Remember when Gord looked like this?
January 10th, 2008
- Will the honeymoon bets come to the aid of the NH losers?
Quite a few regulars took a battering in the betting on the New Hampshire primary and I note that Peter the Punter reported losses of £1300 - ouch!.
This has prompted me to look over outstanding bets and I discovered one that was very popular amongst PBers in late June and early July at the start of the Prime Minister’s extraordinary media honeymoon.
For it was not only the expression on Gordon’s face the appeared different then but the political outlook which affected the betting. One of the offerings was hugely popular amongst PBers, including Peter.
William Hill put up a series of options of things “that might happen first to Brown” among them - calling a general election, withdrawing fully from Iraq, having another child or seeing Raith Rovers win promotion. On top of that at a price of 10/1 there was the option that Labour would lose a parliamentary by election.
This was immediately before July’s Ealing and Sedgefield by elections and a lot of people put money on hoping to profit from those contests at what appeared to be favourable odds. Labour, of course, held on but the bet, as far as I am aware, still stands. I’ve got £100 on and if Peter had a bet a similar amount the £1000 profit could come in very handy.
Clearly for a Labour by election defeat there has to be a by election and in recent times fewer MPs have died in office. Also Gordon is hardly going to appoint a Labour colleague to a position inconsistent with being an MP because of the by election risk.
Given the Tories by election record (last gain in June 1982) the biggest challenge must come from the Lib Dems, even in a seat where they came in third in 2005.
If there is by election then even with the recent increase in Labour’s position in the polls a defence could be very tricky.
I would put the odds of the bet at about 2/1.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
How times have changed. I don’t know much about Raith Rovers but I’m gutted I didn’t put some money on the whole election fiasco.
http://lettersfromatory.wordpress.com
USA — Karl Rove on why Clinton beat Obama.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119992615845679531.html
The evil genius who gave the world George W Bush lists four or five reasons why Hillary won.
What was the wording?
Lose a by-election, or lose a seat in a by-election?
A bit of an invidious task trying to identify ill / aging enough that they might be the subject of the Grim Reaper. I am sure every party has people who are watching for these events, even if when caught out publicly they attract maximum criticism from others! I suppose the other group of Labour MPs is those who may be so disillusioned / despairing that they might consider resigning to take a job elsewhere. Which does happen occasionally!
4 MPs who are … ill / aging enough…. Clearly need more coffee this am!
2- Very interesting analysis, if only by describing the very sharp attacks that an Obama nomination would raise from the Republicans.
7 Peter the Punter- gasp- and you had been so level headed on Hillary’s prospects until recently on this site. I think the real punters on this site, you, Mike, yokel, Pfp, Jan, and the many others here look at their betting as a balance sheet, and take the losses as a necessary hit hopefully outweighed by the wins.
2 - A detailed list of Obama vulnerabilities. Artfully hidden in the Wall St Journal - Mr Rove is perhaps not an ABC man.
2. John L. A must read article! It explains NH in a way that makes. A contrast to the flim flam we were getting yesterday from posters who really only have a superficial knowledge of American politics.
It was also interesting reading such an article from Karl Rove. He really could have been Machiavelli in another life. His logic is crystal clear and unsympathetic.
Vote fraud: the DailyKos debunks the wild claims that Obama was robbed by Diebold (which started by wild extrapolation from a handful of Ron Paul votes omitted from GOP declarations).
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/10/02623/2264/85/434176
Essentially, votes were recorded on paper. Half of them were counted by machine. There were no anomalies.
I was using this Hills offer as an arb when betting on the Ealing bye election. Having won £800 when Labour won Ealing I still have the possibility of a £1200 bonus if the Hills “novelty bet” comes off? As far as I am aware even if another party’s seat became vacant and Labour failed to gain it in the ensuing bye election, Hills would have to pay out because “Sid” did not include the qualification in the bet’s rules that it would have to be a seat previously held by Labour!
Raith Rovers are second in Scottish Division 2 and have a fair (40% ?) chance of promotion in May 2008 …
When listening to all the results I always think ’so-and-so will be pleased / sad’ - and Gordon Brown is this particular so-and-so!
2 Continuing the “Why Hillary won” theme - here’s Karl Rove supporting what I’ve previously posted here:
The first came in the ABC debate on Saturday, when WMUR TV’s Scott Spradling asked why voters were “hesitating on the likeability issue, where they seem to like Barack Obama more.” Mrs. Clinton’s self-deprecating response — “Well, that hurts my feelings” — was followed by a playful “But I’ll try to go on.”
You couldn’t help but smile. It reminded Democrats what they occasionally like about her. Then Mr. Obama followed with a needless and dismissive, “You’re likable enough, Hillary.”
She was good on this debate, very good.
2. I won’t comment on the detail of the article just now, but I found the irony of this statement by Karl Rove delicious:
“He is often lazy, given to misstatements and exaggerations and, when he doesn’t know the answer, too ready to try to bluff his way through.”
99 (previous thread) And finally, if Kerry Katona was responsible for the founding of pb.c, can we not have her in the masthead?
I totally agree, if only for a day, you owe it to her Mike and to us.
15: Katona is horrible, vile. smoking and drinking her way through her current pregnancy. Yuck.
By elections, fascinating though they are, do need someone to die (usually) so let’s hope there isn’t one eh? Although if Bob Marshall-Andrews took the Chiltern hundreds (is that right ???) it woudl be interesting!
16 I take you’re not her biggest fan then, Jon?
16 No no no. We don’t want to lose Bob M-A! Far too much entertainment value, as well as interesting political analysis from him. Instead, please choose the most boring Labour MP (OK, it’s a strong field!) and make him the chairman of the Euro Sausage Harmonisation Commission or something.
16. A friend of test/commentator, perhaps?
Also, I really don’t see how Karl Rove can say Obama “ducked major issues”, whilst implying Hillary has not.
