Are the Clintons getting rattled?
January 17th, 2008
How will Bill’s response help Hillary?
This TV extract which has been near the top of the bulletins on ABC News gives a good indication of how the Clintons are seeing the battle with Obama as they move into their next big test - Saturday’s Nevada caucuses.
The row follows a legal move to change the arrangements for Las Vegas casino workers following an agreement last year that they should be able to partake in the process at their places of work. Everything was fine until their union came out for Obama and this sparked off the legal challenge.
The original arrangements have now been upheld by a federal judge and this is being presented as a victory for the young senator from Illinois.
One of my big question marks over Hillary’s campaign is how their aggression and their tactics will go down with voters. This simply does not look good and the way ABC reported the clash with the former President just underlines this. The best thing, surely, is just to ignore these apparent set-backs.
Latest betting on the Democratic race is here.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
I’ve just been watching some CNN coverage on this. It seems that the Clintons are running a very effective ‘Good Cop (Hillary), Bad Cop (Bill)’ campaign.
Whenever I look at Clinton I see Gordon Brown.
Same sense of entitlement, same aggression against their own side, same focus on division rather than inclusion, same disdian of the media that will backfire badly.
SC looks close between McCain and Huckabee, Huckabee has to be the scariest candidate left, and yes I include Paul in that so that’s saying something.
I can spell disdain, I just can’t type it…..
Watching the Clintons is truly a very unedifying spectacle. Their brand of amoral, sleazy politics, disguised by a veneer of unctuousness, false sentiment and media spin is hideous. Thank goodness it never caught on in the UK.
Good decision for Obama. Interesting according to Reuters that the judge preciding over this was James Mahan appointed by George W Bush…
Some Dems may deduce from this that dubya wants Obama to win!
Complete nonsense of course. I’m sure some wacky dem blog will bring this up though…
Totally off thread, but bloody brilliant, IDS a gay icon..
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/centreright/2008/01/the-man-that-go.html
Even kevin maguire destroying hain on newsnight…….its all over for the orange one.
re 2. Dead right UKPaul - it’s that “sense of entitlement” that they have and what is crazy is that neither GB nor the Clintons recognise how badly this goes down.
No, sp, he’s gotten away with it. Fox, Bageshaw doing their best but the audience isn’t pilling in. Smith isn’t under pressure. Damn it!
It was the party establishment backing the Clinton’s that set up this system in the first place, in order to maximise Hillary’s vote! But when the endorsement goes the other way they suddenly have problems with the democratic fairness of it. As I said on the last thread, this won’t go down well. Ever since Florida in 2000 Democrats can’t stand the stench of this sort of gerrymandering to maximise your sides vote.
Why do none of Brown’s cabinet have personalities? And why are all chick lit authors Tories?
9 you have to remember that maguire is a ludicrous nulabour cheerleader and anything less than blind support is damning.
Like the Borgas, the Clintons believe they have divine right to rule.
I’m watching Newsnight. Jacqui Smith on for Labour. Why can’t NuLabour politicians enunciate the letter T at the end of words. BU.,THA.,WHA.,etc. Blair does it,Miliband does it, Jacqui Smith does it. It drives me mad!!
14 does that make her a useless twa…………
Here’s the question whos in the box seat overall Clinton or Obama?
Clinton.
Yes Obama may well come through in the final analysis and bear in mind I said very early on before a ballot was cast that there was bound to be a Clinton wobble, the party would seriously get the freaks as they thought over Clinton, that at east and they would show some reluctance if not turf her out. I layed against her so I am no Clinton cheerleader.
I really do get the feeling that some people are letting their ante post bets and others their personal opinions on the woman’s personality get in the way of an actual analysis of where we stand here. They should cut it out as it caused a groupthink that let to some outrageous claims for Obama’s candidacy AFTER HE WON ONE STATE.
In short, take the goggles off. Its a close fight and pumping out constant goes at Clinton doesnt affect then US one bit but it certainly does effect some people’s judgement.
Take an example. The suggestion for example that Clinton’s race related comments were bad for her completely missed what people far more expert than us were saying in the US that it could very possibly do Obama more damage.
If dirty tricks caused offense there is many a nominee who would never have made it. George Bush in SC in 2000 being a case in point.
Lot of Mike Gigglers in the audience tonight.
15. I quite lack Jacqui Smith. No.. a bad sor..
16 - There’s a difference between saying Obama will win and saying that he *should* win. I’ve never said anything apart from the latter and most comments seem to be about how the Dems would be crazy to choose her. General opinion also seems to be that they are that crazy. As for betting, I said last night - Clinton/Nevada, Obama/SC, Romney/Nevada, McCain/SC (just) - and I stick by that.
19. I’d agree with your picks.
Despite McCains wobble no one has really taken his lost support and Huckabee seems stuck at around 20-24%.
All McCain has to do is rally the wobbling supporters who are a bit soft. They dont seem to have a preference for anyone else thus he should still make it.
On the wider point, whilst people may have personal opinions on personalities this is a betting site and the should is getting in the way of who could win.
Take this site after Obama’s win in Iowa, he was practically feted as an odds on god who was certain to march on with people throwing rose petals at him. Well he might win but there isnt a glory march.
Neither him nor Clinton actually represent good value at their current odds for the nomination. Clinton is a worthy narrow favourite, Obama a worthy chaser but the market positions reflect current reality and no more than that.
