Benghazi :lol:

Trump just said that Japan and Korea should get nuke weapons .....this guys is a dumb fuck wit, and you think he going to win debating foreign policy :lol:

it one thing to fight Clinton with all the republican spin doctor on board , but it's another to fight when the republican party dis own him

Edited by adrtho: 30/3/2016 12:39:06 AM

that not how it work ...freedom and free choice doesn't work when talking about nukes

Next President betfair % chance
Clinton 67%
Trump 18%
Sanders 6%
Cruz 3%
Kasich 2.50%

No it isn't - what are you basing that on? Most of the analysis out there suggests she wins easily against Drumpf

Are you being serious? Of course she would want to avoid debating Sanders - mainly because she has nothing to gain. She is winning.

Trump would have problems debating her - he has a "woman" problem in that he has extremely high unfavourability ratings amongst women, a lot of that driven by the ongoing feud with Ted Cruz about their wives. His antics are less likely to work in a general election debate against a woman.

Agree with this point. At best they are indicative of trends, and generalised demographic break up. In terms of their predictive ability overall, it is just too far out.

The thing is - the whole Benghazi thing is so highly politicised at this point that I don't think it is changing anyone's votes at this point. Those opposed to Hillary remain so, those that haven't swung against her by now are unlikely to because of any Benghazi mud being thrown at her.

Hillary represents the establishment, and continuity from the Obama era. Trump represents a radical reset of US foreign policy and domestic policy for that matter.

Regardless of what you think of the policies themselves, Hillary is the candidate of stability, Trump of change (and not feel-good change).

It will be much easier to paint a fear campaign against Trump. Especially when he already has such high unfavourability ratings even just within the republican primaries, let alone amongst the general election electorate.

Disagree. When the lead by is so big, it can be predictive.

Not predictive of actual numbers though. No way.

No poll in human history has

Ummm... that is blatantly untrue.

The issue is that whilst the primaries are ongoing, people haven't put their minds to the general election.

When there is a huge gap between the presumptive nominees in polling that is indicative of the base line positions.

But until the election machinery gets into gear, and the attack ads start between the 2 nominees (as opposed to attack ads against primary opponents) you don't have a good idea of what the true polling is.

But the gap indicates that Trump has a lot of ground to make up (too much in my opinion). So in my opinion, this early polling is useful, but only broadly.

it does...with in a margin of error

people see a poll like
Clinton 53%
Trump 47
error +- 5%
if Trump win 51% to 49% , people the say the poll was wrong, it is not


the Poll right now is around
Clinton 50%
Trump 39%
error +- 4%
that is big +11 lead, that so very unlikely to come back...maybe if a gay hispanic muslim who cross the border at Mexico did some big terrorism act in the US could those poll number change into Trump win

Trump has a 71% negative rating with Women :lol:

Trump is like that guy down the bar,everyone loves because he making funny jokes, telling funny stories , but there no way your wife will ever let him into the house , let him be around the kids

Trump dead, 100% gone

Would probably try to get laws passed that women shouldn't be allowed to vote

Edited by Murdoch Rags Ltd: 31/3/2016 12:40:35 AM

:lol:

There is strong indications that at least one polling organisation is just fabricating their poll results and not really doing polls. There has also been many new and bad polling organisation arise during the primaries and even some well known polling organisations have been very wrong with their predictions.

The reliable polling organisations have been pretty on point and accurate.

The incorrect predictions have mainly occurred in states with not many polls conducted and/or states with caucuses as opposed to primaries.

But overall the reliable pollsters (such as Nate Silver) have been correct.

sure...but why look at any polls if they are new and don't have a long history

this stuff is nothing new

in betting markets today...Trump gone from 1.40 to 1.63 to be Republican Nominee, that a big move

Looking forward to Trump becoming President and ardtho losing his shit. :lol:

you can look forward to it all you want , but it will not happen as Trump pissoff all the women votes :lol:

by the way...more women vote for US President then men do

Edited by adrtho: 31/3/2016 10:13:23 PM

Hope Trump makes ELOs illegal.

-PB

$6.50 Trump to be next US President :lol:

Trump is gone...

:lol: it sure can

some thing happen in last 24hr betting market is just moving big time againtes Trump.....Trump must have done really bad in the debate last night..Trunp gone from 1.38 to 1.73 to win Republican Nominee in 24hr....

this suck, because i wanted more money on...and i don't want to lay above 1.80

Might relate to his poorly worded answer in relation to his views on punishment for women who seek abortion. There's been a real uproar about this to the point that even pro-life advocates castigated his views. He subsequently backtracked.

no way will trump win.
all the bernie voters will end up voting for Hilary, who is potentially worse than Trump :lol:

either way whoever Trump faces they will win. It will end up being Anyone but Trump.

agree with adrtho

Not even remotely true.

At least 30% of Sanders supporters would never vote for Clinton and with the shadiness, vitriol and hypocrisy coming from Clinton growing by the day that percentage is only increasing.

