Who’ll do be best getting supporters out on Thursday?
December 30th, 2007
Is anybody bold enough to call the Iowa caucuses?
Leaving aside the probability of a very major shock then the next resident of the White House will be one of the seven contenders featured above. And for each next Thursday night could be crucial. For one or two victory in their party’s caucuses is absolutely central if they are to stay in the race. For others a convincing performance could be a knock-out blow to other challengers.
- But how can you call such a complex voting system where not only do you have to get your supporters out but they need to be involved in a public act, in many cases amongst friends and neighbours, in order to make a difference?
As we saw in 2004 with Howard Dean a candidate can go into the Iowa caucuses with big poll leads and come out in third place. It was that night that propelled John Kerry into a position where he quickly became unassailable. The contender in second place then, John Edwards, has clearly learned the lesson and has devoted himself almost totally for several years to his Iowa campaign.
What about Obama? Could Thursday night be the moment when he demonstrates that the colour of his skin will not be a handicap to electoral success? Again he has put everything in and the stakes are very high. If he does not win then his aim, surely, is to ensure that he is the only viable anti-Hillary candidate.
At the moment the latest polls have all three pretty close but with Hillary having a small lead. There’s one bit of good news for Obama and that is that some surveys have shown him ahead amongst those who have been to a caucus before. The bad news for him is that a lot of his support comes from the young who are the least likely to go through the bother of actually attending.
The GOP race is equally fascinating. Huckabee’s polling leads are being squeezed but he does have considerable support amongst the state’s evangelical Christian communities and my guess is that they are probably going to be more likely to caucus. For Romney a good performance is absolutely crucial.
In the betting Clinton and Giuliani remain the favourites.
Mike Smithson
Politicalbetting.com - The Political Website of the Year
MessageSpace Advertising
I think people betting on Giuliani at this stage are pretty reckless. I don’t see his current strategy actually coming off, with the amount of coverage that anything out of Iowa and New Hampshire will get. The compressed primary calendar isn’t doing him any favours.
Of course this is difficult to call, but here’s my guess:
Democrats: Edwards 32, Clinton 29, Obama 27 = nobody’s out.
Republicans: Romney 31, Huckabee 25, McCain 15, Thompson 11, Giuliani 8, Paul 6 = Huckabee and Thompson out (+ Paul)
The people who have been working the patch for longest ought to have an edge in turnout - Romney, Edwards, maybe Obama? I don’t think Edwards win it, as i’ve argued before, but Romney might.
As the last thread turned into a seminar on electoral systems, I hesitate to mention it, but I always quite liked the Danish system. This is in principle strict list PR - your party gets 8% of the vote, it gets 8% of the seats (with minor exceptions that needn’t detain us). But you can choose to vote for a candidate on the party list in your region rather than the list as a whole. The party still benefits, but the people who get the seats in that area are the ones who got most individual votes. So you can choose not just to vote Tory but to prefer Clarke to Osborne or vice versa.
A flaw is that it’s possible to load the dice if the party assigns all its unspecified list votes to the guys at the top. But they don’t have to do that, and you might choose to vote for a party that doesn’t.
I think Obama and Romney will both win with nearly 10% leads, and the races for both will be blown apart, with possibly both Romney and Obama holding momentum to being the final contenders.
Nick Palmer- a much more important question- could our remaining cat (tyson) attack our very small puppy we just collected today. We are a bit worried and no one seems to know
4 Our cat decided very small puppy was a kitten and treated it as such for quite some time after puppy ceased to be a puppy.
Sorry for going off-topic so early, but I just noticed a great quote in a ‘Quotes of the Year’ compilation, and had to record it here for posterity:
“I predict that when I come back on this programme in six months’ or a year’s time, people will be saying, ‘Wouldn’t it be great to have that Blair back because we can’t stand that Gordon Brown?’”
- David Miliband on Question Time, February 2007.
What a foresighted man he is.
Anyway, my guesses for the winners of Iowa are Clinton and Huckabee, but those are just guesses, nothing more. The system there is, as Mike says, incredibly difficult to predict, and theoretically almost anything could happen. (Odds on Ron Paul winning Iowa, anybody?
)
1 If Mitt wins he’s in trouble. If Huck then Rudi’s gamble may look shrewd as Huckabee can’t win NH but will scare the GOP establishment into supporting Rudi. If McCain wins Rudi will under the greatest heat as McCain will scoop up all the independent and moderate GOP votes Rudi was banking on
2 Problem for Edwards is he has focused so much on Iowa does he have anything left in the tank for NH never mind the other states. I’m not sure Iowa alone can give him that momentum to overcome that. Kerry had the follow up organisation to exploit Iowa
Ted- thanks- that is appreciated. Did your cat ignore the puppy or try and mother it?
