Clinton is the “comeback kid” in New Hampshire once more
January 9th, 2008
White House race turned on its head in rollercoaster evening
UK Politics - there will be a “live PMQs thread” appearing about 11.45 ahead of Clegg’s debut appearance as Lib Dem leader in the Commons.
PBC - the best place to be on Election Night
Paul Maggs “Double Carpet”
Guest Editor
MessageSpace Advertising
And pigs just spotted flying over Mars
This is from the last thread for Sea Shanty Irish
281 - I agree that Rudi is a lunatic, and I see little sheep’s clothing. The media are saying things like he was polling 30% in NH last summer. Do you have any other $/votes for Iowa and NH for the other candidates/where did you get the info to do it?
The beeb has been terrible for NH. That early call of a big win for Obama looks very, very silly now.
Well that was another extraordinary night - either the Americans are considering Obama to be a step too far or they have sussed him out to be a one-trick pony - suddenly Hilary looks value on betfair at 1.53 …
Betfair: Ron Paul 39/1 for the nomination. Fred Thompson 59/1. Remarkable
2 Happened to hear the $ spent by G in NH on NPR, would check FECinfo (has a new name, but google that) for details.
04 - Hogwash. What a significant number of NH Democrats decided was to keep BOTH the Obama AND the Hilary options on the table. Whatever tonight was, it was NOT a massive rejection of Obama!
Bliddy stupid frogging BBC.
Hilllary and Obama getting 9 delegates each, with 4 for Edwards, does not constitute “Hilllary Cllinton has won”.
6 - Thanks.
Off Topic (2 weeks ago): When we were doing quiz questions on Christmas Day about unusual deaths of MPs, someone mentioned the case of Charles Cayzer MP. I went to the library the other day to check the relevant report in the Times (1940 February 20th, page 5 column 3):
“SIR CHARLES CAYZER’S DEATH
FOUND LYING NEAR BODY OF BUTLER
It became known yesterday that Sir Charles Cayzer, MP, whose death was reported on Sunday, was found shot in his home at Kinpurnie Castle, Angus. His butler, Benjamin Wexham, a Londoner, was found lying near him. Both had gunshot wounds in the head. The butler was found lying in a corner of the butler’s pantry. He had apparently been filling a carafe of water for the luncheon table. Sir Charles Cayzer was lying just outside the open door with a double-barreled gun near him. Wexham, who was in his early thirties, had been in the service of Sir Charles for 11 years. he was married with one child.”
It was also interesting to notice a few other things in the same week, such as
* Silvertown by-election 22.2.40, caused by the resignation of Jack Jones (presumably not the same Jack Jones who led the TGWU?)
* the defeat of a Mr. C.A.R. Crosland (Socialist) in the election for the president of the Oxford Union
* the installation of “the new boy” Dalai Lama in Tibet
* someone in the letters page who suggested a scheme for the minimisation of waste, who suggested that each MP should be responsible for making arrangements in his [sic] division [sic], and that regular collections could be made by two women [sic] in each street.
to 6. -I`m sorry but the odds don`t lie …
CNN says that BHO has 3 of the 5 superdelegates http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/candidates/#1918
How they could know is beyond me. But if they are right then perversely BHO got 12 delegates to Hillary’s 11. Silly system.
I just want to put it on record that I still think Obama is by far the likeliest to get the nomination. I’d say 65% Obama, 35% Clinton.
Wow, just woke up to this, what a monster.
But as I said yesterday of lot of ‘dumb ‘n’ late’ money coming in for Obama. Hope no one got stung.
Incidentally, don’t read in too much to this result for the rest of the country. New England is very different to the rest of the US, and that includes the blue states elsewhere.
14 - I’m not minded to necessarily agree with you Socrates. Clinton won amongst the traditional democrat coalition. Obama won amongst independents, the highly educated, and the very young. These will not be enough to defeat the Clinton machine. He has a very strong movement but he has to attract the more traditional voters in far higher quantities if he is to avoid having a movement that bursts like Dean.
I would like to see the stats for women voters.
Obama has been over hyped to the point that narrowly losing NH looks like a failure. If he had come this close a fornight ago it would have been a triumph. The ‘beating the expectation’ game has now handed the momentum back to Clinton.
Plenty of people on this site looking a lot sillier than the BBC…
`Its the Tears wot won it` - to badly paraphrase Kelvin MacKenzie …
McCain at 38 on IEM and only 33 on Intrade.
Well there’s a lot of shit being eaten this morning!
My double is still on! All I have to do is engineer a coup, replace Brown with Benn. The Pres. and the PM different sexes, same first name, Hillary and Hilary, come on someone calculate the odds on that.
p.s.
Will Hillary change her campaign song too , ‘I’m Crying’ by Roy Orbison.
Well there’s a lot of shit being eaten this morning!
My double is still on! All I have to do is engineer a coup, replace Brown with Benn. The Pres. and the PM different sexes, same first name, Hillary and Hilary, come on someone calculate the odds on that.
p.s.
Will Hillary change her campaign song too , ‘I’m Crying’ by Roy Orbison.
15. True- and that augurs poorly for the Dems in the GE. I’d argue that the Dems haven’t won a presidential election with the “traditional democratic coalition” since 76, -and 76 was the perfect storm for the Dems- OK, I’m basing that on saying 92/96 were different, both because Clinton went beyond the traditional dem constituencies and because Mr Perot got a big vote in both elections, but still it’s bad news for the Dems if Clinton (H) isn’t likely to appeal well beyond their core vote.
Well there’s a lot of s**t being eaten this morning!
My double is still on! All I have to do is engineer a coup, replace Brown with Benn. The Pres. and the PM different sexes, same first name, Hillary and Hilary, come on someone calculate the odds on that.
p.s.
Will Hillary change her campaign song too , ‘I’m Crying’ by Roy Orbison.
Well - what a result - woke to R 4 talking Mccain - no news on my expected loss on HC. Just checked in with BBC and here and wow she won. Am I glad that I stuck to my hunch about New Hampshire. Don’t stop thinking about tomorrow !
I called it quits on the NH race at about half two… would be lying if I said I wasn’t surprised by the result, the key (glancing at the figures) would seem to be high turnout amongst older female voters who broke overwhelmingly for Clinton.
