Clinton’s price eases after more polls and the debate
January 6th, 2008
Frank Luntz gets the reaction of NH voters
Once again it is the fights for the main party nominations in the 2008 White House race that dominate the political betting news. After Thursday night’s Iowa caucuses the next big decision point is New Hampshire where the first proper primaries take place on Tuesday.
The Democrat betting has seen big changes over the past 24 hours with Hillary Clinton moving from her odds-on favourite position to second favourite across almost all markets. As at 0530 GMT the Obama price on the Betfair exchange was 0.82/1 with Clinton out to 1.28/1. The US specialists Intrade have Obama at 55.5 out of 100 and Clinton at 41.
There might be possible value to be had with the traditional UK bookmakers which have yet to adjust their prices in line with the developing news. There is a wide range of betting options on the upcoming primaries.
A major political development has been reaction to the Saturday night debates between the contenders. This was a key opportunity for Hillary to regain the initiative but from the reaction of voters in the Frank Luntz focus group, click the link in the picture, it did not help.
There’s been a spate of post-Iowa polls for New Hampshire one showing a 10% Obama lead. Others have ranged between a tie and just one per cent.
In the GOP race things continue to look good for the 71 year old Senator from Arizona - John McCain who now has leads of between five and six points.
If this comes down to a battle between the existing favourites there will be an age gap of a quarter of a century between the nominees.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Sea Shanty Irish from previous thread:
“Thompson, McCain & Giuliani are wrong if they think they can beat Obama by touting their own long experience. That will NOT be what this election is going to be about.”
Exactly so. The “experience” has taken the country in wholly the wrong direction. Experience is attracting blame, not plaudits.
It’s starting to look done and dusted. An outstanding bit of punditry Mike. A thread recommending BA at 50/1 is about as good as tipsterdom gets! If I remember correctly Jack W will make some serious money if Obama wins. I expect a case of Dom Perignon will be winging it’s way to you very soon.
I personally think Hillary’s tumble is a pity. I instinctively believe a woman would be less belligerent and more compassionate than a man and after the ugly Bush years that is surely what the world needs right now.
2. I think the opposite Roger - I sense Hillary has felt she has to overcompensate for being the first woman president and commander in chief - hence her quite hawkish foreign policy views. There’s a danger she’d be more like Thatcher and I fear more likely to go to war.
re 2. Thanks for your generosity Roger.
I think that there is still a long way to go and all sorts of things can go wrong for Obama. The polls from New Hampshire are mixed and the Clinton machine, once it has re-grouped and evolved a different rhetoric for the new situation, might pull something out of the hat.
To me this is all about the generational change and a big part of Obama’s appeal is that he can resonate with the young in a way that the other contenders find hard.
2,3,4 — polls from New Hampshire are mixed but for the moment I am happy to chalk this up to the independents effect: Clinton and Obama are level-pegging amongst Democrats; Obama has a big lead among independents; independents form a huge chunk of the NH Primary electorate; therefore Obama will win NH; but polls of NH Democrats will find a tie. At least, that’s the theory.
Incidentally, if this is what is going on, and if, after last night’s debate and Iowa and NH, Mrs Clinton retains her lead in the national polls, then she should still win the nomination.
I’m not sure I can agree with Roger that Mrs Clinton would be a dove simply because she is a woman. I can think of hawkish female leaders from around the world in the not too distant past.
But after being initially dazzled by Obama, I am disturbed that behind the oratory, it really is not clear quite what he intends to do. Of course, as we can see in America and have seen in Britain, this can be a powerful electoral strategy.
Hope is good; hope is positive; but aren’t Americans entitled to know just what they are hoping for?
Obama’s price is still coming in but polls and Luntz notwithstanding, I’ve laid off a little bit. I think he’s very likely to go on and win the nomination (and the presidency) - he’s been sure-footed so far - but there’s plenty of time for things to go wrong.
On the subject of Luntz - the guy’s clearly got a great track record but watching this clip it’s no wonder that people doubt his methods. He always looks like he’s manipulating the group. If you ask a group of Democrats if they want change they’ll predictably say ‘yes’ but that also primes them to favour Obama who’s whole campaign is branded ‘change’.
You mean, John L (5), that Obama is too much like Cameron, though better looking and more charismatic? You could be right. It explains why all the Tory Peebies seem to like him.
‘A woman would be less belligerent and more compassionate than a man’ Ann Coulter?
I’m sitting here trying to come up with ways in which Obama might now be able to lose. There must be a bunch, but I’m not doing very well… A really juicy scandal might do it, but it seems unlikely anything that could come out in the next few weeks would have stayed under wraps until now.
John L@5 mentions that Clinton and Obama seem to be tied among Democrats, but Obama leads among independents. Does anyone know how big a role independants can play in the primaries/caucuses with the most delegates?
Looking at Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_election
…it looks like a fair proportion of states have “open” primaries - and presumably even if they’re close to registered Democrats there’s nothing to stop people who are independent today from registering Democrat to vote for Obama.
Any thoughts?
On Hillary’s potential belligerence, my understanding (probably from reading Ezra Klein or Matthew Yglesias or someone) was that although it’s quite hard to say what the actual views of the woman herself are, the advisors she’s surrounded herself with are fairly hawkish. That’s probably the best indication we’ve got right now of what her administration would be like, in the (apparently unlikely) event that she actually got to form one.
I’d just like to make one possibly drunken point, before I go back to sleep off my hangover with Mistress V1codine.
I went out with a bunch of guys and girls last night, old mates aged 30-45. Half of them are incorrigible, anti-American lefties and they are PERPLEXED by the prospect of an Obama win. Why? Because it wholly undermines the reason they love to hate America - for its racism and unfairness etc.
These people, the anti-Americans, would be literally shocked into silence by an Obama victory. It just wouldn’t compute.
Reason enough to give Barack a chance. But there’s more.
A vote for Obama would be the biggest victory in the war on terrorism since it started.
Let’s face it, the War on Terror hasn’t been going so well. Afghanistan was OK, but Guantanamo was a monumental own goal, Iraq was a grotesque, tragic, blood-soaked disaster, and the possible war on Iran just piles despair on despair.
But now, by electing Obama, America can WIN the war on terrorism in one go. With a simple vote.
