Is my 40-1 long-shot going to make it?
March 30th, 2006
-
Mark Warner 2nd favourite for the Democratic nomination
Last November I placed as much money as the bookies would allow me on the ex-Governor of Virginia, Mark Warner, to win the 2008 Presidential Election at the then price of 40/1.
At the time I wrote here that I had been very much influenced by the comments on the site by Ben - one of PB.C most long-standing contributors who follows the American scene very closely. While there’s been a lot of talk about Hilary Clinton she attracts an enormous level of animosity and although a strong favourite I’m not convinced that she will get the nomination from a party that is hungry to re-take the White House.
In the latest polls comparing the New York Senator with the possible Republican nominees, John McCain or Rudy Giuliani, Hilary has been at least ten points behind - this in spite of the general decline in popularity of George Bush’s party in the last few months. Somehow Hilary is not cutting the mustard.
In the latest betting for the nomination Clinton is at 1.24/1, Warner 3.2/1, Russ Feingold 4.4/1, John Edwards 8.4/1 and Evan Bayh 11/1. The prices of the top group are broadly shared by the US-focused Tradesports betting exchange so market sentiment on both sides of the Atlantic is pointing in the same direction.
In the Deomcrat polls you get a totally different view of the race. Warner is only rating at 4% with the better-known names of Edwards, Gore and Kerry all in double figures. At this stage, though, the polls amount to little more than a name recognition indicator.
-
A big element in Warner’s appeal is the belief that he could help his party pick up vital states in the South.
Last November, when state rules prevented him for running again for the Governorship, his successor did brilliantly well in Virginia - a victory for which Warner has been given a lot of credit.
My bet is on Warner going through to win the Presidency itself - a market where the 40/1 has now tightened to 10/1.
Clearly there is a long way to go althougth in less than two years we’ll have a pretty clear idea about who will get the nomination.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Warner’s biggest drawback is that he does not hold a public office so is denied a platform. I can see John Edwards overcoming that because of his national profile. When it comes to gaining the Party’s nomination, it is all in the primaries so all is not lost for Warner but I would seriously doubt him being able to hit the ground running and build momentum.
The best Democrat who seems to be prepared for a fight is Evan Bayh. A sitting Senator and former Governor would do well with a southern Democrat Vice Presidential running mate, perhaps Edwards again.
Clinton too divisive, Bidden a possibility, Daschle could be the one to watch, I wouldn’t put it past John Kerry to have a crack but he has too much baggage from ‘04. Al Gore seems to be limbering up for a contest but has the same problem as Kerry, has someone who has ever LOST a U.S. Presidential election ever gone on to win the White House?
The Republican nomination is far more interesting…
Defeated Presidential candidates who won the White House at a subsequent election…
Richard Nixon (lost in 1960, won in 1968)
Grover Cleveland (lost in 1888, won in 1892)
William Henry Harrison (lost in 1836, won in 1840)
Andrew Jackson (lost in 1824, won in 1828 and 1832)
Thomas Jefferson (lost in 1796, won in 1800 and 1804)
John Adams (lost in 1789 [first ever Presidential election], won in 1796)
But as you point out John, Bayh is a senator, and as we all know a senator has not made it to the White House for the best part of half a century… For that reason alone you’ve got to fancy Warner.
Hillary can’t be ruled out for the nomination though, but anyone who is backing her to win the general in ‘08 is throwing their money away IMHO.
When it comes to Gore, he’s certainly putting himself into a position to put his name forward, should the circumstances be right. Keep an eye on Connecticut for an interesting weather-vane of Gore’s chances: his V-P candidate in ‘00, Joe Lieberman, is probably the most pro-Iraq War Democrat in the Senate, and is being challenged on that basis in a Democratic primary. Keep an eye on how well Lieberman’s opponent does - the stronger he polls, the angrier the Democrat base is, and the better Gore’s chances…
Warner does seem to have all the credentials. He was a governor from a Southern red state, he is moderate (pro death penalty) and is personable.
However, Clinton has the advantage of an awesome fundraising capacity as well as the luxury of not having to pander to the liberal democrat base, something Warner will have to do.
Furthermore, the nature of American politics means that the ‘establishment candidate’ almost always wins the nomination. Kerry ‘04, Bush and Gore ‘00, Dole ‘96, Bush ‘88 and Regan and Carter ‘80. Clinton is the ‘establishment candidate’ this time around.
I think it’s far too early to say that Clinton isn’t cutting the mustard. She’s been playing a long game all through her term at the Senate and the movement in those polls looks positive for her over time. She needs to be ahead in 2008, not 2006. She’s also doing better than the other established democrats.
2 - So only once in the last 110 years. And that was Nixon. I wouldn’t be wasting money on Gore or Kerry.
6. But there are also those who have run unsuccessful presidential bids of any sort, including Reagan and Bush Snr.
No connection with US but the Moray by election is on the 27th April, a good or poor result for Lab, Cons or Lib Dems, may have a small to reasonable impact on the local elections the next week. Depends on the reporting.
It offers the Cons a good opportunity to do well, a second place win, go close or open up a gap from the third candidate.
Have we any idea of what effort is being put in by the parties, particuarly the Lib Dems whose vote and percentage seems to have been creeping up in elections there over the past few years.
But they will probably suffer because they are not in opposition to the Scottish government, despite Dunfermline..
8.”It offers the Cons a good opportunity to do well,”
you are a joker, aren’t you.
Any bets that they will come fourth and lose their beer money? I imagine the spinning “this was not an area we expected to do well/need to win to form government” press release being written as we speak.
If the democrats are hell bent on another 8 years in opposition, they will pick Hillary. I see no enthusiasm among the democrat base for her and I suspect the average American does not want to see the presidency become dynastic. She will motivate the Republican base like no other.
