The Time cover that’s sparked off the excitement
October 28th, 2006-
The Obama price tightens from 33/1 to 12/1
This is the cover of last week’s Time magazine which for seven days has been appearing on news-stands right across the US.
This is the cover that has propelled the young first time Senator from Illinois into a position where the pundits are saying that only he can stop Hillary Clinton from securing the Democratic nomination for the 2008 White House race.
This is the cover that prompted the questioning six days ago that led to him saying that he was considering putting himself forward.
This is the cover that caused the Slate online magazine to decalre yesterday that “The Obama Rules. In one week he has turned American politics upside down.”
This is the cover that has caused the UK betting price on Obama for next President to tighten from 33/1 to 12/1 in just six days.
This is how the Slate is describing the entrance of Obama. “Political assumptions can remain constant for long periods and then change very quickly. And so they have in the approximately 10 days since the publication of Barack Obama’s book.. In the brief time he’s been on book tour, Obama has overthrown much of the reigning conventional wisdom about what’s likely to happen in the 2008 campaign, how shrewd politicians ought to behave, and what the informal rules of the American system really are.”
-
But is all this just a media hype and could it all be forgotten in a month or so?
I should say that I am biased and my judgement might be being affected by the fact that I tipped and bet on Obama when he was 50/1 in May last year. I believe, however, that he offers a much more attractive proposition to the Democrats than Hillary Clinton who will for ever be a divisive figure.
We will have to wait until January 14th 2008 before Obama’s appeal is really tested. That’s the day of the Iowa state caucuses which is the first major event in the 2008 election. Here party supporters get together in big and small gatherings right across the state and talk over the chances of each potential nominee. It was Iowa in 2004 that caused Howard Dean’s campaign to come to a halt.
My view is that Barack Obama is ideally suited to the Iowa format and that this will be the launch pad for him getting the Democratic nomination. After that who knows?
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
I watched that video of him that you linked to in a post a couple of days ago Mike. He was speaking at the 2004 Democrat convention. I must say that it was a tremendous speech: well-written, and even better presented. He tempered the usual (presumably obligatory) interventionist crowd-pleasers with some great imagery about individualism and self-betterment.
As someone unused to US politics I found the powerful expression of nationalism quite remarkable too, but maybe that is less noticeable to a US observer. It almost made me proud to be an American!
Trivia: he told us that his grandad was “a domestic servant to the British”, in Kenya. Or perhaps that is not so trivial, in view of the “special relationship”, should he get the top spot.
For those wishing to make their own judgement, here is the link to that video again:
http://uk.video.yahoo.com/video/play?p=barack+obama&ei=UTF-8&b=2&oid=2692820eaa9f9954&rurl=www.tblog.com&vdone=http%3A%2F%2Fuk.video.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%2Fvideo%3Fp%3Dbarack%2Bobama%26ei%3DUTF-8
Mike. There is no way. This is your book influencing you, IMO. You have to recognise the racist streak in America. Like the other poster said, name rhymes with ‘Osama’. Forget it.
If you can trade your position on Tradesports you could make some $, but not, under any circumstances, as an absolute bet. UK punters should be aware of this.
PS, it is just conceivable that the Dems would give him the nom, although I think the likelihood is less than 5%. But I speak of the election itself. The Dems are also stupid enough to nominate Hillary. She is another dead cert to lose the election.
its not going to happen - but does say something about what’s happening within the democrats…
re 3 & 4. Just read that article in Time or that assessment in the the Slate that I link to. Getting the front cover of Time is giving Obama huge name recognition. Just go into Google and see how the American press is reporting the past week.
As to his colour Obama is like Tiger Woods or Oprah and transcends different races.
I back my judgements with hard cash just as I did with one D. Cameron fifteen months ago when everybody said it was all sewn up for David Davis. Look through the old threads during the Tory leadership - “How can they choose a leader who has only been in the Commons for four years“, “he’s barely got any experience on the front benches” and “he will get slaughtered by Blair at PMQs“.
Mike S. There’s an extra “this” in the second this that and the other parargraph !!
……………………….
Obama is a punters dream on Betfair and still remains decent value. On the outright he remains a sticky choice but if you’re brave enough …. !!
Mike, I think that (as you imply in the main article) you are subconsciously flattered by the tightening of the numbers from 50 to 12. Think about the swing states in the MidWest. A black Democrat with an odd name. I cannot imagine it. African-Americans make up less than 10% of the US population.
PS that assesment is in Slate, not the Onion. I was looking forward to an Onion’s eye view of it!
The Democrats have a real problem which is currently not all that obvious, not unlike the Tories in Britain. Circumstances are at present pretty well optimal for them, yet they are only doing moderately well: it looks (IMO) as though they will fall short of taking the Senate and will only just take the House. I think it’s hard to see them taking the White House unless they have a candidate who either occupies a significant chunk of their opponents’ territory (as Clinton did by being a moderate Southerner, and Cameron is trying to do in Britain by appearing green and liberal) or has real star quality (as Clinton did). Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have some star quality, but probably not enough, and whereas Hillary does have heavy name recognition and a star husband, Barack seems to me more of a Democrat heartland choice.
Obviously my doubts are based on my belief that there is a strong streak of racism in the US and not on Sen. Obama’s qualities.
I could only get a short version of his speech. Like many speeches of the same type is reminds you of why you remain so desperate to keep ‘conservatives’ of all shades and colours out of office whenever and wherever possible.
It reminded me of Kinnock’s “”If Mrs Thatcher wins tomorrow, I warn you not to be ordinary, I warn you not to be young, I warn you not to fall ill, I warn you not to get old……”
(If someone could post a link that works on an apple computer- I’d appreciate it)
Re 9 & 10. Just read the US press at the moment. Obama will be ranking high up on name recognition and that should come through in the polls. I would suggest that Obama’s racial origin is much less important in the Democrat race than the widespread feeling that Hillary is divisive.
The Iowa caucuses in January 2008 will be critical and my guess is that Obama will come on top. This is not done by secret ballot but by shows of hand or supporters of each of the candidate moving to different parts of the hall. If there is any racial element it will be a lot harder for it to come out in that context.
