How does Hillary deal with the Oprah effect?
December 8th, 2007
Will the Winfrey endorsement help in the battle for women voters?
This weekend the talk show host and arguably the second most famous woman in America, Oprah Winfrey, is joining Barack Obama on a three state campaign tour in a move that seems to have been designed to eat into Hillary Clinton’s commanding poll position amongst women voters.
She’ll speak in support of the black senator from Illinois at mass campaign rallies in three of the states to decide first on their choice of Democratic nominee - Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. In the latter there’s reported to be such a demand for tickets that Obama’s campaign has had to move the Sunday event from an 18,000-seat arena to an 80,000-seat football stadium.
All this is being planned to ensure that Obama’s bid dominates the headlines and the TV news channels in the run up to the Iowa caucuses in just three weeks time.
South Carolina itself is seen as being critical because of the high proportion of black voters. Obama desperately needs to make an impact there. The latest RCP average of polling in the state has Clinton 8% ahead.
CNN’s polling director, Keating Holland, observed: “Hillary Clinton simply seems to be the women’s candidate regardless of race. I think that’s what Obama may really be trying to reach is women — not white women or black women or any particular race, just women in general. Married women, women with children — those are the ones who tend to turn out and vote.. That tends to be the Oprah audience.”
In the betting Hillary continues to be the heavy odds-on favourite to get the nomination. My guess is that the Winfrey intervention will get a lot of UK media coverage this weekend which could impact on the prices here.
I remain a seller of Clinton and a buyer of Obama and Huckabee on the Spreadfair spread market - all positions which are showing profits.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
It’s been seen as a bit of a mixed blessing here in the US. There’s no doubting she is one of the most influential women in the country but there are doubts whether she solves any of Barack’s main weaknesses - Lack of experience and the idea that his strength lies in his presentation.
On the other hand she gives him even more exposure to people who otherwise might not listen to politics at all. If he can articulate a good message to those people it’ll definitely help.
If nothing else, it helps keep him in the spotlight and that helps maintain the momentum he’s built up. It’ll be close as time is running out but he’s definitely on the up.
Oprah helps him a bit in the short term - might add a point or two onto Iowa and if that pushes Obama to victory Oprah will have a snowball impact in helping him in South Carolina. But honestly I can’t see this being a big deal longer term. If anything it reinforces Obama’s gavitas problem.
I reckon the Republicans would much rather fight Obama, which is why the Fox News shows are giving him such an easy ride. The only GOP candidate who would really prefer to fight Hilary is Rudy
Why do they do this to themselves - I am keen on many candidates from both sides, but someone needs to be doing the math.
If the Democrats do not nominate Hillary, and the GOP nominate Rudy Guiliani, then the Dems could be throwing away a 62% v 38% lead for the Presidency. It is implausible for the Dems to take the White House without NY state, and there is a reasonable chance that a Republican New Yorker would win that state over the Democrat who gathered enough votes in South Carolina or Iowa to stop the NY senator from even getting on the ballot. New Yorkers, like residents of most US states, are even more territorially loyal than partisan. Only 2 US Presidents have ever lost their ‘home’ state - James Polk (who, like Al Gore, lost his home state of Tenessee) and Woodrow Wilson (who was re-elected without his native New Jersey), and only three of 26 candidates have lost their home states since the end of WWII (Gore, Stevenson twice to Eisenhower, and McGovern - who lost another 48 states as well to Nixon in ‘72). If Guiliani isn’t up against Clinton (or maybe Bloomburg, but that is less likely), he could well take NY state, and the presidency with it.
Obama is a good candidate now - with 8 years more in the Senate, or even a cabinet post at the end of his current Senate term to give him Executive experience, he could be a stupendous candidate. However, the sensible thing for the Democrats to do this time around is nominate Hillary with Bill Richardson as VP. They will need to undo a good deal of what has been done - better to use the exciting candidate in 8 years, when the energy garnered from hating Bush has dissipated, and momentum is flagging.
The other note is experience - the last US Senator to be elected President was Lyndon B Johnson. Executive experience as VP or Governor, or even a Cabinet Secretary, helps. Guiliani and Romney are executives through and through - it will be hard for any of the three major Democrats, as Senators, to match that. Of the three, Obama would have the hardest time, because he is younger, and has only 3 years in the Senate. An older candidate can cover, by use of selective nominees (Clinton might use General Wes Clarke as her VP ticket name, not because she needs Arkansas - she has Bill for that - but because the first female Commander in Chief will want to reassure people). Obama just looks greener, and that might make a tough election even harder.
