Will McCain be able to beat either of them?
January 30th, 2008
The above are the latest head to head numbers from the excellent Real Clear Politics site and show what happens when John McCain is put against either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.
As can be seen the 71 year old beats both of them on the RCP average which is updated daily. The latest figures are very much affected by the Rasmussen numbers showing the GOP man with a substantial margin over the two Democratic party possibilities. In its previous survey Rasmussen had both Clinton and Obama ahead.
In the betting for who will actually get to the White House McCain is second favourite at 2.25/1.
There might be value, if you have confidence in these polls, in the winning party markets. Here the Democrats are the tight 0.56/1 favourites with the GOP on 1.76/1. If you think MCCain will get the nomination and believe the polls then these prices look great value.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Another tight race might turn once more on minor candidates. What if Paul runs? How about Nader?
Assuming the base turns out for McCain, moderates would choose him over the widely dislike Clinton. With Obama, it is less clear that (a) the base would turn out or (b) moderates would go to McCain.
Why is Ron Paul so often talked about as a Third party candidate? won’t he
(a) look ridiculous if having tried to get one party’s nomination he immeadiately jumps ship?
(b) get chucked out of the Republicans. will he hold his congressional district as a Libertarian?
It might be a question of stimulating turnout. If McCain is camped on the centre ground, assured of all the right-wing and anti-Hillary votes, the Dems are going to need to really enthuse their voters and get huge numbers to the polls.. (hello VP Obama?)
Firstly on the last topic which I have only just seen, facinating you bring up the number thing Mike as I was off work today and saw PMQ’s. What I noticed was Brown’s answer to every quetion, friendly or otherwise was ‘We are spending x more on this or that.’ Almost as if he believes who is spending the most is the only issue, and if he is spending more on that issue then any criticism is invlaid. He seems to care little about what is actually happening, as long as he can say hes spending more than the Tories on it, the time for hiding behind these figues is over and Brown definitely needs a new record.
As for the US election, I do beleive the polls. What is more significant is the state polls done so far regrding the US election. McCain seems to be ahead of both his democrat rivals in key states like Pennsylvania and Florida, where as the Romney (who is now the only other GOP candidate that has a chance of the candidacy in my view) is behind in these key states. The thing that would worry me about backing McCain or the Republicans at the moment, is if McCain will actually get the candidacy or not. I fear the Republican establishment will have plenty of tricks up their sleeves over the next few weeks to ensure Romney is the candidate. I hope I’m wrong as I would rather have McCain than any of the others, GOP or Dem, personally.
3. When has Ron Paul ever worried about looking ridiculous? Bring back the gold standard, anyone?
Libertarians often run in US elections and Ron Paul has become the biggest name libertarian in a long while.
Re 1 Nader is considering running.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4215961&page=1
OT. Mike said a few days ago that we were due a MORI this month. Given its now the 30th are we expecting it tonight/tommorrow?
nick P has been suggesting for some time the republicans look good value at that price (it doesn’t seem to have moved for ages), and I’ve got on board. Lost a bit today getting tempted by the very long odds on Romney only to be persuaded by SSI and the various blogs that Romney does indeed have a mountain to climb and deciding to close out - PB really does have the best analysis around! Still comfortably ahead on either, however
If McCain is really a 1/5 shot for the republican nomination, then buying him @ 13 on a 25/10/0 index to be president is the way to go?
Not sure I agree with this analysis Mike. For some time Ptp, PfP and others have been promoting the value in backing the GOP to win the Presidency at 7/4. This is only value if McCain is the nominee. This now looks likely but it’s not yet in the bag. He is 2/9 with Betfair which seems about right to me. Assuming he gets the nomination then the GOP will shorten to between Evens and 11/8.
A double at 2/9 and Evens = 6/4; a double at 2/9 and 5/4 = 7/4; a double at 2/9 and 11/8 = 15/8.
So current odds against a GOP win for the Presidency are about right. When and hopefully if McCain gets the GOP Presidency then the 7/4 will look great value. But of course it will have gone!
I suppose the value bet is McCain to win the Presidency at 9/4. Jan hoovered up all the better prices last night.
The nader link is interesting. Reading it you can see him launching a suicide mission against Clinton. I would have though help establish the Green party on the left would have been a better use of his time if he MUST run (rolls eyes)
I’m afraid I’ve scuppered McCain’s chances by putting the kingbongo treasury department’s resources behind him (well 20 quid anyway).
The best candidate in the election now stands no chance of winning
However as long as HiLLary doesn’t win I’ll be happy (except if it’s Romney!)
hate to say but got McCain Oven Chips for nomination at 14-odd on betfair some time ago - looks like being a rare bright spot in an otherwise one-way funnel of cash to the bookies
5: Romney has no chance - being very kind to him, a back of the envelope calculation says after Super Tuesday McCain will have 750ish delegates to Romney’s 300, with 1190 needed. That’s assuming Romney manages to pull national figures back to even in the next few days, while in reality he’s well behind (even before McCain gets a boost from Florida and the Giuliani endorsement).
Romney would then need to win 75% of the post-ST delegates, with no sizable winner-takes all states remaining. He’d have to sweep huge Texas (joint 5th in last Texas poll), Penn (23% behind McCain, and in 5th place) and Virginia (less than ideal for his Wall St image).
11 - stjohn, you’re looking at that wrongly, because you’re forgetting to add in the chance that the Reps win with a different nominee.
e.g.
