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: 3, Insightful) by VLM on Monday October 26 2015, @03:34PM
It's a sad state of affairs when Jeb Bush is the 'reasonable' candidate.
He's one of the neocon nutcases. Only reasonable from a neo- or corporatist position. Otherwise, he's pretty much nuts.
You should instead ask why the "fuck you" vote is so large?
The neocon / tea party people took over the -R party financially, for awhile, until mere money couldn't float them anymore, meanwhile they kicked out all the "normal" republican people like me. If you're not a billionaire or talk directly to Jesus on a daily basis, it was bye bye don't let the door hit you on the ass, back in the 90s and 00s. So all they had in their little extremist camp was an enormous pile of corporate money, extreme fundies, chickenhawks, and corporate hirelings. It worked for awhile until it didn't.
There's a large number of non-neo -R class of people itching to vote for someone not bankrolled by the Koch brothers or anyone not holier than thou (which incidentally excludes the mad doctor).
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Monday October 26 2015, @04:13PM
> There's a large number of non-neo -R class of people itching to vote for someone not bankrolled by the Koch brothers or anyone not holier than thou (which incidentally excludes the mad doctor).
So why the fuck haven't all these people started a brand new party all of their own to scratch that itch? I know you have a strong two-party dichotomy mentality over there and that many people would vote for a rabid possum wearing a red/ blue rosette out of nothing but habit, but surely by now there ought to be some third-choice "Sane Conservative Party" or something gradually gaining ground over the last ten or fifteen years. If it exists, I've yet to hear of it. The only alternative/ independent candidate I ever hear about is that Ron Paul guy, and from what I can tell he's just as squirrelshit as the Rs.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday October 26 2015, @04:27PM
Its more or less called the libertarian party. Pretty much since the neo's took over I've been voting -L, in the event that I vote.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Monday October 26 2015, @04:38PM
I thought the libertarians were the ones that wanted to scrap welfare, abolish taxes, and remove all forms of "meddling" with the "free market" (ie get rid of things like environmental regulations, health & safety, minimum wage, monopoly controls etc) - that doesn't sound to me like a more sane and reasonable republican party. It sounds like a super concentrated neo-conservatism, now with less Jesus.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 26 2015, @06:10PM
Well, neo-conservatives usually want the government to intrude on people's personal lives as much as possible. Mass surveillance, the TSA, the drug war, etc. I would say that that is the main difference between them and most libertarians.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 26 2015, @08:16PM
You have described a Authoritarian Reactionary.
A Neoconservative is an interventionist who really really likes The Military-Industrial Complex and wants all that stuff that has been purchased to be constantly used in Imperialist (mis)adventures.
Very often, they are Chickenhawks who never served in the military.
If they did serve, it's a pretty safe bet they were never in ground combat.
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 27 2015, @07:05AM
But all of this surveillance and anti-privacy nonsense is closely related to the Military-Industrial complex. Often it's in the name of defense.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 26 2015, @08:24PM
I thought the libertarians were the ones that wanted to scrap welfare, abolish taxes, and remove all forms of "meddling" with the "free market" (ie get rid of things like environmental regulations, health & safety, minimum wage, monopoly controls etc) -
Those are Anarchists calling themselves Libertarians, most of us really just want to streamline government and minimize waste. Most Libertarians recognize that there are times when some regulation is needed, like with OSHA and the EPA; it's when those organizations overstep their bounds that we get annoyed. Really more like classical Liberals before liberalism got overrun with SJWs and such.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 26 2015, @10:31PM
remove all forms of "meddling"
And I would have gotten away with it, too, if it weren't for you meddling bureaucrats!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 26 2015, @10:20PM
but surely by now there ought to be some third-choice "Sane Conservative Party" or something
Response:
Its more or less called the libertarian party. Pretty much since the neo's took over I've been voting -L, in the event that I vote.
Excuse me, but the parent post was asking for something "sane" and "conservative", not something insanely individualist and radical beyond all measure! I mean, holey Ayn Rand, Batman!
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday October 26 2015, @06:52PM
Maybe because most voters don't want to vote for a party who is going to lose the first 4-8 elections they're in.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"