Very tired, so off to bed - thoughts greatly welcome in the morning.
Morus
“We’ve bowed too far to the idiots.”
Peggy Noonan on Mitt Romney’s religion speech. Noonan worked for Presidents Reagan and GHW Bush.
Her piece in the Wall Street Journal ends:
“There was one significant mistake in the speech. I do not know why Romney did not include nonbelievers in his moving portrait of the great American family. We were founded by believing Christians, but soon enough Jeremiah Johnson, and the old proud agnostic mountain men, and the village atheist, and the Brahmin doubter, were there, and they too are part of us, part of this wonderful thing we have. Why did Mr. Romney not do the obvious thing and include them? My guess: It would have been reported, and some idiots would have seen it and been offended that this Romney character likes to laud atheists. And he would have lost the idiot vote.
“My feeling is we’ve bowed too far to the idiots. This is true in politics, journalism, and just about everything else.”
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110010955
3. New York state has voted Democrat in Presidential elections consistently for the last 20 years. And the last time they voted Republican was the year that Reagan won 49 states. In the 2004 election, it was the most Democrat supporting state after Massachussets. Add in the fact now that New Yorkers detest Giuliani after his time in power there, especially after he tried to stay in power for 3 months longer under inexistent “emergency” regulations following 9/11. Rudy won’t win New York state.
2. I’m now quite sure of the “easy ride” the conservative machine has given Obama. Rush Limbaugh calls him “Osama Obama”, Fox regularly uses his middle name “Hussein” and has covered stories that his school in Indonesia was a “Madrassa”, and someone is spreading stories that the guy is a secret Muslim who wants to undermine the United States from its highest office.
In eight years Clinton will be widely disliked. Half the electorate already hates her, and she’s bound to offend people during her Presidency. Unlike Obama, who is thought favourably by a lot of rural America due to his genuine religious belief and his ability to reach the common man. Clinton would win the Presidency, but Obama could cause a realignment.
3: “The other note is experience - the last US Senator to be elected President was Lyndon B Johnson.”
Is this really because voters are screening the candidates’ resumes and making sure they check the “executive experience” box? The explanation I’d heard before is that being in the senate gives candidates a voting record which can be cherry-picked by their opponents and used to attack them. In this case this is presumbably worse for Hillary than for Obama, as:
a) she’s been in the senate longer than him
b) it’s not often in politics that there’s a decision that with hindsight turns out to be clearly, indisputably wrong (as opposed to unfavourable-looking but debatable), but on the few recent occasions that there has been (Iraq war authorization, sabre-rattling on Iran) Hillary has managed to make it, while Obama either got the thing right or dodged the bullet.
6. Also, the worst thing you can do in US politics is be inconsistent - as Kerry found out last time. Americans were rather you disagreed with them and be genuine about it than “not stand for anything”. Seeing how most Americans already think that Clinton is politically calculating, and there’s a wealth of votes for the GOP to choose from to show Clinton has gone from being very liberal to moderate, she will be torn apart in the election. She’d probably still make it, but Obama is less of a liability. The mud the Right throws at him just isn’t sticking.
I’ve been following pb.com because I have a more than passing interest in British politics, but I’d like to chime in on the US here.
First off, Morus has things terribly, terribly wrong when he says that Giuliani would win New York. Being from the New York City area, I can say that Giuliani is widely despised in New York City itself, and although he is reasonably popular in the suburbs in New Jersey and Connecticut, that popularity is not enough to break through Democratic strength in either state, at least not against Obama (possibly against the more explicitly rural Edwards). Polling supports this; though Clinton leads Giuliani by a whopping 30+% in New York, Obama also leads him by at least 15% in most polls.
Secondly, Oprah has much more political influence than slec is giving her. Remember, this is the woman who makes failing books into national bestsellers just by mentioning them on her TV show. Her influence is widespread and seems to even cross political lines, though admittedly she is somewhat more popular among liberal women than conservative women. Now, whether Oprah is enough for Obama to win the nomination is unclear, but she certainly has Clinton panicked. For good reason; since Oprah started campaigning for him, Obama has taken the lead in Iowa and, in the most recent poll, in South Carolina as well.
