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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 27 2015, @08:12AM
ISTM, Runaway1956 would do well to look at the Libertarian slate or the Constitution Party.
There just **has** to be some other Plantation Capitalist who is more qualified than the bunch in the GOP clown car.
It seems that Runaway1956 will be joining us in the Log Cabin room of the GOP Clown Car, just as soon as he gets over the whole "Chelsea Manning" thing. It's OK, Runner, we accept all types in the gay branch of the Republican Party! What choice do we have?
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Tuesday October 27 2015, @04:12PM
What choice do we have?
Bleeding heart libertarianism. Or even anarcho-libertarianism. Doesn't matter. If you're L^HGBT and you vote R or D for bigger government, you are a cow. Maybe Green is ok, but that requires a leap of faith that 3rd wave feminism will eventually come around from the firmly established anti-GBT position 2nd wave feminism left the movement in.
Sorry. It's how it is. If you're GBT, the log cabin is for cows and Hillary Clinton/Nancy Pelosi/etc are for cows.
I don't care about religiously objecting beds and breakfasts or wedding cake bakeries. For a small span of time from the turn of the century until 2012ish, it was not difficult for trans folks to get access to at least meds, even if it was considered “cosmetic” by insurance companies. I believe the difference is that if you were trans and you could pay cash (or had insurance that didn't consider HRT cosmetic), that was a status symbol that you had a job and were a productive member of society. Would these religious objection shenanigans and agitprop about “free Obamacare sex changes!” (cower in terror, you cows, for your god shall smite you for providing proper health care to people who disobey him! Jesus would never do anything like that! Unless it's about bacon. Jesus will forgive bacon lovers and provide a triple bypass entirely on my fucking dime and the fucking dime of every trans person who's heard “religious objection!” from a medical professional in the past three years) continue under single payer? Yep, with certainty. The difference is a trans person would no longer need to jump through hoops to get “out of network” and out of state care (and probably still be stuck paying cash) when the “network” is every endocrinologist in a 500 mile radius. /rant
Note: Bernie Sanders (I-VT) may be running as a Democrat (currently, until the coronation is complete), but he sounds a lot like a bleeding heart libertarian to me. (gewg_ has also noticed that he's not much of a Leftist.) I don't expect the Libertarian party to take him under their wing (perhaps it's best that way), but I expect a repeat of Ross Perot. It'll be (Trump|Bush) vs. Grand Duchess Clinton vs. Sanders. So, Sanders 2016 is my recommendation for the GBT demographic. The L- demographic that usually goes out front in that acronym is welcome to throw in for Sanders, too.