McCain 82% for nom and a 45% chance of winning as nominee = 0.82*0.45 = 36.9%
Romney 18% for nom and a 30% chance of winning as nominee = 0.18*0.30 = 6.0%
Total chance = 42.9% or about 2.33 in betfair terms.
My mistake, Virginia is winner takes all, with 63 delegates. Makes no difference though.
Just reading around and came across the following and wondered if anyone can give a definitive answer. The dems have a target number of delegates for the winner of 2025 but that includes the two states which are not going to be counted - Michigan and Florida.
It appears that the winning post still remains, however, which, taking away the 8% of delegates that do not count, means that the winner needs just over 50 out of 92 i.e 54%. Anything else will have to be a contest that is settled at the convention.
So it appears that there is a greater chance than otherwise that the contest will not be decisive by someone winning just enough of the remaining delegates. Is that right?
O/T CH4: Cameron flip-flops again. After telling Tory MPs to ignore a “newspaper survey” of family employment “at all costs”, he later gave an “edict” to them to comply fully with the survey…
What a shower!
Wildly off topic - Jeremy Beadle has died!
Hillary will win the nomination. McCain will beat her decisively in November, winning Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio and New Hampshire (but perhaps losing Arkansas).
18. I don’t follow your second paragraph at all.
21 - Well the dems still have a chance to avoid that but reading the comments sections on news articles they seem blind to what might happen with McCain.
It may well be preferable for them to have a McCain presidency (just four years) to allow the GOP pick up the pieces of Bush’s mess, it’ll also annoy the hell out of Limbaugh and his ilk. Maybe they are subconsciously hoping for that?
21. If that did happen. What are the chances of an Obama presidency in 2012?
23. They would have to be idiots. It would mean a conservative supreme court for decades.
16. I’d say a 30% chance of Romney winning the GE if selected as nominee is wildly high. The guy would get torn apart in a proper election.
22 - 92% of delegates left out of 100%. 50% still remains the winning post therefore the winner has to get 50 or more out of every 92 delegates, rather than 50 or more out of 100, in order to officially win.
I’m praying that either McCain does not get the Republican nomination or that if he does Hillary beats him in November - if not it looks like our ass hole governor Pawlenty of MN will be Veep and that means our even worse ass hole of Lieutenant Governor will become Governor of Minnesota - there is a lot at stake for Minnesota in these elections …. come on Hillary ….
23. They would be wrong to imagine that, IMHO. Sarkozy has successfully distanced himself from the failures of Chirac’s government, and I suspect McCain could do the same in relation to Bush’s administration.
Don’t forget too, if the Democrats win Congress (and they’re certain to increase their lead in the Senate) McCain can put a lot of blame on them.
IMHO, if it’s McCain vs. Clinton, McCain will win, regardless of the outcome in the House and Senate.
26. That’s why McCain will be the candidate.
24 I have no idea. To speculate on 2012 today is premature. But as soon as markets open after November, I will give it a more considered tought
29. And in a fully Presidential system, party labels mean very little in terms of “continuity”.
18, 27. You’re ignoring the chance that a winner coming out of Super Tuesday could turn the rest of the votes into a procession, and bringing them up to your 54%.
Hillary to have a nationwide Townhall meeting
http://www.mydd.com/
a novel idea - logistic nightmare I would have thought. It will be online so we can all drop in
From previous thred, question re: Sen Patty Murray (D-WA) and whether there was animosity between her and Sen. McCain over his efforts to expose misconduct in Boeing contract to supply aircraft tankers to the US Air Force, and her counter efforts to protect a critical part of the WA State economy.
Answer is NO, I think. Don’t really have any inside info. But Patty is at heart a League of Women Voters type; am quite certain she was appauled by many of the sordid facts that were revealed, and which sent a top USAF procurment officer to the federal pen. And on the other hand, very much doubt if McCain would hold it against a Senator for fighting for her state.
Doesn’t seem like McCain’s the kind of guy who cherishes his grudges. Patty’s pretty much the same way. And it’s clear he respects a clean fighter. Ditto Patty.
Neither was raised to expect a free lunch.
33 - I’m talking about a greater *probability* in statistical terms. It does make the chance of a contentious convention greater and I bet the GOP can’t believe their luck (well, except those who can’t stand McCain but they could always vote for Clinton couldn’t they?
)
36, Never, ever, underestimate the ability of the Democrats to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Thinking about a Clinton-McCain contest, wouldn’t it be ironic if a Republican won on a new path vs the establishment platform.
I think (and hope) this election will be as close as it was in 2000 and ‘04. Personally, I love elections where you don’t know who’s going to win until the votes come in, but it does mean that predicting the outcome ten months before the election date is very difficult. No one knows what tear-up, slip of the tongue, clever TV ad or skeleton in the closet may pop out between now and 4 November.
Re. 28, Minnesota may yet be saved - there’s a lot of talk (particularly on Fox) that Charlie Crist of Florida may be McCain’s running mate. Apart from Crist, other plausible choices would be Lyndsey Graham or (if McCain needs to build bridges with conservatives) Bill Owens and Mark Sanford. How about General David Petraeus?
21` Believe you are wrong about the Keystone State aka Pennsylvania.
