Is John McCain the GOP’s Ken Clarke?
January 22nd, 2008
Are they both more popular outside their parties than within?
Just reading what some US right wing commentators are saying about John McCain it struck me that he is his party’s Ken Clarke.
Both McCain and Clarke have sought and failed to be party leader/presidential nominee in the past
Both McCain and Clarke have been seen by outsider observers as being highly electable
Both McCain and Clarke are probably more popular outside their parties than within
Both McCain and Clarke have views which are alien to large sections of the Tory/GOP mainstream
Both McCain and Clarke are getting on in years and were born well before the baby boomer generation
Just compare the following piece by right-wing commentator Robert Tracinski with the things traditional Tories have said about some of Ken Clarke stances.
“..Many voters seem to be attracted to McCain because of his strong stance on the War on Terrorism, reinforced by his war-hero biography. This is part of the reason, for example, that Rudy Giuliani’s poll numbers have declined precisely as McCain’s have risen: both candidates are competing for the support of pro-war voters..But that raises another, far more important question: if John McCain saves Republicans, who will save Republicans from John McCain? The voters who support McCain over Giuliani are making a dangerously short-sighted trade. McCain is a suicidal choice for Republicans, because on every issue other than the war, he stands for capitulation to the left..”
It is the age factor and the notion that McCain is the GOP’s Ken Clarke that have made me reluctant to join the rush by UK gamblers to back the Arizona senator for the nomination. When you are so detached from core opinion on a range of issues something is likely to give as Ken Clarke has seen on a number of occasions.
At the start of the Tory leadership race in 2005 I backed Clarke heavily when the French turned down the EU constitution in their referendum. To me, an outsider, the main sticking point to a Clarke leadership had been removed and he was the obvious person. Over the next few days it was the reaction of Tories on this site that convinced me that I was wrong - so I closed down the bet at a profit.
I get the same feeling now with McCain.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Who does that help? Romney as the anti-McCain candidate?
An interesting analogy, Mike. It is true both are more popular outside their parties than within. But they are popular partly BECAUSE they are seen as not being establishment figures.
I continue to believe Clarke would have been an unsuccessful leader partly because he would have lost his unique selling point simply by being made leader. McCain is in a better position because Presidential races are personality based (becoming more important in the UK but not to that degree) and relatively short once the phoney war of the primaries is over (whereas in the UK you must normally be a party leader over a period of years up to an election).
ukPaul- has likened Romney to IDS. Not entirely fair to Romney who is a tough campaigner.
I have posted here that there are McCain/ Clarke similarities, and that Romney may well pull through on the process of the others being rejected (including Mr Chips)
It doesn’t really matter- the last clip (thanks Mike for these clips) shows that Hillary is the future POTUS, and will be there for 8 years (health willing).
Hillary is no Gordon Brown that is clear, she is a class act. In fact Hillary will be the Gordon that we thought we had in the summer, until his Iraq stunt when the real Gordon returned.
McCain won’t have a mutinous party behind him either if selected. The Republicans will all come together to either “beat the bitch” or noble Obama.
With all due respect, Mike, I coulda told you Clarke would never be elected. And many others could likewise have enlightened you.
Europhiles constantly underestimate the sincerity and passion of the eurosceptic viewpoint. Europhiles or lefties like to think that right wing euroscepticism is something of a pose, a bit of partisan sniping, a way to embarrass the government, rather than a principled stance.
This is maybe because New Labourites long ago abdandoned most of their principles, so they presume others are the same.
They are wrong. Euroscepticism is now in the DNA of the Tory party, and much of the right in general. It is a shibboleth.
For that reason alone Clarke could never have become leader after, say, 1997: the fact he is a europhile makes him fundamentally suspect in the eyes of many on the right. He is iikeable and clever, of course, a good man to have on board, and all that - but nonetheless suspect in a very basic way.
To illustrate: the equivalent of the Tory party electing Clarke would be the Labour party electing a leader who wanted to reintroduce the death penalty.
Unthinkable.
Ergo, I don’t think your analogy really works. I’m not sure McCain holds any beliefs that are so fundamentally at odds with his party’s ideology.
4 - that should have read “nobble” not “noble” obama
Just a couple of thoughts on the Euro thread -
SeanT reckons that you cannot hold a sensible position as a Europhile opposed to a referendum, but I know several Europhiles who are honest enough to admit that they are massively pro-EU, but don’t want it derailed by a referendum that they would almost certainly lose, because of the ‘natural conservatism’ of the UK public on the issue. No dialectics about whether it is or isn’t the same as the constitution, just pragmatic opposition. I disagree with them, but I respect their honesty, if not their undemocratic leanings.
Whilst I *think* that the Treaty is substantially the same as the Constitution, I am always amazed that people trot out quotes from foreign leaders saying so as proof.
Surely foreign leaders of countries in favour of the Constitution are just as likely to be lying to their populations, to re-assure them that they didn’t ‘fail’ in getting an EU constitution. The number of xenophobes I know who refuse to trust UK politicians as being dishonest, and yet claim that we should take the words of the German Chancellor and the Frech President as holy writ always seems to me to be rather ironic.
I am not saying all Eurosceptics are xenophobes (far from it), but those who are seem to be awful trusting of ’slippery foreigners’ and ‘politicians’ when it fits their argument.
I would like a referendum, but am not sure how I would vote. Not sure whose side I’m on…
McCain wins on number of pockmarks
Maybe Huckabee is a better comparison, then SeanT.
Onside with the whole Republican platform (abortion, gay marriage, immigration, guns, faith and family) but has a real love of taxes and spending, which is anathema to the GOP (only uniting principle).
Having said that, he’s not very open about it.
Mike, someone has made this very point on pbc before. I know because I remarked on how insightful the analogy was!
“I disagree with them, but I respect their honesty, if not their undemocratic leanings.”
That’s a fair point. Most of the World’s great political thinkers have been hostile towards democracy.
7. A fairish point on the foreign leaders thing. Though it should be noted the overwhelming preponderance of Federalists and Europhiles are very keen to get this Treaty signed, which says it all, really.
