Who ended up with the 250-1 Hillary headache?
January 10th, 2008
-
How the prices changed wildly during the New Hampshire count
This is a chart that appeared on the Betfair site on Wednesday morning and shows the violent changes in the betting price on Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire as the news came in.
The most stunning part is the sudden surge in her price to 250/1 as some early reports suggested that the polls were right and that the former First Lady was about to come in second.
This records prices at which trades were made so someone or several punters would have been lumbered with paying out on the 250/1. We do not know what the stake level was but even if it was only a tenner it must have been painful.
I don’t think I can recall such a turnaround in any political market. At one stage people were betting at 1/100 that Obama would do it.
I was quite fortunate although I did not think so at the time. That night I was staying with friends on Devon where there was no reception on my Vodafone 3G card in my lap-top. The result was that I had limited information and could not bet. This probably saved me a fair bit of money.
PBC Party reminder - January 25th 2007 National Liberal Club London
The following have already indicated that they hope to be there:-
David Herdson
Augustus Carp
StJohn
Stodge
David Kendrick
Benedict White
UK Paul
Double Carpet
Icarus
John Wheatley
Julian H
Khunanup
Jan from Norway
Andrea Parma (possibly)
Ian Jones
You don’t need to book but will be charged £5 at the door.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
I advised to buy Obama at Willhill at 2/3, which seemed to be good value at the time. I placed £1500 myself. I understand that several did not hedge and lost quite a bit. Sorry about that, and just to rub it in - I came out winning, as I sold quite a bit of Obama at 3/100 shortly after actual results came in.
I’ll buy the losers a pint on the 25th
Per Real Clear Politics:
Rasmussen poll taken yesterday shows McCain now leading in South Carolina. Previous polls had big Huckabee leads.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/sc/south_carolina_republican_primary-233.html
2. Perhaps the lesson of Iowa and New Hampshire is to look carefully at the polls and then go back to the fundamentals - organisation, length of campaign, demographics, history. In my book, the McCain hype is being overdone. These look like what Stephan Shakespeare has called ‘frothy polls’ and need to be taken with caution.
3 Oh, and of course, money.
P.S. I hope to be at the party too.
Can I just remind people of my post at 11.10pm on 8th January (post 24 on New Hampshire election night special thread):
“Hillary 100-1 on Betfair for NH.
If there are leaks of exit polls showing her only 4% behind ……
by Mike L January 8th, 2008 at 11:10 pm”
Did anyone take advantage of this?
You’re right it was only to peanuts. It appears that £6 was matched at 250 in addition to the £10 at 200, £6 at 110, £51 at 100 & £44 at 95.
For those of us fortunate enough not to live in London, can the debate with Paddick v Livingstone be watched on the internet tonight?
7 But very expensive peanuts for those on the paying side!
Following on the last thread, the Nevada selection process is by caucus as in Iowa, so it will be interesting to see if the polls match more closely the final results, thus testing if there really is a “Bradley” effect for Obama.
http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080109/NEWS19/801090429/1016/NEWS
Regarding New Hampshire, and the “swing” back to Hillary… who says there was a swing? It seems more likely that the polls had continually underrated support for Clinton than just underrated support in the last few days. I think the most likely explanation is a “shy Clintonite” syndrome among Democrats, similar to the shy Tory effect in the UK. Clinton has been so mocked and detested in the last month, and Obama so praised as the new authentic politics, that people might be embarrassed to admit they like Clinton. They would be equally embarrassed to say this to a pollster, or the rest of the people in the room in a caucus, but in a secret voting booth they support their candidate.
10. I don’t think that would be a good test of the effect. A better test would be if a similar polling discrepancy showed up in the next primary.
More likely that the polls picked up loads of people who were suddenly made aware of the Primaries by Iowa, enthused, told the pollsters they were going to vote Obama in New Hampshire, even though they ultimately had no intention of voting or perhaps had no idea how to vote.
I bet at Ladbrokes at 7/1 for Hillary to win NH on monday and regretted it the whole of Tuesday!
What I can say is that I think newspapers always want a story and in this case, that big story was that Obama had a double-digit lead over Hillary and they were fishing for things that would support that story.
I’ve only just got into the US politcal scene properly but when i looked at the usatoday.com poll tracker, it was obvious that such a big change could not have happened in such a short period of time.
Anyone else agree?
11 There were two sorts of polls - opinion and exit polls. The Opinion polls don’t seem to have been far out in forecasting Obama share but did under-estimate Hilary, looks possible that “shy” Clintonistas existed among the undecideds/others (Swampland suggests a number still thought Biden & Dodd were still in but I’d of not thought sufficient to explain the swing back to Hilary).
The odd polls are the exit polls - yes some “won’t says” but others must have “misled” the pollsters because the exit polling immediately after the polls closed was in line with the opinion polling. Why would supporters lie after the event?
In both cases was there an error due to assumptions on the representative sample versus the real voting population - too few 60+ women, too many 40 year old or less men?
Sadly, I am unable to attend the party on 25th January as I shall be giving a keynote speech on behalf of my party to a national meeting of opinion formingbGPs in Leeds
I am a spy and so will not tell you what i look like! Beware of an individual buying you drinks or trying to ram a sausage roll down your throat!
How good am i at predicting Obama would not be able to last the distance with the MO many suggested he would! Gloat!