My native state, with relatives still strung out (in more ways than one) from Beaver County (am not making this up) in western PA near Pittsburgh, to the mountains of central PA (which gives MN a run for its money this time of year), to the suburbs of Philadelphis
Am curious why you think PA will go GOP, which I do not. The economy, plus state has been trending Democratic, esp out in the Main Line and other Philly burbs. Realize that John McCain is not ex Sen. Rick Santorum, indeed he’s much more like (still) Sen. Arlen Specter. BUT that’s in Senate race; PA more Democratic voting for President.
One fact about PA: has the highest proportion of residents who were born in the state, of any state in the Union. Meaning that newcomers do not abound. Also that the population is older and more traditional. But also a constant tension between establishmentarianism (generally inept and/or corrupt) and progressivism (as a corrective to the former).
All in all think it adds up to a hold for the Democrats in November.
40. What would Petraeus add to a ticket that McCain doesn’t already have?
40 With due deference to Fox, and the gentlemen cited, the list given is hardly exhaustive.
Think Petraeus is an interesting posiblity but
1) controversial (in plucking serving soldier from war zone for political office)
2) McCain doesn’t need either bolstering or multiple voices on defense & security
3) Red flag to anti-war swing independents
Point number 1 above may also tell against Gov Pawlenty, because personally think he’s a tad tarnished from the awful bridge collapse, unless of course he could turn that into part of a powerful narrative or suchlike. BUT would defer to a North Star State resident to evaluate Pawlenty’s capacity for impressing rather than depressing both a national audience and the home crowd as the side-car in a presidential election
Keep job of VP nominee: DO NO HARM
37. I entirely agree. There’s a long way to go beween now and November and the odds for a GOP win are a good deal too long. The national polls numbers are of little relevance at the moment - two months ago they would have told us that Rudy would be the Republican candidate. At best, they might give a hint as to who’s the more sellable candidate on each side.
43 last should read “key job” typing become bit eratttticz
37 - Don’t rub it in!
I keep thinking that McCain has about 80% chance of winning the presidency, if he is the candidate.
Don’t think anyone’s commented on the further cut in US interest rates yet. Another half percent drop - that’s five quarters off in the space of a little over a week: a massive slashing. It’s also worth remembering that the first instalment of that was a panic reaction to what looked like a share crash in reaction to growth prospects but was in fact at least as much to do with Soc Gen getting their books in order - in other words, that three-quarters cut was probably an over-reaction, and now another half point on top.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out across the Atlantic. It should give the BoE a bit more breathing space to make a cut as sterling should now stay a little stronger against the dollar.
Events dear boy, Events. i did laugh out loud at the previous post about McCain winning on a change ticket against the establishment. very though provoking. but what if the war goes wrong again. the surge isn’t sustainable and if casulties mount and hillary is saying “bring the troops home and hes saying ” we need to be there 50 years”…
I’m just saying he isn’t a shoe in.
Also, on a different topic, did anyone else think Edwards’ choice of words a bit strange when he said he was “suspending” his campaign? That sounds as if he has not wholly given up, though the rest of his speech was that of someone who was calling time and justifying his efforts. It was pretty policy-heavy and I’m sure that while the commitments he announced from Clinton and Obama to put fighting poverty at the heart of their campaign and putative presidency were no doubt good cover for his withdrawal, there is also the implicit threat that should those commitments not be honoured, he might re-enter. Whether that threat carries any weight presumably depends on how the rest of the campaign goes. Has he yet given up hopes of a king-making opportunity?
37. My favourite so far, is the nomination is like a greek tragedy with the democrats helplessly moving towards a disaster that only the audience can see
47 If he’s against Hillary I’d say he’s odds on. Only she can unite the GOP base to him. If it’s Obama sure he can still dig it out but 50/50 at best the old right will very probably then sit 2008 out purely and bizarrely to take old grudges out on McCain
Are we underestimating Clinton?
The woman/two headed monster is a born survivor, with a formidable campaigning machine, McCain also has a hell of a lot of baggage and the republican base are hardly famed for their rationality. Moderates will go heavily for McCain, but will Limbaugh turn hard conservatives off? Will a third party evangelical run?
One reason to be optimistic at the moment in regards to those polls is that McCain is doing better in recent surveys. But we’re still so far out from the election anything could change.
I would suggest voters’ minds won’t crystallise properly until both nominees have decided upon.
53. I can’t see an evangelical run against an anti-abortionist like McCain. It’s important to understand that while the evangelicals don’t care for McCain, it’s not the same base that hates his guts (the anti-immigration brigage).
As for Clinton’s “born survivor” claim, is it true? When has she ever won an election against the odds? When did she pass any difficult legislation against opposition? To my mind, for all her elbowing she hasn’t actually got anywhere, except for create a visceral hatred for her in half the population. The idea being “tough and fighting” is good election strategy is about as true as it being good foreign policy: It feels like it should be right but the evidence doesn’t show it. Even Rove’s underhanded tactics only worked because Bush was still thought to be a nice guy.
her health care reforms as First lady were one of the great train wrecks of modern politics. Yet shes picked her self up, reinvented her self, got elected to the senate when it was far from certain and then won relection in a landslide because she turned round republican up state New York.Shes about the break the glass ceiling of being a female nominee and is seeing off the JFK/MLK/Jesus Christ candidacy of Obama.
None of this means she’ll win in november but i do think the animus on this site toward her blinds people to the fact that she has turned her self into a class act. People might not vote for her because they hate her, or shes a democrat or mccain is better but there is zero media narritive that she isn’t upto the job per se.
