It’s showtime in Iowa
January 3rd, 2008So who’s going to do best out of tonight’s caucuses?
After months of fundraising, debates, speculation, and poll-watching, the moment has finally arrived, and the Iowa caucuses, the first time that people actually get to vote on the merits of the rival candidates, are here. The caucuses kick off at 1am UK time and C-Span’s streaming coverage will start at midnight (7pm ET).
The Betfair Iowa markets are now “in-play” and have Obama and Huckabee as strong odds-on favourites to win their party contests. There has also been significant trading on the main nominee markets, with Hillary drifting to 1.61 (Obama now at 2.82), while the GOP has a virtual three-way tie, with with a recently-strengthening McCain just in front at 3.95, Rudy at 4, and Romney at 4.1, with Huckabee available at 7.
An Obama win would arguably make New Hampshire virtually a “must-win” for Hillary, while if Huckabee can see off Romney in Iowa, this is good news for McCain in NH and also for Giuliani who will not want to see Romney getting too much momentum before the end of January.
As tonight’s coverage unfolds, the following sites may also prove useful:
Any more weblinks carrying live results etc would be welcomed (does anyone know if the official results are posted by the parties anywhere?), plus any rumours, results as they arrive and moves on the markets. Posts from the US or even Iowa itself would be extremely useful.
Paul Maggs “Double Carpet”
Guest Editor
Mike Smithson returns tomorrow
MessageSpace Advertising
Surely it all depends on the margin of victory as opposed to the placing?
For instance if Iowa goes 31 Obama/30 Edwards/29 Clinton (hypothetical, I know), surely that doesn’t place as much pressure on Clinton as a 37 Obama/34 Edwards/19 Clinton result would?
Obama is the man to watch in this election. If he does well enough it will give him credibility and momentum to swing through to New Hampshire. Clinton must also put up a good fight simply to show that she can regain momentum for the primaries.
I have no personal gut feeling. Any candidate could theoretically win. The only thing I would say at this moment in time is I don’t *feel* (scientific I know) that Clinton will win, but that this doesn’t necessarily convert into her coming third.
Can I also just say, before anyone else comments, how bizarre I find this whole nominating lark?
Why is one of the smaller states in the Union given so much influence? It’s like, for instance, the residents of Cumbria having first shout in who the next Lib Dem leader should be. What’s more, it’s not even a straightforward democratic vote but a process which involves wandering around village halls and standing in corners!
Maybe if it wasn’t given such national attention it would be OK as a kind of ‘indicator’ of how the ‘everyman’ thinks. But this thing can make or break a candidacy! It is thoroughly undemocratic and absurd.
Sorry, “greatest democracy in the world” but I just don’t get it!
2 Is it really any worse than candidate for leadership elections in the UK - MPs get the first crack of the whip cutting the field down before small groups of activists vote (or in Labours case add to the mix that a few hundred MPs, even fewer Union leaders are given equal weight to members). Then the public get to chose, eventually.
3, in Labour leadership elections it is not trade union leaders but trade union members (about 6 million of them, if memory serves) that are entitled to a vote.
3. I guess not. It would make more sense to do all these contests at once though, instead of having a small percentage of people vote first and then placing such huge significance on the result that it impacts future contests significantly… (but I get your point re Labour and Tory leadership campaigns). I guess the only thing you could say there is that in our parliamentary system there is a certain need to have at least some backing of your MPs, otherwise you’re guaranteed dismal failure.
2 It may be sentimentality, Matt, but I find it a rather engaging process and in its own way quite democratic.
Just remind me now how Gordon Brown was elected…was that some sort of caucus?
2. Yes, it’s bizarre. Yes, it’s undemocratic. Yes, it defies plenty of logic and flies in the face of the United States’ self-image and preferred public image. But - it’s the system they’ve developed and a more important question than ‘is it sensible?’ is ‘does it work?’.
That, of course, is open to debate. Iowa and New Hampshire are hardly microcsms of the country, and who appeals there won’t necessarily appeal everywhere - but then they don’t have to: that’s part of the expectations management game.
There are things to be said for a staggered primary programme. It makes candidates get out and meet people face-to-face. If it didn’t happen like this, there would either be a national primary dominated by those with money and/or and established ‘name’, or it would be back to the days of conventions decided by party power-brokers. This system at least gives lesser candidates the chance to shine and subjects them to public scrutiny for long enough to expose weaknesses. It’s usually pretty good at weeding out the weak candidates.
In any case, surely every system is allowed its foibles. I rather like both the nomination and electoral process in the States - though they’re welcome to keep them there. It’s not as if we don’t have the odd apparently illogical bit within our own constitution. But again, if it works, that should be good enough.
5. Matt1. “I get your point re Labour and Tory leadership campaigns. I guess the only thing you could say there is that in our parliamentary system there is a certain need to have at least some backing of your MPs, otherwise you’re guaranteed dismal failure. ”
Gordon Brown is a good example. Backing of virtually all his MPs.