Whenever Osama bin Laden comes a-visiting again, Americans can say,yeah, you bombed and killed us, you hated and frightened us, you made us make mistakes - but in the end, what was our reaction to 9/11? To elect a half black president with the middle name Hussein. Beat that.
And indeed, what is al Qaeda’s answer to that? More death? A few more bombs? More killing? They would be attacking the country that embodies the best hopes of all of us, the country that responded to attacks from swarthy guys called Hussein, by voting in a black president with the middle name Hussein.
Obama is the chance for America to prove its greatness. Electing Obama defeats Osama, once and for all time.
Interesting quote by an American pundit on BBC news, ‘Huckabee won’t be elected, because he doesn’t know anything about foreign policy.’ I didn’t realise, knowing something about foreign policy was a qualification! Did anyone point this out to George W.?
Missed the debate due to other stuff (e.g. sleep), so it was a real pleasure to read through the comments on the last thread - thanks to everyone for briefing us.
seanT’s point at 11 is interesting. I wouldn’t vote for anyone because of their ethnic group, any more than I’d vote against them for that reason, but it’d probably make quite a lot of people have another think about their image of the US. Whether there was a lasting change would depend on what he went on to do.
And that’s the answer to Edmund’s question at 9. Everyone preaching ‘change’ initially gets interest from everyone unhappy about anything (which is always a big majority). But they have to judge the point where people get fed up hearing the slogan and want to know ‘change to what?’ (There’s a similar issue for Cameron in Britain.) I think that the slogan alone will see Obama through New Hampshire, but before Super Tuesday on Feb 5 he will probably need to get more specific or face some real doubts. The risk is that he’s so pleased with the success of the slogan alone that he doesn’t see the need to go beyond it.
13 - Nick, isn’t that exactly what could be said of course Gordon Brown? He keeps on harping about change, but no one knows what it means. He keeps talking about has Vision, at what is it?
coldstone @ 12 — good point. Further, unless Pakistan goes badly wrong, I’d imagine foreign affairs will become less of an issue since the main players broadly agree on Iraq (at least within each party).
In which case, as the other Clinton said, it’s the economy, stupid.
Or at least, it is domestic policy, where no doubt Clinton is in favour of whatever the focus groups tell her, and Obama is the candidate of hope, change and sunshine.
AaronS @ 14 re Gordon Brown. Brown’s main platform was not being Blair, just as Major was not Thatcher.
Life is hard for many natural Labour supporters. Inflation is up, especially on the sort of fripperies loved by the working class, like shell suits, food and fuel. And it is once more becoming dangerous to walk the streets: we are less than a week into 2008 and already I am losing count of murders, stabbings and shootings this year.
The Oxbridge-educated dipsticks around Brown believe the best way to bring these people back into the fold is to attack them for being too fat or on benefits or wanting to leave school before the age of 21. I suspect they are wrong in this but, hey, what do I know?
Whenever a poster portentiously explains that so-and-so needs to ‘explain his policies on…’ or ‘people need to know where he stands on….’, just remember TB. In 1997, he described his policies as ‘education, education, education’. And his education policy was? Exactly.
When people want to believe in somebody, sounding the business is everything. Policies? Don’t need them, they’ll only confuse the voters.
Has this site abandoned British politics entirely? Call me parochial, but I am more interested in Bedford than I am in Birmingham Alabama
I think perhaps the most striking thing about the Dem debate was the way in which Edwards aligned himself with Obama - to pretty critical effect, really rattling Clinton.
In the end, Edwards probably performed best of all the candidates, Hillary probably worst (Richardson was funny and Obama did the “frontrunner” routine)… Hillary’s angry tone during parts of the debate will play to her negatives and will only hamper her further.
On the issue of style over substance… I’d suggest that for so many this becomes a tag that gets stuck to pretty much any politician under 50 regardless of their policy positions… Looking at Obama’s policy platforms its hard to deny its pretty thorough (the same is increasingly true of Cameron in UK), but because a candidate is perceived as “young” or “stylish” its assumed they must be light on policy, it’s not always true.
Re: the betting on the individual primaries - Hillary can be bought on Betfair at 3.1, where as Obama is 1.32. If most of the polls are showing a range between tied and 0% as Mike says above, then doesn’t that suggest the value is with Hillary on that particular market?
18 It’s where the betting action is at the moment, Barry. Be patient. Once the Primaries are out of the way, punters will swiftly turn their attention to events in Bedford.
12 No, not a good point IMO. In 2000, the U.S. was at peace and no obvious threat to be seen. The present situation is very different. Although domestic policy still is more important than foreign policy, most republicans (much more than democrats) will think such experience is important.
[18] Barry, it’s also a betting site, and there’s p*ss-all to bet on in British politics this week. (Though no doubt if Our Genial Host has his way there’ll be markets on every council by-election in the land before we’re too much older…)
[18] Yes, you’re parochial. This is a site about political betting. Where are the current poltical betting opportunities?
19 Ben
Did you watch last nite’s debates? If you flick through last nite’s thread, I think you will see that amongst the little community of PBers watching, Hillary clearly won.
The Luntz clip spins it badly for Hillary. I never liked the guy and I have more reason to dislike him now.
OT - by the way Peter the Punter, how is the dog running? It’s probably been over 6 months since I’ve last posted as I’ve been pretty busy.
david kendrick @ 17: yes, it often is successful, and that is what is disturbing and disappointing.
25 - Saw a recording this morning… for me I’d suggest that Clinton did least well of all the candidates (that’s not to say she did poorly), her tone more than her content was the problem IMHO.
Critically, from glancing at MSNBC and the other news outlets (both national and in NH) the consensus seems to be that Clinton didn’t do sufficient to reassert her campaign… and from watching the debate I’d agree.
That said, Luntz over plays it with his focus group… my sense would be that it’s a difference between how American and British audiences respond to this sort of debate (I can see that Clinton would seem combative to a UK audience while to a US audience she would seem techy, even agitated)… to some extent it probably has to do with the familiarity of the US audience with HRC.
[27] Disappointing, maybe, but its the way to bet.
Our host is on the money when he points out that some of the bookies haven’t kept up with the price movements on betfair. The best prices are on Expekt.com (the max they allowed me was £30) and Ladbrokes (the most on the internet is £200—you may get more on the phone).
