Message from Mike
December 8th, 2007I was admitted to hospital overnight (nothing too serious) but I’m likely to be out of action for a few days. If Paul Maggs or my son Robert want to post or just launch open threads that will keep the discussions going that will be great.
MessageSpace Advertising
Very sorry to read this Mike - wishing you all the best for a speedy recovery.
Get well soon.
Its understandable you’d be out for a few days, anyone who had to go to an NHS A&E would take time to recover from the experience….
Does anyone have any topics to suggest that the able substitutes could put up?
You were quite right to give up your other job(s) this Christmas. Good luck.
Get well very soon Mike.
Reposted from end of previous thread - taking up the challenge to name some nice Labour politicians…
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.
Oh dear, very sorry to read that. Husband and I hope you have a speedy recovery.
Get well soon Mike. We’ll miss you in the meantime.
Get well soon, Mike.
Best wishes for a speedy recovery, Mike. (Hope it had nothing to do with your head swelling to twice its normal size after being written up in the FT!)
Sorry to hear this, Mike; hope to see you back here soon.
Mike, best wishes. Take your time getting well. Come back soon.
Best wishes and good luck
Please get well soon.
Get well soon…
Rumour has it that Mori, YouGov and ComRes have postponed all polls till your return to duty…!
Stop dawdling and get well soon, Mike.
Sorry to hear this Mike, Best Wishes and hope all is well quickly.
17) Should have said this is from Fitaloon as well.
Get well soon…
Keep that hotline to the bookies so that you can close down your positions at a moment’s notice
Very sorry to hear that Mike, get well soon.
(Just reading what I wrote - what on earth are “best wishes”? Rather suggests that I also keep under the stairs a box of shop soiled Taiwanese knock-off wishes which are a bit past their sell-by date and, if used, might help with a speedy recovery - or might instead turn you into a 1967 Ford Anglia…
Any way, you can have one of the Sunday best wishes, kept in the front room and only brought out for visiting vicars. But if you should turn into a 1974 Datsun Cherry, it was done with the best of intentions!)
Can hardly wait for the outcome of your ad hoc focus group on NHS reforms.
All the best Mike, get well soon!!
Sorry to hear this. Get well soon.
Best wishes for a sound recovery.
Get well soon Mike
Get better! All the best.
Get well soon Mike.
Godspeed and Excalibur. Get well soon Mike
29 All the best Mike. I’ve sometimes thought that in the absence of a decent article, PBers could be left to ‘chat amongst themselves’. This will be a good test.
I’ll do a piece on The Fallon Affair later. Nothing to do with politics of course, but it might keep the racing nuts amused, while the Politicos get on with handbagging each other.
Get well soon.
Make a speedy recovery, all good wishes.
Get well soon Mike!
Get well soon Mike.
And it’s “get well soon” from me too…
Best wishes
6 “Nice” Labour politicians? If by that you mean those who I respect for the way they express their beliefs, the consistency with which they have held them (often in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary!) and their general artlessness and refusal to embrace the dark arts of spin, then I would have to propose Tony Benn and Michael Foot. Although neither should be let within a million miles of power.
I’m struggling hard to find any of the new crop that qualify, though. Perhaps Hilary Benn. I would have said John Denham, but his recent efforts to parrot the line as laid down by the Great Leader’s spinners (which I sensed he didn’t really believe) have marked his card.
Get well soon — hope you’re back to full strength before xmas.
Wishing you well Mike - you perform a vital public service!
Get well soon and do not rush back.
Here’s a Guardian article to help recovery:
The next decade just might belong to the Lib Dems
It may seem cavalier, but the coming years could bring fresh opportunities, as well as false dawns, for the liberal tradition
Martin Kettle
Saturday December 8, 2007
The Guardian
If you are the governing party and sinking in the polls, don’t despair. Just bring in a tough law-and-order package and rely on public approval to see your numbers recover. Tony Blair, who believed that Labour would never lose votes by being strong on security, used this ploy often as his popularity faltered. Now Gordon Brown, launching a 42-day detention-without-trial plan in the very week when the Tories eased into an 11-point lead over Labour in two separate polls, seems determined to repeat the trick.
Will the latest counter-terrorism package refresh the Labour ratings the government’s other initiatives cannot currently reach? Only a fool would dismiss the possibility outright. But I believe that it is not going to happen on any scale. Even the most popular 10-year old government struggles for credibility when it produces rabbits out of hats. When a government has such a reputation for tactical stunts as this one, the effect may even be counter-productive. Ministers are now in the unfortunate position of Hilaire Belloc’s Matilda. Every time that they shout “Fire!”, more of the public answers, “Little Liar!”.
All this may be unfair. But it is also a fact. This is a tipping point in British politics. So it is also a good idea to stand back and try to gauge in which direction we are being tipped. This was the year that was supposed to revitalise Labour. But, as 2007 draws to a close, the government’s standing is as low as it ever was in Blair’s most unpopular period. In one recent poll Labour’s support was down to 27%, worse than even at the 1983 general election. Brown has the whole thing to do all over again - and popularity is harder to win the second time around. With economic uncertainty beginning to bear down on the government, the commonsense conclusion has to be that Labour’s era of ascendancy is now drawing to a close.