And a shining success.
5 If they were all at once, only the richest and best-known candidates would stand a chance. Spinning it out, and starting with small states encourages ‘retail politics’ and gives all the candidates a chance.
There is no particular reason that Iowa or NH should really be first, except tradition. I quite like the idea of the Delaware Plan if it were to be reformed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delaware_Plan
Matt1………..leave Cumbria out of it………please!
(BTW, NW region has highest LD membership, & in Cumbria is Westmorland & Lonsdale with the second highest LD membership in the NW)
I thought that the last series of posts suggested that the Republican party were a good bet @ 9/5 to win the presidential election.
With the obvious interest in the election, I thought VC (victor chandler) would take a reasonable bet. I asked for a modest £1000 against £1900. I was wrong. They offered me £50 (fifty pounds) @ 9/5.
On pb.com, we may be important people, with good insight into political outcomes. But we are not punters. We can’t place a bet on the most important election on earth. Sad, isn’t it?
[11] I meant, £1000 against £1800, before somebody else points it out.
It seems quaint and democratic in a rough and ready way. Anything that gets people active, off their bums, dicussing the issues face to face with each other can’t be bad…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_caucus
And anyhow history shows there is no guarantee that the winner goes on to win the nomination, or indeed goes any further at all…
Btw, there’s also something called the Ames Straw poll, which Romney won last year. If he doesn’t win Iowa tonight, he would be the first Republican since 1988 to lose the caucus after winning the poll (Pat Robertson)….
re 2 also deeply ironic given the reason for the foundation of the US - no taxation without representation - that we on this side of the Atlantic who are very much affected by whomever is US president are fervently hoping that the Americans pick the right person and completely impotent to do anything about it.
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg today shot down lingering speculation that he’ll attempt an independent bid for the presidency. “I am not a candidate,” he said on NBC’s “Today Show.” “I’m not going to be a candidate. I’m going to be mayor.” Chatter resumed about a Bloomberg run when he decided to attend a Jan. 7 anti-partisanship forum, Reuters reports.
Chatter that (in addition to Kucinich) Dodds, Biden and Richardson are asking their supporters to back Obama (over Edwards or Clinton) should they not break the 15% barrier at the caucuses - which (if true) is very good news for the Obama campaign.
At the same time, the Clinton campaign has been down playing expectations - make of that what you will, truth is i don’t think any campaign is sure of what will happen (the Clintonites spinning is interesting never the less).
In the end it’s all down to turnout, and at the very least we should see a solid improvement on four years ago… enough to see Obama through? No idea, but my hunch would be that it would make an Edwards victory much harder and with Clinton’s limited base (she lags way behind Obama and Edwards on second preferences) the only candidate it can probably help is Obama – could be a very interesting night (but over the last few days the polls and momentum seems to be with Obama, but that’s before you filter it through the crazy mechanism of the caucus).
11 They regard it as little more than a Novelty Market, David, and are not prepared to risk being outsmarted.
Basically the Democratic caucus seem to be a grown up version of ‘Runaround’
(Mike Reid RIP)
http://www.ukgameshows.com/atoz/programmes/r/runaround/runaround13.jpg
18. …which was the near-enough the process that Thomas Wright Hill, the inventor of STV, first adopted….
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Wright_Hill
Although my wallet yearns for McCain, it would be utterly fascinating if Obama and Preacher Mike won their nominations, prompting a Bloomberg entry.
Anyway, back to said wallet. I have a large dumpload on McCain to win the nomination @12.0 (thanks Jan and co for prompting) - what was originally a novelty bet to make the process more interesting just got bigger and bigger as the value called. Now liquidity has improved, there is the possibility of laying against at just over 4.0, to near treble my money (although would tie up a bundle of cash for a while). Looking at the potential routes, it does look disproportionately dependent on NH though, and McCain’s astronomical rise also looks somewhat artificial, and perhaps unsustainable if Romney wins Iowa (which admittedly is looking less likely than yesterday).
Any objective advice out there? The sports arber in me says to laylaylay, buy myself a little present (do you hear me, Mr Iphone?), and middle of the year the bets settle and a large sum arrives my bank account. The politics degree in me hopes for McCain, and I should take the risk. It’s very much wishful thinking though - I detest Romney, and admire McCain. Urrrgh. Greed and political emotions don’t mix well.
Oh, and I’m drunk also, all day new year’s party here. Not the best situation to be doing money stuff, but it probably has to be tonight (especially given how much romney’s odds might move).
Sickening scenes fronm Kenya on CH4…
After Shadsy made a big splash (not to mention a neat marketing ploy) about Ladbrokes taking a bet for thousands on Bloomberg yesterday, they appear to have taken this market down today entirely.
Keep behaving erratically like that Shads and you could find yourself banned from your very own sponsored party!
