Now Hillary’s Wal-Mart past get’s dragged up
January 31st, 2008
Could this undermine union support?
With just five days to go to Super Tuesday some video tapes of Hillary in her role as a director of Wal-Mart in the late 80s and early 90s have “emerged” and are being given prominent coverage by ABC News.
Funny that the tapes being discovered now - anybody would think someone was planning a hatchet job.
Hillary’s problem is that the company has built up a reputation for being fiercely anti-union going to great lengths to break any signs of activity. The essence of the story today is that Democratic front-runner stayed silent while these developments were happening.
So far in the campaign Hillary has had considerable support from a large number of unions. Mailshots have gone out, members have been urged to back her and advertising campaigns have been funded. In one of the recent debates Barack Obama used her Wal-Mart connection to attack her.
With a battle of such ferocity reaching a critical stage then it’s almost inevitable that things get dragged up. The important thing is how Hillary and Bill react.
Democratic nomination betting is here.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
now I wonder who dragged this one out of the gutter … one guess ..
fairy tales is not playing the racist card, Obama has admitted his drug past (no big deal), Obama has a Muslim father and this was not played as a racial card, and the comment by the NY attorney you can take that anyway you wish - not one comment was made by Hillary Clinton - not one - she is not a racist nor playing the racist card …
I stand by the fact that his campaign has played dirty just as much … note above - it was he who dragged out Walmart - it was he who snubbed Clinton personally twice .. it was he who allowed his campaign to misinterpret Hillary’s MLK comments playing the race card in reverse …
But in politics people play dirty I hate it - I don’t condone dirty politics - but to say one side is playing the race card and the other side is squeaky clean is stretching the truth.
291 See.
I told you so.
by Peter the Punter January 31st, 2008 at 6:05 pm
OK, I’m re-posting from the previous thread:
Just as support for Huck fell away sharply but rather quietly about 4 weeks ago, am I now sensing that Hillary has slipped seriously over the past week, Florida notwithstanding? It has previously been the received wisdom that by being clearly ahead in all the major States apart from Illinois, she was virtually a shoo-in for the Dem nomination.
This no longer appears to be the case, certainly as regards opinion on PB.com is concerned - the number of supportive posts over the past 48 hours have been alarmingly few from her perspective.
I too could play the Google game and cut and post quotes out of context and interpret them any way I want to - but I don’t have the time or the inclination to do so.
Not to go OT early on, or anything, but for UKPaul, on the last thread:
Yes, just finished watching Atonement. Very powerful. It feels like the movie is better than the book. The book was jolly good but not strikingly memorable. The movie was better. Though obviously I loathe and fear Ian McEwan as a massively more successful novelist than me: so that could be colouring my attitudes a tad.
Not sure why the film was so good though. Story slightly far-fetched. Acting skillful but not amazing. Script highly competent but not stand-out brilliant. It’s always good to see Keira Knightley in a wet, clinging negligee - but that can’t really explain everything, either.
Maybe this is one of those movies where the whole is greater than the sum. Or maybe… just maybe… this is one of those movies where the Director really was crucial - the auteur. The scene in Dunkirk is superb.
And on that slightly tedious and wholly irrelevant note I’m off to catch mosquitoes. G’nite.
The mud is flying at both candidates. Obama is in favour of (or possibly opposed to) decriminalising pot.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080131/NATION/896961936/1001
Dem February 5 Polls
CA: Clinton 43, Obama 40
GA: Obama 52, Clinton 36
MA: Clinton 43, Obama 37
TN: Clinton 59, Obama 26
GOP February 5 Polls
CA: McCain 32, Romney 28
GA: McCain 35,Huck/Romney24
TN: McCain 33, Huckabee 25
IL: McCain 34, Romney 26
As per PfP - California is turning in to a dead heat - Hillary was miles ahead not long ago - weird poll from TN, and Obama doing fantastic in GA, and MA getting too close to call as well — Super Tuesday cold be really good for Obama from the looks of it …
Good luck to both of them on Tuesday - whoever wins gets our vote in November !!!!!!
Those kind of figures will mean neither of them comes through as the clear winner after Super Tuesday - they will both win plenty of delegates but not enough to have won. It may well go all the way to the convention.
Some of the GOP primaries are winner takes all so Super Tuesday could be more decisive for them.
just to make you all smile and O/T by a mile - a little joke - hope this is o.k. admin
George Bush has a heart attack and dies. He goes to Hell where the Devil is waiting for him.
“I don’t know what to do,” says the Devil. “You’re on my list but I have no room for you. But you definitely have to stay here, so I’ll tell you what I’m going to do. I’ve got three people here who weren’t quite as bad as you. I’ll let one of them go, but you have to take their place.
I’ll even let YOU decide who leaves.”
George thought that sounded pretty good so he agreed.
The devil opened the first room. In it was Richard Nixon and a large pool of water. He kept diving in and surfacing empty handed over and over and over, such was his fate in Hell.
“No!” George said. “I don’t think so. I’m not a good swimmer and I don’t think I could do that all day long.”
The Devil led him to the next room. In it was Tony Blair with a sledgehammer and a room full of rocks. All he did was swing that hammer, time after time after time.
“No! I’ve got this problem with my shoulder. I would be in constant agony if all I could do was break rocks all day!” commented George.
The Devil opened a third door. In it, George saw Bill Clinton lying naked on the floor with his arms staked over his head and his legs staked in spread-eagle pose. Bent over him was Monica Lewinsky, doing what she does best.
Bush looked at this in disbelief for a while and finally said, “Yeah, I can handle this.”