At the Sanders rally in Brooklyn yesterday, Rosario Dawson summed it up perfectly:

[youtube]j9ToFu4cud8[/youtube]



This is a significant block of people, and the DNC seem to be under the assumption that Clinton is owed their vote if Sanders is not the nominee. They're very wrong, and Trump will beat Clinton in a General easily.

The money is on Hillary Clinton to bury Donald Trump

Prediction one: Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton will win their parties' nominations. Prediction two: Clinton will take the White House handily. At least, that's what political wagering websites say.

These operations, which distill the wisdom of crowds, turn out to be surprisingly solid when it comes to predicting presidential races. Their record for accuracy outdoes that of opinion polls.

Most Web-based political investment markets -- they don't like to call themselves betting pools, not wanting to run up against online gambling bans -- are structured to run much like commodity futures exchanges.

According to the oldest such election bourse, the Iowa Electronic Markets, which has been operating since 1988, Trump has 85 percent odds of capturing the Republican nomination this year; Clinton has a 90 percent chance of gaining the Democratic prize. And the Democrats' candidate in the fall is the favorite, by 67-33 percent. (The Iowa market, run by the University of Iowa, doesn't put a person's name at the head of the ticket before the party's nominating convention.)

That's a slightly better result for Clinton than the Bloomberg poll finds: 54 percent for her and 36 percent for Trump.

Another prominent exchange that trafficks in the presidential contest is Predictit, a two-year-old organization run by Victoria University in New Zealand, with a Washington, D.C., office. Both the Iowa exchange and Predictit received OKs from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to operate. The two organizations view themselves as more of an academic experiment than a business.

Then there are the storied British betting houses, Ladbrokes and Betfair Group. The two U.K. firms accept actual bets, chiefly on sports and casino games, but also have lively gambling action on how elections will fare. By law, however, U.S. dwellers can't deal with these outfits, which have similar American election prognostication numbers as the Iowa exchange and Predictit.

How accurate are these predictions?For nationwide races, as opposed to state presidential primaries and caucuses, they have been quite reliable, and more so closer to an election.

Iowa professors did a study of their exchange's results through 2008, its 20-year anniversary. They found it was accurate 74 percent of the time 100 days from an election, defining "accuracy" as being more precise than the polls. Opinion polls tend to be more exact right before a balloting, as voters focus with greater intensity on the candidates. So, five days prior to an election, the exchange was better than the polls 68 percent of the time. Predictit says it has an 84 percent accuracy rate, as measured against actual voting outcomes.

The task is tougher for primaries and caucuses. Predictit nailed the most recent contests, in Arizona, Utah and Idaho. But for Super Tuesday on March 1, it mistakenly projected that Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders would lose to Clinton in Minnesota and Oklahoma. Instead, he won those two states by convincing margins.

The reason likely is that when traders from around the nation predict a specific state's outcome, they're not always clued into its particular situation. Brandi Travis, a spokeswoman for Predictit, said its Iowa-resident traders were more accurate for that's state's Feb. 1 caucus results than were non-Iowa ones.

For the next big contest, April 5 in Wisconsin, Predictit says Texas Sen. Ted Cruz will sweep to victory with 60 percent of the vote, versus 40 percent for Trump. For the Democrats, the exchange's traders believe, Sanders will outpace Clinton, 54-48 percent.

Why are they often so prescient?Various studies conclude that it's the nature of the people who participate in the electoral exchanges: mainly those who are highly informed about politics. Plus, they have a monetary stake in their election picks, which makes them take the endeavor more seriously than someone selected at random by pollsters for a phone survey.

"Polls are a static, one-time prediction," said Joyce Berg, a University of Iowa accounting professor who's the exchange's director. But traders on the exchange, she added, are continuously drinking in new information about the political state of play, and thus are more in tune with changing dynamics.

How much money can you make with these investments? Not a lot. Most limit an investment to $500 per contract. You might double your money. But the winnings are a pittance compared to what Wall Street sharpies can reap with their multimillion-dollar antes for stock and commodities trades.

People who invest in the political exchanges "do this because it's fun and interesting," said Tom Snee, spokesman for the Iowa exchange. Along the way, they give us a pretty decent crystal ball, although with this year's topsy-turvy race, you can be less sure that things will follow a predictable path. Last September, the exchanges gave little chance that Trump would advance this far.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-money-is-on-hillary-clinton-to-bury-donald-trump/

Well there's your first mistake. The rust belt/midwest is probably the only region where Trump has the potential to improve on Romney's showing, but even that's speculative.

He's wiped out with Latinos (who've had three million new voters register this year and will surge against Trump), women (obviously) and college-educated whites (this is already happening in the primary).

The only way Trump realistically has a shot is if some freak event occurs (Clinton somehow gets indicted/walks in front of a bus, there's a major terrorist attack the week before election day, etc.) Forget how you feel about Trump or Clinton as candidates - there's very little evidence that he has a shot at winning.