As for your first paragraph:
“I know several lefties who are massively pro Labour, but don’t want the project derailed by an election, which they know they would lose due to the “natural conservatism” of the British people. For that reason they oppose any elections. I respect their honesty if not their undemocratic leanings”.
No more, I think, need be added.
And now I must to bed, as its 1am Bangkok time. Sawadee, peebees.
SeanT in the event of a referendum on the treaty, am i right or wrong that all three major political parties would campaign for a Yes. I seem to remember reading that the only point of disagreement between the Tory Party and the Labour Party stance on this issue is that the Tory Party want a referendum.
I assume though there is a difference between membership and leadership in both parties though.
13. The Conservative Party would campaign for a No vote, although doubtless, those few Conservatives who supported the Treaty would be allowed to do so.
13. Wrong entirely.
13 - are you sure? The ironic thing is the Cameron central wants to campaign for a referendum hard but not get one. If there were one it would highlight the internal Tory tensions. Another reason, apart from the moral and democratic ones, that the Lid Dems should be desperately trying to get a referendum.
14. Thanks for clearing that up.
In my guts I can’t support McCain because he is so wooden. I was singularly unimpressed by his performance in front of the Tory conference a couple of years ago. If I had a vote, I’d probably back Giuliani.
However, I’ve made so much on McCain (buying at 1.2 on SpreadFair, which was ridiculous) that I’ve been able to back Romney, Giuliani (less) and even the Huckster (even less) as hedges. So good on yer, Macca, I win whatever the result, though I now do best if Mitt wins. Oh, and I loved you in Die Hard.
16. No, see post 14.
Is it possible for a UK political party to adopt the ‘let the people decide stance’ in the event of a referendum? No. So, with Cameron gunning for a referendum knowing he won’t get one what happens if his bluff is called? High and dangerous politics but I cannot see the Tory party campaigning for a No on an ‘in or out’ referendum
” Mr Chips”
I can see the headlines already…..
The Romney/IDS connection is basically because both excite the base as well as being the ‘not x’ candidate. Whether that be Clarke, McCain or Portillo.
18 - Giuliani is a lunatic. McCain’s wooden but at least he opposes torture and can’t be accused of cronysm and keeping, ahem, dubious company.
12 - Hehehe!
13 - No, the Tories would probably campaign against, but if the LDs got their way, and got a question about whether or not to stay in, I’d be interested to see which way the Conservative party went.
If I were Labour, and had nothing left to lose, I’d side with the LDs and offer that - an In-or-Out Referendum would energise the Europhiles and moderates, and would put Cameron in a horrible position (pragmatically want stay in for purely Economic reasons but nervous about annoying most Tory activists for blowing the one chance of withdrawal they’ll ever get. Labour would come out of it well (offered referendum, supported largely for economic reasons), the LDs would get tarred as the Europhile extremists at a tie they’re trying to appeal to Tories, and the Tories could not really win unless they opposed it, but knowing that they’d lose a popular vote.
20 - Great minds etc etc
Has anyone ever done a poll on europe in or out?
16. Why would a referendum expose Tory divisions? Only 3 MPs went against the Front Bench line, compared with 19 (?) Labour. Doesn’t look like a massive split to me.
No, the problem for Cameron is that the House of Commons numbers mean he’s unlikely to get a referendum and he fears he won’t win an election to force one until the Treaty’s been passed by all members.
In those circumstances, he can’t have a referendum - on what? - so he’d have to come up with another route, such as renegotiation or unilateral action which would be far more likely to open up fault lines among Eurosceptic Tories and take valuable impetus away from his first term priorities.
Believe me, Cameron and his team want a referendum and the vast majority of the troops on the ground want one too.
‘Isn’t this all totally irrelevant? We have no means of stopping EU citizens from coming here and settling: none. If the entire population of Poland decides to up sticks and move to the UK, we can’t stop them.
What a mess… ‘
Qute from the DT - this is why we need a referendum.
re 10. I wasn’t claiming this to be original - though I could not remember where I had seen it. It was just the venom against McCain in the Robert Tracinski article that reminded me and I was looking for a way of packaging the extract.
re 18. Good to see another Spreadfair punter. This really is the best betting area - if only there were more of us and more liquidity.
20 - I usually keep out of Europe as it is endlessly debated back and forth but, as an outsider to that debate, a few pointers from my position.
a) I don’t like centralisation and when Europe is centralising it loses my support.
b) The idea of greater harmony between nations within Europe increases my support.
c) an in/out referendum is student politics writ large, it is also very dangerous and may well be lost.
d) divorced from any policy position, I dislike any broken promises and believe that politicians should always be held to account over them. As such, reneging on a referendum is the lowest of the low.
Put it all together and what have you got? There should be a referendum on grounds of honesty, that referendum should not jeopardise our place in Europe and it should allow for a more subtle gradation of support than yes/no. It is a chance to show what people want, or not, from Europe. I would support it save any attempts to centralise power.
27. The treaty has absolutely no effect on freedom of movement within europe. I assume you therefore want a referendum on in or out?
20, and 23, well it isn’t going to happen.
But if it did, if I was Cameron I’d campaign for a No, on the basis that (regardless of the outcome) Labour wouldn’t repeal the European Communities Act 1972, and so voters should treat it as a vote of no confidence in the government’s EU policy.
18/22 - I have to say I find most of the Republican contenders rather wooden as performers. Huckabee and Paul are exceptions but neither is electable. At least McCain’s wooden demeanour can be passed off as the implacable resolve of an experienced war veteran and man of the world (or something).
Obama and Edwards both have a bit more to their performances. Hillary is rather wooden and technocratic but the New Hampshire sob did help precisely because it helped overcome that.
It is worth remembering that Ken Clarke very nearly became leader in 2001. The final round of voting was very tight and had one MP voted differently it would have been a Clarke-Portillo run-off. Clarke would probably have won that, after the U-turns that Portillo had made in his beliefs between 1997 and 2001 (however sincere they may have been).
The party was so Eurosceptic at that point that there was enough of a brake on Clarke (and in any case, the Euro was dopping off the agenda as it was becoming clear that Brown wasn’t keen on entry). By contrast, while everyone knew Clarke’s views, there was much less clarity about what Portillo stood for.