In terms of explaining the result, I had an inkling (which I chose to ignore) that with the teary moment, the very negative campaign on the ground and the big leads some polls were giving Obama, that things could narrow… but as it was the result was still pretty surprising, to say the least.
From here the race moves on to Nevada… before NH Obama was reported as having the culinary workers endorsement wound-up (but that was pre-NH – so no telling how that stands now) and then SC, which should still favour Obama pretty solidly.
So in other words, we have a race on our hands… good from a betting perspective at least.
Well I never. I went to be at midnight fully expectant to live with my losses as it didn’t seem worthwhile trying to cover them by backing Obama at prices less than 1.10, and wake up to find it’s trebles all round.
Hope nobody got their fingers too badly burnt.
Any idea on what went wrong - was it a late surge 1992 Major style, or just crap methodology?
A lot of egg on face on here this morning.- rather than 3 loads of s**t
This is all about managing expectations surely. A week ago, Barak Obama would have been very pleased to get so close to the established leader who regards New Hampshire as her own fiefdom. A bit of inexperience in the Obama camp. Did he manage to engender a feeling of sympathy for Hilary, hard though that is to imagine.
Is it just me, but I find most of what Barak & Hilary say incomprehensible as English. In the end I am responding to the timbre of their voices – where BH has the clear advantage as he sounds like Nelson Mandela. Conversely McCain uses the English language. He did the best acceptance speech
Is the US ready for a black guy going on about “change”?
I know this place cannot be called the Frank Luntz Appreciation Society, but he made three good points on Sky this morning
Voters are energized by the campaign, particularly younger voters
Voters frequently are undecided even as they walk into the booth – is this where Hilary won
Negative campaigning is a big no-no. Romney’s mistake.
BBC radio said that Hilary (who is now someone known by her first name only) got the core blue collar, older Democrat vote out. The new forces backed Barak Obama, but there were not enough to outweigh the core vote. Pragmatic Democrat voters in other states may take note of this. McCarthy v Humphrey perhaps
7. So that’s why all the American networks and their websites say she has won. Yes, they both have 9 delegates, but she still won the popular vote.
This tears business really bothers me - and should be bothering Americans too. Where would we be now if Kennedy had burst into tears during Cuba? If she is tearful at the prospect of losing a minor primary, she will be in hysterics when the s..t hits the fan during the first of many terrorist crises. Heaven help us if she gets elected.
Well, this rather opens things up!
For the Democratic race, as the odds suggest, Hillary is now the favourite again. But momentum is likely to shift around before Feb 5 a little. Nevada may well go Hillary, but South Carolina is likely to still vote overwhelmingly for Obama. Going into Super-duper-Tuesday, it will likely be two-all.
With Hillary a shoo-in in both New York and New Jersey and Obama similarly taking Illinois by a margin, all the attention must fall on California. This could be the deciding race of the primary season.
Hillary’s win has consequences beyond the Democratic nomination. It increases the possibility of a Bloomberg run substantially. (”No more politics as usual!”)
It’s also bad news for McCain (and also slightly Guiliani). The Republican establishment might have put their weight behind McCain if he was the only candidate with a hope of stopping Obama. If Clinton is the opponent, then an appeal to the base might be a more sensible strategy.
So, here’s my wild prediction: Obama wins California and Illinois on Feb 5, but loses most of the other states. As February and March wear on, it becomes clear the Hillary has wrapped up the nomination. Obama is not offered the VP role by Hillary.
In early May, Bloomberg enters the race. His VP candidate? Barack Obama…
Hillary-Obama will be a very powerful ticket. More than enough to see off the old McCain.
She pulled out the onion at the right time, credit to her. She’s the people’s politician groannnnnnnnnnnnn.
Clinton wins New Hamphire….groan! We’ll never get rid of the Republicans from the White House at this rate.
Either that, or even if Hilary does win, she’ll be a one-term President and the GOP will be back in possession in double-quick time.
Graham H 10 Now you are talking rubbish! Regular posters know I rarely post on betting issues, but I shall make an exception this time. Of course odds sometimes lie!
John W at 30 “Known by her first name” - Hillary.
There seem to be a lot of ‘Hilary’s around here!( It would serve me right if someone corrected my grammar here!)
Can we have the Independent front page for amusement value?
Well, this is a shock. But great fun to see a contest that’s so unpredictable.
Known by her first name?? Two ‘ls’ in her version of the name, I think.
Morning all!
Well, fingers badly burned here, but we live to fight another day. Congratulations to all who kept the faith with Hillary, notably Yokel, who also got McCain right, I think.
Maybe I should stick to horses. More reliable than politicians.
Catch you all later.
Why the hell are exit polls so poor in America? How many times have we seen this now?
Don`t think I will read this site the same again.
Apart from Yokel the vast majority should be holding their head in shame for over hyping.
42 - the exit polls got it right. It was the tracking polls which tanked - perhaps because they polled over the weekend (always a bad time)?
I am waiting for a stewards enquiry on the HN result(talking through my pocket again).
To use a horse-racing analogy this is like Mill House beating Arkle at Cheltenham!
How could the polls get it so wrong?
Still I will be in attendance at the Emirates tonight to see Arsrenal defeat Spurs 2-0 with Eduardo scoring the first goal.
And a couple of days ago I changed my prediction from Obama to Hillary on pbCOM. Told you so springs to mind- Obama was just being over hyped, a very dangerous thing at such an early stage. I like them both immensely so am not particuarly bothered which way this thing goes. 8 years of Hillary followed by 8 years of Obama- heady days for the Democrats hold on the White house methinks
But that said I did say Romney would pull through so cannot be always right.
Re. 38, it’d be a collector’s item, as precious few Indy front pages have any amusement value these days, what with alternating between ‘We’re all doomed’ on climate change and smug, hectoring Europhilia which just regurgitates FCO papers or knocks down straw men.
43
I clearly warned about Ob. ‘dumb ‘n’ late’ money before the polls opened.
44 - sure, but what about the exit polls organisations were reporting last night showing big leads for Obama? BBC said it, and they get their data off ABC. I read through all the threads on here from early last night, 11pm, with many posters all claiming similar things.
