209 comments to “Do Gord and Dave need their own Obama girls?”
Thought I had logged into porn betting.com. Certainly different, can see young ladies swanning around Dave and Nick but sorry Gordon - think you are out of luck
246. I’m increasingly comparing this process to that of an STV PR election here in NI.
I remain concerned still for McCains chances though I think that if over the next few primaries he shows winning form enough of the party will start to get behind him as a winner in the making. That is his task.
If you don’t have a strength in depth, i.e. you get preferences as others drop out then you. Its understanding the potential drop outs, their order and where their support could go that will most help see if McCain can break away.
McCain needs to build up such a head of steam now that a vote for the winner mentality takes root in the GOP. The McCain bar is higher because he has incurred the ire of sections of the party. Whilst a good section of the party will always go against, enough will go with him if he starts winning states, others drop out he keeps on and the issue of who is best to go to take on the Democrats gets a bit more weight (up until nwo it has had little). I believe McCain needs that vote for the winner mentality more than any other candidate so with him its a case to prove an irrestisable force. Go to convention without a thumping lead and there’s always a chance they’ll shoot him down.
What the states so far have also proved that despite the presence of independents you need to lead (or be within a percent or two of the leader) in the votes registered republicans in each state. NH & MI provide the perfect examples of this. In NH McCain got as much GOP vote as Romney, in MI he didnt. If mcCain cant show NH type vote levels within the GOP base then he just wont win enough states by enough to get that killer lead.
Having said all that McCain currently holds an interesting positions and in a fractured field overall just shy of 29% isnt bad where there is no-one with a big momentum so its very vulnerable. Over 30% in the crowded field and it gets a bit more interesting because thats a decent block of support that he could core on plus McCain is a bit of an alternative candidate on a number of levels. If he was 35% today in a full field I’d be a lot more confident. I think he’d have enough reach to get home if today he was on that figure.
Despite MI, I dont expect McCain’s national figures to slump and I do think SC looks a realistic target espcially since Huckabee (my own original pick for the win there) looks to be shedding a bit to Big Fred when really he needs to be taking Big Fred’s support to see him home. A win in SC and McCain could get to be a stupidly short price on the markets even though he’d still have a grind to go. Being one of the last before Super Tuesday a win there and he’ll look a worthy favourite again.
If he has to fight all the way to convention without getting a distance away from the opposition then I do worry he could get caught out.
As regards SC, I’m waiting to see if the MI defeat really does damage him. He and Romney do have some vote exchange and I believe that contributed to Romney’s defeat in Iowa as McCain had a bit of a surge.
2 Every dog has its day, but Sleepy Thompson is simply too lazy to go digging; instead, expects some kindly butcher to throw him a bone. Which won’t happen in South Carolina or anywhere.
2 “What the states so far have also proved that despite the presence of independents you need to lead (or be within a percent or two of the leader) in the votes registered republicans in each state. NH & MI provide the perfect examples of this.”
Excellent point that illustrates fact that “Independents” are NOT a monolith. Instead, except for fringe rightwingers & lefties, the Independents are part of a continuim between the two major parties.
Thus huge numbers of Independents are “leaners” who strongly lean one way or the other and thus gravitate to that party’s primary . . . when they bother to vote in a primary at all.
Was about to post this on the last thread. I apologise for it being far too long.
79. What’s wrong with the term “African American”? We have German Americans, Irish Americans, Serbian Americans, Native Americans etc. It’s just that the result of slavery means we can’t trace precisely where in Africa someone’s family came from. (Except in cases like Obama, who should more accurately be described as Luo American). I think the US tradition of describing people’s ethnic background is far more informative and accurate than the arbitrary pseudobiological terms “black” and “white”.
145. Obama’s best attribute is that he completely disarms Republicans. US conservatives like to act like they are sensible and reasonable, and liberals are just whiny do-gooders on an ego trip. Obama’s clear willingness to work with Republicans and to treat their arguments as if they are made in good faith works incredibly well. He addresses and incorporates solutions to their faux issues with progressive legislation to the point where they either have to support the legislation or admit they just want to help big business/the super rich. The office of President is not like having a government in a parliamentary system: its worthless unless you can work congress. This is Clinton’s issue - even if elected Republicans could always claim she wasn’t working fairly with them and 50% of the electorate would believe them. If they tried to do that with Obama, who people instinctively like and who seems so reasonable, the Republicans will end up looking like the entrenched diehards they are.
In terms of US politics and UK politics, I actually think the US is about to follow the UK for the next decade. The separation of powers means you get a much more complicated pendulum effect here in America: with one party in control of Capitol Hill and the other in control of the White House the anti-incumbency effect can work in two directions at once (among different parts of the electorate). The result of this is that the GOP has controlled at least one branch of government for 25 years out of the last 27. Like the Conservatives in the UK, they are wholly unsuited to not being in power. The US has been behind the cultural shifts of the rest of the Western world for the last ten years, and if the centre of the US political spectrum shifts left, then the bulk of the Right is in real trouble. They are unprepared for any compromise at all with anything that isnt conservative orthodoxy. Just check out their trashing of McCain for opposing Bush’s tax cuts. To be a “true” conservative you can’t just oppose all tax raises at any time, you have to support all tax cuts, even if they are only directed at the richest in society, even if you are at war without an end in sight, and even if you have the largest federal deficit and national debt in the history of the world.
206. Obama is a born again Christian but he is not an evangelical in the common use of the term. Evangelicals believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible, which Obama clearly doesn’t.
210. The Evangelicals WOULD be willing to support a Democrat over a Republican if the Democrat supported banning abortion, gay marriage and teaching evolution. It’s just the sort of person to believe in those things wouldn’t even join the Democrat party.
232. You have the labels the wrong way round. Born-agains are the more pluralist group, where the evangelicals are the purists supporting Huckabee.
235. It’s because the conservative coalition is a combination of wealthy surburbanites, the super rich, and religious and patriotic rural types. The latter is by far the greatest number.
In terms of the connection between two US parties the Conservatives, the GOP has shifted so far right it only now covers the Cornerstone tendency in British politics. Al Gore’s book “The Assault on Reason” is pretty much a defence of old-fashioned British conservative pragmatism. The Republicans don’t even seem to believe (even theoretically) in fair process any more, which would put them at odds with all three parties in the UK.
“In terms of the connection between two US parties the Conservatives, the GOP has shifted so far right it only now covers the Cornerstone tendency in British politics”
As always, it depends what you mean by “Right”. There’s nothing “Right” about the Bush administration’s attitude to public spending and big government.
19. There was nothing “right” about Adolf Hitler’s spending plans either. Does that make him a centrist? I think right-left terminology is ridiculous, but as the term “right-wing” is used, it seems to split into two strands, one religious, the other libertarian as it goes towards its extremes.
Someone on the last thread seemed to suggest that Giulani was the most moderate and least like Bush. I am very worried by this perception. He’s the most Bush like in the field if you consider his views on foreign policy, use of torture, habeus corpus and restraints (or the lack thereof) on executive power. Bush before him was painted as a moderate “compassionate conservative” in 2000 and look how that turned out. Giuliani will be just as bad, if not worse.
19 When I was a kid, had to listen to old (and often half-tanked) conservative go on about how Franklin “Goddam” Roosevelt had put US on the same path that saw the Roman Republic turned into the Roman Empire thanks to welfare and mercenaries.
Seems to me that the Bushies are working overtime on THAT project!
Stalin was a “state socialist” and Cheney is a “state conservative.” W is just the organ-grinder’s monkey.
25. I would have thought supporting basic democratic norms and abiding by international law were more important criteria for “moderate” than your views on abortion or gay marriage.
32 In terms of British politics, I’d say the BNP are Right Wing, because although they have left wing economic views, their views on immigration are certainly right wing, and that’s the issue that most people identify them with.
29 - I always find it amusing that socialism is a left-wing philosophy, but add 8 letters to the front and it becomes a far-right philosophy, add another 5 to the front and it goes back to the left again. Hmm.
37 Totalitarian states, regardless of ideology, tend to have a good deal in common.
Usually, this includes intense hostility towards any institution which isn’t controlled by the State, such as churches, charities, freemasons, scouts, and the majority of voluntary associations; massive State control over the economy - even when the State stops short of expropriation of the capitalists; a total disregard for civil liberties and due process; the cultivation of popular hatred for both internal minority groups (such as Jews, Kulaks, the “asocial”) and extreme aggression towards neighbouring states.
35. Well big spending is just one policy of the Bush administration. Huge tax cuts, a preference for military action over diplomacy, “Shock and Awe” military tactics, the adoption of some forms of torture, detainment without trial, the prevention of stem cell research, opposition to the findings of the scientific community on climate change, increasing drilling and logging in protected areas, wiretap programs without congressional approval, secret flights of prisoners to countries that torture are some others. Most of which are not just right-wing, but extremely right wing.
Surely you have to see a party in terms of a left-right scale on both (1) social issues and (2) economic issues.
Right/Right = Right wing, authoritarian
Left/Right = Libertarian
Right/Left = Probably in many ways what “working class,” labour-voting socialists used to be, and if you still like to go by a class system, probably they’re still around. Authoritarian leftists.
Left/Left = Left-wing
The Lib Dems should have done something similar long ago, especially when they had a leader called “Vince Cable”. A p0rn star’s name if ever there was one.