OK, here’s how I saw it (for those that trust me more than Luntz.
)
The GOP debate was the livelier of the two. It also had a clear winner and loser.
Guiliani came across very well. You felt that here was a guy who had been tried and tested in the heat of battle and had stood firm. He also judged the tone and tempo of the debate well, making some good points but showing humour and compassion when appropriate. It’s the first time I’ve understood why he’s one of the favorites to win.
Mitt got duffed up. This wasn’t really fair but it’s hard to like the guy, even when he’s talking about the work he did as Governor of Massachussets, which is when he comes over best. I could readily understand why voters reject him.
As for the others, McCain was bland, but assured. Thomson and Huckabee had their moments but never looked like serious contenders for the big prize. Paul was quirky and interesting. He won’t win, but the others were unwise to ridicule him.
On the Democrat side, Hillary was the winner, not by a huge margin, and the others did OK, but I thought she definitely recovered some ground.
The first half of the Democrat show was fairly subdued, the most notable moments being when Edwards teamed up with Obama against Clinton. This was picked up by the interviewer immediately after the break and must have caused them some embarrassment. He then made an almost ungentlemanly remark about Clinton not being likeable, especially compared to Obama. She handled that very well and showed her human side to great effect. She also got the opportunity to nail Obama’s rather vague declarations for ‘change’ whilst at the same time projecting herself as tough, which is undoubtedly her strong suit.
Edwards also came on strong in the second half when he got into full flow on his favorite themes of compassion for the little man and taking on the big battalions.
Obama was composed and thoughtful throughout, but somewhat subdued. Maybe as the new front runner he felt that he just had to avoid making mistakes. If so, he succeeded.
Richardson was engaging and helped to balance things up, particularly when E&O were attacking Hillary. He had some great lines, the best of the night, but you felt he was playing to a different audience (angling for VP?) so he remained on the support cast.
Fascinating nite, and if you want some honest, unbiased, balanced and perceptive opinions without any Luntz-like spin, have a read back through that thread.
Thanks to all those who kept me company. Another great nite/early morning on PB.
Bear in mind that any US President, (bar Ron Paul if he got elected) is more or less bound to pursue a pretty assertive foreign policy, simply because the US is so big and so powerful.
26 Adam B
He’s retired. His injury recurred and it would have taken another six months rest to get him back on the track, with no guarantee that he wouldn’t break down again. Shame, because he had real potential, but that how it goes with racing animals.
He’s now a spoilt pet with one of the owners.
Thanks for your interest.
21 Ptp I must say, Peter, I have never seen the focus on the Iowa caucuses like this year before - not only on here with the betting, but across the “mainstream” media also (I know pbc is mainstream now!!)
But, at heart I suppose I agree with barry. Because actually, if we concentrate on the US Primaries etc, we could well be engrossed there for another 2 months and more. What I don’t understand, however, barry, is why the towns you mention are not bedford and birmingham?
O/T Did anyone see that Gordon brwon interview. The man is incapable of admitting a bad decision. He says the gold sales were a good thing because we diversified our reserves and the Euros had gone up in value. Not threefold Gordon and how are the dollers and yen looking?? He’ll go mad in office I’m sure of it.
4. Mike - I’m not sure about your ‘generational change’ analysis. I think (though I stand to be corrected on this), that Reagan did disproportionately well with young voters in 1980 despite being a decade older than Carter. I’m sure the reason for this was despite the fact that he was about to become America’s oldest president, he sounded (and acted) young. It was the optimism about taking on the big fights and winning them that mattered. That still leads back to the same conclusion - Obama’s the man - but for different reasons. I doubt the youth of America want a youngish (he’s still mid-40s after all), president for its own sake but about what he represents.
That opens up opportunities for the other candidates to go on the offensive both positively and negatively. Can they portray Obama as an insider who is not the voice of change; can the portray themselves as someone who can deliver it - and deliver it better?
33 Its because Obama is news - if he wasn’t in the race interest would be lower in the media, though the betting fraternity would still be engaged.
Taking up David’s point about generalities v specific policies I was listening to Any Questions on the radio where Andrew Lansley was pitted against John Denham. On a question about the NHS now being a vote winner for Cameron he managed to floor Lansley by pointing out that just 18 months ago it was he who wrote the manifesto in which the ‘Patient Passport’ was promised and all current Tory MP’s were voted in on that manifesto.
As an aside it was a bravura performance by Denham and one that gave me confidence that Labour still has a narrative and enough talented ministers to deliver it.
On a betting note he isn’t a bad bet for next Labour leader.
re 27. Almost the only purpose of policy is to find a way of differentiating yourself from your opponents. That’s how NuLab approached it and how Brown is doing it now. Why do you think there is the row of the detention without trial period - Brown wanted to find a way of showing that the Tories were “weak” on terror.
People vote for people or how they perceive them.
It’s interesting how Obama’s rise makes Labour supporters feel very uncomfortable because it exposes their massive weakness - the character and the lack of communication skills in their leader.
Labour will lose the next election because voters do not like Brown - period.
Mason-Dixon (who are one of the better US pollsters - although their Iowa poll was off) just published a poll for NH…
Obama:33
Clinton:31
Edwards:17
Richardson:7
Undecided:8
(GOP = McCain 32 Romney 24 Huckabee 12 Giuliani 9 Paul 8 Thompson 3 Undecided 10)
Critically, two thirds of the poll’s field work was pre-IA (the post IA sample gave Obama a 39-32 lead), it looks like we might not have a clear idea about the impact of the IA result on NH until the eve of the primary itself.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0106CampaignPoll0106.html
re 37. I listened to the same programme and thought the same Roger. Denham was brilliant and was the man Labour MPs should have pressed to stand for the leadership last summer.
34 Woody
Yes, you begin to worry, on a human level, for the guy’s health.
Why didn’t he just admit it had gone badly? I mean, it’s no different to you and I backing a loser. Nobody back winners all the time and commodity prices are just as difficult to predict as horses. The public understands that. It won’t understand why the bloke just can’t admit he backed a loser.
I see that Hillary has just operated at 4.20 on Betfair.
Was interesting to watch the all the betting mkts. lag the media-watching PB’ers over the last few days. I am now flat having laid off most of my McCain action with a little ‘free’ money left for fun.