Iowa can set the tone for the whole of the primary season.
I think the speech I just watched is different to the one posted. Much less of the obligatory wrapping himself in flags and generally more compelling to listen to-and only two and a half minutes;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyW7X4isOEo
try this link Roger.
http://www.truthout.org/mm_01/3.barack_obama_300.mov
I like a man who looks good in a really nice suit (another reason Brown will never win an election).
And the parallels with David Cameron don’t end there.
But I have to agree with Commentator that America is not yet ready for a black President.
I’m not convinced about this “Hillary is divisive” vibe. If she divides opinion along party lines, it doesn’t matter. If the people who really, really dislike Hillary are going to vote Republican anyway, it doesn’t matter.
There is an odd finding here that her support depends on whether she is billed as Hillary Clinton or as Hillary Rodham Clinton (which probably should remind us how imprecise polling is two years out) http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/20/poll.08/index.html
But in any case, on these numbers she can start measuring curtains.
John L
I know that Hilary’s dress sense, though nowhere near Cherie-levels, is a little iffy but that was a very rude remark about her inaugral ball-gown plans!
Thanks Mike but still no luck. If it’s the 2004 Democrat Convention then I got eight and a half minutes off Youtube.
15. Eleanor….I bet he looks good in cycle shorts too. I wonder if Barack Osama has a chauffeur for his shirt and shoes?
To be fair to Blair (and that’s not something you’ll hear from me often), at least he has some decent suits.
Like Blair, David Cameron knows the value of looking smart - both have breeding. A good suit says you know what’s what and gives the public faith in your abolities (deceptive in Blair’s case).
It’s not a question of money - all politicians are sufficiently paid to afford 3 or 4 decent suits at least. And in David Cameron’s case, those nice Savile Row numbers show excellent taste.
How Brown thinks he can ever be PM looking that shabby I really don’t know
Tha American election must be very difficult to predict unless you are an American. George Bush looked the least likely person anyone in the world would vote to run a country. You wouldn’t want him running a chip shop. Yet he won! McCain was pretty awful at the Tory Party Conference-and he’s old enough to be Ming’s dad- but they reckon he’s got it sown up.
I think your right Eleanor. Cameron has certainly put wardrobe on top of his agenda. Perhaps in time he might get round to some other issues as well?
re 20. In 2000 I bet on Bush and won a fair bit. Then I could not see how someone who was so awkward and ill at ease as Al Gore could possibly make it. I was nearly proved wrong and had to hang on for weeks for my winnings. In 2004 my long-shot for the Democratic nomination, backed at 20/1 was John Edwards and I got pretty close there.
This time I’ve had two long-shots - Obama and Warner.
22. I’d think about Gore again. Not as a major bet. But 1. Crucially through his new media he is one of the few that could match Hilary’s war chest. 2. As Veep he has NS credentials. 3. Americans like a comeback, just look how many Rovky sequels they watch, and so many Dems regard the new passionate campaigner as a man apart from the stiff of 2000.
I think he may not try, but if he did Richard “Milhous” Gore anyone at all.
Roger The original should play on Mac. If not, and you are on TradMac or iMac then Flip4Mac should have something to sort it.
I actually watched Barack’s speech live on TV, and was genuinely moved- it was very much set in the time of a wave of optimism and imminent defeat of Bush. Then Kerry came with his “reporting for duty” line, the veterans for truth, and the most brutal Republican campaign in history, which the Democrats had no answer for.
Commentator/ Eleanour- you are absolutely wrong. Barack’s colour will have no effect on the outcome of an election. The US have their iconic black superstars which transcends colour- Ali, Woods, Johnson. The minority of Americans who are deeply racist will either not vote (only 50% vote), or go republican anyhow.
I also think the geographical origins of the candidates are misinterpreted and over played. Edwards didn’t bring in his state at the last election (Tennessee I think). North east liberals have lost US campaigns because they have been poor candidates backed up by poor campaigns (Dukakis and Kerry).
What wins a US election is the campaign, and the campaigning skills of the candidates. Clinton overurturned poll defecits of 20% against Bush, and 10% against Dole during the campaign.
McCain doesn’t look to be a great campaigner- plus he will not have Rove. His poll leads now are meaningless. I think Hillary and Barack are potential winners. Barack slaughtered his opponent to win his own seat.
What ultimately will hamper Barack is not his colour, but money and experience- both of which he has little of.
Lets face it - both presidential candidates will be dull, safe types that nobody except political anoraks have ever heard of.
25 - Edwards was Senator for North Carolina I think. Of course, had Gore carried his own state (Tennessee) in 2000 or that of Bill Clinton (Arkansas), then he have been President. (BTW, did you scoop the awards for your education services: a nation has been on tenterhooks?)
Mike- I am pretty annoyed. I have been following the market in the US and viewed Barack’s odds as refelecting his limited ambition. I have just read the Time piece- Barack has pretty much said he is running. Damn, damn, damn what an opportunity missed.
Your Cruddas tip was pretty remarkable because I couldn’t see that coming. Barack is something completely different- he is clearly a great communicator, and if the Democrats bottle it over Hillary (ie start believing the hype that she is too divisive) will be pushing at an open door in a 2008 campaign against either McCain, Guliani or less likely Rice.
re 25. On money Obama did brilliantly raising more than $8m very quickly for his Senate race in 2004. People like supporting the campaigns of potential winners. What the Time magazine and other media coverage will do is to give him an added credibility that donors will find attractive. My guess is that he’ll be able to compete with Hillary in the dollar stakes.
john o- unfortunately not. Got third, and a useful cheque to invest into the service. All a bit PC- and once I saw some of my rivals (especially the disability ones) realised the writing was on the wall. Still met some politicians (urghhh), and have managed to limit my irrational phobia of the tube (alcohol helps I find).
But thanks indeed for the concern.
Good for a trade but the colour factor is probably too big an obstacle. And it’s not an American thing. The same would equally be true in this country. Just look at the record of ethnic minorities in reality TV shows.
29-Mike- if he can solve the finance issue, and get over the lack of experience (namely through face recognition)- he really does stand a great chance. I am going to offset my Reid losses with a punt.