20 Even if Romney wins Iowa, I don’t know that McCain’s odds *for the nomination* lengthen that much, whereas if Romney doesn’t win (and underperforms), McCain’s odds could look yet shorter tomorrow.
I wouldn’t lay off tonight; see how polls look up to the weekend in NH. If Romney is gaining hard in NH polls, lay off, otherwise I’d keep McCain until at least South Carolina, because I think he could become odds on if he wins NH and keeps a lead in the National Polls.
20 Andrew
I think McCain may well win the nomination but my advice is to lay off half right now and hold the rest indefinitely. That’s pretty much what I’ve done and my position is not dissimilar to yours.
22 PfP - He did say yesterday that he would be taking the market down today. And I’m still no entirely convinced B won’t run.
20 Oh, and I’m drunk also, all day new year’s party here
I don’t wish to disillusion you Andrew or to cause you undue distress, but it’s actually now the 3rd January - maybe now would be a good time to steer off the juice, at least for a few hours.
25 Really PtP, how odd, especially as they are running both parties’ nomination markets.
22 sorry chaps, technical hitch related to my incompetence. I will try and get it up soon.
We are now 1/2 Obama for tonight after laying 4/7 to good money. Personally, this seems way too short, but I have learnt to respect money rather than my opinion. We’ll see…
20,24 Same here, I can’t see McCain falling much below his current 3-1 odds, especially in view of his recent terrific run, but as you say Andrew, it’s expensive backing and laying using different markets, especially for several months.
The official Democrat caucus results will be here:
http://www.iowacaucusresults.com/
And the Republican results will, I think, be here:
http://www.iowagop.net/
2 - Isn’t one of the points of the American system that it attempts to balance out regional representation? I think one of the strands of this historically has been to allow less populous rural states as much chance of influence as more populous urban states (hence the two senators per state rule). Democratic in terms of pure representation it isn’t but it nevertheless serves as a useful balance within the overall system.
So Iowa having a ‘first shot’ at opinion forming is more like a Lib Dem Leadership campaign where the rural Devon and Cornwall contingent (for example) gets a chance to make their views known before being drowned out by the (presumably more numerous) metropolitan activists piling in. I’m aware that the analogy is downright shaky on facts but it might serve as the glimmering of an illustration!
Yep, Ladbrokes’ Presidential market now back up, Bloomberg remains at 16’s, but a couple of other bookmakers are now offering 20’s with Betfair showing 31’s
32. Really can’t see any value there, except possibly with Betfair on the chance that if Bloomberg were to stand (though see Ben’s unsourced comment at [16]), his odds would probably come in to at least those of the bookies. It would still be silly though. Third party candidates stand such formidable political and logistical problems (and financial too, usually, though that at least wouldn’t be a problem for Bloomberg), that they really have practically no chance.
Remember that even if they were to do outstandingly well and take the contest to the House after denying the two main contenders an Electoral College majority, who will vote for them then? The Republicans (who would probably control the nomination by virtue of having the majority of representatives in most states), might just accept Bloomberg if Clinton or Obama was the other option, but there’d be nothing to stop them selecting the defeated Republican candidate - or anyone else who took their fancy. And to get that far, a ‘third party’ candidate would probably need at least 35% of the vote. It’s just not going to happen.
Re. 14, the lesson to be learnt from the Guardian’s intervention in 04 (one which may have swung it for Bush) is that we should all tell them to vote for who we don’t want. That way, out of sheer cussedness, they’ll vote for who we do want, mission accomplished.
O/T Mike commented yesterday:
“I am flying to Dublin for a meeting tomorrow…”
OK, now think about this ….Mike has left his previous proper day job and is now working 100% on PB.com, so what’s all this about?
It’s obvious - he’s about to land an enormous long term sponsorship deal with Guinness, which means we get to drink as much of the black stuff as we can get down our necks at regular PB parties - forever!
2. I think the idea of Iowa & New Hampshire is that they are swing states that are small enough to allow retail politics. Having a national primary day would make it even more money dominated than it has been.
I’ve put my probalistic predictions up on my website - I believe that there is value in both shorting Obama and betting on Romney at this time.
“Sorry, “greatest democracy in the world” but I just don’t get it! ”
America’s democratic system is hugely unfair. How many times has the candidte with the most votes actually been elected.
Why don’t they copy the French system.
37 All Presidential elections except 1888 and 2000 saw the candidate with a plurality or majority of votes elected President. No other system in the US uses indirect voting, so the answer is every single time except two.
Sorry, know I shouldn’t feed the Creatures, but really …
601; Well it is now accepted that 1960 was fiddled which leaves 1892 and 2000 in the modern era. Other than that the vote winner has won. Which is more than can be said for any number of European sysytems including the UK in 1951 and 1974.
Regarding th eUS let us not forget that their constitution has stood, with a few amendments whilst France has had, five Republics, three monarchies, two empires and two uninvited visits by Germany.
