DrewDon Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 From what relatively little I've studied of the perspective nominees, I would contend that the Republicans face a similar problem to what Labour in the UK faced last year: the 'traditional' candidates aren't particularly strong. In that context, it becomes easier for an 'outside' candidate to gain the sufficient momentum and popularity required to mount a serious challenge. For all her faults and deficiencies, I still can't foresee any of the potential Republican candidates defeating Clinton in November. I suspect Rubio would be the most likely to run her close, but even he is malleable and lacking fresh ideas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fotbawmad Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 So the first voting primary is today. Some things you should know about this. Going by the polls, the only Republicans with a credible chance of winning this primary is Trump, Cruz and Rubio. However, one thing that may hurt Cruz is that it's an area which receives heavy subsides to produce ethanol and he's a vocal critic of it. However, he did address that point well last week when he said he's against all subsides in general on the basis of it being crony capitalist in nature. However, what happens on the Democrat side is much more important. As the person who wins the Iowa primary nearly always goes on to win the nomination. Polls show that Hilary is edging ahead, but the polls are well within the margin of error. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sooky Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 Still holding out for a late Martin O'Malley surge... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adamski Posted February 1, 2016 Author Share Posted February 1, 2016 To win Iowa: Trump 4/9 Cruz 2/1 Rubio 10/1 Others 100/1 or above Clinton 2/7 Sanders 5/2 O'Malley 100/1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eoin Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Iowa Results Cruz 28% Trump 24% Rubio 23% Clinton 50% Sanders 50% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banana Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 ImageUploadedByPie & Bovril1454390365.306298.jpg Early demographics showing Sanders utterly landsliding the young vote, Killary with a big majority with oldies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glasgow-sheep Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Trump barely hanging onto second. Shame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 im more concerned about Cruz than Trump. Yeah, I don't think the US would elect a fruitcake as President but I can see them electing and rabid right wing arsehole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doulikefish Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Some superb ways to decide who wins the democratic vote,just sen a video of a coin toss in gym https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfCJFQVPM6E Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 im more concerned about Cruz than Trump. The crazy evangilists always do well in Iowa. More interesting is how close Rubio was to Trump. I think someone posted an interesting article about how the weighting of Republican delegates in the primaries tended to favour Republicans in Blue states over those in the deep red states. Which is why guys like Santorum and Cruz always pick up good ground support in the Republican base but the party nearly always end up with what might charitably be called a more 'moderate' candidate like Romney. I think Rubio will get it in the end. Cruz and Trump are both toast in a general election. Of course, the big story is the relative weakness of Clinton coming out of Iowa, with Sanders apparently ahead in New Hampshire. It's not inconceivable that he'll get the nomination either: In both '68 and '72 Democratic poltiics swung away from establishment figures. McCarthy's strong showing in New Hampshire in '68 being enough to put LBJ into early retirement before Robert Kennedy got into the race, and would have won but for his being killed. Then the chaos of the DNC in Chigago and Humphrey somewhow getting the nomination. In '72 McGovern came from nowhere in a crowded field to win the nomination before being slapped about silly by Nixon in the GE - the point being that the dissafected youth vote can be a powerful franchise if it can be harnessed. Sanders enthuses people much more than Clinton does - but unlike McGovern in 72, there are no other candidates strong enough to clip at Clinton from other angles. Then the establishment front runner was Ed Muskie, who's relentless centrist, please everyone say nothing positions got him nowhere in that race. Oddly another parallel with '72 is that race had it's own Donald Trump - although he was technically a democrat: Govenor George Wallace of Alabama. It was the last time the Democrats controlled the south (LBJ had just pissed off a lot of Southeners with the civil rights legislation and Nixon wopuld clean up in 72 with his 'southern strategy' that probably did most to define the current electoral map) and Wallace was the pro-segregationist cheerleader for the dissafected white man who felt the world was changing too fast and they were being marginalised, sound familiar? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adamski Posted February 2, 2016 Author Share Posted February 2, 2016 Rubio within 5% of the winner in a state where he was expected to perform relatively poorly - big result for him. Edit to add - just had a look at the odds for the GOP nomination following that result. Rubio surged from third to the top of the book and generally 4/5 for the nomination (from 5/1-ish yesterday). Trump now at around 2/1 from better than evens (can't remember how much exactly) yesterday. Also just to add I realise that I've posted quite a bit suggesting Rubio would be the most electable candidate for the GOP against the Democrats, but from a personal point of view he's the one who I hope doesn't win the nomination for exactly that reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adamski Posted February 2, 2016 Author Share Posted February 2, 2016 Still holding out for a late Martin O'Malley surge... He has now suspended his campaign. As has Mike Huckabee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bairn Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Some superb ways to decide who wins the democratic vote,just sen a video of a coin toss in gym https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfCJFQVPM6E That also happens in the UK if there's a tie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doulikefish Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Isn't Iowa meant to have been one of sanders strongest states? If so he is goosed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Isn't Iowa meant to have been one of sanders strongest states? If so he is goosed Not really, he was miles behind even up to a week or two ago. Clinton is the presumptive nominee, with experience at the highest levels of government, huge name recognition, the democrat party apparatus all lining up to endorse her and more money in her campaign chest than god. And she just got fought to a standstill by a guy who has openly described himself as a socialist. Even if she wins the nomination - and she'll still be favourite at this point - it points to an underlying weakness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HaikuHibee Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Even if she wins the nomination - and she'll still be favourite at this point - it points to an underlying weakness. It's not hard to see. It's like PM Cherie Blair. Fucking depressing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doulikefish Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Not really, he was miles behind even up to a week or two ago. Clinton is the presumptive nominee, with experience at the highest levels of government, huge name recognition, the democrat party apparatus all lining up to endorse her and more money in her campaign chest than god. And she just got fought to a standstill by a guy who has openly described himself as a socialist. Even if she wins the nomination - and she'll still be favourite at this point - it points to an underlying weakness. Cool,i seem to remember that Sanders was polling very strongly there but happy to be corrected Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 The delegate count is Cruz 8 and Trump and Rubio both on 7. They need 1236 to get the nomination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fotbawmad Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 This primary was way closer than I was expecting it to be. With Hilary only coming out ahead via coin flips. I personally had no idea how twisted the voting on the Democratic side was. For example, having to make it public who you're voting for and having to attend rallies which can last for over 2 hours. Even though you may not want to or can't attend. It's no wonder you have only 1400 people voting on the Democrat side, while Republicans have 6 figure turnouts. I had a look at the breakdown of the demographics and the only thing I can really draw from the data. Is that being an older Democrat makes you significantly more likely to vote for Hilary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.