Personaly I think the first black President of the USA is more likely to be a Republican than Democrat, even though Obama is a good speaker.
We shall have to see though. Personaly I would prefer McCain as President but it is after all their business.
29. Do you think Gore worth a punt. Also picking you up on Lib Dem entrenchment in seats, you are of course correct Alan Beith being the classic case, but like him they usually need to build substantial majorities to see them through tough times as well as good, or still have substantial others to squeeze one reason Huhne might be fine while Gidley will not. Basically up to 15 Lid Dems could fall is reasonable you think. Is not the key as in 1997 to mobilise frustrated Tories in long held Labour seats as once Labour voters in long held Tory Seats to use the LIb Dems as a vehicle to beat their opponent. I really think this is key.
31-Alex-just thinking some more on the colour issue- it is only important insofar as how people perceive the politics. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton are seen as extremists/ and or primarily interested in their sectional interests.
Powell and Rice transcend colour in US politics because they are judged by their role. Powell could have won in 2000 except for a nagging wife.
Barack must do 2 things-not be viewed as a black politician but as a politician, and stake his camp on the centre. In this way he will be viewed completely differently to Jackson/ Sharpton. I think he is more than capable of doing this.
The biggest block to Barack for the White House is Hillary simple as that.
Unless the Republicans can pick a great campaigner for 2008 they will lose. Bush for all his foibles is a campaign managers dream- he won in 2000 because Rove managed to get into the head of Americans the question “who would you most want to have a beer with”.
Re 35 Tyson, In hindsight Al Gore. Problem is that you don’t get to change your vote with hindsight
What does it say for Americans that a majority would want to have a beer with George Bush?
24. Thanks B2W but it’s a little complicated.
33- Benedict- Personally I would prefer McCain as President but it is after all their business.
Benedict- sometimes you have to put your sectional interests aside for what would be the greater good. Barack would be an inspirational choice for the US, and a force of good for the world. How the world has missed Clinton- and the Democrats being out of power since 2000.
I was pleased to see Shroeder kicked out of Germany last year, and warm to Merkel. In retrospect I can say that the Thatcher victories of 1979, 1983 and probably 1987 were good for the UK. It forced Labour to change.
Do you think that the country made the right choice in 1997, 2001 and 2005?? Without these election victories the Tories would be unchanged- would that be good for the country. Making the Tories reasonable and electable again could be Blair’s legacy.
37 - It says that they like beer…
22 - you were wrong. 1m more people voted for gore than bush.
re 37. That is odd Roger because George W never touches a drop. Like John Reid he is a reformed alcoholic. The only point in having a beer with somebody is that they do likewise.
They always said that Charles Kennedy was great company.
Roger- I was following that campaign closely and I was gobsmacked by how many times I saw, or read about US white working class men saying “Bush is man you can share a beer with”.
How Rove sublimally got this message (I believe deliberately) through was beyond belief (you could hardly explicitly write this line). It not only warmed people to Bush, but it juxtaposed to everything that Gore wasn’t.
you are also wrong on obama. i would love him to be president. but he’s black. and don’t give me that stuff about oprah and tiger, because neither are running for the white house. america is still a very racist country and there’s no way on earth it’s going to vote for a black man. probably not a woman either.
sad to say, it’s 8 years of mccain…at least he’s not going to be worse than bush.
I don’t think the politician I wanted to have a beer with would bear any relation to how I would like to vote. Of all party leaders at the moment, the one I think would be most interesting, or least boring to have a beer with would be Alex Salmond - or perhaps Nigel Farage. The one I would least like to have beer with (while he had orange juice no doubt) would be Ian Paisley.
I would rather have had a pub lunch with George W Bush than with Al Gore or John Kerry. But that does not mean I admire dubya in any way. He may not touch a drop of alcohol, but he is not so against it as Paisley. After all, Bush has always let his daughters drink.
I would far rather have gone for a beer with John Major than with Kinnock or Paddy. Paddy just came over too sanctimonious for me to imagine him as a beer buddy. But he was rather good on QT on Thursday, wasn’t he?
In hindsight to my post supporting Thatcher’s victory in 87 an election too far. I think by 1987 Labour had changed and become more disciplined, and the Tory govt post 1987 had become so ideological and irresponsible that it laid the foundations for our economic collapse in the early 90’s.
Lawson’s boom, greed is good, rampant individualism, the poll tax, mass privatisation of key services, continued high unemployment. The 1987 Tory govt was a repellent one, and did immeasurabe damage to this country.
[42] Technically, George W is not a recovering alcoholic, if the adjective is given its usual meaning of someone who has not only stopped drinking but also addressed the causes of their alcohol abuse - rather, he’s what’s known in the trade as a “dry drunk” - one who stays away from the stuff through a combination of fear and will-power. In fact, Ann Richards, whom he defeated for the Texas governorship (and who IIRC died recently) was a recovering alcoholic - and it was said at the time that that was a fair & democratic result - there are, after all, far more people in denial about their “stuff” (be it alcohol or anything else) than there are people prepared to own up and do the hard yards…
As to the 2008 Presidential, I have a nightmare… McCain gets the GOP nomination and runs with a born-again Christian culture warrior; the slate wins (as in 2000, with a minority of the popular vote) and then McCain is assassinated…
Paddy is one of the few politicians I’ve spent any time with and is surprisingly self effacing and entertaining.
Austin Mitchell claims that ‘class’ is the reason for most peoples vote. ‘The working class vote Labour and the Middle class vote Tory’. Ed Vaizey said this is true of the North but less so of the south. He said ‘but it can be irritating when you walk down a long drive to a big house to deliver a leaflet and are told “Sorry we’re Labour”‘
8. “African-Americans make up less than 10% of the US population.”