18 each to their own……….
re 16. I guess your comment is aimed at me. I’m a gambler and aim to to draw at least £1000 a month from political betting which I’ve been doing. I like to think that I sometimes see things ahead of other people and act accordingly and fast. Sometimes I’m wrong.
I also switch positions quite a lot and have been changing sides regularly on the general election spread betting markets. Certainly I am aware of the dangers of letting existing positions affect my judgement but my objective is profit and reaching my monthly target.
What’s all this “respect” stuff? Politicians never used to talk like this. Are they trying to be hip-hop?
I really think the media is hyping Obama..
In reality all the polls are not showing this! Bet at your peril.
The reality is the that middle-income - higher-income powerful media readers and makers are backing Obama.
While low-income people are supporting Clinton. This is why I’m suggesting the bet is too risky. We have no clue how this will work out…
Nevada is very unionized, it’s anyone guess who can or will win.
S.C. is Obama.
Florida is Clinton - Huge polls leads, early voting and also campaigning is banned.
On super-tuesday, the big states with huge delegates NYC, CA are going to go Clinton. Bill and Chelsea have been working the youth vote there for a week (without some rallys for bill hitting 8,000 students). Secondly, both CA and NYC have huge, huge endorsements for Hillary.
Ultimately, this could run until after super-tuesday. I think Hillary will win. However, we cannot be certain if she can get the majority of delegates…and that will depend on Edwards.
2: It looks like in SC Fred Thompson may be about to make his significant contribution, because if he does well my man* Huckabee is in real real trouble. Only a couple of %age points for Fred could lose Huck the victory and hand it to McCain. Huckabee badly needs the victory to keep up his momentum from Iowa. McCain would do well to campaign for Fred over the next day or so.
*not as in I’d vote for him - I wouldn’t - but as my tip.
Everyone on the QT panel this evening has started at least one of their answers with “Chris [Huhne] is right …”.
With the exception of McGuire, they’ve all performed well this evening, but Huhne has had a particularly good night.
@26 Huhne was more dangerous to the Tories than Clegg for sure.
22. Mike
Its aimed at the groupthink thats created. Obviously as the site admin you are part of that in this case.
I have no doubt you are doing well overall, thats not my point but your market positions, as everyones elses are different. A bum steer is part of betting and its not a criticism that a suggested punt is wrong but what has been emerging is an Obama party that, if we are honest, swept a fair few people along.
I’m still looking for a ‘why Obama may not win’ since we’ve had plenty of ‘why Hillary is bad, mad or desperate’ which skews the actual position. You look at the site recently and if you didnt see the polling or analysis you’d really believe Clinton was dead in the water, broken and depserate when she isnt, yet, and is unlikely to be in a hurry, and may never be.
I think what got on my goat is the tone.
I have personally found the whole US show a bit of a goldmine though I’m more nervous now of my calls for the weekend than i was for any so far, so its not a criticism of your punting calls at all, but its the constant panning of Clinton in the leads who lest we forget, is in front and actually is hanging on in there at this time.
That may change within 7 days if Nevada and SC go badly wrong but come Super Tuesday she could wrap up a few big states and we’d be wondering what all the fuss was about.
26 agree about huhne. fox and bagshawe are very feeble…smith is doing a good job given the disastrous position she has to defend.
26,27. Agreed. The feisty Tory PPC was quite good too.
Big news for Nevada betting - Mason Dixon (who I rate highly) poll to be released tomorrow have put Clinton 9 points ahead and Romney 15. Intrade is reacting! I bought Clinton at 39.0 earlier.
New SC polls from Mason-Dixon and SurveyUSA show a tight race between McCain and Huckabee.
Mason-Dixon
McCain 27 Huckabee 25 Romney 15 Thompson 13 Paul 6 Guiliani 5
Obama 40 Clinton 31 Edwards 13
SurveyUSA
McCain 29 Huckabee 26 Romney 17 Thompson 17 Paul 5 Guiliani 3
http://tinyurl.com/3yy3bu
It will be interesting to see the Zogby tracker tomorrow. From what we’ve seen so far momentum on the eve of voting is indicative (except Clinton in NH). Romney in Michigan was going up and McCain down in the few days before voting, and the actual results overshot. The opposite happened in NH.
It’s looking tight between Huckabee and McCain, and I think this could decide things. If McCain wins he takes momentum to Florida (where he is already ahead according to some) and Feb 5th. If he loses it’s hard to see where his next win comes from and the GOP race stays in a complete mess.
Smith put up a good fight - McGuire struck me as bizarre, Bageshaw did well ; however the clear indication is that, as a Tory, thank god 512 more LibDems didn’t vote for Huhne!
Democrat race: on the assumption that Hilary wraps up NY, Obama gets Illinois and that California is shared out (as it is not “winner takes all”) any indication of what is going on in the other populous states with the big delegate counts? Thinking especially of Texas. Any news of polls on what is happening there? Could be the kingmaker.
Liam Fox has always been useless, if you ask me. When Cameron reshuffle’s his shadow cabinet before the election, he should dispatch this mediocre politician to the backbenches.
31/32 - Who is 9 points ahead of whom? Clinton or Obama leading?
33 i couldnt think of an adequate explanation for maguire….. he is clearly looking for a long term career when labour are destroyed at the next election. when people like maguire see the writing on the wall its time to follow mr smithson and buy tory seats……
Btw, estimated put the “Casino’s” where most culinary workers are to be worth 6% of the state delegates.
