2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

TheDoctor

So Cruz to win tonight?

Looks too close too call on the Dem side.

BoJack Horseman

TheDoctor wrote: »

So Cruz to win tonight?

Looks to close to call on the Dem side.

Teddy & Bernie.

Black Swan

If Trump does not meet or exceed the minimum 1,237 number of delegates to win the Republican nomination, no matter how close he gets, if he falls short there will more than likely be a brokered Republican Convention 18-21 July in Columbus, Ohio.

It appears that the delegates won by Rubio, who has "suspended" his campaign, amounts to 172 delegates from 21 state and territory primaries before he withdrew. Rubio has officially requested that his delegates not be pledged to other candidates until the convention. There is also a question of what "suspended" campaign means, which may allow him to be a player in a brokered convention, but to what extent we will not know until July.

Out of 2,472 total Republican delegates, 437 are unpledged delegates, who play the same role as Democratic superdelegates. And like Democratic superdelegates, it's assumed that the GOP party leaders will exercise a strong influence upon whom they vote for, which may not be Trump.

At this moment in time, and before the Wisconsin results have been aired, Cruz currently has 474 delegates. Now lets pretend that the GOP pressures their Republican unpledged delegates to vote for Cruz, while at the same time getting the re-pledging of Rubio's 172 delegates to commit to Cruz (474 + 437 + 172 = 1,083 delegates). Although not confirmed until convention time, it appears that North Dakota may give Cruz 18 of its delegates (1,083 + 18 = 1,101), leaving Cruz only 136 delegates to meet the 1,237 minimum threshold to win the nomination.

It's obvious that Kasich will not come close to the minimum 1,237 delegates to win the nomination, and today Kasich has 145 delegates. Where will they go at convention time? Kasich and his supporters appear to be very distant from Trump and his supporters in terms of political platform, so there is a good chance that Kasich delegates will largely go to Cruz (1,101 + 145 = 1,246). And given that there are still several state primaries to go, and Kasich has said he would not "suspend" his campaign before convention, that 145 may substantially increase in delegates that may go to either Cruz (or Trump) during brokered July convention votes.

Given past state primaries and caucuses it's safe to assume that Cruz will win quite a bit more than than today's 474 delegate total before July 18 in the primaries yet to be held (including Wisconsin later today), perhaps enough to offset what number of Republican unpledged (i.e., like Democrat superdelegates) that fail to follow the influence of GOP party leaders, as well as those ND and Rubio and Kasich delegates that may jump about during convention.

It is to be remembered that the Republican nomination is a complex process and not a simple election where 1,237 delegates of the total 2,472 delegates for 2016 go to the candidate with the most votes in states and territories; rather it's a party nomination, and not the 8 November 2016 general election (which also has its problems with the Electoral College).

Of course caution should be exercised when interpreting the assumptions given in this post at this early date, as such assumptions included the notion that Trump fails to achieve the minimum 1,237 delegates by July, and the GOP party leaders do not want Trump to be their nominee, and that the GOP would be able to strongly influence many different types of delegates in sufficient numbers to vote for Cruz (or some alternate compromise candidate), and that Cruz will approach the maximum of unpledged and Rubio and Kasich and ND, etc., to reach the delegate nomination minimum during the convention. Such assumptions at this date are a LEAP indeed, especially with many states to still have their primaries before July (but it was fun playing with the factual numbers, hypothetical numbers, and GOP party leader assumptions).

Akrasia

Cruz won big with 48% to Trump's 35%.It's so interesting to see the media message flip so quickly from 'Trump's inevitable nomination' to 'His campaign is practically over'.

Trump is in trouble but he did threaten again to run as a third party this week, so that might be his battering ram at the convention

Sanders had a good night, 56% to 43%.A 12 point win which was much higher than the polls indicated but as usual the media downplayed the performance with practically every report saying that this was another inconsequential victory.

Clinton is clearly worried and she has clearly instructed her attack dogs at CNN and the NY times to step up their anti sanders rhetoric judging on their latest coverage of his campaign

Fr Tod Umptious

Akrasia wrote: »

Cruz won big with 48% to Trump's 35%.It's so interesting to see the media message flip so quickly from 'Trump's inevitable nomination' to 'His campaign is practically over'.