The Devil smiled and said, “Monica, you’re free to go!”
re 1. But it was always going to get really dirty. That’s politics. When you run for high office everything that you have done in your life will be scrutinised and your opponents will try to present things in the worst possible light. The art, if you are the opponent, is not to let the smearing rebound on you.
I coming to the view that, quite simply, Obama is smarter.
Thus when his book was published a couple of years ago he was able to admit all the potentially difficult incidents in his life.
1. The MLK comments weren’t reacted to by the Obama campaign! It had nothing to do with them.
Like I said, the “fairy tale” was a very strange thing to describe “this whole thing” as. It was clearly alluding to the fact that many blacks thought white people would never vote for a black president. Obama has admitted his drug use, yes, but the Clinton campaign deliberately tried to bring it up to get more coverage of it to damage him - and the suggestion that he might have been a dealer was a slam on top of that. It was clearly bad enough to have the guy resign over it. Same with the Islam remarks. And if you don’t know the history of “shuck and jive” that you don’t know black history very well.
Clearly the Clinton campaign didn’t play the race card obviously. They are far too clever to do that. And she clearly wouldn’t be stupid enough to say these things herself. But they got surrogates to suggest it between the lines to play on people’s fears about Obama perhaps being more of a radical, black Muslim than he appeared. If you can’t see this in any of the examples you are being deliberately obtuse. Yes, you could make a debating case for her not playing it - but ask yourself, did she REALLY not plan any of those remarks to play up Obama’s ethnic background? And do you really not believe the top honcho didn’t decide what is said by whom? Be honest with yourself.
As for Walmart - how is this dirty politics? Your professional choices are fair game, just as it is fair game for the Clinton’s to point to Obama’s lack of political experience. If Hillary took no action to tough action by her organisation on unions and then tries to suggest she’s fighting for the unions later than that’s something she should have to legitimately answer for. Please give these examples of personal snubs. I’m not saying the Obama camp is squeaky clean - they’ve certainly played hard ball at times. But they’ve stayed on the right side of the line. The Clintons have gone over it, repeatedly.
4 You may be interested to know the Dunkirk scenes were filmed in Redcar.
It’s not worth betting on…
The point is this… Hillary has been having these stories for 16 years….
Doubtful it will affect her much. It didn’t before..it won’t again.
3. I didn’t take a single quote out of context, even when I could have! I included the stuff about Iraq before Bill’s fairytale line to make sure. It’s particularly cheeky to say that when you demanded I go away and find them! And then you don’t back up your own claims…
2 Yes PfP, I was about to say (before Mike cut me off) that there were small tentative signs of a swing to Obama in the recent polls. Ref4sl gives the numbers and if you go to RCP for the trends, they do seem mostly in Obama’s favor - although it’s not all one way, unambiguous, and htf do you you account for Tennessee?
Still, if you’re rooting for the skinny kid, there are reasons for hope.
Btw, I really hope the Obama camp isn’t behind this Walmart tosh. I also hope, and expect, that the voters just ignore it, along with all the other crap.
11 Explains a lot.
12. How did it not affect her much? Her unfavourable ratings have got higher every time these scandals come out. Just a couple more and 52% will hate her as much as the 47% that already do. Your negatives go up over an election campaign - they will for every candidate. Clinton’s are already so high - and so deeply felt - she will be the Democrats equivalent of Bush for dividing the country. She’s got no hope of getting a workable majority in congress.
Is there not an Obama/Clinton debate tonight?
by-election alert: ITN reports pressure mounting for Conway to go now…
17. Yes. Should be heated.
Now Gallup 4 day rolling poll also shows a small narrowing of Clinton’s lead - down 2 points to +4.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/104071/Gallup-Daily-Tracking-Election-2008.aspx
18 Certainly in any other walk of life he’d be dead meat by now. Certainly if he stays it has to be for the money, it can’t possibly be for pride.
Surely the only relevant point of this abc picture is to give a striking view of Hillary’s hideous “taste” in terms of haircuts and dresses during the 1980ies…
20. That graph seems to be showing that edwards support is going to obama
what would be a “win” for obama on super tuesday, if he took california (or even just ran clinton really close there) would that give him the momentum he needs for the post feb 5 contests? he has the financial muscle to stay in as long as he wants
23 Dan (and Yokel, who is a keen student of these things.)
“The impact of John Edwards’ exit from the Democratic race is less clear. Wednesday night’s numbers (the first with Edwards excluded from the ballot) show no clear indication that either candidate is benefiting disproportionately. Clinton and Obama will debate in California tonight, which could affect Democrats’ support for the two candidates going into the weekend before Super Tuesday’s primaries and caucuses.”
From the aforementioned Gallup report.
When in America recently I was a bit taken back at the anti-Clinton angle being taken by the various news channels but it was a treat to see their faces when the New Hampshire results started to come in. I am not a fan of hers but when I watched the NH primary meetings she came over quite well at the Town Hall format of meetings. I would not discount her.
20 Probably the most startling poll and accompanying graph we have seen in the entire election campaign - Hillary’s Nationwide lead of 20% over Obama on 20 January is shown to have slipped to 4% just 10 days later. Absolutely incredible!
re 25. I don’t think anybody is discounting Hillary. But for those of us who like watching politics as a spectator sport it’s great to see a firm front-runner come under a bit of pressure.
27 Mike -agreed - more polling data just appearing on the American newswire
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/super_Tuesday_polls/2008/01/31/69026.html
23/24. Dan and PtP. That graph shows a decline in Edwards support of 4%, a gain in Hillary’s of 1% and a gain for Barack of 3%. I know the numbers are small and it’s only one poll but if Edwards vote were to split 3:1 in favour of Barack then, once the remaining 8% transfer, Hillary and Barack are tied on 45%.
