Did you take Roger’s advice on our 50/1 Obama tip?
December 22nd, 2007
With 12 days to go to Iowa - what are Obama’s chances?
Cast your mind back to May 26th 2005. Tony Blair was just completing the third week of Labour’s third term, Charles Kennedy was still Lib Dem leader and Michael Howard had announced that he was standing down with David Davis the hot favourite to succeed him.
The main thread that morning was about a young black senator from Illinois who was relatively unknown on this side of the Atlantic and who, it was suggested, could be the next President of the United States.
The recommendation was that Barack Obama was worth a punt at the then 50/1 that was available on him succeeding George Bush. One of PBC’s most long-standing contributors, Roger, was the first to kick of the discussion with a firm rejection of the idea.
The thread was, I think, our first on the 2008 White House Race, and it’s fascinating going through the various contributions in the context of what we know now.
In just twelve days time we should get a real sense whether the tip on that May Thursday two and a half years ago is going to make progress. For if Hillary comes on top in the Iowa caucus then the Democratic fight could almost be over. But if she slips into second, or even third place, then she’ll have a fight on her hands and our 50/1 bet might look very good.
The latest price on Obama for the nomination is 2.4/1 while Hillary reigns strongly at 0.54/1.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
In case I haven’t said it before, thanks Mike; I had £50 on at 50/1. Didn’t know Roger advised against it though.
Would have had twice as much.
Win or not, the bloke has made hay for those backed him at fancy odds.
Have to say I didn’t.
Like Peter I’m on too. Wish had put on more though.
Everyone in my office thought I was mad, now they think have some great insight into US politics!
Lol. Cruel
I have often thought that it would be neat to have a competition on PB.com for the best post of the month.
Were this already up and running, one would not need to look very far for a worthy December 2007 winner.
No further, in fact, than the headline to this thread.
LOL,LOL,LOL!
What do politicalbetting.com commentators reckon of Joe Biden’s chances for the dem nomination. I been backing him at around 400-1 on Betfair and there seem to be suggestions that he is making progress, particularly in getting ahead of Richardson to become the fourth-placed candidate. There is a suggestion that he is picking up support among dedicated caucus-goers - see AP here: http://tinyurl.com/35f79m.
Now I should say that it is very unlikely Biden will get the nomination. Most likely his campaign will be over on Jan 4th. He has little money and has said he will quit if he doesn’t come 3rd in Iowa, a tough ask. But if he did pull off a surprise (and Iowa caucuses are unpredictable) then with his experience, campaigning skills and electability, he could become a serious contender. At 400-1 it’s worth a shot, at least in my dreams…
Everything’s too close to call about Iowa at the moment, Clinton still has a very strong base of support in most polls, Obama leads but its slender and there’s no telling how that will endure through the caucus system itself and then Edwards is in with a shout with a strong ground organisation… so all in all any combination of results seems possible.
“One of PBC’s most long-standing contributors, Roger, was the first to kick of the discussion with a firm rejection of the idea.”
“No” - by roger May 26th, 2005 at 5:47 pm.
That’s the Roger we know and love, apart from that one aberrant mistake when he called a double-digit Labour lead correctly, he is probably PBC’s most consistent tipster!
6 Go back to sleep then….and wake up with Biden as the next SoS.
This article is slightly cruel no…
7 I’d be shocked if Edwards is in the top two though
Just read the thread Mike, and while it was an excellent tip at the time, a bit harsh to single out Roger for criticism - book value, A H Matlock, Ben, Dan (Laura Bush for president?!) Robert Waller and even Nick Palmer were saying similar.
You’d almost think Roger has a reputation or something…
9. Shocked by Edwards in the top 2? I’d be shocked if he wasn’t. The caucuses are going to be about organisation and savvy, and his operatives in Iowa have done it all before.
Lab gain Iowa!!!!!!!
12
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Poor Roger, our most consistent tipster
Good thing roger’s one of the most good-humoured posters here! He got the latest ICM right, after all - not many of us did. But yes, I cheerfully own up to discounting Obama last year. I still don’t think he’ll win, but he’s clearly in with a shout. I wouldn’t have thought Biden was, unless the two front-runners both implode for some unpredictable reason. Maybe a good trading bet at 400-1 though!
And thanks to seanT for his seasonal bit of goodwill on the last thread. Happy Christmas to you and your daughter too, sean.
See TB has become an RC: Tony for Pope?
16 Hmmm…can’t see it myself. But isn’t there a vacancy for the office of Archbishop of Westminster? I mean, he knows the Diocese and has one or two useful contacts there.