In fact, they’re roughly 14% of the US population, and only 70% of Americans are white according to the US Census Bureau’s definitions. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States#Racial_groups )
44 ballyeric- would agree that there are alot of racists in the US, but I do not think that they can efect the outcome of an election. Barack needs to make inroads with the swing undecides of Ohio and Florida whilst keeping the base happy. The racists either will be too ignorant and lazy to vote (you have to go the trouble of registering yourself), or would not vote Democrat in a million years.
i’m not talking about klan members here! i’m talking about mid western, middle america! anyone who knows anything about american politics knows that race is STILL a sore festering away under the surface.
mike are you and elenor one and the same, she appears when you are around and you have been known t5o be link to a bit of cross posting to get people talking on the sight
sarah j, nula… elenor???
For all those who think I’m wrong about Obama there’s £77 of my bet on him at 7.8/1 waiting for someone to lay on Betfair. This is in the Democratic Nomination market. So £23 already taken - £77 to go.
I’m glad you added that rider about ‘87 Tyson. I spent election night that year with a friend who worked for a charity and she’d chosen to invite several of her friends from work. It was like a funeral but with more tears! My jokes have never fallen flatter!
I doubt overt racism is really a factor. It’s more subtle than that. Given a choice people will generally vote for people most like themselves. And the colour of a person’s skin is the hardest thing to overcome in that respect, because it can’t be, well, hidden.
i don’t bet and i hope i’m wrong. actually, the harold ford result should be a good indicator of obama’s chances. if ford wins, my mind would be a bit more open. big if, i reckon…
I am afraid number 25 proves why it can be difficult for non citizens to have a view and predict elections in another country, even the US.
The BBC recently managed to describe the south during the 1950s as racist (correct) and very Republican (from the civil war until the 1970s teh south was a Democratic, one party fiefdom)
Starting with the errors, John Edwards is fromn North Carolina, JFK was the last north eastern candidate to win the presidency and that was 1960. (Purists may add that in 1968 Nixon was elected from New York, but he was always regarded as a Californian - he is almost unique in being elected to the Presidency from two states).
Barack Obama was a shoo in from almost before he declared. The incumbent Senator (Peter Fitzgerald) was extremely weak, having narrowly beaten his predecessor (Carole Mosley Braun) who was a laughing stock. Fitzgeralsd departed at the very last meeting and the Republicans drafted in an out of state candidate, leaving Barack Obama alone.
I cannot remember either Bush 1 or Dole leading Clinton during their respective campaigns.
The population drift in the US is such that presidential elections are won and lost in the south/south west.
In 2000 Gore lost both Tennessee and Arkansas, as did Kerry in 2004.
Barack Obama, running as a Democrat will find it impossible to carry these states.
It is simply no good looking at McCain and saying, from the perspective of teh UK, that he is not a good campaigner. In US terms he is, he is also regarded as untainted. However, he is a Senator and they can sound, senatorial on the campaign trail. The last person to win the Presidency from the Senate was JFK, although LBJ and Nixon had served in the Senate. Before JFK it was Truman, via the VP.
In fact Senators: Humphrey, via the VP, Mondale via the VP, McGovern, Dole, Gore, Edwards, Quayle and Kerry have not done well on the national tickets. Whilst Muskie, Eagleton etc fell even before they got there.
Carter, Reagan, Clinton ands Bush 2 all came from State Houses, as did both Roosevelts and Woodrow Wilson.
The Hillary Clinton problem is that the portion of the electorate that loath for one reason or another will vote. For example every poll shows that she will trail in Arkansas and this will be lethal in the hands of opponents.
It is all to play for, longshots must be Mark Warner (D) and Rudy Giuliani (R). Warner in particular coming from a border state.
Most US elections can be pretty bloodthirsty, nothing in 2004 was worse than many previous campigns, was the “Daisy Girl” in 1964 anything other than extreme negativity? It frequently depends on a point of view One sides negativity is the opponents truth.
Any sign of the LE report.
never mind ‘87…none of us really thought we would get anywhere near to winning. ‘92 was the one…feeling it all slip away during the campaign was a feeling i never want to experience again. that horrible confirmation when the vile david amess won basildon by 1,000 votes….
Re the race thing - I believe that Bush won the nomination over McCain by spreading a rumour in a crucial southern state that McCain had a “black” child ( think he’d adopted a Bangladeshi) - that was enough to swing voters away from him and towards Bush. That was over six years ago, and they might have evolved since then, but you only have to look at the events around Katrina to have doubts.
There is one way of finding out for sure though - there are a couple of states where black candidates are running in mostly white states in these upcoming elections. Harold Ford Jr a black Dem is running for the senate in Tennessee. The Republicans have already come out with an attack ad featuring race. If it doesn’t work and Ford is elected, then there is no race issue anymore. see the following:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15445958/site/newsweek/
See also the following article about black candidates and white voters:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15366427/site/newsweek/
45. Actually, I think it torture to share a pub lunch with Dubya. He strikes me as a loudmouth frat-boy who’d wouldn’t let you get a word in edgewise and would keep banging on about his golf game and new Porsche. Then he’d slap you on the back and saunter out, leaving you to pay up.
As far as Iowa, that would be a perfect launching pad for Obama. It’s a Midwestern state, with not much of a history of racism (pretty much because no black people have ever lived there) and I could see liberalish Democrat folk there being won over by him.
peter golds - warner has ruled himself out. i think the dems could end up picking biden or edwards. i thought edwards should have been candidate last time.
58. Did not T Roosevelt come from VP. Has not Warner ruled out 2008, this is why I think there maybe an opening for Gore. Obama is talented but does he have the NS credentials, the Democrats cannot be anything but competitive on that factor.
The idea that people vote along class lines in this country, is not correct. There are certain areas where class is a factor, the Rhondda Valley v Weybridge, (I’ve lived in both) but there are huge swathes of the country where class is less of a factor. At least a third of Tory voters are working class. I think its true to say as many A/B types are non-Tory voters Labour/Libdems as Tory voters. The caring professions Doctors/Teachers etc are much more likely to vote Liberal/Left than they are Tory. As for there ever being a black President of the US, haven’t any of you seen 24?
Actually shared a beer with Cameron on a couple of occasions- he used to come to my local then in Chadlington, Oxon reasonably frequently combining raising his constituency profile with pleasure.