22 She looks tastier now, n’est-ce pas, mon vieux?
28 - it doesn’t say who did it!
28. some of those polls are hopeless, nearly 50% of the vote in kansas is unaccounted for !
31 Thanks Marcia, it’s a handy overview but some of the polls are out of date - California and Massachussetts for example, which are much closer in the most recent polls. All told though the general picture is fair enough.
(Htf do you spell Massachussetts?)
29 StJohn
That’s far too small a sub-sample for me.
At a guess, I’d have said Edwards’ support would split 60/40 to Hillary. Obama would probably settle for 50/50. If it really is 25/75, that would affect the odds.
33 Mass
Whatever happened to Alex, possibly the site’s most prolific poster until a few weeks ago?
33. Two Ss, One S, Two Ts.
8,:lol::lol::lol:
And then again,poor oid Benazir Bhutto had terrible dandruff-they found her head and shoulders down the road..
39 - Very poor taste!
Can’t be long before Whitewater etc. gets dragged up too, can it?
re John Loony 2 threads back.
The Kent Lib seats you were referring to were
1923 Sevenoaks
1929 Ashford
Can’t help with the 1923 result, but the 1929 one was
Rev R Kedward Lib 15,753
Maj S Steel C 14,579
Dr M Follick Lab 3,885
40 Maybe-but ‘If its there,laugh at it’ is a motto that useually keeps me semi-sane-for the record,I cried in grief wheen John Smith suddenly died on May 12th 1994.9 days later Man Utd hammered Chelsea 4-0 in the FA Cup Final.That evening,I heard a joke ‘What’s the difference between John Smith and Chelsea’
‘Chelsae got buried at Wembley’
As a 23 year-old Labour voter,I nevertheless laughed
41 — it did give us the cleverly named racehorse, Whitewater Affair, whose parents were Machiavellian and Much Too Risky.
Oh my word, Hillary certainly is in danger of losing the fashionista vote.
Re: Brigadier some threads back.
The plural of Brigadier General, I understand, is Brigadiers General. This means that the word general is an adjective in BG. It is not, I am sure, a kind of General.
From Hansard:
Mr. Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab): I should like to support the Chairman of the Committee on Standards and Privileges in respect of the motion and to draw some general points from his report, as he did. I do so knowing that while we may individually be held in very high esteem by our constituents, collectively that is not so; it is difficult to think how much lower our collective reputation might sink among voters generally.
There are at least four lessons to draw from this report. The first concerns the punishment. The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) said that other events had come into play and that it was difficult to think of a more severe punishment, but the Committee has been more severe on other Members in other reports, and those Members go around this place as happy as Larry. One of the lessons that I hope that the Committee will think about, not as regards specific cases but generally as regards its policy, is whether our series of punishments is adequate. If this example of what I would see as embezzlement had occurred on this scale in, say, the Refreshment Department, we would expect the person involved to leave the employment of this establishment on the day it was discovered. I believe that we should treat ourselves in a similar manner to how other people employed by this House would be treated.
Secondly, I want to make a plea about the employment of family members. I do so as somebody with no immediate family and so with no vested interest. The circumstances of Members of Parliament and those whom they employ are unique. We work on at least two sites over peculiar hours. I hope that there will be no rush by Members of this House to change the arrangements whereby family members can be employed if they are employed properly. It is proper for us to be clear about expenditure, as the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire said, and it is not improper for us to agree that if family members are employed we can at least present to the Fees Office evidence that they have the qualifications for those jobs. However, given the arguments that I have heard, I would be against changing the rules about Members employing members of their families.
The third lesson concerns audit. I am amazed that the only case that has been put up against audit is based on the sovereignty of Parliament. Our constituents must give a hollow laugh at that when they witness how we have conceded our powers to check—not defeat, but check—the Executive and how we have allowed powers to go willy-nilly from this place to Brussels. There is no comparison between that movement of sovereignty out of this Chamber and the wish that our expenses should be properly audited. It is proper that as events change we should be prepared to consider the case put to us that our expenses should be properly audited.
My last point is about the balance between our salaries and expenses. I have been in the House for long enough to know Members who were here under the Wilson Government. At that time there was wage restraint for the population as a whole, which was applied to us. Members reported to me that the then Chief Whip went round the Tea Room saying to people, “You can vote for the wage restriction on your pay because we’re adjusting allowances—you get the message, don’t you?” The balance between our allowances and our salary is out of kilter. I do not think that our allowances are improper given the job that we are expected to do, but when we ask an outside body to look at our pay, we should be mindful of the fact that although we are overpaid in the eyes of many of our constituents, given their wages, we are certainly not overpaid compared with the responsibilities that we hold and the pay of people with comparable responsibilities elsewhere.
To sum up, first, I question whether the punishment in such cases is adequate. Secondly, I make a plea for the employment of family members. If we did not abide by that, how would we treat partners differently? Would we have some sort of co-habitation rules—and if so, who would we ask to enforce them? The situation would become absurd. I hope that we will consider carefully how we shall audit our expenses. Behind all this—the tension that the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire alluded to—is the extraordinary position that we now find ourselves in whereby our allowances are considerably greater than our basic pay.
A “Eureka” moment which I hope some might find helpful. (Not Aaron). I understand how the percentage chance of an event happening,[Intrade quote]; the odds that it happens, [Bookies odds]; and the Betfair odds are related to each other and, by at times convoluted simple arithmetic, I can convert between the three.
The Eureka moment!!
Intrade percentage = Inverse of Betfair odds and vice versa.