10/11 For those who think McCain’s a certainty for the GOP nomination, I’m with David Kendrick in thinking Spreadfair’s 25-10-0 offers the best value now priced at 13.4, which equates to odds of 3.4/1 (i.e.11.6/3.4), assuming he is runner-up at worst. For those of a nervous disposition, it’s probably still better than the outright odds on him of 9/4, to take the 13.4 with Spreadfair and at the same time sell against him getting the GOP nomination on Betfair at around 1/4. I haven’t actually done the math (as we apparently now have to refer to it!).
One thing I think we can predict with some confidence is that Bloomberg’s ‘exploratory’ team will be standing down … no way will he want to enter the ring with Big Mac regardless of the Dem nominee.
56. Quite. While, as Sean Fear said higher up the thread, one should never underestimate the Democrats’ ability to lose elections, one should never underestimate Hillary Clinton either. I don’t like her more than anyone else here, but I’ll admit she’s consistently proved her doubters wrong over the years.
Even so, judging from those polls at the top of the thread… I’d be inclined to start backing the GOP at the moment as well.
56 - I agree, I have said a number of times that people should look at Hillary the candidate not the caricature and that when you do that she is a lot more impressive than you think. Yes she has negatives but frankly most politicians can’t get to the top without creating a wave. The fact is that most of the negatives are entrenched and there are fewer people likely to be turned off Hillary now than people flowing in the other direction.
56. “Shes about the break the glass ceiling of being a female nominee”. Yes, well - sort of. I can’t help thinking that the fact that she’s her husband’s wife diminishes that achievement somewhat. Don’t get me wrong - it’s an important step forward, and the ‘female candidate’ thing seems to be pleasingly absent from a lot of the analysis: it really doesn’t seem to matter to a lot of people. If anything, it’s a moderately strong positive as it looks to be pulling in women voters. But one of the main reasons that she’s not seen prediminently as a ‘woman candidate’ is because she’s seen by many as a ‘Clinton candidate’, and to that extent, Bill blazed the trail first.
Does anyone think that Hilary’s gender may turn as many of Edward’s blue collar base as Obama’s race?
56. How exactly has she reinvented herself? Democrats still (mostly) support her and Republicans still hate her. She was losing the NY Senate race against Giuliani until his marriage revelations exploded onto the front pages. All this in what should have been an exceptionally safe Democratic seat. Plus up state New York Republicans are the old-fashioned Reagan Democrats, and deserted the Republican party over what they had become since the Gingrich revolution (a guy New Yorkers unanimously hate incidentally and was closely associated with Lazio). Breaking the “glass ceiling” in a modern developed state isn’t in the 2000s the feat it was for Thatcher in the 70s. And it’s especially lessened if you do it on the back of your husband’s previous Presidency. If she sees off Barack Obama, it will be because the primary schedule was so tight this year he didn’t manage to catch her in time, considering how much he’s been gaining in the polls.
16. Aaron. You are quite right. I missed out Romney. But I would agree with Socrates that 30 percent looks too high for Romney to win, if nominated. I would think him a 4/1 shot or 20 per cent chance at best. Then your figures come out at 40 per cent overall chance for the GOP to win the Presidency or 6/4, Betfair 2.5. So there may be a bit of value at current odds but not a lot. And that’s without factoring in an independent running.
Thanks anyway for the correction re the calculation.
61. I accept a lot of that. However if she is as unelectable as some people on this site suggest how has she got this far? name recognition goes a long way in the early stages of primary politics but only so far. I think to some extent the “Evil B***h” motif helps her. However influential Bill would be in the White House would the republicans get traction suggesting he’d be the power behind the throne? She’s clearly his intellectual equal and as political as he is.
I suppose the counter factual to ask is this. If they had divorced after Monica and he was no where near the campaign would she be here now? My suspicion is with the name, contacts book and senate base she would.
63. I think when Nuclear Launch Codes are part of the job then the glass ceiling is still there. Thatchers achievement was amazing but we had had a female head of state since 1952.
I think being elected ( twice) in her own right in a state she isn’t native to counts as a form of re invention of sorts. Look at the pictures of her in front of the senate giving evidence on the health care plan and look now. The stylistic changes are just fashion and hair style.
We need an independent party to make this election interesting.
If someone (Roger perhaps?) gives me $100,000,000 I will see if I can raise an ‘Ave it US’ candidate to stand……
67 Ave it gains everywhere! Except perhaps DC.
68 SBS knows best. Ave it rules!
Hilllllary 0 Ave it 1
PS lucky west ham. Liverpool = lol.
65. But a lot of her getting places has been similar to Gordon Brown. She makes the right contacts and tries to sew up something without the contest. That’s why she stood for the Senate in New York, one of the safest Dem seats in the country. She’s clearly very good at networking, but I’ve yet to see her have any effectiveness as a campaigner.
To be provocative, is McCain that big a threat to the Democrats? He isn’t an outstanding campaigner, this is a nomination he should have won extremely easily given the comedy contenders he was up against. He doesn’t have anything plausible to say about fixing the economy (number 1 issue now and probably in November), and he’s got a long record as a Senator including lots of unpopular quotes and votes for his opponents to exploit, not to mention a temper that makes him gaffe-prone and a speaking style which makes Hillary Clinton look like Barack Obama.
On top of which, he is the nominee of a party which is divided and extremely unpopular, facing a Democratic Party which is extremely energised to win back power (compare the turnouts in the respective primaries).