This is really interesting on the Democrat race in Iowa - ochallenges some of my thinking about Edwards having an organisational advantage in the state:
http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/12/28/223528/15
Hat-tip to Daily Kos http://www.dailykos.com
For the Democrats the nomination should go either way:
Hillary 1st Obama 2nd Edwards 3rd - Should eliminate Edwards and turn it into a race between Obama & Clinton and NH becomes a must win for Obama. Lose that and Hillary takes the nomination.
Edwards 1st Hillary 2nd Obama 3rd - I think this shuts the door on Obama and sets Hillary on the road to victory.
Obama 1st Edwards 2nd Hillary 3rd - If it’s very tight I think this just postpones the contest and Hillary has to win NH to win. If Hillary is some way off then I think we’ll have Obama as the winner.
Exciting times!
10. Me again. I forgot this permutation:
Obama 1st Hillary 2nd Edwards 3rd - I think this eliminates Edwards and turns it into a two horse race. If Hillary wins NH it’s going to be a longer contest, if Obama wins NH then he’s the nominee.
If the Democrats win the presidency, as seems likely, what difference would it make if Obama became President as opposed to Hillary. (Hillary, I like about as much as Gordo..) so I hope Obama wins.
One of the crazy challenges for the campaigns is how do you organise on the night. Generally the caucus venues open at 6.30 pm and the doors are closed at 7pm sharp. Late arrivals simply don’t get in.
This is not like a normal election day when you tick your supporters off as they go into vote and then you run a big knocking-up operation in the final couple of hours for those who have not turned out.
The smart campaigns organise a massive network of small groups who will gather in someone’s home and go together in the same car.
My only prediction is that next Thursday will produce at least one big surprise.
8 Tried to mother the poor dog in a foster mother/aunt sort of way but not very successfully - did manage to wash him a few times, occasionally cuffed him to behave and later tried to teach the poor dog to stalk.
You Tories really do have problems, don’t you, Ted (14)?
O/T - My 21-year old daughter asked me today if she needed her passport to travel to Edinburgh from the English Midlands.
The answer of course was “No”. However, if ID cards are made compulsory, then the answer would have been “No, but you’ll need your ID card.”
I’ve gone Evs Huck, Evs Mitt for Iowa. Is it even remotely possible that someone else could top the vote? I notice Mitt is still 7/4 with someone else.
Does anyone mind me posting the odd Ladbrokes update here? Naturally, I do it in the spirit of sharing information rather than free advertising, but I’ll desist if people thinks it’s vulgar and commercial. Aaron, you don’t get a vote.
Tyson at 4/5: Definitely the priority question. It’s hard to be certain but all the cases I know of range from affection to disdain with the odd swat if the puppy gets too close. I’ve never heard of a cat actually attacking. It’d be good psychology to make lots of the cat for the first few hours after the puppy arrives, so it doesn’t feel it’s been supplanted (the puppy won’t mind) and introduce them gradually - have the puppy in a separate room for a bit, then supervise the first meetings. If they go OK it won’t get worse; if they don’t get on at first it may get better but needs an eye on them until it does.
13: I noticed that Clinton’s people are organising pre-caucus parties with drinks and nibbles. That’d be illegal in Britain - treating the electorate!
15 missed the operative two words
MY CAT tried to mother the poor dog… etc
then she’s a strange cat - kids dropped crisps on floor over Christmas, my brother- in- laws dog (large german setter) went to eat them, cat hissed, swiped out claws, chased dog away then scoffed the crisps and begged for more.
16: No it wouldn’t. There is no proposal to make it compulsory for everyone even to have an ID card, let alone carry one.
17: Ladbrokes updates would IMO be harmlessly helpful to punters here, shadsy, though it’d be good if they were always identified as such - newcomers might not know you work for them.
Does Labour realise that, Nick? (ref. 18-13)
One thing that puzzles me is why Gore remains at about 35-1 for the Dem nomination on BF? Are his backers hoping that his throws his hat in for the primaries, or that the primaries are indecisive and he emerges as the nominee from a divided convention? For him to actually become the nominee seems very unlikely indeed, as it would require i) indecisive primaries; ii) Gore throwing his hat into the ring; iii) Gore actually winning the nomination.
Just wondering if I’m missing something because I’ve ended up with quite a large (for me) exposure on Gore?
21: realise that treating is illegal? Can’t speak for every CLP in Britain, and one hears of all parties occasionally doing odd things, but I’d have thought it pretty well-known. Strictly speaking you are not allowed to tell jokes to voters (treating is defined inter alia as “entertaining” them).
22 - there is no value in Gore at 35-1. He is liked but is seen as a loser. Not a chance. Spoke to a very loyal Democrat and Gore fan recently. He is very anti a Gore candidacy. This election is the Democrats to lose. The Dems know that Gore is the man to lose it for them. They would not pick him. He probably knows that and does not want to be humiliated. No!