Frankly, like above comments said. Democrats are not mad… Because polls are showing Hillary would beat all the other Republican candidates and level-pegging with McCain. Exactly like Obama.
A Clinton/Obama ticket will win the white house. Period.
Another factor is Bloomberg. If he enters, he will try to get the anti-Hillary vote, hence splitting Republican votes.
Frankly any democrat could be nominee, and assuming there is no Kerry flip-flopping they will beat the Republican. If not I will eat my hat.
@34 Doubtful, since Hillary is likely to sweep the northern white voting, states which are in March. Frankly it all depends on if she can “stay in” the game with southern states like Georgia, Alabama, New Mexico and places.
Also no one has a clue if Florida counts…
36: Clinton +9 in Nevada, Obama +9 in SC.
Sounds consistent with other polling.
36 - As I understand it Clinton is 9 points ahead of Obama in Nevada in new Mason Dixon poll to be released tomorrow.
Turnout could still swing this for Obama - but its looking good for Clinton and Mason Dixon are an excellent pollster.
I would like to see the details of this poll though rather than just blog references to it. Intrade going wild as usual…
14 stjohn - I’m also annoyed by the missing “t” often before the ending of certain words, often where, to my ear anyway, the particular word is just screaming out for the t to be included. Examples include “brillian[t]ly”, “defini[t]ely, but there are hundreds of others. I think this is a S. E. England style of speech, which seems to include all strata of society.
28. On the Dem race I think you are spot on. At the moment I’d say Clinton is the favorite, but only narrowly, as is reflected in the betting.
The thing is we really know very little. We’ve only had meaningful results from 2 states. Obama had lots of advantages in Iowa. He’s senator of a neighbouring state and Iowa has never elected ANY female governors, senators or house members. By contrast NH has a record of electing plenty of women. And the different results match the differences in the vote of women.
It’s shaping up as a classical establishment v insurgent in the Mondale v Hart or Gore v Bradley mode. But Obama has more potential. Affluent voters make up more of the Democratic primary voters, and his solid base with the black vote (which he is consistently winning 3-1) gives him a lot of working class support. Ultimately I think Clinton will do it, but it won’t be easy and she may be forced to accept him as her VP.
31. Thats high for Clinton. can you list the full breakdown between Clinton, Obama & Edwards?
39 - Oh, OK! Thanks tpfkar.
Fox - full of false indignation again. Can you imagine him running something? All he can do is state how things get worse and worse. However, he did admit that “24 hour” licensing was not a problem. (Stupid question: How many pubs in Coventry have 24 licences?)
Bagshawe - not bad for a bonkbuster writer. But more ambition than conviction. Wanted to be seen to be saying the right things.
Maguire - I agreed with a fair bit. He is a Labour man on a road to Damascus? Or a loose cannon who has lost his direction since Bliar went.
Smith - full marks to her as the first front line Labour politician on for a long time. Shame she was crap!
Huhne - I voted for Clegg. Clegg is not doing a bad job. Lucky he has got front benchers like Huhne though!
16. Yokel, your post is daft, with respect. While you attack others for bigging-up Obama, you’re doing exactly the same for Clinton. The fact is that both candidates are neck and neck in fundraising, neck and neck in endorsements and neck and neck in delegates won so far.
The difference is that the Clinton campaign isn’t bearing up under the pressure as well as the Obama campaign is.
Let’s talk about the MLK debacle, which you assert hasn’t hurt Clinton. Yet we’ve seen the substantial “undeclared” vote in the most heavily black precincts of Michigan - far higher than across the state at large; and the latest polls show Obama winning the black vote in SC by landslide proportions. Is it just pure coincidence that these margins arose post Clinton’s clumsy comments? In my view, no.
Nationally at the moment Clinton is winning women in greater proportion than Obama is winning blacks, hence her leads. But whether he’s actually won or narrowly lost the states that have voted so far, what we have seen is that when time comes for voters to get serious about their choices and vote Clinton’s substantial lead dissolves.
Continue spinning a Clinton victory if you want, and this race has always been hers to lose, but right now she’s doing precisely that.
35 - Hear, hear. I can’t stand the wretched fool. He was as hopeless tonight as ever.
South Carolina looking good for McCain but Huckabee could just do it. SC for the Republicans is the only primary on Sat that I have not put any money on - It’s so close between these two and I don’t know what to do! Bit late for me to hedge now as well!
45.SBS a hypothetical question - if the vote for the LD leadership was tomorrow would you still have voted for Nick?
43 - I don’t have the details yet there is only blog references to it - check out RealClearPolitics that will have any updated info when available.
38 - They show Clinton behind Obama on all races and actually losing against McCain. Clinton is the bigger risk for the Dems.
A Clinton/Obama ticket will not hold. You can’t run against the status quo and then acquiesce to it.
Florida doesn’t count. Period.
Elsewhere - Nevada is more difficult to read but SC being later, and being the last proper match up before Super Duper Tuesday, may give Obama the momentum.
29, 30 - I thought that the Conservative PPC simply stuck to scripts and soundbites, and the audience member came across pretty well in pointing this out. This whole ‘dithering’ line is really becoming painful to listen to - they’re starting to look like they all follow the same script. I know the rationale is to paint a portrait of Brown in the public’s imagination but surely its starting to make them look like broken records- and just might add weight to the whole ‘Cameron and rehearsed lines’ tag. Its also one of those words that people rarely use in everyday life and by using it so much, sounds scripted and contrived. The ‘bottler’ tag has resonance but this..?