Now, will that support hold? I think so. Many of the women Oprah will sway to Obama were supporting Clinton for equally ill-considered reasons (mostly because she’s a woman) and vote much more on presentation than on substance. As long as Oprah keeps her profile in Obama’s campaign high (but not so high that the campaign becomes Oprah ‘08, and that guy named Obama, too), he’ll hang on to the early switchers and gain a few more. All told, Oprah is probably worth 10-15% of the female vote, which is a very substantial swing.
There’s also the “winner bandwagon” effect in American politics. Once Obama consolidates a lead in Iowa, and the press starts reporting on it, Obama will gain further ground in Iowa because people will see him as a winner. This was fairly well-documented in the 1996 and 2000 Republican primaries, and in the 2004 Democratic primaries, and I expect it to continue. After all, relatively few Democrats, probably less than 10%, will say that they absolutely rule out either Clinton or Obama in the primary, so the incentive to be on the winning side, illogical though it is, often prevails. This is part of why Clinton had been bigging up her “inevitably” - just doing so probably meant 2-3% nationwide.
The “winner bandwagon” is also a big deal in the primary calendar. Though Obama remains behind in New Hampshire, if he wins Iowa Clinton will be very hard-pressed to hang in New Hampshire, and thereafter in Nevada (though her poll lead in Nevada is much larger than in the other early states, partially because everyone is ignoring Nevada). Even if Obama only manages to win Iowa and South Carolina, winning those primaries will improve his position substantially in the Feb. 5 states with a very good chance at winning most of them. (Only New York and Arkansas are really safe for Clinton.)
8. A wonderful article Mike (New Jersey) - immensely helpful. Standing where we are now, approximately what percentage chance would you give of Obama winning the Democratic nomination?
In answer to Mike’s headline, and the broader question of how Hillary could deal with Obama:
Right now it looks like the thing that could most easily stall Obama’s momentum is an unexpectedly strong performance by Edwards in Iowa. Obama is closing the gap on Hillary in New Hampshire and South Carolina already, and if he can come out of Iowa ahead he could be very hard to stop. But after all the recent hype, if he came second or third to Edwards in Iowa, Obama would be in serious trouble - especially as the media haven’t yet had a chance to do an “Edwards in the ascendant” story yet this time around. Unlike Obama, Edwards doesn’t have enough money or support to have much of a chance of getting the nomination even if he does win Iowa, so Hillary could survive losing to him. I don’t know much about how these caucuses work and whether this kind of thing is feasible, but I wonder if we could even see something like an unofficial pact between Edwards and Clinton supporters in Iowa to support each other where it looked like their own candidate wasn’t going to make it.
Interesting article here discussing why her campaign has been hitting Obama so hard recently (at serious risk to her own support) suggests that that boosting Edwards might be the strategy she’s following.
http://tinyurl.com/37odoe
With Iowa being very unpredictable and the polls being quite tight, people who have a reasonable amount staked on Obama might like to think about taking out a little Edwards insurance policy - if he beats Obama there, they could presumably get of their Edwards position at a profit before he gets squished beneath the Clinton steamroller.
8: “Many of the women Oprah will sway to Obama were supporting Clinton for equally ill-considered reasons (mostly because she’s a woman) and vote much more on presentation than on substance.”
You mean she could help Obama make up his deficit on the issue discussed here?
http://tinyurl.com/2e2qgl
Surely the thing about having had an “executive” position is that executives breed executives, both in corporates and in government. Being an executive isn’t a resume, it’s more a personality trait - and it’s unlikely that you will have garnered executive experience without others seeing you as a decision-maker, either voters, or corporate boards, or whomever.
Of course voters to not scrutinise the CVs of the candidates in great detail, but they do let the type of experience candidates can call on, influence their general impression of a candidate, and it very much feeds into a “story” of decisiveness. I don’t think being a senator necessarily harms a candidate per se, but being governor / mayor can be a boon to their opponent. Americans have always had a greater inclination towards republicans on all levels in the executive - they let their conscience talk in the legislature. The politics in this case is polarised between those seen as executive and those seen as deliberative - and the latter is not a qualification for the presidency!
OT — Betfair has settled December in its election date market.
Betfair’s politics markets now use its new interface (slow and confusing are adjectives that spring to mind), so it might be worth having a look and setting your preferences (”more options”) now if you are only an infrequent Betfair punter.
And if you laid an autumn election, you will now have more money in your account!