Interesting poll update for any Iowa Edwards backers from last night, especially the 2nd paragraph…
http://politicalwire.com/
“John Edwards leads with 24%, followed by Sen. Hillary Clinton with 23% and Sen. Barack Obama with 22%. Edwards has the momentum since the last poll in early December gaining 3 points, while Clinton lost 4 points and Obama lost 3 points.
Key finding: Mirroring other surveys, Edwards gets the most second-choice support. When Richardson, Biden, Dodd, and Kucinich supporters are realigned, the poll has Edwards leading with 36%, followed by Obama and Clinton tied at 26%.”
I note Shadsy has tightened his odds since.
12 Hillary is the candidate the GOP is praying for. Their coalition is fraying and many parts of it especially deficit hawks are itching to force the party back to its roots by pulling the lever for Obama. Hillary is the only one who can force that GOP coalition to stay together
25. Just checked the actual poll data and it’s actually Edwards on 33%, not 36%, after 2nd choice realignment.
My two-penneth:
If Clinton wins Iowa it’s all over. She’s got the nomination. I think the momentum would carry her to victory in NH - and even if she did lose there, she would still have that important first victory under her belt and would probably retain her national lead for the following Primaries.
If Clinton comes third she *must* win NH to remain viable. She might still turn it around if it’s a very narrow losing margin in NH but it would be very difficult for her.
Second is more difficult to predict. She can definitely survive an Iowa second placing, especially if it’s a good one, but a victory in NH would then become pretty important. My guess is that if Edwards beats Hilary she’s got a better chance of turning it around - if Obama should win there might be more of that “man of the moment” feeling and he’d be best place to cement an Iowa victory with a NH win. And if he wins both, it’d be difficult for Clinton to claw back effectively.
27 - also note that the other poll showing Clinton 4% ahead is marginally more recent.
25. I put my £20 on Edwards on that basis yesterday, although the Daily Kos link I posted at 9 suggests he’s doing well in spite of the circumstances in Iowa, not because of them.
17 - Allowing the poachers an updated view from the gamekeeper’s perspective is most welcome!
23 - That really assumes that listening to your local MP tell jokes is either a ‘treat’ or ‘entertaining’!
Predictions are good fun but a bit ridiculous for the Dems when the polls are showing close to a dead heat and the mechanics of the caucuses are so complex. FWIW I think Edwards narrowly from Obama narrowly from Clinton - on the basis of second preferences which should break more heavily for the “change” candidates.
The real question is, where are the value bets at the moment? I think Republicans at 2.7 for winning party (Betfair) is a price that is virtually guaranteed to move in later on, unless they nominate a complete loony..
Hi guys,
First post - I was wondering if there had been a discussion about Bloomberg either entering or even winning. There seems to have been some money for him and if you search on newsnow.co.uk for his name there appears to be some recent suggestions of the possibility that he’ll enter the fray (albeit in February/March)
Thanks
Charlie
17 - Personally, I find your updates interesting. I agree that Iowa will very likely be between Huck and Romney for the GOP, and that your competitor’s (Skybet?) 7/4 on the latter looks very generous (he is odds-on on Betfair).
31 - Ladbrokes have narrowed Edwards to win in Iowa from 6/1 yesterday to 4/1 today. Value, with hat-tip to Caveman and Shadsy, is Edwards to get 30-34.99% of the Iowa vote is at 7/1 (Ladbrokes), which is the range of vote he got 4 years ago coming second to Kerry.
32 - I brought it up a while ago, and “Slec (from NY)” (who is a very astute commentator) rubbished the idea that Bloomburg would enter, as he didn’t feel Bloomberg would enter unless he could win.
For my part, I am still skeptical. If a billionaire ever stood a chance, he would need to have held executive office, be from a big state, have massively deep pockets, be from the centre of the political spectrum, have allies on both side of the partisan isle, and not be facing an incumbant President or VP. If that is not this year, it is never, and I don’t think Bloomberg is reconciled to never. If Hillary and Rudy do *not* make the nomination, then I would expect his odds to shorten suddenly.
32 - Update: I’ve just trawled the various markets that are taking bets on Bloomberg. Betfair are taking 34 (just outside Edwards) for him to be next President. Better bet is http://www.InTrade.com which has him at 1% to be next President, or 1.9% for any third party to win the Presidency, and is only about 8% for Bloomberg to enter as an Independant candidate at all. There’s probably some value here if the GOP and Dem races get close, but I can’t see it happening.
From The Sunday Times
December 30, 2007
Doctors revolt on patient records
Eileen Fairweather
SENIOR doctors are encouraging a mass revolt against the government’s £12 billion national health database by supporting a campaign to urge patients to opt out.
Activists in the British Medical Association (BMA) have produced a pro forma letter that people can send to their GP to stop their records going onto the database.
The doctors fear that patients’ records could be misused if they are made available to health workers across the country, as is planned under the Connecting for Health system.