This is not to say that Labour is incapable of either mounting some sort of recovery in the spring or sustaining it. Even the most confident Tories recognise that it will be hard to sustain the assault on the Brown government at the level of intensity of the past two months. Similarly, there is no iron law that says governments cannot renew themselves even when they have been in office for many years. But where is the evidence that it is happening? Most of the evidence points in the opposite direction.
If that is the case, the implications for British party politics over the next decade will be very great. If Gordon Brown becomes the first Labour prime minister since James Callaghan to preside over electoral defeat, the impact on the Labour party could be shattering, even if Labour remains the largest single party. Not shattering in the same way that Callaghan’s defeat was in 1979, perhaps. Back then there was still a large section of the party that truly believed Labour could be revived by adopting a socialist programme and that the party possessed the organisation to try to prove it. It is hard to see the Labour party of 2010 responding in that way, not least because memories of 1983 are still etched into the institutional psyche - though mainly because the party is now so hollowed out. In fact, 21st-century Labour may react to defeat not with a bang but with a whimper, rather as the Scottish Labour party is now doing.
All of this is in part a prelude to saying that the next decade, again like the 1980s, could be a decade of fresh opportunities - and maybe also false dawns - for the liberal tradition in British politics. This may seem a cavalier claim to make at a time when the Liberal Democrats are struggling in the mid-teens of public support and when the party is subjecting a less than wholly galvanised public to a second leadership election in less than two years. Nevertheless, if Labour really is now facing defeat, the way may be opening not just for a stronger than expected Lib Dem performance in the next election but even, during the coming decade, for its long-sought breakthrough at the expense of the two larger parties.
The Lib Dem leadership election of 2007 has been a conscientious and low-key affair, marked by few major strategic differences between Nick Clegg and Chris Huhne, but real personal tension. In the best traditions of the party, both men have put out wildly implausible claims about their respective prospects and, although published polling seems to support the conventional wisdom that Clegg is the favourite by about 3:2, instinct points to the resourceful Huhne running him even closer and possibly even winning.
Either way, though, this could be a very good election to win. But the winner will need a tough and creative strategy if he is to turn Lib Dem opportunity into Lib Dem success. That strategy will clearly fall into two phases. The first is to rebuild the party so that it can, at the very least, hold on to its 63 Westminster seats next time. But it is the second phase, in the next parliament, where serious ambition needs to measure up to the serious opportunity created by Labour’s decline. Huhne talks of winning 150 seats in the election after next and establishing a position similar to that of the Canadian Liberals. My only quibble with this ambition is that it is too modest. After all, Canada’s Liberals remain in opposition.
Ten years ago, Blair’s strategy and broad appeal held out the prospect of a new Labour party that could unite and speak for both the social justice and the liberal traditions in British progressive life. It did not happen. Instead, Labour consciously chose to spurn the liberal tradition, not just over civil liberties, but over issues stretching from foreign policy to the hunting ban.
The next 10 years will be full of temptations and dilemmas for that broad centrist majority of British voters who want to combine economic efficiency with social justice, individual liberty and internationalism. All three parties will be striving to speak for them. In the face of Labour’s record and the Conservatives’ history, though, this ought to be the Liberal Democrat decade. Alex Salmond has shown how an outsider party can capture the agenda in Scotland. The next phase of British politics depends on whether Clegg or Huhne can give the Lib Dems a similarly ruthless sense of mission and achievement.
martin.kettle@guardian.co.uk
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2224278,00.html
Get well soon Mike. Best wishes.
Yes, best wishes Mike. Get well immediately!
Get well soon.
40. First they have to gain seats just to stay still unless you really think they can hold all 63 seats. Second much depends on the numbers they can emerge from next time with. Will it be critical mass. Even they achieve that its still not in their hands as assuming and its a big assumption Labour are beaten, everything the hinges on the third factor their choice of Leader. Even a half decent choice should prove too much in blocking Lib Dem progress of that type. They really would have to make the wrong pick for Kettle’s hopes to hold water
I can imagine a scenario where Labour implodes in the way implied by this article.
If you can accept that the union money may be all but gone by then, and with the party no longer looking like one of two routes into power, quite a lot of the support that flows naturally to Labour would be gone. The LibDems are the likely beneficiary, especially if there is some limited electoral reform borne of Labour desperations.
[drones on for hours in classic LD fashion about the wonders of PR]
I hope you are back to normal very soon.
Best wishes
Get well soon, Mike!
PtP
Are you at Sandown this afternoon? - Had it not been such a stinking rotten day, I might have joined you, it’s sort of my local racecourse. Any good tips would be appreciated.
Look on the bright side - only another two weeks before the nights start getting lighter again!
Get well soon Mike and don’t hurry back.
I just got back in and read this, all the best for a speedy recovery.
Likewise, sorry to hear this.
I hope you are being spoiled rotten by everyone - sit back and enjoy the fuss.
I wish you well and trust that you be home as soon as possible.
48 Mike … don’t hurry back
stjohn - Isn’t this what some Tory MPs were baying at Gordon Brown during PMQ’s last week, but seriously we know what you mean.