I’ve heard of sillier things.
7-Agree with you Ben…
Does anyone actually know why Blair has converted when he disagrees with many of its most basic tenets? Couldn’t he have just formed his own church?
Hilary does not need to win Iowa - All she needs to do is stop Obama from winning which is not the same - If she comes third by allowing Edwards to win she has stopped the Obama bandwagon from rolling - she is doing pretty well in New Hampshire, and tied in South Carolina but we won’t really know until Super Duper Tuesday !!!!
19 Yeah but then the same applies as he joined the Labour Party didn’t he. So he has track record in contrariwise behaviour………
19. He already did. It didn’t work and was called New Labour.
15 - Obama has at least a 30-40% chance of the nomination. Iowa is good ground for him. There was no pre-existing Clinton operation in place. Clinton’s harshness does not go down well. He is from Illinois, a neighbouring state. Iowa has a very poor record of electing women (at all levels - House, Senate, Governor). If Clinton wins Iowa I think it’s over, because she is stronger in NH.
However the polls in the other early states (NH and SC) are deadlocked. If Obama gets significant momentum out of Iowa he could win the lot. Also in his favour - he can fight until Feb 5th and has the resources to capitalise on any momentum. However Clinton (unlike Guiliani) has maintained her national lead at about 15-20 points. If she splits the early states with Obama this should mean she wins on Feb 5th.
Of course an Edwards win in Iowa would throw everything up in the air. However even if this happens I think he’ll struggle to capitalise on it. However he certainly still has a chance even if it is only in the 5-15% range.
On the Democrat side Iowa and New Hampshire will tell us a lot. If Edwards doesn’t win Iowa he’s dead in the water and I think Obama has to win both the early states.
20 - Stopping Obama winning in Iowa is pretty much what Hillary must hope for but if she comes third with Edwards winning it, then that could be almost as bad… NH is also very close and with so much of her support coming from her position as the “inevitable” candidate a loss in Iowa will have a negative knock on effect in NH, though if she manages second she should be safe, but it would be a very long way back from third IMHO.
http://www.electoral-vote.com/
This is a pretty neat site which I keep an eye on for the U.S. elections - living here you get a different perspective than the U.K. one - Iowa is pretty unrepresentative and is only a caucus not a primary and most people who win Iowa don’t win the presidency - not Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton to name two form Presidents
o/t what on earth is that archbishop talking about? he’s complaining about ‘atheistic fundamentalists’ in the same breath as ‘Islamic fundamentalists’.
One. It’s not atheism that’s leading people not to call Christmas Christmas. It’s secularism at best; but perhaps more accurately it’s jobsworths with an absurdly exaggerated idea of what they might get attacked for as insufficiently politically correct.
Two. As far as I know, no-one’s ever started a war on the basis of atheism, or in fact killed anyone. Yes Stalin repressed christianity, but he wasn’t primarily an atheist, that was just a side-line.
16 Someone suggested Pope Narcissus I.
I wonder why the Catholics want him, given that he appears to support none of the political stances taken by the Catholic bishops.
21,22 etc - it just seems a bit strange. When most people you read about converting to Catholicism give their reasons they cite things like the clarity of its message, and in fact its message itself compared to the wishy washy and constantly compromising fare on offer from things like the CofE. Whilst existing Catholics may disagree with some of the Church’s stances, it is pretty rare for people converting to do so, I would guess.
Also o/t (sorry).
If things carry on this badly for Brown for another nine months, say, surely someone will attempt a coup against him, won’t they? Obviously we’d need a prolonged period of muttering about his leadership first, which hasn’t really started yet.
Of course that would be a first, for a party to ditch two leaders while in power. But it would only be following recent examples in both the other two parties.
On the other hand, there’s no law that requires the recent disasters to be repeated.
I did not like it, but maybe it’s because I don’t agree:
“Can anyone win this thing?
History suggests problems for all”
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-071223chapman-story,1,2273396.column?ctrack=3&cset=true
Mike on the grumpy gordons. I think you’re taking the polls a bit too seriously. the margin of error is 3%, which means that the average polls is something like 1.5% out. A six-point fall in the Tory lead is likely to be (say) a three per cent fall in the population with the rest down to sampling error. Still good news of course, but we have to see the next few polls before getting too excited.
How up-and-down or higgledy-piggledy were the various potential candidates in previous elections? What would the graph for 2003 or 1999 or 1995 look like?