The campaign is modelled on the recent widespread protest against excessive bank charges, which was also coordinated through the internet. The letter can be downloaded from the website of the BigOptOut campaign, nhsconfidentiality.org.
Dr Paul Cundy, chairman of the BMA’s general practitioners IT committee, helped compose the protest letter.
He said: “Some doctors are actively encouraging their patients to rebel. This letter is an easy way for patients to express the rights that the BMA feels they ought to have by default.”
Can somebody clarify something for me?
Betfair is offering “Hillary to be President” at 2.08, but if you accept 2.04 you can place up to £1500.
On the “Next President to be female” you can *bet* (not lay) “NO” (the next President will not be female) at 1.91, but if you accept 1.90 you can place a £500 bet.
If you put £500 on each market at 2.04 and 1.90 respectively (to place larger bets), you would win £1080 if Hillary wins, but £980 if she loses (if the next President is a man), having paid £1000. So for £20 liability (potential loss), you would make £80 profit if Hillary gets the nod, which is 4/1 on Hillary for President, vs the evens of actually betting on her any other way.
Have I missed something, or is this pretty good value?
O/T - does anyone else bet on F1? I see Kovalainen is 12/1 on ladbrokes - looks excellent to me - likely to be in one of only 3/4 cars that can win and nothing last year to suggest he can’t do it. + he is finnish.
hmmm - just checked on wiki - appears there are some things last year to suggest that Kovalainen can’t do it - but I seem to remember that he had the raw pace quality that’s required of champions.
37 - but as these are different markets, aren’t you effectively tying up £1000 for 11 months (or longer if disputed) to win less than 1% of your stake.
I know that this isn’t a betting point, but isn’t it great that we’re going to soon see the back of GWB! I wonder if he will go out with a bang or a whimper! Going to be an interesting year…
This may be helping Edwards:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1207/A_527_twofer.html
34 Thanks for that, Morus! Very useful.
re 34 again
Cheers Morus
Personally I think if he runs he’s only got a 20% chance of winning (depending of course who he’s up against) and there’s probably now a 50% chance that he’ll run (just have a look at some of the recent newsflow). so that makes him around 10/1 but you can still get 33/1 at ladbrokes and paddy power which seems a little generous (depending on your view of his chances of success of course).
40 - Exactly 8% - better than my non-existent savings account interest rate, and I get to add £80 to next year’s winnings!
In all seriousness, I don’t have the liquidity to lock up a grand for such a small bet (though some people might) - it was more the principle of getting 4/1 on Hillary! I’m all about moral victories in the absence of profit!
44. I’d be delighted to lay 4/1 if he declared.
45/46 - I don’t think we could put odds on Bloomberg winning the Presidency without knowing who he’s running against. If Hillary or Rudy make the top of the ticket, he loses New York, so forget it - if Obama or McCain are the nominees, then Independents are spoken for, and he has no political oxygen.
If the GE is Edwards v Huckabee/Thompson (less than 10% likelihood, surely?)- then the likely outcome is NOM of the Electoral College, because Bloomberg would pull some less-aligned NorthEastern states (esp NY as favourite son, CT, NH, VT, DE) out of play - though I can’t see him winning outright, which means the election goes to the House, and Edwards wins on partisan grounds. Either way, I wouldn’t take Shadsy’s offer at 46!
“Will Edwards Really Win Iowa?”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/30/will-edwards-really-win-i_n_78792.html
Some thoughts regarding the last thread:
(1) Choosing the number of Lords on the basis of how big the benches are is so contemptable its not worth considering.
(2) The idea that we should aim for a “golden triangle” of democracy, monarcy and aristocracy because some philosopher from another political system and millenium thought so is ridiculous. Plato’s political beliefs were extremely influenced by the events of Athens in his lifetime and have no relevance to the successful democratic world of today.
(3) The main purpose to a second chamber is to check the power of the first. It needs to have sufficient power to do this.
(4) If the second chamber is to have enough power to check the first, it needs to be apportioned its votes fairly. If we have “quotas” from certain groups, then the future of the British political system depends on the arbitrariness of how big each quota is.
(5) We can easily maintain expert views without affecting the democratic balance of voting by having non-voting members. It’s the best of both worlds: why are people not taking this up?
(6) Having non-partisan fair minded peers is all well and good, but people from different backgrounds would still come to different conclusions. Thus having a group from a particular background (hereditaties) is not really fair.
(7) Seeing that numerous studies have shown that when voters don’t know much about each candidate, name recognition is everything, systems which have too many candidates up are highly flawed. Thus STV, with its 30+ candidates per constituency would be a very bad idea.
(8) Considering the problem with incumbency advantage. For a lower house, why don’t we have an all-party primary for each constituency based around AV? Primaries work very well as the politically aware look into every candidate yet still allow the less aware to have a say when the main election comes round. You could have an AV primary, with the top candidates going head to head when everyone else pays attention.
