if not, expect that rule to be amended PDQ). If he does come to Cleveland with momentum and 500 delegates, I can't see the case for a non-runner entering the debate.
It's not likely but - IMO - the pieces fit together well enough to make it more likely than the exchange odds suggest.
The Washington Times is very much a niche publication on the right and far less read than the Post.
The question I asked myself when I was deciding what to write about was "how often have allegations like this proven false in the past?".
Now, being true and being believed to be true are two different things. Also, past performance is no guarantee of future (or present) results. I deliberately avoided stating that I believed the allegations (not least for legal reasons). In truth, all I can say is what I said in the article: I can believe in the possibility of them but it's a question of relative credibility. How much credibility we give them greatly affects the three candidates' odds. As such, we need to consider the question even if we ultimately decide that the answer is that Trump is a cert, or that it'll have no effect, or whatever.
1. Cruz is more dangerous than Trump - an idealogue from "the rapture is coming" school of "Christianity". His support is anti-establishment as well, why would they all back a mainstream figure like Kasich if it turns out their man has been doing gross hypocrisy as alleged
2. It's going to be Trump for the GOP ticket. Suggestions about stopping him aren't credible in the alleged leader of the democratic world. Assuming Trump falls just shy of the target but has far more delegates than anyone else it's simply not credible for the GOP to declare him to have lost and appoint someone else. Dame with the Dems should Sanders beat Shillary if they threaten to use the super delegates to overturn the result in her favour.
3. I'm still of the belief that Sanders could pull it off. But if he can't then it's Trump vs Clinton. And Trump will tear her apart on the campaign - her endless weak points - liar, warmongerer, wall street shill - all play to his campaign strengths. And for establishment "stop Trump" types they hate her already. Will they vote for a Clinton?
Unless they have him assasinated, itll be Trump for President. (Unless the Dems vote in Sanders in which case Bernie wins)
Accordingly Clinton will win with plenty to spare.
Hillary really is pretty much just another Nixon as well, isn't she?
Oh wait.
There's huge resistance to take Cruz down as the media detest Trump, and want anyone else. It took days before Edwards or Tiger stories got traction - just too hot to touch.
The Sun repeated the NE story first, then the Mail.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSgkY89p8_E
Trump could still yet fall short, but if Kasich was chosen over him I'd think a 3rd party Trump candidacy would be likely, making Kasich an unlikely General Election winner. I do agree that 50-1 is worth a small punt fo nominee, though.
Important that UK politics rises above such things.
Is it a President Trump landslide or ISIS sweeping along Downing Street with the "multiculturist gestapo" a close second in the "coming civil war"?
Next he'll be telling us Obama is ineligible to be President.
The simple answer is that a Third Party run could only ever be a spoiler. The option of following Roosevelt's bolt from the 1912 convention to set up his own full general election campaign no longer exists.
There are two main legal impediments to a candidate so doing so. Firstly, the deadlines for independent candidates to file for the general election are before the convention in many states. In other words, if Trump was denied in Cleveland, the window would already have closed on an independent run. And secondly, there are provisions within some states that forbid 'sore loser' candidacies, meaning that someone who ran for one nomination in the primaries cannot stand for a different party at the general.
Those provisions don't apply everywhere but would be a severely limiting factor for any candidate thinking of bolting.
Southern trains are most likely to kick off civil unrest.
Hillary vs Trump would be fascinating - she has plenty of ammunition too and is the original tough cookie. I think she'd win in the end, after a deeply unpleasant few months.
Surely it's over?
As Mark Twain said, 'History doesn't repeat itself but sometimes it rhymes'.
I have to say I can't see Trump beating Clinton. Demography and economics are both against him. But I confidently expect HRC to be an absolute disaster as President.
Previously my last stand was against the LibDem hordes invading from St.Albans but now the yellow peril is in temporary check clearly ISIS will be at my gates quicker than you can say "Daesh Winning Here".
Elton John blasting out from the perimeter tannoys "I'm Still Standing" should do the trick .... Phew ....
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/26/us/politics/john-kasich-campaign.html
If The Sun wanted to post a piece about a survey revealing supporting IS specifically then they could have commissioned a poll asking about support and specifying IS. If there was really no difference then you'd get the same headlines but honestly.
Oh my god I missed it .... I'll get Mrs JackW in a burka forthwith ....
IPSO "5% of those surveyed had a lot of sympathy, 14% some sympathy and 71% no sympathy with “young Muslims who leave the UK to join fighters in Syria”
IPSO "Those who responded to the question might not have intended for their answers to be understood as relating to those joining IS; a number of British Muslims had left the UK to fight against IS, or alongside anti-Assad forces or various Sunni groups. The newspaper had therefore distorted the poll results by presenting them as demonstrating “sympathy for jihadis”."
https://www.ipso.co.uk/IPSO/rulings/IPSOrulings-detail.html?id=331
Clearly we should pay more attention to the British Muslims who had left the UK to fight against IS, or alongside anti-Assad forces or various Sunni groups. Anyone seen numbers in the hundreds?
It was that they may have been fighting against IS that they had some sympathy for.......
Clinton is of course not an alcoholic. On the downside, she is a lot older than Nixon and has had health problems.