While the counter-factual is less credible for 1997, Clarke would probably have won a member vote against the then relatively unknown Hague at that time as well - but that wasn’t in the rules so couldn’t have happened.
In US terms, the main difference is that in all the Tory party examples, Clarke had to win the votes of party MPs or members. McCain is in the more helpful position of being able to contest several open primaries, which he has so far performed very well in (winning two and finishing second in one where Romney bet the farm).
31 - A kind of “no but yeah but no” then?
28 - The problem with Spreadfair, Mike, is that it involves pretty scary amounts of money, and I know that most of my bets are probably being laid by you, or someone similar!
I’ll stick primarily to BetFair, Intrade, and the fixed-price bookies until I can afford to be taught an expensive lesson
34 Well, it’s incredible that Milliband would present legislation to leave the EU.
36 - But surely the relevant question is whether Cameron would do so?
31. If a referendum was offered on an ‘In, including the new Treaty / Constitution, or Out’, I’d see nothing wrong with campaigning as if it was a Yes / No referendum on the treaty, which it is serving as a proxy for (and is what was promised).
I would personally go further. While my Euro-enthusiasm has become more tempered in recent years due to the failure to get to grips with the fraud and misaccounting, as well as the continual drive towards a less free-market Union, I do think this Treaty is on balance an improvement. In a Yes/No vote, I would therefore campaign against my party line. However, if an In/Out referendum were offered instead, I would probably abstain from campaigning but vote Out simply because I’d regard the referendum as invalid for the purpose.
37 - the answer to that is a resounding “NO”. If you are serious about leaving the EU then there is no future in the Conservative Party. Grim as it may be, UKIP is the only answer for committed Europhobes.
Defection Alert
The leader of the Conservative group on Stevenage BC , Marion Mason has defected to UKIP .
40 - News link please.
If there was an EU referendum of either kind, there would be the Tories, UKIP, BNP on one side and the SNP, Plaid, LD, Lab, on the other. I think the tories bedfellows would damage their poll rating and their image significantly, meaning that Cameron understands that actually getting a referendum would damage his chances of winning the GE. Even though he probably would win the referendum.
42 - precisely
39 - I agree which is why I think Sean’s “no but yeah but no” position doesn’t work. It’s very hard to sustain supporting a “get out” referendum whilst saying it isn’t actually going to happen under any conceivable government. But it’s academic as there won’t be a referendum on anything.
US PRESIDENTIAL
Been consistently sceptical about long-term prospects of JOHN McCAIN for reasons alluded to by Mike.
RUDY GIULIANI is another oft touted prospect, popular with press & punters but who is judged as wrongheaded and/or unreliable on base GOP issues.
Both these stalwarts are tearing up Sunshine State turf, making the war and national security their top prority. McCain has the edge, of course, because he’s got momentum precisely because he’s been FIGHTING and CAMPAIGNING for the nomination. Whereas Rudy has been funking as per ususal (like he did against Hilary in 2000)and expecting as per usual & thanks to crack advice (?) from his NYC a-list a-hole entourage, that the grateful little people of Florida will flock to his cause just to touch the hem of his garments.
BUT think the sight of stockbrokers from the City to Chittigong looking wistfully at their window ledges this morning emphases the fact that the war & hawkery are NOT the burning issues of this race, even for most registered Republicans. Instead, once again IT’S THE ECONOMY STUPID.
And the only two credible Republican candidate who have credible economic messages right now are HUCKABEE and ROMNEY.
Must say, comparison of Romney with IAN DUNCAN SMITH strikes me as a fantasy worth of De Quincy.
Mitt is a coporate country club pragmatist Republican with solid credentials as member of national & international big business establishment.
How does a failed ideologue with essentially MBA-type biz background compare, at least in an way that makes electoral sense?
Might as easily compare Boris Johnson with Eugene Victor Debs!
Rosemary Emodi resigns from City Hall. Dirty sleaze sewage lapping at Livingstone’s feet.
Boris4London! Lump on!
41 Sorry link too long for me to type at mo in the middle of cooking my dinner - but see the thread on the Vote 2007 site “UKIP’S vanishing candidates” .
42 - It is quite ironic that both the Tories and Lib Dems are arguing for different sorts of referendums which they neither will get and which neither in their heart of hearts wants. That’s politics.
48. The whole EU referendum is dripping with opportunism on every side.
45 - Sea Shanty Irish, as a hardened Irish American who do you think on the GOP side of things can turn this current market instability into their raispn d’etre? Romney?
44 - You must have missed the explanation about the IDS/Romney connection, they would be elected more because of they are not than who they are.
Europe remains a great issue for Labour and Lib Dems, because of its inlimited capacity to
1) bore the Great British Public to death and thus smother whatever else Tories are saying;
2) distract the more excitable Tory politicos (are there any other kind these days?) from much more politically & esp. electorally profitable pursuits.
52 - but I feel the British public is Eurosceptic. Sun etc
47 - Tory defector
http://tinyurl.com/2wm2cd
54 - thanks.
54. Marilyn Manson joins UKIP. Blimey!
56 - who cares? Obscure councillor who holds incredibly eurosceptic views because she hates all european immigration. So what? If I were Cameron I would be glad to see the back of her.
45 - Have thought for a while that Romney was likely to be the last man standing. Thanks to process of elimination, for while Mitt’s talents may appear a tad meager (but same has been said for many truly great American presidents prior to their inauguration) they are sufficient:
–Tancredo & Hunter eliminated as one-trick ponies
–Thomspson I and II eliminated as not up to job
–Paul eliminated as a real (not phony) conservative
–Giuliani eliminated as both too much AND too little
–McCain will be eliminated as too anti-esblishment
–Huckabee will be eliminated as too Jaysus-freaky
Which leaves just the Mormon from Michachusetts.
51 - Ah, now THAT makes sense. Except would still say that Romney’s proven attributes - most especially his GOOD LUCK - are way superior to poor IDS’s.
For all you Eurphiles and Europhobes, an amusing spoof story on UKIP website…
http://tinyurl.com/2e2vzg
I had to laugh.