On the home front, I see NuLab are back to bashing the poor going after people claiming IB despite the relativley small no. of vacancies.They have become the nasty party to be sure.
37. But as the current Tory MPs have no opportunity to put that policy into place having lost the election, and as the Tory MPs after the next election will have been elected on a different manifesto, the point isn’t particularly relevant.
38. There is the other side to the argument as well (it taking two to tango and all that). Although there are genuine objections on grounds of liberty, I’m sure the argument will be talked up further by the Tories who will be equally keen to show the Labour government to be excessively authoritarian. The interesting thing there (as a political observer), is not so much that there’s a big disagreement, but that both sides have chosen to accept battle there.
16.
To answer the the question at the last part of your rantings.
Totaly nothing.
[43] Looks as though NuLab and the Tories are going to have a bidding war to see who can be tougher on Incapacity Benefit claimants: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7173453.stm
It’s a fact, of course, that if they all died in their sleep to-night the country would be more competitive, and the public finances a lot healthier. But that’s not a very nice thing to think, is it?
To please both those who like betting and those who cant see beyond their front gate…
Romney’s position looks precarious after the debate last night. McCain should win NH and if he doesn’t he’s no one to blame but himself. Romney is ripe for plucking.
On the Dem’s I still await to see, the polls are uneven though it would be fair to say that NH is now Obama’s to lose.
Domestically, I also notice that there appears to be a Home Office trial of castration on a couple of sex offenders. Is this to be outsourced via competitive tendering?
I’ve got a meat cleaver and a chopping board and before all those screaming human rights people say that that my tender response would be violent and cruel I’ve included provision of a 3 drinks beforehand to numb their pain…any more than 3 and I might overprice the submission.
There you go, something for everyone.
[16] John L wrote: we are less than a week into 2008 and already I am losing count of murders, stabbings and shootings this year - you mean you were able to keep count last year?
I well remember there wasn’t any crime at all under Margaret Thatcher, and what there was was entirely down to the fact that some people thought she was less than Christ-like…
46 IA “It’s a fact, of course, that if they all died in their sleep to-night the country would be more competitive, and the public finances a lot healthier. But that’s not a very nice thing to think, is it?”
But you thought this? Or someone else?
39 Thanks Ben
The numbers aren’t good for Hillary, are they? Worse still, the spin on last nite’s performance appears to be negative. You may not agree with my assessment, but if she couldn’t raise two cheers for that effort, she’s toast.
McCain looks home and hosed in NH. He had such an easy time last nite. All he had to do was sit back while everybody kicked the sh*t out of Mitt.
[47 - second half]
37. We may now safely assume Denham’s career will soon be drawing to a close.
[49] Sorry, Witan - Jonathan Swift’s title of the pre-eminent satirist in the English language is clearly under no threat from me
ID cards? Might as well post your most sensitive personal data on a lamppost near your home.
“A record 37 million items of personal data went missing last year, new research reveals.
Most of the data was lost by government officials but councils, NHS trusts, banks, insurance companies and chain stores also mislaid or published personal information about staff or members of the public.”
ttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=A11KD3ZBQLTPVQFIQMFCFFOAVCBQYIV0?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/news/2008/01/06/ndata106.xml
37, 52
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7173666.stm
Denham defects to the Tories!
53 IA but how did it arise as a concept on this thread? Nothing I have read this morning as far as I can see. Probably beeing a bit slow after a busy week and a good party and card school last night.
47 Morning Yokel
You would have been proud of your man John last nite. He gave it both barrels in the second half. It was good to hear a politician talking with real conviction about matters of substance.
In the first half, he sidled up to Obama, rather as you had suggested he might.
And now for our domestic audience…
We used two coconuts on Mighty Fella. Worked a treat, but you must remember to keep your thumbs out. It is also wise to keep the door closed. We forgot and it was a bugger catching him afterwards. Mind you, he did set a new unofficial track record for Walthamstow. Not bad, considering he started in Wanstead.
37 David - the point about Reagan, and to an extent McCain is that the were/are from the preceding generation to those in power. It’s the kids of the late 40’s & early 50’s who are in power now, they are the establishment (Gordon Brown born 1951, Mitt Romney, Bill Richardson & Hilary Clinton 1947, John Edwards 1953). They are the same generation as Bill Clinton, George Bush, John Major & Tony Blair - they were the future once now they are becoming the past. Maybe they can win one more time but the change to the next generation is well on its way. The baby boomers are fighting against the dying of the light; struggling to keep the spotlight not ready to concede yet.
It’s time for the kids of the 60’s (late 60’s in UK and for George Osborne early 70’s). Cameron and Clegg were born after England won the World Cup, they were in primary school during the three day week and just starting public school for the Winter of Discontent. Their world view was created in a different era.
McCain (as Reagan was) is if you like the grandparent generation, real experience, they have seen startling changes and adapted, but they appear less driven, less defensive, more understanding - kids often prefer their grandparents to their parents.
As I said on another thread, many voters in Iowa were not quite brave enough or sure enough to go for Obama, but the Obama result has opened the floodgates and New Hampshire will be a sensation.
50 - Clinton’s problem is that she can’t be something she patently is not… and I think the debate illustrated that.
In the debate she was combative, thorough and for the most part composed – what she was not, was inspiring and she failed to credible present herself as an ‘agent for change’.
And an ‘agent for change’ seems to be what folks in the US are after (and taking a look at US politics since ’68 you cant exactly blame them!) and while they seem to see that coming from the Dems rather than the GOP (witness the turnout and voting patterns not just in IA but also back in ’06) they do not see it coming from an established political figure like Clinton.
And I’m not sure what Hillary can do to challenge that… as I say she cant be something she is not (the same probably goes for Brown over here).
On the GOP side I’d agree that McCain is likely to have NH locked up now… indies favouring the Dem primary might hurt him, but probably not sufficient to deny him the win. What then happens to Romney, he almost certainly slips out of contention but probably seeks to adopt the same strategy as Giuliani and hold out for Super Tuesday - meanwhile SC becomes a stand-up fight between McCain and the Huckster.
LOL @ Clinton
Obama for President!!!!
Dem GAIN all red states!!! Hold all blues!!!!
60 Thanks Ben
Are you based in the US? (Apologies if you’ve answered before. It’s me age.)