So 1.66 Betfair = 1/1.66 = 0.6 or 60% Intrade percentage. Bookies odds are always Betfair -1 = 0.66/1 or 4/6.
Conversely 25% Intrade percentage = 1/0.25 = 4.0 Betfair odds. Bookies odds 4.0/1 = 3/1.
Please don’t tell me you all knew this.
TRANSFER WINDOW DEADLINE NEWS
—————————–
All voters transfer to Conservative!!!
49 -
re 48. Of course we knew StJohn. It’s simple mathematics which you should be doing all the time - converting odds into percentages.
48. Building on above and using the methodology outlined by Aaron on the previous thread, McCain’s Spreadfair price could be derived as follows:
To win the Nomination. Betfair 1.2. Inverse= Intrade 83%
To win the Presidency. Betfair 3.0 Inverse= Intrade 33%
To win the Nomination but not win the Presidency 83%-33% = 50%.
25 points for the Presidency x 33% = 8.25
10 points for the Nomination x 50% = 5.0
Total 13.25.
Currently SELL 12.6. BUY 14.2. Mid point 13.4.
How am I doing Aaron?
The problem is anything Hillary or her “team” do is going to be misconstrued as playing the race card - The problem is when you see the last set of Senate elections - in Tennessee for example the Democrat who was African-American was pilloried openly because of his skin color - and if Obama wins the nomination it will be open season - if Republicans can be this nasty in a Senate race just imagine how vile they will be in a Presidential race …
You question the legacy of MLK and you are labeled racist - even though a lot of black/African American people here do not see him as a saint but a person who did a lot of good but he did have his faults - a lot of African Americans say he took the limelight while other A/A’s worked hard on the ground, doing sit ins, sitting at the front of the bus, campaigning for the right to vote - protesting - getting beaten up, - he was a great guy but there are a lot of other African American heroes out there who did not get the recognition nor the limelight he did -
All Hillary did was make a wee faux pas and corrected it when she could - I stand by my comments that Obama knew what was going on when she was attacked for being racist - he overtly through his surrogates used the race card against Hillary Clinton - this may not be popular but it is what a lot of people think … Yes her husband should button up, Yes her surrogates also should shut up - let Obama and Clinton slug it out together … and may the best person win …
The Fairy Tale example was not racist - just saying his positions were in the land of Nod - which is fair game - the other examples can be taken either way but if they were racist or racial in tone the person saying them should be slapped down straight away - racism has no place in this campaign - and once again racism and the race card can play both ways …
We need a broad church to win the elections, no matter what a persons color or ethnicity it should be an all inclusive campaign -
I shudder when I see the results from South Carolina when 75% of whites voted for Hillary or John and 80% of blacks voted for Barack - this is polarization and wrong … blacks or whites or Latino should feel happy to vote for any candidate … and this does not seem to be the case.
A lot of it is the fault of the media … they seem to focus too much on race and not on the issues …
51. Well I BET you there are a few others who hadn’t nailed it down Mike. Hands up anyone?
53 - I think those percentages would have been almost identical even if the race row hadn’t happened. I agree that you can interpret the Obama surrogates response as a form of simulated outrage.
53 - what percentage of blacks used to vote for Jesse Jackson? Bet that was more polarised.
* 2006 campaign for U.S. House of Representatives - Minnesota 5th District[19]
o Keith Ellison (DFL), 56%
o Alan Fine (R), 21%
o Tammy Lee (I), 21%
o Jay Pond (G), 2%
This is the election we had in 2004 for the House of Representatives - and we 5th district people voted for the first Muslim member of the House - Keith Ellison who is African American - this is a non polarized election I would like to see -
Racial Make up of the 5th
White 75%
Black 13%
Hispanic 6
Asian 5
It shows you that politics can rise about racism
oops should read 2006
48. St John. So the time spent with Carol Voordeman during your Mastermind years weren’t wasted then?
Very impressive.
Mike. Just to clarify, before I win the nomination for class dunce. I have no problem converting say 3/1 to 25%. I simply hadn’t realised that the Betfair odds and the % chance were so simply and easily related and converted. I would look at Betfair odds of 4.5, convert to bookies odds of 7/2 and then calculate as 22% from knowledge of Bookies odds and their percentage equivalent. In fact, as you obviously know too well, all you have to do is take the inverse of 4.5. 1/4.5= 22%.
My failure to recognise this now obvious and universally recognised connection is I suspect a perverse proof of my underlying genius!
I’ll shut up now.
Breaking News from Minnesota
Democrats
Clinton 40
Obama 33
Edwards 12
Repubs
McCain 41
Huck 22
Romney 17
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2008/01/31_senatepoll/prespollcorrected.pdf
48 Please don’t tell me you all knew this.
stjohn - I take it then you never placed any binary bets with IG then? Oh well, I have to say I’m surprised!
Actually, IG receives very few mentions on here for whatever reasons, I use them a good deal and on the buying side of the equation generally find their prices very keen. They are, of course, vastly larger in overall spread betting terms than either Spreadfair, Sporting or Spreadex. I know PtP doesn’t like their website, but it has improved very considerably over the past 2-3 years. Mr Wheeler has sold out, so you no longer have to fret about your losses funding the Tory party!
8. I liked that (not that I’d like to be in GWB’s position).
BTW, Rod, I thought that Daily Mail article about Henry Conway was a hoot.
Barry. Do you ever worry that your ever more bizarre posts might have an effect on you professionally? Whereas people might accept the odd screw loose in a politician it’s quite terrifying in a doctor.
52: Not quite.