57 - I hope she does not employ any recent migrants in the nursing home she runs.
53 - Still doen’t mean they aren’t bored to point of suicide by the whole topic.
It’s like when you used to visit your great aunt, and she always prepared her special cream sauce which she insisted upon laddling across your dinner plate.
Just because you liked (at least at one time) the sauce does’t mean you relished it smothering everything else. NOT that you were going to protest to the old dear; you just grinned and bore it and tried to make your thoughts drift far, far, far away . . .
57 European immigration is Labour’s success, more immigration means more Labour voters leading to permanent european socialism.
62. Immigrants can’t vote.
In or Out. Hm.
I’d vote “Yes” for a competent, non-corrupt, lightly-regulated, truthful, efficient European Union.
“No” it is, then.
61 Which is why it may make more sense for Tories to campaign on the issue of holding a referendum, rather than the actual substance.
In other words, make the issue on of voters’ rights, consent of the governed, democratic legitimacy. Tories will have lots of support and sympathy, to varrying degrees, from plenty of Labour, Lib Dem and other party/no party voters.
62. Also, fat chance of getting socialism by voting Labour.
58: which gives Hillary a scarily ease race for the White House…
7 Yes, Morus, put me in that category. I felt strongly when the European Constitution was put forward, that we should have a referendum - I appreciate the views of those who argue it is the same as the current proposals, and obviously accept there is considerable overlap. But I know that these proposals are essential to get the EU operating more effectively, and equally know that UK voters would reject it quite comprehensively. In fact, I get quite downhearted about how the British people always seem to want to cling to something old - UKIP for instance, invariably advance the Magna Carta as some totem of an advanced democracy (yeah, an agreement by the king to give the barons more power, would you believe!)
So, even before Ming had suggested an “In or out” referendum, I knew that we had to have something on a more fundamental assessment of where we are with Europe. It cannot go on as it is, and British Governments, in return for the people giving their verdict and allowing Europe to develop and act effectively, must also have a future consultation process built in. The culture of the press on this must also change for us in the UK to make proper progress. And, no, of course anti- Europeanism is not in Tory DNA, sean. You could have said the same about the 70s Labour Party, but it changed. The Tories went pro to anti, so it only requires another reversal. The problem, Morus, is, that we will not have any more proposals to look at if every change has to be put to the British people - you will not get people to do more than give a reflex “no” on a small turnout with this type of referendum.
I have to say I regard the way the more intellectual and knowledgable Europhobes have manipulated popular opinion on this has exploited widespread “racism” or “culturalism” or whatever we might call it. One of the key sticking points, I believe, is the general British way of not learning other languages, and backing away from direct negotiation or involvement with those who speak those languages. Only go to North or West Wales and witness the non-Welsh speakers’ reaction to Welsh being spoken.
62: European immigrants can vote in council elections, not General. Irony being that Labour does worse, therefore, in elections where immigrants can vote.
But, all in all, your point doesn’t really stack up, does it?
67 - In such an instance I think one or more high profile third party candidates entering the race would be a good bet.
67 - You are jumping to several conclusions:
1. That Hillary will be the Democratic nominee; highly possible but hardly “inevitable”
2. That Romney would be DOA as GOP nominee; ok, if you want to keep on underestimating the guy, keep on rolling!
Not to mention that IF the US slides into recession under the bumbling watch of W and the Cheney Administration - or stag inflation or some other Greenspan-Bernake horrorshow - that it might not matter who get the nod in Minneapolis this summer.
58.
Romney will get clobbered by Hillary in the Midwest and the South and as much as the party hiearchy may want him (and as much of them would be willing to accept 4 years of Hillary in exchange for keeping control of the GOP) they cannot accept a landlslide Democrat victory and the loss of Evangelicals. My guess is that they now hope that he can prevent McCain from getting a majority of delegates and therefore, with the threat of a brokered convention, force him to accept a more suitable VP than the one that he would want to chose (a McCain-Lieberman ticket would boost the GOP and be accepted by the base but annoy the hierachy).
I also disagree with the option that Romney and Huckabee have the best economic message. Huckabee’s economic policies (education aside) are pretty Buchaninite and in any case they fell flat in Michigan. Romney might have the best business experience but that doesn’t make him a great President. His policies are the worst of 1960s deficit spending and W style pandering to special interests. In fact McCain is the strongest on economic issues supporting free trade and deficit reduction as well as worker retraining, stronger antitrust and a general attack of special interests.
IMO Mitt Romney reminds me very strongly of David Cameron.
70 Only 3rd Party prospect with much potential appears to be Michael Bloomberg who methinks is HIGHLY unlikely to take the bait, leastways if he’s as truly as adept at reading tea leaves as his reputation & attainments would indicate.
Guess Chuck Norris is a possible after his little buddy the Gov finally goes under.
72 IF you think the South is going to go bigtime for Hillary OR Obama, suggest that you leave off gobbling up your medince chest.
Midwest is less Dem-adverse, but also the region where Mitt is the best natural fit. Kind of like an updated version of Gerald Ford.
Didn’t say that Huckabee & Romney had the best economic message - they have the ONLY economic message of the GOP field, that is if you talking about what the candidate are ACTUALLY campaigning on, as opposed to what some wonderweenie has posted for them on their websites.
73 - Ron Paul could cream off votes nicely if he ran on the libertarian ticket or as an independent. Nader’s a busted flush but I see that he’s considering running again.
72. Romney’s entire political position seems to be a combination of managerial competency and pandering to whoever is more likely to get him in. This can be a particular party base, special interests or the electorate as a whole. I actually think he would be a pretty good candidate in the UK, as our public is a bit more reasonable than the US, and special interests aren’t anywhere near as strong. In the US system though, he would be awful.
I would also agree John McCain would be the best candidate of either party on the economy. His opposition to pork spending would help out the deficit problem enormously.
Unlike you however, I don’t think managerial competence is what is needed in the US right now. Health care, inner city decay, education, campaign finance and a new relationship between the USA and the rest of the world are far more important - and Obama is right on all of them.