O/T- had to turn the TV over when Brown was on Marr, and stop reading the Observer lead story on the Brown fightback.
I cannot stand all this tough decision, hard choice, vision twittering on that Brown engages in. He is going to back down on the 42 day thing (thankfully) so cannot do tough decisions on this one.
37- Roger- Denham also presents as someone who is completely transparent, a rare quality for a politician.
58. Thanks. Yes, I’d agree with that. I think the dynamic probably works the other way too, or at least can do: the ‘parent’ generation is often too close to the ‘kids’ to balance their qualities against their downsides, whereas the ‘grandparent’ generation is sufficiently distant to pick up more of the good things. The kids may also remind them of their own lost youth which they now accept but which their parents think they would still have were it not for the kids getting in the way.
Anyway - enough psychobabble. I agree with your assessment and will win biggest if Obama or McCain (of the serious runners) ends up in the Oval Office, which is probably proof enough of my concurment with that theory. That said, I did have a bet on Hillary this morning for the nomination as once again I think the markets have overreacted to Iowa.
Ooh, temptation. Still haven’t laid off McCain here, despite keep saying I will. At present he looks to be +5/+6 ahead in NH, and intrade reckons that at an 80% chance of a win there, which will increase to 95% by Tuesday if nothing changes. If they drop to 2/3% I’m out though - not worth the risk.
Don’t think I’d much fancy maintaining a position on the Democrat side though, the polls are all over the place.
“NEW council tax rises may be needed to fund the 2012 Olympics and its aftermath, it has emerged.
A leaked report and parliamentary answers suggest that not only will households in London be affected, but also taxpayers in the surrounding counties, including Essex and Hertfordshire.
Ken Livingstone, the London mayor, has promised that the financial burden of the Olympics will be limited to a maximum of £20 a year per household in London.
However, the documents reveal that ministers could take advantage of obscure powers to help to fund the Games and any extra debts they run up, potentially for decades to come.
Local taxpayers in Montreal took 30 years to pay off the debts that the Canadian city ran up from the 1976 Games. There were also cost overruns for the Athens and Sydney Olympics.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3137728.ece
61 – Nope, Afraid not… in fact I’m marooned at Uni till the summer… but I’m in the states from October for the election (there one or two campaign who need a coffee fetcher/ photocopier monitor/ envelope opener/ paper pusher etc…
)… but back to my dissertation!
60-Ben- Clinton should have fought the 2004 election. If Kerry got 48% of the vote, Hillary would have done better. I guess in 2003 Bush still looked pretty unassailable after the Iraq war but she should had taken a punt.
There is simply no way she can present now as something that she is not, and that is the change candidate.
58- Ted- very good post, and insightful to boot.
O/T- sorry to hear about the cat, but a very nice way to go. Probably reliving past glories of mouse hunting when the old ticker packed in.
64 Andrew
My recommendation would be not to lay off McCain just yet. It’s starting to look like he’ll breeze New Hampshire, which should give him a boost. After NH would be the time to sell. He’ll be coming head-to-head with Giliani then. I wouldn’t like to call the winner of that one.
58- Ted- very good post, and insightful to boot.
O/T- sorry to hear about the cat, but a very nice way to go. Probably reliving past glories of mouse hunting when the old ticker packed in.
67 Exactly she didn’t have the Courage to front up in 2004 and expected it by divine right a win in 2008 and gets what she deserves. You could argue the same with GB. True he’s PM but if a heavily damaged TB could get a 66 seat majority in 2005 imagine what GB would have got if he’d had the courage to move against Blair in 2004. Majority 100+ easy and talk of a fifth Labour term never mind four. Sometimes you have to go for it. Don’t always work eg Hague but in politics better that than if only
64 Andrew
My recommendation would be not to lay off McCain just yet. It’s starting to look like he’ll breeze New Hampshire, which should give him a boost. After NH would be the time to sell. He’ll be coming head-to-head with Giliani then. I wouldn’t like to call the winner of that one.
67 - Thats about right the dynamic of the ‘04 race would have favoured Clinton… now the political landscape has simply moved beyond her. She’s not dead (long way to go till Tuesday let alone Feb 5th!), but the dialectic is against her…
….is that the right use of the term ‘dialectic’??? (if not perhaps no one will notice).
Clinton’s price should ease a lot more after this news.
I am contemplating a wager on Obama to be the Democratic candidate after hopefully collecting winnings on NH.
I can only compare the Obama bandwagon to that of Arsenal Football Club,both are on a roll and unstoppable.
A strange analogy I know.
MANCHESTER, N.H.: Bill Bradley, a former presidential hopeful and senator, planned to endorse Barack Obama for president on Sunday aides said.
Bradley, a hall of fame professional basketball player, will campaign on Monday for Obama, Obama aides told The Associated Press.
The aides, speaking on condition of anonymity in advance of the formal announcement, said they hope the endorsement will help Obama end the national front-runner status for Clinton, who placed a disappointing third in Iowa’s caucuses last week and is deadlocked with Obama in New Hampshire according to a poll released Saturday.
“Barack Obama is building a broad new coalition that brings together Democrats, independents and Republicans by once again making idealism a central focus of our politics,” Bradley said in a release scheduled to be released on Sunday.
“Because of his enormous appeal to Americans of all ages and backgrounds, Obama is the candidate best positioned to win in November. … His movement for change could create a new era of American politics — truly a new American story.”
74 Is Bradley from Illinois? Could be a good candidate to fill Obama’s Senate seat if he wins the Presidency..
A bit of news from Ladbrokes. We are now 6/4 Obama, 7/4 Clinton for next President. We have three losers in the book 1. Bloomberg 2. Obama 3. Paul.
We’ve also got a couple of percentage performance markets up for New Hampshire - Obama and Paul.
39 Thanks Ben. Very valuable at this point.
Unibet still offering 1.45 Obama in NH.
75 No, New Jersey (played for the New York Knicks so also has a bit of sway in New York).
See from Wikipedia that he has the Vision thing literally - wider than average horizontal and vertical peripheral vision that is.
“After spending in N.H., Iowa, money may be tight”
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/06/after_spending_in_nh_iowa_money_may_be_tight/
76.