17 You come that old acid at the Party, mate, and it’ll be more than a sausage roll down your throat!
17 LOL - yes Martin you, like me, called it that Obama is out of it now!
0 Mike - seems to be a list of sensible attendees - will this change????!
Are SBS and Paul Lloyd going to go???
16 Sorry you can’t make it, Barry.
Good luck with the speech.
19 - oops got the year wrong!!!!!
19 I expect, Ave It, they are waiting to see who else plans to show.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!
There’s a new Scottish poll by Progressive Scottish Opinion…but since I don’t think Progressive Scottish Opinion was among the more reliable pollsters in the past, I wouldn’t put much value in it…
21 Erm…without being overly technical, can you just indicate please the main differences between Ave It 07 and Ave It 08?
24 - as you know Ave It 08 is the way ahead - they both lead the way however in informed political commentary and analysis.
“Obama is out of it now” - well, that rather depends on Nevada and South Carolina. If - and it’s a big if - Obama wins those two then it will be “Game On” come Feb 5.
How Hillary must be cursing Florida (one of her strongest states) for holding their primary early and losing all their delegates.
BTW, story is that Kerry is about to endorse Obama. Not sure if that’s good news for him or bad…
25 Oh, right.
26 Just about any endorsement has to be good news, Robert, although Kerry’s possibly less so than most.
If people are interested - this is my betfair bet history (35 bets in total) for the evening. I was one of the backers of the 100s and 95s. At one point I had a very large positive exposure to a Hilary win, however due to the insistence of some on here who seemed savvy I reduced my exposure as the results came in but I ended up lumping back on Hilary at the death, ending up with around an £1800 profit, with zero risk on Obama. I’d like to thank SeanT, MikeL and Yokel? I believe among some other regulars for keeping me invested in Hilary, especially as the punters on Intrade (which I was monitoring for a guide - were completely wrong!
http://www.scribd.com/doc/984976/BetHistory
25. I can see it 20 years from now - Ed Milliband leads Labour into their 8th term of office, and Ave it 28 will still be predicting a Tory landslide.
23…but for what it’s worth it shows a swing from SNP to Labour for Holyrood, see
http://keziadugdale.blogspot.com/2008/01/latest-polls.html
I’m expecting to be at the party, by the way.
31 Good to hear, Nick.
6. Mike L.
Yeah. We all made a mint on Hillary in NH.
Thanks for the tip.
26…a very positive endorsement i believe.
30 - hehehe - labour will have merged with the Croydon loony Party well before then……
I don’t think Kerry endorsing Obama does anything for Obama at all - the loser of 2004 endorsing the loser of New Hampshire
but we will see …
26/28. Dunno.
Kerry may have lost the Presidential race, but he’s still a big wheel in the Democratic party. Does lends some extra credibility to Obama.
Kerry could still have a fair bit of internal influence on Democrat party members/activists.
Obama desperately needs more support from the Democratic Party machine.
Btw, PtP and PfP - cheeky b’ggers with your sarcasm on the previous thread!!
I may be a betting chicken, but that doesn’t mean I’m a tipping imbecile!!
Ok, I’ll calm down now.
One..
two…
three…..
(Breathe out)
*Aaahhhhhhhhhh…*
OBAMA AND CLINTON TO BOTH PULL OUT! OBAMA AND CLINTON DECIDE NOT TO DIVIDE THE PARTY! EDWARDS TO RUN AS UNITY CANDIDATE! EDWARDS TO *WIN* DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION!
EDWARDS NOW *EXCELLENT* VALUE!!!!
37 - Gore endorsed Dean in 2004.
This has a good look at the possible impact.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/01/kerrys_endorses_obama_what_doe.html
15: The Fox exit poll (+4 Obama?) was yanked almost immediately, which tends to suggest they made a mistake. Afaicr there was another one that showed +2 Obama, and if they were sampling as badly as the opinion polls then the final result really isn’t that far out (especially given MoE).
With regards the subject topic - I was so close to taking a Clinton bet to lock on profit on my Obama 1.4 when her odds hit the heights. Wish I had, it would have been worth over 4k (*doh*). Oh well, won’t be the last time.
Something perverse though: I almost regret missing out on all that betfair commission (1200 points!) as much as the win…..
6 - If you’re at the party, Mike L, I owe you a drink. 95 on Betfair covered what would have been catastrophic losses on Obama - thanks to David Herdson as well, I think.
I’m still not convinced by any of the justifications of the pollsters in NH. Several of the papers have started mentioning the Bradley effect (people say they’ll vote for a black candidate, but never do), but I think that’s a lazy excuse. Ted is right at 15 - Obama won a decent share of the vote - the mistake was really on the Clinton share. Conversely, they got the GOP race pretty much spot on. I don’t know who to trust.
Looking forward to the NLC
27. Very droll PtP.
Mike, I hope the party is lots of fun.
40. Or, of course, people lied to the exit pollsters. Why do you guys have such trouble accepting that the Bradley Effect is a reality? You go into bizarre contortions to avoid the obvious conclusion. Like someone with their flies open trying to conceal the fact with an orange plastic sombrero.
Get a grip.
No one denies that “shy Tories” exist. It’s so accepted it’s part of the polling process. I think it is almost certain there are similar people who wish to appear groovy and racially inclusive when publicly asked, but… have “doubts” when they go into a private voting booth.
Frankly, if there weren’t such people it would be astonishing.
I doubt they constitute more than 10% of, say, Democrats in NH. But that’s enough to explain Clinton’s remarkable comeback, along with the sisterhood embracing Hillz after her blub.
