SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the you-pay-your-money-and-you-take-your-chances dept.
Self-styled political outsiders Donald Trump (a billionaire businessman) and Ben Carson (a former neurosurgeon) are the frontrunners for the 2016 GOP nomination for the US Presidency, according to the Real Clear Politics average of five major polls conducted between October 10-18, 2015: Trump's 27 pct and Carson's 21 pct are far ahead of the next tier, which consists of Florida Sen. Marco Rubio (9 percent), Texas Sen. Ted Cruz (8 pct) and former Florida Gov Jeb Bush (7 pct).
The betting markets view the race differently. Rubio has recently taken over as front-runner in most of the political books and prediction markets, replacing Bush, who is now in second place. This duo is followed by Trump, and then (in varying order) Carson, Cruz, and former businesswoman Carly Fiorina. The remaining nine candidates who have participated in at least one televised GOP debate, and who have not dropped out, are given long odds, typically between 15-1 and 100-1.
Here is the current betting line from Ladbrokes, a London-based bookmaker. For those who enjoy staring at spreadsheets, here is the rollup of online bookmakers and prediction markets.
A few books admit the possibility that a presently-undeclared candidate such as Mitt Romney or Michael Bloomberg could win the GOP nomination, perhaps to break a voting deadlock at the convention; they are given long odds.
Betting on political elections is prohibited in the USA, but overseas bettors aren't subject to such puritanical restrictions. A UK journalist, commenting on the betting action over who would be the country's prime minister after the upcoming general election, explained why the betting markets are often a more reliable guide than the pollsters. Incidentally, they turned out to be right in the case discussed in the article; incumbent David Cameron retained the office after the Conservatives won enough seats in Parliament to assemble a working majority.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Monday October 26 2015, @01:54PM
Here's the thing about the Democrats versus the Republicans: If you watched the two debates, you saw the Republicans busy trying to out-God and out-conservative each other while the Democrats were seriously discussing policy proposals. Even the guys who have since dropped out (Jim Webb and Lincoln Chaffee) were mostly focused on policy ideas e.g. "What should we do about Syria?" and spoke relatively realistically about the options.
Right now, the impression I get from the Republicans is that they have much more of an interest in looking good on TV than they do in actually governing. Their front-runners Trump and Carson are both TV personalities with absolutely zero experience in government. You left out Fiorina: A failed CEO who is being treated like she's a brilliant leader when the only thing she's ever shown aptitude for is marketing herself (and again, with absolutely no government experience).
The House is looking even worse: The Freedom Caucus has made it abundantly clear that their goal is to use the power of the purse to force the entire domestic apparatus of the US federal government to shut down. The deal that Paul Ryan (a guy whose claim to fame is budget proposals where the numbers don't add up) is cutting with them includes a promise to do exactly that. Now, I guess if you're a libertarian you see that as good news, but for anybody else that seems like a really really bad idea.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Monday October 26 2015, @02:12PM
And, you hit the key notes of many libertarian and independent pundits. The Republicans are so retarded, they just let the Democrats walk all over them. In effect, they permit the Democrats to draw up the outline of the game, as well as the rules of the game, then they show up late to the game, and think that they can beat the Dems, despite their home field advantage.
And, people like myself who despise democratic policy are left wondering why they even play the game. WTF? We lose whether the Republicans play or not.
The only thing going for the Republicans at this point in time, is the fact that Democrats have held the White House for 8 years, and the incumbent has record low approval ratings. Even black people and Muslims disapprove of the chump.
And, THAT only points up the stupidity of Democrats. They want to run Shrillary? How is that different from a third term for Obama? Put Hillary into a real suit, and Obama into a tacky pants suit, and you can't tell them apart!
(Score: 5, Informative) by Thexalon on Monday October 26 2015, @03:13PM
No he doesn't. Obama's lowest approval rating on record is 37%, and is currently around 46% [realclearpolitics.com], which is not great but certainly not a record low. The lowest recorded presidential approval rating was 19%, for George W Bush (Harry Truman is a close second, hitting a low of 22%). What was your source for the idea that his rating was a record low?
The body with truly remarkably low approval ratings is Congress, currently at 16% in the most generous poll (less generous ones put approval of Congress in the single digits). And those numbers have been below 30% for years [realclearpolitics.com].
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday October 26 2015, @03:27PM
What was your source for the idea that his rating was a record low?
Probably for his term?
Its been bouncing along the same low level for the last four and a half years, with variation being quite a bit smaller than error bars. He's a pretty consistent dude. It took him only a couple months to go from 60/20 to his current stats which he hasn't budged from. Its been about half a decade since he's been above low forties and he's never been below low forties, plus or minus maybe five percent polling error bars.
So technically he's been at his record low for almost his entire time in office.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday October 26 2015, @03:55PM
Possibly, although Pew Research [pewresearch.org] definitely doesn't seem to think so. The presidents who've really sunk down to the floor were either embroiled in scandal (e.g. Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton) or gotten a bunch of American civilians killed due to lousy foreign policy (Carter, George W Bush), while Obama really hasn't been caught up in either of those (whether he should or not is open for debate, but so far he hasn't been).
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday October 26 2015, @06:14PM
or gotten a bunch of American civilians killed due to lousy foreign policy (Carter, George W Bush)
I sincerely hope that isn't why people hate Bush. The damage the terrorist attack did is nothing compared to the damage done to our country when the government decided to respond to it by shredding our constitution and violating our fundamental liberties more than it did before. Of course, if being a supporter of freedom is your reason for hating Bush, you probably also hate nearly every single politician in existence.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 26 2015, @09:38PM
When I think of "overt militarism", Jimmy Carter is way, way, WAY down on the list.