34 Morus I think it would have to be Hillary or less possibly Edwards for the Democrats as they are the most polarising figures. Obama I think could possibly cause him to back off as he has huge appeal ro the center where he’d be aiming. Ditto McCain. Rudi although not polarising outside the GOP is inside.He could make things really messy by provoking a kamikaze Christian Coalition candidate making it a four way fight. The first since well 1860 really! Exciting times
Just one word of warning. For the leading candidates, a loss in Iowa is not in any way fatal and shouldnt be seen as such.
Regarding Bloomberg:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/29/AR2007122901476.html?hpid=topnews
I am missing lab GAIN’s input.
Con gain loads
I’ve posted this before Bloomberg’s apparent ideal is an Obama/Romney set up.
49 - I am very rarely made angry by what I read on here, but I confess you have disappointed me, Socrates.
(1) As a matter of common courtesy, I think it out of line to describe an innocent view expressed on pb.com, even had it been meant seriously and not in jest (as the ‘fit on the benches’ remark clearly was), as “contemptable”. An apology is owed, though not expected.
(2) To say that the ideas of Plato are irrelevant because he was influenced by his time and place is beyond reason. Those ideas formed the foundation of political philosphy that supported all systems of government well into the modern age - it is our intellectual inheritance, and an understanding of its applicability (especially when talking about an unwritten constitution so reliant for its authority on continuity) is dismissed only by a fool. Any significant changes to our constitution affect the future of that constitution far beyond our lifepans - it is our duty to ensure that we demonstrate that we have an understanding of such major themes for the purpose of future intelligibility. This helps any such work approach, though fail to attain, a state that is satisfactorily capable of being re-interpreted *sub specie aeternitatis*. Of course they require re-examination and updating, but to ignore them simply because they are not the product of the modern world is faddish and arrogant. To ignore intellectual history in rewriting a national constitution would be a grave mistake - I’m sorry that is not immediately apparent.
(3) I cannot, and will not, address the fallacies of points (3) to (8) until you are prepared to think, study and show courtesy before you engage in debate.
L
O
L
O
L
O
L
Some people take his site too seriously………
54 I can see Romney but Obama why?
55 see 50 I think
55.
(1) I did not mean to offend and my words were probably poorly chosen. I was referring to the idea, rather than the person arguing the idea. (In fact, I did not even remember who had mentioned it as I scanned the previous thread - no personal criticism was meant.) I was just trying to point out what I thought was a silly offthought; had I known the idea of matching representatives to benches was dearly held I would have been less dismissive. I apologise.
(2) I’m not arguing that Plato is irrelevant. It just appeared to me that the virtue of the “golden triangle” mentioned in the last thread was only justified by the fact that he had argued it. I disagree profoundly on Plato’s arguments on this matter (as I do with most of his views), and had other justifications been argued for why this triangle is “golden” I would have debated it on those terms.
57/50 - So we agree Obama and McCain steal his natural constituency of independents, but you don’t see the same threat to Bloomberg in Hillary and Rudy because you think he would benefit from facing polarising candidates - is that right?
I wouldn’t dismiss that, but although Hillary and Rudy *are* more polarising, if Bloomberg is going to waste his billions on a long-shot, it’ll be when he has at least a small chance. The only chance a third party has is of threatening early to seriously carry a big state, so you are not dismissed out of hand. For Bloomberg, that big state is New York, and I cannot see an independent ever beating a ‘favourite son’ from the same state as them, given party machinery.
If it’s Hillary or Rudy, he would do better to sit it out until there are no New Yorkers on the ballot. Incumbancy is beatable - not even being guaranteed your home state makes you a no-hoper.
59 If it’s Hillary and not Rudi or vice versa I can see it. But both would mean a close fight if it was the two of them and Bloomberg would have a chance in that mix. Besides remember Bloomberg is the Mayor in NYC, only HRC is there (as an absentee Senator)so who has the incumbency in NY its Bloomberg. So this is his time if he’s going for it. While he’s Mayor, while there is no P or VP is running as you say. It’s an expensive bet but if he’s prepared to take the hit why not
Rudi as I say though could make things very messy with the first four way fight since 1860. No Civil war this time though!
why can’t I post?
61 - you just have!
61. The anti self-importance filter must have briefly flickered into life.
Socrates - I have been trying to post an apology for being an idiot. Angry at something unrelated, and your post just happened to be the straw with the camel-thingy. Will hopefully get to discuss Pol Phil at the pb.com party, but will never bring it up online again, I promise!
63 - … and I thought I caused the damn thing to overload weeks ago …
Glad to see we are calming down here.
Whilst here i just want to say that paul lloyd and mark senior are amongst my favourite posters here!
and lab GAIN is my special favourite…..
OP - “There’s one bit of good news for Obama and that is that some surveys have shown him ahead amongst those who have been to a caucus before. The bad news for him is that a lot of his support comes from the young who are the least likely to go through the bother of actually attending.”
