Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Trump set for big victory in New York – Hillary projected t
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Trump set for big victory in New York – Hillary projected to win Dems race
politicalbetting.com is proudly powered by WordPress
with "Neat!" theme. Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Trump is in safe territory above 50 in 17 out of 27 CD.
Trump's margin is safely over 50 in 20 out of 27 CD's.
Maybe 12-14 delegates closer to the nom than yesterday's prediction.
May or may not fall slightly short in pledged delegates. Unbound will see him over the line, imho.
And he'll win in November.
Some of them are definitely too close, it could make him go from 92 down to 85.
All the talk about denying him the nomination has been just that - talk. A kind of psychological warfare by the GOP establishment.
CD-25 has completed it's count with Trump at 51.41.
But he's safe in 20 out of 27, so 88 delegates minimum.
Goodnight, or goodmorning.
Trump outperformed his polls a bit this time, that's a rarity, he only managed to do that in Arizona I think.
You have to hit Search to refresh.
Trump is winning every CD, but in up to five may miss the 50% clean sweep threshold.
-2 12th (Kasich has won)
13th is on a knife edge for 0 or -1
20th -1
24th -1
David Furnish enjoyed a fun night out in London with a bevvy of pals on Tuesday evening.
The Canadian filmmaker, 53, looked handsome in a smart ensemble as he joined his shoe designer friend Patrick Cox for a VIP screening of new documentary, Mapplethorpe: Look At The Pictures.
Joined by the moviemaker Fenton Bailey, the trio looked relaxed and chilled as they stepped out at upmarket cinema, The Curzon Mayfair.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-3548723/Beaming-David-Furnish-looks-dapper-suave-suit-jacket-leather-waistcoat-enjoys-boys-night-movie-screening-shoe-designer-pal-Patrick-Cox.html
Trump 60.5 (89) .. Kasich 25.1 (3) .. Cruz 14.5
Clinton 57.9 (135) .. Sanders 42.1 (104)
Via RCP
However, I'm not sure he will get that far. NY was an excellent result - one of the few times he's outperformed the polls - but was also his home state. The next round will be more instructive as to what he'll finish up with.
I hope @Speedy is having a good sleep. Chortle.
If the scenarios being provided by the Leave side are not credible then it's important to point that out. There are few Euro-enthusiasts on the Remain side, from what I can tell; just a lot of people who believe that we are better off in than out.
When Leave propose the future looks like Albania or Bosnia, you do have to wonder if they have joined Project Fear too...
Personally, I think Remain need to be careful that they don't mock Britain as looking just like Albania or Bosnia if it were independent, which I might find insulting if I didn't find it so funny.
But, hey, what do I know.
For Hillary it is a good solid win which will hopefully stop the rot but she was a long way from smashing Sanders out of the park. Her road to victory still looks a bit of a slog rather than a procession.
In November I think it will be much closer than the odds seem to be indicating. A 72% chance of a Clinton win is ridiculous.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-state-by-state-roadmap-for-the-rest-of-the-republican-primary/
I think he's now an 85% shot. Whether he'll be quite as hopeless for the main election as most think is another matter. He's perfectly capable of reinventing himself as a moderate, leaving his negatives as being crude (which a lot of people don't mind) and unreliable (which maybe they factor into politicians). I think Clinton (who is clearly going to be the Democratic nominee) will be the favourite, but say a 60-65% shot.
Well look at that
But, yes: I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him.
I think Trump will do a deal with Kasich to try and get Ohio and to bring more of the party together. It will also help his "moderate" credentials to have him on the ticket.
Next stop Indiana
Donald J. Trump Verified account
@realDonaldTrump
Join me in Indianapolis, Indiana tomorrow at 3pm! #Trump2016
Absolubtely CRUCIAL state.
But, hey, what do I know.
It was the director of Vote Leave that suggested an economic model like Albania. Perhaps he has spent a lot of time with Jeremy Corbyn! To be fair it would reverse the migration issue...
http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/daniel-hannan-in-an-uncertain-world-britain-would-be-safer-running-its-own-affairs-a3228706.html
* Not that there's anything wrong with those countries
http://www.lefigaro.fr/international/2016/04/19/01003-20160419ARTFIG00374-les-europeens-veulent-garder-le-royaume-uni-dans-l-ue.php
Moreover, this is a very narrow analysis. Rather a large part of the UK's international trade (over half of goods, the bulk of services trade) already occurs happily enough without the 'magic' of the EU. And this is the part that is growing fastest.
You also need to look at the overall welfare gains from all the trade pattern changes exiting the EU would bring about - and there would certainly be quite large changes over time, I think (again this is where the Treasury analysis is flawed). Shifting from relatively expensive EU sources of supply to cheaper non-EU ones after exiting the EU will bring welfare gains.
What we really have going on here is basically a lot of special interests announcing that 'they are the economy' and demanding their special position be maintained. But the essence of a successful economy is not fossilisation of the pattern of supply, helped by trade protection, but the opposite i.e. adaptability and change.