Shadsy,interesting prices and if I were to have equal stakes on both Obama and Clinton to be the next President at 6/4 and 7/4 respectively and either were to win I would be a winner (odds on I know).
Please correvt me If I am wrong
72: Thanks - yeah, that’s pretty much my thought pattern. Assuming no polling reverse showing momentum back to Romney, the current situation looks like 95%+ chance of a McCain win, which would bring his price to 2.5 or so. It can’t really go lower at present imo: Paul remains blocking at 5% because of his unrealistic supporters/huge cashpile/stubbornness, Romney likely to hang around at 10%ish after a NH loss, and Giuliani/Huckabee only dropping slightly after a McCain win to approx 28%/15%. Assuming 2% Thompson (his votes will probably redistribute all over the place even if he gives up), that leaves 40% for McCain, equating to roughly 2.5 depending on commission/overround. Even if he were to win NH hugely, get a big knock-on effect on polls for SC/Nevada/Florida, Huckabee’s campaign collapsed due to gaffes, and the market overreacts, at very best he’s evens.
However, if polls showed McCain falling back to +2, then it’s not worth it - fail in NH and he would disappear to 6/7 and possibly beyond, wiping out a lot of profits. Even if it’s only a 15% chance of that, it’s not worth it imo - small benefit vs huge cost.
Took me a while to find it, but you can see last night’s ABC New Hampshire debate by visiting http://www.youdecide2008.com/2008/01/06/video-abc-news-democratic-debate-from-new-hampshire-1508 . The republican debate is at http://www.youdecide2008.com/2008/01/06/video-abc-news-republican-debate-from-new-hampshire-1-5-08/ .
82-Many thanks Ralph!
77 Thanks Jan. Snaffled that.
Edwards sounded like someone who hoped to be president,
Clinton sounded like someone who realised she might not be president,
Richardson sounded like a man who wanted to be vice president, Obama sounded like a president.
That, in a nutshell, is why Clinton will benefit little from the debate, the machinations are all too apparent. If you checked the webcast which overlaid the support figures Clinton was disliked by independents more than any other candidate, getting angry doesn’t help anyone apart from shore up core supporters.
On the GOP side, Giuliani by a country mile but, conversely, he is the candidate of the independents. The GOP need him or McCain to win but, maybe, they aren’t interested in winning this time.
They would also be well advised not to annoy Ron Paul, he may well run as an independent or for the Libertarian or Constitution parties. If he does he will cream off a proportion of their vote.
76 Those prices are a bit tight, Shadsy. You can’t do a special offer for PBers, can you?
Morning/ afternoon everyone. I watched the debates in full last night, and after a bit of thought and a look at the reaction, these are my views:
GOP:
- Mitt is in trouble. He was on the ropes going into the debate, but had to face all the other candidates ganging up on him. He doesn’t have a good demeanour and he looks and sounds out of touch. His negative ads on immigration have also come back to haunt him in a state which doesn’t appreciate such tactics. McCsin highlighted them. Guiliani (I think), brilliantly, contrasted Ronald Reagan’s position on immigration to Mitt’s and said “If Ronald Reagan was a candidate now, he’d be featuring in one of Mitt’s attack ads”
- Guiliani had a great night. I thought he was the best out of both debates. He was funnny, he showed his tough side and put in some strong responses to criticism.
- McCain sat back, rather like Obama in the second debate, and watched as the others all pounced on Mitt. I thought he was a bit quiet at some points like Obama - but maybe that’s the strategy if you’re already doing well in NH, sit there, let the other bicker and look presidential.
On the dem side, I thought Edwards was good. He brought out some of his best lines about corporate America and highlighted the case of one 17 year old girl who had died due to her health insurer’s parsimony with real passion. If he does drop out of the race, I think it’s likely he’ll openly support Obama. He acted as Obama’s “shield” from Clinton attacks several times to Obama’s great benefit.
Hillary - at the time I thought she was doing well. She certainly does the “tough” stance well on foreign affairs etc and we saw more of her “humanity”. Given her performance, and the close polls we’ve had, NH is not over yet. However, some of the reaction has not been good. The bits where she got angry towards Obama over “change” have not played well.
Obama - tried to play the McCain role but with less success. He was too laid back in my opinion. At times you wondered if he was really there and it was telling when the questioner made a point about one of his bills on lobbying he’s passed in the Senate having a massive hole in it and he failed even to respond. Not the performance I was expecting.
I just Edwards was the front runner he is the real candidate for change and he has experience too .. We wanted him to win the nomination for 2004 - and we want him to win in 2008 but sadly it looks like it will be Obama our 3rd option - in order of preference we would want 1)Edwards 2)Clinton 3)Obama - the reason we don’t like Obama is he is to “smarmy” and we don’t like his first strike option on Pakistan - a typical US gung ho position like in Iraq or Grenada …
But in November we will vote for whoever wins the Democratic nomination as non of the Republicans are even palatable -
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/05/AR2008010502732.html
The Washington Post review on the debate seems good for Hilary and Edwards … she is mentioned all through the review - Obama gets a couple of mentions - and it is good for Hilary as it paints her as the underdog …
86 - let him into the PB.Com party for free and give him a couple of drinks. I am sure you can come to some arrangement!
As on (obviously) keen supporter of Obama, I thought, from what I saw of the debate through my beergoggles, that Clinton actually came off best.
Articulate, feisty, determined.
Obama was subdued or aloof, depending on how you view it.
Edwards was weird as ever.
Dunno who the others were.
But does this matter? I don’t think so. Obama’s enormous momentum is too big to be derailed by a mildly disappointing TV performance.
People on the radio thought Nixon won his debate with Kennedy.
As for the complaints that we peebles are focussing too much on America, remember these are unusual circumstances. British politics is midterm, and our prime minister is doing his best to bore us all into a coma. Zzz.
Meanwhile America is in the middle of its closest primary race in modern history, a race which will probably provide the USA with its first woman or black president, a race which has been electrified by a glamorous newcomer with the middle name Hussein.
I think we are allowed to be intrigued. And even I can sometimes spot the betting opportunities.
I’m green on Clinton, Obama and Edwards and therefore happy for any of them to win.
Edwards looks like he is still trying to win, but lining himself up as the obvious VP choice for Obama if he doesn’t.
