The Next USA President

[Humpy]

Those odds seem reasonable, but only due to the fact that the Republican field is tremendously fractured whereas the Democratic field is consolidated into Hillary (no offense intended Bill) and it is not even primary season yet. The Republicans need to put someone forward who can win,
which means getting swing voters. IMO, this rules out the mavericks, oddballs, and whackjobs like Trump, Carson, Cruz, Huckabee, and Fiorina. I'd rather have Pataki than any of the aforementioned. The two vanilla guys, Bush and Kasich I think have the best chance of defeating Clinton. However, Bush has to work on his body language to project greater confidence and certainty. He often shakes his head when he is making a point, which signals he is at odds with his own statement. And instead of nodding his head, he kind of does a quick little snap which suggests tension. Jimmy Carter in his debate against Reagan often raised his eyebrows in a tense way and voters found it viscerally off-putting. Kasich's best advantage at this point is he has no clear handicaps
and negative associations high in the public mind.

Yep I think the 2 Parties are usually right here but now I am not so sure. People tire of the Clintons and Bushes hogging it to themselves. They do have the money though.
Here in the UK the unthinkable happened and a whacko old style communist from Cold War days has been elected leader of the Opposition- yikes !! He has Trident, Nato, the Queen etc. on his hit list. Treading warily to start with but give the guy some rope and he will be off and away outdoing Breznev etc. ( remember him ? )

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Humpy, is the new Labour leader a viable candidate for PM? And who picked him? Is it done in a party caucus or what?

 

[globuli]

We ran a guy last time who was far more impressive than Bush or Kasich and he got crushed. He couldn't get the party base of older white voters to turn out in sufficient numbers to defeat the democrat vote fraud machine. These guys will do even worse.

I realize that many republican establishment figures would rather lose gracefully than win if winning requires bare knuckle fighting. I also realize the last thing they want is a true conservative or a popular outsider to win, because that could well interfere with corporate logrolling.

Different cast of characters, different dynamic.

 

[Humpy]

Humpy, is the new Labour leader a viable candidate for PM? And who picked him? Is it done in a party caucus or what?

I would shake the bastards up if I were but sadly not to be.

 

[Humpy]

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Thanks for the info; just where is that data from-Arkansas dog bet track[Southland Greyhound Park Arkansas?? LOL] The low number for Jeb '' common core'' Bush maybe correct As a life time resident of USA, for over 58 years, lots of data on your chart seems inaccurate, or questionable at best, unless that is a chart for liars +rinos at the top

But thanks for your input since that chart is not in alphaBET order; putting Mr Jeb''common corrupt core'' Bush 2nd is a laugh also. The lottery is a stupid tax on people that can NOT do math ;thanks for your input, MR Hum......

That " Arkansas list " is how our betting companies over here in the UK view the US Presidential race. OK so what are some Europeans doing ? Well often it helps to stand back a bit and view the field of runners. A clearer view just might be from a distance. I did try and find similar betting US companies on Google but failed to find any. Are they so insignificant or is it illegal your side ? Lot's of betting is including internet poker etc.

 

[Humpy]

Those odds seem reasonable, but only due to the fact that the Republican field is tremendously fractured whereas the Democratic field is consolidated into Hillary (no offense intended Bill) and it is not even primary season yet. The Republicans need to put someone forward who can win,
which means getting swing voters. IMO, this rules out the mavericks, oddballs, and whackjobs like Trump, Carson, Cruz, Huckabee, and Fiorina. I'd rather have Pataki than any of the aforementioned. The two vanilla guys, Bush and Kasich I think have the best chance of defeating Clinton. However, Bush has to work on his body language to project greater confidence and certainty. He often shakes his head when he is making a point, which signals he is at odds with his own statement. And instead of nodding his head, he kind of does a quick little snap which suggests tension. Jimmy Carter in his debate against Reagan often raised his eyebrows in a tense way and voters found it viscerally off-putting. Kasich's best advantage at this point is he has no clear handicaps
and negative associations high in the public mind.

Never heard of Kasich, could be a handicap.

 

[Humpy]

Are you guys checking out social media ?
Hillary sent me this