You might also be interested to know that parts of the European left are getting nervous about the proposed TTIP on the basis that some estimates suggest it will lead to a reduction (possibly quite a large one) in intra-EU trade, something that will 'damage European integration'. That gives you some idea about what EU trade deals are really all about.
Or I think I'll have it coming regardless.
Trump 43 .. Kasich 29 .. Cruz 24
Clinton 58 .. Sanders 33
Clinton 61 .. Trump 28
Clinton 58 .. Cruz 24
Clinton 54 .. Kasich 33
Sanders 60 .. Trump 29
Sanders 62 .. Cruz 24
Sanders 52 .. Kasich 32
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_MD_41916.pdf
There will be two Trump takes most states next week, plus winner takes all in Connecticut and the rump 17 in PA
If you think the single market, as it's currently constituted, is Britain's economic future, that it should be deepened in services, not lightened, and, therefore, even having 1/28th of the say in the rules is better than none, plus you're doing well, don't want any short-term economic disruption and you're not too bothered by concepts of sovereignty or politics, then you're probably going to be for Remain.
If, however, you think the UK's future is global, that the EU will form an ever shrinking proportion of our trade, that it increasingly be dominated by the eurozone, outvoting the UK, that the limited influence we'll retain doesn't compensate for the shared powers the EU has over the UK with its permanent QMV majority, and that it makes sense for the UK to be represented on global bodies itself independently and able to control its own trade deals, that you're confident an independent UK can be just as successful as other smaller anglosphere nations, controlling both its own laws and borders, even if this causes some short term disruption to the existing economic order, but you feel it has to be done and it won't be that bad, then you're probably going to be for Leave.
For example, the fact that parts made in the UK must comply with EU standards and regulations means that a manufacturer based in a third country can safely import them for use in building machinery intended for export back to the EU. If the UK is no longer part of the single market, then this manufacturer cannot be sure that the parts made in the UK are compliant with EU law, thus making UK suppliers less attractive to third country manufacturers.
batch traceability isn't that difficult these days.
I think this is what it all comes down to.
If you think the single market, as it's currently constituted, is Britain's economic future, that it should be deepened in services, not lightened, and, therefore, even having 1/28th of the say in the rules is better than none, plus you're doing well, don't want any short-term economic disruption and you're not too bothered by concepts of sovereignty or politics, then you're probably going to be for Remain.
If, however, you think the UK's future is global, that the EU will form an ever shrinking proportion of our trade, that it increasingly be dominated by the eurozone, outvoting the UK, that the limited influence we'll retain doesn't compensate for the shared powers the EU has over the UK with its permanent QMV majority, and that it makes sense for the UK to be represented on global bodies itself independently and able to control its own trade deals, that you're confident an independent UK can be just as successful as other smaller anglosphere nations, controlling both its own laws and borders, even if this causes some short term disruption to the existing economic order, but you feel it has to be done and it won't be that bad, then you're probably going to be for Leave.
---------------------------------------------------
At the end of the day, it is all about the politics, not the economics. The purpose of the EU and the trade structures it creates, is to further European political integration. If you favour that, vote REMAIN.
If you are unhappy about EU political integration, you should vote LEAVE. Happily, this is also the better long run option economically. If you want to vote on narrowly economic grounds, you should also vote LEAVE.
Worth also remembering that the flip side of all those superdelegates is that technically, Hillary won't win a definitive majority off bound delegates alone before the convention. As such, Sanders can legitimately continue to campaign on the notional argument that he could persuade the supers to change their mind - and the real one that his continued presence will influence the debate. Which is, after all, exactly what Hillary did in 2008 in a near-identical position.
your hypothetical problem is about as realistic as saying what would happen if you discovered all the engines you had shipped were made of cheese. It's possible but not very likely.
The Supers are for Clinton for two reasons - Firstly she was the front runner and likely overall winner but secondly and usually overlooked is that the Clinton's have huge hinterland in the party, supporting candidates nationwide and raising hundreds of millions of dollars over the decades. In contrast Sanders is a semi-detached figure.
REMAIN 38 (+3)
LEAVE 34 (-1)
Dates 12-14th April
N=1,198
Tabs storage.pardot.com/66092/93040/20… #EUreferendum #VoteLeave #StrongerIn
It's just as likely third countries will buy more from us as we are able to respond more quickly to the global market in things like cancer drugs, genetic research and machine intelligence.
Down with reality! Hate it! Hate it!
http://nypost.com/2016/02/28/hillary-could-lose-to-trump-in-democratic-new-york/
Interesting Sam Wang is using my neighbouring counties method to look at IN. As with Florida etc. I think NY showed closed primaries don't hurt Trump at all, that IN is open to Dem troublemakers is a concern.
http://election.princeton.edu/2016/04/18/gop-update-pre-new-york/