US politics are currently more partisan than at any other time I can remember. As a result the Democratic base are going to be instrumental in selecting the next candidate and I don’t think Biden or Bayh will appeal to them - although the latter is perhaps more liked. They would like senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, but he is perceived as well to the left and could be the next cycles Dean. Which leaves Edwards and Warner, with Wes Clark as a potential VP who could add competence in security to the ticket.
I think your 40/1 is looking pretty good Mike.
Having seen Feingold on TV, I also don’t find him particularly charismatic. I think he might be more like that chap who ran against Clinton in 1992, Paul Tsongas.
Hillary definitely does not have base support from my personal soundings, which is a shame as I quite like her. However, although generally a Democrat, I would probably be happy to support McCain if it came to it.
Both recent elections seemed incredibly close.
Is there a ‘one more push’ argument among the democrats - if so I’d have thought Clinton seemed too risky and someone who had more pull in a southern or midwestern state might benefit.
Which democrat is viewed as being the best one to go against Mcain ?
Money on Hilary is surely a waste. She has too many things going against her.
O/T - somebody asked on yesterday’s thread, what does Ming do with Matthew Taylor now. Does he say “You were the future once!”.
I think Cable is a very effective politician, but not enough of a contrast from Ming - so his election was a mistake. Cable will also have a lot on his plate being deputy and Shadow Chancellor. Taylor is unlikely to sit on the sidelines happily, is he? Perhaps run for the Presidency when Hughes’s time is up? (And then what will Hughes do?)
4 - the fact that in America being pro-death penalty is “moderate” (and I don’t doubt it is) is hilarious! What an awful place.
Todays Guardian is reporting that Cameron did Intevene when a Tory donor ( who is in dispute with the tax authorities) had their Peerage blocked.
Oh dear……
11 - Pang, are we meant to take your soundings seriously? You are an Englishman in your 20s. Who have you sounded out? A wide cross section of registered Democrats? Furthermore, why do you consider yourself a “Democrat”? You aren’t even a US citizen.
Replying to John, not checked if anyone else has, as to whether anyone has lost a US presidential has gone on to win - step forward Richard Nixon!
14 - Hughes has another job (Constitutional Affairs?). I agree that Taylor should have some role. He isn’t too good on the television though.
It would be better if MPs were barred from being President IMO.
It is a novelty for the Liberal Democrats not to know what to do with some MPs. In the past there have not been enough; now there are too many! I think Taylor is better than many on television; he comes across as quite thoughful. I suppose he will carry on being chief manifesto writer. Not sure why Ming did not put him in his team somewhere. I can’t remember, but I think he backed Ming.
19. yes, he has constitutional affairs and he’s Shadow Attorney General too.
Btw, yesterday night 84 MPs (+2 tellers) still opposed ID cards Lords amendments in the end: LDs, Gorgeous George, nats, DUP, 6 Lab rebels and 8 tories
Today’s Question Time is from Moscow. Guests include Douglas Alexander, Russian deputy foreign minister Grigori Karasim, and prominent government critic and chess legend Garry Kasparov.
SBS - He did support Ming. On TV - thoughtful, yes. But not always quickfooted. I have always thought that Malcolm Bruce was just about our best TV performer (perhaps it is just me…)
16. The same ’story’ notes the tax dispute was settled last year. This is just more desperate NuLab spin.
Electing Cable was a terrible mistake. The leadership now looks like the two old guys from the muppet show. I would have voted Taylor without hesitation. One of the few Lib Dem MPs my friends in other parties actually rate.
24 Does anybody think that the Labour leadership means Blair and Prescott? Can anyone remember who the Tory deputy leader is? The election means that Vince will deputise when Ming is away - and Vince will do this well.
Personally I would probably have voted Heath.
17. What a bizarre posting?
25. Cable is able to make Gordon looking sunny, so in a certain way I’m happy with this choice
in the end, I’m still not sure what the LD deputy leader should do and I suspect many UK people share this doubt (just the ones who are aware that the LDs have a deputy leader).
Although Hilary Clinton motivates the Republican base she has mass name recognition and this counts for a lot in a country where turnout is lower than most countries (i.e. even people who don’t usually vote will know who she is).
You might think this doesn’t mean much, but let’s assume she runs: in terms of states she needs to win, we can be sure she’ll hold the vast majority of states where Kerry and Gore won, the difficult states for her would be Iowa, Wiscousin and perhaps new Hampshire and New Mexico. There is a strong chance that with her own husband she would easily bring one southern state -Arkansas into play. If she wins all her difficult states and Arkansas, she’s President, so despite what many Republicans tend to think, a Hilary victory isn’t impossible and can be done.
It might also be noted that much of the rubbishing of Hilary’s chances are down more to her voting record and her husband (i.e. on their emotions), she hasn’t been shown to be soft on terror and the facts are she isn’t a north eastern liberal. Republicans perhaps should admit that the failure to take more states off the Democrats in 2004 is a particular problem, especially if Hilary gets the nomination, simply because the vast majority of Democrats in blue states will show up and vote, ensuring that 90% of the states won by Gore and Kerry will be in the bag for her.
The Republicans should ideally be looking to find some scandal or something which brings her judgement into question. It’s also far easier for Hilary to show herself as a moderate (she has never been voted or regarded as the most liberal senator) and unlike Kerry, she doesn’t have a a huge voting record, although she does have one. Republicans will need to find a new strategy, the same one used on Kerry won’t work and anything like a close result like 2000 would undermine the credibility of the result.
If Hilary runs, she will get the nomination, what the Republicans need to do is get a good presidential candidate. McCain is too old and disliked for being apparently liberal (you have to live on the moon to think he’s that in my opinion), First is wooden, Gulliani wouldn’t be popular in the south and with Senator Allen, may thought he would lose to Warner (if Warner had run for the senate seat) so by no means is the Republican field of candidates any good.