Trump is in trouble but he did threaten again to run as a third party this week, so that might be his battering ram at the convention

Sanders had a good night, 56% to 43%.A 12 point win which was much higher than the polls indicated but as usual the media downplayed the performance with practically every report saying that this was another inconsequential victory.

Clinton is clearly worried and she has clearly instructed her attack dogs at CNN and the NY times to step up their anti sanders rhetoric judging on their latest coverage of his campaign

But it was inconsequential in the sense that its a proportional state and he hardly took anything out of Clinton's lead.

BoJack Horseman

So Ted won a state he was always likely to win.

Ergo every media outlet are gleefully dancing on the Trump campaign's grave.

In two weeks Trump will also crush the New York primary & the media won't know what to think.

Akrasia

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

But it was inconsequential in the sense that its a proportional state and he hardly took anything out of Clinton's lead.

First of all, all the states are proportional for the Democrats. Sanders' target is 56% of the delegates between now and the convention. This victory is right on the sweet spot. He will win even bigger in some of the other states where he is even more popular.

It's also not inconsequential because it was a primary with some of the strictest registration and voter ID laws in the country, and it proves that Sanders is capable of winning these kinds of states with the margins required to take the lead in pledged delegates.

It's also another state that Hillary did not win. Sanders is possibly going to put in another 40 point win in the Wyoming Caucus on Saturday night, and then it's New York.

If Sanders can win New York, even by 1 point, then I think he will become favourite to lead in the pledged delegates going into the convention, remember, California is huge and it's fertile ground for Sanders, then we will have a convention where the candidate who has won the most delegates, the most states, and probably the most actual votes in the primary, and who has by far the better chance of beating either Cruz or Trump in the GE, is being blocked by unelected super-delegates.


Can you imagine the convention selecting the candidate who possibly hasn't won a state in 4 months and who is polling as neck and neck with Cruz to be the nomination ahead of a candidate who is riding a wave of impressive victories, proven to be hugely popular amongst independent voters and polls way higher than any of the other candidates in the GE?

Akrasia

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

So Ted won a state he was always likely to win.

Ergo every media outlet are gleefully dancing on the Trump campaign's grave.

In two weeks Trump will also crush the New York primary & the media won't know what to think.

Yep. The media doing a spectacularly awful job of analysing this election for both Democrats and Republicans

TheDoctor

Akrasia wrote: »

Yep. The media doing a spectacularly awful job of analysing this election for both Democrats and Republicans

Every outlet has their own agenda, analyzing the election to suit it accordingly.

TheDoctor

So the Dems are in Wyoming this weekend for a caucus, likely to also fall into the Sanders camp.

Then both sides are in NY on the 19th. Should be a slam dunk for Trump there. Would be a big shock if Hilary doesnt stop Sanders run also.

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote: »

If Sanders can win New York, even by 1 point, then I think he will become favourite to lead in the pledged delegates going into the convention, remember, California is huge and it's fertile ground for Sanders, then we will have a convention where the candidate who has won the most delegates, the most states, and probably the most actual votes in the primary, and who has by far the better chance of beating either Cruz or Trump in the GE, is being blocked by unelected super-delegates.

If that happens will you give me a better than Evens price on Hillary?

While format in Wisconsin didn't suit Bernie, the demographics sure as hell did.

Colonialboy

Bad week for Trump, but better to have a bad week in early April than in October. Very hard to keep batting .400 so he will learn from this.

Panama papers playing right into Trumps hands.
Great to see an election with everything out in the open. Now if only the mainstream media could get their act together and deliver some decent analysis, commentary and investigative journalism. Probably a bit too much to ask.

Amazingfun

Last night Team Cruz won 36 and Team Trump won 6. So, after last night:


Donald Trump 758 delegates
Ted Cruz 505 delegates
Trump ahead by 253 delegates
There are 769 Delegates remaining in the upcoming primary states. In order to get to the magic number of 1237:

Donald Trump needs 479 to clinch. (758 current + 479 need = 1237 goal)
Ted Cruz needs 732 to clinch. (505 current + 732 need = 1237 goal).
There are only 769 Delegates remaining.