The first and second sentences of this excerpt contradict each other on a simple reading. Some thoughts:
1. Is there any data to back the assertion that the young favour Obama, or is it just a truism?
2. Is it particularly the more “committed” young Democrats who favour Obama, who do so precisely because they are more politically motivated (and therefore left-wing). Not that this did any good for Howard Dean.
3. Perhaps Obama draws support from all over, except less so from the less politically involved who may be telling the pollsters they back Clinton because of name-recognition, familiarity, the “soap-operaness” of having Bill back in the White House, Clinton succeeds Bush, who succeeded Clinton, who succeeded Bush.. it has a sort of “Albert Square” appeal… Twas enough to propel George W Bush to the White House (with the party hierarchy behind him, as it mostly is behind Clinton I think)
2008 is good as its only two years away from the election!
Two years
It will only be two years
It will only be two years
Etc
60 - Only four-way I see is if Bloomberg and Ron Paul both run as independents. The Christian Right will sit it out/vote for a harmless third party, and wait for four years, rather than completely cut themselves away from pragmatic politics by challenging the official GOP nominee, surely?
Completely OT & because I won’t be online at the start of the New Year, & because I didn’t contribute to the Christmas quiz, & because I’ve been on the sauce & because I’m an exiled league fan a brain teaser for you. Which three Super League teams don’t have Labour MPs & which one has the largest parliamentary majority?
70 I’d have thought so. But as soon as some loon wavews photos of Rudi as Marilyn all bets could be off possibly
71 - st helens. con maj 25,250 (sefton central). At least after next GE
71. Leeds, Harlequins and Catalans? (second with biggest maj?)
Harlequins = london = 0 Con mps = good news
Four years ago, Dean didn’t go into the Iowa caucuses ahead in the polls - Kerry was ahead in most of the polls in the week before the caucus. http://www.pollster.com/blogs/the_ghost_of_caucus_past.php
What happened in 2004 suggests that rather than the percentages of support, the thing to look for is direction of travel - turnout amongst supporters of candidates whose support has been ‘on the up’ is much higher than candidates for whom it is slipping (even if both are on, say, 25% in the polls). Which would suggest that at the moment Edwards should be favourite to win Iowa.
17 Shadsy
Just got back in and noticed your query.
I cannot for the life of me see why anybody here should object. It’s good for the Site and good for punters that we have a representative of one of the Majors passing on thoughts and information for everybody’s benefits. If Ladbroke’s get a little free advertising out of it, that seems fair enough for me.
I think Aaron has on occasion been concerned that his views should not be seen as necessarily representing those of his firm, but that’s a matter for him and his employer and the same I am sure applies to your and your firm.
Personally I think you are both a great asset to the Site and if Ladbroke’s and Bet365 get a little more business because of your contributions, good luck to both of them.
64. As I’m in the Midwest of the United States, I’ll be unable to make it to any party.. but you’re quite welcome to discuss any differences of opinion online. I welcome dispute and debate - it’s the opportunity to increase wisdom on all sides.
70. Although I don’t think it will happen, I would look forward with glee to a Huckabee nomination. I would love the religious right to realise how much they have been manipulated by the GOP’s big business establishment over the years. The latter’s inevitable undermining of a Huckabee candidacy would reveal it for all to see.
“london = 0 Con mps = good news” Are you sure Ave it..
66 Ave it Yes, I was just going to mention that you “lost it” a few weeks ago!
As for the filter mentioned by ghost in the machine at 63, i had a post that never appeared at around 9.30 this morning. Funnily enough, I thought it was rather important! I couldn’t even get an answer out of Mike when I sought information on its progress. I feel better now I know of the filter - whether it will affect my posts positively, I rather doubt. Especially after a session - 10 rounds, I think, with the Eurosceptics this afternoon!!
78 - Sorry you won’t be there…I would be more than happy to discuss such things online, but I will not stretch the patience of pb.com any further tonight! I also have to go and try to recover a week’s wages from the lucky **** who just broke my ace-high flush on the river by forgetting to fold.
Good night all.
74. Quite right Ghost, just trying to see who was on the ball, nightmare trying to find out the Perpignan election result though, the French media seems to archive news very quickly. On a betting point of view, who’re people backing for Super League 2008?
79 aaaaaaagh!
Its gone wrong!
Post clarification: Con rule everything inc london
Good job ‘Ave it 07′ is finishing soon.
83. Lib Dem gain Buckingham!?
83. Will he not rise from the ashes, to spread Conservative propaganda as widely and thoroughly as he has this year?
49.(7) STV wouldn’t have 30+ candidates per constituency; c.15 would be more likely.