Shame about the Villa today.
Best wishes,Mike
And in the meantime
The Labour Party was paid £183,000 in public money to help officials understand new funding rules shortly before it accepted secret donations.
The Electoral Commission gave the party the start-up grant in 2001 and 2002 after the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 came in.
But since 2003 property developer David Abrahams has donated £663,975 to the party under other people’s names.
The police are currently investigating these donations.
An Electoral Commission spokeswoman said the grants were given to all political parties.
A total of £700,000 was divided between all parties, proportionate to the number of votes they got in the 1997 general election and the 1999 European elections.
New staff
Labour was paid £165,000 in 2001 and £18,000 a year later, according to the Electoral Commission’s accounts.
The Conservatives received a similar sum.
The cash was intended to help party officials understand regulations including submitting accounts and declaring donations above £5,000.
The spokeswoman for the Electoral Commission said it would have allowed parties to install new systems or employ new staff.
Under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendum Act 2000, details of any donor making gifts through a third party must be registered and reported to the Electoral Commission.
Mr Abrahams’ donations were unlawful because people must use their own names when giving more than £5,000 to political parties.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown has said the party will pay all of the money back, and Labour officials have been holding talks with the Electoral Commission as to how this should be done.
All the best for a speedy recovery!
Get well soon Mike
Best wishes for a speedy recovery, Mike.
Sorry to hear this Mike, hope you’re feeling much better very soon.
Mike - I would be only too pleased to look after your spread betting positions, whilst you are temporarily indisposed - all I need are your passwords and bank details.
Ring….Ring…. Oh Hello, is that British Airways, I’m enquiring about flights to Panama.
It’s nice to see such unanimity on a single thread!!
Take it easy, Mike and a very speedy recovery!
58 … one way, that is.
40/43/44. If (and its a big if) Labour go into full decline it will probably take 10 years for the Libdems to surpass them and take second place in parliamentary elections.
Firstly, I think the scenario that Kettle mentions is only possible if Labour are defeated and the Conservatives have a significant working majority.
In such a scenario I also expect the Libdems to be starting from a significantly lower position (by about 20 parliamentary seats) than they currently have.
The main question for the Libdems will be which direction if any do they go? Do they try and fight and outdo the Conservatives on the centre right ground or give this up and replace Labour on the centre left? To try and do both will likely cause further confusion with the electorate and minimise their progress.
In taking on board more left thinking people the most likely answer is that they would move to the left. At the same time you would still have a considerable number of MP’s on the right of the party. Would they remain, if dragged further towards the left? If you also consider there are some core contradictions between the two parties ideologies(centralist vs localist)it may not be a match made in heaven.
Instead of a time of rising fortunes, could this be a time of turbulence for the Libdems?
Similarly, can we be sure that disgruntled Labour supporters would head for the Libdems? Instead, could they be persuaded by upcoming parties such as the Greens or god forbid the BNP?
Either way the key point Kettle doesn’t really make is that for this scenario to become reality, during this period of transition, the Conservatives would likely have significant dominance and would be the party that was really in the ascendancy. Whatever, the natural change in situations it will likely be coloured by the Conservative Government of the time and that may advance or restrict the Libdems progress.
Furthermore, it will be likely be far easier for the Conservatives to defend themselves against a strengthening Libdem Party that will not have been in power for a century than a Labour Party of equal strength that led the country into the 21st Century.
That aside, given the scenario of a significant Labour defeat at the next GE and their subsequent implosion, the Libdems will benefit significantly but may have to wait a bit longer than Kettle (and Clegg) perceive before they can truly aspire to run the country. My own guess would be a minimum of 3 terms under the next Libdem leader’s successor (assuming a long leadership) and then of course the world will look a whole lot different.
Best wishes Mike. Get well soon.
51. Peter. A shocker!
Get well and I hope we all see you here in tip top condition very soon.
Get well soon, Mike.
Oh dear, I hope you get well soon.
Wishing you a speedy recovery, Mike.
The 2005 election was the most three-cornered since 1923. I think it is extremely unlikely either Tories or Labour will achieve 40% of the vote next time, and it is possible to conceive of circumstances where neither reach even 35%. The LibDems will be in their potentially strongest position for 80 years.
They failed to make the big breakthrough in 2005 purely, imho, due to the residual chutzpah that still attached to Blair. In 2010 Labour will have no such advantage. A tired, worn-out accident prone government, led by Brown who will be pushing 60, is unlikely to be given the benefit of the doubt by voters. The Tories, meanwhile, despite (or because of) the hype of Cameron, show no sign of returning to their status as the natural party of government. The Nationalists may well deliver their best-ever performance in 2010, complicating the picture further.
The systemic problems of the UK are so intractable they may require some type of National Government to resolve them, because no single party will be possess the authority or energy to deal with them on their own. The WLQ, electoral reform, turnout and legitimacy may all emerge from the election result as issues of critical and immediate importance.
In 2010, the LibDems will be in a position to play the pivotal role in devising a constitutional settlement for the 21st Century, just as the Liberals did for the previous century in 1910…
God Bless for a speedy recovery
Best wishes Mike
60- it’s cloud cuckoo land imo.