Sorry for the rant.
Thought Fox did well until the police pay question whilst Smith spent the programme running back to defend an open goal.
Huhne came across well again. A missed opportunity there for the Lib Dems as he has the potential to damage both Labour and Conservatives. Perhaps he’ll become the Lib Dem attack Dog and battle it out with Greyling on every news channel.
46 - On the race issue I thought exactly that, Clinton is shooting herself in the foot with the black vote. But many in the US seem to think it damages Obama more because it pushes him into a box. Ultimately if the row helps Clinton win more white votes than lose black votes, however distasteful that is, it helps her chances. However I think both campaigns realised the need to end it.
As I’ve said I think the race is close. I think Yokel is right to criticize those who simply Clinton bash. Yes she (they) have made mistakes, but they are still the most successful political couple of the generation. As NH showed write them off at your peril. Personally I think Obama is a better pol than Clinton, but I think McCain is a better one than Bush.
Adam, you are plain wrong.
There is no evidence to suggest that MLK has hurt Clinton. National polling is back to pre-iowa.
S.C. is also back to pre-iowa, with Obama leading by 12 % as it was.
The michigan vote was a non-vote. People knew it would not matter and if Black voters wanted to send a message to Hillary they did it then knowing it would not hurt her much. Secondly her “likability” with the african-american community is 80%, no change.
Secondly, furnishing all well and good, but the Clintons have 50mn cash-in-hand compared to obamas 40mn or less.
Hillary also has substantial leads in most states, check the polls including CA, Florida the two biggest states.
On delegates Obama leads on 25 to Hillarys 25. Including Super-delegates Hillary leads by 100.
Frankly, read the data that is available and make a judgement. The internet is too objective.
ukpaul. Nancy Pelosi said Florida does count, it depends on the delegates at the convention if they want to include them or not.
Hillary is in the lead in almost all polls except McCain:
http://tpmelectioncentral.com/polltracker/
my conclusion from QT
first, huhne should be lib dem leader. He has a very commanding and authoritative voice, and unlike most lim dems, i actually find myself listening to what he says.
Second, lib dems and labour are bed budies once more. Its gunna hit them hard at the next general election. those floating voters and anti labour lib dem voters are going to vote tory. How do the lib dems always get themselves into this messy!!!
56 - Clegg and labour bed buddies. Really? That’s not what it looks like from here.
40 If that poll is anywhere near being correct, then the 11/10 available for Clinton from Shadsy & Co. appears to be excellent value.
51 - I don’t see why Clinton/Obama couldn’t work. Clinton will run on change from now on, and as she pointed out in the NH she would be a change. Because of Obama we’ve become a bit blaise, but electing a female Commander in Chief would be a pretty big change from the previous 43 Presidents!
Clinton could easily argue that she and Obama provide the perfect combination of perspiration and inspiration. And it’s a no-brainer for Obama - if he loses he doesn’t want to be stuck in the Senate for the next 8 years. Of course, if the primary continues to get more nasty this goes out of the window.
54 - No she doesn’t, she leads by 63.
People in most states are waiting before committing, why do you think the polls are moving around so much in early polling states?
At 40% uncomitted Michigan was made to matter. What on earth made Clinton think she should keep her name alone of the top runners on the ballot?
Again - Florida doesn’t count. Period.
….and in any case Obama has been cutting down her lead considerably over the last few days.
Make an objective reading of the data.
46. You did read what my betting position on Clinton is?
Thats the most counter intuitive piece of ramping if thats what I’m doing.
If thats how you want to take what I;m saying thats not a problem though, you work away.
55 - It cannot count because there was no campaign. You want anarchy and a republican win? Divide the convention with tricks like that.
The system is teetering on the ridiculous as it is, if decisions start to be reversed then the whole thing will blow up in their faces.
54 - Tend to agree with this I think Clinton is in a much stronger position than some think, she will most likely lose SC but with her ground organisation in Nevada and other states I can’t see Obama doing much damage.
The Republican race is the most interesting. Although I think Giuliani is doomed - I think his strategy is nuts. The nomination could be Huck, McCain or Romney at this stage! I would give Romney the edge, he is ahead in delegates and he has a ton of money and that will become a hugely important factor as things progress.
60 - Florida does matter! The degree is questionable but it does. All the candidates are on the ballot. Campaigning or no campaigning the media will report the result. Whoever wins will get some free publicity and some momentum. To argue that nobody at all in a Feb 5th state will be affected by the Florida result is absurd. It certainly isn’t the be all and end all, but it will have some impact.
64 - It may ‘matter’ but it doesn’t ‘count’.
55, 62 - I agree that Florida and Michigan should not have their delegates reinstated (fwiw I don’t think they will if it would affect the outcome, but I think they will if it doesn’t as they are swing states) but the results will be reported, analysed and effect other voters.
54. National polling is irrelevant but no, it is not back to pre-Iowa when Clinton’s lead was 30%; today it is 19%. Nor is SC - Clinton was ahead in SC pre-Iowa.
Again, “likeability” is meaningless - it’s votes what matters, and that’s going for Obama massively now. They weren’t before (though you could make an argument the decisive shift was Oprah, not MLK).
You cannot dismiss the Michigan undeclared vote so flippantly. Polls forecast an undeclared score of about 30% - it was over 40% and very substantially higher in the Detroit area.