If prob of winning nomination P(N) = .83
and prob of winning presidency given he has won the nomination is
P(Pr|N)= p
and prob of winning presidency (with no info about nomination) is P(Pr) - .33
Then P(Pr) = P(Pr|N) x P(N) + P(Pr|~N) x P(~N)
So .33 = p x.83 + 0 x .17 (no chance of winning presidency if not nominated)
So p = .33/.83 i.e. approx 40% (not 50%)
So 25 pts x 33% = 8.33
and 10* 40% = 4
So total is 12.33 not 13.4
It is over 45 years since my stats O levels but I think that’s right.
That picture is fantastic. She wouldn’t look out of place in The Wizard of Oz
TRANSFER UPDATE:
Defoe wants to play in Tory seat after next GE so is going to Portsmouth!
Benjani wants it too so is going to Manchester!! (Con gain all north 2010)
48: I have never placed a bet in my life, but I did get an ‘A’ at Further Maths largely due to statistics, so this is not exactly rocket science
Well worth posting though, as I find all too often that there is no such thing as a stupid question. Who was it who didn’t know what GOP was?!
65. Blimey Barnesian! Just wait until I tell Aaron. I’ll try and pass it off as my own work.
62 Mr Wheeler has sold out, so you no longer have to fret about your losses funding the Tory party.
Much as I like Aaron and am grateful for his wise words on this site, it is for the same reason, in reverse, that I will not be opening an account with bet365 any time soon!
69. stjohn. I won’t tell a soul!
re 62. I think that in non-financial spread betting SI is considerably bigger than IG.
64. What is bizarre about quoting,verbatim and attributed, an eloquent speech from one of the most respected honourable members?
65 Barnesian - do you live in Barnes, if that’s no a stupid question?
66 It’s the Alice Band - straight out of the ’60s. Even the Walton girls didn’t wear these!
75 Come to think about it Hillary was a Walton girl in the picture.
69. You can practice your probabilities on the Betfair “President” market and the “Female President?” market. Hillary for president and female president yes are the same thing but the odds are a bit different. The overround is currently 99.6% (not worth chasing) but it has been lower (I’ve closed it a bit). If you want to lay Hillary, it is better to bet No to female president (1.66 or 60.2%) rather than lay Hillary (2.58 or 61.2%).
74. I have a connection with Barnes.
If you next ask me whether I am called Ian, my cover is blown!
77 Generally speaking, Barnesian, the bet prices are slightly more favorable than the lay equivalent, even in two horse races.
I have no idea why this should be.
epolitix on the Conway affair, Frank Field makes a good point.
http://tinyurl.com/2m2gzf
Obama’s received a significant endorsement from Paul Volcker - http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=axRc4lOTS9n0&refer=home
81 All these endorsements, and yet the polls and the markets barely move…
70. Peter. I would take the opposite view. A win is a win but I much prefer to win off “The Old Enemy” than off a friend or Betfair. And if you are winning more than losing with your betting, as I know you are, why worry who you are betting with?
by-election alert: Conway must be toast now. fresh allegations on New at 10…
Conway had money worries. Couldn’t afford to live his lifestyle after giving up his job at the Cats’ protection league…
84 Conway is toast. What *fresh* allegations are there.
86. A previous secretary has come forward questioning what she was paid versus what he claimed…
Hopefully new allegations will be enough to allow prosecution, rather than the wristslap the Commons authorities seem to think appropriate for thieving public funds.
83 stjohn - Your point is absolutely valid in pure profit terms, i.e. winning/losing bets, but equally I am aware that I would be enriching the owner of bet365 simply by opening an account with his firm.
Just off to watch the latest news on Conway - does the man have no shame?
53. 55. Which surrogates precisely reacted to the MLK thing? Just because someone criticised Clinton doesn’t mean they are an Obama surrogate. Same thing with this Walmart stuff - since when were ABC part of the Obama campaign? Come on, back up your claim it was Obama playing the race card by saying who said what when. I think you’ll find anybody that was “offended” wasn’t affiliated with his campaign.
Yes the media should concentrate on issues, but it was Clinton surrogates (ones I named in the last thread) who kept on mentioning it. The fairytale thing could have been innocent, but that its part of a bigger chain of suggestive terms coming from the Clinton camp suggests it’s not. It was a very bizarre word to use in such a context.
46, re: Brigadier rank.
In the modern era at least, it equates to General’s rank.
On the NATO equivalence charts, Brigadier (Commodore and Air Commodore) are the rank O-6. This is “one star General”.
In the Forces, even in the UK, an Air commodore is often called “a one-star” (despite the total lack of stars on our epaulettes) and on personnel diagrams, the positions held by O-6, O-7, O-8 and O-9 ranks are often appended with one, two, three or four stars.
Air Commodore is also referred to as “Air Officer Rank” (there are the three stages of Officer: Junior Officer (Plt Off, Flg Off, Flt Lt), Senior Officer (Sqn Ldr, Wg Cdr, Gp Capt) and Air Officer (Air Cdre, AVM, Air Mshl, Air Chf Mshl); the other Services have broadly similar views); I’d be surprised if the Army viewed their equivalent rank as of lower importance.
86, 87, 88, 89,
Can we detect singing from the IDS home?
73. Barry. I was particularly referring to your Inspector Clouseau post on the previous thread where you insinuate that you are hot on the trail a corrupt MP! I agree that by your usual standards quoting in full a completely irrelevant passage from Hansard is nothing special.
90 — why not watch the debate where Obama attacked Clinton for being on the board of Walmart which will give you some indication of who is behind this Walmart stuff coming out of the closet - and as per the race card I have on intention of using Google to find out names of the Obama surrogates …
75. Even David Beckham wears an Alice band!
Ken Clarke joins calls for Conway to go on QT…
92. I’m sure we can.
96. It goes to show that nobody likes him.
I have to say, ABC seem to be turning up some good scoops on this US Election !!