Get well soon Mike
Look forward to having you back
It was only 5 years ago that all the talk was of the LibDems replacing the Tories as the main party of opposition to Labour. Suddenly the Govt goes through a bit of a rocky patch (from which there has been no indication of the Liberals benefiting, even temporarily) and suddenly they are about to replace Labour!
Best wishes. Mike. Look after yourself!
I have long seen the current positioning of the Labour Party as not that different to Asquith’s Liberals (of blessed memory) - and look what happened to them
Mike,
Very sorry to hear that - I hope and pray you are back to the best of health very soon.
66 Lol. Unless WWIII occurs this country doesn’t do national coalitions
73 Doubt it see 61 for all the supports for Labour and obstacles to the Lib Dems. Even Asquith’s Party took twenty years to really fade away and required a World War, a massive global recession and a huge inter party split to polish them off and let Labour move in
I will believe the LibDems have a chance of becoming the second party:
when they have a charismatic leader with sensiblle policies
and
one or both of the major parties implode.
Despite my posting a copy of the Guardian article, imo I cannot see the LibDems chosing the right leader (cos they don’t really want power and all the discipline of thought and action which power requires and which their senior members - and leaders - clearly have lacked over the last 40 years)
and
neither major party has imploded or shows any signs of doing so. Yet.
Get well soon Mike.
Mike, I’m sure that everyone who vists this excellent site will join together in wishinh you the very best for a speedy recovery.
To Socrates, Mike (in New Jersey), and Slec (in NY) -
Firstly, it’s great to have the perspective from US, and I am grateful for the thoughtful, well-argued posts that you have written.
Secondly, I’ve re-posted on New York State on the last thread. Please tell me if you think there is any truth in the favourite son argument. If you are completely confident that a not-Hillary democrat would win NY state against Giuliani, I’d like some odds.
Very sorry to hear this Mike, best wishes for a speedy recovery!
Heres to a speedy recovery (finishes Glenmorange!)
75 - Punter - I have never thought labour would collapse overnight. In fact The Liberal collapse was 6 years - 1918 - 1924
The weakness the Liberals had was that they were a centre party when there was a better left wing party out there - Labour and abetter right wing one, the conservatives.
Asquith’s generation repositioned the Liberals after gladstone and in recognition of the change in political climate in the late 19th century, but they were flowing against the tide. Sounds like Blair to me
And they had a feud at the top but I don’t countb that
Get well soon Mike
Mike get well soon. I had a day case investigation on Thursday, but it has at least mean more time for perusing pb.com whilst I’ve been off, so not all bad
Not all is so rosy for Lib Dems though. All 3 of their top regions for MPs are under the realistic threat of losing half its MPs.
South West 16 seats Cornwall is suffering from Council unitary backlash and Conservatives are pressing in Devon, Dorset and Somerset as well. 2 MPs standing down.
Southern and London 14 seats Large growth in Conservative votes.
Scottish 12 seats Slump in LD polls accompanied by a near doubling in SNP vote.
(post Boundary change figs)
These 3 areas represent 2 out of 3 of all LD seats.
85 - HF, depite the apparent slump in support in the YouGov poll I reckon the Lib Dems are only likely to lose at worst three seats in Scotland.
Although I would be happy to be proven wrong!
Get well very,very soon,Mike,all the very best,mate
IanLB brought up an interesting point for punters on Sean Fear’s Friday slot about InTrade having the best developed markets for the US primaries and 08 Elections by state, whilst also noting that the market is lacking in liquidity prior to the season kicking off.
For those who don’t know InTrade, you buy and sell based on the % likelihood of a given contract, not on odds or decimals.
I have just plugged in the InTrade likelihoods for the party expected to win the Electoral College votes of each of the 50 states plus DC in November 08. Only VA, FL, MO, CO, NV, and IA have % closer than 60-40 (6 of 51, meaning 45 of 61 are being called as 60+% likelihood). In 2004, only 11 states plus DC had a party vote above 60%. I don’t think InTrade voters have the eventual winners wrong in many cases, but as money is thrown at some of these states it is going to be a good deal closer than current prices suggest in 20 or so of these states.
Minimum price to buy “Dems to win Ohio” is over 60, with asking price up over 75. Dems to win Pennsylvania is buying at 77, asking price nearly 85! All it would take is for the GOP nominee to ask Voinivich to be his VP nominee, and Ohio becomes even more interesting than last time.
Of the 10 closest states in 2004, 9 are sitting with buying prices of over 60 for the winners on InTrade. There is money to be made on betting that these probabilities will fall to between 50 and 55, and correspondingly that prices below 40 will rise.
As well as Ohio and Pennsylvannia, states where I see the price moving most are Massachussets and New Hampshire (only if Romney gets the nomination), New Mexico (if Richardson is not on the ticket), and Arkansas (if Huckerbee doesn’t get the VP nomination, and Hillary gets Bill or Wes Clarke to bring her that state, I think it switches from safe Republican to Democrat).