The Next Contest is New York on Tuesday April 19th with a whopping 95 delegates (winner take all if single candidate 50% +1 vote).

If Donald Trump can win New York (all CD’s) with 50% of the vote, it will mean:

♦ A) Trump will lead with 853 delegates (only needing 384 of the remaining 674)
-and-
♦ Ted Cruz will be mathematically knocked out of the race to 1,237. Cruz would still need 732 and there are only 674 remaining after New York.

So you can see how New York is infinitely more important than Wisconsin was.

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/04/06/wisconsin-post-election-night-debrief/#more-114733

And for those interested, Trump has a YUGE rally planned for Bethesda, New York today

TheDoctor

NY has come at the perfect time for Trump.
Polls show him currently in the low 50% and could see him take all 95 delegates just as talk of his campaign falling apart gather momentum.

Paleface

As much as I'd like to see Bernie get the nomination you only have to look at the odds to see that his chances are almost non existant. Paddy Power currently have the odds for the Democratic nomination as:

Clinton 1/10
Sanders 5/1

Its stands to reason that this would indicate all if not most of the super delegates are planning on pledging their votes to her making Sanders recent wave of popularity valiant but inconsequential in the grand scheme of the convention itself.

I hope I'm wrong but I doubt Paddy Power are!

Pinkman

How did Trump only end up with 6 delegates based in 35% of the vote? CNN had reported winner takes half of the delegates and Cruz didn't get over 50%. It's a very odd system.

timmyntc

Pinkman wrote: »

How did Trump only end up with 6 delegates based in 35% of the vote? CNN had reported winner takes half of the delegates and Cruz didn't get over 50%. It's a very odd system.

IIRC it has funny voting system. A hybrid something something. Some delegates based on results on a per district basis, with the rest being allocated based on winner takes all statewide results.
I think.

BoJack Horseman

Paleface wrote: »

I hope I'm wrong but I doubt Paddy Power are!

Political betting, especially on something in another continent attracts a tiny amount of money.

If someone were to lay €200 on Sanders, I'd expect his odds to halve.

where the money is going (however meager) has a big part to play in the odds.
PP don't know any more about this than any of us.

Paleface

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Political betting, especially on something in another continent attracts a tiny amount of money.

If someone were to lay €200 on Sanders, I'd expect his odds to halve.

where the money is going (however meager) has a big part to play in the odds.
PP don't know any more about this than any of us.

I accept your point but I would counter that their odds for the GOP nomination have been changing quite regularly of late due to Trumps comments etc.

If so little money is being placed why are the odds changing?

BoJack Horseman

Paleface wrote: »

I accept your point but I would counter that their odds for the GOP nomination have been changing quite regularly of late due to Trumps comments etc.

If so little money is being placed why are the odds changing?

Because where the money goes is one factor (as I said).
And the rest is 'form'.

Rjd2

Paleface wrote: »

I accept your point but I would counter that their odds for the GOP nomination have been changing quite regularly of late due to Trumps comments etc.

If so little money is being placed why are the odds changing?

You can't take bookies to seriously with this election as they have wrong so often, Trump to win the republican nomination was 200/1 initially.

After the first state that voted (can't recall it) which Cruz defeated Trump, Rubio was odds on favorite to get the nomination due to finishing third and doing better than expected. I think a general price was Rubio was 4/5 or so while Trump was about 5/2 or so.

You see where Marco is now:D

For the dem betting, Sanders has a lot of hype and at such a price he is much more tempting than Hilary at 1/10 or so to Joe Public. A few hundred quid for Sanders at 7/1 is much more likely to ensure his price is butchered, Hilary's price would need thousands to be bet on for that to happen, and a lot of punters would rather buy money on something else where they will get their money back quicker than the dem nomination.

For what its worth from a betting POV, I'd be backing Trump now at 10/11 as you won't see that big of a price for him for a while especially when he hammers Cruz in New York which as the polls have suggested is inevitable.

Paleface

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Because where the money goes is one factor (as I said).
And the rest is 'form'.