80. You are correct. It comes to about 1/2, which is roughly the general price for the Democrats.
86. Haven’t you already availed yourself of a special, one-off offer today Peter?
Domestically, the News of the World backs Cameron’s benefit plans:
http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/0601_leader.shtml
And, rather amusingly, Peter Hain comes out with the line:
“They are plagiarising plans already announced by us before Christmas and seeking to present them as their own.”
.. is it me or is this government getting more and more amusing, hypocritical and downright stupid every day? We’ve even had Gordon Brown playing the “tough decisions for Britain” soundbite *again* this morning.
Like Hillary, they are looking dangerously like the past. Britain doesn’t have an Obama, and it won’t, but the danger is that things will get so bad for Labour that Cameron will begin to look like a decent gamble.
CNN just announced that they are doing replays of the entire ABC debates tonight - I think they said 7PM eastern which would be midnight in the U.K. - if it is different I will post - both the Washington Post and New York Times seem to give the debate to Clinton which is good.
91 You saw it pretty straight through your beergoggles, Sean.
Real shame you’re not coming to the PArty. I could have shown you how to fill out a betting slip.
93 LOL!
Only joking of course, Shadsy, but seriously, I couldn’t see any value there. Maybe you got the prices right?
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN0264367920080106
New Zogby says Clinton and Obama in Dead heat
Clinton 31
Obama 30
half the polling was done after the Iowa Caucus
and for the Repbulicans
Romney 32
McCain 31
3 polls in a row for a tie !!!
I get the feeling that there is a lot of dumb ‘n’ late money coming in for Obama, some of the press have almost crowned him already.
Good to see PB’ers were way ahead of the bookies yesterday.
98. Fascinatingly close. Obama has the momentum (I’m trying to think of a different word but it’s difficult). If that carries on, by Tuesday he should be ahead and will win quite comfortably.
But the debate, I reckon, was won by Hillary. Could that be enough to hold back the surge?
Also, why are these polls so bizarrely all-over-the-shop? In the last two days we’ve had Obama ahead by ten, Obama behind by six, and now a dead heat. Is it so incredibly volatile? Or is it very hard to poll for primaries? Or are American pollsters a bit crap? Or what?
heh new suffolk poll shows clinton’s lead is down to 2 points so it must be bad for her !
95 - I think the key is that those who are saying that Clinton won the debate are picking on factors which play negatively outside of the media circus. The main one of these being that she attacked well, it’s a side of her which turns people off (apart from those who already inclined to her).
Similarly with talk of records and being ready to lead; as we are seeing in this country, when you have to play on experience you personify the negativity of the establishment. Blair understood this intuitively while Brown doesn’t, he could tap into the zeitgeist and modify his message to reflect the times. Pre 1997 he said hardly anything on specifics, he knew that to be different was enough.
As to those who seem to like Obama in this country, it is interesting. His relentless lack of negativity plays well to me, as does his recognition of the importance of inspiration and aspiration. There may also be a little of what seant refers to as regards being seen to be egalitarian but above all it appears that, as in this country, many people are desperate for ‘change’, it doesn’t matter what in many cases, just a removal of the status quo and at least a hope for a better one (as per 1997). That’s a powerful message and Clinton can’t fight against it effectively unless she relives her life again as a greater maverick rather than an insider, that is to say she’s stuck with an impossibility.
I can see that Clegg, for one, is trying to piggy back on this but he doesn’t have the back story, it’s a reflection of an ideology not a visceral need. That’s what lib dems need to do more of, and what they can learn from Obama, it’s not the ideology that gets votes it’s the reverberation in people’s own lives and how the people saying it have their own story to tell. Obama is the sort of politician that the lib dems need and don’t seem to be able to get, which is a great shame.
This may help:
“Poll of Pollsters: Rating the NH Pollsters”
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/poll_of_pollsters_rating_the_n.php
99 - “some of the press have almost crowned him already.”
He’s certainly becoming the new “inevitable” president. He’s doing very well now, but how long will it be before there’s a backlash against him?
If Clinton does better than expected in NH (see the new Zogby poll) then momentum shifts *again* towards her.
I don’t think you can rule anyone out at this stage - while I hope it doesn’t happen, it’s still quite possible that it could be Clinton v Giuliani for the White House
103 - Interesting; so basically people see Zogby as worthless then, I had the impression they were supposed to get decent results but maybe not.
Hilary’s problem with Obama is if she goes really negative on him she will be seen as the nasty old witch, Obama is just far too smiley and doe-eyed for people not to get angry with her if she does that. She can only hope that she out debates him on pure brain power and to be fair she is very samrt. I think Bill Clinton is a vote loser for her now; does anyone really want to see a rather old looking ex pres./ dress stainer in chief? How does he play with the Blue Dogs? Not good I guess.
90 SBS
Since his firm are sponsoring the Party, we can hardly charge him to come in.
Incidentally, it’s also half-price to Norwegian Tipsters, Italian PhDs and Leyton Orient Supporters.
104. Clinton v Giuliani surely means you get a strong 3rd party candidate from the south standing?
Just been trying to catch up on events over the last few days in the threads, thanks to the many commenter’s who made it a very informative and interesting read. PB.com at its best!
38.”People vote for people or how they perceive them.
It’s interesting how Obama’s rise makes Labour supporters feel very uncomfortable because it exposes their massive weakness - the character and the lack of communication skills in their leader.
Labour will lose the next election because voters do not like Brown - period.”
It has been interesting to note this over the last few months on PB.com.
I still believe that Americans are ready for change, real change and that means Democrat but not another Clinton. What is going to be really interesting this time is whether a positive campaign will win over the negative and nasty campaigning of last time? I just get the feeling that it might, and anyone involved in negative campaigning will find it backfiring badly.
There’s a fuller version of that clip here which asks about John Edwards as well. Conclusion is that swing is on for Obama.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53g0Nq5C5bc
102 The back story is a problem both Clegg and Cameron have- both are the generational change, both can (to an extent) cut themselves free of what went before; Cameron because it’s nearly 11 years since Major, Clegg because Ming provides a stop between what went before and himself e.g. Kennedy couldn’t have said “I’m a Liberal” because he was SDP. Cameron has certainly tried to position himself more on the optimistic change agenda than lead on politics of fear; though straying from this lately. Clegg hasn’t showed much of the optimistic streak, leading on danger of ID cards and attacking opponents rather than on his own agenda, but its early days.