Jonathan Freedland makes the point in today’s Guardian: that Clinton may win the Nom, but she is so widely detested she could easily lose the Prez. Something for non-racist Dems to chew over.
there was a 70% chance of snow here in the Twin Cities today - but it didn’t happen it is now down to 50% is this due to the Bradley affect and the white snow flakes being racist ?
re 41. I should have done this in the article but can I thanks Morus for capturing the chart featured above.
43 Of course the Bradley effect is a reality - no question about that. My complaint was I thought it, in this case, to be pretty pedestrian journalism for half the nation’s press to look to it as the first recourse just because Obama is black. I don’t deny it’s obvious - I just think it is both obvious and wrong.
Only Hillary’s numbers were wrong, Obama’s were overstated on average, but not by more than a couple of points. This was an additional 10% for Hillary, not a lack of Obama voters. He managed to get over 100,000 voters to vote for him, which is a great absolute number in New Hampshire. Unless the Bradley Effect stretches to racists who don’t vote lying, then going out of their way to stymie a black candidate by voting for his main opponent, then I don’t find it satisfactory.
The question isn’t necessarily “why did they get it wrong in NH?” - perhaps we should ask “why did they get it wrong in NH, but not in Iowa?”
43. There is certainly an effect going that people falsely saying they were liking Obama, and then voting for Clinton. But I don’t think you can certainly say it was down to racism - you equally say it was that people didn’t want to be against the voice of hope, or a fashionable movement, or Obama’s bipartisanship.
The Channel 4 “Most influential political figures of the decade” competition has been opened. What a load of rubbish. They are so short of names, they have had to include two organisations as part of the only six on the list. If 10 years of politics in UK cannot produce a better list than this , the country is really reaching rock bottom. Pity we can’t vote for Homer Simpson, as they did in US.(For those who haven’t seen it- Blair-Livingstone-Salmond-Paisley/McGuiness-Anti Iraq war marchers-Countryside Alliance against fox hunting.I promise I haven’t made this up)
43: Well, when someone comes out with some evidence, I’ll be happy to accept it. Otherwise, the most obvious answer is simply a polling screwup - after all, it happened in 2004, when exit polls showed Bush losing Ohio, and nationally by 3.5%. In the end he won both, nationally by 2%. That’s a bigger discrepancy than Obama suffered in NH (and not by a little, it’s a fifth larger).
Turns out all that happened was Bush voters were a bit less likely than the Kerry ones to talk to the pollsters. Given the Obama hype, that’s extremely plausible.
We have an election where the first plausible female candidate for President is running against the first plausible black candidate. In retrospect, severe polling errors are surely to be expected.
47. I suspect it is a kind of subconscious racism. These people want to be nice and inclusive but when it comes to it… they are not quite ready to embrace an African-American candidate. Of course cognitive dissonance means they cannot admit this, even to themselves.
So the true motive is buried in the id: and the ego produces an alternative justification for not voting Obama: “Hillary is more experienced”, “she has better policies”, “she will win in November”, “OTHER people are racist so there is no point in voting for Obama as he can’t win in the end” (my personal favourite, as it is so telling: true transference).
In my opinion, a number of lefty posters on this site evince this “subconscious racism” in their disavowal of Obama.
But we are all sinners.
Obama might be first in Nevada as its not a primary.
However, South Carolina will defintely be closer than the 12% lead Obama has. This is because there are alot of undecides…Or perhaps Hillary supporters not wanting to tell the pollsters about it.
48 - what a dire list! The most influential politicians of the last ten years in the UK have been:
George W Bush
Osama bin Laden
Nick Griffin
Roy Jenkins (whose founding of the SDP eventually resulted in the Labour giving up its old ways and becoming NuLabour)
Margaret Thatcher (if Jenkins is the father of the bastard child that is NuLab, Thatcher is the mother)
Alistair Campbell
50 - I agree that (although the primary change was an unforseen spike in Hillary’s vote) Obama’s dropped a fraction, and I can accept 2-3% drop on Bradley effect if in the way you describe. I’m not comfortable second-guessing lefties on racial views, but I approve of the use of the word ‘evince’ - not used often enough IMHO.
My question is why did we not see this polling anomaly in Iowa? Is it that more Liberal parts of the US (and I would include NH Dems) are more inclined to actively wish to deny their discomfort with a black candidate? Is it that, if you were from a moderately conservative all-white state, and don’t want to vote for a black man, you would have less reason to assert to the contrary?
I am not being facile - if there is genuinely a Bradley Effect, it would be helpful to understand how unevenly it manifests itself, and to try and counterbalance it where possible.
@50
I think the racism issue is nonsense for these northern states.
It’s more of a identity/class issue. Obama is a black man, acting extremely upper-class, white city boy. This isn’t a crime, but it doesn’t fit. Both his parents went university in the USA. Hillary’s father was in the textile industry. combined with a decent traditional family background.
Hillary looked like the real worked in NH, she looked tired, old and fragile and Obama and Edwards were attacking her. Obama, was making big speeches to upper middle-class/rich all white people in the background. Hillary was saying she lost
Man vs Woman. Woman will always win if its live and being attacked.
Rich vs Poor. Big big issue in America at the moment. And I think Obama has to be for “middle class” at the moment he’s losing with them.
Good list SBS - but which would you vote for?Still think Homer has the edge.
55 - I’d like to vote for a figure of fun character too. Lembit?
Mayoral debate very interesting. Livingstone is such a nasty man. Boris came across very well. Paddick is just dull.