I was impressed with his interest in local matters (he knew all the regulars) and how apolitical he appeared. I just thought that he was a low key, young MP (he comes across younger in real person) trying to cement a foothold in his contituency. Didn’t strike me as anything remarkable at all. I was dumbstruck when I later discovered that he was an adviser to Howard, and was flabberghasted when I saw him on question time.
But never talk politics with politicians- especially when alcohol is concerned.
Popular vote in 2000 was: Gore 50,996,116 and Bush 50,456,169
Barak’s speech is sensational - there’s no doubt about that. Visually, an in some of his style, he reminds me very much of Malcolm X; although without some of Malcolm’s supreme eloquence. It would be great to have such an idealist as president.
But I cant see it. Only Nixon could have gone to China. Only conservative parties can risk leading with a woman, a gay man, or a black man. It’s the way of things in this phase of history.
Barak would make a fantastic VP candidate, but I cant see how he can carry swing states. He can stack up votes in Washington DC, and get people who have never voted before to come out in Carolina, but that wont make much difference if there isnt a presidential candidate who can convert Reps to Dems in Florida etc.
re 53. Not true alas. Eleanor is, from her email address and a simple Google search, a real person and quite prominent. If she wants to tell us more she can. I was never quite sure about Nuala while Sarah J was, I believe, a fake. She had more IP addresses than Steve Norris had mistresses and I reckoned that several regulars, not me I should note, contributed using her name.
At the PBC party earlier in January I did admit to being “Dead Ringer” in the run-up to the last General Election. He was somebody who was totally loyal to Gordon but loathed everything that Alan Milburn did - a point of view that wasn’t being represented.
There is much less “cross dressing” these days and I do quietly intervene if somebody is abusing the process.
64 - Roosevelt: yes, but he assumed office on McKinley’s assassination. He was already President when he won the 1904 election.
61 - If it doesn’t work and Ford is elected, then there is no race issue anymore.
One hopes so, but Tennessee isn’t the deepest South.
“Eleanor is, from her email address and a simple Google search, a real person and quite prominent”
David Cameron’s tailor?
Re 39, Tyson, you make a fair point, bit like Tony had to become an arch thatcherite in many ways
I like McCain because he opposes things like torture as a matter of principle AND practicality.
BTW, The latest article on my blog seems to be causing a bit of a stir. Yahoo just handing over info to the Chinese. Nice. Or rather not.
55-Roger-saw that you were posting and thought hastily about putting the disclaimer on 1987. I was in Israel then and was trying to listen to the results on world service, while my girlfriend (at the time) was nagging me. She was in the Israeli army (very lovely)-and back on draft the next day. She thought it very strange that I was more preoccupied with the results rather than making the most of our last night.
Remembering what I did that night I think now I made the wrong choice.
mike i reckon you should say how many mp’s post on the site other than nick palmer and stuart jackson and see if we can guess who they are, it could be like the old mastermind game you give us one black for a direct name and a white for the right party
I’d rather see McCain as president than Clinton, as only McCain has the ability to reform election finance and several other things. A Dem will never get those things through a divided Congress without a big majority. I still think this is why the Reps wont select McCain for pres…
Peter Golds at 58- thanks and obviously a much more informed post of the US situation. I think I felt the full force of a snowflake5 resonse- albeit a lesson on US politics.
Do you really think that Hillary is unelectable, and beyond turning things around ??
63 ballyeric- Edwards was a lightweight- Kerry was by far the better choice. Edwards convention speech was one of the poorest I have heard. He was murdered by Cheney on the TV head to heads- he just looked good, had a nice accent.
OT. Labour Deputy leadership news….Ian McCartney will run Hilary Benn campaign. Dennis Skinner is the first Benn’s backer.
However Benn seems to present himself as the “New Labour” candidate competing with Alan Johnson for that “role”
53 and 69- actually think that Mike Smithson is the closest thing to God that one will ever experience. And before people think I have become overly sycophantic I will explain myself;
-he hovers all powerful over this site, knowing exactly who we all are and what we are posting- he reads and sees everything. He obviously provides certain posters with timely personal interventions when they least expect it (not that I have been a recipient mind), and his continued presence creates an order for the site. He has the power to strike at will;
-and he sometimes has a supernatural quality of making political predictions-although this is where his fallibilities sometimes show, and on occasion his political leaning colour his comments (a bit too harsh on cuddly Gordo I find).
69-”At the PBC party earlier in January I did admit to being “Dead Ringer” in the run-up to the last General Election. He was somebody who was totally loyal to Gordon”.
Mr Mike Smithson-I get it now-surely Dead Ringer was your frustrated alter ego?? Lets face it you secretly are a Gordo fan. It all becomes clear.
Mike-just be true to yourself, come out loud and proud, and scream I love Gordon. You will feel soooo much better for it!!!!
Feeling bored this morning.
See the Daily Mail is running the Greg Barker story strongly. Mentions Barker’s links with the Russian billionaire Boris Berezovsky. Quotes the former Bexhill MP, Charles Wardle as being opposed to Mr Barker taking over his old manor. Does not point out of course that Mr Wardle left the Tory Party to take up a very well paid job with Mohammed Al-Fayed. Do you think the editor of the Mail is out to get Mr Barker, if so any ideas why?
72 and Benedict many feel Cameron is the rightful heir to Blair.
So we had the political consensus of Butskellism from the 1950’s to 70’s named after Rab Butler and Gaitskill- a brief deviation in the 80’s and 90’s (inspired largely by Thatcher being such a headbanging rightwinger, and labour deviating into political madness) now coming back to consensus. What about Blaircom, or Gordborne??
>Ed Vaizey said this is true of the North but less so of the >south. He said ‘but it can be irritating when you walk down a >long drive to a big house to deliver a leaflet and are >told “Sorry we’re Labour”‘
The heart bleeds for him, it really does.
Richard.
48. Dubya may not be a recovering alcoholic, but he speaks like an active drug user. His speech is always like he isn’t sure what his mouth is going to say until it comes out, his face always looking bemused and that daft grin he gives when he knows he’s said something stupid is embarrassing.
When i was on Holiday in Mexico in the summer a couple we me (both in the US forces and been to Iraq) said they pretended to be from Canada when abroad, and they were from Texas and had voted for Bush in 2000. “Never again” they said.