I think the chances for either party is even but Democrats a slight advantage if their candidate is Hilary (since we don’t really know who Republican candidate is and all the current contenders have issues to deal with).
16 - I’m just amazed at how naive some of the tories on here can be. Someone the other day was trying to argue, yes, tory sleaze, yes tory loans, but since camerion no tory loaners get peerages. Well, today’s press blows that one out of the water. As if we’re surprised anyway.
Cable and Ming are just too similar. Hardly a dream ticket. No real contrast there. Which is why Kramer may have been good.
It is significant, because the media, and the Cameronites will play on it now the leader and deputy leader consist of “two old boys”. It would also have been a chance to push somebody younger into the limelight. (Despite 19 years as an MP, Taylor is still young.)
When there were very few MPs, it did not matter. At one stage in the 1990s, even the Liberal Democrats did not know who the deputy leader was to Paddy. After examining the constitution, it turned out that it was technically Sir Russell Johnston (as longest serving MP). Clearly that would not do, so they swiftly installed Alan Beith.
25-Peter Pigeon
Maybe Cable can take over PMQ’s from Cambell which couldn’t be worse.
As someone commented yesterday the public image of these two will be more like a Pensioners party as oppossed to a Liberal party.
The Lib Dems extreme conservatism in their choice of leaders at the moment reveals a very great deal about their underlying level of confidence.
Going for two ’safe pairs of hands’ is the action of a group of people who are looking for certainty in a world that they see as an uncertain for them.
This to me suggests at best a consolidation mind set or even a defensive one.
25 - Maybe the need to fill in for Ming might be quite strong over this Parliament? I am not trying to make insinuations about his health but the man on his election recognised the need for his advanced years to be compensated by surrounding himself with the younger generation but now he has his own stunt double lookalike replacemnet to fill in for him! Its just the wrong message to be putting out right now and certainly not something the kids are going to get excited about.
In any case, Vince is far more part of the leadership than Prescott is to Labour. He was afterall one half of the “double-lock” manifesto writing team last time and has a more important brief for the parties overall strategy and credibility than any other MP. A great man to have behind the scenes but not the sort you want to be putting up at PMQs every now and again or someone Question Time can call on too easily.
Campbell and Cable - the House of Commons Muppets show now has it’s very own Statler and Waldorf…
10: ‘I suspect the average American does not want to see the presidency become dynastic.’
You are joking, I take it? We are in the reign of Bush II, and Jeb is a serious possibility to make it Bush III (and W’s grandfather was of course in the Senate). Other than Ireland and India, it’s one of the most dynastic democracies there is.
I think Hillary has lost too much ground with the Democrat base from some clumsy positioning to the ‘centre’ and could fade like past early frontrunners. A lot of the smarter partisans in the Democrat netroots like Warner too and it was a good move by Mike to buy in at this stage.
The Democrats can win without picking up any of the typical southern states. The Kerry states plus Ohio would do it. But it would be wise to be competitive at least in Florida and Virginia.
but Cable doesn’t look too old IMO. He’s certainly not young, but he doesn’t look frail/weak.
On the GOP side, it’s far from straightforward either. John McCain was generally reckoned to have made a poor speech to the southern GOP caucus meeting in Memphis. While trying to rally behind President Bush, there are clear divisions within the Republicans with many fiscal conservatives appalled at the behaviour of the Republican-controlled Congress and its willingness to allow the Budget deficit to spiral out of control while spending upwards of $6 billion a month on Iraq.
No, if the Democrats can find a credible candidate (perhaps Warner) then the GOP will be in trouble. Condoleeza Rice is a possibility but would she be too closely tied to the Bush administration ? I suspect the GOP will be looking at a fiscal conservative and Iraq-sceptic candidate.
Re: 34 & 36: Let’s not forget how many elderly people there are in this country and how willing they are to come out and vote. As the Israeli election showed, a well-organised Pensioners’ Party could do well in Britain. If the Tories are going to be the Party of “yoof”, I see no problem in Campbell, Cable and the LDs putting forward sensible policies aimed at improving the lot of the many poor elderly people.
32 - spot on. A great shame, but I suspect the Liberals think they blew their big chance at the last GE (even though in reality they didn’t - they did well, people expecting an 100 seat breakthrough were fooligrine burgers with yesterday’s news) and now all the MPs are on the back foot, many of them cacking it about their seats.
38 - lets not also forget that the third placed party in the Knesset was a fascist one. Israel is thankfully a really bad analogy.
32 - After the Kennedy, Hughes and Oaten affairs I don’t think it’s at all surprising that ’safe pairs of hands’ have been chosen.
I echo Gringo’s point about pro death penalty policies being the moderate position. Absolutely appalling! At least some states have more sense than others.
35 - After Junior’s performance I cannot see the US electing another Bush to the presidency for a good while - he’s basically weed on Jeb’s chips. Yes there have been and are political dynasties in the US but saying that Clinton will win purely because of who she is is naive - as you point out. My point was that I think the here and now is where the US will look for a new face, be it coloured red or blue. I see no appetite for a presidency that goes Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton, Bush…..
38. A lovely satirical post…I assume…
Cable is of course a very old personal friend of Gordon Brown, they both being part of the Scottish Labour mafia of the 70s. Cable, though from Yorkshire, was a Labour Councillor in Glasgow before leaving to join the SDP and thence the LDs.
Chelsea Clinton has a better chance of being president than Hilary. Regarding the GOP it’s McCain’s to lose but it’s a shame that Giuliani’s social liberalism is seen as a drawback.
Hillary has won exactly one election in her life - running a strong campaign against Rudy-stand-in Rick Lazio back in 2000. You can argue all you want about how conservative upstate New York is, all those diary farmers, blah blah blah, but it’s nothing compared to the Deep South. Sure, it was a surprise she won but I don’t see her likely to take it to the next level. For that, at the very least, she has to win reelection this November (against the Republican fallguy) very impressively.