I am not sure that the US needs lessons in stability/democracy from France or any European country.
Oh yeah, forgot about 1960. Ol’ Joe Kennedy pursuading Mayor Daley to swing Illinois against Nixon for his son. There must have been some great betting that night!
37. That would be the French system that put Chirac back in the Elysee in 2002? That was hardly the settled will of the French people at the time!
40. Three uninvited visits. You’re forgetting 1870-1 (although the French did declare war there, so it wasn’t wholly uninvited).
Who the hell cares what we think of the American system?
They have it, its basically democratic and most people just dont wish to participate, end of.
Actually it was 1914 I forgot. Quite a record.
Think of it this way. If you are in the US and you have the will you can get out of your home and play a part in the nominating process.
What do we get? The President of the EU will be decided by a cosy meeting of Frau Merkel and M Sarkozy, it will then be endorsed by one of these “conferences”.
To paraphase W C Fields I would rather be in Ohio.
I am going to make a prediction. The last minute momentum seems to be in favor of Romney and (especially) Obama, the latter of whom has secured a deal with Richardson and may have a deal with Biden in some areas, as well as polling ahead in all of the last-minute polls (most of which are not from terribly reliable pollsters, but so were most of the earlier polls).
Clinton especially has been showing signs of collapse in the last day or two, and I now expect her to finish in third in Iowa, possibly a distant third, no matter which of the others wins Iowa. On Intrade betting, Edwards is undervalued, though I would put his chances in Iowa at only around 35% (and still 0% on the nomination itself).
With Romney, things are less clear, but Huckabee joke press conference seemed a sign of desperation, and again most of the last minute polls have had Romney pulling back into the lead.
The predictions are for delegate counts, not popular vote:
Democrats
Obama: 35
Edwards: 30
Clinton: 24
Richardson: 5
Biden: 4
All others receive no delegates.
Republicans
Romney: 41
Huckabee: 35
McCain: 9
Paul: 9
Thompson: 6
All others receive no delegates.
One final point that european commentators misunderstand. US turnout figures are given out on the numbers of people on a census, not on those on the electoral register. For example in 1980 I was included as I had been counted on a census although I was not entitled to vote.
In 1980 I was a poll watcher in New Jersey and the precint, in Edison, was busy. When we closed the markings off of registered voters, which was shown around, indictaed a high turn out.
I could not understand all teh stories of the low poll until the equivalent of the local Returning Officer explained the imbalance between registered voters and residents.
O/T The full data from the Yougov poll on Ken v Boris is on the Yougov website . The poll also includes a number of questions specific to Xmas . 50% of the sample who were Christians said they were planning to attend church over the Xmas period , this is probably 5 or so times the number who actually did go .
48. How do you know?
38. But it wasn’t until the 17th amendment in 1913 that Senators were elected by the popular vote, so prior to that they were often unrepresentative of a state’s popular will. Btw, Ron Paul wishes to repeal the 17th amendment!
41. I thought that there was no doubt Kennedy won Illinois in 1960. The issue was, interestingly, the national popular vote. While of no constitutional importance, it was felt by the Kennedy camp that he would lack legitimacy if he lost it (as he probably did in truth.) Hence the extra votes were “delivered” in Illinois and elsewhere to enable him to pip Nixon in the popular vote….
Daley Junior admitted in 2000 that his father cooked Cook County. certainly in 1968 Nixon was paranoid about Chicago and had judges from all over the place ensuring that the vote was declared.
Cook County was legendary for the “express voting” machines which were set to the entire Democratic column. If you wanted to ticket split or vote Republican then in the full view of voters and officials you went to one of the non express machines.
49 Figures show church attendance over Xmas in recent years is 10-15% in rural areas but much lower in the cities .
50 True, but the wording was ‘how many times has the candidate with the most votes actully been elected’ - I care less if the number of votes is actually unrepresentative!
Ron Paul wants to repeal the XVIIth? But … why?
Wikipedia has that Kennedy won Illinois by only 9000 votes, and that was after taking Cook County by a margin of almost half a million. I assumed they waited to see how much he needed, then delivered a figure for Chicago, to ensure he won the state. Not sure in all honesty.
That was exactly what happened on election night. The downstate totals were all known before Daley authorised the release of a single precint in Cook County.
53..
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/15395
55 - I don’t know where to begin…
55 - extraordinary!
20 Andrew - cashing in on McCain: It all comes down to your personal risk aversity. I think his 3/1 now is around fair value. You could lock in some of your winnings now. I have done this only to a small degree, reducing my Romney exposure.
There is a good chance that he can be layed at less than 3/1 after NH, or even tomorrow morning, if Romney loses and MCain comes a solid third, so I will reassess my portfolio then.
Anyone have any theories as to why people would want to back the vey short prices now being offered on Huck and Obama?