I’ve watched PMQ’s, Brown’s performance was poor. His constant asking of questions looked very shifty, as was his avoidence of answering any. I don’t think that Clegg didn’t do too badly, not as well as Cameron though. Brown’s ’squashing’ of him was basically him trying to jam in a taunt, it looked very staged. He had that dossier ready to use whatever question Clegg would have asked. The labour party chanting ‘more’ was incredibly pathetic, an attempt to try and make Brown look like a heavyweight again. Instead it looked like a pre-rehearsed attack on Clegg. Cameron could easily shrug anything like that off, Clegg doesn’t have the experience or history to be able to do that, and they knew it.
OT. if anyone is interested, earthquake in Italian politics:
Justice minister (Mastella from little centrist party Udeur) is been under investigation…his wife arrested….various politicians of his party under investigation too….he resigned…Prodi refused his resignation…parties backing him…judges replying back at attacks…
crises…
Meanwhile referenda on the election law have been accepted…so between April and June we must vote on them
43. That’s the form the political compass website uses. Even that is too simplified. There should in fact be a whole series of spectrums:
Private property vs social property
Free market vs Regulated market
Free trade vs protectionism
Small goverment vs strong state
Social tolerance vs social conformity
Internationalism vs isolationism
Military action vs diplomacy
Religiosity vs secularism
Centralism vs decentralism
There are many others of course, and its important to remember these are all spectrums. Many of these tend to go with each other, but not necessarily. I am generally considered economically right-wing, but I’m reasonably centrist on regulation but strongly on one side in terms of free trade.
PMQs wise, Brown wouldn’t have been disasterous if he’d not done possibly the most foolish thing in his Commons career and started ASKING Cameron questions. It became like a round of “guess which one’s the Prime Minister.” Perhaps he’s preparing himself for opposition?
Cameron’s approach seems to be to ignore any remarks (or questions!) Brown makes about Tory policy, which I guess is an attempt to look ‘above it all.’ I don’t know if that’s wise or not. Probably so in the long term, but it does mean he doesn’t land incredibly heavy blows. I guess he’s planning a drip-drip-drip line of attack, he knows he’s playing a long game now. Still, easily the best of the two (though as SBS remarked earlier, most people could beat Brown at PMQs)
Clegg was OK but really needs to move to the traditional spot on the benches, I think he looks silly sitting in the middle when there’s not a dispatch box there. Brown was better against Clegg as opposed to Cameron but I wouldn’t say it was a glowing performance.
African American, or hyphenated anything is so false - you are American - like Brits are British or English, or Welsh etc. My partner is first generation American - but is American he never hyphenates his nationality as Norwegian-American - it just seems like you don’t belong to the country when you hyphenate - I suppose it is personal choice - I don’t think English-American comes across that well either to be honest …
Oh and another thing, when do we get rid of Gorbals Mick? He’s bringing more and more embarrasment to the office of Speaker with every passing day. He never seems to be able to think on his feet, which is, basically, *the* most important qualification for the job. I couldn’t believe it today when he said “let the Rt Hon Gentleman (Cameron) answer the Prime Minister’s question” (!)
I’d rate myself in various degrees towards the private property, free market, free trade, small government, religious, isolationist, decentralist ends of those spectrums, and in the centre on social tolerance and military action.
Guardian reports Neil Kinnock’s son, director of British Council office in St Petersburg, arrested last night, released after an hour. Russians claim he was drunk in charge of vehicle, British that it’s harassment.
Maybe we need McCain elected as Reagan isn’t available for this Cold War. Cammers can wear Thatcher drag
New yougov Scottish poll (comparison with previous yougov poll)
Constituency:
SNP 38% (-2),LAB 29%(nc), LDEM 14%(+1), CON 14%(+2)
Regional lists:
SNP 30%(-4), LAB 27%(+1), CON 13%(nc), LDEM 12%(-1)
53. Hyphenating doesn’t mean you think of yourself as less than American. It’s just that you’re describing your ethnic background along with it. Surely if you describe your ethnicity as “African-American”, that is emphasising more Americaness than just “African” or “black” does. It is even more important with more recent immigrants. I know a guy who came here from Serbia when he was 10 and is considered (by himself and others) as Serbian-American. If he had come to the UK he would just be considered Serbian. The former is clearly better for integration.
60 That is the plan - “tar them all with the same brush”. But Labour must be REALLY worried about what is about to come out in their own house, to have “gone nuclear” like this….
re.57 I am a Russian myself and am against Putin regime.But I can uderstand if Kinnock was drunk.The police actually sayd that he was under the influnce of alcohol.I do not thnink that he was really drunk.But in Russia it is normal to drink so I would not imediatly see it as a plot.
I actually thought Brown was doing alright until he lost his temper again. Then he started bumbling, and he looked flustered.
Cameron definitely has the measure of the PM - the look of incredulity on DC’s face, at one of Brown’s more inept thrusts, was priceless - but he needs to avoid overconfidence. Beating up Brown too regularly and arrogantly could start to look like cruelty.
50,56 - I seem to remember thinking a couple of summers ago that someone really ought to take the political compass website much further and look at plotting peoples politics within a multi-dimensional set of arrays (possibly with the addition of making some arrays more important than others (so make them longer), or less relevant if you’re at an ‘extreme’ point compared to the average) - and then computing an average distance to various other people / parties, with explanations of which dimensions you vary from them on. Then realised it’d be somewhat complicated to program and design (how do you choose which dimensions you look at…)
63. Brown must have had some sort of breakdown sanctioning a move like this. Does he really think it is going to stop? :lol:
The point of “nuclear weapons” is not to use them. I would recipricate the move if i were the tories plus ask the police to investigate the link between the Unions and members of the cabinet past and present and their role in adopting legislation.
It would not surprise me if Brown becomes victim to an oversight? Maybe this is why he has done it as most of the DL candidates are guilty of an incomptence and going on Brown’s performance it would not surprise me if he were to as well!
When my Dad was studying, he shared a house with a Californian called Randy Love.
O/T Interested that John Mann is one of the Labour MPs. He is a partisan, but is also an extremely decent man, an excellent constituency MP, and not particularly into Westminster games as far as I know. Whilst he may have been asked to do this by the leadership, I reckon it is more likely that he has taken umbrage against what he will see as Tory hypocrisy in picking on Peter Hain. Not sure I agree, though I think donations through front organisations is a serious issue. It will either be elevated by the public exposure during this donations crisis, or it will get lost in the scandal.
A quite brilliant video, how that would light up party political broadcasts and get the young more interested in politics.
Think we might all learn something from this.
74. He’s just a desperate PM at the end of his tether. He has no more options. He doesn’t have the good economic news to pull out of the hat anymore. Northern Rock is going to be nationalised. Hain is either going to have to go or just make even more of a laughing stock of Brown’s Cabinet of all-the-incompetants. Those missing discs still haven’t been found and Labour are 10 points down in the polls - clear election-losing territory.
It’s worth a gamble. Only it makes Labour look even more stroppy and silly with every passing moment.
I sincerely doubt the people of this country care about such trivial things. Hain’s hundreds-of-thousands channelled through a think tank for no particular purpose, when combined with the Abrahams money maybe, but not trying to catch out 80-odd MPs for, if there is any impropriety found, probably the equivalent of peanuts. And if the Tory MPs have done it, you can bet your bottom dollar the NuLab clones will have, too.
Sigh. Blair would never have sanctioned this. He would have gone about things with much more panache. This is beginning to increasingly look stupid.
SS Irish Do you need to be born a US citizen to be in the primaries, or it is only necessary to be president. Several primaries have ‘home state’ candidates so they can have some delegates for the convention, don’t they? And in most states you are voting for delegates not candidates? Who checks the final eligibility of primary candidates?
76. Hain has no case, what he has done or people on his behalf is wrong. Hain would appear to have a conflict of interest in his cabinet role and the union donation plus other proplems in relation to the donations to his DL campaign. THe real reason Labour have panicked is if Hain goes, Harman follows plus Wendy Alexander etc…..etc!
If you contrast this with the Tories and Osborne, I would hardly call the Conservative Party a “front” organisation! Given the electronic trail i cannot see how Labour can say the tories are hypocritical. To my mind the Tories have been restrained and the more Labour Shriek about Tories, the more damage they do to themselves.
75. Looks a bit OTT, but how many staff have the EC got and are they up to date? But have the likes of Harman, Wendy Alexander and Brown filed accurate accounts or lists of donors? The FT article mentioned that Brown had appeared to be slow in filing details. It surprised me that the man with the moral compass had not fully complied his accounts.
80 - No defence of Hain from me - he must resign - I was just trying to imagine what John Mann was up to…
I wasn’t calling the Conservative Party a “front” organisation!! I was referring to the complaint that the two Labour MPs lodged which was drawing attention to groups (I imagine like the Midlands Industrial Council, or whatever they’re called) who are donating, but whom the Electoral Commission cannot cross-reference against the Electoral Roll)
I think that, whilst Labour have committed much more serious offences, there is still a great deal of opapue funding, and that would explain John Mann’s ire, which I believe to be genuine. You are right, I think, in saying this will backfire.
83. Meanwhile, Heinrich Milliband plots his insane takeover of the illusory Wehrmacht divisions, and Jack “Donitz” Straw prepares to announce the inevitable surrender, and all the time the shells of the Cameron Army rain down on Unter den Linden, SW1.
2. Thanks for that Yokel. I might finally be getting the hang of this market. Fortunately all nicely GREEN on the GOP nomination but very exposed on the Presidential race to Clinton which is not ideal. Hoping she will drift after SC and then I can consider covering that exposure.
Can you or someone else explain what the betting situation is in the US? Is Internet betting completely banned? Is betting on politics completely banned? Are only non-Americans betting on the US elections and if so how is this influencing the markets? How do Americans bet on sports eg baseball, horseracing etc. Trying to plug another gap in my betting knowledge.