49.(5) One of my random thoughs sometimes has been that if an assembly were elcted by a list system, then the number of representatives elected from the lists/parties should be proportional to the turnout; the others would be non-voting members who could speak but not vote, and would be chosen randomly from the electoral register e.g. like jury service. For example, an assembly with 600 members and a turnout of 60% would only have 360 candidates elected proportionally according to the votes. The idea comes from the Weimar republic, which IIRC had a list system based on a quota of 60,000 votes per seat.
85. No, I have the feeling he’s like the ghost of christmas present, one quick hurrah, then never to be seen again!?
85 - a new even more sophisticated force will arise in 08.
Its the future.
Just to clarify:
CON GAIN EVERYTHING HUGE 08.
Lab GAIN = *NSync (regular posters here know this to be Bye Bye Bye)
O/T The gloves are off in the London Mayor contest - see:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3111446.ece
89. In the end, the word buffoon should come with a piccy of Boris in the OED, he is a joke.
86. Yeah, coz Weimar turned out just fine…
91. You’re completely missing the point I was making, I notice…
How about Second-Past-The-Post? It would make for interesting tactical voting.
92 - I prefer the idea of evicting candidates in successive ballots as to who you would least like. Last past the post?
46
Shadsy - move him out to 50/1 tomorrow and you would be welcome to some of my money!
“David Cameron: I’ll tear up the EU treaty even if it has been signed”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=505286&in_page_id=1770
46
come on Shadsy!!
http://www.madison.com/wsj/home/opinion/index.php?ntid=264687&ntpid=1
“Brown must graciously accept this olive branch”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2233602,00.html
“Lord Ashcroft’s cash extends size of Tory targets”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3111441.ece
“Why Gordon Brown should have a happier new year”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/tim_hames/article3110927.ece
22. Mike O’Carroll - Bit late in the day but here’s one possibility - The convention gets so tied up with a tied vote amongst the delegates that a consensus candidate emerges and they nominate them instead.
35-1 on Gore however is pretty shoddy - Either they haven’t updated their odds or they’re just leaving it on there to tempt people in who aren’t away that he’s pretty much out of the race now
Me@95: Reading the actual article, the headline looks a bit misleading. What Cameron actually appears to have said is that he would “not be content” and “address that issue at the time”.
Presumably in practice he’d follow the standard MO of every government since the 1970s and make a bit fuss over some minor but symbolic issue, get a concession in return for something more substantial but harder to understand and come home declaring victory.
Back on topic, Timothy (likes Zebras)@68 asked: “Is there any data to back the assertion that the young favour Obama, or is it just a truism?”
Apparently there is quite a bit of data suggesting that Obama’s support is younger and better educated.
Here’s Mark Blumenthal:
“In virtually every survey, including those in Iowa and New Hampshire, Barack Obama does best among younger, better educated voters while Hillary Clinton’s base of support is older and less well educated. Consider the data from the Boston Globe/University of New Hampshire survey conducted last week: Obama wins the support of 47% of voters age 18 to 34, but only 22% of those over 65; 40% of those with graduate degrees but only 25% of those without a college degree.”
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/polling_on_the_dark_side_of_th.php
A lot of the polls so far should already be factoring in likelihood to vote based on age, previous caucusing history, etc, so this isn’t necessarily bad news for Obama; If more young people turn out than the pollsters have guessed, he wins, and if fewer turn out, he loses.
There was an article somewhere recently suggesting that Obama wins on a bit turnout, Hillary on a medium-sized turnout and Edwards on a small out. I’m going to be audaciously hopeful on this guess, with very little confidence, that the Democrats who failed to turn out last time and ended up with the “electable” Kerry are going to learn from history and fail to repeat it, meaning a big turnout resulting in:
1) Obama, 2) Clinton, 3) Edwards
But what with likely second-preference shenanigans and potential inter-campaign home-made-cookie-deliciousness disparities, the whole thing is anybody’s guess…
Who counts as the candidate in the lead in the opinion polls for the purposes of the 2007 predikshun competition?
P.S. 101. I have just checked the archives from January, and the akshal question was
On Christmas Day 2007 who will be…?
8. Leader based on average of the three latest polls in race for the Democratic nomination (100 points)
9. Leader based on average of the three latest polls in race for the Republican nomination (100 points)
What counts as “the three latest polls”? Nationwide? Selected states only? Specific reputable polling organisations, verified by Lord Smithson as being reliable and using proper methodology? Any old half-baked report without giving details? When is “latest”? Publication date or fieldwork?
It was OK a year ago when McCain was way ahead, but now it looks ever so fuzzy. Depending on what the answers are to the above questions, might it be possible to allow more than one of the candidates as a “correct” answer for the purposes of the bompetition?
I am usually quite bad at these sorts of predikshuns on this site, so I’m not expecting it will make any difference to me, but maybe it will be helpful to others if you clarify exactly what counts as a correct answer and why, before you give the official results.
102: Obviously nationwide, no?