All the Democrats need to do is win all the states Kerry won against Bush plus Ohio. Clinton or Obama are infinitely better campaigners than Kerry, McCain isn’t as good as Bush, the Democrats have more money than the Republicans for the first election since ever, and lots more people identify Democrat than Republican. It probably won’t be a total slaughter like it would have been if Romney was the nominee, but he still won’t win.
That said, his odds will presumably tighten between now and when the Democrats pick a nominee, and then lengthen thereafter when the Democrats decide whether Clinton or Obama is going to be the next President.
71. Yes, McCain has lots of negative of his own. But most importantly, voters think McCain is a nice, authentic guy, even if they disagree with him. Most voters think Clinton is a manipulator, even if they agree with her. I don’t think you can say McCain will definitely win, but up against Clinton it’s simply all up in the air. Which it shouldn’t be, from a Democratic stand point.
71 - I agree mainly with your analysis, however I would add that Obama being the less experienced candidate is more liable to make a gaffe on the Democrat side and so I would posit that he is more likely to give the Republicans a route into greater contention. Hillary is much less likely to do this and more likely to play hardball with McCain.
Well, I am backing McCain and the Republicans on those numbers. The odds looked OK when I bought in as well.
Mind you my judgment may be skewed by the fact I think McCain is the only non loon on the race and so the only electable candidate.
69 “SBS knows best” Yes, that’s why I am a Liberal Democrat.
74 - I have just put some on the Republicans on Betfair. I am sure the price will fall soon.
73. I think hilary has managed to make more gaffes so far in the nomination process although thinking about it, she has managed to turn everyone to her advanage, e.g. playing the race card, crying. Although bill’s involvement failed was a mistake.
75 - LOL to the power of 15!
71. I think that would make an excellent thread in its self.
Which blue states which Kerry won would McCain take against Clinton? I can’t beleive she is a worse campaigner than Kerry.
Which red states could Clinton take off Mccain. Are we really saying Florida or Ohio are inpossible? In fact wouldn’t arkansa flip the 2004 electoral college? Altough i think the weightings may have been redone since then on new congressional allocations.
73. But Obama is also best placed to contrast with McCain. Clinton can’t make much of his age as she’ll be 61 herself. Obama can also match McCain in the integrity stakes, which Clinton will suffer from. Plus Obama has been genuinely anti-war, where Clinton voted for the damn thing.
As for Clinton less likely to make mistakes:
Yankees baseball hat?
Obama’s grade school pictures?
“Shucker and jiver”?
“Fairytale campaign”?
Muslim heritage “a big deal”?
All backfired. What has Obama done on a similar magnitude. (Other than the supposed snub which there is no video for…)
77. You mean the race card which caused once loyal blacks to vote against her 4 to 1?
79. The military presence in Florida will mean McCain should win there, against Obama or Clinton. He could also win Minnesota and Wisconsin I reckon.
Re 47, JohnLoony “I keep thinking that McCain has about 80% chance of winning the presidency, if he is the candidate.”
In my book you underestimate his chances.
72 McCain has a legendary temper on him. A couple of viral clips of him having a hissy fit whizzing round the internet and the “nice old guy” image is shattered.
Plus he has been a cheerleader for the war - and America is not prepared to give him any credit for thinking it was a good idea.
And someone upthread said McCain would win Ohio. Not this time. Cleveland - the home of sub-prime. 1 in 10 homes in Cleveland is owned by Deutsche Bank in repossessions:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7073131.stm
80 - I think she can make something of his age. She will certainly supress the Republican vote by playing up his RINOism. A lot has been made of the Clintons playing the race card and it backfiring well I’m not sure that it did backfire that much. It made Obama fight in the gutter for votes that were his anyway. It pushed more blacks into his column maybe but even then I think that was designed. Of course it is cynical as hell but then I am from the Machiavelli school of politics in that you do whatever you have to so quite admire it!
Newsnight has a report coming up about a head of steam building to replace Speaker Martin!
Not before time, I say!
A genuine question, why doesnt our political process attract high ranking ex military? When was the last PM or cabinet minister to have a strong military record??
IDS was a military man, wasn’t he?
The thing about a McCain v Clinton contest is that he probably brings more Blue states in to play. She might win (indeed I think she has a decent chance if she gets the nomination), but she is likely to win narrowly.
McCain could bring over New Hampshire (4 ECV, Kerry +1.4), Wisconsin (10, +0.6), Pennsylvania (21, +2.5), Michigan (17, +3.4), Minnesota (10, +3.5), Oregon (7, +4.2), Washington (11, +7.2), New Jersey (15, +6.6)
Clinton would focus on New Mexico (5, +0.8), Iowa (7, +0.7), Nevada (5, +2.6), Ohio (20, +2.1), Florida (27, +5)
Of those I could see McCain being more likely to win blue states than Clinton win red states. But ultimately it nearly always come down to the national result. If one candidate is more than 1 percent ahead nationwide they nearly always win the electoral colege.
50 - re: the choice of words by John Edwards in “suspending” his presidential campaign.
Believe this reflects the wording & similar gory details of current campaign financing laws.
Meaning that he’s out of the race but still needs to raise money to pay debts (including to himself) and other campaign-related obligations.
86 Depends how you define High Ranking, Churchill was in the army, Macmillan served in the trenches, Heath fought in WWII.