On the most major issue of the Bush Presidency; Iraq, Obama consistently opposed invasion, well before it even occurred, when it was widely popular in the US. He recognised its dangers and pitfalls as a “dumb” war.
Contrast that to Clintons flip-flopping on the issue. Being sort of “against” it and sort of in “favour” of it, depending on how popular the polls said it was. This sort of machine driven calculating blathering to try and engineer popularity epitomises her very being.
Sorry Karl, but I have much more faith in Obamas judgement than Clintons.
O/T Blair has been recruited by JP Morgan
Thursday January 10th, 2008 / 6h27
DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) has appointed former British Prime Minister Tony Blair in a senior advisory capacity to the firm, effective immediately.
The New York-based financial services firm said Blair will also join the company’s International Council.
Blair will advise JPMorgan Chase’s chief executive and senior management team on a part-time basis and participate in select events and conferences.
19: Who me? I know no-one on here.
I only said B M-A because it’s a wafer thin marginal. How about Bill Rammell then (majority of 97 votes in Harlow)? He’s a muppet we could easily do without, and it’s kind of local for me.
21. Nice to see that despite the credit crunch and the huge write offs associated with it, the big banks haven’t lost their touch when it comes to wasting vast sums on duff investments (he will apparently get £500k per year for what will likely be a few hours work per week).
21. Cha-ching.
Love these sorts of jobs. An “advisory” capacity. Because Blair knows sooooo much about investment banking..
Why don’t they just be honest and say Blair has joined in a “publicity” and “VIP contacts” capacity??
22. Good idea, Jon C. We’re in agreement then. Bill Rammall in Harlow it is. Please will somebody send him the forms to apply for the Manor of Northstead or the Chiltern Hundreds or whatever?
Obviously it would depend when and where, but the Tories are crap at By-elections. By-elections are what the Libdems are for!
On Clinton, voters are voting not for Hillary but for ‘Team Clinton, Vote Her get Him.’
Clinton’s time in office, (certainly for the older voter) after the Bush disaster, must be taking on all the nostalgic appearance of a ‘Golden Age’
24. But surely JPM want his experience of handling major crisis situations like foot and mouth, don’t they?
Or perhaps they are interested in his talents as a salesman of dubious goods? His success at promoting the Iraq War certainly suggests a real potential talent for equity sales.
14.Must admit I did find that comment ironic.
Very surprised at the Clinton win in NH. It looks like we are in for a roller coaster of a ride over the next few weeks, politics has just got interest again. Was turnout up in the NH on a similar scale to Iowa?
Morning Mike.
When I read your piece, I began to wonder if you had some positive action in mind. I know of no MP’s who are looking conspicuously peaky, but perhaps with a little assistance… Let’s discuss at the Party.
Yes, New Hampshire was a bad nite at the office but I can’t complain. I’ve had a long good run and nobody wins them all. Nevertheless that by-election bet - I had £50 at 10/1 - could be helpful. All we need is some obliging MP to step aside in the greater interest….
Anybody seen Nick this morning?
Btw, that’s a very good article by Karl Rove (see 2 above) for those who want to know the plain truth about NH.
21. Maybe JPMorgan want him to front a new advertising campaign - “A pretty straight kind of bank”
Peter. All credit to you, if not your bank balance, for sharing details of your NH adversity with us all. A true professional. The punter who never loses doesn’t exist. It was an astonishing result and all bets on Obama taken at odds of 1/2 or better, before the count began, seemed great value at the time to me.
Ah well. You get an honourary feature in Mike’s article today so all is not lost.
Re 29: Peter - ideally Mark Oaten from the LD’s point of view!
The Tories are too back the government on the building of nuclear power stations, odds on Goldsmith resigning from the Tory party over the issue? Would they be sad to see him go?
2. 30. There seem to be as many reasons for Clinton’s victory over Obama in NH as the margin of votes by which she won. But Rove’s article does seem to make sense.
I think it’s going to be very close for the Democrat nomination and very exciting. Obama is going to have to dig deep and find some more magic to win this. Clinton is a worthy favourite at present but not much in it.
33 Nah, he looks pretty robust to me, Goupillon. Haven’t you got somebody a bit flakier?
I lost £200 on Iowa and unfortunately having got my fingers burnt I did not bet on NH. I have still got £600 riding on Hillary for the main event as a month or so ago I thought she would win comfortably. I was extremely relieved after NH but I have completely lost confidence in my reading of the likely outcome of the US presidential election and will reduce this exposure if the opportunity arises.
34 - an interesting point re Goldsmith I have been wondering for some time. I bet Susan Kramer would be glad to see him go.
It is a difficult one for me as a LD who sees merit in nuclear . (Or a GB said yesterday in PMQs “nuclear… nuclear… nuclear… nuclear… nuclear… nuclear… nuclear… energy”)
2 Great article! Thanks… Only goes to show again that in politics it’s what’s going on off the TV screens that counts.
30. True. A very good article. But it doesn’t explain why *everyone* got the predictions so incredibly wrong.
You’d have thought that at least *one* opinion polls or exit poll on the day before, or day itself would have shown a tightening of the race, with Clinton drawing level, or even narrowly leading Obama.
They didn’t. Not even Clinton thought she’d win. Or come even close.
Neither does it explain why women opted for Obama in Iowa, but not New Hampshire. Why does her strategy work in one state, but totally fail in another? You can’t put it entirely down to caucus vs. primary and the Bradley effect.
Bizarre.