57 Extraordinary? EU Commissioners are appointed by national governments not elected; in UK councils appoint representatives to regional bodies, all members of the House of Lords are appointed.
56/57. Apparently the problem is summarised as follows..
http://www.liberty-ca.org/articles/macmullin_17th.htm
There’s also a blog devoted to the subject..
http://repealthe17thamendment.blogspot.com/
55. Loved the comment by the person who wrote that the 17th amendment was “maybe even the biggest blow to the Republic in general”. So, obviously a greater blow than the secession of the southern states and the ensuing Civil War!
60 - yes, quite! It is extraordinary that anyone would support such systems of patronage off the back of an obsensibly ‘democratic’ argument.
44-Who cares.
I do. The world should care. Imagine if Bush wasn’t elected in 2000.
The world would be a much safer place.
I actually don’t mind the people who want to repeal the XVIIth, and I although I disagree with most Federalists on most things, I can respect them.
The post and article that got me were on Ron Paul’s site, which claimed that the XVIIth should not be repealed but repudiated, as to repeal it would accept that it was legally passed! Apparently, “no State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its Equal Suffrage in the Senate” and “…Equal Suffrage to the Senate” are interchangeable!
Mike (from New Jersey) reckons Ron Paul could tie for third in Iowa (see post 46), and I reckon he could sneak 3rd in NH. We should start buying tinned food…
64. Good for you.
62. Bring back the “three-fifths” rule, the restoration of “bi-metallism” and abolish the Fed, and you may have a country worthy of your founding-fathers’ endeavours!
Btw, did you know that the US national anthem is commonly accepted as being the hardest in the world to sing, and is lifted from an Old English drinking-song; the difficulty of the melody was intended as a sobriety test!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Anacreon_in_Heaven
63 tend to agree with the democratic argument that direct election is to be preferred but the kernel of the argument is that separating the Congress from any direct influence from the States increases the propensity of the Federal body to infringe state sovereignty. The imposition of federal speed limits through Congressional use of federal funding as a weapon is one example. The Senate was established as the voice of the States in Federal Government - while the Civil War changed the relative position of Federal and State Governments the intent of the Constitution was not to centralise power in federal bodies. The Federal Government was about inter-state relations and trade and international relations not intra-state affairs.
One of the arguments used to support the Treaty of Lisbon is that the EU Countries retain the power of appointment and decisions, even on majority votes, are subject to bodies comprised/appointed from national states. That’s not patronage it’s putting in place national democratic mandates.
37 - the point about the US system is that it is meant to balance out the huge impacts of the more populus states like California.
re 67 it’s certainly a very difficult tune covering a huge vocal range. One of the good things about the UK’s is that it is an easy tune with a very limited vocal range.
Sorry if this is a reprint, too busy to read all posts and have winter sickness bug to boot!
Winner of 2008 Democratic New Hampshire Primary Change
DEM.NH.CLINTON
Hillary Clinton to Win M 40.0 59.5 45.0 1188 -15.1
DEM.NH.OBAMA
Barack Obama to Win M 40.1 59.7 55.0 1124 +21.0
Are we are watching HC 2008 go down the pan?
Watch out for dark forces on Intrade try to manipulate the mkt.
70 - I have a good American friend who recently took British citizenship. She was forced to sing “God Save the Queen” at the ceremony. She sang the US hymn “My Country Tis of Thee” which has the same words.
My wife is yet to be persuaded to become British. She can’t quite stomach the oath of allegiance to the Queen.
(Please give us “I vow to thee my country”)
69. Funny to think of it now, but when the Constitution was framed, California didn’t exist, and the largest state was Virginia…
VA now has only about 2.5% of the total US population…
59 Well there seems to be a lot of speculation about the Biden and Richardson campaigns making deals with Obama to send their voters to him where they’re not viable, and getting some of Obama’s overflows where he has them in a return.
The Richardson-Obama speculation has been rumbling all day, the Richardson campaign deny a formal deal but say they will give a lot of leeway to precinct captains (as if they could control them anyway!).
See http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/03/obama-will-get-richardsons-second-choice-votes/
A Biden-Obama deal is speculated at here:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/03/a_bidenobama_deal_1.html
But is denied by the Biden campaign here:
http://blog.joebiden.com/?p=1671
Any such deals could give a big edge to Obama, since Richardson/Biden have about 10% support between them in the polls and are unlikely to be viable in maybe up to half of precincts.
On the other hand they are scrapping hard against each other for fourth place so any help they can get from Obama might be vital.
Hence why, any formal deals or not, the right nudges from the respective campaigns could be lucrative on Obama.
However I think that Hilary’s price on BF is over long, the 7-1 recently matched is a bit absurd given that she was as low as 2-1 earlier in the day, and the market is reacting to little more than speculation really.
72 - meant “same tune” not “words”.
Why is Betfair so quiet on the caucus?