86. Because our system of politics is more class based and distrustful of outsiders, it also doesn’t attract many preachers or ex business either. People either get in by being strong pure party members or through oxbridge.
If you look at the change v. experience debate in american politics, it’s impossible in british politics because the only one with any actual experience is Brown, there are no minor position of smaller governance like governors, or big name mayors the closest we have are livingstone and salmond.
86 Denis Healey was a beachmaster on D-Day
79 No change in Electoral Vote allocations since 2004.
Reallocation of US House seats and thus EVs is done after each decennial census. Last census was 2000; the next is 2010.
So EVs for nummber of states will change for the 2012 election. For example, is projected that WA State will gain one US House seat, from current nine to ten, thus increasing our EVs from current 11 to 12.
91 - Indeed, there isn’t a culture of working up from the ground that there is in the US. Plus I don’t think the charge of professional politician would have the same resonance in the States as here.
91. The EU will change things. First the current UK party system will be replaced by their European equivalents. European integration is now irreversible so be prepared for massive changes including general election procedures. Don’t be surprised if someone like Emma Bonino stands as a candidate in our elections once EU treaty ratified!!
Text of Barack Obama’s comment on John Edwards.
It is possible that supporters of John Edwards will support Obama rather than Clinton.
Very very close IMHO and I remain convinced that Obama is the value bet for the Democratic nomination.
Obama statement on John Edwards
Barack Obama:
John Edwards has spent a lifetime fighting to give voice to the voiceless and hope to the struggling, even when it wasn’t popular to do or covered in the news. At a time when our politics is too focused on who’s up and who’s down, he made a nation focus again on who matters – the New Orleans child without a home, the West Virginia miner without a job, the families who live in that other America that is not seen or heard or talked about by our leaders in Washington. John and Elizabeth Edwards have always believed deeply that we can change this – that two Americas can become one, and that our country can rally around this common purpose. So while his campaign may end today, the cause of their lives endures for all of us who still believe that we can achieve that dream of one America.
Obama Praises Edwards, Hopes for His Backing
Barack Obama showered John Edwards with praise today at the outset of a huge rally here, saying his former rival for the Democratic nomination’s “campaign may have ended, but his cause lives on for those who believe we can achieve one America.”
“John has spent a lifetime fighting to give a voice to the voiceless and hope for the struggling,” Obama told a crowd of 9,000 gathered inside the University of Denver basketball arena, with several thousands more gathered in overflow areas elsewhere on the campus. “At a time when our politics is too focused on who’s up and who’s down he’s consistently made us focus on who matters — the New Orleans child without a home, the West Virginia miner without a job, the families who live in that other America that is not seen or heard or talked about in Washington. John and Elizabeth Edwards believe deeply that two Americans can become one.”
Not surprisingly, Obama made no mention the criticisms he has leveled at Edwards over the course of the campaign — most notably, his charge that Edwards came to his liberal presidential campaign platform only after voting differently on a slew of issues in the Senate, from Iraq to bankruptcy reform to the Patriot Act. Obama is hoping to win Edwards’s endorsement, banking on the overlap in their anti-establishment message and critique of Hillary Clinton. But Edwards has so far signaled that he will be making no immediate endorsement.
Obama campaign officials say Edwards called twice in the past day — first, last night, to say that he was considering leaving the race and to encourage Obama to speak more about Edwards’ favorite topic, poverty. He then called Obama again this morning to confirm his departure.
Obama officials say their emphasis now is not just on winning Edwards’ backing but on winning over supporters, both prominent and rank and file, who were behind the former North Carolina senator. They dispute the suggestion that Edwards’ departure will help Clinton in southern states where white men who were leaning toward Edwards will now swing toward Clinton; Obama officials note that Obama did nearly as well as Clinton among white men in the South Carolina primary, according to the exit polls.
84. I know what you mean. The race tactic was ruthless and it backfired in the short term.
But in the long term?
If you were being a pure statistician and playing the Bush election game (all you need to do is win enough, you do not need to win everyone) you would conclude that black voters were probably going to go Obama anyway - the prospect of a real chance of a black president was going to generate more of a buzz in that community than another Clinton. But if you were to try and *isolate* Obama’s support to that group you have got him in a corner - it’s not an election-winning coalition. Plus South Carolina, Alabama etc are Southern states - one could argue they’re unlikely to flip into the Democratic column in the General anyway.
So Clinton leads with whites and hispanics, Obama leads amongst blacks. At the end of the day in most states the demographic favours Clinton. And the blacks disillusioned in the primary are still likely to fall into line and back Clinton in the General - so you’re only isolating them *temporarily*.
It’s a ruthless and Bushite method but it may well work. I know Obama is generating a buzz - but I still think logically the demographics and the evidence so far favours Clinton. If she comes out of Super Tuesday the winner in the most states isn’t it going to be very difficult for Obama to fight on?
If true…
“Obama campaign officials say Edwards called twice in the past day — first, last night, to say that he was considering leaving the race and to encourage Obama to speak more about Edwards’ favorite topic, poverty. He then called Obama again this morning to confirm his departure.”