You then claim Clinton has big leads in states that haven’t voted yet. Clinton had big leads in every state that has voted or is just about to vote: again, I cannot but point out that those leads collapsed when voters decided who to vote for - even in New Hampshire.
You’re right about super delegates at the moment - super delegates can change allegiance - and they will, especially as Obama mops up endorsements in the swing and red states. In fact most of the super delegates aren’t yet declared and as the Clinton slice-and-dice machine continues to behave so disgracefully, they’re going to lose more and more of them, and more and more fence-sitters will choose Obama.
On cash, $10 million isn’t consequential given the amounts now being raised - more importantly that $10m refers to total cash raised not cash eligible for spending on the primaries where Obama has a lead. Obama has raised far more since the new year: again also in cash able to be spent on the primaries and has a far broader base of donors that haven’t maxed-out on their contributions.
I agree about opposing Clinton-bashing for the sake of it - but equally, Bill is damaging his own reputation among those of us who respect his presidency for the frankly clumsy, spiteful and petty attacks he’s making on Obama and the arrogance by which he seems to believe Hillary should have the presidency by right. I think Hillary will make a very, very strong - possibly historic - Senate Majority Leader. But she’s the wrong candidate for the presidency.
In terms of big states on Super Tuesday I’ve said before Massachusetts could be a widely reported one. Obama has out-fundraised Clinton there, and it’s a very big state in what will be considered Clinton’s backyard. Clinton will do very well in both NY and NJ, although Obama will win IL by an even bigger share. Clinton also has the advantage in California and Bill’s very loyal base in Arkansas. However, I think Obama has the advantage in pretty much every other state.
Theres now some really conflicting polls for the Dems in Nevada.
65 - Ok, but that is semantics. Florida could very well affect the nomination, whether it ‘counts’ or not. And that is the important thing.
65 - I’ll place money on the fact that the Michigan and/or Florida delegations are ’seated’ at the DNC in Denver, after a floor vote in favour by the convention. $50?
Again, Nancy Pelosi said it’s up to the convention to include delegates or not. Florida is a powerful state and they are likely to be included IF obama and clinton camps agree to that. It’s still important to the media as its a swing state.
Michigan however is not an influential state. Or atleast by the media.
40% uncommitted does not matter. It’s a useless poll. It’s like local elections here…”pointless indicator”. That 40% includes 17% Edwards according to CNN.
“….and in any case Obama has been cutting down her lead considerably over the last few days.”
- Really? It was 33% each on polling day in NH. Now its 37% Clinton, 30-33% Obama.
http://tpmelectioncentral.com/polltracker/pres_08_d/
Daily Tracking is showing voter movement between Edwards and the other two. The key is the Edwards vote!
We also have the other issues like “shy voting”.
Now for the republicans, Romney is leading on delegates - I wonder if he can surprise us..because he has the $$$ backing.
Guliani is a goner!
McCain is old and frankly, I cant see republicans electing the maveric.
71 - Essentially that is a bet on whether the DNC is brokered. If it isn’t I don’t think there is a question about delegates not being seated, whatever the rules.
71. Anyone taking that bet should be careful about the wording. Delegates might be seated without being able to vote.
Surely there could be valu in getting on Guliani at this stage, no? His strategy, which makes plenty sense to me, is to focus on the high delegate states, where he’s most likely to be most popular (not so sure about florida though). Given how wide open the GOP race is, and how long Guliani’s odds are currently, surely his price will come in significantly in the run up to super duper tuesday? Any thoughts?
63 Giuliani’s strategy is interesting considering the way some of the US news is covering the campaign (as well as British news & press). There seems to be a collective “whatever” regarding the Republican candidates where the only real story is the ‘comeback’ angle, first McCain then Romney. There doesn’t seem to be much enthusiasm for those competing. I think Giuliani could work this to his advantage staying out of the squabbling until Super Tuesday. If his ground & fieldwork is good and can get out the vote if could well surprise.
Now if Bloomberg steps in afterwards there could be the real possibility of a very New York centric presidential race.
(I do have money on it being a Clinton v Romney match-up though - not sure that was wise now. Romney has the $$$ but I sense there’s no real passion for the guy’s campaign)
73 - No - if a candidate has clearly won before the Convention, they will allow them to be seated to avoid causing offence to two big states (inc a swing state), and if the convention is deadlocked, it becomes about control of the party and parliamentary procedure, which I think Hillary would win.
Only way they don’t get seated is if Obama has a lead in delegates of about or above 6%and, over 50% excluding MI and FL, but less than 50% inc MI and FL. In those circumstances, the convention would recognise a clear winner, and would not see that overturned, though Hillary’s supporters would challenge it. Half-brokered, as the vote would be on whether to seat (as in July 1972)
Ladbrokes have marginally cut Huck for SC. the previously mentioned modest bet/lay wouldnt probably be attractive now as Huck has to tighten a reasonable bit more on the exchanges and the polling evidence so far suggests he has no reason to contract.
Useful calendar of upcoming US primaries:
http://www.politics1.com/calendar.htm
Seeing the schedule, I still think the Democratic race could be live all the way to Texas/Ohio on 4th March. New Jersey/Massachusetts/Arizona/Georgia look critical on Super Tuesday (5th February - better remember to get a few zzzz’s in the bank for that one!)