As for the point made elsewhere, it is important to note now that in the US there are no more than about 10 swing states that decide the presidential election and a “black” candidate like Obama will sadly find it difficult to win more than about 4 of those states.
Shame, as he would do well.
80-coldstone- you must be bored to read the Mail. I am midly hungover (getting too frequent for my liking) trying to face up to getting some work reports done, and practice Italian. Obviously am doing neither- but life surely never sinks to the depths of the Mail.
Just wanted to say that comparing your missus to Les Dawson wasn’t overly flaterring. (by the way how could you ever get bored living in the internet era?? I would vote for the political party that could extend the day by about 500 hours just to fit interests in).
80. yes, I saw it and the first line was a bit amusing: “Tory MP Greg Barker’s gay affair has highlighted the multi-millionaire politician’s ‘Russian connection”
well, I don’t think that the gay affair further highlighted the connection. Actually I suppose they aren’t related.
The Mirror is still into Barker too, but they don’t care about Russian connections….they had crucial quotes from the neighbour of the parents of the alleged lover
The Daily Mail also has an Amanda Patell versus Belinda Oaten spat
83- coming back on thread just saying that the US will not go for a black president, especially democrat end of… is simply just fatalistic.
There is a responsibility for politicians not just to be reactive and respond to what they think the public want. The worst part of this Labour Govt is its continued chasing of public opinion.
Political parties need to show leadership, and change people’s perceptions and beliefs through actions. And what better action than to chose a black candidate through no other reason than ability??
How will we ever now if a black candidate will win unless it is tried out?? This fatalism that the Americans will not buy it is not good enough.
Les Dawson my wife! Seven Stone of fighting fury she is.
Come Sta ?
It will probably be John Edwards or similar vs someone like Governor Mike Huckabee, in other words a couple of virtual unknowns. Stop kidding yourselves that it will be a contest between two relative ‘giants’ like Clinton, McCain, Guiliani, Obama, etc. Big names do not win nominations.
Nich starling- just having a look at your blog, and you talking about MP’s expenses and its relation to activities, I was reminded about a story in Tony Benn’s diaries.
By chance after a cabinet meeting Benn came by the PM’s (Harold Wilson) diary. He looked at Wilson’s commitments for the week, thinking it to be filled with how powered engagements and found a solitary appointment- a visit to the dentist.
Actually a telling story in comparison to Blair- Wilson a delegator, Blair a control freak. The job of PM should be purely about helping things along. Bush manages to be president on a couple of hours a day work and extended holidays- on reflection not a good example.
87 coldstone- we were talking about religion, and I said it would be difficult to sleep at night believing there to be some all powerful spirit observing us (bad enough with having Mike on this site)- you replied that you have Les Dawson- which I thought not particularly complimentary; or am I becoming delusional??
Tyson - Wilson’s days were back when we had cabinet government. The job of the PM was to choose the right people for the job, and to guide and resolve cabinet differences. Collective responsibility and all that. That era is over.
Thatcher and then Blair even more so have had no time to collective responsibility. Blair hates cabinet government and collective responsibility, as is evidenced by the local govt white paper pushing even harder to abolish it in Councils where possible in favour of Mayors.
A good cabinet PM with a good team neednt spend huge amounts of time interfering with everything, and can keep a rested and sane mind for taking the big international decisions and getting them right. Like when, and when not, to go to war.
A micromanaging MP (Blair, Brown) will inevitably be strained, stressed, tired, and make poor decisions when the critical time comes. I refer you to the last 10 years as evidence.
Oh Yes I remember, she’s still there. Mrs Coldstone is of Italian descent, need I say more.
MBoy @ 91 — it would be nice to think we can return to cabinet government. Thatcher was interesting in that (at least in the early years) she seemed to have cabinet government but without collective responsibility on her part so that she would freely criticise her own government’s actions, as if she were uninvolved.
Thank goodness coldstone- not being delusional.
MBoy- the best managers are the best delegators- you shouldn’t be involved in the work of your reports to the nth degree. Personally if I didn’t delegate and trust people to get on with it, my job would be undoable. I really am not arrogant enough to assume that I need to fix everything- and it all works OK. My services work, my managers are motivated and I have time to devote to other things (like annoying Tories on pbCOM)
Anyway- I am now thinking of work and must get on with it.
re 79. Tyson - rest assured. If it is down to Brown against Reid I will be shouting for Gordon. The hard-line views on immigration and law and order are ones I find it hard to stomach and if Gordon is more liberal on these matters than that is great.
On your point 39 I think that if one of the great legacies of Blair is that a Tory leader now has to now espouse more liberal values if he wants to get elected is a good thing. I thought that Cameron’s “hug a hoodie” speech was something that all who want a decent liberal society in which the rule of law is paramount should have applauded.
I find I cannot fathom the extreme hostility that many in my party, the Lib Dems, have towards Cameron. For DC to go to his conference and proclaim his support for same sex partnerships was quite remarkable and involved a big risk for him. Let’s be delighted.
Tyson - I’m glad that you understand the importance of Cabinet and delegation. Perhaps you could pass those thoughts onto your friend Gordon??
95, when may expect the LE report. Thks. Also may I pick you up on 34. Thks.
Mike at 95 - I’m sure that the extreme hostility that many Lib Dems have towards Cameron is due to the electoral threat that he poses to them. It’s tribal rather than ideological. Few Lib Dems were so vocally hostile towards IDS or Michael Howard because they didn’t feel threatened by them - indeed it suited the Lib Dems to have the Conservatives lead by a right winger.
I find the whole Conservative v Lib Dem battle to be entirely pointless. The electorate, I predict, aren’t going to feel moved in any great number to replace Conservatives with Lib Dems or Lib Dems with Conservatives at the next general election.
On the whole, if they’ve already got a non-Labour MP they’ll stick with him/her. If they’ve got a Labour MP then they’ll look to see who’s best placed to remove him/her. Conservative/Lib Dem snipings are a pointless sideshow. The General election will be a Labour v non-Labour fight.