What is it with early January polls - always wrong…
There was a poster on here recently asking who were political betting losers? Everybody claimed to be up….
I backed Obama at 1/2; I hardly ever back odds-on anywhere else. Yes, there was an arb available on betfair. But if I get better odds elsewhere than are available on the exchanges, I have ‘the value’, so I let my bet run.
Pb.com has pointed me towards more good bets than bad ones, but the Obama-hype on here since Iowa has not been helpful.
A few days ago, I warned don’t write Hillary off, the, ‘Comeback Kiddette.’ Deep in the subconcious of a a lot of Americans, the Clinton name, (despite all the scandals) is linked with the two things Americans prize, ‘Prosperity at home and peace abroad’
Mcain will suffer from the bigotry that, ‘Dare not speak its name’, ‘Heightism’ he’s only 5 foot 7 inches tall, Americans won’t vote for a short man!!
Hope Seant doesnt put his money where his mouth usualy goes.
51 - I put some cash on Obama for Pres yesterday - bad move. Forunately I put some on Clinton for NH a few days ago.
Yesterday I asked if too much emphasis had been put on Obama’s Iowa win - I likened it to a one-off UK By Election, and was roundly criticised for my pains. In the words of the Great American Sage Mr Damon Runyon, “The race is not alweays to the swiftest, nor the fight to the strongest, but it’s the way to bet!”
The Cinton machine is still in fine shape from sea to shining sea.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This feels like a bad dream. A very bad dream…
How on earth did the evil she-devil manage to win??!!! WTF?!!
I hate her. I hate her. I *HATE* her. I can’t believe it. This just defies probability. I keep pinching myself, hoping I will wake up… And nothing’s happening.
What the HELL are the retards who voted for her in New Hampshire doing? Did they lie to the posters? Have they no brain? Is it a giant conspiracy??
Arrrrggggghh!!!!!!!!!!!!!
My finger was hovering over the “lay” button on Obama last night. Could have had a guaranteed £50 profit. But I thought; “Nah. Obama has a 97% chance of winning NH by a landslide, I’ll wait till his odds tighten tomorrow.”
And now? I’m in one hell of a bad mood at work and nursing potentially huge losses. I really, really want a time machine today.
Bloody yanks!!
The truth about Hilary’s success is probably more mundane than many of the theories that will do the rounds.
In NH Hilary a) had a bigger base of support than in Iowa, b) its was more solid support in that it was deep rooted and robust.
Add to that her machine was stronger in NH and also perhaps Edwards being somewhat weaker and at the least Hilary was not going to roll over.
Whatever people say about tears and all that the above is rock on which her success, which admittedly looked very unlikely with teh weekend polls.
As it is, the money to be made on Hilary last night was a bit of a hoot, way more than any bet struck over the weekend.
‘of her success’
I have been “suckered in” and lost over NH,still all is back to normal in the UK
The Stock Market is on the slide again
Northern Rock shares are heading south
Arsenal are playing Spurs tonight.
It’s almost like the “feelgood factor” has returned.
But are the votes really, really, for her, is this a way of getting Bill back? Joblot voting!!
Apologies for the length of this post. Hope it’s useful:
What a night! Thankfully, I came out a little ahead (though actually, had I just gone to bed at 11pm, I’d have done even better - my fault for laying off my bet on Hillary, though I just got my money back on the GOP side having earlier backed Romney).
Lots of lessons to be learned (or relearned). Firstly, the polls: they were all over the place and turned out to be wrong on average. Whether this is down to sampling or not, they’re unreliable. They’re a useful tool, but not much more. Careful analysis of what’s going on and a good understanding of the process is probably better by itself, though the polls shouldn’t be ignored. Essentially, we’re now going to have to question why the polls are showing what they are, every time. part of the problem is working out who is going to vote, a problem not dissimilar to in the UK - Labour performs better in the raw polling data than at the ballot box because armchair Labour supporters are less likely to turnout than their Tory equivalents. UK polling companies have lots of data on this and can make adjustments, US companies have to cope with the fact that each presidential election is very different in nature and requires modelling state-by-state: much harder to get right.
Second lesson. We were right in assuming that Obama would win the independents; we were wrong in assuming that this would be decisive given the scale of the turnout and the Dem/Rep split. Hillary did really well amongst her own base. We should not underestimate how establishment she is and how important that is. That, combined with an effective national organisation is the reason I long expected her to be the candidate - something Iowa changed, but I’d now subscribe to again. Not all primaries are open races where independents can vote: the closed primaries are more likely to favour her, the first being in Florida, though that’s a bit of a strange one with the delegate ruling, but there are another six on Super Tuesday. Of course, this does depend on her getting the campaign right. She can’t go crying everywhere.
Third lesson. Watch for the value. We say it again and again, but was last night ever the example? Someone got 249/1 for Clinton just before the first results started coming in; Obama was unbackable. Any reasonable assessment - especially one including what we know about the Clintons and the polling - should have said that was lunacy. Annoyingly, I got caught up in the groupthink and didn’t add to my earlier bet. More fool me; one peebie got 100/1 and banked a couple of hundred whoever won within minutes.
Fourth lesson. Experts - on the media and on here - can get it wrong. Search for the real data and make your own mind up. That said, I’m not an expert, so I can get it even more wrong.
Fifth. Both races will go to Super Tuesday and quite possibly beyond. The likelihood is that Obama and Clinton will trade states before Feb 5th, but one may make a decisive break then. On the GOP side, things are even more confused. That one could go the distance (it probably won’t but the chance is certainly there). Look to the candidates with the best national organisation and best fundraising.
Sixth. Negative campaigning is unlikely to work in this campaign. For the Republicans, as Romney has proved twice now, there are just too many targets and you can’t have a go at everyone; for the Democrats, Clinton can’t go too heavily for Obama because it looks like she’s attacking ‘hope’, and Obama can’t go too heavily for Clinton without losing his positive appeal. One thing that probably swung it for Clinton was getting some coverage back for herself in a positive, or at least human, way.
Food for thought and discussion anyway.
56. Not sure I got across how much I HATE Hillary Clinton.
Do Democrat Americans not realise how despised and divisive she is?