As I say, I am not disputing eventual winners, just remarking that the prices are unrealistically far apart at the moment, and will inevitably get closer over time.
Get well soon Mike.
86 Max, the LDs time in Govt with Labour looks to have hurt them badly in Scotland. They are viewed by some as part of Labour.
No LD Scots MPs have indicated they they are standing down at the next election. Ming will be 73 in 2014 and Malcom Bruce 71.
90 correction Malcom Bruce will be 63 in 2010 and 70 in 2014. 2014 is the end of a 4 year term if the next GE is in 2010.
91 - Hmm recaluate methinks, how can someone age 7 years in a four year period? Either he will be 66 in 2010 or he will be 67 in 2014.
Really hope Mike is home again very soon in full health .
90 etc .
I see HF is here again with his unique it’s all doom and gloom views of LibDem prospects . Sadly you lost all credibility yesterday with your attempts to forecast a General Election result based on the council byelection in Richmond Barnes
93. Yes. If only he had a forecasting record like yours, Mark.
Hope you get well soon Mike.
Mike Are you there so the bookies can get money out of you by unconventional means?
A speedy recovery to you. Get well soon.
Ps If I were you I would try and stay there till Christmas, avoiding all that shopping and hassle and easing in to the new ethos and lifestyle.
79. First of all I should point out that I’m in Chicago (all the way inland by the great lakes), so will have a different view of the Big Apple than anyone from NYC or New Jersey (just over the state line from NYC). My view is that New Yorker’s do like their “favourite sons”, so to speak, but that’s partially because New Yorker’s have their own attitude and warm to people who have the same one - aka other New Yorkers. What’s important however, is that huge swathes of people across the rest of the country hate the New York attitude, especially in rural (Republican) areas. Giuliani is going to have to beat a different drum to these people (the “folksy” vibe, angry rhetoric on immigrants & Islamists etc) which will turn off the New York vote. Like someone else says, the only way I can possibly see it is against the Southern, rural Edwards.
Someone posted % for each candidates depending on what happens in Iowa. I think he overrates Clinton, who becomes increasingly vulnerable the less she is seen as inevitable, and the more Obama is seen as a winner. A lot will also depend on the order of the candidates too:
Clinton 1st, Obama 2nd, Edwards 3rd:
Clinton 85%
Obama 15%
Edwards out of it
Clinton 1st, Edwards 2nd, Obama 3rd:
Clinton: 90%
Edwards: 5%
Obama: 5%
Obama 1st, Clinton 2nd, Edwards 3rd:
Clinton: 55%
Obama: 45%
Edwards out of it
Obama 1st, Clinton 2nd, Edwards 3rd:
Obama: 60%
Clinton: 40%
Edwards out of it
Edwards 1st, Clinton 2nd, Obama 3rd:
Clinton: 65%
Edwards: 35%
Obama: 10%
Edwards 1st, Obama 2nd, Clinton 3rd:
Edwards: 40%
Obama: 30%
Clinton: 30%
It should also be pointed out that Edwards won’t be doing Clinton any favours. The Edwards camp is closely aligned to Obama’s and is the least pragmatic of the three. They really want change in DC, maybe even more than getting their man in, and when they go out they will back Obama. Mark my words.
86. Unlikely they will lose any seats at all. They may well gain. They are breathing down Labour’s necks in Aberdeen S, Edinburgh S and Edinburgh N & Leith and are the obvious recipients of further tactical voting in those seats. They are probably odds-on to hold the Dunfermline by-election gain, and none of the seats they currently hold look particularly vulnerable. A similar “collapse” in the Liberal vote occurred between 1983-92, yet they gained a seat…
Oops! Ignore the fourth one down. It should have been:
Obama 1st, Edwards 2nd, Clinton 3rd:
Obama: 65%
Clinton: 25%
Edwards: 10%
That would be the biggest disaster for Clinton.
Wishing you a very speedy recovery Mike.
Get well Mike!
Incidentally, latest polls showing a surge for Huckabee meaning Romney’s dead in the water. Everyone should get any money off him immediately, limiting your losses if necessary.
97 Socrates - another great post. With respect to percentages, I would still have Hillary at evens for the nomination if she came 3rd - her price should not drop below that unless she does worse than winning by 10% in New Hampshire.
I am interested in your final comment about the Edwards camp - the idealism of that part of the party is not really shining through over here. He is presented largely as “the guy from last time wanting another shot”.
I take your point about Giuliani, but I don’t think he will beat that conservative drum. He has claimed he is the only Republican who can win California, and I think his strategy will be that the South will not allow the White House to go Democratic when both chambers of Congress are, so will fall into line whilst he tacks to the centre to win Ohio, Florida and Oregon. He won’t try to be conservative, because he knows that will never work, so will leave it to his VP to deliver those states.
Also important: Edwards has now slipped to 18% as Iowa is becoming to be seen as a two horse race by voters. If Edwards gets under 15%, it means his supporters can vote a second time - and they’ll back Obama. That could mean Obama winning by a very large margin indeed.
Get well soon
102. Clinton’s lead is now only 9% in NH. It’s only five days after Iowa during which the events in Iowa will be blanket coverage on the headlines. If she comes third there, she’ll lose New Hampshire.