81 Had a look at the Register for Donations and asked for List of Impermisable Donations for 2007 - thought there were a few (Abrahams, Wendy Alexander) received by Labour Party. Suprisingly none for Labour while there are 4 for Conservatives, 4 for Lib Dems and 1 each for Respect & UKIP. Only 1 since Register set up for Labour.
Odd that. Thought I’d heard of more than one in last few years.
Ted if you go back to the beginning you will see that Labour have declared one dodgy donation to tens from the Tories and LibDems and even the BNP have declared dud donations.
Fancy Labour being less likely to have dodgy donations than the BNP.
My post of 19th December gave the numbers:
Interesting looking at the Electoral Commission website. The search engine seems to show something quite interesting about impermissible Donations.
Since 2001 the Tories have returned over 50 donations totaling £91,800 including voluntary forfeiture to the Commission three times including the two cases of which so much fuss has been made (because the Labour party has just caught up with the Commission’s month old press release).
The LibDems have returned nearly 20 donations valued in total at £55,000. One of these was voluntarily forfeited to the Commission.
In the same period the Labour party has returned only one donation of £1,000 because as a impermissible donation.
So in fact this current Labour attack again highlights how careless (or worse) Labour have been if they have only found one case since 2001 where the donation was impermissible while the other two parties have found and dealt with so many more.
Even the Green party found two donations and Respect one that had to be returned. The BNP found nine but the PC and SNP found none.”
90, wrote that a bit unclearly. I meant that Labour might be rewriting dodgy stuff as well as the Hansard record which saw Ainsworth’s proclamation of “B***ocks” removed.
92 - No I accept that it is difficult to legislate, but I don’t think that that means that this isn’t a problem. Not sure that groups should donate money on behalf of their members at all, actually.
(Substitute Gordon Brown and his minions for Hitler and his generals, obviously, plus the dialogue to something vaguely political but…. you get the picture)
I know! Let’s just have the Electoral Commission investigate *everyone* in the country to make sure we’ve been 110% transparent in all our monetary matters!
It is becoming clear the Labour party are in the bunker mentality. If they cannot win they are happy to bring the whole edifice into the dirt with them. I hope they do not succeed.
Although we should not be surprised. Law has been made repeatedly on a partisan basis over the last ten years and most Labour MPs see nothing wrong in that and miss the irony that they are the ones hoist by their own Tory bashing laws.
This is against the background of the increasing public perception that Labour see themselves as above the normal herd, entitled to a well paid free ride, always right, never wrong, believing that spin will get them out of any fix, seeing themselves as never breaking the law only being too busy to bother, in short free from being tormented by their endless legislation as the rest of us are, and - well - the fall is going to be mighty.
It has been little commented upon but I thought that was a pretty indifferent result for Hillary last nite, and it’s followed by a pretty moderate poll today (Zogby +1 over Obama). There’s been no movement in her price though. I reckon she a touch overpriced now, but I’m so green on Obama I don’t really want to extend further.
GOP race is now completely unfathomable. Normally I think the virtues of being ‘all green’ are overrated - it implies at the very least you’ve had some bets you shouldn’t - but in this case I’m very glad to have no losers on the book!
91. Ah, but it’s one rule for our Masters and another for the people they rule over, isn’t it?
“Oh, who cares about such piffling matters as questionable donations?”
Answer - “We do, as long as it’s the Opposition we’re investigating. *We* could never do something so foolish. We’re Labour, after all, your Glorious Leaders.”
98. It’s just struck me. Has any Labour minister, since 1997, ever actually admitted to doing something wrong, or deliberately lying - rather than “making an honest mistake”, or “inadvertently misleading the House”, or “being a little too busy”, or “accidentally starting an entire new company to disguise my true income”.
Offhand, I can’t think of a single one who has admitted to lying or deception. There’s always an excuse. Even Mandelson had an excuse - “well I meant to declare it”.
The Majorite Tories were just as bad, of course. But at least some of them admitted their wrongdoing - and some of them even went to prison, after lying through their teeth first.
I trust the Gods are preparing something juicy for Brown & Co. You can’t get away with this kind of venality and mendacity for ever.
101. Estelle Morris is the only one I can think of. Truly a public servant in the way she resigned. Though that actually wasn’t through wrongdoing - just that she had pledged to meet targets and those targets weren’t met. Out the door, resignation letter in the post, bang.
If only we had more of her ilk in all political parties.
Apart from that, no.
The funniest one to me is still Tessa Jowell’s “I’m a Cabinet level minister and I keep my maiden name to show I’m a strong minded, independent woman but I don’t read my mortage forms, oh no, not me, that’s the job of the hubby….”
104 Would that be the ex-hubby or did I read that they are now back together? Quelle surprise.
by
Peter from Putney
January 16th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
does anyone have a link to a site setting out which of the states’ primaries are closed to party members only, and which open? McCain is going to suffer in ones restricted to GOP members only. I laid McCain @2.38 at the weekend and bought him @2.92 this morning. I agree with PfP and have put some money down against Hillary for the presidency too.
One thing I’m not sure has been discussed is the extent to which races are influenced by what’s going on with the other party. My feeling is the Dems are probably absorbed with their own race, but the Dem race could influence the GOP one quite a bit. I feel if Hillary gets the nod, the GOP base might swallow some quite bitter medicine to choose someone who is ahead in national polls, but with Obama they might be tempted to stick with someone they like ideologically. I could be green on all candidates, but am sticking to my position heavily laying Giuliani, I just can’t see him getting it. I still think Romney could come through the middle
101,
What about the welsh geezer on wimbledon common?
The tory boys Aitken and Archer were for perjury.
They didn`t admit it at first just got caught.
Even so I thought both of them shouldn`t have gone to jail, the fall from power was enough retribution, alongside the damage to reputation for any person in society.
101 SeanT - it is Rule 1 of the New Labour playbook - “never admit anything under ANY circumstances”. Shaggy’s “It wasn’t me” should have been their theme song. I think it comes from the large Caledonian contingent - living with one, she never apologises either. Even if utterly incontravertible evidence of her wrongdoing is presented to her. Nope. Nothing to do with her…. The sheer brass neck of it is quite entertaining. However, she doesn’t run the country….
105. I’m not sure, PfP. It wouldn’t surprise me. I think the eyes of the nation collectively rolled when it was announced they were seperating.
I especially like NuLab’s most successful constitutional reform that doesn’t actually get much attention, compared to the others.
It’s their complete and utter success in establishing a new convention about ministerial responsibility.
If you cock up your department, you’re *not* to resign. Oh no, most certainly not. Because what the public (whose faith in you has been shattered) would *really* want is for you to stay in the job and put things right. Yes, that’s the mark of a good minister. You’ve been incompetant in screwing up whole swathes of government business, but you’ll be much better in sorting the whole thing out, won’t you? Only this will, of course, require you to be the *strong* politician and stay in your job.
107. Aitken is a tragic figure now. I saw him on the Abbot and Portillo Show. A visibly broken man.
But he did perjure himself. And so he paid the price. And that is how it should be. If you don’t want the time - don’t do the crime.
The thing with Labour is that they so mired in their own narcissism they can’t admit even to themselves when they are doing the crime, let alone they they might deserve some time.
Yuk.
I’ve posted this before but its always worth posting again - as a pure example of the left’s hideous moral deformity:
The important presidential match up poll today is the following. I was surfing a Democrat site in the last couple of days and they were busy agreeing with each other that only Clinton could beat McCain. What sort of perverse psychology leads to that conclusion when the figures are the exact opposite? I just don’t get it.
General Election: McCain vs. Obama Hotline/FD
McCain 39, Obama 41, Und 11 Obama +2
General Election: McCain vs. Clinton Hotline/FD
McCain 47, Clinton 43, Und 7 McCain +4
In the biggest slaughter poll-wise Obama is 30 points ahead of Romney.
He is a broken man, thats why I don`t think jail was the correct punishment.
In both cases useful community service, working with the very ill and needy would have been more constructive, in both Aitken and Archers cases.
Surely the arrogance can be taken out, in some other way but jail.
114. The Democrats never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Not only is Clinton least likely to win the Presidency, she is least likely to help win congress seats in red-leaning states - as Obama’s endorsements from red-state Democrats has shown. Clinton’s record also shows that she is more likely to be obstructed by Republicans, where Obama’s record in Illinois has shown he can get them to support his legislation, even on hot topics like the death penalty. The Dems have a clear choice this cycle between an anti-Bush and a Bush equivalent. If they choose the latter, it will be their own stupid fault that this country doesn’t progress.
116. Huckabee and Thompson have to both be value for SC at those prices. Who would be foolish enough to back McCain at odds on when (a) he just got heavily beaten in Michigan and (b) he’s called evangelicals “agents of intolerance” in the past?
117 Cheers Shadsy. I think 10-1 on Fred Thompson to win SC is good value (6.2 on Betfair, but cannot lay at better than 14), but the other prices are pretty short.
113 - I had dinner with Hutton and his wife about a year and a half ago, and was astounded at quite what a pedestrian intellect he had. I am sure he is a great legal mind, but seemed to have no sparkling capability of applying such a mind to other disciplines. I was quite underwhelmed. Charming though.
114 This Hotline poll is just amazing, although I suspect the swings are a bit to big. I just can’t believe that Romney will only get 26 percent against Obama.