Bush..Clinton..Bush..Clinton..
How on earth is that going to repair Americas image in the eyes of the world? How will that unite the nation? How will that help America come together and look positively, freshly, towards the future?
She’s an evil, sinister, artifical, calculating, self-obsessed, disgustingly repellant she-devil.
If she wins the nomination, I’m tempted to cross the pond to campaign for WHOEVER opposes her.
Told you so yesterday - the Barack hype had all the signs of a ridiculous bubble…and so it proved. Anyone interested in investment opportunities in the South Seas?
59.
I almost forgot,the £ is in freefall,surely some betting opportunites here.
Now:
1 Pound = 1.33505 Euros
My Forecast is:
End of next week.
1 Pound = 1.29 Euros
End Of 2008
1 Pound = 1.1 Euros
2010
1 Pound = 50 Euro Cents
41. Peter.
How do we make back, cover, or recoup (whatever you like to call it) our losses (potential or real) on Obama?
Without being silly, there must be a way no??
I will need your guidance over these painful days to come
57.Congratulations Yokel, I always don`t agree with your politics.
However I certainly respect your opinions and your insight.
You kept your head, when many on here lost there`s.
63. South sea bubble.
I’m so moody today, I’m tempted to tell you to f**k off.
But, I will be civil, and say; “yes” - you had a point
62 - I concur. Hell, I’d even be prepared to support a Republican candidate if she gets the Democrat nomination.
65 Slowly, Casino.
Hope you are OK. We fretted so much over McCain; never gave a thought to Obama.
67. Always a mistake to get emotionally involved with your bets. I personally loathe Clinton but the opportunity to lay Obama at 1.1 yesterday was simply too good to miss…will buy me a very nice lunch later. And to think he traded as low as 1.01!
Presumably the polls are going to be viewed with a lot more caution from here on in. From a punter’s perspective I wonder if their inaccuracy will help make a few more quid though.
68 - Bob, what is the general Tory view of this election. Last time round, as relations between the White House and Michael Howard were so bad, the Tories appeared to lean Democrat (for the first time ever?), whilst the Labour leadership were fairly ambivalent, at best.
On the record, Cameron may keep his trap shut, but I would guess he would tacitly cheer Obama against any Rep, but be ambivalent should Clinton be the candidate.
As for Labour, well does anybody really listen to them on foreign affairs now…
Well the warning signs were there. Obama was hyped. Was always going to be close.I love the clinton=brown=toast posts.
This game’s far from over. I think Nevada might prove to be key in the Democrat race (ironic seeing as the candidates gave South Carolina more attention) - Clinton was polling well but it’s more open at the moment (not that I’m really trusting polls right now)
So Nevada is Obama’s chance to show he’s still in there ahead of Super Tuesday. Clinton will feel good about South Carolina and if she has also won Nevada than the big day could be a very bad day for Obama.
On the Republican side, Michigan is clearly crucial in the McCain vs Romney race. It’s Romney’s last stand. And South Carolina will be where we get confirmation that Huckabee eliminates Thompson.
Moving to Florida, that’s the really big state where all the strategies come together ahead of Feb 5. And I have to say I’m wondering how Giuliani can win it. Huck is looking good. But lots will happen between now and then!
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/01/08/giuliani_sinks_to_fourth_in_florida.html
41, 43, 66. Cheers lads.
Ant - why do you think Clinton has a chance in South Carolina? Surely, given the large black turnout, and the 20% lead Obama had in the polls, this is the one state pre Feb 5th he can expect to win.
69. Thanks Peter.
I’m just a moody, miserable, grumpy b@stard today. Thought I couldn’t lose. This site is therapy.
Seriously though, what were the odds of *that* happening?
It defies belief. The bookies pay out. Betfair maxed out. No backing odds available. BBC reports “massive Obama lead”. Early exit polls show huge Obama lead. How? HOW? HOWWWWW??? I just can’t understand it.
I did a double-take when I switched on breakfast news at 6.30am this morning. Just couldn’t believe it. The MoE could never be THAT far out. Or all of the polls. It’s simply too massive a gap.
I smell something fishy…
A lot of humble pie to be eaten this morning. The wosrt performance after the pollsters has to be Luntz who produced a focus group that showed overwhelmingly that the pro Hillary Democrats had switched to Obama. With his usual ‘crowd control’ he was able to say ‘wow in X number of years polling this is unprecedented….’ or words to that effect! If the BBC see that charlatan for what he is all is not lost!
Not a good night for our American guests either who were just a little to strident even when the evidence became overwhelming…..
And finally not a good night for Ben who told me I didn’t know what I was talking about when I said the demographic in NH would be more favourable to Hillary……(No apologies necessary Ben!!)
71 - er, i’m not a member of the Tory Party so I’m not the person to ask what the Tory line is.
As for me personally, to the extent I take an interest in US politics, I’ve generally taken the view - rightly or wrongly - that both parties are generally free market and rightwards facing (compared to the UK anyway), so it’s more down to personalities of the candidates. Having no time whatsoever for the Bible-bashing Right (here or over there), I will favour a sensible and attractive Democrat candidate over a religious conservative Republican any time. As all the Republicans, as far as I can see, are a bunch of religious nuts to varying degrees, I will probably favour a Democrat. Although I do find myself superficially warming to Huckabee, but I think that’s just because I keep thinking he’s Kevin Spacey.
I was reasonably warm towards Bill Clinton, but the thought of his awful wife getting the top job leaves me cold. Obama looks fresh and would be a decisive change. I think it would be good for the world at large to have someone like him in charge.
Obama vs Huckabee would be my preferred outcome. It would give me time to see if I could warm to Huckabee, if not, stick with Obama.
I think an Obama win would be good for the Tories and for David Cameron. A defeat for Hillary will be terrible for Gordon - so everyone’s a winner…
75 - my guess is that if Obama get black people who may have never voted before - or not in a long time - to support him, then he will sweep the south. And if he does not do this, the nomination is far more open… and Hillary’s for the taking?
76 No, nothing fishy, Casino. Not time for a proper post-mortem now.
Cheer up. Worse things happen at sea.