You said the money was a big factor. I'm saying its not.

BoJack Horseman

Paleface wrote: »

You said the money was a big factor. I'm saying its not.

Of course it is!
If laying has a modest impact on odds, then bookies would go out of business.

example:
You have a 5 horse race on a given day.
- 3 horses have mixed form
- 1 horse has good form but doesn't like the ground & has an inexperienced jockey.
- 1 horse loves the ground, is underperforming but has a sage veteran riding.

A lot of money will go on the latter, despite not having a great few weeks.
If the odds don't adjust with the traffic, the bookie is remarkably exposed.

As the above said... prices change with the money.
If a book has ver little traffic, laying with the outsider will affect the odds.

BoJack Horseman

And as an example of how modest these books are...

in 2012 Paddy Power paid out around €500k on Barry winning.
He was the heavy favourite, so I estimate the actual stakes paid back at ~€400k (he was 4-1 on or shorter for a long time).... 0.5% of this was by me!

I laid 1/200th of the entire Obama bets in Ireland for the 2012 presidential election.

It's not a major part of a bookies turnover..... accordingly it's not hard to change the odds on the outsider with cash alone.

BOHtox

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

And as an example of how modest these books are...

in 2012 Paddy Power paid out around €500k on Barry winning.
He was the heavy favourite, so I estimate the actual stakes paid back at ~€400k (he was 4-1 on or shorter for a long time).... 0.5% of this was by me!

I laid 1/200th of the entire Obama bets in Ireland for the 2012 presidential election.

It's not a major part of a bookies turnover..... accordingly it's not hard to change the odds on the outsider with cash alone.

Do you mean place? Laid and placed are different things.

If you laid Obama, you will win your bet if Obama loses.

If you place a bet, you will win if Obama wins.

Lay means to bet against.

BoJack Horseman

BOHtox wrote: »

Do you mean place? Laid and placed are different things.

If you laid Obama, you will win your bet if Obama loses.

If you place a bet, you will win if Obama wins.

Lay means to bet against.

Shows how little I gamble... (htought 'lay/place' were the same meaning).
I placed just over €2k on him to win at 4-to-1 on, So profited by €500.

Christmas that year was taken care of.

Rjd2

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

It's not a major part of a bookies turnover..... accordingly it's not hard to change the odds on the outsider with cash alone.

Exactly, me you and one other lad meet up in Dublin tonight, and we each throw 100 quid on either Kasich or Ryan, each of us and watch the odds absolutely crash for Powers, even though neither have a hope in becoming president.

We do the same for a long shot in soccer, rugby, cricket, tennis, golf, snooker, ufc, etc we'd be laughed at they are the sports that bookies care about, politics and novelties are always stuff they are behind on.

Paleface

But why would anyone do that if neither have a chance of winning?

This is why I think the PP odds are more a reflection of what will happen. Nobody is making stupid bets in these kinds of markets.

Rjd2

Paleface wrote: »

But why would anyone do that if neither have a chance of winning?

This is why I think the PP odds are more a reflection of what will happen. Nobody is making stupid bets in these kinds of markets.

People always find a reason to back big prices, its the reason why the bookies make so much money! Look at the Masters this week, have a look around the tipping sites and you will see about 30 or 40 lads getting tipped up, when realistically we know only about 7 or 8 have a chance.


Hilary is 1/10 with Powers which implies the bookies give her 90 per cent chance of winning the nomination, that is very high. Bernie on the other hand is 5/1 which implies a lowly 16 per cent chance in winning.

Billy86

Paleface wrote: »

As much as I'd like to see Bernie get the nomination you only have to look at the odds to see that his chances are almost non existant. Paddy Power currently have the odds for the Democratic nomination as:

Clinton 1/10
Sanders 5/1

Its stands to reason that this would indicate all if not most of the super delegates are planning on pledging their votes to her making Sanders recent wave of popularity valiant but inconsequential in the grand scheme of the convention itself.

I hope I'm wrong but I doubt Paddy Power are!

FWIW, a few weeks back either he was 12/1 or she was 1/12. Can't remember which, mind.