(Memo to self: do not post this yet. Wait until I have seen debate and then release this post.)
54. I’m sorry, don’t want to be rude, but have you actually BEEN to America?
Have you seen the districts and suburbs of great American cities in the north? Chicago? Detroit? etc? Divided almost perfectly by race?
To say that race and racism is not an issue in northern states is just daft. Sure New Hampshire is all white, but how many of them are “whiteflighters” from nearby big cities with large black populations?
I deeply admire America in many ways, but race is still a huge wound in America’s psyche. North and South.
That’s why I want Obama to win - a black prez would be, symbolically, such a bold and magnificent step forward. F*** the minutiae of health policy.
Anyway - ! - we need more data. The jury is out.
2003 Illinois Senate Democrat primary
Polls: Obama +19% and +30%
Result: Obama +29%
2004 Illinois Senate race
Polls: Obama +44, +45, +47, +42, +42, +39
Exit poll: Obama +47%
Result: Obama +53%
Useful:
http://www.ilsenate.com/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Presidential_04/il_polls.html
Right, I’m sure I have missed something, party. Were the details put up at whilst I was offline over the Christmas/New Year period?
@58, Yes but both Iowa and NH were not even urban states, non-white people are almost less than 5%. — Racism is not an issue in these states, Obamas loss is not because he was black. Racism increases where there is more of a mix like Chicage, florida, S.C.
Obama has done jack all of minorities, no more than Clinton. He fears being black, he mentions it so rarely and it could be a big, big problem for him.
S.C will be the big testing ground for him. He will not win as predicted by 12%. There is 50% non-white I think. And You can bet white people will vote for Hillary. Secondly, on S.C. the Clinton record with black and hispanics is very good. The more Bill and Hillary campaign in S.C. the greater they will get support. It might be worth a bet.
ABC are also running with news about Obama buying a house from a vote fixer. (keep note of that..might pop up again).
Fresh South Carolina Fox News poll: McCain 25, Huck 18, Romney 17.
I suspect it will soon be to late to get on the McCain train at 6/4. Wait for the next Florida poll to show him lead there too.
I had a closer look today at the comparison between the NH polls and the result.
Thr Guardian ‘poll of polls’ shows the non-Clinton/Obama/Edwards Democratic candidates at 15%. Their actual performance was 8%. So this seems to account for most of the difference between Clinton’s poll rating (29%) and performance (39%). Add on the 2% dropped by Edwards and we’re just about there.
So the minor candidates were squeezed heavily *with all the votes concerned going to Clinton*. Astonishing!
The squeeze seems to have occurred with the Republicans as well: Romney and McCain between them polled 8 percentage points above their poll ratings. However, there is a crucial difference:*the extra votes were distributed evenly between the two leading candidates*.
Were the Democratic minnows on the point of withdrawing from primaries last weekend (Bill Richardson now appears to have withdrawn)? And were they telling their supporters that they endorsed Clinton?
59.
Yeah Hyde Park in the SOUTH SIDE of CHICAGO would, perhaps, be a reasonable counter example if it weren’t such a majorly black area, unlikely therefore, to be hugely productive of subtly racist anti-black votes.
Wiki:
“White flight from the South Side has resulted in a high remaining percentage of African Americans. Thus, most neighborhoods south of 55th Street are predominantly black with a large Mexican American population residing in Little Village (South Lawndale) and areas south of 99th Street.”
Goodness. You remind me of a pre-Copernican astronomer in the age of Galileo. So averse to admitting the truth, which would threaten your weltanschaaung*, that you are reduced to evermore ludicrous explanations of awkward data.
As I say: We need more evidence. I suggest we agree to differ, for now.
*I would like to apologise for the use of this word
Hello, Test (57). Nice to see you back on here.
Isn’t the official Cameron line that Boris is entertaining, but bonkers and ought to be changed as soon as possible? That is, grab attention for the Tory candidature, and then switch to somebody who could be reasonably considered as capable of doing the job?
Bill Richardson is hispanic I think… It was obvious that he would eventually endorse Clinton, or atleast privately.
Edwards endorsement might not be good. Fundraising maybe. But the clinton camp can just say this is “old politics” and Obama is a hypocrite.
66 - Bill Richardson was in the other Clinton’s cabinet so he probably owes them one.
I think Bill might even be Hillary’s running mate…
68 - Only if Obama refuses!
Note the comments on the previous thread about the, ‘Clubmen’ if anyone wishes to pay homage, then a trip to Hambledon Hill is in order, see below.
http://www.theteacher99.btinternet.co.uk/ecivil/hambledon.htm
68 There was a conversation between a senior Clinton aide and blogger reported on a US blog after defeat in Iowa (RCP/Swampland type) that Richardson’s people when under quota had been asked to support Obama - Clinton side not happy with Richardson. He did support her on the Saturday attackfest in terms of standing up for experience but not sure he’ll be forgiven enough for VP.
Anyone fancy a trip to Vegas with their winnings?
Barack Obama in Las Vegas Tomorrow!
Free Town Hall Event
Senator Barack Obama will attend a rally with members of Culinary Workers Union before hosting a Stand for Change town hall meeting at Del Sol High School in Las Vegas this Friday, January 11th. He will be meeting with Nevadans from across Las Vegas to fire up supporters and undecided caucus-goers ahead of the January 19th caucuses. This will be Barack Obama’s 11th visit to Nevada since announcing his plans to run for president.