Robert (75) - not sure about your 20% lead in the polls. I think the race might revert to closer to the pre-Iowa than post-Iowa polling as a short term correction in the wake of Clinton’s NH victory.
Clinton was ahead of Obama in SC polls all last year - though Obama was back within a couple of points in December.
The NH vote analysis shows that poorer, less well educated people voted strongly for Clinton (agreeing with Shanty’s point a couple of days ago that her support has the most crossover with Edwards’). In South Carolina, that demographic has far more presence.
In addition, the assumption that SC will vote for Obama because he’s black is false. As far back as last March, there were indications that the black vote wouldn’t be homogenous becuase Obama was perceived as having a more privileged upbringing than the blacks that would be assumed to vote for him. And they identified with Clinton’s feminism in the 90s.
70. “67. Always a mistake to get emotionally involved with your bets.”
I get emotionally involved with losing
“From a punter’s perspective I wonder if their inaccuracy will help make a few more quid though. ”
Very good point. But my confidence has now been knocked badly and I’m worried about losing more.
It will be difficult for me to reengage in this race now.
amazed like everyone else.
Can anyone suggest WHEN was the last time something like this happened? Major beating Kinnock in 92 was peanuts compared to this, and the City raced up a hundred points a day just before the election, so somewhere people knew that the tories were going to win.
If you came down from another planet and learned about the US elections via the BBC you’d imagine Americans had a choice of either Obama or Clinton for president.
But the fact is while the lefty love-in with the ‘will the next president be Black or a Woman’ question continues the Republicans are quietly beavering away below the radar.
I did think they were a write off in 2008 but if Clinton gets the Democrat nomination I am certain (and betting) that it will be a Republican in the White House in ‘09.
78 - thanks Bob. I know you are not a Tory party member, but I know where your sympathies lie. A fair assessment.
Not all Republicans are religious nuts. But a lot are.
79 SBS I don’t think it’ll work like that. You might be overegging Obama’s appeal. He’s still got a chance but Hillary should be a strong favourite in the markets right now.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not overreacting to last night. Obama only lost by a couple of points - he was right to say that he picked up a lot of support in the final week - and Clinton isn’t untouchable in the way some thought before Iowa. But she’s got the media narrative back onside and it’ll take a big push from Obama to win a race before Feb 5, which he absolutely has to do. He’s got the talent to turn things back in his favour but the fact he has to do that means he can’t be favourite, surely?
According to the BBC Hillary is ahead in 20 of the 21 states voting on Super Tuesday. So it’s over and out…. The next President of the United States is Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama as VP.
Now the Spanish elections in March look much more interesting….
83, Seriously, Adam in Hackney, from a betting perspective you need look no furhter than the Lib Dem win in West Dumbarton. All the money, press and received wisdom was on Labour holding on, even after the early boxes had been opened.
This result was a massive surprise to the majority who posted on this site in recent days. Watching it as an observer, it seemed as if the “chattering classes” all jumped on the Obama bandwagon across all media.
We need to look at their pollsters sampling techniques. I have seen reference on here to surveys of circa 500 voters being used to derive forecasts. These and even smaller surveys, have large Margins of Error.
Marcus @ 84, I don’t think it becomes a certainty but it surely would narrow the White House race
84 - from your comments, it would appear that you favour a Republican win in November. Are the Tories likely to covertly or overtly back the GOP?
Could one of the reasons for Mrs Clinton’s victory be the increase in early and absentee voting? Remember that Clegg polled heavily in the early days, but Huhne clawed a lot back as the campaign went on, but not enough to overcome the early damage done. Maybe Obama ran the better campaign, and had the momentum, but not enough to overcome the early postal votes garnered by the Clinton machine?
Ant @ 90, Hilary Clinton will drive voters into the arms of whoever the Republicans choose.
Imagine how we would react at the prospect of Cherie Blair for PM?
80. You have an admirable constitution.
Your losses are almost 10 times mine, yet you put on a brave face. Stoic, stiff-upper lip Brit (*Casino hums Dambusters tune*) Good man!
But it is a bit fishy isn’t it? I just can’t work out if it’s more like Kenya or Russia
Seriously, how could everyone could get it *SO* wrong. Heavy tactical voting by Edwards supporters? Pollsters not weighting properly? I dunno. It makes the 1992 c*ck-up look like a picnic.
Anyway, do you think it’s worth reinforcing a heavy position on Obama due to his odds moving out so much? Does he now represent excellent value? Or is that very risky and potentially reinforcing failure?
I’m sorry, but I told you so
(Yokel said the same thing too!)
“82-If this helps, I also believe Clinton might win NH…
by Me January 5th, 2008 at 12:16 pm ”
“88-Me neither. I just believe she can do it. A month ago(I know this is a lot of time in politics) I read an article that showed why Hillary could lose in IA and still win in NH. Obama still face some problems, so I don’t think it’s certain that he will win, as many are counting.
by Me January 5th, 2008 at 12:36 pm”
Marcus @ 93. I don’t like Hillary. I think she should be viewed in the same way as Cherie. But don’t underestimate the number of people that respected her as First Lady.
93. “Imagine how we would react at the prospect of Cherie Blair for PM? ”
Very well put.
I find something very strongly repellant about this woman.
And Hillary Clinton….
Morning all
Went to bed last night with Hillary ahead by 4% but still thinking that Obama would pull it around. Just goes to show that bandwagons aren’t all they seem.
IMO Obama needs a big win in one of the next big Primaries, otherwise the momentum he built up since Iowa will disappear as quickly as it arrived.
Of course, we still have 48 states to go, but the Dem waters just got a little bit murkier. Especially now Clinton’s getting in hubby’s old advisors to “relaunch” her campaign
John Wheatley. Did you really think John MCain gave the best speech of the night? I and others here thought it the worst by some distance. Infact so bad that should he win the nomination he would surely would be humiliated in the TV debates against any of the Democrat candidates
93 - Norma Major 4 PM anybody?
91. Actually SBS I did the US version of political Compass test
http://www.electoralcompass.com/page/0/thema+s/
and end up far closer to the Dems than the Republicans, mainly because I am a social liberal and back gun restrictions very strongly (as most Uk citizens would).
The Conservatives tend to sympathise with the Republican party and the links run quite deep, but I’d be surprised if we get too close to anyone this time.