Which pretty much makes the other questions moot - however you cut it, it’s going to be Clinton and 9ui11ani.
Rep: http://tinyurl.com/2woo7f
Dem: http://tinyurl.com/2cd544
103. Oh I see - I hadn’t realised that Giuliani was still ahead of the others as clearly (and as consistently) as that. I was thinking it should be nationwide polls, except that I was assuming that there might not be any meaningful ones at this stage - after all, it is the state primaries and caucuses which everybody is focusing on.
103. I notice on that page a bit which says
Intrade Political ‘Securities’ Percentage US$ Traded
Hillary Clinton to be the Democratic Presidential Nominee in 2008 67.5% $3.6M
and so on - is that like some sort of futures market? If so, how does it differ from “betting”? I thought online betting was illegal in the USA…
After warning against her for so long - becuase the odds showed an inevitability that wasn’t there - I now think that Hillary will get the nomination. The Republican should be Giuliani or McCain (Giuliani obviously a big favourite out of those two) but I can still see it going all the way to the convention.
Iowa predictions:
1. John Edwards (34%)
2. Hillary Clinton (25%)
3. Barrack Obama (20%)
4. Joe Biden (14%)
5. Bill Richardson (5%)
The longer this race goes on, the more I like Obama as a candidate. But sadly for him, I think John Edwards’ organisation is going to see a surprisingly good victory for him, while Clinton’s support base should be strong enough to get her in second (she’s polling very well right now). I just fear that, especially with the closeness to Christmas and bad weather, Obama is going to struggle to get his people out and Biden could even run him close. I hope I’m wrong!
Republicans:
1. Fred Thompson (21%)
2. Mitt Romney (20%)
3. Mike Huckabee (19%)
4. John McCain (16%)
5. Ron Paul (12%)
6. Rudi Giuliani (10%)
As my percentages suggest, this one is wide open and I can’t believe anybody really knows what’ll happen. While I don’t really buy into Huckabee, he’s helped by the closeness of the caucuses to Christmas, meaning nobody can really get their teeth into the negative stuff. I thought for ages that Romney would win this one and, while he’s definitely been hurt by recent news stories, I still wouldn’t rule him out just because nobody looks attractive right now. But I figure he’s lost enough support to Giuliani and McCain in recent days to allow Thompson to surge to the front of the field. It’s a really left-field prediction and I’m probably wrong but that’s what my gut tells me! McCain is surging well and his figure of 16% would definitely be an above-expectations finish that would help him into New Hampshire.
New Hampshire is where this race really kicks off, and I think McCain has done enough to win their now. The real question is whether Giuliani can hold off his resulting surge in Michigan. That’ll be the clincher.
By the way, Edwards’ poll numbers are surging in New Hampshire. It suddenly looks possible that any momentum he gained in a good Iowa showing could translate into a good NH showing. Suddenly he looks to be running a Romney-esque strategy whereby victories in Iowa and NH lead to unstoppable momentum. A bit far-fetched at the moment but it could happen…
the Romney-Huckabee ad spat in Iowa is eerily reminiscent of the Dean-Gephardt negativity four years ago. Will it backfire as spectacularly this time? McCain, Thompson and Paul would be happy beneficiaries!
Ron Paul is going to make an impressive showing in Iowa Caucuses…anywhere from 3rd to 1st, depending on the weather. And Ron Paul is going to be anywhere from 3rd to lst in New Hampshire…probably closer to lst. I know you Brits dont pay attention to Ron Paul, because both the mainstream media and the GOP neocons are either in so much denial about his strength in this election OR they are so afraid of him that their only hope, at this point, is to ignore and exclude him, hoping that the hundreds of thousands of grass roots supporters wont catch on…but that is not working either.
IF Ron Paul does NOT get the GOP nomination, (which he might not, just because the GOP would rather see Hillary get the nomination, than Ron Paul), then Hillary will win, even though most Democrats dont want her either. Democrats WILL vote for Ron Paul over Hillary, most Americans will vote for Ron Paul over any other Republican, IF and ONLY IF, they hear what he stands for.
So, here is my prediction: IF Ron Paul is nominated …he will Win.
If Hillary is nominated, she will Win…unless her opponent is Ron Paul.
If Hillary is NOT nominated, and Ron Paul is not nominated, then the Republican will win…Huckabee and Romney and Guiliani can NOT win against any Democrat, but McCain or Thompson, can win against Obama…but not against Edwards…that is too close to call.
If this sounds confusing….it is.
However, this I know…IF Ron Paul is nominated, and he WILL be, unless the NEOCON Republican Party is able to use the Mainstream Media and the “system” to keep him from being nominated, he will win.
Ron Paul can and will beat any Democrat, but Hillary can probably beat ant Republican….other than Ron Paul.
A real dilemma for the GOP…and, since their convention is AFTER the Dems…they are going to wait till then to decide if they will ALLOW Ron Paul to take what is due to him.