And don’t bet anything on Rudy. Sooner or later, he’ll implode and get back to the lecture circuit. He’s a guy with a zipper problem, on his third marriage and with a lot of skeletons in his closet (including a mobbed-up uncle). Plus, he has a tendency to yell at reporters - something which he could get away with in Manhattan but won’t work nationally.
44. He stood for parliament in Glasgow as a Labour candidate too (I think)
38 - Indeed, a large number of the lib dem-tory marginal seats are around the south coast and south west, seats with very high proportions of older voters. I don’t believe having an older leader will do the lib dems any damage what so ever, they may even make a net benefit. However, it’s a two party squeeze that might do for them in the end.
45. I can’t see it with McCain. On the one hand I think he’s too old - 72 in 2008 and I think it’ll work agin him; and on the other I don’t think he really has the support across the Republican base; he’s not really favoured by the religious right. Where he does score is with the swing voter but I expect him to get nobbled in the Primaries.
Stodge. McCain didn’t go to the Southern caucus in Memphis. He asked people to write in a vote for the existing President. Frist won but he had to in his home State. On the GOP side the two front runners are Giuliani and McCain. Post 9/11 ( the man who showed leadership) Giuliani is probably slightly more popular with the general public but is I suspect far too liberal on hot button issues like abortion to be selected and may not even stand. McCain has to some extent ‘made up’ with the GOP conservative base by his loyalty during the last election but he has been sufficiently independent from Bush to be an extremely plausible candidate with the general public. If he gets the nomination and his health holds up, I think he’ll be a very strong candidate.
Hilary’s name recognition and fund raising abilities will make her very hard to beat for the nomination but she has seriously hacked off the more liberal parts of the base by refusing to go along with a ‘troops out now line’ on Iraq and for not backing Feingold’s proposal for a censure of Bush for ‘breaking the law’ on wiretapping overseas calls to Al Quaeda supporters without a warrant from the special ‘FISA’ court. Just because she isn’t the strongest election candidate doesn’t mean she won’t be selected. History is replete with examples of Parties making obviously wrong choices ( eg Michael Foot vs Denis Healey, Iain Duncan-Smith versus Kenneth Clarke).
49 Andy. I agree. I think that Mitt Romney could trounce McCain amongst the religious right.
Stodge. I apologize. It appears McCain did speak but did not stand and urged his supporters to write in a vote for President Bush. In the circumstances I think the low vote he got is no indication of how hw would fare when the process gets underway.
My point about Waldorf and Statler at 34 is not about age, it’s about image - and what that image says about the mindset of the Lib dems.
Choosing as your leaders two grumpy old men - destined to spend their time shaking their heads and heckling from the sidelines - is this really the height of Lib Dem ambition?
Under Paddy Ashdown the Lib dems made real progress - a lot of it below the radar in Westminster terms - but he laid the foundations; Kennedy took the credit and at least kept the ball rolling, whereas Campbell is going to preside over the decline, and I reckon Lib Dems know it.
‘Go back to your constituencies … and prepare for defeat..’
47 So he did! Glasgow Hillhead in 1970.
53 - “whereas Campbell is going to preside over the decline, and I reckon Lib Dems know it”
Wishful thinking on your part I think. Not a proper prediction.
48. the top 20 constituencies in terms of over 65 population include some COn/LD marginals: Christchurch (29,92% are above 65), East Devon (not a marginal, but not safe for the tories), Harwich (a Con/Lab marginal), Worthing West (a safish tory seat), Bexhill and Battle (safe for tories) ,New Forest West (safe tory), North Norfolk (it was a marginal, not a solid LD majority), Eastbourne (a super maginal) ,West Dorset (Con/LD marginal) ,Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (safe con), Lewes ,Chichester ,Totnes (Con/LD marginal), Torbay (Con/LD marginal),North Thanet, Suffolk Coastal (safish tory), Poole (not marginal, not safe), Clwyd West (Con/Lab) ,Isle of Wight (now con) and Teignbridge (22.28% are above 65)
As a matter of interest SBS, what is a ‘proper’ prediction?
Is their amy evidence that the age of a leader has any impact on who does or doesn’t vote for them. William Hague didn’t exactly pile on the votes of younger people and Michael Foot didn’t do too well amongst pensioners.
My own feeling is that so long as your leader is not extremely young or extremely old it doesn’t make a great deal of difference to the electorate.
I think they would have been better with Taylor, but seeing Campbell and Cable get on well with Brown maybe its part of the plan. Lib dems don’t attack Labour very much. I never understand this.
16 Crossland Yes, oh dear … that you should still take the Guardian at face value on this issue.
They still have the story up on their website that the police will investigate the Conservative party as well as Labour despite the police denying this, saying that they will only be investigating the complaint made and that was, as they point out, about the Labour party.
The Guardian had become a more balanced political read after the election but over this and the Brown coronation they seemed to have slipped back into the old mode, selling the revamp down the river, and falling back on their declining core readership.
[57] A ‘proper’ prediction is one I make, Marcus, not SBS (or you, come to that). Just thought I’d clear it up
Its hard to see Clinton keeping the momentum needed as a front runner to destroy all in her path. Even then it would be very hard for her to break out of the north east. On the other hand if she holds the Kerry states and wins Ohio she’s president…
If McCain wins the nomination he’ll probably become president, but its hard to see him beating a more conservative Republican like Mitt Romney.
57 - fair enough. Don’t really know what a “proper” prediction is. However, I think we all tend to get carried away with what we wish for on this site, and confuse it with what is likely. Including me.
So far as I know GB has never been that close to the Glasgow/West of Scotland Labour party so it’s debatable as to whether he and Cable would ever have been particularly close. I don’t think they gave him much support in his failed leadership bid in any case. The Labour party on the East Coast does tend to attract a different type of MP.