Am I the only Hillary fan here then? I would vote for her.
Absolutely astonishing. It makes opinion polls look like wasted effort when you see results such as this.
http://lettersfromatory.wordpress.com
94 Personally I need to take a deep breath and regroup. I’ll be in touch.
A solid punt on the Republicans to win the Presidency might be a value bet.
Even if the Republican candidate doesn’t win, their odds are bound to shrink if they’re up against Medusa. Ergo, a price movement bet would be good, if correctly timed.
Still, I fail to understand why registered Democrats are so willing to perform flagrant fellatio on any Clinton of the parties choice.
They must know how toxic she is.
I think there is an important here for pb.com. There is a bit of a groupthink developing on the site. Lots of people had been saying that Obama was hyped, and that it was going to be closer than common wisdom had you believe. In many cases these unbelievers were attacked and shouted down. Sometimes in bad humour.
The worst aspect of this whole thing was that people were backing/ or at least warming to Obama, because he would be good for Cameron. Not only is that highly debatable, is madness as a betting strategy. Our right wing brothers got carried away.
Obama was clearly OTT guys, you’d have thought he’d won the Whitehouse rather than Iowa. A massive warning sign to anyone prepared to listen and not get carried away.
Listen to the alternative view sometimes, it might save you some cash.
102. No. Nick Palmer fancies the pants off her too.
88. Yes, these things do happen. And when they do, those swept up in the hype are understandably upset, while those who spotted the value are elated.
71/78. View from the Conservative corner: Cameroons have good links with McCain, and Giuliani wouldn’t scare any Tory horses; Romney’s too ‘American’, Huckabee’s dangerous cos he’d inflame the IDS/ConHome religeous loonies. Nobody likes Hillary, everybody loves Obama, but they are both Democrats and will be treated with utmost respect and total caution.
On this side of the pond, we do tend to view US politicians with our romantic specs on, don’t we? I remember rather liking Dukakis, for crying out loud.
101 - thanks Marcus. I’m asking out of curiousity rather than trying to make a point. Four years ago, Michael Howard’s poor relationship with Bush (hardly Howard’s fault) must have loosened some old established links.
Unsurprisingly, I am more of a Democrat, though their protectionism does not appeal to me.
Fascinating night - I’d not intended to stay up for the result but it was irresistible.
As one of the minority of Clintonites here, I’ll have a shot at explaining what I think happened - apologies for length. The primary was won mainly by people who think of themselves as regular Democrats - the Indies split, some voting McCain, some not bothering - in the end there just weren’t enough to matter.
How do regular Democrats think? Well, a lot of them think that Bill Clinton was a terrific President, and Hillary is a courageous serious liberal woman, four big pluses in many regular Democrats’ thinking. Do they dislike Obama? No. He’s an attractive guy and a great speaker. But is he a liberal? Not sure. Will he address traditional Democrat issues? Not sure. But they were tempted.
At that point you need to add the emotional factor. The media and the Clinton-haters (like Rod here, with his ‘witch is dead’ stuff, and Casino Royale’s entertaining comments) were making Hillary out to be a figure of fun. The inevitable candidate who screwed up. The woman who got above herself and then almost cried. The woman in a panic who was going to get massacred in NH. Regular Democrats thought, “I don’t like this. People are dissing someone I respect who shares my values. I’m not going to be part of it.” And they weren’t.
To take a domestic analogy - one reason the Labour vote here is staying reasonably firm is that there are a lot of people who really disliked Cameron deriding Brown to the extent that he was doing. Labour people generally like and respect Brown (pause for stjohn to say “Include me out!”), and while they may well be unhappy about this or that policy, they don’t want to join Cameron in cockily doing him down. Negative politics can work, but sneering at named opponents usually doesn’t.
That leaves Obama with a little silver lining. I think NH was essentially a solidarity vote with an embattled woman who most Democrats respect. I don’t think it was a measured assessment. But the big plus for Hillary is that she had such a big lead among Democrats, and in most states it’s Democrats who will decide. And the obverse of the ‘astonishment’ that everyone felt about Obama’s potential success is that at some level it’s always seemed a bit unreal.
So will independents go Republican if Hillary is nominated? I’ve commented before that the Republicans are alarmingly close to level pegging despite their disarray. But Hillary is a plausible President for most people even if one they don’t like. It’s rather difficult to say that about any of the Republicans at the moment - that’ll change when they have a nominee and get behind him, but each in turn is showing significant weaknesses. I think Hillary would start a narrow favourite.
The post mortem on those NH polls begins - see below. FWIW, I know (trust me!) that the HRC camp and the BO camp were saying BO was winning by 10pts+ just 3 hours before polls closed. Everyone got their polling wrong!! The betting lesson for the rest of the primary season - especially open primaries - we’re flying blind!!
>>The Pollster
About Those Democratic Polls
By Jon Cohen and Jennifer Agiesta
Yesterday’s Democratic result is sure to fuel debate among poll-watchers about the accuracy of polls in contests with African American candidates. In several well-known, but long-ago examples, pre-election polls underestimated support for the white candidates in such campaigns. But in the 2006 elections, a strong showing by polls in elections with black candidates seemed to finally put that notion to rest, and there was no apparent problem with reliable pre-election polls in Iowa.
A more likely culprit than the role of race in the New Hampshire election was the “likely voter” modeling, with pollsters perhaps over-counting the boost of enthusiasm among Obama supporters following his victory in Iowa. Another possibility is that independents opted at the last minute to participate in the Republican primary, depriving Obama of crucial voters.
A further potential source of error stems from New Hampshire ballot rules. In previous contests, the state rotated candidate names from precinct to precinct, but this year the names were in alphabetical order, with Clinton near the top and Obama lower down. Stanford Professor Jon Krosnick, a
It was an exciting night.At least we learned never ever again to trust American pollsters.
One factor not mentioned regarding this surprise result was the television debate between the candidates following Iowa. Hillary was feisty and impressive, Obama was far too laid back and frankly unimpressive.
106. Trying to make a UK partisan point out of this is simply foolish. People of all political persuasions were taken in by the Obama hype - there were plenty of left-wing posters enthusing about the possibility of a black president for example.