The full running order that day:
FEBRUARY 5, 2008:
Alabama - Presidential Primary
Arizona - Presidential Primary
Arkansas - Presidential Primary
California - Presidential Primary
Colorado - Presidential Caucuses
Connecticut - Presidential Primary
Delaware - Presidential Primary
Georgia - Presidential Primary
Idaho - DEM Presidential Caucuses
Illinois - Presidential & State/Federal Primary
Illinois - CD-14 Special Election Primary
Kansas - Dem Presidential Caucuses
Massachusetts - Presidential Primary
Missouri - Presidential Primary
New Jersey - Presidential Primary
New Mexico - DEM Presidential Primary
New York - Presidential Primary
North Dakota - Presidential Caucuses
Oklahoma - Presidential Primary
Oregon - Presidential Primary
Rhode Island - Presidential Primary
Tennessee - Presidential Primary
Utah - Presidential Primary
West Virginia - GOP Presidential Convention
74 - No attempt to mislead - I was using ’seated’ to mean that they could vote. I thought this was common (as in for the GOP “only half of Michigan’s delegation will be seated”).
I know delegations can be recognised but not seated, but can a delegation be seated and not vote?
71 - These delegates ‘count’ if they will affect the result, if the result is changed because of seating these delegates then you’ve got a bet. If they are allowed in as a paper exercise merely to paper over the mess then no.
(Why not in pounds?!?)
72 - Cutting lead in Florida polls.
NJ is definitely Clinton and Obama very likely will get GA. Or are you talking about the scale of the wins?
63: I thought Guiliani’s strategy was nuts, but it’s kind of working out, isn’t it? Every time a front-runner appears on the GOP side, someone promptly beats him. If Guiliani can beat them all in Florida (which is far from certain, but if) he’ll be in good shape.
The Democrat side looks very much a tossup to me, and I agree with Yokel that there’s a bit of “I can’t believe they’d choose her” on this site which is blurring perceptions. I wouldn’t count the theoretical national match-ups too heavily yet. Obama hasn’t yet had to handle a serious firestorm, making him a pretty wild gamble for the Democrats, whereas firestorms have been the normal weather for the Clintons for as long as I can remember. But Obama’s going well in SC and we won’t get a clear feeling till Supeer Tuesday.
72 Guliani is a goner!
You may well be proved correct, but right now he remains second favourite - doesn’t say much for those slugging it out in the first 5 primaries/caucuses does it?
77 - Yes that’s right. I’d guess I’d describe that as technically brokered in that Obama would have less than 50% of all potential delegates.
Overall I think the chances of FL and MI not being ’seated’ to be very small. Particularly, given the high number of superdelegates who should ensure a clear winner before the convention.
80. Yes, the conventions can use whatever terminology they want to prevent voting. My guess is that if a convention is a close thing, there might be a lot of propaganda over what each bit of terminology means. The Estates-General of 1789 springs to mind!
49 - a good question. I would still have voted for Clegg. I think Huhne is a more daring politician but as leader may have been too much of a loose cannon. I voted for Huhne last time. Much better than CK post about 2004, or than Ming.
56 - “Second, lib dems and labour are bed budies once more.” Clearly somebody who did not watch QT! And can’t spell!
84. Peter. You keep piping up when Guiliani is mentioned. Are you a backer?
83. Nick - why do you think there’s so wide an “I can’t believe they’d choose her” syndrome on this site - is it a mass psychosis, or could it just be that several of us don’t want to see, yet again, the Democrats hobble themselves out of the gate with the wrong candidate - this time the most polarising, divisive candidate that they could pick.
If there is wishful thinking here, it’s from those of us who both really hate the slicing and dicing of the US that’s been so damaging in recent years and who recognise that when it happens the Republicans win cos they’re better at it than the Democrats.
So no, I can’t believe that they’d pick her. Doesn’t mean they won’t and doesn’t mean my analysis is irrational either.
81 - ‘Evens’ on those terms looks a *lot* less favourable, but I don’t like to chicken out of a bet, so as long as I don’t get penalised for them “being seated but it not making any difference”, how about the following wording:
“If there is a vote on a motion to ’seat’ the Michigan and/or Florida delegations at the 2008 DNC in Denver, and the result of that vote would (if passed) introduce delegates *mathematically capable* of affecting the choice of Presidential nominee, Morus bets ukpaul $50 at even money that such a motion will pass”.
This way, if Obama is 45 delegates ahead, and 60 delegates are proposed to be seated from those states - even if they vote for Obama, they are capable of defeating him, and so they ‘count’. I hope that is still within the spirit of your suggestion?
(Peter the Punter has set a precedent that it is just plain wrong to bet on US politics in sterling if you can help it. I’m inclined to agree, but don’t mind either way)
84 Not as such, stjohn, I’ve backed him modestly but only to keep my book broadly in shape, having bet heavily on Huck early on and then McCain. I just think so many on here keep writing him off prematurely - I’m not a big fan, but I can’t see too many obvious flaws, which can’t be said of most of the others.
75 / 76 - The biggest problem with the Giuliani strategy is that he has bet the farm on Florida - if he loses Florida he is toast and at the moment he is not looking good in Florida!
The other problem with Giuliani and this is similar to McCain is that the bulk of the conservative base don’t like their more liberal views and that is a real problem in a Republican primary. Just look at some of the Exit Poll data for Romney in Michigan and you can see the problem for Giuliani and McCain.