59 - well the attacks on labour over Iraq showed what is possible. Imagine what effect could be had if lib dems start to attack over sleaze, mismanagement of public services etc. Rich pickings are there for the taking.
Regarding the pensioner jibe, as tory marginals are going to be much more tricky than in 2005 to hold/gain it does provide a hook. At best it’ll be a holding operation with a seat lost here and a seat gained there, but that would be a creditable result in my opinion.
58 - I was wondering that too. I’m certainly not convinced that older voters are more likely to vote for an older leader.
Anyway, I’d be wary about drawing too much significance from the choice of Deputy Leader. I suspect many party members (let alone ordinary voters) would struggle to even tell you who the Deputy Leader was, most of the time. I seem to remember back in the 80s the Liberal Party voted against even having one (though admittedly we had a lot fewer MPs in those days).
66 - I seem to recall Cyril Smith was disgusted at this and walked out of conference (or rather assembly).
59 That is a strange statement Anna , It is the Conservatives supporting Labour bills in Parliament and the Lib Dems being most vocal against from Iraq to Tuition Fees to Education .
60 Guardian circulation figures have in fact increased since its relaunch in Berliner format last year . I’m pretty sure that someone will make a complaint to the police fairly soon if it is not already in the pipeline .
67 - Yes, I remember. From memory to was him and David Alton who were the main two behind the idea. No-one could quite understand why Cyril Smith got so upset about it when it was defeated.
57 A “proper” prediction is the sort we had here back in January. The finest minds in the Conservative Party told us Lib Dems that we were on the verge of meltdown and would soon be polling less than 10%.
OK it hasn’t happened, but it was still a proper prediction.
Completely O/T - Does anyone know how to look at the odds chart on Betfair of a market that has closed?
“…Hilary Clinton … attracts an enormous level of animosity…”
Well so did, and does, George W Bush, and he’s still managed to be a two-term President. You’re probably right that this would make the Democratic Party unwilling to nominate her. It was this defensiveness that led them to nominate Kerry in preference to Dean last time, and ultimately lose the election by being too timid.
It’s really the key difference between the two US parties at the present time - the only thing I can see changing it would be for the decline of Dubya to turn into a rout for the Republicans in the mid-terms, possibly leading to indictment hearing against the President [given what the Republican’s dragged Clinton in front of a Grand Jury for, it tells you a lot about American politics that the Democrats haven’t shown the nerve to pursue Bush over the funding or Iraq issues].
I’m fairly certain that, given the way the right-wing media is crucial in framing the nomination races, the Democrats will be able to find a candidate to lose the next Presidential election. This is *unless* there’s a change in the Democratic mindset from what prevailed in 2004.
Wasp. Romney is a notorious flip flopper on abortion. He couldn’t have won the Massachussets Governor’s race otherwise. McCain is a conservative; on foreign policy, government spending and abortion for instance. Even his line on a federal ban on gay marriage was based on the argument that this should be a matter for states rights. He won’t be the favourite of the religious right but he is doing enough to defang their opposition and will pick up some of their support; Gary Bauer, for instance. The two concerns I would have about him are his age and his bad temper. At the moment I would say he’s favourite to win the GOP nomination but obviously there’s a long way to go.
53 Marcus and Rik remind me of Waldorf and Statler - not in age but in tolerance and political savvy. Torbay should be Tory - it’s partly Adrian Sanders campaigning but also partly the local Tories fault it’s not.
Re: 50 & 52: Indeed, bluemoon, but the analysis on FOX News in particular was very anti-McCain and not really pro anyone in the GOP. It’s a conundrum for the Republican hopefuls - with Bush’s approval numbers in the mid-30s, do they really want to be seen to be that close to him ? My thought is that a thoughtful Republican not tied to either the Congressional or Presidential coat-tails might portray himself as a serious fiscal conservative and gain some momentum from that.
68: I never hear them attack Blair or Brown thats what I mean. The general public with not much interest in politics don’t know what bills they vote for or not. Its the personal attacks that gets the headlines. I don’t like it, but thats the way the newspapers like it.
Max-58
‘My own feeling is that so long as your leader is not extremely young or extremely old it doesn’t make a great deal of difference to the electorate.’
But where does that put Ming,whilst by to-day’s standards he’s not that old at 65 but visually looks as if he’s in his 80’s?
Surely by the next election he will come across as extremely old man in an image driven age.
73 Blue Moon - Romney has now come out as pro-life and that’ll do for most of the religious right. He also opposes stem cell research and tried to get same sex marriage overturned in Mass. Those are huge issues for the religious right! Furthermore McCain’s stance on same sex marriages may be that it is a state rights issue, but amongst conservative Christians it is regarded as a moral wrong… His arguments won’t hold water with the Coalition.
77 - where as Cameron will perhaps come across as an extremely image driven man.
Stodge. there is such a candidate. His name is John McCain! He is a fiscal conservative; he’s long opposed pork barrel add ons to bills, for instance. He’s also in the forefront of ending the notorious ear marking system which has pushed up spending so much In the public mind he’s stood apart from Bush on a number of issues; torture of enemy combatants, membership of the gang of 14 on judicial nominations for instance ( although he strongly supported John Roberts and Sam Alito, but he hasn’t burned his bridges with the President. It’s a tricky line to tread but that’s what Presidential politics is all about.
Re: 80 - You may well be right, but the fact remains his non-speech at the GOP caucus didn’t win him any friends and was criticised heavily on FOX News.
ZEBIDEE 9.
Moray is where the Cons consistently come second. Posters on this site have been saying let us have an example of a second place conservative seat, that will show how well or not well the Cons are doing. This is the first example albeit, SNP number 1. If Cameron is a catylst, which I do not personaly see, then Labour and Lib Dem third and fourth place votes should be attracted plus some SNP. That is their opportunity.
Question is what will actually happen, the Lib Dem campaign will probably be important, presumably they can get a lot of workers there, close to their North of Scotland seats and Aberdeen, where they usually do well.