Town Hall Meeting with Barack Obama in Las Vegas
Del Sol High School Gymnasium
3100 East Patrick Lane
Las Vegas, NV 89120
Friday, January 11, 2008
Doors Open: 5:00 pm
I would humbly suggest that there will be a “Barack Bounce” very shortly.
Barack Obama stepped up the fight against his main rival Hillary Clinton yesterday, bringing it deep into her territory in New Jersey and New York and pressing home his implicit criticism of her candidacy as a vote for the status quo.
“My voice is a little hoarse, my eyes are a little bleary, my back is a little sore,” he began, with a preacher’s precision timing. “But my spirit is strong.”
About 4,000 people, mainly young and many African-American, queued around the block of St Peter’s College in Jersey City to hear the senator from Illinois speak. His appearance was delayed by over an hour to allow the crowd to squeeze into the college basketball arena
Norman Normal.
It’s nonesense. He’s a good speaker. But it does appear that in NH, and probably more states to follow he needs more than a good speech.
73 - Sounds like he is choosing smaller venues so that they look more packed!
I don’t often re-post comments, but I wrote this on Wednesday morning and no-one commented on it then, so I’ll re-inflict it now! After all, it took me a while to put it together and I think it’s still relevant!
What a night! 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 a better guide, though the polls certainly 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 on her. 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.
Hope this is of some help.
7. It only had to be to peanuts though.
I didnt enter myself at the biggest odds but did get a bit at various odds going down. My outlay was running at 10s of pounds over all kinds of prices asnd the profit percentage was massive even with laying off.
57 - lol!
McCain’s widening SC lead looks pretty impressive to me. I ncreasingly think it’s going to come down to McC vs Huckabee on the GOP side.
seanT is right that lots of people don’t like Hillary, so there’s an obvious risk there. That said, she’s battle-hardened in a way that nobody else in the race is - everything that anyone could dig up about her has already been thrown. By contrast, Obama has not yet been seriuosly tested, and could stumble in all kinds of ways - on issues, on his Senate record, whatever. And I may be wrong, but I don’t think there’s any comparison in sure-footed knowledge of the issues - even confirmed Hillary-haters were impressed by her Q&A in NH. She could take the presidency tomorrow and be already fully-briefed.
62. I fear he wont hold that lead. Admittedly I backed a little bit across the card when VCbet kindly put up a market with Fred asfavourite, have nibbled at various prices since and am looking to bring Fred into book now.
Influential Daily Kos wants Democrats in Michigan to vote for Romney to create problems for the Republicans.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/10/2713/87225/55/434206
79 I think he might hold on Yokel. As I noted on last night’s thread (95), the priority for the SC Republican establishment will be to make sure that Huckabee doesn’t win in a split field. Ideally they would want Romney or Thompson to win, as they prefer pro business tax cutting conservative types, but the machine will back McCain to stop Huckabee if needed.
Romney had the endorsements but is apparently pulling back. Fred seems to be making a good go of it, but they’ll be worried about him splitting the anti-Huckabee vote. What happens in Michigan will imho have a big impact on the SC primary….
81. Romney is reportedly putting it all into MI given the family history there.
I think actually, if anyone camn peel votes off Huckabee, its Fred which makes him interesting.
If Romney loses MI, I’m guessing he will drop out.
83 - It would be delicious irony if he came second in an always the bridesmaid fashion!
Interesting Dick Morris commentary here:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video_log/2008/01/dick_morris_analyzes_remaining.html
He thinks that the difference between Iowa and NH is that single mums couldn’t leave their kids for a long caucus!
The polls in the next day or two will IMO be important for the Democrats. If I’m right in thinking that NH Democrats rallied around Hillary because she was under savage attack, that’s not a factor that will recur while she’s favourite. So she needs a good bounce right away, or we will see Obama starting to come back.
New poll in Scotland:
Labour 37%
SNP 36%
Cons 13%
Lib Dem 12%
http://icscotland.icnetwork.co.uk/news/scottish/tm_headline=labour-ahead-of-snp-in-latest-poll%26method=full%26objectid=20337629%26siteid=50141-name_page.html
OT Almost free money if you take the view that Nadal is the only likely Spanish winner of the Australian open then there’s a fairly risk free bet at the moment as you can back him at 15.5 and there’s £11 available to lay on a Spanish winner on the nationality market at 12
85 - There may be a point in the length of a caucus, but I think that it is more likely that it is the unfashionability of Clinton, and NH was a secret ballot so you could say one thing and do another or simply not say and do.
83. Entirely possible. As Yokel notes at [82], Romney has cancelled all his planned advertising in Florida and South Carolina to concentrate on Michigan. It really is win or bust for him there.
A couple of thoughts on polling the US election. It really is tough for the pollsters. In Britain, we have a fairly settled situation with people mostly voting for parties. The pollsters get tested only once every four or five years against real results; in between they might or might not be out of line with what people would really do, but we’d never know as there’s no real ballot-box votes to compare against. By contrast, in the States, not only are there a hundred different real votes to model, but last time’s presidential is no real guide because the voters are voting for candidates not parties and so the form guide is of little value.