So far very few republicans say that they put much weight on electability, but there is a huge potential here. McCain must push this message - he is the only one that can win. Giuliani used to be in the same position, now he is far behind, and I don’t think he can come back. New Strategic Vision poll showing him 9 behind McCain in Florida (Huck 7, Romney 10 behind).
126. Jan. I only wish the American electorate would get round to reading these match up polls. I think realclearpolitics should be compulsory viewing before voting in the primaries. Encouraging news.
re 114. These match-up remind me of the named leader questions in the UK in the period December 2005-May 2007. They showed emphatically that Brown was an electoral disaster. And hey - Labour chose him and gave it to him without a contest.
My guess if the the Dems are going to do the same.
128. I’m not sure Mike. If the polls in Nevada are correct. Obama could win there on second preferences. Combined with a win in South Carolina and a worthless Florida result he will go into Super Tuesday with momentum. I think Massachussetts could be a big story if he wins, as it will be seen as a big win in Clinton’s back yard. If he bests her overall, the following states are all favourable to Obama.
114 and 128- ukPaul, and Mike- US polling is meaningless at this stage. The real election is based on a long haul campaign where polls fluctuate massively. I can remember after Kerry’s “reporting for duty” convention speech he was pretty much holding double digit leads until the GOP convention.
Even Dole had good poll leads over Clinton for a time in 96, and Dukakis over Bush senior.
Whoever wins the Democrat nomination will win. The Democrats had other potential winners in Gore and probably Edwards. Both Hillary and Obama will win big in November, and to be honest I just think that Hillary is more assured of not making mistakes out of the two.
As the contests go on, electability will get a bit more of an issue.
The Democrats are in the box seat on this. By and large they score well against practically any GOP opponent and even where down havent got a devastating gap that couldnt be clawed back in the hurly burly of a campaign.
The GOP, however, have a problem.
I always said at least one party will pick someone with an eye on winning. Maybe both will but the Democrat’s task is easier.
133. 48% of the US public say they will never vote for Clinton. Polls regarding a candidate are arbitrary when not much is known about them. Almost half of the electorate widely dislikes someone who has been in the news for the last 15 years. If she wins it will be a narrow one. How the heck is she going to “win big”?
131. James, yeah, I saw that. Frankly this is typically pathetic behviour we’ve come to expect from Brown. Instead of being man and taking responsibility for Hain’s sleeze, Labour desperatly try to drag the Tories into it - Just to muddy the waters.
135/136-socrates- get polling details of how many would never vote for a GOP in 2008. Alot more than the anti Hillary block.
I think a Hillary whoever play off will draw Bloomberg in, and in all likelihood Hillary will be the president on less than 40%, so a 48% anti voting block ain’t too much of a problem.
144 socrates- try pollingreport.com- I just scanned the site, and saw this latest GOP/ Democrat question which pretty much spits 33/66 in favour of the democrats.
This is an election that it is impossible for a democrat to lose. I think even Mondale could win this one.
by
Tyson and Trotsky
January 16th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
144. I think among the middle 20% of the electorate the feeling isn’t so much anti-GOP as anti-Bush. When general elections becomes about two candidates rather than the two parties I don’t think anti-GOP feeling will play as big a role as the perception of the candidates. Party is a lot weaker here than in the UK. If the Republicans choose McCain, Giuliani or Huckabee, they won’t be seen as part of the Bush years so much and won’t suffer from anti-Bush feeling. Clinton, however, will still suffer from anti-Clinton feeling.
133,Furthermore,in July 1988 Michael Dukasis led George Bush Snr by 20-22 points-and still lost by c.7% in the actual vote.
FWIW,Bush Jnr’s 04 victory of 286-252 EVS was based on New Mexico,Iowa and Ohio,Ohio having the highest vote margin of 2.1% These three states alone carry 32 EVS-and I would fancy Jeb Bush’s name in Florida will go a long way in the GOP losing their 5% margin there-another 27 EVS,and CLinton beats the GOP nominee 311-227-before we consider her hubbie’s old state Arkansas,and a few more may go-I do not expect Clinton’s popular vote victory to be more than 4-5%,but I believe she will previal-c’mon girl,I ‘m rooting for you!!
149-Socrates- but didn’t Bill leave office with approval ratings in the high 50’s which he has consistently scored ever since.
The anti Bush backlash approx 66% of the population is probably twice the size of an anti Clinton backlash.
Plus Hillary is a woman (55% of the voters are women) is particularly favoured by the over 40’s (best voters), and has probably the best political adviser in the US. She has made some mistakes, but gosh she makes a formidable prospect.
Hillary will steam roll any opponent, including McCain who looks just a little bit doddery
by
Tyson and Trotsky
January 16th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
BBC Have Your Say shows great insight… on the floods…
“Its about time obese people drank more water, then we wouldn’t have this problem. Also, if we made all the obese children in the country stand in Kent, then it would tip the excess water into France. We don’t need politicians to come up with solutions when normal folk have all the answers.”
152. The US system where you vote for one Presidential candidate has a remarkable ability to act as a clean sheet for a party. People aren’t really stained with the previous incumbent as much. Anti-Bush feeling is certainly strong (but not TWICE as much), but Bush isn’t running. Clinton is. Being a woman candidate doesn’t speak to all women, but a certain section of urban professional women. Most American women would much prefer someone like Laura Bush (now check out HER approval ratings). In fact many women detest the way Clinton stayed with Bill despite the fact he had affair after affair. As for having the best political adviser, I don’t think Penn has done anything particularly impressive so far.
I actually agree with you about McCain’s dodderiness, but I don’t think that’s a killer. A McCain-Clinton battle would be a close run thing.
Thought I had logged into porn betting.com. Certainly different, can see young ladies swanning around Dave and Nick but sorry Gordon - think you are out of luck
Stjohn from last thread:
246. I’m increasingly comparing this process to that of an STV PR election here in NI.
I remain concerned still for McCains chances though I think that if over the next few primaries he shows winning form enough of the party will start to get behind him as a winner in the making. That is his task.
If you don’t have a strength in depth, i.e. you get preferences as others drop out then you. Its understanding the potential drop outs, their order and where their support could go that will most help see if McCain can break away.
McCain needs to build up such a head of steam now that a vote for the winner mentality takes root in the GOP. The McCain bar is higher because he has incurred the ire of sections of the party. Whilst a good section of the party will always go against, enough will go with him if he starts winning states, others drop out he keeps on and the issue of who is best to go to take on the Democrats gets a bit more weight (up until nwo it has had little). I believe McCain needs that vote for the winner mentality more than any other candidate so with him its a case to prove an irrestisable force. Go to convention without a thumping lead and there’s always a chance they’ll shoot him down.
What the states so far have also proved that despite the presence of independents you need to lead (or be within a percent or two of the leader) in the votes registered republicans in each state. NH & MI provide the perfect examples of this. In NH McCain got as much GOP vote as Romney, in MI he didnt. If mcCain cant show NH type vote levels within the GOP base then he just wont win enough states by enough to get that killer lead.
Having said all that McCain currently holds an interesting positions and in a fractured field overall just shy of 29% isnt bad where there is no-one with a big momentum so its very vulnerable. Over 30% in the crowded field and it gets a bit more interesting because thats a decent block of support that he could core on plus McCain is a bit of an alternative candidate on a number of levels. If he was 35% today in a full field I’d be a lot more confident. I think he’d have enough reach to get home if today he was on that figure.
Despite MI, I dont expect McCain’s national figures to slump and I do think SC looks a realistic target espcially since Huckabee (my own original pick for the win there) looks to be shedding a bit to Big Fred when really he needs to be taking Big Fred’s support to see him home. A win in SC and McCain could get to be a stupidly short price on the markets even though he’d still have a grind to go. Being one of the last before Super Tuesday a win there and he’ll look a worthy favourite again.
If he has to fight all the way to convention without getting a distance away from the opposition then I do worry he could get caught out.
As regards SC, I’m waiting to see if the MI defeat really does damage him. He and Romney do have some vote exchange and I believe that contributed to Romney’s defeat in Iowa as McCain had a bit of a surge.
Answer to your question is breathless YES, YES, YES!!!
To faciliate, will be holding auditions at my humble home office next week!
2 Every dog has its day, but Sleepy Thompson is simply too lazy to go digging; instead, expects some kindly butcher to throw him a bone. Which won’t happen in South Carolina or anywhere.
4 . . . unless of course it serves the butcher . . . IF the meatmarket is run perchance by desperate Bushies & RNC.
BUT by now should be clear that Fred Thompson has a much chance of being elected President in Nov. as Lord Lucan.
4. He wont win it but he sure as hell could lose it for Huckabee if he keeps hold of that 15% or so.
5 - He has more chance as Lord Lucan is constitutionally disbarred by not being a freeborn US citizen.
2 “What the states so far have also proved that despite the presence of independents you need to lead (or be within a percent or two of the leader) in the votes registered republicans in each state. NH & MI provide the perfect examples of this.”
Excellent point that illustrates fact that “Independents” are NOT a monolith. Instead, except for fringe rightwingers & lefties, the Independents are part of a continuim between the two major parties.
Thus huge numbers of Independents are “leaners” who strongly lean one way or the other and thus gravitate to that party’s primary . . . when they bother to vote in a primary at all.
O/T Keegan new NUFC manager if any had bets on ..
O/T Keegan new NUFC manager if any had bets on ..
7. Correct BUT my comment stands
11. More chance US Constitution will be amended to enable Lord Lucan (or any other lording) to be President than Sleepy will get the “nod”.
9. Holy good god
10. No really holy good god.
Do like Kev though.
Was about to post this on the last thread. I apologise for it being far too long.