This is, in my view, an important seat, election and test for the Conservatives.
82 - er, it would have been if it was Labour 1st and Tory 2nd. On the basis that the leading opposition party in any seat benefits at the expense of the incumbent governing party, wouldn’t that mean the SNP benefits over the Tories? Or am I missing something?
70. Before the GE last year the assembled wisdom of the Lib Dems on the site was screaming ‘Tory meltdown’ at every turn - was that a ‘proper prediction’, too?
82 - I agree with that - it’s a genuine challenge. The choice of candidate, I think, indicates that the Tories will be taking it seriously - we’ll have to wait and see what resources are actually put in though.
But for all parties it won’t be that easy to get workers up their. For my own party seats like Moray, Banff & Buchan, Aberdeen South and West Aberdeenshire have fairly good sized meberships but other than that most of our membership (around 75% I would guess) live south of the Forth.
Also have to note that none of the parties has a big council base (labour are the biggest party on the council with 5 seats) so no-one has that big an organisation in the constituency itself.
It is interesting to read the Electoral Commission’s statement yesterday with the Guardian report today.
Shurely shom mishtake? By the Electoral Commission of course, mentioning both main parties.
Interesting to see the childish outburst from Charles Clarke on ID cards - ie, we’re going to make them compulsory come what may and it will be too far gone for the Tories or LDs to do anything about it after the next election.
He couldn’t have scored a bigger own goal if he’d announced that Labour was going to reintroduce the Poll Tax forthwith, and implement it in Scotland first to boot. What a fantastic opportunity for the Tories and LDs (and every other party for that matter).
Potentially significant too regarding the make-up of the next government if there’s a hung parliament - with the Tories and LDs both advocating abolition and Labour resolutely determined to force this mess through. Not likely to form a solid basis for a Lib-Lab coalition is it?
87. I’m sure the Lib Dems’ principled opposition to ID cards wouldn’t survive too long in the face of the offer of red boxes and ministerial cars.
88 - I think you are wrong there. I can’t see the Liberal Democrats flip-flopping on ID cards.
56 - Andrea: Christchurch isn’t a Con/Lib Dem marginal either. Our vote share there is over 54%.
89. Why not? Mark Oaten was for them before he was against them.
90. AHM, I’ve never stated it. I said that in the list there’re SOME con/ld marginals, not that they’re all Con/LD marginals
On the topic- I’d say the best value is in Gore, Vilsack, Kerry and Feingold- all at 14s or greater. I can see all of those prices tightneing considerably as each will get a “rush” at some point over the next two years. Possibly worth investing in them all and then selling each at the height of their likely boom.
91. Russell and Lamb too. to be honest there’re other MPs in other parties who have changed their maind since Nick’s 10 minutes rule bill.
92 - Perhaps, but you didn’t state that it wasn’t a marginal in brackets as you did with some of the other constituencies mentioned. Pedantic, I know, but humour an old man would you, Andrea?
86 - Doubt it is a mistake , they presumably think that the Conservatives are just as likely to have given lenders peereages as Labour .
87 - There is more chance of a Grand Coalition between Labour and Conservative than Lib Dem and Labour , DC was practising when he supported the Labour education bill .
94. The Lib Dems are hardly a model of policy consistency in other areas either….
95. Alastair, there was already the % of old people in brackets, so I wouldn’t want to put too many things in those brackets. I thought that many people here are aware of the political situation in Christchurch.
97 Whereas DC is busy redrawing all the policies he helped draw up and fought the last election on .
98 - Yes, one would think so, but Lib Dem claims of ‘Winning Here’ needn’t necessarily bear any resemblance to reality, as you know.
It’s very much in vogue at the moment to trash Hillary’s chances, on the grounds that she is too divisive, too disliked etc. I wouldn’t be so sure. If she chooses to run in 08 - as she is surely going to - her candidacy will be a juggernaut, and it will be virtually impossible for any other Democrat to stop her getting the nomination IMHO. She already has more than twice as many staff on her “senate” campaign than McCain or anyone else. Most importantly, she will attract enormous amounts of cash, and that will settle it.
In terms of her chances of winning the general election, one of the factors cited against her is that there will be all sorts of dirt and past history dredged up. I think she will be able to deflect this and, in any event, it’s been all heard before. She has been accused of financial and sexual impropriety on countless occasions - she has even been accused of murder. What else can they say about her ?
We don’t always have to love our candidates: look at the hatred directed at Mrs Thatcher in 83 and 87 - she still won. If I were a Republican I would be very worried by Hillary.
From the Liberal democrat reply to the Electoral Commission letter.
“You will see from the donation records that notional interest foregone by the three loan providers Paul Marshall, Lord Alliance and Lord Razzall has been registered with you when required by the Act on quarterly returns since Q.4 200. There is no conditions attached to the provision of these loans.”
Seems that the Liberal Democrats have interpreted the Act in a different way to the Tories. It will be interesting to see if the EC has the teeth (and balls) to extract any information from the Tories
91 - That’s exactly the sort of reason why so many Lib Dem members were so strongly against any suggestion of Oaten becoming leader.
There may have been the odd Lib Dem MP who toyed with the idea of ID cards, but its hard to see the vast majority ever being willing to go anywhere near it. Apart from anything else they would be crucified by their own party members.
84 - yes indeed. Premature too.
03- I agree that ID cards seem to raise ire of many Lib-Dems- but Mark Oaten wasn’t just “an odd MP” (ahem)- he was Shadow Home Affairs spokesman!
However- it’s an interesting wider question for Liberal Democrats- what policies would you be prepared to drop as the price of power? Which are non-negotiables?
I helpfully ask now because you know you’ll be asked repeatedly during the election campaign….
105 - I agree that this is the question that all parties will be asked and have to answer if and I think probably that a hung parliament looks likely during the next election .