Thanks to Benedict and others for the friendly notes last night, and apologies to Sean Fear if he actually did feel I was damning him with faint praise - really didn’t intend to! Also on that thread - Baroness Ashton was promoted to leader of the Lords by Gordon, and in a quirk that will interest poll-followers she’s married to Peter Kellner , who IIRC does the YouGov polls:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_Ashton,_Baroness_Ashton_of_Upholland
On topic: many thanks for the expert posts above and an especial welcome to Mike. One thing that posters here in the past weren’t sure about is how far Middle America is ready for a non-white President. My impression is that they’ve got to about where most people have in Britain - some might still have some lurking prejudices that they’re a bit embarrassed about, and they might be given to occasional generalisations about other ethnic groups, but they’re quite willing to think “but I really like X” about an individual, and to vote for him, so that’s not going to stop Obama. (That said, I would have thought Hillary will make it in the end as simply the more experienced and heavyweight candidate.)
O/T
‘More nervous mutterings about Boris among senior Conservatives. The party’s London machine and boss Matthew Carrington are growing anxious about his laid-back approach to campaigning, and his insistence that he doesn’t need to get serious until the new year…’
I am now seriously considering backing Ken Livingstone.
http://broganblog.dailymail.co.uk/2007/12/its-all-down-to.html
Off topic, politics throws up another aspect of donorgate which looks like a Tom Sharpe novel.
“Labour was paid £180,000 from public funds to help party officials to understand new funding rules shortly before it began accepting secret donations from a property developer,”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3019191.ece
“Martin Bell told The Times: “The more we know, the worse it gets. It makes you wonder what this money was spent on.””
15: I’m in London four days a week. I read the vehemently anti-Ken Evening Standard and both free papers (yawn, they’re like reading the news as chosen by Hello’s editor). If Boris is campaigning at all I’d not noticed. There was something about him not drinking alcohol at a party and teasing Ken for having a glass of wine - that’s about the only bit I can recall. The Standard hates Ken so much that they’re doing their best to stab him with everything that comes to hand, so presumably if Boris was doing anything they’d mention it.
Latest Iowa polls - http://www.newsweek.com/id/74215 - from Newsweek. “Huckabee surges, Obama gains”.
Donorgate gets more and more like a bad novel every day
“Labour was paid £180,000 from public funds to help party officials to understand new funding rules shortly before it began accepting secret donations from a property developer…”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3019191.ece
HF & Witan re donorgate.
If Labour got £180k to learn the rules, surely the Tories must have got the same, and conversely if the Tories got it, they must have known Labour did. So why on earth didn’t anyone tell Cameron so he could use this at PMQs?
http://tinyurl.com/yoaoz8
“Blairites give Brown five months to stop the rot” Brogan, Mail
I agree that the May elections will be a point to reassess Brown but as a guess the Blairites hardly number 50 in the PLP.
Some top quality posts this morning. (Good to see normal service being resumed after last night’s hand-wringing about a thread “dying on its arse”. Perhaps a bit of poster fatigue - after all, there must have been 10,000 posts in the last fortnight!)
20 John L yes Conservatives got the same. Problem with CCHQ is a lack of anyone around 5 years ago.
15 - It’s a bit silly to start supporting Livingstone because you don’t like Boris’ campaigning approach, is’nt it? Then again, it appears that how they play politics is apparently the only thing that we should judge leaders on these days…
Personally, i can’t work out why this Lee Jasper thing is failing to get any coverage outside of London.
Mathew Parris makes this sharp observation which those knowing unions and their methods do not find surprising”
“So successful has recruitment to their (trades union) affiliation schemes proved that Usdaw and Nacods have managed to affiliate to Labour on behalf of a claimed 100 per cent of their members. CWU has done even better, with 104 per cent of members affiliated. Amicus is the winner, however, at 109 per cent.These are not secret corruptions, but openly accepted practice. The explanation for such Soviet results is that the Labour Party receives £4 for each trade union member affiliated. The money buys Labour Party voting rights based on the numbers affiliated. Thus, in policy and leadership votes within the Party, a terracotta army of nominal “affiliated members” is ranged behind each union, who, to gain extra influence, buy as many of these dummies as they can afford, at £4 each.”
He goes no to point ot that this system may well be illegal under consumer protection legislation which exists and again under legislation currently being considered.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article3019044.ece
robert @ 18 re USA.
Democrats: Obama seems to be gaining more in the media than he is in the polls. It may simply be a time lag, of course.
Republicans: Huckabee seems to have picked up Thompson’s support, as dear old Fred has imploded. More significantly, Giuliani supporters may be leaching away. Rudy’s main claim to fame is being in the right place when the planes struck, but firefighters and police have attacked his record (shades of Kerry and swift boats), and there are stories about the city subsidising his love life.