73. I don’t think an evangelical run if Romney or Giuliani were the candidate would be out of the question.
73: Bloomberg might enter a Huckabee or Romney vs Clinton fight. He after all campaigns for bipartisanism. If the Reupublican and Democratic nominees play to their “bases” then he’ll consider wading in.
And he does have more money than God.
And he doesn’t have anything better to do right now.
But, if either of the nominees is Obama or McCain, I think it’s a cert he’ll take a pass.
test
63 “62. Immigrants can’t vote.”
That’s why Labour gives them passports.
Apparentlt Labour’s Invaders make you better off. You know it makes sense!
tommy judd from the previous thread - I wasn’t ‘comparing the size of my degree’ I was just saying the problems for the Euro were and are easy to predict.
Also you need to read up a bit on the structure of the ECB if you think it is not ultimately under political control and can be overridden. Heavens, you’ll be telling us the BoE is independent next.
For someone who lives and breathes this stuff you are remarkably sanguine about the Greek economy (slowly imploding) and other Southern European States.
Thompson out of the race… apologies if I missed this.
77 - Yes, that is true, but seriously doubt it would amount to much.
78 - Doubtful that Bloomberg wants to risk his reputation on anything less than a sure thing. And NO third-party race could possibly be that.
Keep in mind that MB ran for NYC mayor ONLY after Giuliani broke trail for him. Indeed, Bloomberg’s entire sctick is that he’s the kinder, gentler Rudy.
Perfect for running for mayor, but worthless for running for president. Because, as Rudy himself is quite surprised to be learning, he is NOT the center of the world.
Keep in mind that, unlike Giuliani, Bloomberg not only understands that there is intelligent life outside NYC and its cultural/spiritual exclaves, but also has some inkling how these strange creatures west of the Hudson think and feel and VOTE.
72. Democrat landslide? Yeah, dream on. When was the last one of them? 1964.
Of course, the GOP nominated a candidate from Arizona that year, but McCain isn’t a Goldwater (not sure if one of the others might not be? Huckabee? But then he’s not going to win), and neither Clinton nor Obama are in the class of Johnson ‘64.
Is it possible that the MPs in Labour and the LDs are more split on the Treaty than the Conservatives?
C = 186 agst leaving a max of 13 for (For + abstentions) = 6% dissention.
Lab = a max of around 45 agst = approx 12% dissention
LD = a max of 13 agst = approx 20% dissention
Even if Lab and LD abstentions are scaled back a bit, they are both unable to rely on 94%+ to vote for their whipped line.
(my numbers are rushed and therefore ball park).
80. Labour gives immigrants passports so they’ll vote for them?!
Jesus christ! if you have evidence for that, you better leak it to the press, that kind of information would be enough to get the PLP in jail cells!
I suspect you don’t, and they don’t.
63. Under new Treaty EU citizens can vote and stand in whichever member state they reside. The Tories local election performaces hinded by immigrants from EU.
75 - Ron Paul would get as general election 3rd party same as he’s getting in GOP primaries and (esp) caucuses: the “none of the above” vote.
Which is NOT a swing vote.
Sea Shanty
I had rather naively assumed that a Blooberg run would hurt the GOP, but I’m now told the reverse is more likely, especially if Hillary is the Democrat candidate.
Is that right, in your opinion?
A news article about Fred Thomson’s withdrawl form the Presidential race.
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/2008/view.bg?articleid=1068301
82 - Thompson is still in . . . officially. Suspect that (like Paul Simon in 1988) he may be trapped into staying in by expectations of Tennessee politicos who are on his delegate slate and who do NOT wish to be left high & dry. (Though personally doubt Thompson could win even Tennessee at this juncture.)
89 - Think that Bloomberg could take votes away from BOTH sides, how many and the balance would depend upon the major party nominees plus way the general election race shapes up, in particular the state-by-state battles. Because MB’s impact would likely be different in different states, with his strongest natural appeal closest to NYC (in more ways than one).
90, 91 - Stand corrected (yet still correct) because as Marcia has pointed out, Fred Thompson is OFFICIALLY out of the race as of today.
Sleep well, sweet prince.
90 Thompson certainly received rave reviews from Mike and others on PB both before and after he announced his candidature and IIRC he was, for a short while, the GOP favourite or close second favourite. Somehow, he never really got going.
To be fair to McCain, he is not hamstrung by his views as Clarke was. Europe is one thing that Tories have complained about for a long time - with McCain it’s more minor quibbles. I don’t think a majority of Republicans, for example, insist that torture is good and/or necessary - whereas most Tories would say adopting the Euro is definitely a bad idea.
Plus McCain has got a sizeable degree of support inside the Republican Party, with more candidates to split the vote. If Romney is the best-placed man to stop him, neither Huckabee, Giuliani, nor Thompson are likely to drop out before Super Tuesday. That will really help McCain.
93 He made me a few bob, PfP. Good on you Freddie. Here’s one Brit will always be grateful to you.
Sea Shanty
Who is helped by Fred’s departure? My guess is McCain more than anybody, though not overwhelmingly so.
I would think that Huckabee would be helped a great deal, as he’d pick up the social conservative bloc
89 Is it worth having a few quid on Bloomberg, generally available at 25/1, if only as a saver? He’s currently showing no sign of going away and his price would be certain to shorten several points on any announcement of his candidature, even if he has no realistic prospect of winning.
98 - Ask yourself two questions: What price do you think he would shorten to, and what chance do you think there is that he stands? If the answers are 10/1 (to lay on betfair) and 50-50 then 25/1 is a good bet; if they’re 16/1 and 30-70 then leave well alone
Ooops, Thompson has dropped out.
68 But it’s perverse to demand a vote that the Government (and Speaker) won’t concede, while siding with Government on the vote that could be won by Conservatives and Lib Dems, combining with Labour rebels, and which would accord with your manifesto. It goes back to my earlier suggestion that Lib Dems (and their Liberal predecessors) are pretty naive, on the whole,when it comes to dealing with the Labour Party, while Labour are extremely ruthless when it comes to dealing with you. Labour wouldn’t let you off the hook if the positions were reversed.