There are two particular phenomena that the pollsters need to correct for: in UK terms, we’ll call them shy-Tory and reluctant-Labour. Shy Tories vote Tory but tell the pollsters something different (either a different party or more likely, ‘don’t know’). Reluctant Labourites say they’ll vote Labour and then don’t vote at all. These aren’t quite mirror-images: one is about party identification; one is about propensity to vote. There’s lots of data in the UK to correct for these effects, but how do you do that in the States? SeanT has postulated a reverse Shy-Obama syndrome, where voters say they’ll vote for him but then don’t (though I’m not quite sure why they’d do that - it’s not as if it’s socially unacceptable to vote Clinton or Edwards, though some reasons for doing so might be).
In addition, how do they accurately poll motivation to vote? How do they model how independents will split between parallel primaries? All these things add to the complexity of the job and we shouldn’t be surprised if they get it wrong. The UK pollsters have it relatively easy by comparison and they don’t always get it right.
On a different note, I think it has gone unremarked that Hillary’s win was (I think, and stand to be corrected), the first ever in a presidential primary by a woman. It’s a measure of how serious a candidate she is that minor landmarks like that have gone more-or-less unnoticed.
When and where is Ken v Boris v Brian? It does not appear to be on tonight?
Regarding post 64 and the previous related ones regarding race, I found this article which may be of interest
http://bbsnews.net/article.php/20061222014017231
Is there any way of watching the London Mayoral debate is you don’t live in London and get the local ITV there?
£103,000 undeclared donations to the Hain campaign. £103,000 but it was just an oversight, “The fact is that during this period, I gave my campaign for office within the Labour Party second priority to my government responsibilities.”
That’s OK then isn’t it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7180961.stm
Hain looks like history to me. £100,000??
I think he has only survived so far, bizarrely, because the political world and the commentariat have been focussed on America.
Now the tide recedes and Hain is left alone on a sandbank, clutching a broken suitcase, out of which used pant1es are tumbling.
Metaphorically.
Peter Hain..it couldnt happen to a nicer guy.
Re 93: I don’t think Gord will be impressed. Goodbye, Peter, probably later to become Lord Hain of Neath?
89,
I thought that the “Shy Tory” adjustment was nowadays operating in reverse (at least in ICM polls).
Essentially, I believe that ICM take a percentage of the “Don’t knows” who did vote last time and assign them to their former vote - acting in effect to dampen the perceived swing from the last election. The effect has been to knock one or two percentage points off of the Conservative lead in the last several months.
89. Is this satire, David Herdson? -
“SeanT has postulated a reverse Shy-Obama syndrome, where voters say they’ll vote for him but then don’t (though I’m not quite sure why they’d do that - it’s not as if it’s socially unacceptable to vote Clinton or Edwards, though some reasons for doing so might be).”
You really can’t think of a reason why they would do that? Really?
Really?
Really?
Remind me not to come to drinks at your house, in case I get squashed by all the elephants in your living room, which you so clearly ignore.
92 - I’m in Nottingham but will be watching it on channel 853 - virgin media.
93/94: You reckon it’s a big deal? I know I’m a Hain fan, but I think I’d say this of anyone: it seems roughly equivalent to missing the Jan 31 tax return deadline - you get fined and apologetically send it in late. There’s no suggestion that the donations bought influence on the DWP, came from foreign donors, or anything more than that his team cocked up the return and he didn’t check before now. Annoying and embarrassing, but can’t see it being more than that. Nick Robinson’s commentary on Radio 4 said much the same.
93/94 - I am not sure but isn’t he effectively admitting that he didn’t declare more donations than he did declare?
100 - I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.
92 - Sky 993 is ITV London here in the Midlands showing Mayoral debate
100. Oh God Nick, that’s bad by even your standard of Obvious Spinning.
Even the Guardian said there were serious allegations that Hain concealed the big business provenance of his donations - so as not to put off left-winger voters.
Crick on Newsnight suggested that Hain wanted to keep his donors identities quiet, for “unknown reasons”.
Whatever the case, these are very serious allegations of a Cabinet Minister, about a six figure sum, and to claim it is like someone “filing a tax return late” is simply embarrassing and does you no credit.
Desist, for the sake of your own credibility.
Paddick is terrible.
97 The detailed data from the recent Populus poll is now on their website . The comparison of voting intention now compared to how people voted in 2005 is interesting . Labour lose net 10 voters to LibDems and 33 to Conservatives ( last month it was 6 and 30 respectively ) . LibDems lose net 13 to Conservatives compared to 29 last month .
98. If a voter isn’t going to vote for Obama, why would they say they will? Put another way, what do you think should be impelling them to say they’ll vote for him in the first place?
It was a primary election in New Hampshire: not of overwhelming importance. Even the general election in November will be doing well to get a turnout of 55%, so not voting is far from seen as a civic responsibility, therefore not much reason to say they’ll go out and do it. If they are going to vote, are you suggesting that the voters polled are somehow ashamed to be supporting a white candidate? If the alternative to Obama was a white candidate with no hope of winning or unfashionable / generally unacceptable policies, then I could understand the reasoning, but the two on offer are not that by any means.
97. You’re right. I only called it a Shy-Tory effect for familiarities sake.
100 Nick, I manage to get my tax return in on time and I don’t have a staff to help me with it. Hain missed declaring 56% of the donations to his campaign despite the fact he admitted personally approaching the donors (including apparently going to the Progressive Reform Forum and asking 5 donors to transfer their donations from that Forum to his campaign - anyone know anything about this forum?). If he hadn’t been prompted by the fall out from the “Donorgate” stuff would it have ever been declared?