John, I’m just passing on the Newsweek headline! Admittedly, my biggest postion is long Huckabee. I remain long Obama, as I have for 18 months, but am gradually selling it down when the price looks like it has tightened too far. My current assumed probabilities are:
Clinton wins Iowa:
95% Clinton
5% Anyone else
Obama wins Iowa, Edwards second:
65% Clinton
25% Obama
10% Edwards
(If Edwards is not second, add his % to Clinton’s)
Edwards wins Iowa:
85% Clinton
10% Edwards
5% Obama
The money right now probably should have Obama the slight favourite for Iowa (55% IP). But we shall see.
27 Robert
That’s a very good way of putting it, and I wouldn’t quibble with your numbers. All I would add is that the size of victory will matter.
Clinton can certainly afford to lose Iowa, and even come in third, provided that she isn’t more than a few percentage points behind the others. A real trouncing though would do her serious damage.
It’s worth repeating that Iowa is ‘funny’ if only because of the caucus thing. My intuition leads me to believe that Edwards will do well, and could possibly win, but not well enough to give him a real chance of the Nomination.
On the GOP side, Huckabee looks the likely winner in Iowa, but I suspect that will be his high water mark. It certainly would not be fatal to Romney’s chances. His main opponent remains Guiliani, but watch for McCain, slowly grinding his way back into the race.
Foreign Office advised the muslim peer not to go to Sudan. Presumably they felt they had the situation nicely under control. Another bullseye for the “Yes, Prime Minister” team.
28. I agree PtP. The 12/1 with Vcbet for Edwards to win Iowa is much better value than his price to win the nomination, especially if some Hillary voters switch to him to tactically stop Obama.
29: Well you wouldn’t want them taking the credit away from the Boy Wonder would you?
29 fr That is because they are claiming all the credit for the government. But that is silly as the two bi-partisan Muslim peers were the only way to get access to the top of the Sudanese regime. The FCO seemed to be getting nowhere on their own.
24. What’s the Lee Jasper story?
33: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23425661-details/Ken%27s+aide+and+lost+millions/article.do
33. Thanks. Who would ever have thought it?
[33][34] I expect Livingstone to fire Jasper at an opportune moment between now and next May.
14 - Nick Palmer
Thanks for providing that information about Baroness Ashton. Seriously, I think she could be a very significant asset to your party if put into a more high profile role. It’s a pity that she’s in the Lords rather than in the Commons really isn’t it? It’s so strange that so many of the more voter friendly politicians (on all sides) go to the unelected house rather than the elected one…
My second pro-Labour posting inside 12 hours! The world is going nuts.
Seriously though, although I’m very anti-Labour Party I’m not really at all anti individual members of the party. I could easily list a number of Labour politicians whom I respect on an individual basis (including you, Nick) it’s just that I don’t like the things you do when you all get together as a party.
37 That list in full:
1. Baroness Ashton
2. Nick Palmer
3. Er…
4. That’s it.
38,
What about Frank Field?
39 Is Frank Field really Labour though? Have you heard him give any positive reaction to anything Labour has done in recent years? He is an independent in all but name, inhabiting his own piece of the political landscape off over there somewhere. And the better he is for it.
25
I’m no great supporter of the Trad Union support for the Labour Party. If the unions wish to continue with a political fund, it should ask each member which party they wish to support and divide the money up as to their members wishes.
To even things up, companies who support the Conservative Party, should be required by law, to display this fact on their products or services etc.This would allow consumers, who do not wish to see their money being given to the Conservative Party to choose an alternative.
This story is frankly scandalous > http://tinyurl.com/yq3dll
I expect heads to roll, if Gordon does not act immediately then surely he is not fit to govern
OT. Australia.
Looks like the final seat has been decided in the Australian federal election, by just seven votes - the seat of McEwen, a semi-rural seat that starts where suburban Melbourne stops.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22892412-2,00.html
I’d guarantee a hearing before the Court of Disputed Returns promptly, with a result like that.
A number of people have been asking why the count has taken so long (e.g. Ave It). It’s because (among other reasons, I think) people who were issued postal votes by a certain date had until a certain time to post them in (the date being after the election). Which means that there was a very small group of people who had ballot papers at home and could decide how they were going to vote AFTER they knew Labor had won…
This means that the likely outcome will be:
ALP 84 (+24)
LIB/NAT 64 (-24)
IND 2 (=)
I predicted an 88-60-2 split. Not too far off.