3rd time lucky for a decent MP for Old Bexley and Sidcup? Heath wasn’t even a proper conservative, to the left of most of Labour and a rabid Eruophile who surely wouldn’t join the tories if he were a young man today, now this joker Conway… who’s next?
re: WAL-MART and HIL-LARY
Going after Clinton for her Wal-Mart connections is fair game, methinks. Just as it is fair game to go after Obama for his connections with Chicago developer who was led away in handcuffs recently.
No comparision either way with SC.
Hard to conduct a serious or even respectable campaign in USA today for any office above dogcatcher without pointing out your opponent’s flaws as well as your own sterling virtues.
But Romney shows the dangers of going negatative, particularly when you’re own positives are somewhat lackluster.
A poll for MA - Mass…….. conducted after the withdrawl of John Edwards
http://tinyurl.com/yqzuq6
91. Those who remember our 1970s Dr. Who will recall that the Brigadier was a field officer, not a general staff officer. While it is considered of equivalent rank to a Brigadier-General in OTHER countries’ armed forces, it is not considered as a General rank in the British Army or Marines..
94. I agree with Sea Shanty Irish, how is mentioning Clinton’s past career playing dirty? It’s perfectly legitimate grounds for criticism - just like someone’s political record.
And as for this stuff coming up now. It was ABC who found it - they probably started looking after the debate remark, but it wasn’t Obama finding these meeting minutes. Or do you think ABC count as Obama surrogates now? Even if you did go on google, you wouldn’t find any Obama surrogates doing anything, because it wasn’t them. Prove me wrong.
100. Except Obama has condemned Resko’s actions and given all the money he ever got from him to charity.
All I can say is that if you sling mud you will get it slung back!
Goodbye Hillary!
101 - Ted is working wonders then!
CALI DEBATE - REPUBLICANS
McCain ate Romney’s asss and spite it back out at last night’s debate. As for Huckabee and Paul, were reduced to comic relief.
Last night made me a believer, in several things:
1. Romney despite significant advantages has utterly failed to capitalize upon them; has been on a downward slide since his highpoint at last summer’s Iowa GOP Picnic, and hugely underwelming (except for Michigan) through the early states.
2. McCain has succeeded in rallying just enough of the GOP establishment, both heavy hitters and likely voters, to roll the rightwing.
3. Romney needed a strong debate performance in Simi Valley last night to make up for 1 & 2 above; instead he flopped big time.
the poll above was for the the Dem in MA
now the Repulican’s poll in MA
http://tinyurl.com/2ejr94
102. But in practice, a Brigadier does a General’s job. Typically, he commands 3 or 4 regiments.
104 - Yes, but Clinton can say that she’s changed her tune on Wal-Mart.
The CA GOP debate actually illustrated both the dangers and benefits of going negative, depending upon how it’s done.
Romney indeed spent millions of dollars running a whole slew of negative ads in Iowa, NH and other states.
But when McCain slugged back, at the NH debate, in FL a few days before that primary, and again last night at the Reagan Library debate, Romney acted like a deer in the head lights, totally unprepared. What a sap.
re 102, Rod Crosby “91. Those who remember our 1970s Dr. Who will recall that the Brigadier was a field officer, not a general staff officer. While it is considered of equivalent rank to a Brigadier-General in OTHER countries’ armed forces, it is not considered as a General rank in the British Army or Marines..”
Is this argument still going on?
On Derek Conway, its not looking good! Well done David for not dithering.
It is interesting how those who are partisan for or more frequently anti a particular candidate use every minor bit of news or information not to support the candidate they prefer but talk down the one they dislike . FWIW I would be happy with either Clinton or Obama with a slight bias towards Hillary . Either will win in November against McCain easily IMO , the economy will prove decisive and override all McCain’s attempts to disassociate himself from it . My bets have so far been just 3 on the winning Democratic candidate laying Hillary originally then Obama when the odds ahifted and Hillary again at 1.5 . All green plus £ 4 on Clinton plus £ 40 on Obama but hope the odds will shift again and I can lay Obama again .
Re 107 Sea Shanti Irish “McCain has succeeded”
Told you so
Tonight’s Wiltshire by-election result just in:
Lickhill Ward, Calne Town Council
278 Lib Dem
256 Con
150 UKIP
84 BNP
23 Green
Lib Dem GAIN from UKIP.
A great result for Mike Evemy and his team in the Wiltshire North constituency where he faces James Gray MP at the next election.
114 LDs now rivalling UKIP for 3rd place in English politics
Problem for Clinton - Negative Campaigning
Sure you can compare Clinton v Obama hit-by-hit, round-by-round and make your own judgement re: low blows just by watching the fight.
However, many in the audience from the media, puntocracy, national Democratic establishment and local Dem activists & opinion leaders, have seen Clinton in the ring many times before. And its not always been pretty.
So when the new kid comes into the ring, and starts duking it out with the old champ, the seasoned spectators are going to be looking sharply for fouls by the champ, and judging them more harshly. And indeed giving him the benefit of the doubt on some questionable punches, provided he doesn’t go overboard in that direction. But enought to defend himself against the inevitable, that will be considered kosher.
That’s how it’s going to be reported, sports fans.
Real question is, how will the voters buy it? Seems to me the record on negative campaigning for 2008 is still out.
But definite indications that the public at least in the early stages would rather here about issues & ideas instead of dirty laundry.
This cannot be good for Obama
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/01/31/study-obama-most-liberal-senator-last-year/
113 - Indeed - mea culpa!