98 - should read “that they think he poses to them” not |”that he poses to them”
In actual fact neither the Conservatives or Lib Dems are a threat to one another IMO.
Steven Whaley, you are very naive.
Although the election in about 500 seats may well be primarily Labour vs anti-Labour, there are a good 100 seats where the ONLY battle is between Lib Dem (or nationalist) and Tory, with no chance of Labour doing anything at all, sao no one bothered about them.
99. See 34 on this thread.
100. Why is he naive? I think he’s overplaying things a bit, but all he’s saying is that there will be little seat changes amongst the other parties.
100 - What’s that got to do with anything?
If you’d read my post properly you’d see that I’m saying that in seats where there’s already a non-Labour MP then the electorate will stick with that MP. This, very obviously, includes all seats where Labour is not in contention. I confidently, very confidently, predict that less than 10 of those Con/Lib Dem seats will change hands in either direction.
102. What odds will you offer on that, given that eight did last time?
103. He said “on the whole” that does not mean that say single figure seats may shift Tory-Lib Dem or Lib Dem-Tory only that scores of seats are not going to shift between the two if I understand him corrrectly.
104. I was replying to the specific prediction in 102. that less than 10 Con-Lib Dem seats would change hands.
102. I could see best case Tories v Lib Dems at present up to fifteen gains. Lib Dems a freakish gain here or there from the Tories is a possibility, but the Olddham Easts and Swnsea Wests should more than cover them for any Tory gains.
106. Two current Lib Dem seats will be notionally Tory next time from boundary changes, based on Antony Wells’ analysis. In addition a further nine will fall on a swing of 1.5% or less. So I would be happy to bet on total Tory/Lib Dem seat changes of above 10..I would think it is odds on.
106. I agree that the Libdems are in danger to lose seats to the tories, but they should make gains from Labour and end up more or less at the same level in the end.
107 If you look at the 16 LibDem seats with Conservatives second which had local elections in May , the Conservatives only outpolled the LibDems in 4 of them . Westmoreland showed a substantial swing since the GE to the LibDems and Solihull a smaller swing . There were also 2 Conservative seats where the LibDems outpolled the Conservatives .
RE 81 Tyson, Blairs policies on the economy are closer to Thatcherism, and public service privatisation is to the right of Thatcher, so if you want a name for the current consensus,m Thatcherism covers it.
109. It isn’t very meaningful to calculate ’swings’ from GE to local results, given the massively different turnout. Just look at the huge swings to the Tories you get in a lot of County Council byelections as proof of that. The only meaningful comparison is swings from one local election to another, across the same wards.
109. ” If you look at the 16 LibDem seats with Conservatives second which had local elections in May , the Conservatives only outpolled the LibDems in 4 of them . Westmoreland showed a substantial swing since the GE to the LibDems and Solihull a smaller swing ”
I think it’s more useful to look at the swing compared to last locals than to look at overall figures considering that in some places the Libdems always tend to poll better in local elections.
89 Tyson, thanks for reading my blog. Feel free to leave comments on it because not everyone reads pb.com.
You are right that it is a dreadful state of affairs to say “no-one will elect a black president so we won’t choose a black candidate”. I just don’t think the Democrats will be brave enough to go for it beacuse I think they lack a real sense of purpose. At the moment they just oppose Bush, but stand for very little. It is a problem of not having an official party leader.
109. I think that if there is a real mood for change at the next GE it will show up some surprise wins/losses in some constituencies where we have a con/libdem and Lab/libdem marginals. I just don’t think that we can predict some of these marginals on local election results this far out.
114. I think that it’s unlikely that Labour will do worse than the tories did in 1997. Their worst case scenario is probably making the same amounts of losses the tories did in 1997
115. Andrea, I agree and although the conservatives could do really well and take a lot of seats we could still have a Labour government.
I think that it will be a much closer election result with a higher turnout than we have seen since 97′.
Andrea, has Hunky Dunky been helping George Osborne
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/columnists/columnists.html?in_article_id=412916&in_page_id=1772&in_author_id=228
112. Andrea - snap.
First, a bit of bragging:
- I bought some Obama-contracts at Tradesports back in May at 0.8, equivalent to 125/1, but since I didn’t post the fact, you have to take my word for it.
- On October 12, at 3:13 PM, I posted this: ”There are strong rumours that Mark Warner will annonce his withdrawal from the presidential race very soon. Tradesports and Betfair markets have crashed, but other candidates not moved yet. Money to be made in guessing who will benefit. Should be another moderate. Obama?”
And then - a piece of good advice:
If you are interested in getting into the Obama game (or make a risk-free arbitrage profit), the Nordic bookmaker betway.com offers superior odds at 21/1 for the Democratic nomination (trading at less than 8/1 at Betfair and even tighter at Tradesport). You can only put up a maximum of £20 per day, and these odds are unlikely to last, (although they have lasted for more than a week now, as it seems I am the only one that has spotted the opportunity). But on the other hand, there is a 100% (max £20) sign-up bonus, so you cannot really go wrong on this one.
I don’t believe Obama will quite make it in 2008 - maybe in 2012. However, he has a good chance of being the runner up at even tighter odds, so there is a trading opportunity here.
re 117. Does anybody know a URL where I can look at this week’s Treasury Questions? It sounded very interesting.
120. Mike, I have asked a couple of times on PB.com but no one seems to have found one. I must admit that I was interested in seeing Gordon Brown in action, he is so rarely seen at the dispatch box!
From what I have read and seen commented here it looks to have been quite interesting.
120. Also had a look at the schedule for the parliament channel this weekend but could see no sign of treasury questions.
120/122 - The order has probably gone out from the Treasury to have the tape destroyed
123.
On the main thread nobody has taken the remaining £77 that I’ve had up on Betfair on Obama at 7.8/1 for the Democratic nomination. It’s there to lay if you think I am wrong.
http://www.betfair.com/?mi=2839755&rfr=400
120 - Not really the same, but the Osborne-Brown spat was covered in full on radio’s Today in Parliament at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/bbc_parliament/3081534.stm
and scroll down on the right.
PM at 103 - Sorry for not replying earlier - I had to go out and buy some socks.