97 - Edwards campaign people say he called both remaining campaigns, I wouldn’t be looking for an endorsement either way prior to Super Tuesday.
re: State nicknames, its not just states that have nicknames in the US, for example:
New York = The Big Apple
Boston = Hub City
Philadelphia = City of Brotherly Love (translation) or Philly, which some locals hate
New Orleans = Crescent City (due to curve in Miss River) or Big Easy
Seattle = Emerald City
Detroit = Motor City or Motown
Chicago = Windy City
Dallas = Big D
Los Angeles = LA or alternatively El Lay
San Francisco = Frisco, hated by many locals
Portland, Oregon = Rose City
Re 76, SBS “74 - I have just put some on the Republicans on Betfair. I am sure the price will fall soon.”
It has already!
Do we have any clues as to McCains choices for running mate for VP?
BBC News reports on the Institute for Fiscal Affairs’ estimate of an £8 Billion black hole having opened up this year in the nation’s finances with worse to come as the economy slows down, equivalent to a 2p required increase in the rate of income tax.
Oh Dear, sounds like the Government’s borrowings are out of control. Prudence is but a distant memory.
Everyone knows things are getting bad, the trouble is no one seems to know just how bad, or at least they’re not for telling.
100 - Zero rationale/incentive for Edwards to endorse Obama (or Clinton for that matter) at this time.
Different situation than Giuliani’s.
101 - Actually think Boston is more correctly “The Hub” as in “The Hub of the Universe”
101
Kent - the Garden of England… any more?
98 - Bingo that is the Clinton gamble that this is a good Democrat year and ergo you can fracture the coalition early and put it back together for November. I think the Republicans have a harder task, the base recoils somewhat from McCain and I am not so sure that they will return. Also Clinton is a pragmatist so is Obama, if she sews up the nomination she has got to at least consider asking Obama to come on board.
104 Sorry, that should read the Institute for Fiscal Studies.
POP QUIZ:
There are four US states that are officialy “Commonwealths” can you name them?
Without googling that is!
PLUS one that includes “Plantations”
91. The other point being that our heads of government get there through intitially being members of the legislature - they’ve often never fulfilled a leadership role before.
Note the Governors (a role bringing leadership experience) who have become President in recent times - Carter (Georgia), Reagan (California), Clinton (Arkansas), Bush II (Texas). Bush I was not a Governor but he had been involved in an incredibly large breadth of roles (ambassador to UN, head of CIA) that required quite involved leadership. I realise that cabinet ministers in the UK arguably have this but at the same time it’s still a very collegiate atmosphere aided by ministers and civil servants.
There is no mechanism to allow a mayor or first minister to ‘run’ for the Prime Ministership because you need to be an MP and leader of your party first. So it’s a completely different atmosphere.
106 - Kent - liberal MP free zone since 1870 - ?????
103 - I’ve got a small bet on it being Joe Lieberman. Can’t see that going down to well though - he’s becoming a pariah in democratic circles and the fact that he was VP nom for Al Gore may lessen his appeal to Republicans.
106 Some IRISH Counties have nicknames that orginated with local teams affliated with the Gaelic Athletic Association (GAA)
Cork = The Rebel County
Meath = The Royal County
Wicklow = The Garden County
Kerry = The Kingdom
101 Cleveland, Ohio = The Mistake on the Lake
112 - There is talk of Lieberman for McCain and Edwards for either Clinton or Obama, has there ever been a VP nominee with two different Presidential nominees?
107. Except that many whites were turned off by the Clinton race card. It might work better among Southern whites, but I bet she lost votes in more progressive parts of the country.
We shouldn’t believe that 80% of African Americans were going to vote for Obama regardless. Remember when he wasn’t considered black enough, and not a true African-American because he wasn’t descended from slaves? I think it would have split 60-40 for Obama before the race affair, AND with a smaller turnout for blacks.
112 Lieberman said yesterday he won’t be VP
110. You’re right, that was my point, if you look at Cameron’s CV:
Some PR or business thing
Junior minister in the treasury
But this isn’t a problem because before 1997 Brown didn’t have any experience either, it’s only through winning that you can get experience, unlike America.
86. Pym, Carrington and Whitelaw had all been awarded the Military Cross (Pym with bar) during the Second World War. Enoch Powell was the only man in the entire war to rise from a private soldier to Brigadier (one step below a General)…
117. I believe Obama said a while back he wouldn’t be running for President. Lieberman knows that the possibility he could be VP would harm McCain’s chances for the nomination, so he’d deny it whether he wanted it or not.
110. Our system means you have to go through the party system. In the US you do it on your own name with a party label.
111 -not heard of Orpington then have you?
Lieberman or Edwards will not be VP nominees. Look to governors; a Pawlenty or a Barbour for the Republicans, a Schweitzer or Kaine for the Dems.
86 - perhaps Bob Maxwell MC would have become a Cabinet Minister if he had not lost his seat in 1970.
Re 107, James Burdett, “I think the Republicans have a harder task, the base recoils somewhat from McCain and I am not so sure that they will return. Also Clinton is a pragmatist so is Obama, if she sews up the nomination she has got to at least consider asking Obama to come on board.”
Luntz and i have McCain winning big enough next Tuesday to walk the rest of the way and make it a certainty early.
As such, he has longer to unite his party.
sorry to hark back to the last thread but traditional Labour voters are much more likely next time to remember that Gordon doubled their tax rate this year and be put off voting as as result - or vote for a fringe party.
Heard on the radio on the way home from oop north that George Bush is planning to give the poorest US families a tax rebate of $300-$1200 to try and help stave off recession, whereas Gordon makes our worse off for the sake of a cheap headline which didn’t even stand 5 seconds’ scrutiny.