26,I agree-as a 36 year old resident in southern England,who strongly admired Bill Clinton as US President,I feel there must some feeling of ‘Life was better under the Clintons’-personal prosperity,relative world order-as a centre-left leaner,I would obviously cheer for whoever the Democratic Party nominate-I do perceive Obama has peaked too soon,and having to struggle a little bit will do Hillary (I’ve finally remembered there’s 2 ‘l’s in her name:lol:)no harm,indeed she has shown more humanity and humility in the last couple of days.For the Republicans,after 8 years of GWB,a period of opposition will probably be healing -I guess ‘Lets not lose too badly’ may already be the GOP’s mindset
Evening Standard saying arrests imminent over donorgate. See Guido Fawkes.
http://www.order-order.com
Hillary’s success is down to two things:
1. She had bigger support to begin with in NH than in Iowa
2. It was more robust and less flaky under pressure
O/T - What do PBs think of the stories on some American blogs that the results in New Hampshire districts where the votes were counted by hand were consistent with the opinion polls and exit polls?
They say that in districts where the votes were counted by machines / computers the votes were significantly different to the exit polls.
Is this just rubbish? Has anyone checked this?
http://www.digg.com/politics/New_Hampshire_Vote_Fraud_CONFIRMED_2
Presumably if the exit polls showed a significant closing of the gap between Obama and Clinton then that would undermine the conspiracy theorists. The above seems to be more about the Republican side however.
I think conspiracy theories are fun to read, especially if you have good imagination, but surely it is better to knock them down?
Can anyone point to a succinct explanation of what is going on - or not going on - with the Michigan primary?
Off topic - What do PBs think of the stories on some American blogs that the results in New Hampshire districts where the votes were counted by hand were consistent with the opinion polls and exit polls?
They say that in districts where the votes were counted by machines / computers the votes were significantly different to the exit polls.
Is this just rubbish? Has anyone checked this?
http://www.digg.com/politics/New_Hampshire_Vote_Fraud_CONFIRMED_2
Presumably if the exit polls showed a significant closing of the gap between Obama and Clinton then that would undermine the conspiracy theorists. The above seems to be more about the Republican side however.
I think conspiracy theories are fun to read, especially if you have good imagination, but surely it is better to knock them down?
37. Know EXACTLY how you feel.
However, I think the answer is to force yourself to be unemotional about these things and just be a cold and calculating punter. And look for valve in the remaining races.
Not say people like PtP and Mike Smithson are “cold” but this is something they are very good at. They do have very “cool” heads!!!
It’s certainly my problem. I lack the courage to hold bets and get nervous about losing my stake, rather than excited about the likely profits. The one time I held off a lay (AGAINST Obama on Monday night!!) was the one time I needed to! I thought; “Hmmm… no. I usually lay, but Obamas odds are bound to tighten in the morning once he wins NH, so I’ll wait till then.” - famous last words.
Finally, we need to get less emotional about Obama/Clinton. I get very emotional about it. Probably doesn’t help. Don’t care much about GOP, so it doesn’t affect my betting.
With Obama, I got carried away and therefore I am now very exposed should Clinton win.
37. Casino - I very much agree as I suspect will many others.
42. Sell GB weeks at 122 on spreadfair then.
Joe Stalin @ 46 — see 10.
43. You’re probably right Yokel.
Biggest mistake for Obamas campaign was to ramp expectations so high in NH.
The story should be that Obama still did very well. Hillary still only won by less than 3% in one of her most solid states after being well-ahead in the polls for well over a year. Obama achieved a substantial swing.
Instead, everyone now thinks he’s a busted flush. In fact, it’s still competitive, but the Betfair prices aren’t far off. Hillary should be 55/45 to win the nomination IMO.
I wonder how South Carolina/Florida might boost him if he wins both? Or Hillary only wins Flordida by a whisker? (remember, there are no delegates in Florida, but the “momentum” is v.important)
I’m tired about the conspiracy theories regarding the NH election. Hillary won, get over it (just as George W won in 2004). It wasn’t racism or voter fraud just the fact that in this time of crisis people might actually want someone who knows something about foreign policy - as opposed to an empty shell who thinks if he can smile everything will be all right (except of course for the times that he’s not starting World War Three by bombing Pakistan).
I’m solidly behind McCain myself and dislike Hillary for a number of reasons but she would make an infinitely better President than Obama.
50: To be fair to the conspiracy theorists here, the claim in that Daily Kos piece (that the paper-counted precincts showed the same disparity with exit polls as the machine-counted ones) does appear to be one entirely unsupported opinion - hard to tell by looking at it whether that person is balanced or not, or whether they know what they’re talking about or not.
That said, the claims that the thing is rigged are looking pretty insubstantial.
52. Yes it’s easy to forget what a deep and pervasive understanding of foreign policy Hillary Clinton has.
Matthew Partridge@52: Not saying you’re wrong about voter fraud in 2004, but what’s your evidence?
I would guess the most likely places for by-elections would be: Banff and Buchan, if Alex Salmond decides to go full-time at Holyrood; or
Henley, if Boris wins the London Mayoralty (and decides it is a full-time job).
For those Clintonistas out there (him, not her), what exactly did he do? as opposed to not do?
-balanced budget? or was this forced on him by the Republican congress after 1995?
-economic growth? which led to the dot com bubble months after he left office? or was the growth casued by Greenspan?
-illegal war in Kosovo? arguably “successful” though it may unravel soon, but illegal nonetheless
-allowed al-Qaeda to grow? Sudan offered to hand OBL over…
-Kyoto Treaty? Couldn’t be arshed to approve it in 8 years in office, even in those 2 with Democrat majorities in Congress
-Health Care reform, spearheaded by Hillary-we’ll never talk about it again…
For the record Hillary stands in a special position, she is one of the few people I dislike more than Bill. Also, where does her “foreign policy experience” come from? From being First Lady? Imagine the furore if it transpired Nancy Reagan was advising Ron. Also, frightening that an unelected unconfirmed (by Senate) figure should be wielding so much influence…Pretty sure it is not constitutional.
Finally, I would not be surprised if Hillary “fixed” preelection polls to then show a “surprise” victory. Team Clinton play dirty and nothing is beyond them. Really.
End of rant.
56 - there are strong financial disincentives for MPs to step down mid-term. It would need to be a good job for somebody to leave. Or a bloody good scandal.