79. What’s wrong with the term “African American”? We have German Americans, Irish Americans, Serbian Americans, Native Americans etc. It’s just that the result of slavery means we can’t trace precisely where in Africa someone’s family came from. (Except in cases like Obama, who should more accurately be described as Luo American). I think the US tradition of describing people’s ethnic background is far more informative and accurate than the arbitrary pseudobiological terms “black” and “white”.
145. Obama’s best attribute is that he completely disarms Republicans. US conservatives like to act like they are sensible and reasonable, and liberals are just whiny do-gooders on an ego trip. Obama’s clear willingness to work with Republicans and to treat their arguments as if they are made in good faith works incredibly well. He addresses and incorporates solutions to their faux issues with progressive legislation to the point where they either have to support the legislation or admit they just want to help big business/the super rich. The office of President is not like having a government in a parliamentary system: its worthless unless you can work congress. This is Clinton’s issue - even if elected Republicans could always claim she wasn’t working fairly with them and 50% of the electorate would believe them. If they tried to do that with Obama, who people instinctively like and who seems so reasonable, the Republicans will end up looking like the entrenched diehards they are.
In terms of US politics and UK politics, I actually think the US is about to follow the UK for the next decade. The separation of powers means you get a much more complicated pendulum effect here in America: with one party in control of Capitol Hill and the other in control of the White House the anti-incumbency effect can work in two directions at once (among different parts of the electorate). The result of this is that the GOP has controlled at least one branch of government for 25 years out of the last 27. Like the Conservatives in the UK, they are wholly unsuited to not being in power. The US has been behind the cultural shifts of the rest of the Western world for the last ten years, and if the centre of the US political spectrum shifts left, then the bulk of the Right is in real trouble. They are unprepared for any compromise at all with anything that isnt conservative orthodoxy. Just check out their trashing of McCain for opposing Bush’s tax cuts. To be a “true” conservative you can’t just oppose all tax raises at any time, you have to support all tax cuts, even if they are only directed at the richest in society, even if you are at war without an end in sight, and even if you have the largest federal deficit and national debt in the history of the world.
206. Obama is a born again Christian but he is not an evangelical in the common use of the term. Evangelicals believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible, which Obama clearly doesn’t.
210. The Evangelicals WOULD be willing to support a Democrat over a Republican if the Democrat supported banning abortion, gay marriage and teaching evolution. It’s just the sort of person to believe in those things wouldn’t even join the Democrat party.
232. You have the labels the wrong way round. Born-agains are the more pluralist group, where the evangelicals are the purists supporting Huckabee.
235. It’s because the conservative coalition is a combination of wealthy surburbanites, the super rich, and religious and patriotic rural types. The latter is by far the greatest number.
In terms of the connection between two US parties the Conservatives, the GOP has shifted so far right it only now covers the Cornerstone tendency in British politics. Al Gore’s book “The Assault on Reason” is pretty much a defence of old-fashioned British conservative pragmatism. The Republicans don’t even seem to believe (even theoretically) in fair process any more, which would put them at odds with all three parties in the UK.
back to the thread - somehow sadly for them I can’t see any of our leaders prompting this sort of dedicated activism - let alone the lyrics:
“You’re in-to Border Securit-eee….,
Let’s break down the border between you and me…
You can Barrack me tonight..”
May our speechwriters eat their hearts out
7.
Lord Brocket might go down well though? With his cheeky upper-class Englishness? He’s certainly got the money to run.
15. Why wasn’t there a scene of her lying sprawling on a bed, pleasuring herself whilst moaning; “Oh! Bama!!” ?
(I’ll get my coat..)
7. Lucan might be able to get a constitutional amendment passed!
“In terms of the connection between two US parties the Conservatives, the GOP has shifted so far right it only now covers the Cornerstone tendency in British politics”
As always, it depends what you mean by “Right”. There’s nothing “Right” about the Bush administration’s attitude to public spending and big government.
Interesting line from the song “He can Barack me tonight”
Works better with my name.
7 Perhaps a material difference is that Lord Lucan has now been declared dead by a court.
That said, I would want a certificate to show that Fred still has a pulse….
At least if Hillary became Pres, the White House laundromat would only have tear-stained dresses to attend to.
22. Unless Sean T’s suspicions prove to be well-founded.
19. There was nothing “right” about Adolf Hitler’s spending plans either. Does that make him a centrist? I think right-left terminology is ridiculous, but as the term “right-wing” is used, it seems to split into two strands, one religious, the other libertarian as it goes towards its extremes.
Someone on the last thread seemed to suggest that Giulani was the most moderate and least like Bush. I am very worried by this perception. He’s the most Bush like in the field if you consider his views on foreign policy, use of torture, habeus corpus and restraints (or the lack thereof) on executive power. Bush before him was painted as a moderate “compassionate conservative” in 2000 and look how that turned out. Giuliani will be just as bad, if not worse.
24 - Moderate depends on how you define extreme though doesn’t it.
19 When I was a kid, had to listen to old (and often half-tanked) conservative go on about how Franklin “Goddam” Roosevelt had put US on the same path that saw the Roman Republic turned into the Roman Empire thanks to welfare and mercenaries.
Seems to me that the Bushies are working overtime on THAT project!
Stalin was a “state socialist” and Cheney is a “state conservative.” W is just the organ-grinder’s monkey.
In the last few days we have had nasty threads, sick threads and now we have a porno thread. What’s next?
24 - Right on. Still plenty of wisdom in those ancient Greeks (or is that Geeks?)
24 I’d say the Nazis were pretty well unclassifiable in Right/Left terms.
25. I would have thought supporting basic democratic norms and abiding by international law were more important criteria for “moderate” than your views on abortion or gay marriage.
I shall have to give that clip a more considered viewing outside of the office…
Doesn’t Dave already have his frightfully posh totty girls? (or ‘frightful posh totty girls’, depending on your own particular stance re posh totty…)
29. What about the BNP?
27 Nasty, sick porn thred
And so another day closes in the strange, twilit world of pb.com.
32 In terms of British politics, I’d say the BNP are Right Wing, because although they have left wing economic views, their views on immigration are certainly right wing, and that’s the issue that most people identify them with.
17. or else get the ronettes on singing
obam-a-lam, obam-a-lam-a ding dong…
29 - I always find it amusing that socialism is a left-wing philosophy, but add 8 letters to the front and it becomes a far-right philosophy, add another 5 to the front and it goes back to the left again. Hmm.
re 34. Come on Sean - I put this up especially for you
Think Fred Thompson may be pioneering truly sicko-politico genre of “self-snuff”.
Giuliani’s “moderation” is a product of his exclusively NYC world view. In other words, not proof of moderation but evidence of binkered thinking.
37 Totalitarian states, regardless of ideology, tend to have a good deal in common.
Usually, this includes intense hostility towards any institution which isn’t controlled by the State, such as churches, charities, freemasons, scouts, and the majority of voluntary associations; massive State control over the economy - even when the State stops short of expropriation of the capitalists; a total disregard for civil liberties and due process; the cultivation of popular hatred for both internal minority groups (such as Jews, Kulaks, the “asocial”) and extreme aggression towards neighbouring states.
35. Well big spending is just one policy of the Bush administration. Huge tax cuts, a preference for military action over diplomacy, “Shock and Awe” military tactics, the adoption of some forms of torture, detainment without trial, the prevention of stem cell research, opposition to the findings of the scientific community on climate change, increasing drilling and logging in protected areas, wiretap programs without congressional approval, secret flights of prisoners to countries that torture are some others. Most of which are not just right-wing, but extremely right wing.
Surely you have to see a party in terms of a left-right scale on both (1) social issues and (2) economic issues.
Right/Right = Right wing, authoritarian
Left/Right = Libertarian
Right/Left = Probably in many ways what “working class,” labour-voting socialists used to be, and if you still like to go by a class system, probably they’re still around. Authoritarian leftists.
Left/Left = Left-wing
.. maybe…
38. Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate it.
The Lib Dems should have done something similar long ago, especially when they had a leader called “Vince Cable”. A p0rn star’s name if ever there was one.
42 - In a US context they are right wing, in a European context they are ultra right wing.
37. What are the five letters?
I’ve watched PMQ’s, Brown’s performance was poor. His constant asking of questions looked very shifty, as was his avoidence of answering any. I don’t think that Clegg didn’t do too badly, not as well as Cameron though. Brown’s ’squashing’ of him was basically him trying to jam in a taunt, it looked very staged. He had that dossier ready to use whatever question Clegg would have asked. The labour party chanting ‘more’ was incredibly pathetic, an attempt to try and make Brown look like a heavyweight again. Instead it looked like a pre-rehearsed attack on Clegg. Cameron could easily shrug anything like that off, Clegg doesn’t have the experience or history to be able to do that, and they knew it.
OT. if anyone is interested, earthquake in Italian politics:
Justice minister (Mastella from little centrist party Udeur) is been under investigation…his wife arrested….various politicians of his party under investigation too….he resigned…Prodi refused his resignation…parties backing him…judges replying back at attacks…
crises…
Meanwhile referenda on the election law have been accepted…so between April and June we must vote on them
46 - inter - as in socialism, national socialism and international socialsim.
43. That’s the form the political compass website uses. Even that is too simplified. There should in fact be a whole series of spectrums:
Private property vs social property
Free market vs Regulated market
Free trade vs protectionism
Small goverment vs strong state
Social tolerance vs social conformity
Internationalism vs isolationism
Military action vs diplomacy
Religiosity vs secularism
Centralism vs decentralism
There are many others of course, and its important to remember these are all spectrums. Many of these tend to go with each other, but not necessarily. I am generally considered economically right-wing, but I’m reasonably centrist on regulation but strongly on one side in terms of free trade.