Oh, and what was the answer to the quiz question about prime ministers at the end of the last thread?
33. Didn’t anyone even attempt an answer?
What watching ‘what the papers say’. Interesting that Blunkett slags off bloggers in his speech. Not seen many blogs that are worse than his terrible Sun column.
34. Here’s the question again, then….
“Which PM was challenged in his seat by a dissident MP from his own party?”
Ramsay McDonald?
I remember watching Obama giving the keynote address to the DNC in 2004. At the time I knew immediately that he was a talent worth watching after such a superb speech.
After that, I have to admit I have a few quid on him at some very respectable prices… would be nice to have a winner for a change!
37. No, MacDonald was defeated by Shinwell at Seaham in 1935, but MacDonald was no longer PM, Shinwell was not a sitting MP and not a dissident…
28: Graham Greene springs to mind - became a strong Catholic while actively disagreeing with much of what they taught, and especially with the Papal line on various things. But the Catholic church is broader than generlaly supposed - they can be ruthless with bishops etc. who don’t toe the line, but quite accustomed to the rank and file dissenting (as any large church has to be) - in Europe, for instance, only a minority reject contraception. They’ll think him quite a catch - his global reputation is significantly higher than some punters here might think…
36: Chamberlain?
40. Didn’t the old roue Alan Clark become an RC shortly before he died?
41. Nope
36,
First guess would be David Lloyd-George
44. No
What do you mean by “of the same party”?
Does anyone know how much the Iowa Caucus and early primaries have swung polls in previous US presidential elections?
I know after maybe ten of them (in previous years) it was always either all over or down to two, with one fairly clearly ahead. But the first few can easily go different ways.
Obviously Giuliani thinks ignoring the first few is a reasonable strategy. But looking at the polls, and if they don’t shift much in the meantime, it’s likely to be Romney or Huckabee that wins most or all of them (given that there’ll be at least a few per cent movement towards whichever wins the ones there have been so far). It could quite easily be all over before super tuesday even arrives.
46. Some one who was a sitting MP from the same party, until they resigned or were expelled and then stood as an independent “same party” against the PM in his own seat at the General Election…
Harold Wilson?
49. No
Ignore that last guess. Doesn’t count.
I’d apologize if I thought there was the slightest chance that anyone had taken my advice but with my record there is about as much chance of that as David Cameron becoming the next Prime Minister……
Seriously well done Mike! If posters had followed some of his wackier suggestions by now they’d probably own Chelsea!!
re 52. Roger - Can I apologise for the headline - totally unfair but it sounded rather fun.
It’s great to know that all this is being stored for posterity at the National Web Archive and all the links I now use to back threads are to this source.
Someday in the future someone will get a well-earned doctorate writing a thesis on all you have published here.
I’ll give the answer to the PM question shortly, as it seems you’re stumped! Meanwhile….
Which seats were the only Conservative gains from third place since the War?
re 54. Seriously Rod - could you do a political trivia quiz like this on Xmas day for a couple of hours?
Already scheduled for Xmas morning is a PBC cross-word created by StJohn.
36. But you changed the question!!!
Earlier you asked
Which post-War PM was challenged in his seat by a dissident MP from his own party?
54 - Lincoln in 1979 is one.
36,
Major in 1992? (Thatcherite Conservative?)
49 Heath
55. I’ll have a go Mike, nothing formal
56. I have not! I have explained what I meant by “dissident” (@ 48)
57. You are correct. And the other?
58. No
59. No
I am more concerned that Tony Blair publicised it. Faith is/should be a personal matter. I am more concerned that Alastair Campbell said “We dont do God” when clearly they did.
What happens now…. if we have a PM devoted to the Ouija board. Its scary.
The conversion to Catholicism is odd. Blair doesnt come across as particularly Holy. He appears more a pathological liar with a lust for power.
Blair and Labour have damaged Britain so badly that Britain can barely look after itself let alone guarantee freedom in Europe as it has done in the past.
Britain is awash with illegal immigrants, amongst whom are certainly Al Qaida terrorists. The squandering of cash on Northern Rock, the Human Rights Legislation and the International Health Service means Britain will see years of conflict, poverty and starvation.
The Labour Party is missing him already. They would welcome him back as a saviour…
Come off it. Just because you’re a Tribal Tory, it doesn’t follow that you have to find a critical angle for everything.
Your post isn’t even consistent. You complain that Tony Blair has “publicised” his religious beliefs, and then complain that he didn’t.
