Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Monday October 26 2015, @12:31PM   Printer-friendly
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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday October 26 2015, @07:37PM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday October 26 2015, @07:37PM (#254841) Journal

    Your point would be? Are you saying that the less wealthy guy is "entitled" to eat better, or what? If he makes $100 per pay period, then he needs to think about keeping his costs below $100 per pay period.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 26 2015, @11:15PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 26 2015, @11:15PM (#254924)

    Your point would be?

    My point is what I stated quite clearly, that, contrary to your claims, there's nothing at all that's fair about a flax tax as it literally takes food away from poor people.

    • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday October 26 2015, @11:30PM

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday October 26 2015, @11:30PM (#254929) Journal

      You'll have to do better than that. Other people who seem to share your opinion that poor people are entitled to food have at least suggested that the first $x,xxx dollars are exempt from tax. You're simply stating that a flat tax is unfair. Well, I insist that a flat tax is far more fair than what we have going today.

      I want a flat tax, the same rate applying to everyone, no matter how high their income, no matter the source of their income. If you earn 30,000 in employment wages, another 8,000 in the stock market, another 20,000 in consulting fees, and 3,000 more in sale of assets, then ALL of it is subject to the same 30% tax. And, next year, if you only earn your 30,000 as an employee of some corporation, without any additional income, you pay the same 30%.

      I might bend on some point at which income is NOT taxable. First 20,000 exempt from taxation? I could live with that, I guess. I don't like it, but I could live with it. At 20,001, you pay $.30, and for every additional dollar in income though.