The Grim Reaper provides mean pickings these days. Not many elderly MPs, and healthier hours.
56 - I think Salmond will withstand pressure to resign his Westminster seat while Boris is neither likely to win nor to resign his seat if he does (he would roll on to a General Election).
You don’t need to hunt for off-colour looking MPs to predict a by-election (it’s rather distasteful and often wrong - I know of one or two whose names have been whispered over past years who are thankfully well and kicking deep into retirement). But the fact is that statistically in a population of well over 600 where the average age is over 40, the likelihood is that one or two will sadly pass on either suddenly or after a short illness.
57-Oh yes, forgot the Rwanda massacre happened on his watch. Or maybe it was on HIllary’s, where she was practicing her foreign policy experience.
59 - I do find it rather unfortunate that MPs who do get very ill, do, at least in theory, have to continue doing the job until death or the next election.
One of the objections to Hillary is she has no understanding of foreign policy, hmmm don’t remember it was George W’s strong point.
I think Americans are ‘Off’ foreign in fact I think they are distinctly ‘Off’ it.
Americans see ‘Foreign’ as shorthand for trouble and pain. ‘Foreign’ means tax payers money being squandered on despotic or ungrateful regimes, most importantly,’Foreign’ means bodybags.
The candidate who stresses, America first, and ‘Foreign’ can go to hell in a handcart, will have it in the bag.
Christopher Beazley MEP to stand down at next Euro elections because he strongly disagrees with Cameron on the EPP pull out.
I think there’re quite a lot Tory MEPs retiring next time (at least 6, I think), so many winnable places for newcomers.
57 I bet she has a better understanding of Diplomacy than most having probably met every world leader in the ’90s and traveled to most of the world with Bill. Unlike Nancy Reagan, Hillary is a pretty accomplished lawyer and has been a senator for a few years now in her own right. I totally valid candidate for president IMO. I guess that you are against Eleanor Roosevelt as well on general principle.
good article at 2.
he says that opinion polls in primaries are unreliable. This sounds as though it’s right but I can’t see that he gave reasons for that exactly (gives reasons for why Clinton beat Obama - but not why the polls were wrong).
What are the reasons for the polls being wrong? Is it polling methodology or something else? Did the exit polls show a closing of the gap between Mrs Clintstone and Obama? Why would exit polls be wrong if they were?
Sorry - I’m sure this was debated earlier but if someone can give me a quick summary answer I’d be grateful.
Hello PtP - Broxtowe is such a safe Labour seat that it wouldn’t win your bet if I did step down.
Rove’s analysis is a good example of the sort of stuff we’ll see in the main election if Obama gets chosen. It’s one of the virtues of the long primary season that it gives time for weaknesses to come out and be dealt with if possible - maybe Obama does have answers to this sort of stuff, but if so he’ll be a better Democratic candidate, if selected, for having to hone them now.
Casino at 40: I think the hint in the polls was that the Obama bounce in NH after Iowa stopped after one day, and in the last polls seemed to be dropping back a bit (not to mention the much-derided Sussex institute who showed it never that high in the first place).
Seems to me that South Carolina is the key pre-Feb 5 state now for the Democrats. Nevada is just too small to matter, and I’m not clear that the beauty contest in Michigan is attracting much attention, is it? If Clinton beats Obama in SC I’d have thought his campaign was on the rocks. Conversely, if he wins then he regains some momentum going into the big one. Is Hillary definitely going for SC? - pre-NH, there was talk of her skipping a serious effort there, but I’d guess that’s gone with the wind.
57 - it’s an absurd conspiracy theory to suggest Clinton fixed the polls. On Bill’s record, you can argue ad nauseam about whether Clinton was a good President or just fortunate enough to be President during an economically good period and in that long-gone era between the Cold War and the War on Terror. There was probably a bit of both.
The fact is, however, that very many Americans remember the period as one where their living standards were rising quickly, they felt much more secure in their borders and somewhat more at ease with themselves (like Blair, at the very least Clinton looked like a man who was comfortable living in the modern world and that is why both retained a great deal of public support for a sustained period). And the most probably illusory prospect of a return to those days is above all what attracts a lot of people to Hillary - something which isn’t understood over here as we weren’t living in the US at the time.
57 - on from ballot-rigging conspiracy theories to poll-rigging conspiracy theories! You feel the Clinton have secretly bought all the opinion poll institutes and bribed their staff to rig the results, yes?
One of the less worthy things that motivates me as a Labour MP is just how worked up people with, um, different views get about us - I enjoy getting letters telling me I’m a traitor to my race for being soft on asylum or an evil dictator for helping get hunting banned. I wonder if the Clintonistas don’t at some level get a kick out of the people out there who really, really hate seeing them win.
54. So deep and solid she couldn’t make up her mind on the Iraq war and changed her position numerous times (see 20)
Obama is a member of the Senate foreign relations committee and has visited foreign countries all around the world. He is one of the most widely travelled Presidential candidates I can think of with personal and family links all around the world.
67
Agree! reality who cares, perception rules ok
On foreign affairs, despite her support for Iraq etc., deep down US voters are hoping, put her in and wily ‘ol Bill will get us out of this mess.
63 I’m surprised that’s only been announced today. I’ve known about his retirement for months (I’m taking part in the Regional Selection Committee on Saturday).
12 - Raith Rovers.
The league table can be seen here:
http://stats.football365.com/dom/SCO/D2/overview.html
And a very detailed analysis of their performance so far here:
http://stats.football365.com/dom/SCO/teams/RaithRov.html
Raith Rovers don’t look favourites to win automatic promotion, but were top of the table until losing to rivals Ross County; and after winning the last three matchs on the trot are still very well placed for the play-offs.
I would put their chances closer to the 60% mark.
51. Here’s the lucky part from a punting perspective.
People over react wildly, often on the day of polling. In tight races this means that there can be some great opprtunities because its possible that in the next few primaries the pair could be exchanging wins. SC should be an Obama win but I’m pausing until the weekend to see how the dust settles and what kind fo assault the Clinton side will put together. Obama of course has his line of attack too.