70. It’s not just the range, but it’s the nature of what is set to the high notes. The problem essentially comes from the thing being written by a poet not a musician (not a very good poet, mind: the line “Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there” is particularly naff - apologies to Americans reading). Another example is the final phrase, which puts the emphasis on the “the”, immediately before “brave”, rather than “home” or “brave”, both of which are far more important words.
Anyway, in terms of difficulty, the The line “O’er the land of the free” leads to the highest note, but the vowel in “free” is very closed and so makes what is already a tough note to hit even harder. That said, it is a cracking tune, unlike Britain’s.
More on the supposed Obama-Richardson/Biden dealmaking here:
http://tinyurl.com/2mglhf
75 SBS
It’s fear. All very unpredictable.
Btw, looks like another evening without Creatures. I wonde what they all do on such nights?
68 - As you I do see from where the argument stems. It does strike me, however, that there are better ways of bolstering federalism (or, indeed, the EU’s accountability) than resorting to this.
75 - It is interesting to see that the activity is in nominees markets rather than the caucus. I’ve no idea why this is though! In particular, interesting how inactive New Hampshire is.
78. What about post 64.?
MSNBC reporting that the Clinton campaign is “expecting to come second” - take it with a pinch of salt as it seems very early on to be talking about where a candidate might finish.
It is interesting watching the local TV here in Nevada to see what political ads are being shown. It is 2 weeks to their decision day Obama seems to be doing a lot more advertising than Clinton to win over the Democrats in Nevada. Although Clinton does use local issues such as the nuclear dump as Yucca Mountian in her ads. No Republican ads seen so far.
For the umpteenth time check out C-SPAN.org for streaming coverage, it’ll warm up nicely as we go though I’ll probably hit bed first.
I’m delighted to say we are getting Iowa weather here..its snowing and its quite amazing how the streetlights reflecting off the snow makes everything so much brighter.
For those staying up, enjoy the show. Me, I’m off to bed now, having taken some of the 14/1 available on Romney on Betfair for the presidency. That strikes me as pretty good value given the likely boost his campaign should get over the next three weeks or so. Obama’s odds are probably worth watching too.
PtP you know the idea of betting really confuses the poor things and they go hide in their holes until it goes away.
Do we know when the first figures are due from Iowa?
84 - accord to the TV here the first results will be known after 9 p.m local time so about 3 am your time.
Thanks marcia, will wait until tommorow then.
Watching Newsnight, they seem to have lifted so many comments straight from pb.com
Which Sky channels can I watch on tonight?
88 - If you have access to MSNBC they are doing their coverage from 9 p.m local time but I think CNN should be doing the coverage too.
87 Watching Newsnight, they seem to have lifted so many comments straight from pb.
G - Has Paxo reported Sean’s stuff on the previous thread on the meanining of “juiced”?
89 - According to the CNN (Sky channel 506) prog guide, CNN show “CNN Today” until 0230 and then just as the results are imminent they switch to “World Sport” followed by something called “Anderson Cooper 360″…
Anyone know if MSNBC is available on SKY?
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/hq/nevada
nevada.barackobama.com/page/content/nvhome
a link to some of the TV commercials seen here in Nevada.
goodnight all
Would Clinton’s campaign survive a 3rd place tonight and a distant 2nd in NH? If Hilary looked finished then I could imagine a lot of her support going over to Edwards and we could have a very exciting two horse race between Obama and Edwards. Obviously if Clinton beats Edwards tonight then Edwards is just about out of it and Clinton will still (probably) beat Obama to the nomination.
92 Are you going to bed now Marcia? But it’s only 4.27pm where you are - very strange behaviour!
if you ignore the hopeless outsides the back book on Betfair is currently 97.3%
91- CNBC that may only be available on cable via Virgin Media in former Telewest Areas. Marcia has got the names of the channels mixed up.
re 94 that’s for the Democrat caucus forgot to say
93 -Peter we are in Las Vegas and will be watching the programme at 6 p.m. local time for an hour or so.
You can get streaming coverage from CNN’s website - already up and running - and through C-SPAN (from midnight GMT).
We’ll be keeping Ladbrokes prices up until at least 1am.
95. No MSNBC is a different channel to CNBC.
CNBC is on Sky - channel 505. On nights like this CNBC often simulcasts MSNBC or sometimes NBC News if applicable.
98 - Got a link to the CNN stream?
http://www.cnn.com
that is the U.S. site but like above they have a live feed from Iowa on at the moment and a special program on at 2PM UK time … enjoy if you can get it - you may need to download a plug in but not sure
102 - Cheers!