106 ” Kent - liberal MP free zone since 1870 - ?????”
Ever heard of the Orpington by-election?
Anyone without the news on, Rudy backs McCain.
Re 119, Rod Crosby “Enoch Powell was the only man in the entire war to rise from a private soldier to Brigadier (one step below a General)…”
Brigadier is short for Brigadier General which whilst the lowest rank of general is still a general.
125 - True enough.
Did anyone see the newsnight spot on stop and search? was anything interesting said?
O/T: Dail Mail seems to have a story that Conway’s son’s boyfriend was also on the payroll… (no url yet)
You couldn’t make it up…
re 90 I believe Heath’s MBE was a military one as well.
Heath/Healey/Callaghan/Whitelaw/Carrington, the WW2 generation, were really the last of the men with military records, to hold office.Of notable politicians, IDS had a short service commission, but saw no action. Ashdown Royal Marines and SBS saw action in the Indonesian confrontation.
In recent years, some MP’s have seen service in the TA, Gulf War etc.
I don’t want to tempt fate regarding McCain but here are my thoughts on the VP.
1. Denials aside, Lieberman must be under serious consideration. He brings moderates and energises the pro-war base. He also guarantess wall to wall coverage in the media. McCain owes it to him to keep the possibility alive until the convention. Although Lieberman is pro-choice and pro-ERA so was George HW Bush. Even hacks like Coulter and Malkin couldn’t complain given that they endorsed him in 2006.
2. Lindsay Graham and Charlie Crist also must be kept under consideration for pretty much the same reason.
3. Petraeus would be a bad choice. No-one knows where he stands on any domestic issue and he isn’t that Hawkish (McCain may have to distance himself from him in the coming months if Petraeus starts urging troop withdrawals).
4. Powell would be a good choice electorally but a bad choice as VP. Huckabee would be a bad choice electorally and would be disastrous VP.
5. We are unlikely to see someone who is too radically conservative because of McCain’s age.
I have a horrible feeling someone is going to ask McCain to rule out Lieberman (or guarantee that his choice will be pro-life) in tonight’s debate.
Also, the cardinal rule about VP selections must be:
“never choose a VP who you wouldn’t want to see in the White House”.
126 - You are giving Bush and Congress for that matter entire too much credit.
122 127 orpington is greater london so there!
132
I feel sorry for Iain Dale (almost) since he felt that as a friend of DC he couldn’t criticise him, he’s had a relentless barrage of abuse since.
135. Trouble with Lieberman is, he’ll irritate the GOP base further, without bringing anything to the ticket the McCain himself doesn’t already.
I hope our Gord can top this quote of George Bush
Quick off to a helicopter factory Gord.
“There’s signs that our economy is slowing. There’s some uncertainty in the economy,” the president said during a visit to a helicopter factory.
135 - The real cardinal rule of VPs is: Do No Harm
Speculation of VP possibles is fun but rather pointless. From a betting prospective very much like trying to smash a pinyata (sp). Pretty much pure luck to hit the right lick.
137 - but it was not in 1962. It was Kent then. So na!
Re 126, Chris A “Heard on the radio on the way home from oop north that George Bush is planning to give the poorest US families a tax rebate of $300-$1200 to try and help stave off recession, whereas Gordon makes our worse off for the sake of a cheap headline which didn’t even stand 5 seconds’ scrutiny.”
Yes, Gordon is not the legendary chancellor he claims to be.
It was a shame you did not make the party BTW!
Re 130, James, “125 - True enough.”
Yes, but that said we will see on Super Tuesday.
137 - Got you there, Ave!
re 143 yes Benedict it was - Friday’s are usually OK but work is hectic at the moment.
Re 138 Coldstone “I feel sorry for Iain Dale (almost) since he felt that as a friend of DC he couldn’t criticise him, he’s had a relentless barrage of abuse since.”
Same here. There is no need for abuse.
129. hmmm, not sure that’s still the case in the UK. It used to be, as Brigadier-General, but that term hasn’t been used for 80-odd years… An interesting point for clarification. Have all recent Brigadiers been on the General Staff?
Re 145, Chris A “re 143 yes Benedict it was - Friday’s are usually OK but work is hectic at the moment.”
Fair enough. Shame though. Maybe next time. I liked a Friday at the NLC.
Re 147, Rod Crosby “Have all recent Brigadiers been on the General Staff?”
No idea.
Ahhhnold has a suspiciously timed interview lined up with Wolf Blitzer tonight…..
150. How is the timing suspicious?
151: As in right next to the debate, with the moderator of said debate, right after Giuliai’s endorsement, and right after talks with McCain’s folks.
147
Brigadier is one of those strange ranks, like its equivalent Commodore or Air Commodore it doesn’t really seem to serve any purpose.
142/144 er no, my comment was based on modern county boundaries!
So LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!
144 - you are in USA (?) so what do you know about it HAHA
Just on CNN now: Arnie didn’t endorse yet, but more or less admitted it was just a matter of timing.
155. Still possible he could endorse Obama.
HASTA LA VISTA BABY
Telegraph has a biting analysis of Conway’s downfall..
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/portal/main.jhtml?xml=/portal/2008/01/31/ftconway131.xml&DCMP=ILC-traffdrv07053100
Apparently for Tories, publicity-shots of your family means you definitely have something to hide…
153. Commander of a brigade, mayhap?
Re previou