72-Clinton wasn’t impeached for unzipping his pants. He was impeached for lying to a jury-perjury.
96 - lab-tory grand coalition? this is some kind of joke right, a bit of message board joshing, you’re not really saying you think this has even the remotest relationship to reality?
Re. 73, and on tort reform. This is one big issue where he agrees with Bush. I’ve read liberals (like Molly Ivins) tearing into Bush on tort reform, but McCain’s support for tort reform has yet to dent his status as every Democrat’s favourite Republican.
108 Happened in Germany and here in the admittedly distant past . TB has moved Nulab so far right and DC is moving Nucon left so that the two parties policies are merging into a blur of agreement .
102 Icarus The Tories have alread given the information, and well before the LibDems (why were they you far behind the other parties in replying? What was the problem? A foreign donation as a loan through a subsidiary?)
However, you are right about the probelms with interpretation of the law, and that is why the Electoral Commission say that they do not expect to go to law about the reporting of loans and they hope they do not have to do so.
The proposals that Cameeron put forward that now seem to have fairly wide acceptance should make things clearer. Whether the Cameron and Blair meeting on this will shed any light is another matter.
105 - Well, I’m not saying it was a very good idea to make him Home Affairs spokesman in the first place.
You’re quite right though, the question of what’s negotiable and what’s not is something we’re going to have to face up to (along with the other parties). I would have thought ID cards would be fairly high up the list of non-negotiables though.
110 - Indeed - there is much that unites the parties, (and perhaps more importantly) much that seperates the Libs from either of them. [In general, authoritarian vs libertarian views - Iraq War, ID Cards, Terror Laws to name but a very few]
Gorgeous George is having fun - well worth a trip to Guido’s blog…
113 - I think civil liberties will be very important in the next election. I can’t see the LDs giving any ground on this issue.
I do increasingly feel that the Labour and Conservative parties are drifting ever closer together, and perhaps a grand coalition is possible. I suspect that if it did happen, it would play right into the LD’s hands; both Tories and Labour will know this, and it is for this reason that it remains an unlikely prospect.
Dear Sir;
I am Abacha Blair, nephew of the Head of State and Commander In Chief of the Armed Forces of the United Kingdom.
We have come into £14,000,000 (Fourteen Million Pounds) which has been lent to us by noble supporters of the regime, which we must transfer to an account in your country before it is found by agents of the security services (The Electoral Commission, Parliamentary Standards Committee and Scotland Yard).
These moneys must only be used for the doing of good works which is why we have contacted you as an upstanding member of the community. As a trusted individual, please send us your bank account details and we will TRANSFER IMMEDIATELY the sum of £14 Million UK Dollars into your account. It is very important that you only spend these moneys on community benefit projects although as a consideration we will pay you a HANDLING FEE of 20% (TWENTY PER CENT) and nominate you for a PEERAGE in the HOUSE OF LORDS in the British Parliament.
Please send your BANK ACCOUNT DETAILS today as it is urgent that you help us in the doing of these good works.
Thank you many times for your kind assistance which God will thank you for
Yours sincerely
Abacha Blair
Public sector pay jumps And gold plated pensions too?
With respect (!) I think some of you have lost your heads on this one!
I think you conflating the personal politics of tony blair and david cameron with real world politics. I don’t think you need to give it more than say, 10 seconds, thought to know that a grand coalition would be violently resisted by the memberships of both parties - not to mention the elected members and other senior figures.
It’s foolish even debating such an idea, but even hypothetically, it would result in either in the end of the labour party, or perhaps, at the very least, the main body of the party would split from those big wigs who went into coalition with the tories - a la ramsay mcdonald. But, enough already, this is fantasy politics. About as realistic as flying pigs.
The Labour leadership race is getting hotter. Miliband says Blair is strong and a Benn parliamentary aide says Blair ought to be off now but amazingly keeps his job after being talked to by ‘Weak Link’ Armstrong. The war drums are clearly to be heard inside the Labour party.
119. Blue2win, how could you link in that way?
I was already told how to do it, but I forgot it
One sees the beginning of a Tory line of attack on the Lib Dems developing on some of the previous postings: that people in their sixties are somehow too old. This line is at least consistent with their previous attack on their own senior Tory MPs for being “bed blockers”. But I find it is very unpleasant of them, even “nasty”.
I have the feeling that most people look for a certain level of age and experience in their political leaders. If this is true, Campbell and Cable are running at an advantage. They certain contrast with the current Tory leadership, which does not seem to have much idea of what it is doing and where it is heading (apart from coalition with Labour?).
On top of that, the Lib Dem leaders do seem to have pleasant personalities, in distinct contrast to the Tory leaders, whose public appearances show them as increasingly ratty.
115. The Lib Dems are so much closer culturally and temperamentally to Labour that for me a Lib-Lab coalition in the event of a hung parliament is the overwhelmingly likely outcome. We have seen how keen the Lib Dems have been to jump into bed with Labour in Scotland, and in my part of the world, the outrageous collusion of Labour and the Lib Dems at the GE reinforces this view. We had senior members of local Lib Dem and Labour parties - and even the ‘candidates’ in some seats - openly calling for their supporters and members to vote tactically. In addition we hade shared phone lines being set up, activists from one party working for the other, one party providing leaflets for the other etc. etc.
The police have now widened their investigation to include other parties following further complaints http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4861136.stm
122 Yet the grand coalition is already taking shape. Cameron calls himself Blair’s Heir, and is supporting the government on their Education Bill and ID cards. Certainly there will be activists in both parties who will not like it (some already object). But the party leaderships will decide.
Blue2win - 2.25% is hardly a “jump”, really…
I haven’t heard much direct mention of the fact that the nominations this time round will be open for both US parties. Normally one side has either a sitting President or vice-President with the nomination sewn up, but it doesn’t seem as though Cheney is going for the top job…
Will this make a difference? Must be the first time it’s been like this for a long time.