The lesson is simply the one I mentioned up thread - don’t bet on emotion and beware of ’sure things’. Obama was a fantastic bet at 50-1, a rubbish one at odds-on.
The idea that hillary was going to get trounced in NH after months/years of preparing for it and all the experience that Bill had in 1992 was absurd. Obama could easily have won it after Iowa, but he hyped himself out of contention. Kinnock Sheffield Rally and all that.
111. A lot of partisan rubbish in that post as well.
A long post below but I hope helpful for our understanding. I am reminded of James Carville’s line on the Kerry campaign in 2004 - ‘Q. What do you call the candidate relying on the young and first time voters? A. The loser’
>>RealClearPolitics HorseRaceBlog
By Jay Cost
« Clinton’s Plan B | HorseRaceBlog Home Page
January 08, 2008
How Clinton Won
Hillary Clinton won last night by putting together the voting coalition that has held Democratic frontrunners in good stead for 75 years. Take a look at these numbers - all of which come from CNN’s cross-tabulated exit polls. What you’ll see is that Hillary Clinton won many elements of the traditional FDR coalition.
-Self-identified Democrats made up 54% of the electorate. She won them, 45% to 34%.
-She won voters without a college degree, 43% to 35%.
-She won voters with incomes less than $50,000, 47% to 32%.
-She won voters over the age of 65, 48% to 32%. She also won voters in their 40s (44% to 33%) and their 50s (39% to 30%).
-She won Catholics, 44% to 27%.
-She won urban voters, 43% to 35%. She won suburban voters, 42% to 31%.
-She won voters from union families, 40% to 31%.
-She won voters who said they have been “falling behind” economically, 43% to 33%.
-She won long-time voters, 38% to 33%.
Obama, on the other hand, had a very different electorate - one that has a bit in common with the insurgent candidacies of Gary Hart and Bill Bradley.
-He won Independents, 41% to 31%.
-He won voters with at least a college degree, 39% to 34%.
-He won voters who make more than $50,000, 40% to 35%.
-He won college age voters, 60% to 22%. He split voters in their late 20s, 35% to 37%. He won voters in their 30s, 43% to 36%.
-He split Protestant voters, 36% to 36%.
-He won rural voters, 39% to 34%.
-He split voters from non-union households, 39% to 38%.
-He won voters who said they were “getting ahead” economically, 48% to 31%.
-He won first time voters, 47% to 37%.
An additional ingredient to Clinton’s success was a victory among female voters, 46% to 34%. Obama won male voters, 40% to 29%. But female voters outvoted male voters, 57% to 43%.
As I said, Clinton’s is the type of electorate that has delivered Democrats the nomination again and again. These results remind me a great deal of the electorate that delivered Mondale the nomination in 1984 - noting, of course, the irony that Clinton won New Hampshire with this bloc and Mondale did not.
This suggests the model for Clinton moving forward: win by appealing to the traditional Democratic electorate. If she must fight Obama state-by-state, she would do well to reformulate this “Mondale Model” again and again.* This bloc of voters is more sizeable in other states.
Of course, what we do not yet know is whether Obama will be able to win one of the most loyal and potent parts of the traditional Democratic coalition, black voters. My intuition is that black voters will be absolutely critical to the prospects of Obama and Clinton.
Some pundits will probably reference Saturday’s debate or Clinton’s near-crying moment as reasons she surged late. The exit polling does not back this up. Obama won voters who decided sometime between a month and three days ago. And the two split voters who decided today - 39% to Clinton, 36% to Obama. Clinton dominated among voters who said they decided earlier than a month ago, 48% to 31%.
This supports the idea that Clinton won by mobilizing the traditional Democratic coalition that is demographically inclined to her. You don’t just win elections by persuading people you’re the best candidate. You win elections by getting those people out to the polls. This appears to be what Clinton did. Accordingly - the implication is that the polls were wrong not because of last-minute shifts. They were wrong because they underestimated Clinton’s ability to draw out her base.
Final point. Clinton did something last night that most successful frontrunners have managed to do: use a reliably partisan voting coalition as a counterbalance to an opponent’s momentum.
* - The idea of a “Mondale Model” should be taken only as reference to this particular primary strategy - using traditional Democratic groups to hold back an insurgent who appeals to upscale Dems. As Mondale beat Hart, so perhaps Clinton has found a way to beat Obama. I’m not making any arguments about the general election. I certainly am not predicting a 49-state sweep for the GOP should Clinton win the nomination!
114 For those who still favour Obama, Hillary’s win in NH provides them with a second chance to put their money down at once again sensible odds.
I’m still trying to work out how this result affects the prospects for each of the GOP candidates.
75: Don’t assume that black voters will automatically back Obama. People don’t think THAT ethnically - cf. Ealing South, with its defecting councillors who were going to “deliver” the vote for Tony Lit. Ethnic voters are individuals just like everyone else and everyone hates being taken for granted.
106
No one attacked me when I said the media had already crowned Ob. or when I warned of short money going on him before NH opened.
I will stick my neck out once again and say between now and Super Duper opens that Ob goes odds on for the Nom. Hil got her onion out and it worked but you only get to play the joker once. Now it’s back to Eddie Waring and the marathon.
118 I think it’s obviously good for McCain and Huckabee. Another negative for Giuliani (but not disastrous) and real trouble for Thompson and Romney.
That said, if his odds are wide enough (say over 10 or 12/1 - any prices?), it’s worth putting a value bet on Romney to win the thing because the number of contestants leaves it open and Michigan isn’t a slam dunk for McCain, even if he’s a worthy favourite right now.
119 - I agree and Bill Clinton still has a strong standing with that demographic and will be campaigning exclusively in South Carolina to shore up the black vote.
117. Interesting. Could Obama in fact be just another version of Howard Dean?
119. Yet another feeble attempt to make a partisan UK point.
111. “The primary was won mainly by people who think of themselves as regular Democrats”
“Hillary is a courageous serious liberal woman, four big pluses in many regular Democrats’ thinking”
“I think NH was essentially a solidarity vote with an embattled woman who most Democrats respect. ”
“But the big plus for Hillary is that she had such a big lead among Democrats, and in most states it’s Democrats who will decide. ”
“Regular Democrats thought, “I don’t like this. People are dissing someone I respect who shares my values.”