PMQs wise, Brown wouldn’t have been disasterous if he’d not done possibly the most foolish thing in his Commons career and started ASKING Cameron questions. It became like a round of “guess which one’s the Prime Minister.” Perhaps he’s preparing himself for opposition?
Cameron’s approach seems to be to ignore any remarks (or questions!) Brown makes about Tory policy, which I guess is an attempt to look ‘above it all.’ I don’t know if that’s wise or not. Probably so in the long term, but it does mean he doesn’t land incredibly heavy blows. I guess he’s planning a drip-drip-drip line of attack, he knows he’s playing a long game now. Still, easily the best of the two (though as SBS remarked earlier, most people could beat Brown at PMQs)
Clegg was OK but really needs to move to the traditional spot on the benches, I think he looks silly sitting in the middle when there’s not a dispatch box there. Brown was better against Clegg as opposed to Cameron but I wouldn’t say it was a glowing performance.
41 - Absolutely. Particularly freemasons.
African American, or hyphenated anything is so false - you are American - like Brits are British or English, or Welsh etc. My partner is first generation American - but is American he never hyphenates his nationality as Norwegian-American - it just seems like you don’t belong to the country when you hyphenate - I suppose it is personal choice - I don’t think English-American comes across that well either to be honest …
BBC breaking news - Labour report 80 Conservative MPs for “gifts”..
the war is on..
Oh and another thing, when do we get rid of Gorbals Mick? He’s bringing more and more embarrasment to the office of Speaker with every passing day. He never seems to be able to think on his feet, which is, basically, *the* most important qualification for the job. I couldn’t believe it today when he said “let the Rt Hon Gentleman (Cameron) answer the Prime Minister’s question” (!)
Absolutely unbelieveable.
50 Yes, it’s complicated.
I’d rate myself in various degrees towards the private property, free market, free trade, small government, religious, isolationist, decentralist ends of those spectrums, and in the centre on social tolerance and military action.
Guardian reports Neil Kinnock’s son, director of British Council office in St Petersburg, arrested last night, released after an hour. Russians claim he was drunk in charge of vehicle, British that it’s harassment.
Maybe we need McCain elected as Reagan isn’t available for this Cold War. Cammers can wear Thatcher drag
http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,,2241651,00.html
New yougov Scottish poll (comparison with previous yougov poll)
Constituency:
SNP 38% (-2),LAB 29%(nc), LDEM 14%(+1), CON 14%(+2)
Regional lists:
SNP 30%(-4), LAB 27%(+1), CON 13%(nc), LDEM 12%(-1)
44 A guy I knew had the best name for a p0rn star. He was called Phil Beaver….
54. It just gets more depressing with every passing day…
59 Was he one?
An American friend of mine thought the name of a travel agent in Radlett “Beaver Travel” was hilarious.
53. Hyphenating doesn’t mean you think of yourself as less than American. It’s just that you’re describing your ethnic background along with it. Surely if you describe your ethnicity as “African-American”, that is emphasising more Americaness than just “African” or “black” does. It is even more important with more recent immigrants. I know a guy who came here from Serbia when he was 10 and is considered (by himself and others) as Serbian-American. If he had come to the UK he would just be considered Serbian. The former is clearly better for integration.
60 That is the plan - “tar them all with the same brush”. But Labour must be REALLY worried about what is about to come out in their own house, to have “gone nuclear” like this….
54 They’re getting desperate.
61 No - just a rather bemused Northern bloke…!
63 As the Turks say, “a drowning man will clutch at a serpent.”
labour spoiling tactic ?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7192598.stm
re.57 I am a Russian myself and am against Putin regime.But I can uderstand if Kinnock was drunk.The police actually sayd that he was under the influnce of alcohol.I do not thnink that he was really drunk.But in Russia it is normal to drink so I would not imediatly see it as a plot.
Labour MPs John Mann and Kevan Jones have reported 80 Tory MPs to the Electoral Commission.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7192598.stm
I just watched PMQs.
I actually thought Brown was doing alright until he lost his temper again. Then he started bumbling, and he looked flustered.
Cameron definitely has the measure of the PM - the look of incredulity on DC’s face, at one of Brown’s more inept thrusts, was priceless - but he needs to avoid overconfidence. Beating up Brown too regularly and arrogantly could start to look like cruelty.
A narrow win for Cammo.
Didn’t watch Clegg.
50,56 - I seem to remember thinking a couple of summers ago that someone really ought to take the political compass website much further and look at plotting peoples politics within a multi-dimensional set of arrays (possibly with the addition of making some arrays more important than others (so make them longer), or less relevant if you’re at an ‘extreme’ point compared to the average) - and then computing an average distance to various other people / parties, with explanations of which dimensions you vary from them on. Then realised it’d be somewhat complicated to program and design (how do you choose which dimensions you look at…)
68 - so Mikhail who would you vote for for the Russian Presidency? And will most people bother?
71. Best I’ve seen is this:
http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/z_pofo_political_test.php
63. Brown must have had some sort of breakdown sanctioning a move like this. Does he really think it is going to stop?
:lol: 
The point of “nuclear weapons” is not to use them. I would recipricate the move if i were the tories plus ask the police to investigate the link between the Unions and members of the cabinet past and present and their role in adopting legislation.
It would not surprise me if Brown becomes victim to an oversight? Maybe this is why he has done it as most of the DL candidates are guilty of an incomptence and going on Brown’s performance it would not surprise me if he were to as well!
69. & 70. Do the Labour MP’s think all this additional work may stiffle the Hain enqueiries and half of the cabinet etc?
:lol: 
When my Dad was studying, he shared a house with a Californian called Randy Love.
O/T Interested that John Mann is one of the Labour MPs. He is a partisan, but is also an extremely decent man, an excellent constituency MP, and not particularly into Westminster games as far as I know. Whilst he may have been asked to do this by the leadership, I reckon it is more likely that he has taken umbrage against what he will see as Tory hypocrisy in picking on Peter Hain. Not sure I agree, though I think donations through front organisations is a serious issue. It will either be elevated by the public exposure during this donations crisis, or it will get lost in the scandal.
A quite brilliant video, how that would light up party political broadcasts and get the young more interested in politics.
Think we might all learn something from this.
74. He’s just a desperate PM at the end of his tether. He has no more options. He doesn’t have the good economic news to pull out of the hat anymore. Northern Rock is going to be nationalised. Hain is either going to have to go or just make even more of a laughing stock of Brown’s Cabinet of all-the-incompetants. Those missing discs still haven’t been found and Labour are 10 points down in the polls - clear election-losing territory.
It’s worth a gamble. Only it makes Labour look even more stroppy and silly with every passing moment.
I sincerely doubt the people of this country care about such trivial things. Hain’s hundreds-of-thousands channelled through a think tank for no particular purpose, when combined with the Abrahams money maybe, but not trying to catch out 80-odd MPs for, if there is any impropriety found, probably the equivalent of peanuts. And if the Tory MPs have done it, you can bet your bottom dollar the NuLab clones will have, too.
Sigh. Blair would never have sanctioned this. He would have gone about things with much more panache. This is beginning to increasingly look stupid.
SS Irish Do you need to be born a US citizen to be in the primaries, or it is only necessary to be president. Several primaries have ‘home state’ candidates so they can have some delegates for the convention, don’t they? And in most states you are voting for delegates not candidates? Who checks the final eligibility of primary candidates?
76. Hain has no case, what he has done or people on his behalf is wrong. Hain would appear to have a conflict of interest in his cabinet role and the union donation plus other proplems in relation to the donations to his DL campaign. THe real reason Labour have panicked is if Hain goes, Harman follows plus Wendy Alexander etc…..etc!
If you contrast this with the Tories and Osborne, I would hardly call the Conservative Party a “front” organisation!
Given the electronic trail i cannot see how Labour can say the tories are hypocritical. To my mind the Tories have been restrained and the more Labour Shriek about Tories, the more damage they do to themselves.
75. Looks a bit OTT, but how many staff have the EC got and are they up to date? But have the likes of Harman, Wendy Alexander and Brown filed accurate accounts or lists of donors? The FT article mentioned that Brown had appeared to be slow in filing details. It surprised me that the man with the moral compass had not fully complied his accounts.
81. Every single MP is open to be probed
. Very silly move by the Labour party. What the hell Brown thinks he is doing?
82. I can imagine him in the Fuhrerbunker now, gazing longingly at the Seals of State
“If I cannot look reputable, no-one can. I shall take everyone with me. Mwahahaha”
… meanwhile Sarah shakes her head in disbelief and the Blairs sit back and cackle, long and hard.
80 - No defence of Hain from me - he must resign - I was just trying to imagine what John Mann was up to…
I wasn’t calling the Conservative Party a “front” organisation!! I was referring to the complaint that the two Labour MPs lodged which was drawing attention to groups (I imagine like the Midlands Industrial Council, or whatever they’re called) who are donating, but whom the Electoral Commission cannot cross-reference against the Electoral Roll)
I think that, whilst Labour have committed much more serious offences, there is still a great deal of opapue funding, and that would explain John Mann’s ire, which I believe to be genuine. You are right, I think, in saying this will backfire.
83. Meanwhile, Heinrich Milliband plots his insane takeover of the illusory Wehrmacht divisions, and Jack “Donitz” Straw prepares to announce the inevitable surrender, and all the time the shells of the Cameron Army rain down on Unter den Linden, SW1.
