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: 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_