California and New York are also very different. People in the UK think of California as being San Francisco and Hollywood, but you still need to remember that it’s (a) in the Southwest, with all the associated views about immigration for anyone conservative leaning, (b) it has a very large military vote, which is very aggressive on Foreign Policy and (c) it’s huge, meaning a significant rural vote. The main difference between Republicans in California and them elsewhere is that they’re more uncomfortable with religious rhetoric. The overall point is that there’s a schism of opinion in Cali that doesn’t exist in New York, where Republicans have to be liberal to win.
Oh dear, Mike, very sorry to hear you have been kidnapped and incarcerated in the hellhole of Bedford Hospital. I do hope you can manage to control your blood pressure under intense provocation so that you are restored to rude health and released on Monday without a stain on your character or your pyjamas.
Are you sure about giving PtP and myself power of attorney ???
66 - RodC. The last peacetime National Govt IIRC was the 1931/5 lot and they didn’t exactly cover themselves with glory. Some would say if the Churchill faction hadn’t been succesful with their putsch in 1940, we’d all be speaking German now :-(.
any uk polls due this weekend??
101. Huckabee is, however, NOT a buy at this point. He’s soared into the lead nationally and in most of the early states, but I expect to see hard-hitting negative ads from Romney out about the rapist Huckabee advocated the release of while governor; it’s Willie Horton x2 because Huckabee was actually speaking on his behalf. Once that starts being a major talking point, Huckabee could fall as fast as he rose.
This may have been asked before… but why didn’t Abrahams give Labour the dosh via his company?
For all those who have been buying Huckabee, he might now have reached his zenith. The American Press are giving pretty wide coverage to answers he gave to an AP questionnaire in 1992 whilst running for the US Senate. He described homosexuality as abhorrent and sinful, and suggested isolating AIDS patients to prevent the spread of HIV.
There is nothing new here, but it is not so much that this is out of touch with conservative support, as that it messes up the affable, liked-by-all sort of image that he’s cultivated. Might still win Iowa, but I really cannot see him getting the nomination, especailly after the Iran gaffe.
Boring, init:
Q. Who was the only former President to swear-in another President?
111 - Nixon Clinton?
111. William Taft became Chief Justice of the US after retiring as President, so swore in Coolidge and Hoover, I believe.
106 Umquatsch, Herr Thomthumb!
02 oops Bruce is 63 now, so if he stands again in 2010 he is staring at being 70 if that term ends in 2014.
So 2 LD losses (of the 6) caused by people standing down in Scotland which leaves 4 others to gain through better support.
Get well soon. Your country need you.
108 Mike (New Jersey)
Huckabee’s surge is good news for Guiliani and McCain, yes?
117. I’m thinking McCain is looking like good value. Romney looks like toast in Iowa now, which means he’s out of it. Further into the future Huckabee’s rapist scandal and Giuliani’s affairs are going to hit them.
113. Correct. Taft was the only man to hold the supreme office in both the Executive and Judicial branches.
Q. Who was the only US President to have held none of the following offices (every other president has done at least one of the following jobs before assuming the presidency)
Governor
Senator
Vice-President
Member of the House of Representatives
General
Sorry to hear that, Mike. All the best.
Did anybody hear Vince Cable on Any Questions?
He just said he wanted to be leader! He was asked about disappearing for five years (canoe) and replied he was enjoying his current job and wished the two leadership contenders would disappear! The guest host said ‘you joke but it sounds like you really want the job - do you?’ to which Cable replied “No comment”!
115 Where do you get 5 losses from in Scotland , you are in fantasy land . Why do you go on and on at the age of Bruce and other LibDem MPs when the Conservatives have around 3 times as many over his age .
(Peter the Punter - thanks for the call, I will get back to you soon.)
119 Abraham Lincoln wasn’t any of those was he? Or was he a general?
124. Nope, he’d been in Congress 1846-48.
Try again..
125 It must be Herbert Hoover then!
117. Not for Giuliani, no. Giuliani’s lost his lead in South Carolina, in Michigan, and probably in Florida (once the next poll comes out) to Huckabee. Losing every single pre-February 5 state would be a calamity for Giuliani, one from which he could not recover, yet one which the polls are suggesting.
McCain, well, he could come in third in Iowa and second in New Hampshire, but after that he’s doomed. He might be worth putting a little bit of money on as the betters may move to him if he comes ahead of Giuliani in Iowa, but he’s not winning the nomination.
125. Woodrow Wilson never had any political office I believe.
128 - No he was Govenor of New Jersey after he left Princeton I think.
Hoover is correct (he was a mining engineer who had served as Secretary of State for Commerce, and had never held prior elected office or been in the military)
Wilson had been Governor of New Jersey…
Q. Which President was sworn-in using a Roman Catholic Missal, instead of a bible….
119 - Off the cuff, Herbert Hoover. His only office was as aCabinet Member
127. But what happens if Giuliani loses all those states and then Huckabee gets hit by something? McCain is surely the guy that will be turned to.
130 Lyndon B Johnson - I knew that one!
Under the constitution, the President and the Vice President cannot be elected from the same State.