[42] He can’t act immediately - COBRA only meets at 6 a.m.
44. Well if not COBRA then at least Lord West should be informed immediately and the country should told to be on full alert for these dangerous bureaucrats
17
‘ I’m in London four days a week. I read the vehemently anti-Ken Evening Standard and both free papers (yawn, they’re like reading the news as chosen by Hello’s editor).’
Should the Evening Standard just keep quiet about the millions of council taxpayers money that is missing and unaccounted for which Livingstone,Jaspar and pals are responsible for?
38:
Lord Ahmed?
We need to be careful about this Oprah/Clinton effect on women. If we take this route why don’t we look at why certain men may vote for Clinton because they fancy her?
Lots of women dont like Clinton, be it due to politics or they just don’t like her style. Oprah’s position of influence may be strong but within a very limited pool of people when it comes to vote decision.
Hilary is in bumpy road territory but we wait to see if its coming to the boil or this is the start of trouble.
Edwards can win in Iowa because his support base is unlikely to switch now, theyve been with him for ears. In that, they may help get Edwards squeeze a little bit more out thanks to the caucus system in Iowa.
McCain’s position in NH is interesting. Romney had a very decent lead but McCain does appear to have some traction. If he starts to close to less than 10% behind Romney a shock could be possible, mainly because Romney is brittle, as so many of the GOP slate look. McCain though needs to a) hang in the race and b) hope for drop outs and quick as he’s the alternative to everyone man.
46 No John, it should investigate and report it.
Its capacity for doing so would be increased if it obsessed less about KL. Its credibility would also improve, so that when it really did find something worth reporting about The Great Newt Minder, readers would be more inclined to trust it.
The silly ‘Nazi/party’ episode did at least as much to undermine the Standard’s repuatation as Ken’s.
38. LOL Yeah, it’s pretty tough to have to admit to liking any Labour politician isn’t it?
OK, seriously now, a list of some Labour politicians whom I like and respect:
Baroness Ashton, Nick Palmer, Frank Field, Alan Johnson, Kate Hoey, Dawn Butler, John Mann, David Lammy, Diane Abbott, Des Browne, Geraldine Smith…
Those are the obvious ones to come to mind. If I thought harder I’d could make the list longer - but there are enough names up there just to prove that I do like some of them.
48 It’s getting really interesting, isn’t it Yokel.
The Oprah thing could backfire, but I suspect it won’t. US voters are much more used to, and comfortable with, celebrity endorsements than we are. On balance, it must help Obama but it’s not a wave-through to the White House.
Incidentally, I think we are blessed by the relative lack of celebs in Politics here. We owe a debt to the late, great Kenny Everett for this, since he showed with his disatrous ‘let’s bomb Russia’ act just how it could all go wrong.
Btw, why didn’t you stay on the US for the Hatton fight? Must say our man looked confident at the weigh-in.
50
I watched Baroness Ashton on QT.
I agree: very straight, good speaker, did not duck’n dive on difficult questions.
A credit to politicians and in danger of giving them a good name.
40 - I’m sure most people who always come out with stuff like “Frank Field should be in the Tory Party” do so solely on his views on the welfare state (even though many of them, for example strong opposition to means testing, come as much from the Socialist tradition as the Conservative one). He’s also not particularly in favour of Europe, but then that too would have been normal on the left not so long ago.
As for everything else that defines his political views, well I doubt they come into it.
It’s like people saying that Ken Clarke or Heseltine shouldn’t be in the Tory Party, or David Laws shouldn’t be in the Liberal Democrats.
The rerason I suspect that the Lee Jasper story hasn’t travelled outside London is because it’s being conducted by Andrew Giilligan who is running-in conjunction with the Standard-a vendetta against Ken so it’s not taken seriously. The last episode in Gilligan’s vendetta were some very selective quotes from Compass refuted here.
http://www.compassonline.org.uk/article.asp?n=838&offset=-1
I have to say that the contest will be finished long before South Carolina, if Obama doesn’t win in either Iowa or New Hampshire (as I don’t think he will).
54: Watching Compass and Andrew Gilligan fight it out over who lies the less is amusing to see but not a good source.
Gilligan has deteriorated from being a reasonable if limited journalist for the BBC to a very bitter one now working for the Standard.