The other problem for McCain in particular - is that the Conservative radio shows are hammering him daily - and a lot of the grassroots that vote listen to these shows.
83. You mean other than various drug slurs, and the Osama-Obama/madrassa story? I find it amusing that many people claim Clinton has “weathered” attacks. No she hasn’t, anyone Republican leaning hates her! A colleague of mine is a Catholic Conservative but mentioned the other day that she really liked Obama’s positive campaign and thinks she will vote for him. Upon mention of Clinton’s name she immediately started protesting how much she detested her!
90 - Morus, I have to hit the sack and my brain is checking out. Can you redirect me to this tomorrow and I’m sure we can sort something out, it sounds fine but there’s maybe a less than 1% chance of actually happening at all!! ZZzzzz
90 (Peter the Punter has set a precedent that it is just plain wrong to bet on US politics in sterling if you can help it. I’m inclined to agree, but don’t mind either way)
Eh …. what’s this about?
92. Giuliani has liberal views on only two issues, and while the bulk of the party has problems with those views, only a small minority (evangelicals and gun nuts respectively) has a big problem with them. McCain’s “socialist” rhetoric and repeated siding with the Democrats are larger issues. Especially dangerous for him are his support for CFR which the establishment hate, and his support for immigration reform which a HUGE portion of the base feels VERY strongly about.
92 Although he’s my biggest winner, I do feel nervous about McCain and in particular about his age. You just don’t have the required energy levels in your seventies IMHO. Although not shouted from the roof tops, I felt this was a significant factor in Ming’s demise.
96 - Agreed - McCain support for CFR and IR are a huge problem for him with the base.
94 - No problem ukpaul! Sleep well.
95 - Another of my hare-brained, never-going-to-happen proposition bets (Giuliani to beat any non-Hillary Democrat in NY state if nominated, or something else) that PtP kindly laid, and he suggested $20. I assumed he was working under the misapprehension that I was in the US or something so replied £10, and he said it just didn’t feel right, so $20 it was!
89: I think there are lots of things about Hillary that many people here are allergic to: she’s an old-school liberal Democrat, she’s issue-focused rather than exciting (roundhead vs cavalier), she reminds them of Bill, and she’s a left-wing woman (cf sp on Smith at 15). Brits who dislike Polly Toynbee are guaranteed to dislike Hillary Clinton. All these things are pluses for me, and I think she’s by far the most competent candidate and the one most likely to be a good President, but that doesn’t mean I’m confident she’ll win - it looks a real toss-up to me, both in the nomination and the November race. I agree that Obama right now has better rating vs the GOP, but I’ve yet to be convinced he has staying power if it gets rough.
Adam, the internet means nothing.
Ron Paul ring a bell? So much fuss.. He can barely get above 5% in national polls.
Bush was hated before he got reelected, reelected he was.
For the moment, there is no indication that she [Clinton] is hated by anymore more other than hardcore Republicans.
The Clinton/Obama ticket would win the democrats the white house imo. That’s why Obama has retreated on the race issues, because they may “need each other” at some later stage.
Another Obama problem is that he recently said he like Reagan… that’s like Blair saying he loved Thatcher before getting elected.
101 Another Obama problem is that he recently said he like Reagan
I’m sure it would have been much more serious had he said he disliked Reagan, wouldn’t it? It’s a funny old world.
100. Why is being an old-school liberal Democrat better than being a new-school liberal Democrat?
As for issue-focused, Obama’s website goes into far more detail about far more policies than Clinton’s does. And why does her being a woman rather than a man make her more of a plus?
I think a problem that some people have with Hillary is that she backed the Iraq war but now pretend not to have.
At least she should find favour with Mr Cameron.
104. When has Cameron pretended he didn’t back the Iraq war?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/5108584.stm
He’s wrong, of course, but at least he’s honest about it.
100 - I loathe Toynbee - not because she’s a woman but because she’s arrogant, self serving, humourless and utterly wrong and misguided. Hillary is an angel in comparison - but I wouldn’t back her as she is likely to lose to the GOP. Obama looks much more likely to win and that’s important.
Anyway onto domestic politics - first by-election result…
Droitwich Spa TC. Chawson Ward
Lab 213 (37.6%; -16.9); LD (Janet Clarke) 182 (32.2%; +32.3%) Con
171(30.2%; -15.3%).
It looks like just about everyone has called it a day, so I’ll just say goodnight to the 2 or 3 remaining.
101. Jaz, who said the internet meant something? Not me. If it did, Dean would have gone on to lose every single state in the general in 2004.
And yes, I agree that Clinton’s not hated any more than “hardcore Republicans” - but since when is that the test we should choose candidates by? We want candidates who the other side can vote for - or, if not that, live with.
Blair saying he loved Thatcher was one of the things that won Labour a record landslide in 1997; but in the US it’s not the same thing for a Democrat to love Reagan - Reagan was plenty loved by Democrats: and we know that cos he won two landslide victories and created the term Reagan Democrats.
If you’re saying it alienates the net roots - the hard left of the party - maybe, but then again do you think it alienates them more than Hillary refusing to apologise for her support for the Iraq war and her views on Iran? I don’t.
It won’t be Obama/Clinton - she and Bill have said too much to make it impossible for her to be his Veep and I doubt she’d want it - nor does she give him anything he won’t get as the Dem candidate. It may be Clinton/Obama, I concede - but I hope not.