Lots of briefing going on obviously - same words turn up in Times, Ben Brogan, Nick Robinson etc - but its £103,000 not £5,000 and a bit more as we were led to believe in November/December but £103,000.
wasted money as he was fifth and now as I think Brogan says ” his political career is already on the downward glidepath”
Sorry but my understanding fails me when I look at £103,000, that’s not an inconsequential, easily overlooked figure.
89 - A wonderful post, Mr Herdson, as was your post on Wednesday morning, although for once I must confess I disagree with you.
I think that pollsters actually have it a lot easier in the US than in the UK. The British system is rarely a two way fight - it is always complicated by third/fourth/fifth parties who serve to fragment the vote, and through triangulation manage to disrupt the linear Liberal-Left/Conservative-Right model that is still more applicable in the US.
The issues in the USA are honed and divisive - from abortion, the environment, tax, guns, affirmative action, military spending - all fall into dichotomies where the variation is in strength of feeling, not innovation of position. I do not doubt that there are so many of these to make the US a more ‘complex’ country to poll, but the complexity is in the number of simply-defined issues, versus a confused, triagulated policy position from more than two parties on fewer controversial issues in the UK (with exceptions).
Furthermore, outside of the Nationalist Community, there is very little by way of Identity politics in the UK. Racial identity, gender, religion are less applicable - we are less inclided to ‘identify’ - as a result, bloc voting does not occur to the same degree to this country. Our key demographics are ‘Worcester Woman’ and ‘Mondeo Man’ - creatures created by pollsters, fr pollsters, not self-identifying groups. Also, the geographical divisions of an island as small as our own do not allow for the strident localism that comes with State identity. Demographic profiling is much more likely to be successful where the notion of identifiable demographics is more pronounced.
Voters (when registering in the US) affiliate with parties, or declare themselves independent - this provides a very useful baseline for support that low party membership in the UK cannot avail itself of at present.
Thanks to the large number of lobbyists and issue-focussed pressure groups, there are regularpolls on issues, and these are run by Congressional delegation, given a great picture of localised concerns across the nation. The same questions are asked year after year of candidates for all levels of office (big enough samples for a Senator) - ’shares our values’, ’strong leader’ etc - meaning that Congressmen know their districts well by issue, and can adjust position. From there, the groups then score elected officias (ACA or NRA) giving scores on each linear issue to allow for a multidimensional view of each candidate to which voters respond, which is tracked at elections.
The picture in Britain is fuzzy, voters fickle, and the size and wealth of the political process does not allow for such outrageous quantification. Political Science is an American invention, and only a country so constructed could dream of creating so many axes with which to measure politics. If the UK is more complex, it is because the issues and policy positions of our many parties are not as linear any more. If our polls are more accurate, it is not because the die were weighted in our favour. The US should be the country to measure par excellence, and often it is. On this occasion it was horribly wrong for whatever reason, but I think that the mistakes made are less forgiveable because of the polling environment, not more so.
107. Read this:
http://tinyurl.com/yu8g39
People tell pollsters they are going to vote for a black candidate for a number of reasons: not least because they really intend to, or because they want to appear cool and inclusive, etc.
But then, as the evidence shows, over many years, when it comes to the voting booth they change their mind, and opt for an alternative white candidate.
We cannot make windows into men’s souls, but it doesn’t take Stephan Hawking to guess that maybe a certain underlying racism is at play. Or a subconscious “preference” for white candidates, if you will. Or a simple embarrassment at appearing non PC - in going for the white candidate.
The Bradley Effect is particularly pronounced, it seems, when people are quizzed by pollsters from an ethnic minority. QED.
But enough! Ken is on. Let’s see how he does.
Sir Edmund Hillary R.I.P.
that bitch in the US falsely claimed she was named after him..
111 and Sir John Harvey-Jones, outlived ICI, the company he saved in the 80’s.
103 - what’s Sky? Some Fox News subsidiary?
Who would win a by election in Neath?
Unbelieably stupid answer from Ken - blaming the ’80s for current gang crime. I’ve got no idea what he’s playing at, except to try to boost the core vote.
Hah! Bozza giving it some serious welly. At last. Actually showing conviction, even sincerity. Should still comb his hair.
Ken slippery and skilful as ever. Blaming Thatcher for crime in 2008??!!
Matt Frei has just mentioned “kipper ties” on This Week. He’s not going to tell Peter from Putney’s Brummie joke is he? It hasn’t had an outing for a few days.
114 - Hehehe! Hain’s corruption won’t hurt in that way - Conrad Black could stand in Neath, and as long as he wore a Labour rosette, he’d still win by 10,000 votes.
None of the Mayoral candidates are acquitting themselves well - but what a dreadful format!
119 Agree wholeheartedly, Adam!! It’s a quite dreadful programme! If you are not watching it, don’t worry, you are not missing much. All the audience are wearing party rosettes, and seem to be the kind of people who give party hacks a bad name.
114. Labour probably, but with a strong Paid showing…
Ken did better on the audience responses, but he still looks more beatable than I thought. Paddick’s there for the taking in terms of his poor performance, but neither can really afford to rip him up because they need his preferences. BJ has really got to get more of his positive policy votes in during his segment; Livingstone’s strategy is to try and make him look like an enraged figure of fun and affect his judgement.
120 - Yes. A group of intelligent non-party London experts would have given the three a much tougher time, combined with a vetted non-party audience with no hacks.
119. Certainly true. Looks like a Lib Dem deputy leadership debate in a Totnes Village Hall, not a major TV debate for the mayor of the world’s greatest city.
Interesting though.