WRT the Tories, I suppose it’s possible that if Britain had an extreme socialist government in power that the Conservatives could reverse their position on Europe. But unless that occurs, what have they got to gain by changing their views? Apart from Justin Hinchcliffe, there just isn’t anyone under 40 in the party who wants more political integration with the EU.
I think it unlikely that a referendum on the Treaty will be conceded, but I’m puzzled anyone should think that the Conservatives secretly don’t want such a vote. Of course they do, because they’d win it. Sometimes, your opponents really do mean what they say.
93 - Sleepy never got anything from me but the back o’ me hand. His “boom” was simly a symptom of GOP malaise.
94 - You have a point, in that the hierarchical bent of the GOP and it’s faithful mean that a certain number of establishment types who fought McC tooth-and-nail in 2000 have decided that 2008 is “his turn” at the nomination. YET this feeling is highly concentrated in jurisdictions such as SC where McC has both a strong base left from 2000 PLUS large numbers of secular GOPers esp. vets.
96 Methinks the guy that Thompson’s departure helps the most is Mitt. Here’s why:
Romney enjoyed strong but shallow 2007 poll numbers BUT couldn’t seal the deal at that time due to angst re: Mormonism plus fact that he was trying to sell himself like a Presidential Happy Meal, all corporate and zero message except look at my (one) wife and many strappling sons.
Thus Romney hit the skids coincident to the rise of Huckabee AND the resurection of McCain. Which I call the 1st Ressurection of 2008.
At the same time, the small fry were all tanking, Sleepy was stagnating and Giuliani was funking as it because increasing obvious that none of these also-rans was the true first choice of ANYONE outside the immediate entourage.
Over on the Dem side, we had the Iowa Obama Wave and the New Hampshire Clinton TearFest, aka The Second Ressurection of 2008.
Romney hunkered down, took his licks and regrouped. Wyoming showed the cognescenti he still had prospects while the Michigan Primary was the Third Ressurection of 2008. NOT simply because he won it; but even more important HOW he won: with a strong economic message better crafted for GOP voters than Huckabee’s striking but shallow populism.
Mitt smartly sidestepped South Carolina (as Hillary is trying to do even as I type) and gained a small but significant win from Nevada. Which along with his personal fortune AND fact he’s got both traction & momentum, put him in good position going into Florida AND Super Tuesday.
McCain is also benefiting from momentum right now, as is Clinton on the other side. BUT the fact that he’s been on a solid if somewhat flat trajectory since Iowa & NH means that in Michigan, Nevada, South Carolina THompson was getting votes from folks who could easily hitched themselves to McCain’s rising star EXCEPT they clearly didn’t want to do that.
And now Romney is newly attractive AND available in a less cluttered to the grumpy old guys in stretch pants.
102 Thanks SSI.
On the subject of Europe, anybody fancying a good laugh should take a look at William Hague’s speech on the prospect of Tony Blair becoming EU President. I can’t find a direct link but it’s available via Adam Boulton’s blog. Scroll down a couple of stories to get to it.
http://adamboulton.typepad.com/
101. Sean, would you agree that the main reason for the reversal of political positions between Labour and the Conservatives to the EEC/EC/EU more to do with the way that organisation has developed, rather than any changes in the parties?
In the 70s and early 80s, the EEC was seen by the left as a capitalist plot to undermine available protectionist measures, and was championed on the right for similar reasons, the high point of that thesis being the Single Suropean Act. Since then, as the EU has encroached more and more into social policy, the left have found it a good way to introduce rights and protections, while the right has railed at both the increasing burden of regulation and interference in people’s lives. While the sovereignty issue is important to some, I suspect it’s probably not as important as the general direction of the EU policies.
I’d say the most likely way in which the two parties’ attitudes might again change would be if there were a general move away from the attempt to centralise regulation and towards allowing states to compete in a tax and regulation market. I don’t forsee that kind of scenario happening any time soon.
71. If Kerry can get ripped apart as a flip-flopper on a fairly consistent voting record, Romney will be left in pieces. Is there a single issue where he has maintained the same stance through his life, other than that his rich associates should be allowed to give him lots of money?
Mervyn King speech on TV now…He will be gloomy about inflation and predict marked slower growth.
105. Indeed. I find the people who support the EU do so on fairly vague terms - that it’s nice to get along with other nations and what better way to join a federation, or that they want a powerful European bloc to stand up to the USA. Although one camp of people (the UKIP crowd and some right-wing Tories) who oppose the EU also do so on vague terms (standing up for our people vs Johnny Foreigner), the bulk do so because of the actual detailed realities of the EU: that it is excessively bureaucratic and regulatory, that it is distrustful of democracy, that it is a gravy train for MEPs and civil servants, and that it is unwilling to take the action needed to stop corruption with regards to its funds.
Fred Thompson officially out and contrary to some reports he will not be endorsing McCain… Probably not long before Huckabee also drops out.
Florida looking good for a Romney win. It will be interesting to see if my assumption of what would happen if it comes down to a smaller field with just Romney / McCain / Giuliani is correct… Time will tell.
101 Sean F
I agree on your points
1 That Labour play hardball, and we LibDems sometimes are not as tough as we ought to be with them. However, on this issue, for the reasons I set out at 68, I certainly think it right that we go full-on for a referendum, that were it held, would just reject the proposed constitutional changes. As far as the current Parliamentary line, of abstention, I am not sure whether that is not just an expedient line.
2 That the Tories currently want a vote on this issue. I was merely arguing with seant that anti-Europeanism is “not in the Tory DNA”. It is certainly true that the vast majority of current Tory MPs and, no doubt Tory activists, are anti-European. I am puzzled by your reference to younger ones, and assuming your point is true, why that should be. I thought that mostly, younger people are more likely to be willing to engage politically beyond these shores?
104. But to quote the rest of Adam Boulton’s blog posting, to put it in context…
“The trouble is, just like when he was Tory leader, Hague’s jokes were good but his policy is a muddle.
First, the Conservatives blundered by not putting their name to the rebel Labour amendment calling for a referendum on the treaty.
That meant that because the amendment was backed by only 24 MPs (18 Labour and six from the minor parties) the Speaker didn’t select it to be voted on at the end of the second reading debate on the Bill.