Guess I’ll have to spend the next 3 hours fixing the laptop sound or learning to lipread then…
CNN link as above. I’m getting it fine in the UK without a plug-in. Ditto, from past experience, with the C-SPAN feed.
http://www.kcci.com/index.html
That is the local t.v. station from Des Moines, Iowa and it seems they are going to do a live feed too - that may be available from the U.K. as well - looks a nice page
You can find this years Republican ticket conduct a joint NH townhall in NH on CNN. There is also a live Democratic caucus on another part of the CNN website.
http://www.cnn.com/video/live/live.html?stream=stream4
Are there any famous Iowans, other than Bill Bryson?
re 108
Bix Biederbecke
Johnny Carson
Herbert Hoover
John Wayne
I’m watching NBC Europe and they have full coverage.
For anyone with Sky who prefers to watch on a proper TV the best options are:
CNN - Channel 506
Fox News - Channel 510
CNBC (possibly) - Channel 505
I know Fox is not to many people’s political tastes but on a night like this it will just be giving results. On past experience it is often very quick with results so may be the best option.
111 - If Brit Hume is doing the coverage on Fox it’ll be pretty decent (bar the clear bias of course
)… otherwise there’s the risk one of the muppets they employ will be doing it, but frankly on a night like tonight their likley to plum for Hume as their senior anchor.
Welham Green is a very narrow Conservative hold over the Lib Dems, with a substantial vote for the BNP in third.
This is the first time I’ve followed an election on Intrade and I’m struck by the volatility. At the moment, it seems to be giving it to Obama and Huckabee but it changes rapidly.
114
As I said earlier, dark forces on there be dragons.
Eyeballing the Democrat precinct on CNN Hillary and Edwards seem to be doing well. However, bear in mind the MOE is about 15%!!
114: Yeah, intrade does that when it’s close - it’s essentially overreaction to tiny snippets of information. I’m sure you get something approaching an accurate summary when you average daily or even weekly, but shorter term it’s questionable what time period gives you a decent view.
By the way, just watching Lou Dobbs on CNN - I’d forgotten how awful US news is. This is supposed to be an election _news_ special, and he just filled 2 minutes with “thoughts” from viewers, which by sheer coincidence all told him how wonderful how show was. This was followed by a really blatant advertisement for his cruddy book, done with absolutely no self-awareness whatsoever. Yurrrgh.
Just had a look at the feed at the GOP site. There seems to be two people dressed in animal suits there amoung the crowd.
119 - Try MSNBC or FOX - CNN normally isn’t too bad but I’m not a fan of Dobbs.
Doors closed, let the caucus begin
121-”Doors closed, let the caucus begin”
And I am already bored!
118 - doubt the attendees will have broken up into candidate groupings yet, doors wont close for 20min or so.
Quite a bit of movement to Edwards/Clinton in the BF Iowa D Caucus market, but very low liquidity!!!
121 - Surely doors are open, closing in about 20 mins time?
Dumb question: on Radio 5 they were saying the results would come through very swiftly. Does this mean that the caucuses don’t actually discuss the election, just get voting right away and are finished in half an hour after the 15% people are eliminated?
doors close 1am uk
Some scuttlebut on Daily Kos that Romney’s people are spinning that their candidate will lose by 2-4%. It could mean that my projection of a 5% Huckabee lead is correct, the race could be much closer but such cr.p should probably be ignored.
126.
The whole process is supposed to take only 30 mins. Entrance/exit polls should be out very soon.
126 No, from what I understand entry polls will come out very swiftly (maybe 1.15 GOP, 1.30 Dem), results will come in as soon as caucuses finish but this will be 2-3am (GOP), 3-5am Dem.
A good overview here
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/01/live-caucus-blo.html
BBC reporting that Ron Paul won the MySpace republican primary with 37%
Guess it wasn’t too representative
126-I think that a caucus can take as long as 3 hours!
What’s the role of the independent registered voters in the caucus/primary process?
67. Btw, did you know that the US national anthem is commonly accepted as being the hardest in the world to sing,
I disagree. Several of the South American national anthems are very long and fiddly, with rapid tunes, and the annoying habit of having lots of instances of two or three syllables squashed into one note. (I know this because I have a copy of “National Anthems of the World” 10th edition by Reed and Bristow, Cassell, London 2002, ISBN 0-304-36382-0, from which I frequently sing variouis anthems for my own decadent amusement).
FOX and MSNBC saying ‘high turnout’…
Per Fox - anecdotal evidence that Democrat turnout up 25% to 40% on 2004.
133 As I understand it anyone can change their registered voter status at the caucus centre just before it starts, so independents can register with the dems or GOP and caucus with them.
Remarkably the Betfair odds on McCain, Romney and Giuliani to be Republican candidate are now identical at 3.95.
Fox saying that the turnout is 25-40% up in certain areas which will help Obama.
interestingly someone wants £2k on Bloomberg at 26/1 on Betfair - surely Shadsy isn’t trying to lay off his position already!?
Good moment to reflect that Iowa sends 57 delegates to the Democratic Convention - slightly fewer than Puerto Rico(63)!