Nick - sure, there will be some here who don’t like Dems and especially liberal Dems (though I doubt Clinton would like to be called a liberal Democrat even though her vote record is clearly so). But a good president is a uniter not a divider and can you honestly say there is any credible way Hillary can unite America. We’ve got to get beyond this “revenge” attitude among the Dems: Hillary worsens it, Obama heals it.
45 SBS perhaps for the first time ever I almost agree with your analysis. Main exception is your reference to Clegg. I think Brown and Cameron are probably very pleased with Clegg’s inadequate performances as leader both on TV and in Parliament. However Clegg is very conscious of the fact that Huhne is performing brillently on TV as demonstated on QT and I assume is worried about the threat Huhne is to his continued leadership.
Like i said, Reagan is the old villain of the democrats.
Socrates, websites are a distortion and subject to bias. Frankly obama has no clue what he’s doing, I watched the Las Vegas debate the other night and I couldn’t believe his answers to the economic questions…
He somehow managed to connect foreclosures to energy policy. And then Edwards attacking on the $$$ he received from big companies.
Well thats it for me as well, but on a final note looks like Hain could be in more trouble if what Iain Dale is reporting is correct…
108 - well said - my views entirely.
110. Well we’ll just agree to differ - for me Obama won the debate the other night. He had the only credible answer on energy and plenty of commentators said he looked the most presidential - above the fray as Edwards and Clinton kept trying to snipe at him.
And I repeat: Reagan is not the “old villain” among Democrats - he’s one of the most respected presidents on both sides.
111 You’ra a tease Torch - now I’ll have to go and have a look see!
Adam, what rubbish.
It was not the Hillary campaign with a 4 page memo being sent to media about alleged racism. There was no racism said at all in those comments, I read them.. I’m not even white.
It was also not the Hillary campaign is who is airing radio ads saying Hillary is shameless, and hates latin people.
It’s also not the hillary campaign, where Obamas old church is preaching that you should not vote for Hillary because Bill had an affair..
And frankly he is alienating his roots, he’s slagged down Bill Clintons presidency, called him a racist, and them supports Reagan.
Brainwashing will not work for Obama, eventually the bubble will burst, the Dems better hope its before Super-Tuesday, or the Republicans will eat him alive imo.
114 Here’s the piece from Iain Dale’s Diary:
The Electoral Commission confirmed to me yesterday that it wrote to Mr Hain, at the beginning of his campaign, outlining his obligations and his duties relatingto the declaration of donations. The letter explained to him that he was legally
responsible for his campaign, and it was his responsibility to ensure that alldonations were declared within 30 days of receipt. Forms were provided for him or his team to do just that. All these forms had to be signed by him personally.
Indeed, we know he received the forms, because he did declare some donations onMay 31.
So Peter Hain has no excuses for his “incompetence” (copyright G Brown 2008). He had been duly warned about his legal responsibilities but he chose to ignore them. Another example of Labour politicians thinking they are above the law.
115 - who or what on earth are you responding to Jaz - it seems like you’re always arguing two posts behind.
Let’s deal in facts. The person that put the MLK racism issue centre stage was Jim Clyburn, one of the most respected black Democrats in the country - and someone who is unaligned. It snowballed after that but to claim it was the Obama camp wot started it is absurd - Clinton’s crassness started it, Clyburn fueled it.
For the record, I don’t believe that Clinton was being racist. I don’t believe she is racist. But her comments were unbelievably crass and clumsy and offensive. And then the next day one of Clinton’s stump speakers snidely alluded to his drug-taking for which she was forced to disown him in the Las Vegas debate. Or did you miss that bit?
It is hardly unreasonable to argue that Hillary is shameless - is it not shameless to run as the “experience” candidate up until Iowa and then instantly she discovers voters want change more than experience (something you might expect someone of her intellect to grasp anyway) to switch to also become the change candidate? Please!
Instead of claiming that Obama has slammed Bill Clinton’s presidency, please cite examples - I have been following this election closely on several different media outlets and have not heard him do so or seen reports that he has.
I have, however, heard Bill Clinton claim every single Democrat contender other than Obama - including Kucinich - qualified to be President. Again, how absurd can you get?
Dear oh dear, “brainwashing”? Get a grip Jaz. What a contemptible view you have of the citizens being brought into the process for the first time by Obama. It’s called inspiration, not more of the same dreary, polarising, negative, divisive, hate-driven politicking that most of America is sick to death of but which you evidently revel in.
Clinton favourite on Betfair now for Nevada.
All you need to know about Bill Clinton is that he produced a campaign advert for the 1996 Presidential election which ends:
‘Expand the death penalty that’s how we’ll protect America’
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIQhwogVzKQ
On another topic it’s a pity Lamar Alexandar’s not about as he did have one of the best ads I’ve seen when he stood in the Republican primaries in 1996.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpENnVEspd8
118 Clinton still available at evens with Ladbrokes, having shortened from 11/10 since my post at 12.03am - Shadsy is late to bed isn’t he, minding the shop, good boy that he is!
Clintons are out of era. They only do well when money’s easy. The mess they made is now coming into view. No one’s going to re-elect them now. America needs managing through the crisis. Obama vs McCain..
A word of caution - this footage is not from the nationally syndicated ABC News, but from the bulletin of KGO-TV, an ABC 7 brand affiliate based in San Francisco, whose reporter asked the question. The video is on the ABC website, but whether it made the national news is not clear.