Second, some senior Tories like Kenneth Clarke rather like the treaty and don’t like the idea of a referendum….
And third, Hague and his boss David Cameron are all over the place when asked what they would do if they win the next election and the Lisbon Treaty had already been ratified.”
the point being, the Tories are still in a mess about Europe.
Mike - It worries me that I disagree with you but I just don’t see the facts stacking up behind your argument.
The nature of political parties in the US and UK is totally different. In the UK the leader has to chime very closely with parliamentary opinion, in the US the president seeks to build coalitions for his/her ideas with party rebellions in Congress being commonplace.
I find it funny that such a keen follower of polls as yourself should dismiss the polling evidence so readily. Florida will probably be a score draw but McCain is miles ahead in New York and California. That is because he is the only Republican who the polls say could beat all commers.
I keep hesitating about covering my bet with a few bob on Romney - but the guy is a flip flopper of the worst sort. It has to be McCain
I would be grateful if anyone could answer this:
At what point does a US president be deemed to have ‘won by a landslide’-as I understand 400 electoral coolege votes out of 538 it the trigger for the ‘L’ word-I remember Bush Snr’s 426-112 victory over Michael Dukasis in 1988 being termed a landslide in the media-although his majority was mainly based on biggish states won by tiny pluralities in the popular vote.Answers,anyone?
105 “In the 70s and early 80s, the EEC was seen by the left as a capitalist plot to undermine available protectionist measures, and was championed on the right for similar reasons, the high point of that thesis being the Single Suropean Act.
You make an important point. The sheer size of the EU, means that a Leftie EU means the whole of Europe falls under Communism. This is an enathma to Conservatives.
A Conservative EU means the entire Europe is Conservative. An anathema to Lefties.
Each side will see an EU run by their opposites as an Evil Empire.
Then consider if National or International Socialists win power of the EU. There will be nowhere to run to. No borders to slip across.
114 - is an enathma a cross between an anathema and an enema?
115. It expresses the sentiment that they don’t like it up ‘em.
David 105 What rather amuses me about the Single European Act is that the free marketeers love it, but then when suddenly an “anti-competitive” action is clamped down on , “excessive bureaucracy” is cited. I believe that many of the tales of bureaucratic interference by Commission - implemented rules are (where they are not myths anyway) caused by various vested interests, many private sector, of course, insisting that this, that or the other action, grant etc is anti-competitive.
Socrates 108 When you say “fairly vague” terms, I assume you mean support or oppose on principle. The EU has been presented by our anti media so regularly as a bureaucratic bogeyman, that people can easily attach that label to anything even vaguely attaching to the EU. One of the reasons I support the current measures is to enable things to go through a little more easily than they do now. An effective EU would at least have some chance of persuading people it works! As for your final point about the action needed to prevent corruption / misaccounting etc, most of the problems arise within member states, and in most cases, the EU itself has little or no power to deal with the problems. As for “gravy train”, this has also become a standard stick to beat Europe with - and several of the blatant problems in that area have now been dealt with. Frankly, any legislature and its civil servants can and are, attacked in this way. No-one doubts that operating across cultures is difficult, will probably cost more, and it is very easy for those who are not tolerant to scapegoat those coming from different cultures, but surely, surely, that shouldn’t stop efforts being made to develop an international democracy. We allow companies to operate globally - we need democratic institutions at the same level to ensure they answer to the needs of the people - in the same way as we would in a country or a local area.
116 - Very good!
I would happily vote to leave the EU.
There is a lot of scaremongering about it. Normally, along lines not to dissimiliar to this (from Hansard):
Dennis MacShane MP: “On the first day, a plague of locusts will descend on the fields, on the second day the sky will rain blood, on the third day alll our banknotes will turn to dust, on the fourth day we will be attacked by a giant farting lizard….” etc. etc. etc.
It’s all poppycock.
In reality all that would happen is we’d assume a status similiar to Canada, or Australia, but with far more global influence that either due to our economys size, trade network and historical ties.
In other words, a free independent nation, next to a larger united one, but within a free trade zone.
There would then be a long period of transition as we converted/repealed European laws for British ones and reestablished our own trade policies.
Yes, you can make an argument that we might lose some ability to set/negotiate EU regulations.
Diddums.
We have precious little influence anyway. As one of only 26 member states and only (what?) 85 MEPs out of 700?? in the European parliament we have already manifestly failed to mould Europe to our vision.
This would all be more than compensated by reasserting an independent trade/agricultural/fisheries policy and saving “subscription” monies we give to the EU. As for the EU’s “foreign” influence. Forget it. Doesn’t have any.
We already go our own seperate ways.
In any event, the EU’s relevance will diminish over time as China/India/Brazil assume a greater proportion of the world economy. 50%…. 45%….. 40%…. 35%…. bye-bye relevance of the EU by 2050.
We would not;
(a) Lose the right to live and work in the EU (Switzerland, Norway can all do so)
(b) Lose any trade rights - we would remain in EFTA
(c) Suffer any mass business exodus
(d) Precipitate another pan-european war, or…
(e) Suffer any of the biblical punishments listed above
It would be a typical British compromise and we’d all get on afterwards just fine.
I imagine leaving the EU would be as much of a non-event as us “not being in the ERM”, or “not being in the euro” is.
No sweat at all.
106 - BUT Mitt is a MUCH better flip-flopper than Kerry, in the sense of being able to sell his floppery with LESS sales resistance AND buyers remorse. AND who was the last successful candidates for either party’s nomination who wasn’t a champion flip-flopper? Barry Goldwater and George McGovern!
112 - Keep in mind that the results of each primary/caucus have a MAJOR impact upon polls AND results in all the subsequent states. So check NY, NJ, etc polls a few days AFTER the Florida Primary.
113 - My take is that most talk of presidential landslides is in reference to the popular vote. In which case traditional yardstick is margin of 10% or better.
With respect to electoral votes, personally think that winning 4/1 in EV like Bush the Elder in 1988 would have to qualify as a landslide. Further note that the popular vote margin that year was over 8% which is just shy of the mark on that score.
