>>1067063 clearly looks too complicated to an avg folk to put down a bet, those sites can't survive long like that. if some top nasa scientist can figure out whats the outcome on clintons 1k bet then, please do.
>>1067613 >Is Trump really gonna win the nomination? Pretty much. They've tried everything they can to stop his ascendance, but it turns out he's somehow a political genius who can't be stumped.
>Also, doesn't the party have some sort of mechanism to prevent that? I was under the impression he's not very popular in higher party circles.
It's called a brokered convention, and it's certainly possible. However Trump's in the power position here. If the RNC uses a brokered convention to cuck Trump, they'll be openly betraying a huge segment of the party's loyalist base.
The Republican party would essentially be committing long-term suicide in order to field a candidate who would just lose to Clinton anyway.
>>1067613 While the RNC isn't actually under any obligation to choose the most popular candidate, it would be suicide if they didn't choose him.
Trump will get the highest percentage of votes in the nomination. If they don't make him the candidate, it proves him right about political corrupt and he runs as an independent getting flocks of voters who would otherwise be Republican. The Republican party is split between Neocons and Trump Fans, with Trump Fans winning because the majority of people vote Republican because the other side is even worse.
While he can easily beat Hillary if it's just one on one, it's a bit more debatable if he can beat her with some literally who running as the Republican.
That would create the same situation as Trump running independently, no? I mean, democratic votes would be split, and Republicans win? Unless Bloomberg could get bi-partisan votes and really have a chance of winning?
>>1067706 Bloomberg's base is primarily Dem, but he can get bipartisan votes from neocons. He only wants to run if both parties are fielding extremists (ideally Cruz vs Sanders, Trump may be too much of a wildcard).
Bloomberg ran and won Mayor as a Republican, then left the party a few years in. Of course, we're talking about NY, where the Republicans are so liberal that there's a separate Conservative Party for the actual right.
>>1067613 >Is Trump really gonna win the nomination No.
Never listen to 4chan. /pol/ is literally always wrong about this sort of shit. They've never accurately predicated an election. Trump has a plurality of GOP voters, and his supporters are fanatical. However, Trump also wins in polls asking GOP voters which candidate they hate most. He's simultatneously the most beloved and hated Republican candidate. What people here can't fathom, and I'm not sure why they can't, is that a plurality only wins in a situation where there are 3 or more people. If Trump starts winning primaries, the RNC will put all of its clout behind one single establishment candidate, either Rubio or Bush, and pressure everyone else to drop out. And they will. It will suddenly be Trump vs. Rubio or Bush, and every person who didn't support Trump will support one of them. Suddenly taht plurality of 40% will turn into a minority of 40% and he'll lose the nomination.
Just because a demagogue hasn't taken over the election season in recent history, it doesnt' mean it hasn't happen. It happened with George Wallace in the 70s, and it's happened here and there throughout our history. Demagogues always have a problem of maximizing their support. They simply can't appeal to broad audiences, and that's what hte presidential race is all about.
tl;dr: No. Despite what 4chan says, Trump will not win the nomination.
>>1067750 I'd like to add that you may recall when Huckabee was the most popular candidate at this point in the election and swept Iowa before floundering everywhere else because of his complete lack of party endorsements.
I don't know. I ended up placing the bet on a regular gambling site because, while the market is a lot safer and you can check out at any point, the bet exchange gives you 12 to 1 while the market is currently at 5 to 1.
Not that I'm gonna put any significant amount of money on this.
>>1067613 That's an interesting question. You shouldn't listen to /pol/ about this, they have a massive confirmation bias because they support Trump.
On one hand, Trump is leading the Republican primaries by a large margin. On the other hand, Trump is a complete political outsider. Every nominee, Republican or Democrat, has held either a Senator or mayor position for their parties. The RNC isn't obligated to nominate someone they don't trust. But their base would be very unhappy. However, as >>1067746 points out Trump is a very polarising candiate. He inspires a great deal of support in the Republicans, but also a lot of hatred. To win the presidency you don't have to have fanatical voters, you need to have the majority no matter how apathetic your voters are. Rubio and Cruz are doing better against Hillary in hypothetical matchups. The RNC can give this as a reason to not nominate Trump.
>>1068204 Trump vs Clinton http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html
Cruz vs Clinton http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_cruz_vs_clinton-4034.html
Rubio vs Clinton http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_rubio_vs_clinton-3767.html
I'm assuming you're talking about the Republican primary polls. You're forgetting the Republicans are only a part of the voter base, and Trump beats only Republican candidates. To win the candidacy you have to be more popular with everyone than the democratic candiate, it's entirety different. Cruz, Rubio have a decent chance of beating Clinton, more so than Trump. Although at this stage it's not a good indicator of who's going to win. But then how will the RNC decide? Trust, like always. The parties want someone they can control/aligned with them. Rubio and Cruz are Republican senators/representatives with history while Trump is an outsider.
Face it, you wouldn't stop voting for Republicans if Trump didn't get the nomination. You'd rather vote for a Republican than Clinton. The lesser of two evils, that's how the two party system survives.
oy vey my goy boy for shoy yoy knoy that the DETINU STATS OF ACIREMA IS RUN BY THE DMC (democratic mongrels of cucks)
THIS IS BIZ. THINK WITH YOUR WALLET.
investors like to predict the future, since they cant predict the future of the stock market, they 'predict' the 'democratic' 'election' by insuring that candidate X is going to be FOR SURE the next president. this gives them some comfort that they know candidate Y won't come in and wreck the tax system.
If they didn't know who the next president would be, they wouldn't know what taxes they're going to have to pay. The candidate that the elite have elected, has been elected, simply for the fact of security and comfort of their portfolios.
The U.S. is now, and forever will be, a monarchy.
Thread replies: 60 Thread images: 4
Thread DB ID: 478706
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.