And therein lies the problem..
It’s the Democratic base who like her. Noone else. It’s like the Conservative Party voting for David Davis. Or Liam Fox.
They shouldn’t be thinking about who “they” like. They should be thinking about who will win the Presidency.
All the evidence suggest that Barack Obama wins over Independents, the middle-classes, soft-Republicans, swing voters… you name it. He is an election winner.
Hell, I’m a right-winger and OBAMA IS THE FIRST DEMOCRAT I’VE EVER ACTIVELY WANTED TO WIN.
That should speak volumes.
If Hillary wins, I think she is 65/35 to lose the 2008 Presidency race. Too many people can’t stand her.
I therefore think backing the Republicans for the White House is a good bet, but I will be waiting a week or two to see how the Democratic race develops first before diving in.
If Obama does win, I don’t want to be holding a position backing the Republicans for the Presidency.
What this result simply does is stop the mOmentum in its tracks. It makes the Democratic nomination highly competitive, and means the chances of Feb 5th being a landslide for one candidate or the other have evaporated.
SC and NV are almost irrelevant since I think the voters on Super Duper Tuesday will be determined to make the most of the opportunity that NH voters have given them to blow the race wide open again. Now that they actually have a chance to influence the result, not being told by the media that all the momentum is in favour of one candidate, I don’t think they will give that away so easily. (MI and FL being largely irrelevant to the Dem race due to their lack of delegates and incomplete candidate lists)
I can’t call this any more. Due to the massive failure of the polls there can even be no comfort to be had from the inevitable shifts in polling results for all the upcoming states. Essentially they are meaningless. For once, the old maxim “there’s only one poll that counts” will be right. Except in this case there will be lots of them in many states on Feb 5.
the Tories appeared to lean Democrat (for the first time ever?)
In the 1950s, Churchill and Eden were much happier dealing with the Truman/Acheson partnership than with Eisenhower/Dulles. Relationships remained, privately, slightly prickly until the post-Suez debacle, when Macmillan worked hard to restore them.
Mmmm… New Labour meddling in markets - again. Just how independent is the BoE when GB is hinting at rate cuts this week?
Telegraph:
Mortgage lenders defying Gordon Brown
Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling have warned mortgage lenders that they will be expected to pass on cuts in interest rates to hard-pressed home owners. The Prime Minister said they had a “duty” to pass on interest rate cuts after it emerged that hundreds of thousands of borrowers are still paying over the odds following last month’s base rate reduction.
124 - was just about to post that it would be highly ironic if the “change” election delivers the establishment candidate for the Dems.
I forget who said it earlier, but it’s definitely worth keeping an eye on the Reps. Especially McCain, who’s almost destroyed one of the establishment candidates in Mitt Romney.
McCain as Pres nominee and Huckerbee as VP nom? They seem to like each other a fair bit..
Black voters may not vote for Obama.
A point is, he has not yet proved to be “a brother” for the balck people. This is why people especially white, fairly rich people are voting for him.
The problem for Obama is that Hillary is getting the “poor” vote and in the Urban centers Hillary could do well.
Look at what Clinton has done. She has softened her image. She speaks alot slower now, and lets the “message” soak in (cameron style). Also the young vote was split! And Hillary leads on women, and Obama on men.
I think this race could be won and lost on class, rich versus poor.
The problem for Obama is that his message could get old very quickly. A 4 week mantra of change and people could get bored.
119 - In the US, ethnic voters are probably much more clearly defined than here. In Britain, while ethnicity does make a difference, class is a big factor - for instance, a well-off non-white voter in a prosperous area is likely to vote with socio-economic group rather than ethnicity, although the latter still makes a difference. In the US, “identity politics” is much more clearly defined, and there’s more pressure among social lines. Admittedly, the pressure exists here, but it varies greatly among different ethnicities and religious minorities.
As someone who would prefer a democrat in the White House Clinton as candidate would be a real problem. Eminently beatable and lacking in the sort of leadership skills that America, and the world, needs.
“If one advances confidently in the direction of his dreams, and endeavors to live the life which he has imagined, he will meet with a success unexpected in common hours. ” Henry David Thoreau - Walden (okay, he was from Massachusetts but it’s not that far from New Hampshire!)
126 - well even Reagan and Thatcher had their spats - Grenada, Jeanne Kirkpatrick’s stance over the Falklands… (Kirkpatrick was then a Democrat, but part of Reagan’s team).
But the Tories in the 1980s were firmly GOP. Mind you the Dems were useless then… and the Tories probably wanted to back a winner.
127. It’s desperation, rather than a conspiracy.
Certain Tories on here dislike Hillary for the same reason they dislike Cherie and read the Daily Mail. They think a woman’s place is in the home where they can hold coffee mornings to keep themselves occupied. Hillary like Cherie are real professionals who have put in the miles…….
…….. In stark contrast to Cameron of course who after Eton Oxford and a stint as Carlton’s PR announces to Daddy over a port at Whites that he rather fancies being Prime minister………../
I understand not all of the states allow Independents to vote in the Democratic Paarty primaries. Can anyone clarify this for me and is there a list somewhere giving a complete delegate breakdown of the numbers of delegates representing each state and any other voting group? Then perhaps a better informed assessment of the Hillary/Obama contest can be made.
new thread
The US race is hard for us to follow because it works on so many different levels.
Americans are -at this stage- voting on the politics of the contest; but in the election itself they vote for their head of state.
I am convinced that the Republicans - who at the moment are hard to call because so many runners are in the race - will react to the very public airing of Democrat ideological aspirations by going the opposite way.
They are playing it cool and will choose an opponent to suit the Democrats front runner, rather than choosing their candidate on policy.
I am certain that if it looks like Obama for the Dems the Republicans will pick McCain, for example; whereas if it’s Clinton the Republicans may go for Rudi instead.
134 - but to be fair, have any of the three party leaders ever had a proper job?
134. I’m not even going to comment on the total stupidity of that predjuiced load of rubbish Roger.
You really are an idiot.
Roger - way back up the thread.
Yes I did think McCain did the best speach, because the ideas in were comprehen