Gotterdamerung indeed.
I thought Boris Johnson tried something like that once… or was it David Davies? Anyway, it was generally derided wasn’t it?
2. Thanks for that Yokel. I might finally be getting the hang of this market. Fortunately all nicely GREEN on the GOP nomination but very exposed on the Presidential race to Clinton which is not ideal. Hoping she will drift after SC and then I can consider covering that exposure.
Can you or someone else explain what the betting situation is in the US? Is Internet betting completely banned? Is betting on politics completely banned? Are only non-Americans betting on the US elections and if so how is this influencing the markets? How do Americans bet on sports eg baseball, horseracing etc. Trying to plug another gap in my betting knowledge.
81 Had a look at the Register for Donations and asked for List of Impermisable Donations for 2007 - thought there were a few (Abrahams, Wendy Alexander) received by Labour Party. Suprisingly none for Labour while there are 4 for Conservatives, 4 for Lib Dems and 1 each for Respect & UKIP. Only 1 since Register set up for Labour.
Odd that. Thought I’d heard of more than one in last few years.
“How do Americans bet on sports eg baseball, horseracing etc.”
Via the bazillions of bookies based in Aruba, Curacao, Trinidad, Virgin Isles, Barbados, Antiga……….
88, maybe, like Hansard, Labour are busy rewriting history?:p
Ted if you go back to the beginning you will see that Labour have declared one dodgy donation to tens from the Tories and LibDems and even the BNP have declared dud donations.
Fancy Labour being less likely to have dodgy donations than the BNP.
My post of 19th December gave the numbers:
Interesting looking at the Electoral Commission website. The search engine seems to show something quite interesting about impermissible Donations.
Since 2001 the Tories have returned over 50 donations totaling £91,800 including voluntary forfeiture to the Commission three times including the two cases of which so much fuss has been made (because the Labour party has just caught up with the Commission’s month old press release).
The LibDems have returned nearly 20 donations valued in total at £55,000. One of these was voluntarily forfeited to the Commission.
In the same period the Labour party has returned only one donation of £1,000 because as a impermissible donation.
So in fact this current Labour attack again highlights how careless (or worse) Labour have been if they have only found one case since 2001 where the donation was impermissible while the other two parties have found and dealt with so many more.
Even the Green party found two donations and Respect one that had to be returned. The BNP found nine but the PC and SNP found none.”
84 What about “Groups” like Rugby Borough Council Labour Group? Unison?
Could get very silly.
90, wrote that a bit unclearly. I meant that Labour might be rewriting dodgy stuff as well as the Hansard record which saw Ainsworth’s proclamation of “B***ocks” removed.
stjohn - Has someone been impersonating you upthread as well as on the previous thread?
92 - No I accept that it is difficult to legislate, but I don’t think that that means that this isn’t a problem. Not sure that groups should donate money on behalf of their members at all, actually.
83/85. What?
Do you mean something like this??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6qc_QRy6B4
(Substitute Gordon Brown and his minions for Hitler and his generals, obviously, plus the dialogue to something vaguely political but…. you get the picture)
92.
Indeed.
I know! Let’s just have the Electoral Commission investigate *everyone* in the country to make sure we’ve been 110% transparent in all our monetary matters!
It is becoming clear the Labour party are in the bunker mentality. If they cannot win they are happy to bring the whole edifice into the dirt with them. I hope they do not succeed.
Although we should not be surprised. Law has been made repeatedly on a partisan basis over the last ten years and most Labour MPs see nothing wrong in that and miss the irony that they are the ones hoist by their own Tory bashing laws.
This is against the background of the increasing public perception that Labour see themselves as above the normal herd, entitled to a well paid free ride, always right, never wrong, believing that spin will get them out of any fix, seeing themselves as never breaking the law only being too busy to bother, in short free from being tormented by their endless legislation as the rest of us are, and - well - the fall is going to be mighty.
87 StJohn
It has been little commented upon but I thought that was a pretty indifferent result for Hillary last nite, and it’s followed by a pretty moderate poll today (Zogby +1 over Obama). There’s been no movement in her price though. I reckon she a touch overpriced now, but I’m so green on Obama I don’t really want to extend further.
GOP race is now completely unfathomable. Normally I think the virtues of being ‘all green’ are overrated - it implies at the very least you’ve had some bets you shouldn’t - but in this case I’m very glad to have no losers on the book!
91. Ah, but it’s one rule for our Masters and another for the people they rule over, isn’t it?
“Oh, who cares about such piffling matters as questionable donations?”
Answer - “We do, as long as it’s the Opposition we’re investigating. *We* could never do something so foolish. We’re Labour, after all, your Glorious Leaders.”
98. It’s just struck me. Has any Labour minister, since 1997, ever actually admitted to doing something wrong, or deliberately lying - rather than “making an honest mistake”, or “inadvertently misleading the House”, or “being a little too busy”, or “accidentally starting an entire new company to disguise my true income”.
Offhand, I can’t think of a single one who has admitted to lying or deception. There’s always an excuse. Even Mandelson had an excuse - “well I meant to declare it”.
The Majorite Tories were just as bad, of course. But at least some of them admitted their wrongdoing - and some of them even went to prison, after lying through their teeth first.
I trust the Gods are preparing something juicy for Brown & Co. You can’t get away with this kind of venality and mendacity for ever.
99 PtP, You mean you’re green even on Paul and Thompson? It just seems unbelievable to me that Giuliani is still around 7-2.
Unftahomable and exctly why its a great betting medium
101. Estelle Morris is the only one I can think of. Truly a public servant in the way she resigned. Though that actually wasn’t through wrongdoing - just that she had pledged to meet targets and those targets weren’t met. Out the door, resignation letter in the post, bang.
If only we had more of her ilk in all political parties.
Apart from that, no.
The funniest one to me is still Tessa Jowell’s “I’m a Cabinet level minister and I keep my maiden name to show I’m a strong minded, independent woman but I don’t read my mortage forms, oh no, not me, that’s the job of the hubby….”
104 Would that be the ex-hubby or did I read that they are now back together? Quelle surprise.
does anyone have a link to a site setting out which of the states’ primaries are closed to party members only, and which open? McCain is going to suffer in ones restricted to GOP members only. I laid McCain @2.38 at the weekend and bought him @2.92 this morning. I agree with PfP and have put some money down against Hillary for the presidency too.
One thing I’m not sure has been discussed is the extent to which races are influenced by what’s going on with the other party. My feeling is the Dems are probably absorbed with their own race, but the Dem race could influence the GOP one quite a bit. I feel if Hillary gets the nod, the GOP base might swallow some quite bitter medicine to choose someone who is ahead in national polls, but with Obama they might be tempted to stick with someone they like ideologically. I could be green on all candidates, but am sticking to my position heavily laying Giuliani, I just can’t see him getting it. I still think Romney could come through the middle
101,
What about the welsh geezer on wimbledon common?
The tory boys Aitken and Archer were for perjury.
They didn`t admit it at first just got caught.
Even so I thought both of them shouldn`t have gone to jail, the fall from power was enough retribution, alongside the damage to reputation for any person in society.
101 SeanT - it is Rule 1 of the New Labour playbook - “never admit anything under ANY circumstances”. Shaggy’s “It wasn’t me” should have been their theme song. I think it comes from the large Caledonian contingent - living with one, she never apologises either. Even if utterly incontravertible evidence of her wrongdoing is presented to her. Nope. Nothing to do with her…. The sheer brass neck of it is quite entertaining. However, she doesn’t run the country….
107 - Clapham Common. How dare you cast aspertions on the Wombles?!
105. I’m not sure, PfP. It wouldn’t surprise me. I think the eyes of the nation collectively rolled when it was announced they were seperating.
I especially like NuLab’s most successful constitutional reform that doesn’t actually get much attention, compared to the others.
It’s their complete and utter success in establishing a new convention about ministerial responsibility.
If you cock up your department, you’re *not* to resign. Oh no, most certainly not. Because what the public (whose faith in you has been shattered) would *really* want is for you to stay in the job and put things right. Yes, that’s the mark of a good minister. You’ve been incompetant in screwing up whole swathes of government business, but you’ll be much better in sorting the whole thing out, won’t you? Only this will, of course, require you to be the *strong* politician and stay in your job.
#collapses with cynicism.#
Prices available for Nevada (D) and S.Carolina (R) on Ladbrokes.
109,Yes you are right woudn`t want to upset the crazy gang.
Don`t want my balls grabbing like what happened to gazza on the footy pitch.
107. Aitken is a tragic figure now. I saw him on the Abbot and Portillo Show. A visibly broken man.
But he did perjure himself. And so he paid the price. And that is how it should be. If you don’t want the time - don’t do the crime.
The thing with Labour is that they so mired in their own narcissism they can’t admit even to themselves when they are doing the crime, let alone they they might deserve some time.
Yuk.
I’ve posted this before but its always worth posting again - as a pure example of the left’s hideous moral deformity:
http://tinyurl.com/2wbxjj
The important presidential match up poll today is the following. I was surfing a Democrat site in the last couple of days and they were busy agreeing with each other that only Clinton could beat McCain. What sort of perverse psychology leads to that conclusion when the figures are the exact opposite? I just don’t get it.
General Election: McCain vs. Obama Hotline/FD
McCain 39, Obama 41, Und 11 Obama +2
General Election: McCain vs. Clinton Hotline/FD
McCain 47, Clinton 43, Und 7 McCain +4
In the biggest slaughter poll-wise Obama is 30 points ahead of Romney.