Of course Christmas is a Roman invention, merging a paegan winter festival with a Christo-Judaic festival.
That makes it a tradition spanning 1700 years. One for the record books methinks.
Isnt it interesting how the lefties always try to eliminate Christmas, Cromwell and his Puritans, Stalin and his Gulags, Labour and their Political Correct Facism.
If such nutbats would ban it, it seems it has lasted one thousand seven hundred years for good reason.
64
I didn’t complain that Tony Blair didn’t, I complained that his spin doctor said … “We dont do God” when Tony Blair clearly did. There is a difference. I suspect it had a lot to do with N Ireland..and that its only come out now.
61 The only candidates then I can think of then thinking of major inter Party struggles would be SuperMac &Powellites and Attlee& the proscribed list
67. And you answer is?
68 - I’ll hazard a guess and suggest Clement Attlee being opposed in 1950/1 by one of the crypto-commies (Pritt?) expelled during the 1940s
68 Attlee I’d say
66 - Where have you been for 10 years? Everyone’s known that Blair was very religious for yonks.
The reason they never formally admitted it was because Campbell, very much the antithesis of Blair on the issue, argued that it would be a political deathwish.
69. You are correct.
The Labour MP for Manchester Rusholme, Lester Hutchinson, was expelled in 1949 over his opposition to NATO. He stood against PM Attlee in Walthamstow West in the 1950 General Election as an Independent Labour candidate, winning a mere 2% of the vote…
Completely O/T, but THIS is funny. Check out the comments at the end
Completely O/T but can anyone better Waller’s tagline about Ollie’s repeated escapes in Dorset West being a case of live and letwin
Mr Coral has finally woken up - McCain’s price for the GOP nomination reduced this pm from 9’s to 6’s. Ah well, the free money couldn’t last forever!
I’ve just got back from watching “Oliver Twist”, and
I haven’t read the rest of the thread yet, but
Just in case anybody hasn’t found the answer yet, it’s
Clement Attlee
Walthamstow West
1950
against Mr Hutchinson
Rather harsh on Roger - though while we’ve all made poor predictions in our time, some have made more than others. I didn’t take his advice but then I didn’t take yours either, so missed out on the excellent odds available at the time. I am slightly more pleased that I backed him more recently at 7.4/1 when the odds on Hillary had her all but ‘inevitable’.
I’ve also invested all of £2 in Gingrich as per my post in the previous thread! Probably a lost cause, but at 739/1 not quite lost enough to be money straight down the drain.
36. and 56. Oh yes you did change the question! You deleted the words “post-war” the second time around, thereby making people guess Chamberlain and Lloyd George and Macdonald etc…
76. Oh hang on, perhaps Hutchinson wasn’t an MP…
78. OK “post-war” would have made it a bit too easy.
Hutchinson was as much an (outgoing sitting) MP as Attlee was…
Another question, slightly more on topic (though not as on topic as it would have been for the last thread).
When was the last US presidential election when no member of the incumbent administration contested the election at some stage? I’ll admit now that I don’t know the positive answer, but have been able to find plenty of negative ones. If someone knows definitively, I’d be interested to know.
78. Oh hang on, oh yes he was the MP for Manchester Rusholme 1945-1955. Silly me, I forgot to check whether he was an MP, and then I forgot to check whether he wasn’t…
So anyway Eureka! because I got it right. I think.
71: I think it was admitted (if that’s the word - not really a shamefuil secret, though I’m not religious myself) - Campbell saw the pitfalls so urged TB not to discuss it, but the answer was always ‘yes, but it’s a private matter’.
69. and 72., and 81. and 78. and 76.: That’s what happens when I post messages before reading the thread. Bah humbug.
77 On the basis that I just couldn’t possibly live with myself having spurned a bet with odds of 739-1, I too have had 2 quids worth on Gingrich. I Look at it this way, if he wins, I’ll live off this in the pub for years, brandishing my Betfair statement for all to see, if however, he loses I’ll make sure I persuade someone at my local to buy me a pint (thereby more than recovering my investment), by promising to explain how I was suckered into this complete no-hoper of a bet, by this apparently otherwise respectable bloke on a betting website, no doubt amidst much merriment from my captive audience chortling “Poor old Peter, the old fool, ha-ha, tee-hee, etc.”
So Ben Bradshaw MP is exhorting GPs to extend their opening hours.
Some of my GP friends have been trying to get appointments with Mr Bradshaw’s constituency surgery (01392 424 464 to book an appointment). Needless to say no appointments are available.