Which two term President was elected from two different States?
119. Taft as well. (Unless being a Governor-General counts as a Governor and/or a General!)
Morus @ 110 re Huckabee scandals. Both were a long time ago, and Americans have shown they can forgive Clinton’s philandering and Bush’s boozing and draft-dodging. Giuliani may have greater problems if he is made to look dishonest rather than simply wrong.
The Iowa Independent’s unscientific sniffing-the-air has Huckabee winning which is in line with the polls.
http://www.iowaindependent.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1598
Interestingly, they report increased support for Ron Paul which probably reflects voter dissatisfaction with all the main choices.
PtP @ 117 — “Huckabee’s surge is good news for Guiliani and McCain, yes?”
From the UK, it looks like the religious right has given up on Thompson and switched wholesale to Huckabee. This doesn’t really help Giuliani and McCain. However, what would help them is Huckabee knocking out Romney in the caucuses which looks increasingly likely. Trouble is, Huckabee may then prove a more doughty opponent than Romney.
Taft was “provisional” GOvernor of Ohio in 1907
132. No. Why would they turn to McCain over Giuliani or Romney? McCain has no money, no organization, and is generally viewed with the greatest antipathy by the religious right. He might win some moderates, but, as McCain himself learned in 2000, you don’t win the Republican nomination by appealing to moderates.
127 Mike (New Jersey)
Yes, I can follow your argument, and see much sense in it, but there’s a slight problem. You seem to have put a line through every single candidate.
You’re not trying to sell me Ron Paul, are you?
137. He was never sworn in; it was a Sunday.
134. Is it Lincoln (Kentucky and Illinois)
136 Yes, John L, that’s my line of reasoning too, except for the final bit about about Huckabee, whose base seems to me far too narrow.
I keep coming back to Guiliani, or McCain, but it’s a difficult and intriguing riddle.
136 - The American people will forgive, but Huckabee’s problem is whether he asks them too. If he says “I was wrong in what I said in 1992″ the religious right loses patience with him for looking weak. If he does not recant those views, there is a real disconnect between his all-embracing persona, and some quite hard-line social positions tht I think would make him less attractive to many moderates. It is in his ball court.
139. Not at all; Paul is less likely to win than even Thompson, and I’m not fond of him.
I’m putting a line through every candidate precisely because things are far too unstable to be able to say anything for certain right now. Huckabee is perhaps the most likely to win the nomination, but I really couldn’t say. Honestly, I wouldn’t be betting on the Republican nomination for a week or so!
A lot of it really depends on how hard Romney hits Huckabee about his past scandals. Romney may come off as sleazy, but his past is remarkably clean while Huckabee comes off as pleasant but has more skeletons in his closet than any of the Republicans save Giuliani. (For example, Huckabee got in big trouble while he was governor for a scandal involving his wife stealing thousands of dollars from the state of Arkansas, and he was not all that popular in Arkansas when he left office.)
The religious right are not all they are cracked up to be in this current race and certainly won;t be come the real election in 08 for the White House. Secondly in 2000, what was the point of MCain trying to court the religious right. Never his ground. His main opponent was Bush who was always going to have area farmed and fenced off once the fringe merchants dropped out. McCain is a classic Republican, small government, low taxes, good fiscal responsibility, strong defence and so on. Now either the republican movement has lost much of that with the religious right now dominant within its ranks or its base is plain blind.
For me McCain’s ability to make it happen partially rests on one man, Fred Thompson.
If Socrates view on Edwards people shifting to Obama should Edwards drop out fiirst then that is very, very interesting indeed from a betting point of view, espcially if you feel that the current Clinton bump is not about to end anytime soon.
136. Huckabee and Thompson have different bases. The religious right and more mainstream conservatives are different blocs.
The religious right are extremely focused on abortion, gay rights and Islamism, but are increasingly environmentalist and humanitarian. They don’t really care about tax rates or business interests. They supported Thompson only because he was better than Giuliani and Romney on the first couple of issues, and McCain has called them “extremists” in the past. They were always going to switch when a true evangelical came through.
More mainstream conservatives are like right-wing Conservatives in the UK. They go to church, think of themselves as good Christian European Americans, but couldn’t quote Bible verse. They are uncomfortable with gays and abortion, but are more concerned with patriotism, military strength, and especially immigration and low taxes, also believing global warming is a socialist myth. They pretty much agree with Thompson on everything but his appalling campaign has seen them disillusioned. Right now they like Huckabee because of his social conservatism, but aren’t convinced and could peel off when made aware of his immigration and tax records. They’re suspicious of Giuliani because of his liberal social views but could go back to him due to his military aggresiveness, and are unsure of McCain because of his views on global warming and torture, but again, could potentiall back him.
Although these two groups often ally, you should not confuse them. If you’re betting it will lose you money.
144. Romney was always going to go for Huckabee, particularly post the recent debate when Romney was trying to pan Huckabee for being soft on illegal immigration. After that however Huckabee seemed to just keep going up.
Romney is going to have pound Huckabee with whatever he’s got and hopes it starts to weaken nhim through sheer weight because at the moment Huckabee is near teflon.