There is a bit of romantic addition to Obama’s story. Barry Obama was basically a well off kid from a broken home, who grew up in Hawaii, (and would a relatively light skinned mixed race kid stand out in Hawaiii?), went to a very good private school, did play around with drugs in his youth but still did well and had a good education, then when to LA for college. He seems to have become politically aware at university and that’s when he moved into community action and turned into Barack Obama.
107 - don’t think I’ll be able to make the party, but if I do, I may suddenly start supporting Leyton Orient (forsaking poor Maidstone United).
108 - possibly, although who that would be I don’t know.
109, not 108. Sorry
Noticeable that the 2 pollsters who give Romney NH leads are among the least reliable (Zogby and Suffolk), while ARG’s polls are wildly all over the place. CNN at McCain +6 are well-regarded, and Rasmussen at +5 is middle of the pack.
On the other side, CNN makes it a tie, Suffolk/Zogby again are slightly opposite the pack with small Clinton leads, Rasmussen has Obama +10 (done only on the 4th though, so maybe not too representative given the media coverage he got). Mason-Dixon are another middle table pollster giving Obama +2, but that was 2nd-4th. We probably need more polls from the 5th here to see the full extent of things.
113 Hmm..you realise that would be trading down?
The question needs asking, who is eating most directly into Clinton’s support? Obama or Edwards?
Did I ever mention that I am a Leyton Orient fan?
110 - the Americans do appear to want change. The question is, how far are they prepared to swing in one election cycle.
To go from Bush to Obama in one foul swoop is a *very* big jump, not only in policies but in presentation, style, tone etc. If there’s a “stop gap” like McCain (for example), I’m not sure if the Americans would be happy to go through that stop-gap candidate first. Bit like Bush snr was a stop gap between Reagan and Clinton.
Incidentally, a question for any passing Americans (or indeed anyone else) - how popular amongst Reps and independents is Rudy Giuliani? I gather the conservative base find him too liberal, and yet I get the feeling the independents/moderates find him too much like a Bush clone. Am I wrong?
120.They stuck with Bush and his policies after the Iraq invasion, preferring to give him and his team another 4 years rather than go with a change in direction. Four years on, I think the mood has changed more dramatically across the whole Western world as we have seen the situation become more unstable rather than improve in countries from Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran.
Just maybe after 20 years, the Americans want a completely new face unattached to the old regimes, bringing a fresh set of policies for home and abroad?
121 - that assumes that foreign policy matters quite as much to the average American as the average Brit (or other Westerner). My own personal experience of the US is that a crash on I95 will gain more attention than a riot in Kenya.
I definitely do think that the Americans want to break with the Bush era though, although whether that means an Obama-style break or a McCain/Huckerbee style break remains to be seen.
Think if Obama wins the democratic nomination it could help the republicans. I have read today (The Times)that some commentators think that Obama can have Obama republicans as Reagan had Reagan democrats. Think this is a *slight* (Huge dose of sacasim) exageration as Obama has not even broke into the 30’s on national polls (US wide) in the press i have read!!!
:lol: 
Transposed to this country and Cameron’s 45% - Britian is heading for a one party Tory state!!!! 
:lol: 
(Not).
In the UK this autumn we saw the tag of “Brown Tories” until Brown was Chicken, whilst an election cannot be bottled in the states i think Obama has peaked too early! I think unfortunatly for him he has too long to stay at the crest of a wave and will fall into the swell and get savaged by a wild killer Shark (The Media).
So to say nominations have been sown up is frankly ridicoulous, nowhere near that point yet.
122 - yup - that is why BBC World News America is gaining popularity on BBC America - showing news from across the globe and the world with a new perspective - contrasts sharply with CNN, MSNBC, and Fox - it is getting rave reviews - and being a Brit in the U.S. and missing news from an international perspective it is fantastic - rather than as you say the breaking news being something mundane -
And the break with the Bush era - you can taste the winds of change in the air - as the countdown to January 20 09 begins …
122.What if interest in Obama resonates favourable in other Western countries and that does get picked up in America? Could it be a plus or a negative for him? In fact it might give him more gravitas against the older more experienced candidates both Republican and Democrat if he is greeted very positively?
His Foreign policy seems to have been his weakest link, and with so many American soldiers still in Iraq and Afghanistan I think that Foreign policy will matter much more than it did for Clinton and Bush when they were campaigning in their first presidential race. I can’t believe that Obama won’t try and improve this deficient by meeting some of the other Western leaders if he becomes the Democrat candidate.
Not sure Mike is right that Labour supporters generally are uneasy about Obama - on pb.com, isn’t it just me? Most Labour people I know think Obama sounds pretty good.
Basically I just like the Clintons and think Hillary is ready for the Presidency in a way that her rivals are not, but I’m also a policy wonk, and instinctively dislike politicians who put charisma before substance - to take a left-wing example, Chavez. In practice they tend to disappoint, and squander their charm because they’ve not really thought out what they want to do with it. It’s an accusation one can make to some extent of Bill Clinton, come to that, but Hillary is the deeper of the two.
125.deficient should have deficit.
anonymous and dangerous @ 122 — foreign policy is very important in America.
About half the population is from what they call small town America — what we would call isolated villages — where everyone knows everyone else and the whole town turns out for a high school football game (and these days, people have to commute vast distances to work but that’s another story).
And that means that most Americans will know someone (or know someone who knows someone) who has family members serving or dying in Iraq or Afghanistan. Which means foreign policy really does matter to them.
And that is without 9/11 (which so far as I can tell is Rudy Giuliani’s entire platform).
How much it will matter in the primaries is a different question, since the major candidates in each party are more or less in agreement.
126. I’m also a policy wonk, and instinctively dislike politicians who put charisma before substance:
That Tony Blair - what a man of substance he was!!! You must have been kicking and screaming when he got elected and helped you win your seat in the first election (You may have held through personal endevour since). I suppose the real challange was not to win Broxtowe in 1997 and you were dissapointed to do so!
:lol: 
Lifes a bitch!
Fears of a housing crash are threatening to scupper the sale of Northern Rock, pushing the stricken mortgage lender ever closer to nationalisation.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/01/06/cnrock106.xml