Also if you look, the state margins in 1988 were not what you’d really call “tiny pluralities” for example, GB won California by +353k, Florida by +962k, Michigan by +290k, Ohio by +477k; less spectacular but still solid was his winning Illinois by +95K and Pennsylvania by 105k.
115 Whom cares?
116. LOL
99 Many thanks Aaron for expressing the positon so succinctly - you should be a bookmaker!!!
On your assessment I think it has to be a no-no.
108 Socrates
Without meaning too, Socrates, you put rather well the reasons behind my support for the EU.
120,Thanks,I appreciate your trouble in giving quite an elaborate answer
78 - I think that’s exactly what his expensive polls are telling him now.
Guido had some news on London matters
http://www.order-order.com/
113. I don’t think there is a definition. The EC tends to exaggerate the popular vote lead, and close results like 2004 and 2000 are rare (especially back to back.) The rule-of-thumb for a landslide seems to be the loser receiving fewer than 100 EC votes, which usually equates to about a 10%+ deficit in the popular vote…
1984
1980
1972
1964
1956
1952
would all be landslide years. 1988 probably not…
105 Partly. There will always be exceptions on both sides, but I think the *natural* position of the Conservative Party is nationalist, and that of Labour is internationalist. Both parties ended up in the wrong place, philosophically, in the Seventies, and I think since then, have been gradually shifting to where they ought to be.
110. Most younger Conservatives are graduates, which is important, as they’ve had to think through why they are Conservatives, in quite a hostile intellectual environment. Almost to a man and woman, they are strongly euroscepttic, regardless of how right or left wing they are on other issues.
117 I agree that “Europe” is often used as sneaky excuse for bad, or badly-drafted, legislation, brought in by national governments. To take one minor example, the EU only requires home owners to obtain energy performance certificates once a year. Labour converted that into a requirement to obtain one every time you put your house on the market. But, in a sense, that’s an argument for euroscepticism - the very fact that governments can blame a remote bureaucracy for actions which they don’t have the guts to introduce in their own name.
I expect someone has said this back there, but as a Lib Dem voter for Westminster and locally (not a party member, I vote Green in Euro elections), I believe that Clegg is wrong not to insist on voting for a referendum.
Yes, I know Europe isn’t a major issue; yes I know that a lot of Lib Dem voters ignore Lib Dem europhilia (their Clause 4?); but being represented as a party that refuses voters a choice, of any kind, is plain daft for a third party.
My vote for the Lib Dems at the next general election will be a personal vote for a helpful MP; and in the locals, against the Tories who seem determined to leave the bottle banks overflowing, collect our waste as infrequently as possible, and to gratuitously close a thriving Arts Centre; but, be in no doubt, I’m not happy with anyone.
Oh yes, I should say, I’m a pensioner. Labour, forget it.
117 Typo. The EU only requires home owners to obtain the certificates once every *ten* years.
I note that my MP is Kelvin Hopkins, who was on the side of the angels on this issue.
Torch @ 109: “Probably not long before Huckabee also drops out.” “Florida looking good for a Romney win.”
I don’t understand the logic behind either of those statements. If anyone’s going to gain from Thompson dropping out and failing to endorse McCain it’s Huckabee (especially when up against McCain, Guiliani and a governor of Massachusetts).
Only one poll on RCP has EVER shown Romney in front in Florida. Florida’s only looking good for a McCain win at the moment. To be honest I don’t know why anyone’s tipping Romney at all (particularly the Guardian yesterday) - he’s ahead in the polls in about three future states (Utah, Mass. and Idaho) and he’s the least electable of all the Republican candidates - didn’t HuffPo encourage Democrats/Independents to vote Romney in Michigan?
I think Mike’s point is ultimately correct. I think the question is will they select their Ken Clarke, or plump for someone like Romney, their Iain Duncan Smith? If not McCain then, realistically, who?
129. Sean Fear:
Indeed. A lot of support for the EU derives from the politically aware over-50s.
It seems to root itself in this “I’m scared of WW2 happening again”, mentality.
We must move on. “Europe” consists of mature democracies now.
And the Cold War is over.
O/T - What on earth is happening to Arsenal?
134 - do you have demographic figures that show that? and if so where can I get them? I dimly remember seeing the eurobarometer which did show that europe-wide there was a strong correlation between political engagement, education, knowledge of current affairs, and support of the EU. I’d be careful if you’re going to suggest that this bracket have somehow engaged in terrible, simple minded, “oh the war” thinking.
133 Only the most recent poll has shown Romney ahead in Florida, and it was from Rasmussen.
He’s the only candidate who’s won delegates in every single state, he’s won the most delegates, he’s leading in the polls, and is the only candidate unconcerned about money. He’s the only GOP candidate cogent on healthcare, and is better than most on fiscal matters. He is the only GOP candidate who is (now) on message on all conservative issues, and has a voice good for all time zones.
How is he unviable, but not the bass-guitar creationist praised by Bill Clinton, the maverick traitor to the GOP, or the New Yorker who dressed up in drag and kissed Donald Trump on TV?
130 Ah! now it becomes clear - I had wondered about the ‘aging’ in your title on here! I have always argued as a Lib Dem activist that we should do exactly the same in our campaigns for the European Parliament as for other campaigns, ie try to show how Lib Dem actions and policies at that level of Govt makes a positive difference. The policy of “Don’t mention Europe” has backfired spectacularly in Euro elections, with people like yourself, a Lib Dem voter at other elections turning away from the party. What I don’t see any future in, as a democrat, is appearing to support an institution whether or not what is being done has a beneficial effect. I don’t take the view that Devon County Council or the Westminster Government or ny other institution always does right, and is right by definition. Why on earth should I take that view towards the Brussels / Strasbourg Parliament? I shall continue to try to get Lib Dems elected there to implement Lib Dem thinking.
33 - Why the assumption that Huckabee is the natural 2nd choice for former Thompsonites?
These guys parked their votes with Sleepy precisely because they are allergic to a) jaysus freaks and b) populists. So notion they’ll automatically go for Huckabee is flawed.
That said, think Huckabee will stay in until Super Tuesday whatever happens in Florida.
33 The only polls worth watching at this stage are for the NEXT state on the circui