113.
He is a broken man, thats why I don`t think jail was the correct punishment.
In both cases useful community service, working with the very ill and needy would have been more constructive, in both Aitken and Archers cases.
Surely the arrogance can be taken out, in some other way but jail.
111 Shadsy
South Carolina appears to be missing. Sabatoge by Sidney?
116 Peter
It is there under “Primary”. I’ll try to make that a bit easier to find.
102 No, PfP. Nor am I green on Lord Lucan, but it’s not keeping me awake nights.
114. The Democrats never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Not only is Clinton least likely to win the Presidency, she is least likely to help win congress seats in red-leaning states - as Obama’s endorsements from red-state Democrats has shown. Clinton’s record also shows that she is more likely to be obstructed by Republicans, where Obama’s record in Illinois has shown he can get them to support his legislation, even on hot topics like the death penalty. The Dems have a clear choice this cycle between an anti-Bush and a Bush equivalent. If they choose the latter, it will be their own stupid fault that this country doesn’t progress.
116. Huckabee and Thompson have to both be value for SC at those prices. Who would be foolish enough to back McCain at odds on when (a) he just got heavily beaten in Michigan and (b) he’s called evangelicals “agents of intolerance” in the past?
117 Sorry Shadsy.
Hope most of your clients are not so dim.
117 Cheers Shadsy. I think 10-1 on Fred Thompson to win SC is good value (6.2 on Betfair, but cannot lay at better than 14), but the other prices are pretty short.
113 - I had dinner with Hutton and his wife about a year and a half ago, and was astounded at quite what a pedestrian intellect he had. I am sure he is a great legal mind, but seemed to have no sparkling capability of applying such a mind to other disciplines. I was quite underwhelmed. Charming though.
121 Btw, the 6/4 Huckabee looks quite reasonable.
I’ll think about it.
The Detroit Free Press is reporting that just 30% of black voters supported Clinton in Michigan - 68% voted uncommitted.
123 - It’s better than market rate, but I just cannot give him a 40% chance of victory whilst Thompson is in the race.
114 This Hotline poll is just amazing, although I suspect the swings are a bit to big. I just can’t believe that Romney will only get 26 percent against Obama.
So far very few republicans say that they put much weight on electability, but there is a huge potential here. McCain must push this message - he is the only one that can win. Giuliani used to be in the same position, now he is far behind, and I don’t think he can come back. New Strategic Vision poll showing him 9 behind McCain in Florida (Huck 7, Romney 10 behind).
126. Jan. I only wish the American electorate would get round to reading these match up polls. I think realclearpolitics should be compulsory viewing before voting in the primaries. Encouraging news.
re 114. These match-up remind me of the named leader questions in the UK in the period December 2005-May 2007. They showed emphatically that Brown was an electoral disaster. And hey - Labour chose him and gave it to him without a contest.
My guess if the the Dems are going to do the same.
128 Yes Mike. The Presidential Elections ought to be plain sailing for the Democrats, but they steer ever closer to the rocks.
128. I’m not sure Mike. If the polls in Nevada are correct. Obama could win there on second preferences. Combined with a win in South Carolina and a worthless Florida result he will go into Super Tuesday with momentum. I think Massachussetts could be a big story if he wins, as it will be seen as a big win in Clinton’s back yard. If he bests her overall, the following states are all favourable to Obama.
Oh good god, how desperate can they get…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7192598.stm
131 LOL Labour = desperate!
HAHAHAHAHA
114 and 128- ukPaul, and Mike- US polling is meaningless at this stage. The real election is based on a long haul campaign where polls fluctuate massively. I can remember after Kerry’s “reporting for duty” convention speech he was pretty much holding double digit leads until the GOP convention.
Even Dole had good poll leads over Clinton for a time in 96, and Dukakis over Bush senior.
Whoever wins the Democrat nomination will win. The Democrats had other potential winners in Gore and probably Edwards. Both Hillary and Obama will win big in November, and to be honest I just think that Hillary is more assured of not making mistakes out of the two.
As the contests go on, electability will get a bit more of an issue.
The Democrats are in the box seat on this. By and large they score well against practically any GOP opponent and even where down havent got a devastating gap that couldnt be clawed back in the hurly burly of a campaign.
The GOP, however, have a problem.
I always said at least one party will pick someone with an eye on winning. Maybe both will but the Democrat’s task is easier.
133. 48% of the US public say they will never vote for Clinton. Polls regarding a candidate are arbitrary when not much is known about them. Almost half of the electorate widely dislikes someone who has been in the news for the last 15 years. If she wins it will be a narrow one. How the heck is she going to “win big”?
133. As for not making big mistakes, who is the candidate that
(a) used the term “vast right wing conspiracy”?
(b) looked stupid for making a joke about Obama’s grade school essay?
(c) had a senior advisor resign for raising Obama’s drugs history?
(d) said something which came over as giving more credit to LBJ than Martin Luther King?
(e) voted for the Iraq war for appearances’ sake?
If Huckabee isnt quite value at 40% then perhaps that makes McCain almost value at 4/5
Clintin is almost value at 11/10 but a bit too tight.
Clinton = Democrats lose.
Obama = Democrats win.
Brown = Labour lose.
Err… Brown = Labour lose.
End of!
138 Clegg = LD lose haha
Er, has anyone noticed something about the last few polls for the Dems in SC?
Something perhaps notable there.
131. James, yeah, I saw that. Frankly this is typically pathetic behviour we’ve come to expect from Brown. Instead of being man and taking responsibility for Hain’s sleeze, Labour desperatly try to drag the Tories into it - Just to muddy the waters.
135/136-socrates- get polling details of how many would never vote for a GOP in 2008. Alot more than the anti Hillary block.
I think a Hillary whoever play off will draw Bloomberg in, and in all likelihood Hillary will be the president on less than 40%, so a 48% anti voting block ain’t too much of a problem.
142. Bloomberg running does pretty much sew things up for the democrats, whoever runs
142. Do you have a link for that? I’d like to see the wording of any polling question on such a topic.
138- I would like to add a bit to this post monte (casino) from your perspective;
Clinton = Democrats lose- I want, but I doubt; infact I think she will win which is an outcome that appalls me.
Obama = Democrats win- I think if he gets the nomination
Brown = Labour lose- stating the obvious
Err… Brown = Labour lose- no need to repeat oneself
End of!
by Casino Royale January 16th, 2008 at 8:47 pm- with a little embellishment by Tyson and Trotsky (formerly just Tyson)
141. Desparate desperate stuff.
139. Ave it 08 - that goes without saying. *Literally*.
145. LOL!
[ although i could refer you to posts 114/135 Mike (Tyson)
]
144 socrates- try pollingreport.com- I just scanned the site, and saw this latest GOP/ Democrat question which pretty much spits 33/66 in favour of the democrats.
This is an election that it is impossible for a democrat to lose. I think even Mondale could win this one.
144. I think among the middle 20% of the electorate the feeling isn’t so much anti-GOP as anti-Bush. When general elections becomes about two candidates rather than the two parties I don’t think anti-GOP feeling will play as big a role as the perception of the candidates. Party is a lot weaker here than in the UK. If the Republicans choose McCain, Giuliani or Huckabee, they won’t be seen as part of the Bush years so much and won’t suffer from anti-Bush feeling. Clinton, however, will still suffer from anti-Clinton feeling.
Labour =
L
O
L
O
L
133,Furthermore,in July 1988 Michael Dukasis led George Bush Snr by 20-22 points-and still lost by c.7% in the actual vote.
FWIW,Bush Jnr’s 04 victory of 286-252 EVS was based on New Mexico,Iowa and Ohio,Ohio having the highest vote margin of 2.1% These three states alone carry 32 EVS-and I would fancy Jeb Bush’s name in Florida will go a long way in the GOP losing their 5% margin there-another 27 EVS,and CLinton beats the GOP nominee 311-227-before we consider her hubbie’s old state Arkansas,and a few more may go-I do not expect Clinton’s popular vote victory to be more than 4-5%,but I believe she will previal-c’mon girl,I ‘m rooting for you!!
149-Socrates- but didn’t Bill leave office with approval ratings in the high 50’s which he has consistently scored ever since.
The anti Bush backlash approx 66% of the population is probably twice the size of an anti Clinton backlash.
Plus Hillary is a woman (55% of the voters are women) is particularly favoured by the over 40’s (best voters), and has probably the best political adviser in the US. She has made some mistakes, but gosh she makes a formidable prospect.
Hillary will steam roll any opponent, including McCain who looks just a little bit doddery
BBC Have Your Say shows great insight… on the floods…
“Its about time obese people drank more water, then we wouldn’t have this problem. Also, if we made all the obese children in the country stand in Kent, then it would tip the excess water into France. We don’t need politicians to come up with solutions when normal folk have all the answers.”
153. Ah obesity… I wonder why we haven’t had a COBRA meeting on that yet…
152. The US system where you vote for one Presidential candidate has a remarkable ability to act as a clean sheet for a party. People aren’t really stained with the previous incumbent as much. Anti-Bush feeling is certainly strong (but not TWICE as much), but Bush isn’t running. Clinton is. Being a woman candidate doesn’t speak to all women, but a certain section of urban professional women. Most American women would much prefer someone like Laura Bush (now check out HER approval ratings). In fact many women detest the way Clinton stayed with Bill despite the fact he had affair after affair. As for having the best political adviser, I don’t think Penn has done anything particularly impressive so far.
I actually agree with you about McCain’s dodderiness, but I don’t think that’s a killer. A McCain-Clinton battle would be a close run thing.