People that back below 1.05 on betfair in a 2 horse race should know better.
Laying off at 20/1 would always seem sensible 5% of your winnings is a reasonable insurance.
I’m really hacked off, I can’t post the rest of my message - can’t work out what’s wrong with it.
42. Do you think Guido is trying to break his duck of never having got anything right? If you contribute to that site maybe you could ask him what happened to his private prosecutions!!’
60. Exactly.
Dithered over Bos-n1a, Kos-0v0 and mucked up Rw@nd@ and Som@li@.
Obama should take no lessons from Clinton in the sensible conduct of foreign policy.
66 Morning Nick, and Happy New Year.
I was going to suggest that if you could hold Broxtowe, anybody could, but then I thought somebody out there might just think I was serious, and all this talk of by-elections tends to the distasteful anyway because it’s like encouragement to the grim reaper to do his work, so I’ll move on.
Good to read your calm and measured appraisal of the US elections. Pity you weren’t around more during New Hampshire. Might have moderated my Obamania…or maybe not. Looks very wide open now, and for once, I have absolutely no opinions!
All the best.
66. Maybe the Labour Party should have heeded this wise advice before electing GB without a contest.
75/77 - AH!!!!
It was the names of the countries the filter didn’t like!!
Spell them in a silly way and it let’s them through. Odd.
66. Noone else saw that hint Nick. Not even Clintons team.
I’m not one for conspiracy theories. But it is a very odd state of affairs.
78. “I have absolutely no opinions”
C’mon Peter, help me out here!!
Backing Obama or Clinton for SC? And at what odds would you believe represented “value”?
‘Do you think Guido is trying to break his duck of never having got anything right?’
Well he’ll never compete with your amazing record as a pundit Roger ahahaha
BofE Unchanged
81 No bet.
Yesterday night the Commons voted on the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill.
Regarding the Hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation part, it was proposed an amendment reading:
“Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion of, criticism of, or expression of antipathy towards conduct relating to a particular sexual orientation, or urging persons of a particular sexual orientation to refrain from or modify conduct according to that orientation.”
It was defeated…but here’s the breakdown of the vote:
-5 Tory MPs voted against it: Bercow, Blunt, Fabricant, Kay and Vaizey
-12 Lab MPs voted for it: Benton, Campbell, Dobbin, Drew, Flynn, Godsiff, Hoey, Kilfoyle, Pope, Robinson, Geraldine Smith, David Taylor
-4 LD MPs voted for it: Beith, Breed, Farron, Mullholland
-DUP in favour it. SNP didn’t take part to the vote. PC against it (well, 2 out 3 Plaid MPs voted against, the third was not present); Dr Taylor and Davies from Blaenau Gwent against it.
For what it is worth.
Using the age/gender profile of MPs and the latest life tables we should expect ~4.2 deaths a year.
84. Fair enough.
85: Some people don’t want people inciting hatred towards anyone because of their sexuality but are concerned laws like this (and the one on religion) can be used to gag people or arrest people whose opinions they don’t like.
86 - yes, but MPs - like most working people - are fitter than average. I would guess that those on income support are more likely to die.
85. ah, I noticed that Ruth Kelly showed up to vote against that amendment (I thought she could have made one of her absences)
BoE Base Rate unchanged.
89 - I’m not claiming to have done a full actuarial profile!
However the below would seem to suggest thought that c4 a year shouldn’t be too far off.
87-92 - 20 deaths: avg age of MPs on election 51.0
92-97 - 16 deaths: avg age of MPs on election 50.0
97-01 - 10 deaths: avg age of MPs on election 48.8
01-05 - 04 deaths: avg age of MPs on election 49.8
05-07 - 06 deaths: avg age of MPs on election 50.6
91 …..FTSE 100 Index promptly falls over 50 points
87. Nick suggested yesterday that Clinton might be value for SC with the odds as they were at the time. Don’t assume that just because Obama is black, he will have a big majority of the (sizable number of) African-Americans in the state. If Obama wins in Nevada (likely), then he will have some momentum going into SC - as he did this week. Anything above 6/4 (2.5) is probably good for Hillary.
45. On the GOP Michigan race (the Democrat one is irrelevant as Obama is not on the ballot, though could still be backed yesterday at 20/1, presumably on the possibility of write-ins?), this should be a McCain-Romney fight. Romney really has to win to stay in, or even get back into, serious contention. McCain will want to ride the momentum - he may well lose SC, where Huckabee should show well.
On that basis I laid Huckabee for Michigan, but that might not have been the best move (it certainly wasn’t the best timing), as a poll was referred to on here yesterday that had it close 3-ways. A second poll, taken later iirc, did have Huckabee about 10 points back on the other two - for what that’s worth after NH! The local Michigan media I checked at the time of making my bet were concentrating their focus on McCain and Romney, which influenced my decision. It would certainly make more sense to me for Huckabee to spend more of his time in SC and Nevada at the moment.
Andrea - how far has that got to go before it actually becomes law - I have lost track living here in the wintry colds of MN - tx -
85/88 The arguments against laws against “inciting hatred” are much the same as against the law of blasphemous libel. The number of successful prosecutions can be counted on the fingers of one hand, but the authorities, and pressure groups, can use such laws to harass people who express views they don’t like.
92 - well they obviously don’t drink enough. Can we subsidise the HoC bar more? Is the HoC exempt from the smoking ban as a Royal Palace? Can’t we close the HoC gym?
96 - I think Section 28 worked in a similar way.
86 looking at recent death rates to compare to your 4.2 per year, last 10 years actual deaths is 18. So the average is closer to 2 to year which supports SBS point at 89. FYI 1998 was also the last year without ANY by election.