Yokel @ 145 re Edwards’s supporters moving to Obama in the caucuses. It has been suggested Clinton will “lend” Edwards some of her voters to keep Edwards above the threshold (15% iirc) for switching.
A manoeuvre not unknown in Conservative Party leadership elections.
Q. Which state (in terms of their political base) has produced the most presidents?
Socrates @ 146 re different Republican groups. Yes, I agree.
In my view the key to this, and for that matter to SPotY tomorrow and sometimes to reality show betting is to identify the different constituencies and think about how they will shift their votes in various scenarios.
What makes it more interesting (or harder) this time is that Bush has managed to offend or disappoint each component of the Republican coalition.
134 - Not actually true. Electors in the Electoral College are prohbited from voting for a Presidential candidate AND a Vice-Presidential candidate from the same state as themselves, but a Californian could vote for a New Yorker for each post without troubling the Constitution. This passage of Article II was renewed by the XIIth Amendment.
Interestingly, until he switched his residency back to Wyoming (for whom he had been Congressman for the District-at-large) 12 weeks before the 2000 election, Dick Cheney was a resident of Texas, as Halliburton had stationed him there for years. Had he not switched, the Electors of Texas would have been barred from voting for him, and because the election was tighter than Texas’ EC votes, Joe Lieberman would have been GW Bush’s VP for the first term!
Cheney’s vice-Presidency was challenged by a law professor (Sandy Levinson) in the now famous case Jones v Bush, in front of the 5th circuit Court of Appeals, who said that it made a mockery of the provision in the XIIth Amendment. However, Harriet Miers convinced the 5th Circuit, and the Supreme Court refused a writ of certiorari, for which she was rewarded by the President by being his temporary, then aborted, nominee for the SCOTUS.
149 - Ohio, almost certainly (unless you count Grover Cleveland twice!).
Mike- very best wishes. Just confirms that your decision to move to one job after Xmas was absolutely the right one. Nothing is more important than your health, and you need to take care of yourself. Wishing you a speedy, quick and long sustained recovery.
152. Correct. And which state by birth has produced the most?
154 - most of the early ones were born in Virginia weren’t they. Unless this is a trick question, and it’s Ohio again!
Only one man has won more Electoral College votes than FDR’s 1876. Who was he?
155.
Ohio (7), ironically all are amongst the least succesful presidents
William Henry Harrison
Ulysses S. Grant
Rutherford B. Hayes
James Garfield
William McKinley
William Howard Taft
Warren G. Harding
Virginia(8)
George Washington
Thomas Jefferson
James Madison
James Monroe
William Henry Harrison
John Tyler
Zachary Taylor
Woodrow Wilson
The electoral vote has to be Reagan, 1984…
Who was the only ex-President to be elected to the Senate?
Has anyone got any good tips on the boxing?
Who was the only President to lose both his birth state and his home state, yet win the election?
155. Surely Reagan.
156 - No Reagan won the most (525) in a single election, but only fought 2 elections. Richard Nixon fought 5 (3 as Presidential candidate, of which he won 2, and 2 as Eisenhower’s VP candidate), giving him a total of 1939 Electoral College votes in his name.
A bit of trivia - if Giuliani wins the Presidency, and the House does not go back to Republicans (it won’t, the RNCC is broke, and in almost 10% of its seats, the candidate is not running), then a Roman Catholic will be at the head of all three branches of governments (Giuliani, plus John Roberts, Chief Justice of the United States; Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives). To explain that to a voter in 1960 would be like telling us that a Mormon would be head of all branches of government in 2054!
157 - If anyone does, I thought you might!!
158. Only Polk and Wilson lost their home states and won, so I’ll go for Polk. He was the only Speaker to become President as well, wasn’t he? Though Carl Albert came close a couple of times!!
155 - Only one man has won more Electoral College votes than FDR’s 1876. Who was he?
Someone got more than 1876 EC votes? Wow. Still getting to grips with this one. It must be somebody who kept running for decades - both winning and losing. My first thought was Nixon (he won big in 1972) but even counting the losses I doubt he gets close.
Have to get back to you on that one…
160 - Doh! See you put up the answer whilst I was answering. But probably wouldn’t have got the VP votes bit though.
148. The way things are going in Iowa Clinton can’t afford to lend any of her supporters.
164 - we have an honour code here, Marquee Mark. If you say you were going to answer Nixon, we will believe you!
RodCrosby and somebody else posted some great campaign spots yesterday. Take a look at this year’s entry from Mike Gravel:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0S2zkh6ZOGE
WARNING: Flashing images.
I would love Gordon Brown or David Cameron to do one of these…
Hillary (First Female President on Betfair) at 2.16 in small amounts looks generous compared with her 1.66 price on both Hills and Ladbrokes.
161- Very funny David. Tyson though is the name of my cat, and not much use for boxing tips.
Peter the Punter- do you have any views on the Hatton fight?
162. Yes Polk (NC and TN.) He was Speaker too. Correct.
If Zangara had hit FDR in Miami in 1933, Cactus Jack Garner (Speaker and VP-elect) would have become President, wouldn’t he?