114 - Just a guess, but perhaps “Lickhill” refers to a natural salt link, such as both wild & domestic animals might appreciate?
Note that in Kentucky there is the famous Big Bone Lick (am NOT making this up!)
Which is a massive pile of mammoth bones which resulted when large number of the citters expired all at once. Was discoved by Indians and White settlers when they followed animal tracks to associated salt deposits.
52/69. Barnesian. I am not sure you are right. I follow what you have done but I also followed Aaron’s methodology carefully and one of you has got it wrong. I think it’s you. Look at it like this. There are only 3 possible outcomes.
1. McCain wins the Presidency, chance 0.33
2. McCain loses both the nomination and the Presidency. 1-0.83= 0.17. Chance 0.17. Because the probability that he gains the nomination is 0.83 irrespective of whether he wins the Presidency or not.
3. McCain wins the nomination and loses the Presidency. This must be the remainder left after deducting the other 2 probabilities. 1-(0.33+0.17) = 0.5.
If this event is run 100 times then
17 times the outcome score will be 17×0=0;
50 times the outcome score will be 50×10=500
33 times the outcome score will be 33×25=825
On average after 100 runs the score will be 1325/100 = 13.25. So Spreadfair price should be 13.25 as I suggested at 52.
I think somewhere you are multiplying/dividing when you should be adding/subtracting probabilities.
119 You guys are way over my fool head.
But I do know:
– there will be more to the primary campaign AND two national conventions
– not to mention the general election campaign
– uncertain whether there will be semi-credible (or even incredible) third party candidate(s)
– economy is heading south in a hurry, and the stimulus is just political happy crapp however you slice it
– events, dear boy, events
Good vote for UKIP tonight although it goes down as a UKIP loss and Lib Dem Gain still not very often they poll so well
121 The result last May ( highest vote per party 4 seats ) was Con 431 UKIP 380 LibDem 312 BNP 91 but there were only 2 Conservative candidates .
Probably the daftest bit of spin I have ever heard. UKIP lost the seat and ended up third.
Or perhaps a spoof!
FYI, just received my absentee ballot in today’s mail for the WA State Feb 19 presidential preference primary.
Following statement is on return envelope:
“You must mark a party checkbox in order for your Presidential Primary vote to count. You may only select one party.
O The Democratic Party Oath:
I declare that I consider myself to be a DEMOCRAT and I will not participate in the nomination process of any other political party for the 2008 Presidential election.
O The Republican Party Oath:
I declare that I a member of the Republican Party and that I have not participated and will not participate in the 2008 precinct caucus or convention system of any other party.”
My Choices are as follows:
DEMOCRATIC
Joe Biden
Hillary Clinton
Chis Dodd
John Edwards
Mike Gravel
Dennis Kucinich
Barack Obama
Bill Richardson
___________ Write-in
REPUBLICAN
Rudy Giulianai
Mike Huckabee
Duncan Hunter
Alan Keyes
John McCain
Ron Paul
Mitt Romney
___________ Write-in
NOTE that WA is also having Dem & GOP precinct caucuses on Feb 9. The Dems are using the caucus process to select all pledged national convention delegates; the preference result is just a beauty contest, though that could still be important. The GOP will allocate national delegates half based on the caucus system and half based on the preference primary.
Hope you Brit punters make a pile on our elections. But personally wouldn’t trade my vote for all the tea in China.
125 misspellings quoted above are my ownnnn!
114 Well done, Mike and team.
Haven’t seen any speculation yet re: Mrs McCain, who is clearly in the running to be America’s next first lady.
She is just staring to get the full treatment from the likes of People Magazine, Entertainment Tonight.
Discuss.
124
“DEMOCRATIC
Joe Biden
etc..
MARIO CUOMO Write-in”
I remember Mario got into double figures in a write in campaign in the Oxford University Student Union elections in 1992.
128 - in Seattle we have a judge who was originally elected as a write-in candidate, because the only candidate actually on the ballot was so awful.
Used to have a GOP congresswoman who won the GOP nomination as a write-in candidate, after the hand-picked choice of the party establishment quit the race following a scandal, then went on to defeat the sitting Democratic congresswoman.
We really like women candidates out here! Our governor is a woman, as well as BOTH our US Senators.
119. Surely there is a 4th option - that McCain wins the POTUS without winning the GOP nomination. Either by running as an independent or taking the Veep spot and the POTUS nominee dying before inaugration day. Very small probabilities of either happening, but non-zero. Therefore Barnesian is basically correct in his Bayesian analysis of the problem!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes%27_theorem
Now I will win a mint if I bet on who you will be voting for
and I know it won’t be Dorothy …
117. Might hurt him for the GE but would surely help him in the nomination.
North Lanarkshire-Kilsyth ward byelection
According to Ailean on vote2007 turnout was 32%
Labour got around 64% (they were at 64.3% last year), SNP at 30.4% (27.8% last year) and then the rest (Con, SSP, Green and LD) getting the remaining.
Theoretically it’s a Lab gain from SNP as it was a 3 member wards with 2 Lab and 1 SNP…in practice anything other than a Lab win would have been a total disaster for them.
Will there be anywhere we can watch the debate tonight?
133 Hi Andrea , not a Labour gain as the deceased councillor was one of the 2 Labour members elected in May .
130. RodCrosby. Perhaps we should rename him Baynesian,(sic), seeing as he nearly blew his cover earlier at 78.
135. Hi Mark, thanks. Sorry, I got confused…it was the upcoming South Lanarkshire byelection which is in the 2 Lab-1 SNP ward (not as safe as this one though)
A sign of the times in North Wiltshire (114), with the Liberal Democrats picking up another seat, even if it is only at town council level.