Kettle and black come to mind
80. I’d guess 1896, when the Cleveland adminstration imploded over the issue of “bi-metallism”, and the Democrats nominated the youngest-ever candidate, 36 year old William Jennings Bryan….
85: they generally have more luck booking appointments at the golf club whilst us poor tax payers are still slaving away to keep them in the lap of luxary.
I would have thought that Cherie would have stopped Tony from becoming a Catholic. A religion that treats women as a complete underclass.
Oh she is a Catholic already!!!
86. btw, L. Frank Baum’s famous fairytale “The Wizard of Oz” is thought to be an allegory of this political controversy.
http://www.prosperityuk.com/prosperity/articles/wizzoz.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_interpretations_of_The_Wonderful_Wizard_of_Oz
86. Thanks. I knew it was before 1900, but didn’t have a good enough history of 19th century US politics.
84. Well, the way I see it is that the chances of there being a contested Republican convention are higher this year than they have been for decades. With four candidates in serious contention and another two on the fringes, delegates could be pledged in a far less concentrated pattern than normal. Add to that the front-loaded nature of the campaign and the way the candidates are concentrating on different strategies and it’s quite possible that there could be four or five still competing after Super Tuesday. If so, it’s quite possible that none could get the delegates needed in advance; there will certainly be less incentive to concede defeat.
If it does go to the convention, apart from giving the Democrats a massive advantage, it also opens up other possibilities. As has been noted, each candidate has at least one serious drawback. If the race for the nomination goes that far, these drawbacks will have been paraded in public for months, possibly bitterly. There is an outside chance that rather than haggle a deal for a damaged prospect, the party leaders could start floating alternatives. Of these, Gingrich seems one of the most plausible to me.
On a related topic, I remember a poster who works for Ladbrokes (Shadsy?) asked earlier this week if anyone had any info to help them compile a book on likely % vote shares for candidates in the Iowa caucuses.
I don’t know if anyone responded, but the prices are now up and I thought it might be a good challenge to see if any of pb’s regular punters could identify potential value and extract some cash from them.
Unfortunately, unlike the primary winner markets run by vcbet where its been easy to get good prices on Huckabee and McCain before their recent surges, these prices look pretty tough to assess as they’re based on 5% vote share bands between 20% and 45%.
I’ve got a few ideas I’m looking into now and will post a bit later on tonight, but in the meantime any comments are much appreciated.
90 Gingrich would be sheer madness. He’d wildly popular with the right but he wouldn’t win a statewide race in his native Georgia never mind the whole USA
As for convention nomination. It would depend if they could spin it as Democracy in action it could work to their benefit. OTOH if it degenerates into a series of ranting pat Buchanan style speeches (Bushe Snr had the nomination anyway)then they will be crushed completely
88 I think the only thing that has stopped Tony Blair from converting to Catholicism earlier was the pacticalities of the arrangements needed for his first confession - it is going to require quite a tag-team of priests!!
Most GPs in small family practices already work 11 hr days for their “lap of luxury”. If people want longer opening hours on anything like a cost effective basis then the only solution is to create the economies of scale from larger “supersurgeries”. It is only people who rarely use their doctor, however, who are attracted by such things.
91 - what do you think of the 7/4 against Edwards scoring 25%-30%? With only 3 viable candidates in the Democratic race and Edwards’ 32% score in 2004 these odds seem a little better than fair value.
94: My heart bleeds. I think you’ll find David Beckham’s on a lower hourly rate than most GPs these days.
Also - 12/1 against Romney continuing his downward momentum and scoring below 20%. It’s not the likeliest scenario but it’s surely not as remote as the odds suggest.
96 - I doubt you have more than a superficial knowledge of what the hourly take home pay of the average GP is.
“Obama, Edwards Go Long”
“In some ways, he[Obama] is competing as much against Republican John McCain as he is against his Democratic rivals.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119829367652846637.html?mod=special_page_campaign2008_leftbox
But you’ve got your prejudices so that’s ok.
95. It’s not bad for the Iowa caucus.
92. Never underestimate the ability of political parties to make the wrong decision (I agree with you that it would not necessarily be a wise move), but over here, parties managed to elect IDS and Ming despite both clearly not being up to the job - and that was despite a campaign length of six to eight weeks.
In fact, the two instances there are possibly instructive. Both were chosen at least as much for who they were not as for who they were. If it goes to the convention, who someone isn’t will matter. Add in the febrile atmosphere of several thousand politicos and journalists couped up in the same place and it’s possible to see how an oddball choice could get made. After all, if there’s no settled GOP candidate by September, the election is probably as good as lost anyway. Might not the delegates - partisans all, unlike voters in many primaries - choose one of there own, whereby if they are going to go down, they’ll choose to go down fighting?