124. The Lib Dems, of course, have never supported Labour on anything, have they?
23 - Seems as though labour are depsrately trying to put up a smokescreen on this, if they’re going down then they want to take as many down with them as possible.
Regarding labour and lib dems they wouldn’t dare go for a labour coalition without a) the promise of PR and b) repeal of all legislation atacking civil liberties recently pushed through. In actual fact it’s a total non starter as it would entail many lost lib dem votes at a subsequent election and an irrevocable split - temporary power for decades of repentance.
A large proportion of lib dems, like myself with the libertarians and the orange bookers would feel more comforttable in a loose alliance with a conservative party willing to enact the two things mentioned above.
123. As the only person who can give out peerages is the PM, how can any other party be accused of selling peerages? Unless the accusations relate to periods when they were in government?
126 Of course they wouldn’t admit it if they had… doesn’t fit in with there ambition to be the “real” [sic] opposition
Re; #128 The other party leaders are allowed to nominate people for peerages, and these are normally nodded through. Although the actual ‘power’ lies in the hands of the PM, the unwritten rule is that the honours are doled out by all three party leaders. Such is the way with the British unwritten constitution.
If that is so, why have the Lib Dems continued to engage in the kind of blatant electoral collusion with Labour I mentioned earlier, and why have they continued to prop up Labour in Scotland? I think your sentiments may well be shared by a majority of the PB.com Lib Dems, but they don’t seem very representative of the Lib Dem party more generally, which retains its historic Labour sympathies and knee-jerk antagonism toward the Conservatives.
Sorry - that was a reply to 127, if it wasn’t obvious.
126 - And they most certainly wouldn’t be in government with them in a devolved parliament or assembly!
An article on the Moray by-election for y’all.
http://news.scotsman.com/opinion.cfm?id=490832006
126 - Indeed we have, Fred. The Conservative’s current stance reminds me of our period of “constructive opposition”. One of the differences is that Labour were better in their first term than they are now.
The other point of Lab/Con cooperatin has been Iraq, of course.
131 - I sympathise with your “knee-jerk” comments. It is still your big problem that not just Lib Dems but a big part of the electorate have an instintive reaction that the Tories are not the sort of people one would want to do business with. Personally I have always been able to find a number of Tories I like and admire - but it is hard to understand why they could join a party which sported Enoch Powell and his like.
“It’s all very well David Cameron posing as Tony Blair’s natural successor, but Tories trying to take on the Nats’ mantle is a daring move indeed.”
Max :LOL:
135 - I suspect the concept of posting a neutral article is rather lost on you Peter. I thought it might be informative and interesting for English posters but evidently not.
130. Although, of course, Blair refused to accept Hague’s nomination of Michael Ashcroft.
124. Mr Pigeon, perlease. ‘Support’ them on ID cards… hardly. David Davis has consistently opposed the cards, even when Howard was in favour, and the Conservatives only let the bill through after being offered a compromise that would allow a Conservative government to overturn the legislation at the first possible opportunity - even you must have noticed that the Tories have been the opposition since ‘97 and not the government.
‘Support’ them on education - yes, Cameron supported Blair at second reading because he was promising more autonomy for schools, something the Tories have been arguing for since time immemorial, and because the Bill brings back a form of grant maintained status. Support for this education bill is unlikely to be the entrance fee to a grand coalition with post-Blair Labour, which was almost in its entirety opposed to the Bill.
It was, Max. Don’t get mad.
A must win seat for the Conservatives. Is there a market on it?
122 - yes, in the case of a hung parliament, the most likely coalition would be a Lab-Lib Dem one. For many people this might be ideal, a labour govt, but without the ability to make knee jerk attacks on civil liberties. The next most likely coalition would be Tory-Lib Dem, if the lib dems could hack it. After that I guess it would be some kind of minority govt with another election within two years.
124 - Grand coalition, as this is a betting site, I suggest its proponents put some money on it. But, really, fantasy land stuff. The education bill is semantics, and anyway the tories are always instinctively wrong on which govt initiatives to back (iraq etc - was iraq coalition govt?), and which ones to oppose. Cameron seems no better on that regard.
138 Don’t know about must win but certainly must advance . I would expect Betfair to have a market on it soon .
139 - Not at all, lib dems will deal with the party with the most seats with no implied party preference. I can’t imagine any instance where they’d want to prop up a heavily wounded government (unless they could be made to reverse a whole raft of legislation!). Vry wishful thinking and redolent of that objectionable view that lib dems are labour voters really……
re 122 & 139. I’m not so sure that Labour would find it easy to work out a deal with the Lib Dems after they had been effectively thrown out by the electorate. It would be like Edward Heath in March 1974.
The Tories would find it much easier to agree a coalition deal with Ming Campbell than Brown would, in spite of the Fife connection.
137 “Conservatives only let the bill through after being offered a compromise that would allow a Conservative government to overturn the legislation at the first possible opportunity” - this is true, but pathetic. There’s no real point in having an opposition that does that. The Conservatives may as well sit on their hands for every bit of legislation, because a future Conservative government would repeal it.
Yes 141. I loathe the way Labour just assume that the Lib Dem’s will line up behind them. If Brown had been beaten then it would be dangerous for the Lib Dems to prop up his wounded government.
43 - One thing it will do is make it into a major election issue, I presume that was the thinking about letting it through, but it’s playing with fire to do so. Better to strangle it at birth than let it grow roots (to mix metaphors!)
143 SBS - ID cards aside… Why should the Opposition ALWAYS oppose government policy? If the MPs aim to do the best for their constituents, then it is not outside the bounds of probablity that once in a while the parties will happen to agree…
143. “The Conservatives may as well sit on their hands for every bit of legislation, because a future Conservative government would repeal it.” And just as true… the Conservatives may as well op