Is there a general movement to the Liberal Democrats in the South West? It would fit in with the improvement in opinion poll ratings for the Liberal Democrats.
IIRC, there are three seats coming up next week, two of them in Wiltshire (and the other in Devon). So it should be interesting to see if the trend continues.
130. Rodcrosby. I guess you are familiar with Jackie Mason’s approach to air travel?
“I always carry a bomb on the plane; that way I know I am safe because the chances of another bomber on board are infinitesimally low.”
it is a CNN debate so CNN should cover it - it will be online most probably at cnn.com
stjohn
Barnsian is correct, its conditional probability, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditional_probability
Winning the nomination and winning the presidency are dependent events, except in the very unlikely event of McCain running as an independent.
Re the Survey USA Massachusetts poll. They had Clinton winning Florida by 33% last week (it turned out to be 17%, and that in a low turnout with certain demographics staying home).
Here’s a decent overview of what might happen. If nothing else, the last few weeks should tell you that US polling is rubbish and as good to bet against as for.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/31/75516/0667/643/446831
Speaking of negative campaigning.
Am just old enough to remember the 1968 election. Was too young to vote in and didn’t really get interested until the fall, when school started and we discussed the election in social studies class.
I got selected as surogate for HHH in our class mock election. In search of material, I came upon a sizeable brochure “George Wallace’s Alabama” published by AFL-CIO. Which was a hard-hitting, fact-based attack on Wallace founded on Alabama’s demonstrably abysmal social-economic statistics: low wages, poor benefits, unsafe conditions, prison labor, union busting. In rhetrospect, clearly aimed at blue collar union Democrats who where antipathetic to Blacks and attracted to Wallace.
At the time I though, pretty hot stuff.
At the great debate I spoke after “Wallace” and “Nixon” and being briefly heckled by protesters chanting “Dump the Hump!”
After speaking to HHH’s progressive, experienced stateman, I spent final minute pummeling both Nixon and Wallace. But mostly Wallace, because I was primed with shocking factoids. When I finished, the kid who was “Wallace” was so hot he demanded and got a minute for rebuttal.
Here are the results for the 1968 election:
–nation went for Nixon, just barely
–state went for Humphrey
–county went for Nixon
–school went for Wallace
–class went for Humphrey
138 - Didn’t the LD win in Lickhill (great name) have as much if not more to do with UKIP decline and LD rise?
A note on todays developments.
As PtP points out the polls are narrowing - however it is mainly Rasmussen showing this. There is a massive divergence between Rasmussen and SUSA in Massachusetts. I’d say Rasmussen have a better record but we still don’t have enough evidence to show a serious closing of the gap - but with 5 days to go Obama has every chance of at least staying in range next Tuesday.
National Journal say Obma was most liberal senator last year. Funny that they said the same thing about Kerry in 2003/4. I don’t think this liberal bashing will have much of an impact outside the GOP base and seems so outdated. However this may impact the Dem race in making voters think Hillary is the safer option.
Obama raised $32m in January. Wow! That means he’s raised about $120m+ for the campaign. To put that in perspective McCain raised $29m in the whole of 2007. There is a massive enthusiasm gap between the parties which I think should damp down the McCain boosting for the General. He is clearly the best GOP candidate but both Hillary and Obama will have big structural advantages. I’m not saying McCain can’t overcome it but it is arguably the most difficult environment politically for the GOP since 76.
130. Also to RodCrosby. I accept the fourth possible statistical outcome event that you identify. There is no other? But this fourth possibility is considered in Barnesian’s analysis and equated, for the purpose of the example, as a zero possibility. So why do we arrive at different conclusions? One or both of us are wrong.
147 - Have you considered factoring in the Czernowitz Equation?
As a member of Republicans Abroad I am sworely hoping Hillary gets the Democrap nomination. She is vicerally hated by about 40% of Americans and this base will give McCain the chance to campaign on soft Democrat issues.
He will be good at this and, in my view, we are about to see a 72 year old President of the free world.
UKIP decline? Of course, Sea Shanty (141).
But a general supposition is that UKIP and the Tories are more or less synonymous and the vote between them is transferable.
But the party that did best out of UKIP’s decline in this particular Wiltshire seat was the Liberal Democrats.
Just looking in - frantically busy week so have hardly had time for pb.com this whole week. I’ve got a nonpartisan local campaign (green belt protection) that has generated over 1,200 supportive letters from constituents in the last few days, plus two other smaller campaigns with a few hundred people in each, plus energy bill stuff in Westminster. Generally feeling fairly cheerful, as you can maybe tell.
Can’t help feeling the US result is going to be quite clear after Tuesday, despite Kos’s prediction that it won’t - someone is going to be deemed to have the momentum. Also, Romney doesn’t seem that far off taking California (winner-take-all on the GOP side, right?) so if others thought his performance better than SSI did, maybe he’s still got a chance. My birthday on the 5th, will celebrate by sitting up for the results!
Democrat debate is on CNN now, Obama needs to land a decent blow tonight.
145 - Enthusiasm gap is right. So far Democratic caucus/primary turnout has exceeded Republican in every state except Florida, where Dem vote was supressed, though this time we can’t blame the GOP.
Problem for November is, just because the Democrats are gingered up, like we were before in 2004, doesn’t mean that the GOP won’t be able to turn out their own lazy voters PROVIDED they have the motivation and the shocktroops.
That’s really the Clinton problem for me. The belief that Hillary is a one-woman GOP turnout machine.
Now race may persuade many likely voters to cast their ballots against Obama, for a spectrum of reasons ranging from raw raci