Now, there was lots of covert stuff going on then in Central America and South America that was funded and planned and executed with USA.gov's help.
I'm thinking not many USAians got zapped in those activities.
The only actual military operation I associate with Carter was the Desert One fiasco where aircraft ran into each other in a sandstorm at an improvised airfield during a rescue operation.
To see a significant number of dead USAians before Dubya, I think you would want to mention Reagan and the barracks bombing.
-- gewg_
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bziman on Monday October 26 2015, @04:51PM
Third term for Obama? You mean a fifth term for Bush, don't you?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 26 2015, @05:51PM
No. You might think it makes you sound "Insightful" to say shit like that, but that is a pretty ignorant thing to say. Because you disagree with both of them does not make the two of them the same.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bradley13 on Monday October 26 2015, @02:44PM
There's only one thing wrong with your comment, and that is the phrase "the Democrats were seriously discussing policy proposals".
They weren't seriously discussing anything. At least, not in the sense of trying to put forward genuine policy proposals. They were saying the words they think the public wants to hear. No one, not one single candidate, actually intends to do any of the things they propose. Just like good old hope'n'change Obama: one they are in office, it's "the new boss, same as the old boss". Rule by the 1%, continuation of the same big government, corporate cronyism policies that both parties support. The only real difference between the two parties is minor quibbling over exactly how the spoils will be divided.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Thexalon on Monday October 26 2015, @07:22PM
For what it's worth, Bernie Sanders does have a record of consistently putting his money and his votes where his mouth is. As in, I know people in the city he was mayor, and my sister lives in Vermont, and there's a pretty universal view that he's the least politician-y politician out there.
I'd have every reason to expect him to use the power of the presidency to do exactly what he says he wants to do to the best of his ability.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by Murdoc on Wednesday October 28 2015, @01:56AM
"...to the best of his ability."
And that is where he'll fail. Welcome to the US political machine/meat-grinder. Still, if elected, he may become known as the least ineffective/damaging president.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 27 2015, @12:13AM
When did mind-reading become possible? Hillary is the only one you can truly say that about, but Hillary is far from the only candidate.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday October 27 2015, @02:27AM
Mind-reading isn't possible, but I would say taking into account probability would be a good move. Given history, how likely is it that many or any of these losers are actually telling the truth? Not very likely from what I see.
Furthermore, a lot of the policies these fools claim to support are awful, so if they do intend to implement them, that would also be bad.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday October 27 2015, @08:47AM
They weren't seriously discussing anything. At least, not in the sense of trying to put forward genuine policy proposals.
You see, this is how far it has gone. Poor Bradley (13- is that Borg designation?) cannot even detect when policy is being discussed! The Right Wing Noise machine has totally discombuberated his policy-discussion detection systems! How many other humans might be in the same condition? Can we expect a Cube, or at least a Sphere, so that me might all be assimilated into the Newt Collective along with Limbaugh, O'Really, Alex Jones, and D'nesh D'souza? I hope the end will be quick and merciful. If not, some of these bastards should do hard jail time.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday October 26 2015, @02:55PM
The incumbent party candidates tend to compare themselves to the dude in office, either positively or negatively, to raise money. The dude in office is the lightning rod they all revolve around because, lets face it, he won last time, so you want to position yourself as the dude who won plus a little bit better. Hey you guys who gave the last winner $1M, look at me I'm just him with different demographics, I agree with everything he did that turned out to work and disagree with everything he did that turned out not to work, now toss some of that money over here just like you purchased him last time!
The non-incumbent party candidates have no incumbent lightning rod, so they hoover up as many extremists as possible to get PAC money and nomination votes, at which point they ignore them and rush to the center at the speed of a near sonic boom. If they had a lightning rod they'd beta orbit the lightning rod, but then by definition they'd be the incumbent party as per above and it would be the other guys flirting with extremists and it would be all about who's a better friend to the SPLC rather than who's a better friend to the NRA or whatever.
Its a story old as the hills and the -R or -D only apply as per incumbency (is that a word?) status. Aside from that yeah your observations are mostly accurate they're following the stage rules just like the last zillion elections. With the merger of .com and .gov some time ago, dudes who mostly played the .com team are hardly inexperienced with the .gov side. Also Fiorina is the token woman, if the -D put up a woman as nominee or VP then she's in. She's a total loser and would hopefully lose, but she's guaranteed in, so we're stuck with her stinking up the place until the -D side announces nominee and veep, assuming they don't pick yet another member of the Clinton crime family, in which case we're stuck with her as veep.
Its an unusually weak slate of candidates. Nobody with leadership skill wants the job, so you're left with riff raff on both sides. Must be El Nino or global warming or something. You'd think that somewhere out there, on both sides, there would be better qualified candidates, perhaps a dogcatcher or a small town mayor or owner of a hot dog push cart.
(Score: 2) by SecurityGuy on Monday October 26 2015, @05:38PM
There's a lot of truth there, and it's left a lot of current and former Republicans looking for someone who can actually represent them. The party that used to claim to be against big government and pro leaving people alone (aka freedom) is long dead.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 26 2015, @06:09PM
> I guess if you're a libertarian you see that as good news, but for anybody else that seems like a really really bad idea.
Even a libertarian can acknowledge that whatever government we need must be effective and competent - a focus on cuts without a focus on improving governance is easiest but also the easiest path to failure.