My automatic reservation would be Supreme Court appointments, but they could cut deals on that over say healthcare legislation.
On the other foot.
This Civil war in the SE does sound dangerous. The Midlands needs a wall - and for the mexicans to pay for it!
The Sun story had a lot of nonsense in it, but to my mind disentangling 'support for IS' from 'sympathy for the travellers' is a mistake. I don't doubt some people try to do that, as they don't want to condemn individuals, some of who will be really stupid or legitimately confused and angry about things, but if someone has made an active choice to go to Syria, they either know damn well what they are getting into, or are willfully blind. And I do not have sympathy for the willfully blind, just because they are deluded.
However, I do understand the motivation behind trying to separate out the two things. I think it unhelpful and arising from a desire not to confront some ugly truths (that some people do like IS and want to help them) by disassociating people from their own choices, but it can be easily overextended and that will always worry people.
Embrace the Trump
Has Rod been on the juice recently or is he really a right-wing/ultra-right-wing fruitcake?
Harvey Nicks is a bit down market for Mrs JackW.
Trouble is, we don't know that Trump is popular. If he isn't he'll lose anyway. At the moment, you've got the more centrist people agonising that he'll throw away the election to a dud candidate (Clinton). The lefties appear to be quite happy with the thought of those two slugging it out.
The candidate Trump resembles is Corbyn. I don't somehow think that either will prove the next Tsipras. Neither we nor the Americans are in the desperate straits as Greece - at least, not yet.
Edit - my autocorrect made 'Trump' into Trumpet. There could be a pun on Trumpet's Crumpet there given the stories about Cruz and Trump's undoubtedly colourful sex life! No charge TSE.
My guess is that one of these women will come forward although descriptions of them as hookers doesn't help and he will be toast. But who wants to live the life of a Monica? It is possible that they will stay silent. Either way Trump beats him but maybe not by enough to win outright. Can they really give the nomination to a guy who has only won his own state? Surely not.
Hillary will be an excellent President.
I asked them about Kaisch, and apparently it's worth digging hard on him. There's a reason why the establishment isn't backing him. It's been euphemistically described to me as "anger issues" but no one will be drawn on more precise details than that. Never known so many people clam up so fast.
http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/14382402.Hundreds_of_motorists_pulled_over_in_seat_belt_crackdown/
"The week of action was to part the first Tispol (European Traffic Police Network) seatbelt enforcement campaign of the year, and officers all over Europe carried out co-ordinated checks. "
I disagree with your point. What Trump says and stands for is unpalatable for some but he does stand for American aspiration. That aspiration is threatened and I think he will be more popular in voting booths than polls suggest (I have no idea if this has already happened in the primaries). The "shy Trump" factor could swing it for him.
I personally believe there will be a one term Trump presidency where he sets the future tone for America followed by a more moderate Republican to follow through his work.
I'm guessing it's more...
The paper said previous questions in the telephone survey had made explicit reference to IS and the overwhelming majority of those who leave the UK to join fighters in Syria are joining IS."
The Sun's reasoning is a mathematically provable logical fallacy.
Well, there are one or two people who are good at comedy but not on the left. Hopefully...
I bet many times more people in the EU will die this year from not wearing seatbelts, of by others who are not wearing seatbelts, than will be killed by terrorists.
But what does that matter if it get in the way of just another mindless bash-the-EU comment.
Indeed the number of men voting in Democratic primaries has been very low. Typically about 50/50 in male/female participation, while on the Democrats’ side it’s more like 44/56 male/female. Since Hillary isn’t doing so hot with those few men who do vote, she has an extremely lopsided gender gap among her supporters that the raw preference numbers are concealing. In Ohio, for instance, she lost men to Sanders by only 3 points which doesn’t sound so bad, but because so few men actually voted in the Dem primary only 36% of her supporters were male, while “BernieBro” Sanders actually had a very balanced supporter demographic that was 51% male, 49% female. Do those calculations for all the major candidates in a few recent states, and you get:
OHIO
Cruz (47/53)
Kasich (50/50)
Trump (55/45)
Clinton (36/64)
Sanders (51/49)
ILLINOIS
Cruz (49/51)
Kasich (46/54)
Trump (55/45)
Clinton (41/59)
Sanders (50/50)
MICHIGAN
Cruz (45/55)
Kasich (50/50)
Trump (64/36)
Clinton (41/59)
Sanders (50/50)
FLORIDA
Cruz (48/52)
Rubio (38/62)
Trump (56/44)
Clinton (37/63)
Sanders (51/49)
NORTH CAROLINA
Cruz (49/51)
Kasich (46/54)
Rubio (36/64)
Trump (54/46)
Clinton (38/62)
Sanders (48/52)
First number is the percentage of voters for that candidate that was male, second female.
The news media is talking about Trump’s problems with women, but the only state in this group where Trump had a more sex-imbalanced group of supporters than Clinton was in Michigan. Everywhere else it isn’t close. Clinton seems to repel men.
Ultimately Primaries tell us most about how strong a candidate is and which demographics are likely to turnout, or not. HRC's continuing struggles, indeed the fact she is weakening, are a big concern for the Democratic side.