53 Alex, I’ve never been one of those who thought because Frank Field was critical of Labour on a number of key policy issues, that made him a potential Tory. As I said, I see him as an independent who speaks his mind without worrying about being slapped down by his party. I wish more people in Parliament were like-minded. How many politicians of all parties have voted for legislation whilst secretly thinking “This is a really bad idea….” Which it then proved to be.
54
‘The rerason I suspect that the Lee Jasper story hasn’t travelled outside London is because it’s being conducted by Andrew Giilligan who is running-in conjunction with the Standard-a vendetta against Ken so it’s not taken seriously.’
It will certainly travel outside London once a full investigation gets going,which with the amount of ‘missing’millions involved,
will no doubt involve the police.
57: If that’s the case I hope Jasper does a better job at countering him than Compass did. It will be good to get some answers rather than Ken’s usual hyperbole.
It’s quite funny in a way actually. If you look at the Mayor of London site, then it seems that at least 50% of all press releases issued are rebuttals of various Gilligan reports
3 - As others has pointed out it is other-worldly to expect the GOP to capture NY except barring some last minute child abuse scandal perhaps. And even then only maybe.
5 - You’re right about Rush’s attacks on Obama, but he is the ONLY talk show host who is (currently) giving Obama a hard time. The Fox commentators say almost nothing. Moreover, Limbaugh attacking him over his childhood is far less damaging than attacking him on experience. Its like attacking Romney for his Mormonism rather than his flip-flopping - a complete straw man. The GOP is saving the experience card for later.
8 - My only data point on Oprah is Lady Slec. Lady Slec’s awareness of non-Hilary candidates is certainly increased by Oprah. But that doesn’t mean she’ll vote for any candidate Oprah recommends. This isn’t like Oprah’s book club - its just a bit of extra advertising for Obama and Obama’s got enough money to buy hs own advertising. Obama’s problem isn’t getting brand awareness. His problem is that he waffles in an unpresidential manner during candidate debates and has no answer to the experience question.
O/T but why do some political journalists evenn Riddell and Nelson come out with old beliefs without checking. Ridell saying GB still rated ahead of Cameron as PM. Is the Pope a Catholic? PMs are always rated above the Leader of the opposition as PM by virtue of being PM. Blair maybe the sole exception so why Ridell thinks this should comfort Gordon I don’t know. Nelson comes out and suggests Cameron should be looking at a much bigger majority than Majors. Que? Its clear even if Cameron gets above average marginal swings then the UNS to even get a majority is massive. To get the sort of majority Fraser says they should get the Labour Party would almost literally have to split like the old Liberal Party. Someone should point out to him the Tories are starting with fewer MPs than Michael Foot. To say as he is they should get a landslide of Blairesque proportions sans colossal national crisis is simply delusional
62 Aren’t the GOP in greater trouble as they have more states like Colorado and Virginia where they could bank the EC votes almost before the election and campaign eleswhere but where the Dems now have hopes than the other way. A GOP winner in 2008 would have had to work far harder for it given this than any GOP nominee in decades. Even Dole could bank on Virginia
63: In the 1960s the Democrats could bank on the whole of the South, now it is strong GOP territory. The GOP on paper has an EC majority and can afford to lose states like Virginia or Colorado while the Democrats have to win them. t I don’t know if a black man or someone so polarising as Mrs Clinton could do it.
Steven Whaley at 37: Nothing wrong with that - I like most of the Tories, LibDems and UKIP members that I know, for that matter, just didsagree with some of their opinions. The BNP is the only party which seems to generate a staistically significant correlation with being personally unpleasant!
Agree with the posts that say Frank’s views on welfare and Europe don’t make him a Tory. The oddity is not that MPs sometimes express disagreement with their parties but that it happens so rarely - how many of you *never* express a private view that your party has got something wrong? The problem is just that our media always make a meal of it in a way damaging to both sides (’Labour fury as X attacks Y’, ‘Tory split opens up as A denounces B’). It is difficult to make a constructive criticism without permanent damage. Denham’s speech on Iraq was a good example of how to do it, but note that he was only admired by non-Labour people so long as he was revolting.
65. I think pretty much everyone in Labour is revolting but I don’t admire them.
I think Obama’s move is a great one. The media is all about Oprah, which appeals to one of the constituency that he needs to win over- older women. Also there are conditions on who gets the tickets. Tickets are going to people who are signing up for caucus training, becoming precinct captains, and being volunteering to beef up his ground campaign. That’s the great unwritten story on these primaries, but the one that did for Dean. Clinton, Edwards and Obama all are within striking distance of winning Iowa, but caucasing for your chosen candidate takes hours, those who get under 10% go to their second choice (’experience’ voters for Biden, Dodd etc might move to Hillary, Kucinich and Gravel might move to Edwards), rural communities count more than those in cities, and older people and previous caucusers are more likely to vote than others. The machine that each candidate has built up for getting out the vote will probably decide this thing- and that’s what is most important at this stage. It’s probably a real reasons why Romney still has a chance of winning this thing too. Organisation will decide this election.