2007 = 1
2006 = 3
2005 = 2
2004 = 1
2003 = 1
2002 = 1
2001 = 1
2000 = 5
1999 = 3
1998 = 0
Also Gordon called off the GE therefore the chances by elections will have risen because 44 (7% of MPs) were planning on standing down at that GE and these MPs have to carry on, some in ill health.
The key question regarding the dem nomination is - are they going to choose someone to win or are they going to choose someone to right the wrongs of the last eight years? Clinton is the divisive candidate, the one that Republicans hate and the kind of politician that drives others to be independents. She may energise the core of democrat voters but, and it’s a big ‘but’, is that core large enough? The suggestion from 2000 and 2004 suggests not. It may be a 51/49 possible win but a nailbiter all the way for the dems. It would, however, be a sweeter victory for them, as well as being a more rancorous one for their country.
As for Obama he hasn’t got that baggage of hate, in fact he won a state by reaching out to a constituency different from his defining feature of colour as opposed to Clinton who built a lead from appealing to those who shared her defining feature of being a woman.
Sooner or later, probably before Super Duper Tuesday, the dems are going to have to face the idea that they need to choose *how* they want to win, is it a revenge or is it a new start? The media narrative must surely start to focus on the negative reaction of Clinton beyond her constituency and the dems need to reassess their situation with that knowledge. If the media don’t start to pick up on this she is a favourite to win, if they start to ask the questions I think she will lose the nomination.
98 That’s a fair comparison.
81/87 Casino - But surely I can recall you stating yesterday that you had “availed” yourself of Nick Palmer’s “great spot” in identifying value in backing Hillary to win SC. Can there two Casino Royales on PB.com by any chance?
95. I think it has to go to the Lords now. Yesterday it was the thrid reading in the Commons.
Off thread, but according to Dizzy, the first London TV debate was recorded last night for viewing tonight. The market hasn’t moved, so we can assume a. there were no gaffes or b. no-one who bets has seen it yet.
Anyone got any thoughts on value betting in this race? I’ve got a very small amount on Boris on the spread market. Current prices to buy, Ken 19.8, Boris 15.0 and Brian 1.4. [25 for winnner, 10 for runner up]
102. No. That was me. I got a very small amount on.
But.. what’s your point?
I wanted PtPs opinion on SC, that’s all!
Will Ron Paul ask for recount?
http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd335.htm
G’day peebles. Got lots of work to do, so thought I’d pioneer a new method of bullet points, brief to the point of terseness:
a. Sexual orientation bill is stupid.
b. Hillary won NH coz of the sisters, and coz of the Bradley Effect. Nothing explains the EXIT poll discrepancies APART from Bradley. So Democrats can be racist too. Who knew? Get over it.
c. Bradley means Obama probably can’t win the Nom or the Prez.
d. So don’t vote against Hillary
e. Even if she is an appalling and manipulative shrew.
f. My sympathies on the losses, PtP: but why do people gamble? BECAUSE they can lose. Otherwise it wouldn’t be fun and exciting.
g. If it helps I have a great investment tip. I just read a fine book of Paris Review Interviews. One of them was with Billy Wilder (director Some Like It Hot). His financial advice: ‘Put money into pornography. But hedge by investing in Disney as well, in case family values become fashionable.’
h. How cool is that?
i. Hillary is horrible. Why do the nasty boring lying people always win? And the nice honourable poetic people always lose?
j. We’ll get our chance one day! In the end people tired of the Roundheads.
Yours, Prince Rupert.
104. The markets seem unconvinced by Yougovs opinion polls showing the race as v.tight - 44%/45% Boris/Ken. Maybe they’re also unconvinced by the debate?
Personally, I’m convinced anything over 2/1 on Boris is value. His price is bound to tighten as he ramps up his campaign and especially if other opinion polls show it is very competitive.
Having said that, think Ken will still clinch it, so it is important to cover any bets you make.
>>>CNN reports that Bloomberg has launched a research effort to assess his chances in a potential bid for the presidency. NBC Channel 4 in NY reported that Bloomberg had been conducting polling in all 50 states. CNN’s source said that the data is being gathered but that the mayor has not yet begun analyzing that data. The source said Bloomberg has set early March as a timetable for making a decision >>>
94 Huckabee is definitely not out of this, David. Note how his poll ratings have risen as those of Guiliani and Thompson have fallen. The trouble is, there’s not much ‘third-party’ left to squeeze.
I suspect he’s the value bet, but as I am still in a State of New Hampshire shock, I’m not getting involved.
re 16 not to go through all the arguments again but it would have to be the Stewardship on the Manor of Northstead next.
re 21 I thought he was supposed to be sorting out the Middle East, but seemingly at the moment George Bush deosn’t trust him to get that right either.
Just reading the tone of this thread if I where Nick Palmer I’d be very very careful who I let buy me a drink at the PB party, esp that Mr Smithson and PtP with their outstanding bets that would come in nicely with a by-election in Broxtowe…
107 - Bozza’s price may well tighten. Or he may just get gaffe-prone and drift on the markets. Tough call - but I think it’ll be the latter.
re 40 Mike are we going to have a what went wrong guest article from one of our statistical/polling pundits. I notice that on the PM programme last night they were putting it all down to late surge.
Casino Royale re Obama.
Rove’s piece makes the point that Obama has trouble nailing Clinton because he shares her weaknesses. If Clinton has limited foreign policy experience, he has even less. She’s not been a senator very long and neither has he. Obama would be the first Black president, Clinton the first female one.
But I’m not sure Rove has the whole story. He misses two things in my view. First, Obama and Clinton are in the same party and so on most issues are probably in broad agreement. They can argue over whose health plan is better for less well-off Americans, but they do both have a health plan. It is a bit like the Labour deputy leadership election
Second, Obama used the wrong tactics in the debate. Enjoying good poll leads after his Iowa win, he said nothing, in order to avoid a gaffe or offending his independent supporters. Trouble is, this reinforced the doubters’ view that Obama, in the end, stands for very little. Nor did he (or could he) draw on his experience in the way Kerry could, or McCain can.