Before I sound too positive about all this, I’m only suggesting it was value because the odds were topside of 700/1. Still, I do think that’s value (I personally wouldn’t lay at more than 100/1) and as PfP says, if it comes off, it’s one to dine out on for years!
100: yeah, just a taxpayer who can spot a pampered special interest group on the make from a mile off.
102. ‘their own’, obviously. :Cringe:
Yes a heroic win by watford today.
We have let our fans down over the last few games so we must be seeking 25+ points from the next 10 games to restore our credibility.
Politics: Obama will never be president, Camo will win the next GE
95. Given Edwards got 32% last time, and the fact that most caucus winners have historically got 30%+, isn’t the 16/1 for 30%-35% value a good proxy for him winning the caucus, for which he is currently 9/2, especially if Hillary voters switch to him to stop Obama?
106. Lets put it this way. Can we really see him getting less than 25%?
A winner is probably not going to get beyond 35%, given minor candidates.
My only worry is whether we do see a last minute shift away from one of the big 3 in the last days before the caucus. I’m increasingly of the view that the idea of a blanket 3-4 percent between the top 3 is less likely and whilst we’ll have two close, one will either be a bit further ahead or a bit further behind that the polls suggest.
The problem is who is going to be the one to lose out?
By the way where are these odds on Edwards being offered? I’d like a bit of those.
108 - http://www.ladbrokes.com then navigate your way in (politics as usual comes under “sport” then “specials”…)
91. Thanks for drumming up a bit of interest Caveman. I must have made a rick somewhere and I’m sure someone here will find it soon enough.
Ladbrokes. I got on Edwards to win at Iowa at 12/1 a few weeks back with Vcbet, but might top up as well. I think you’re right, one out of the 3 Dem front runners might lose out big time, especially the way the caucus works. Will post a bit moe on this in a minute or two.
110. Any chance of a McCain in Iowa set of odds?
111. As I said before, there’s a chance of tactial swing from Clinton to Edwards to stop Obama, so I’ve had some of the 33/1 for
…for Hillary to be
….
Caveman, if you want to type a less-than sign, key in < …
113-Yes, there’s an article in the NYT saying exactly this. It asks if Hillary is prepared to stay in third place just to give Edwards a victory. But Mike at 6 posted an article about Biden, and I’m starting to think that he can become a problem for Edwards. There are many voters that can change their minds, and if Biden continues his tour, he can pick some Edwards supporters…
113: I can’t see a tactical swing, caveman. Are you envisaging a deliberate strategy by the Clinton camp - start saying nice things about Edwards, reduce adverts, that sort of thing? It’d be a huge admission of weakness and a compliment to Obama. Conversely, a grass-roots decision by lots of Clinton supporters seems very unlikely. These guys get one chance in 4 years to give a strong pointer to the next President. They’ll want to use it to express their real preference. It’s not as though Clinton was a hopeless outsider so they’d feel they might be wasting a vote. I’d have thought a squeeze on Edwards’ votes more likely.
115 Dunno what happened there. To continue, my last long shot is that Obama loses out big time because
1) 3 Jan is not term time so he loses a lot of his young uni supporters who are not on campus, and
2) Iowa is a very white state, and with a creditable anti-Hillary candidate in Edwards, he may find his vote slips away when it comes to the crunch, so the 50/1 for less than 20% may be a good hedge for my long position on Obama for the nomination if it all goes titsup.
118. From memory, I think the caucus process for the Dems involves explicitly getting people to switch sides in each prescinct if they poll less than 15%, so there is tactical voting built into the process.
I note that the 50/1 Obama price I mentioned above neatly mirrors the 50/1 price the thread started with.
118. Nick, Seeing you’re about, how good do you think the 4/7 price Ladbrokes are offering for Northern Rock to be nationalised in 2008 is?
Edwards is 19/1 to score between 30-35% in Iowa, seem like value?
oops I meant 16/1
too much talking about political betting tonight
Yawn
Goodnight
120 - yes, but will there be many precincts where Clinton is getting less than 15%?
Northern Rock: I don’t have a qualified opinion on this, sorry.
No wonder no one is posting - this thread is so boring.
So:
BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!
126-LOL!