Whereas 5th Feb states = 2064 delegates, 51% of total. Follow the money.
Where can I see the exit polls, when they’re released?
142 - “entry polls” not exit
…should be out soon (doors closing bout now I’d have thought).
Question about this 15% threshold thingy: does the 15% threshold apply separately within each caucus location (i.e. a bit like an STV threshold within each constituency)? If so (i.e. if it is not a state-wide top-down imposition) then it would be more proportional even after the re-jiggling of preferences.
CNN is explaining the caucus process…
141 - MOMENTUM
rousing speech from the chair of the Democrat caucus on CSPAN!
Watching the CNN feed for a Dem caucus - pretty engaging, I think - like a very good-humoured, very large British party branch meeting.
147 - yeah i thought that was a nice touch… “consider yourself swiss”
CNN showing lots of people sitting in a room - how exciting!
Question:
That link for “Intrade” at the top of the thread:
Is that a sort-of futures market? How is that different from betting? I thought on-line betting was illegal in the USA (???)
140. Not me I’m afraid. All US markets suspended at Ladbrokes for the night now. We are booing Obama tonight.
I’ll have some revised nomination and outright markets up tomorrow morning plus some New Hampshire stuff.
first precinct had edwards winning
Cnn entry poll saying Clinton/Obama tight together, Edwards behind. Nothing useful on republican side.
CNN entry poll - Clinton & Obama “tight”, Edwards “behind”
CNN entry poll - Clinton & Obama “tight”, Edwards “behind”.
Huckabee & Romney leading Republican.
Very prominent baby at the CSPAN caucus. Which way are infants leaning?
I’m surprised by how much I want Barack Obama to win. I just do. A bit of hope. Somebody different. Fresh. Healing. Kumbaya o Lord.
Pleased as I was when all the sneering liberal lefties got it totally wrong about Bush - I was THERE in 2004, I knew Bush was gonna win - I now see that America needs a change.
And Hilary Clinton just isn’t enough of a change. She’s another predictable machine politico. Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton, Yawn. The fact that she’s got ovaries is neither here nor there.
But Obama…. I know next to nothing about him but he just symbolises a break with the past. America is a great country. It should be an example to the world. The city on the hill. But America needs a leader who can resell its ideals to the world.
Yay! Go Barack Go.
SENATOR JOHN EDWARDS : 36.64%
SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON : 35.74%
SENATOR BARACK OBAMA : 24.72%
GOVERNOR BILL RICHARDSON : 2.90%
PRECINCTS REPORTING: 5 OF 1781
152 - InTrade is Irish, based out of Dublin. They just happen to work in dollars (from when their used to be an American market I suppose)
148 - Nick, that is exactly what I thought - like a good-natured local Labour party gathering, or when the Quaker groups were still in charge of the Stop the War Coalition.
160 - where are those figures from? VERY small caucuses I presume!
160. Small rural Edwards-favouring precints reporting first? Urban Obama later? These figures at iowacaucusresults.com
G - Is it like here? Sunderland delaring first, etc. - are the early precincts that report geared to any candidate?
162 - looking at how long its taking on CNN and CSpan I’d have thought so… but who knows???
Thanks for all the useful links guys (and thanks for the guys trying to talk sobre betting practices into me earlier!).
162. Current figures.
SENATOR JOHN EDWARDS : 39.24%
SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON : 32.43%
SENATOR BARACK OBAMA : 26.14%
GOVERNOR BILL RICHARDSON : 2.19%
PRECINCTS REPORTING: 13 OF 1781
(PERCENTAGES ARE STATE DELEGATE EQUIVALENTS.)
http://www.iowacaucusresults.com/
162. Current figures.
SENATOR JOHN EDWARDS : 39.24%
SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON : 32.43%
SENATOR BARACK OBAMA : 26.14%
GOVERNOR BILL RICHARDSON : 2.19%
PRECINCTS REPORTING: 13 OF 1781
(PERCENTAGES ARE STATE DELEGATE EQUIVALENTS.)
http://www.iowacaucusresults.com/
number reporting is so small we can’t get a reasonable estimate of the actual results
162. Current figures.
SENATOR JOHN EDWARDS : 39.24%
SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON : 32.43%
SENATOR BARACK OBAMA : 26.14%
GOVERNOR BILL RICHARDSON : 2.19%
PRECINCTS REPORTING: 13 OF 1781
(PERCENTAGES ARE STATE DELEGATE EQUIVALENTS.)
http://www.iowacaucusresults.com/
number reporting is so small we can’t get a reasonable estimate of the final results
ahh, triple post, sorry
Hmm, looking at those entry polls and first results - anyone here who has bet heavily on Obama might want to take profits right now - if he’s barely won or not won he’ll be seen to have had a setback.
CNN:
Dem caucus - 60% women, more than half are first timers.
Good news for Obama?
I still think Edwards might surprise us all!