Cringeworthy - the set is bad, the audience stupid and partisan, the format messy, the candidates seem not to care. An episode of QT would have been ok - this is just bad television. I went to students’ union debates with higher production value and standard of debate. What a wasted opportunity.
Sean T, that really is insulting to the Lib Dems! This programme is MUCH worse than that.
(Any local government by election results out yet?)
110. Thanks for the link, Sean. It may well be the case that a proportion of voters acted as you suggest, though I still think the numbers are likely to have been pretty small. Two other effects, also well established, could have been at least as much to blame. Hillary was running a relatively negative campaign; Obama’s was about ‘hope’ and motherhood and apple pie and all that. That may made Obama more fashionable or acceptable to support publicly than Clinton, but the tactic may have worked (especially when softened by her own crying moment). In addition, Obama had the momentum from Iowa: people like to be seen to be on the winning side.
We’re probably arguing about degree because I’d be surprised if you denied the above effects entirely and as I’ve said, I think there may well be something in the Bradley Effect you’ve highlighted. Anyway, I’m off to bed now as I’ve no interest in the London mayoral debate.
Lib Dem Deputy Leadership debates in a village hall somewhere in Totnes are always interesting, Sean.
125. Presumably we will get a better TV debate nearer the time. We couldn’t get a worse one.
127. Agreed! Pax.
The problem with BJ is that he’s too blathery in an overblown, Oxford-Union sort of way. While it allows him to get clever ripostes in against both Livingstone and Paddick, it stops him making an instinctive gut connection with the people, and, while he sets out opposing principles to Ken, they’re nowhere near the level of practical policy.
Turn over and watch This Week - it’s focusing on the US race - much, much more interesting.
64: That’s his old Illinois _state_ district - in 2004 he was running for the US federal senate
Would be a pretty impressive leap if he was going straight from state level to the Presidency….
Honestly Sean, it’s a mystery why you get so worked up about this. I wanted Obama to win too, because he’s an admirable candidate, because of anti-Clinton reasons, because the US maybe needs someone like him, and not insignificantly in betting terms, yet for some reason you’ve far more bothered about it than I am.
By the way, a particularly dislikeable lefty trait is to glibly use race as an excuse for other failings, so it’s a little surprising to see you falling into the same trap. To my mind that’s quite socially damaging, which is why I rather object to your use of it - if you like, that’s my ideological motivation, not some pseudo-Marxist denial. Oh, and rather different from that you imply: I actually vote conservative.
133, Sorry to disagree with Sean T, but I agree. Anthony Wells has a typically erudite article about it on his blog.
seanT re Bradley effect. The difficulty with your thesis is that the polls were actually pretty accurate for Obama (and Edwards); they seriously underestimated Clinton. More likely this is just a sampling problem.
re 121 I’m assuming the the slip wasn’t Freudian at all, but deliberate
vote-2007.co saying Labour hold Ibstock and Heather:
Labour 699 30%
BNP 637 28%
Conservative 515 22%
Lib Dem 441 19%
137. The source of the result is a BNP blog.
If the result is correct, it’s a Lab hold in a Lab/Con split ward (BNP didn’t stand last time)
Gaaaahh! You people wouldn’t be persuaded if Bradley came and hit you over the head with a burning cross.
As you are evidently unpersuadable, and you are making me feel like Galileo Galilei talking to Pope Sixtus IV, I’ve already said I give up trying to persuade you.
We need more data.
But if you are determined to persist in your boneheadedness: the f***ing EXIT polls were way off. What is that if not Bradley? PLUS all the pre-vote polls were TOTALLY wrong. Plus these last pre-vote polls did not get Obama right they said he would be near 40. He dropped 4. Plus the same polls got the all white Rep vote, in the same place at the same time, totally RIGHT. Plus the public caucus in Iowa showed no “shy white voters” yet the private polls in NH did.
Plus we have an established phenomenon: the Bradley Effect (heard of it?) where black candidates do badly against white ones, compared to polls.
Plus we have in Britain the “shy Tory” effect which… remarkably.. WE ALL ACCEPT.
And yet, when a very similar effect is posited in America, as a partial and uniquely credible explanation for otherwise truly bizarre poll discrepancies, you all act like a bunch of girl guides being flashed by Bruce Forsyth on Bayswater Road.
Get a frigging grip, peebles.
Rant over.
131. I thought Bozza grew into that debate. He started off as you say, but then got visibly better. It was still a very silly programme.
137 If correct a really bad result for the Conservatives . vote in May 3 seats was Con 737/731/599 Lab 707/620/559 UKIP 411 LibDem 225/222
Then to repeat: why didn’t it happen in Illinois, where polls and exit polls were right on? That’s 80% white, with far more racial issues than in NH.
On the exit poll fallacy - like I posted before, the Bush/Kerry exit polls in 2004 were further off.
Sean, re-read my post at 53 - I can accept it was there in part (though 4% out on Obama from people who managed 10% off on Clinton suggests there must be other reasons too) - so now I want to understand it for the rest of the campaign.
139. Enough with your heliocentric nonsense!
Oh, and other fallacy: NH RCP poll average 38.3%, Obama result 36.5%. Exit polls Obama +2, result Clinton +2.5%.
140. Looks like a massive swing to the BNP, though?
It would be very stupid of the BNP to publicise (ie distort) a result that was on the point of being declared officially.
So we have to infer that (a) the BNP have done very well and Cameron’s Conservatives disastrously; or (b) the BNP are very stupid.