Anyway, my prediction is based on the fact that so few Con/Lib Dem seats changed hands last time.
If so few changed hand when there was such a massive ideological gulf between the Cons and Lib Dems then I really can’t see many more shifting now that the gulf has narrowed so much.
As for offering odds - I’ve no idea, I’m not a betting man. I just come here for the politics.
120 Osborne said Brown woud be an effing awful PM. Here’s a link to the discussion.
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2006-10-26a.1637.3&s=speaker%3A10194#g1638.3
120/21. Mike…go to Parliament Live and look at the sitting with where Treasury Questions happened
http://www.parliamentlive.tv/
With regard to Obama, he is certain to run and almost equally as certain to lose (that said, he was definitely worth the 50/1 I got on him…) But running and losing is much better for him than not running at all - it sets him up well for another go a few years down the line.
Obama doesn’t have the national security and foreign policy credentials to cut the mustard in the current international environment. Bush was able to get away with it in 2000, but that was then. Obama will benefit tremendously from a year spent on the national campaign trail, making contacts, building up experience and getting the American public used to a black political figure who has a serious shot at the White House. The race issue is a little over-done at the moment - the Democrats can win the White House without winning any of the upper South states like Arkansas or Tennessee; remember that Kerry would have won if he had taken Ohio. What sets Obama apart when it comes to race is - like Mike says - he is one of those characters like Tiger Woods and Oprah whose racial background is largely unimportant. But beyond that, what he has going for him is that he is not an African-American, but an African American. He is unburdened by the issue of slavery by virtue of the fact that his father is Kenyan, and the fact that he was raised by his white grandparents means he knows how to connect with white voters. As I heard someone in D.C. put it - he doesn’t make white folks feel guilty about being white.
On the other hand, what is in his favour is that he is seen as a great conciliator (although that on occasions can come across as being a bit wishy-washy). I get the sense that a lot of Americans are deeply tired of the bitter partisanship that has dominated politics for the past decade and want a conciliator - and this is the main thing running against Hillary. She will fire up a lot of people who hate her (and hate is the right word) to come out and vote, and if she gets the nomination it is still likely to be a very divisive contest and I am not sure that America has the stomach for another one of those.
I think that Al Gore is going to step up to the plate and has a better chance of winning than the 25/1 from William Hill suggests. People seem to like the human side that they have seen of him in the past 18 months - so at odds with his persona in 2000 - and I also sense that there is a certain ‘guilt’ among a strand of independent voters that a) he was robbed in 2000, and b) look at the mess that it has gotten America into. On the other hand Hillary probably has a pretty formidable arsenal to use against him should she choose to, but that could work the other way as well.
Gore aside, then Bill Richardson seems like the most likely candidate (and once again good value at 50/1 with Will Hill) - he is Hispanic and from a southwestern state, and has international credentials having served as U.S. ambassador to the U.N. If he doesn’t get the top slot I would be very surprised if he didn’t get the nod for V.P. Obama won’t be Hillary’s V.P. nomination should she get it as they won’t want an all-Illinois ticket (even though Johnson in 1960 was probably the only time this century that the VP nominee influenced the election, it is still seen to be important that it is ‘balanced’) and a female+black ticket is pushing the envelope a bit far in terms of breaking taboos all in one go.
Edwards is a bit of a one-trick pony who I don’t think has a chance at the top spot either. If you’re looking for another ‘Jimmy Carter-style unknown figure’, my tip is to keep an eye out for Mike Easley (Gov. of North Carolina), a centrist Catholic Democrat from the South, who will certainly be very tempted to try and fill the gap left by Mark Warner’s withdrawal. On the other hand he lacks finance and being from North Carolina would be up against an Edwards machine that has been in for the last three years. Nonetheless, I’ve got a few pounds down on him at 80/1.
117. Chris D, this proves again how Labour figures don’t really help themself. They offer quotes and attacks to the opposition.
The Chief Whip was usually busy with Clare Short’s rants (which didn’t probably have impacts because voters just see her as a colorful woman now), whilst all the briefing by blairites against Brown and by Brownites against Blair were just offering quotes to the tories and sticking with the voters
108 I totally agree. The 2005 trend will be magnified, the only question is how much as I said at 106. Another interesting point is the effect the gain of Labour Seats and los of Conservative
ones will have on the character and polivies of the parliamentary liberal democratic party.
130. I’m with you on Gore. BUt does he want it, that’s the question. But as we see Hilary trying to do the centrist thing Gore could get awawy far more easily with that with his Party’s base as he has accumulated such credit with them, they would probably swallow anything Gore wants them to, just as Labour once did for Blair here. If he does want it though I agree the Karma from 2000, and support from new friends like Murdoch will make him ver, very powerful. The Americans are suckers for comebacks.
BTW Why did Warner not run, can’t figure that at al.
Thanks Andrea 129. Brilliant. Treasury Questions are here.
http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Player/index.aspx?Encoding=5519
132.”I totally agree. The 2005 trend will be magnified, the only question is how much as I said at 106.”
At the moment considering that I think Ming can go down less well than Kennedy in some Labour former heartlands and that in some places the Libdems seem to have reached their tipping points, I would say around 15…almost all “real” marginals + some “outside” chances (last week I was expressing my doubts about Gorton…looking at the former Labour stronghold, I would say Newcastle North can be a good potential for the Libdems)
Then if I’m totally wrong, don’t go back and point out that prediction!
I don’t think it’ll matter too much. One they can always we presume deploy Kennedy as a Campaigner, and Lord Rennard can always do his magic. I think they’ll get Tory tactical voting ver easily in seats the Tories never won. The Lib Dems are like Lions in Africa, they always strike hardest at the weakest of the politics big beats, in the 90’s that was the Tories, now the Tory animal is far healthier and stronger it is the Labour animal that will feel the fullforce od the notorious bar chart offensives and winning here placards.
132. As unlikely as it sounds, it does appear that he genuinely did it for his family. He has two teenage daughters, one of whom is diabetic I believe, and neither of them wanted him to do it, and apparently his wife (who didn’t seem terribly comfortable