Rove is right that oratory and optimism can only get you so far. At some point, you need to tell people where you are taking them and how you are going to get there. We have seen this in Britain with Cameron.
Cameron, after the Brown bounce, trailed in the polls. Cameron’s Conservatives lost in Ealing. Yes, he’d decontaminated the brand, removing reasons to hate the Tories, but there was no reason to love them either. Not being Blair was not enough once Brown was also not Blair.
The Tory lead was restored after the conference when they announced some policies. Yes, it was helped by Gordon’s silly stunts but, for a brief, fleeting moment there was substance.
Ironically, Conservatives don’t believe that. They think — you can read the astroturfers on here — their lead is due to Brown’s shaking hands or his stammer. No more policies, and the lead duly shrinks.
So it is with Obama. His dilemma is that much of his support is from the right and centre as well as the left.
That said, I expect an Obama presidency might be best for Britain, since he seems less protectionist than the others (although bombing Pakistan might not go down well). And I do believe Obama can win the next couple of primaries but, come November, Americans will elect President Clinton.
109 “I am still in a State of New Hampshire shock, I’m not getting involved.”
Likewise. Won on Clinton lost it on Romney. Could of lost the lot.
I don’t know if this applies to others but I am all green on the overall nomination markets and I feel this has encouraged me to get more heavily involved in the primaries than I would otherwise have done so. I am going to be more cautious from now on.
G’day peebles. Got lots of work to do, so thought I’d pioneer a new method of slightly terse bullet points:
a. The be-nice-to-gays bill is stupid.
b. Hillary won NH coz of the sisters, and coz of the Bradley Effect. Nothing explains the EXIT poll discrepancies APART from Bradley. So Democrats can be racist too. Who knew? Get over it.
c. Bradley means Obama probably can’t win the Nom or the Prez.
d. So don’t vote against Hillary
e. Even if she is a shrew.
f. My sympathies on the losses, PtP: but why do people make bets? BECAUSE they can lose. Otherwise it wouldn’t be fun and exciting.
g. If it helps I have a great investment tip. I just read a fine book of Paris Review Interviews. One of them was with Billy W1lder. His advice: ‘Put money into p0rn0graphy. But hedge by investing in D1sney as well, in case family values become fashionable.’
h. How cool is that?
i. Hillary is horrid. Why do the nasty boring lying people always win? And the nice honourable poetic people always lose?
j. We’ll get our chance one day! In the end people tired of the Roundheads
k. This supposedly timesaving post has taken me about twenty minutes to get right, as it kept getting caught in Mike’s sp@mfilter.
l. Think I’ll abandon the method now
Pollsters will always put being wrong down to ‘a late surge’. Anything else would be admitting they got it wrong.
109. Agreed as far as the overall picture is concerned - Huckabee is very much still in play. I just think that the focus for Michigan is so important to Romney, and the momentum being with McCain as it is, Huckabee could struggle to get much coverage there, especially without having that much money to spend. Still, I take your point re Giuliani and Thompson.
I like a lot of articles blaming it on Obama during the debate when Hillary was asked if she was likeable (sp) and Obmas gave a curt reply saying “you are likeable enough Hillary - that showed a different side of Obama which the voters did not like … just tossing a theory in the pot
Rove is a republican, it’s clear who he would like to be facing later this year and her name’s Clinton. He may be a strategist but he’s a very transparent one.
107, I assume that most of Paddick’s second preferences would go to Ken. If so, then in reality, Boris needs to be well ahead on first preferences if he is going to win.
116 Ouch. I feel your pain Henry, but we shouldn’t be discouraged. We’re punters, and we get it wrong sometimes. The Primaries are great betting events and we’ll have learnt a bit from these experiences.
112 Don’t be ridiculous, Galloglass. Broxtowe’s solid labour. There would be no point.
94: David, that second Michigan poll wasn’t taken after NH - the post that said it was must have been mistaken. It was taken Jan 6/7.
122. Probably not to a very great extent (lots of people don’t state second prefs. or transfer to candidates who don’t make it into the top two). IMHO, whoever’s ahead on first prefs. will win it.
ukpaul @ 121 on whom Rove prefers. Yes and no. Republicans may think they have a better chance of beating Clinton but know they can deal more easily with President Obama, much of whose platform is that he will involve Republicans and big business. Big tent politics: why can’t we have that?
117 You are spot on with f), SeanT. If you can’t lose, don’t bet. Thanks for your words of comfort though.
As regards g), I already put quite a lot of money into pornography. Not sure I can cope with Disney though.
Casino Royale @ 47 - You have my sympathies over your NH losses!
I share your problem with being too keen to lay off on bets through Betfair. I’m too often swayed by the allure of going “all green”, only to find my potential winnings halved when the sure thing comes in after all - the most notable example in the last year having been over Gordon Brown’s coronation.
The urged served me well for New Hampshire, though - I stuck a fiver on Hillary at average odds of 55 as I went to bed, and woke to find that I’d more than covered my losses on Obama.
That leads me into my main point - what is the best approach to betting on the primaries?
I can think of a few strategies:
1) Set lay and back prices for each competitive runner, with a very small spread between them and play the margins as the odds fluctuate.
2) Lay the leader
3) Bet against the polls (the polls seem to fluctuate wildly)
4) Follow the current pb.c favourite, but only whenever there’s reasonable value in doing so.
I’m leaning towards a mixture of 1) and 3). I simply don’t know enough about US politics to be able to judge value - but I *do* know that both polling data & betting sentiment are changeable enough that there’s real money to be made.