Not for those with a nervous disposition:
If you look at this page from the Office of national Statistics
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=574&Pos=1&ColRank=2&Rank=528
which shows that moderate flu years like 1998/9 have 45,000 excess winter deaths instead of 25,000
and this page from prescriber
http://www.prescriber.org.uk/2007/09/26/does-influenza-vaccination-reduce-mortality/
which links to the lancet saying that flu vaccination hasn’t been shown to reduce mortality in the elderly
and realize that the first influenza graph on this Health Protection Agency page
http://www.hpa.org.uk/infections/topics_az/influenza/seasonal/flu_graphmenu.htm
could be overlaid more or less perfectly on the excess mortality graph
And realise that we normally have a moderate ‘flu outbreak every three or four years (and a severe one every 20 or so, and a Bird-Flu type pandemic every century)
And remember that even the official statistics
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/Product.asp?vlnk=1814&Pos=1&ColRank=2&Rank=272
show bed occupancy routinely above 85%, while the reality for most (and particularly PFI schemes) the real rate is nearer 100%
http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/HealthcareAssocInfect~strategies~infection
http://www.news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7106938.stm
Then you should be really worried about the health prospects of a country whose government has removed every ounce (and more) of spare capacity in the last seven years of low illness rate
128 - thanks barry. Especially as this government hates the elderly (many of whom fought for our freedom during the war) and is content to let them die in squalid hospitals and ‘care homes’ whilst at the same time giving all our money to illegal immigrants and spongers…….
Can someone say something?
130 - i just did!
I agree with you this blog is getting too quiet. We need more incisive analysis - wheres mark senior LOL
131-Yes, we need more comments, I’m getting bored too early!!!
Now, seriously, you love Mark, don’t you?
Of course the elderly vote Tory is disproportionate numbers, so a good flu epidemic might swing things for Brown
132 - as we say on strictly ‘hes my favourite’ - i prefer camilla dallerup tho. And i really really like gabby logan
133 - the over 60s respect proper social and moral values thus dont vote labour. Labour likes giving money to people with illegitimate children. Remember conception outside of wedlock is WRONG
134- :LOL:
135 the smileys arent working are they - i tried a
the other day
136 - oops maybe they are!
Test: Paul Lloyd =
:lol: 
Oh they are working……
136-They worked for you!!!I will try again:
(LD manifesto 09)
139-LOL!!!!!
:lol: 
Wish we had some LDs for intelligent political commentary
“Mid-term blues in Fife”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article3087432.ece
FOR WHAT IT’S WORTH . . .
People who know people say that CLINTON camp was in circular firing squad mode until a few days ago, with key figures working overtime shifting blame to others . . . though all agreed real problem the candidate. Move by Bill C. people to take charge, but what about HIS own problem staying on message for Hilary? Some Clinton campaign politicos now expect her to lose Iowa . . . and are building what they hope is a firewall in New Hampshire.
141 “Wish we had some LDs for intelligent political commentary”
Not half as much as the LD’s wish they had some intelligent politicians.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!
143-You know that they can be lowering the expectations, because they can claim a victory even if Hillary doesn’t win…
Another IT triumph:
NHS trusts lose patients` details
Press Association
Saturday December 22, 2007 10:33 PM
Nine NHS trusts have admitted losing patients’ information in the aftermath of the HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) data loss scandal, it has emerged.
Hundreds of thousands of people are thought to have been affected by the breaches of strict data protection rules by the health service.
The losses were disclosed by the Sunday Mirror as police continued to hunt for two HMRC computer discs containing the details of 25 million child benefit claimants. Since the discs went missing in the post it has also emerged that three million motorists’ details have been lost in Iowa, in the American mid-west.
One of the NHS trusts involved - Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells - has reported two breaches to the Department of Health (DoH), meaning that 10 cases have occurred in total.
The DoH said it did not have details of how many patients were affected in each case as the breaches were being dealt with locally.
However, City and Hackney Primary Care Trust has reportedly lost the details of 160,000 children after a computer disc failed to arrive at its destination at St Leonard’s Hospital, east London.
The other trusts involved are Bolton Royal Hospital, Sutton and Merton PCT, Sefton Merseyside PCT, Mid-Essex Care Trust, East and North Hertfordshire, Norfolk and Norwich and Gloucester Partnership Foundation Trust.
NHS chief executive David Nicholson recently wrote to NHS managers reminding them of their responsibilities with regard to data handling.
A DoH spokesperson said: “Since the recent heightened concern about data protection a small number of trusts (nine) have reported breaches of their own security rules.