Morning all - ok need to rephrase my point at 3!
I would never say that Giuliani *would* win NY, I said he could, if Hillary was not the Democratic challenger. I am relying on slec in his claim that Bloomburg will not run, because Rudy v Bloomburg v not-Hillary would make that State messy, and I think it is foolhardy to assume NY goes Democrat if their Senator has been spurned for the nomination.
I am fully aware how New York has aligned itself over the last 100 years, but still maintain that local-son (or daughter) status matters more than party. California is one of the safest Democratic states going, but (excluding Johnson in 1964) went Republican solidly from 1848 -1992, because Nixon and Reagan were on the ballot for 7 of those elections. California never voted for Kennedy - and it is difficult to imagine a more Hollywood candidate than JFK. It takes a bad GOP/Dem candidate to lose his/her home state, which is why the favourite son provision is made in the XIIth Amendment.
Fundamentally, I am open to whatever odds people will give me on Rudy winning NY state if Hillary is not on the ticket. Any takers?
6. Edmund, you make a good point. The voting record issue is an albatross that few Senators carry well. I think there is an element of ‘exec experience’ in the voters’ monds too, though. Candidates play up to it, and someone who has held that sort of office is better able to portray how they would be as Commander-in-Chief. Legislators do not carve out their individuality in their jobs in the same way. Saying “I commanded the National Guard / vetoed legislation / signed the bill that…” sounds more presidential than “I was one of 78 guys who voted for an amendment that allowed…”. Maybe the ‘bias’ against US senators will hurt Hillary more than Obama as you suggest, but my original thought was that Senate experience is no substitute for executive experience, but it is better than no experience at all. Anatole is spot on on this point.
How refreshingly well-informed and impartial these US posts are.
Thanks guys. You are a big help.
As a political animal in southern England,I will really stick my neck out and make a (very rough and ready) prediction :that Clinto will win the Democratic nomination,and beat the Republucan nominee narrowly,by circa 51% to 48%,with some third party (Ralph Nadera again?)taking 1%-Ohio state will just tip to the Dems,some Democratic recovery in the south-east of the USA,and Hilary Clinto will get between c.300 and 330 in the Electoral College.I know its extremely early days,but I feel my hunch will be somewhere near the final outcome
71 - see my post on the next thread about InTrade. Your intuition would suggest you could make some money by spreading on the closeness of certain states that people are already calling.
9. Things are changing rapidly right now. Two weeks ago, I would have given Obama less than a 5% chance. Now, I’d probably give Obama a 35% chance, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Obama seemed inevitable by Christmas.
Just on a side note, campaigning right before Christmas and between Christmas and New Years would be seen as extremely crass, so the winners in Iowa may be clear by the 20th or so. (The Iowa caucus is on 3 January.) There’s also the possibility that Clinton and Romney will shoot themselves in their feet by going very negative in the Christmas season.
70 - with Betfair offering you evens on the next President of the US being a woman, the odds are pretty aligned with your forecast.
If Hillary wins Iowa the contest for the Dems is all over. It’s going to be intriguing.
72. Thanks Mike. Please keep us up to date with your thinking in the weeks ahead.
I agree with the early comments that Oprah is a mixed blessing, perhaps a curse.
There have been multi-millionaire candidates, think half-pints, in the past who never actually win. Will a multi-millionare “help-mate” be any different? Some people may like being told how to vote by a rich woman, others may resent it.
Oprah, we must not forget, is the punishment for the unemployed, i.e. daytime television. I don’t think employed women will take so much notice of her as employed women, nor will women with sensible parents or grandparents.
A likely senario is that Oprah will saddle the Democrats with Obama, or at least make the eventual Democratic presidential nominee promise to take over many of Obama’s program, who will then lose the general election, which is the election that counts.
Don’t be fooled by thousands turning out to a football stadium. It is not the same thing as voting which requires a fair amount of time and indentification to be produced in front of officials.
Many in the U.S. view politics as as a spectator sport. Something for the race-track, or football stadium, but not involving any real voting.