Are any of you more experienced punters using a set strategy?
re 108/Mike Bloomberg considering running - here’s the link;
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/10/bloomberg/index.html?iref=newssearch
Seems Bloomberg is assessing whether he should be the candidate to take the bipartisan movement forward should they choose to make a bid after the primaries are through…
125. I think the value bet in the GOP race is Mitt “Two silver medals” Romney. Exactly a month ago, Rasmussen made it a three-way Huck, Giuli, Rommers tie around 20% with McCain under 10%. Even given his NH Mo, and a media two-horse race narrative bringing in Huck and Giuli transfers, that’s a big lead for McCain to ‘chip’ away. If Rommers wins Michigan, he’s back in the race and his poor odds look value again. As usual, I have a little money on to back this theory.
So our party leaders are off on the celebrity circuit today - Brown bending it (the truth?) like Beckham, Cameron meeting Amir Khan in Bolton and paying homage to Morrissey in Salford. (A Tory incursion onto “Labour turf” that has clearly rattled Hazel Blears)
Interesting that the Beeb leads on Cameron, with Brown given 3 curt paragraphs at the end.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7180553.stm
It’s all about Dave now, no-one’s interested in GB any more.
131. I think Brown has ordered his underlings to try and tar Cameron with the bad tory brush, as he has been trying to do at PMQ’s. Problem is it isn’t working, it just sounds like a long whinge ‘but he’s horribleeeeeeeeeeeee’ over and over again
Ron Paul lost too. This analysis makes it sound like the SDP: enthusiastic supporters who knew nothing about canvassing.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/124295.html
131. DC and his team really are so much better at this than the Brownies, aren’t they?
Brown aligns himself with an icon past his peak and visits a trad Labour area - no surprises, no challenges.
DC aligns himself with a present and future icon who represents a non-traditional Conservative demographic, on his opponent’s home turf (with the added bonus of causing Hazel to grate her socialist teeth in a very last century manner) and throws in a cultural side visit that will chime with millions of 35-50 year old voters who are one of the key election battlegrounds.
Masterful!
131. Yes GB is a write off, a political Northern Rock who has collapsed but continues to (unconvincingly) pretend otherwise.
Sean T, was that your letter re: Hillary in the Times this morning?
115: very good analysis.
131,132,134,135: exactly the sort of astroturfing John L is talking about
124:
129 - Bloomberg would cause a buzz but would be squeezed out I believe, particularly if either Obama or McCain or both are nominated. He needs to have a lock on the independents to have any sort of hope and both of those have sufficiently big tents. Ironically, he could hand it to a candidate (Clinton or Romney) who is solid in their party but has little broader appeal. Such a candidate could then win the Presidency with 40% of the vote.
131 - A vile celebrity story which, taken as a whole, can only benefit Mr Clegg.
Just clicking through news stories and this suggests that my earlier point is being picked up, this being on the cbs news site.
http://tinyurl.com/2rfb66
“Fiorina’s point is that independent, swing voters never went away, they just had only highly partisan candidates to choose from. Unhappy with such choices, their votes were evenly divided between two bad options. This resulted in close elections. Analysts mistakenly said this meant America was polarized. It wasn’t. Politicians, activists and candidates were partisan and polarized. Most voters were not. They were pragmatic and open-minded.
These voters are looking for a home in 2008 and they actually have some interesting options. Sure, they want “change” from politicians they don’t like, who doesn’t? The deeper theme is that perhaps the myth of polarization is losing steam. A few candidates are doing what all candidates used to do in the days before culture war and wedge issues: running for the middle where most voters live.
Obama and McCain are appealing to independents. They are trying to use a style and vocabulary that isn’t knee-jerk partisan, that doesn’t demonize all opponents and that isn’t full of coded messages to the parties’ interest groups. It is a style of campaigning the country hasn’t seen for awhile. It may not prevail. So far, anti-polarizing campaigns have won two of four primaries.
The “change” narrative deserves an early funeral. But independent voters, the real silent minority, might commit some real political change this year.”
On a betting note, if anyone is looking ahead to California, teh independents are frozen out of the GOP contest therefore they only have the option of voting in the democrat contest. Given the splits so far that may become an important factor.
142. Indeed it was. There’s only room in southwest Bloomsbury for one Sean Thomas.
That last post was meant for Augustus Carp. My post-numberings are all awry, due to my having about eight drafts of one post caught in spam-moderation.
137 - so not just Blears rattled, Nick P too!
Astroturfer my arse, and this from Mr Palmer!
Mr Objectivity me. I even said something vaguely positive about Brown yesterday.
104 I have bought Boris on Spreadfair ( @ 14.6 ) despite believing Ken will win. Logic behind this is that it is a two horse race and Boris cant score less than 10 so the downside risk is small and the chances are that Borises numbers will go up especially as there does seem to be a bias towards the tories on spreadfair which is likely to mean folk buying on their hopes not on the facts. Trick will be as always gauging the right point to sell.
You do really have to pay attention, I managed to do well over the past 10 days bought Obama on last Friday morning sold just as the first results came in on Tuesday evening then bought Clinton and sold Obama and closed both positions yesterday morning on the basis that there was no clear favorite, conversely I was in a tent at Oktoberfest when GB called off the election that never was - too late to shut down my GB weeks position which rather cut into to my profits from elsewhere.
OK, Mr MP, if you think analysing the art of political PR is astroturfing, please give us your thoughts on why the Prime Minister’s trip is a triumph?
137. Or perhaps Brown, and the labours parties, obsession with trying to make Cameron out to be some 80’s tory yuppie, swaggering around the north kicking poor labour voters still bitter about the mines closing is a rubbish tactic. Constantly harping back to Camerons time as a bag carrier for Norman Lamont just provokes the question over what Brown was like back then, a question to which Cameron duely provided an answer(CND hmmm). Brown also has an obsession over asking Cameron questions, then taunting when he doesn’t get an answer. This is something that makes him look pathetic as well, seeing as its Prime Ministers questions.
Overall Brown’s tactic is to call Cameron spin obsessed (not a good tactic for someone as media driven as Brown) try and make him out to be a bad old tory (not working) and that seem