“There are strict guidelines and procedures for dealing with such breaches. Trusts have an obligation to inform patients where appropriate. There is no evidence of any data falling into the wrong hands. Investigations are under way in all the trusts involved and action will be taken against anyone who has failed to fulfil their legal responsibilities.”
ID cards anyone (not to mention the new NHS IT system, that will lose your records at the touch of a button
144: LOL
Just catching up with all the posts today. I’m amazed that the news media seems to have beserk over TB’s conversions. It’s not news let alone of the headline variety.
148 i agree - a complete non story
Here is a more interesting story:
SHEFF W 0 WATFORD 1
YESSSSS
141 - well Ave it, happy to oblige
I’d say the election map that you’ve drawn is pretty much spot on, except there will be a lot more than 25 yellow smiling faces come results day.
Keep going on the smileys and you’ll be about right after a few posts.
150 hello tpfkar, good to see the LDs still here!
I like the idea of being able to do smileys in different colours - Mike can you oblige?
Also can we have flashing smileys for election night (mainly blue ones) for ‘Con GAIN’ etc….
re 146 it’s still not too late to tell your GP that you don’t want your medical records putting on the NHS records system.
Goodnight all……..
153-GN Ave it…
“Alarmed allies warn Brown of defeat and call for fightback”
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/story/0,,2231778,00.html
Fewer than 300 posts combined on today’s two threads - the quietest day on PB.com I can remember and not a single reference to what’s in tomorrow’s papers.
Has everyone gone on holiday already?
156-PfP-I guess so, but, Andrew Rawnsley has a good piece about Brown:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2231809,00.html
134 Ave It 07 “Remember conception outside of wedlock is WRONG”
Does that mean that Mrs D and I have to go there if we want a Baby? Trouble is I can’t find “wedlock” in the Road Atlas or the SatNav.
“Watchdog called in over Tory donors”
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article3278495.ece
Hi Me - Yes it’s a good piece, I’ve always thought Rawnsley would have been somewhat more successful, e.g. in the Dimbleby mould, had he not worn his own political prejudices so obviously on his sleeve, thereby alienating a large element of his audience.
As regards the actual piece, I’m not aware that Brown actually did anything during the problems that beset his Government during its early days, apart from convening any number of Cobra meetings. It could also be argued that a number of these problems, e.g. foot and mouth, were of the Government’s own making.
159 Isn’t this an old atory?
I’m off to look at the right wing papers!
I’ll be back with any juicy bits.
Hello all. I’ve been an increasingly absent poster over the last few months - much change going on in the Cookson-lifestyle - but have still been hanging around. But just a quick post to wish all pb.commers a merry Christmas and a very happy 2008. And in repost to the discussion of the best Christmas song of all time (Fairytale of New York) that’s been had over the past couple of days, here’s the second best:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKm_zrxL0p0
Merry Christmas all!
I see Gordo has brought joy to some people today, at least…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7157565.stm
160-PfP-Yeah, I usually like Rawnsley articles. As for the early days of the Brown government, the press was mad, so everything that Brown did was amazing, and everything that Cameron did was crap. Now we have the contrary! This story about the Tory donors was revealed last week, i think.
“to look at the right wing papers!”
Nothing on the Daily Mail, the Telegraph still has yesterday comments, and the News of the World has nothing(yet)! What else?
162-Happy Christmas!
Well, how’s this for starters:
http://tinyurl.com/2bor2r
Bloody outrageous!
“And season’s greetings to you, Ozymandias”
By Matthew d’Ancona
“The truth is that, whatever his flaws, Gordon is the best that Labour has got. We know all about the weaknesses, and we shall doubtless see more of these frailties in 2008. But in the seasonal spirit of goodwill, I would identify four great strengths.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;jsessionid=E1B2YVHEHIATPQFIQMGCFGGAVCBQUIV0?xml=/opinion/2007/12/23/do2307.xml
166. Labour MPs say they will not back down.
“Our pay has fallen further and further behind other similar groups and we are not prepared to put up with it any longer,” said one.
“We now earn less than some Polish plumbers - and that cannot be right.”
That quote just beggars belief. If Labour MPs are that out of touch I can’t see any hope for them turning things around.
168. On the make while they can. Going to be tough for some to get a job afterwards.
I suppose it comes from council officers being on a fair bit more than the MP. Must be annoying.
169 Should MPs award themselves even half this suggested figure all bets are off as regards controlling pay in the public sector.
Sterling is already on the slide - hold onto your seats, here comes inflation!