Why I think Hillary is still in with a shout
March 8th, 2008
This could be about the narrative - not the numbers
Firstly can I make clear that the last post was by my son Robert and not me - as some on the thread suggested. I have not changed my mind from Wednesday and believe that in spite of the apparent mathematical disadvantage that Hillary might just still do it.
A good test of US opinion is the Iowa Electronic Market - an institution that was set up by the state university there as an academic exercise and where US citizens can legitimately trade in “political futures”. The overnight prices had the prospect of her winning the nomination at a level which suggested a probability of about 29%. I rate her chances at about 25%.
I think that Nick Palmer MP summed this up brilliantly in a comment on the previous thread: “If she does win I don’t think it will be the precise arithmetic, though, but momentum. If she wins a smashing victory in PA and then wins IN, NC and WV on the trot, I think it’ll be hard for the Obama camp to tell the superdelegates that hey, you gotta go for us, we got all those votes back in January. I think we’re all sort of subconsciously assuming that the national race will stay pretty much as it is, but the pendulum has swung a lot in the last week and it’s possible it will just keep going. But I wouldn’t put it higher than a 20-25% chance.”
As for my personal betting I am in a great position thanks to getting on Obama for the Presidency in 2005 and 2006 at 50/1 and 33/1. I can take fairly big risks on Hillary and still be certain of coming out of this exercise with several thousand pounds. I’ve got a pocket of cash ready to put on Clinton when the price is right.
Latest Democratic nomination betting is here.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
I totally agree with your assessment Mike, my common on the last thread put her chances at 20-25% too.
The only problem I can foresee is superdelegates jumping on Obama’s bandwagon before PA votes. He could keep hammering home this “mathematical impossibility” idea and try to sign up as many of them as possible. Of course they could switch but some will stick out of a sense of duty or even self interest.
I think it’s in Hillary’s interests to try and put as much of a freeze on superdelegates in the meantime as possible. She needs those victories to to get them.
Not only can she do it, she must do it! Why! ‘cos I’ve have this dream, Hillary Clinton for President, Hilary Benn for PM.
I’d then like someone to calculate the odds on that. A female President called Hillary and a Male PM called Hilary, the odds must be astronomical.
Tony Blair does God afterall!!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/mar/08/tonyblair.usa
2. There is more chance of both Heads of State being called George than both Heads of Government being called Hil(l)ary.
re 4. Come on David - where is your sense of history? Hilary Benn beat both Hazel Blears and Peter Hain in Labour’s deputy leadership contest.
Whatever media momemtum Hillary took out of Super Tuesday II is already fading as Obama’s fundraising record hits the headlines. This will be followed by :
1 Confirmation of Obama’s Texas caucus win and overall delegate win in Texas.
2. Wyoming caucus win for Obama today.
3. Huge Mississipi primary win for Obama on Tuesday.
4. Continuing slippage of Hillary’s super delegate lead.
5. Those tax returns Hillary !! and other documents due for release soon.
Hillary is dead in the water …… the body twitched violently on Tuesday and the faithful came out to view the remains and like a political betting maggot I’m enjoying feasting on the body !!
5. Indeed. Say no more.
Even so, without getting too far into the life-expectancies of octogenarian monarchs, I was giving Coldstone a more realistic scenario to double-up on.
I did post this yesterday, but it’s still relevant to this thread, and as no-one commented on it, I though it might be worth a second shot.
It’s obvious that Hillary can’t win without a good majority of the Super Delegates, but these people are not a single homogeneous whole. Perhaps the way to look at the Super Delegates is as the final ’state’ and the largest and most valuable caucus. There has been much talk that the SD’s will do this or that, or can’t do one thing or another. In fact, the SD’s will do lots of different things which will produce a collective narrative and result.
If the race for the nomination does go the distance - as is looking increasingly likely, and even more so with news of a closish poll in Mississippi - the SDs will split, some for Hillary and some for Obama; I don’t think the idea that they will swing behind one or the other is likely, any more than the voters in a state caucus will swing greatly behind one or the other. The question for Camp Clinton is what can she do to win something which she needs to win big and where the numbers are going the wrong way.
The biggest factor in her favour is time. It’s a long way to the convention: we’re only a little over two months since Iowa; there are more than five and a half to decision day. True, that time could work for Obama too, but it adds uncertainty in terms of ‘events’. And events are what could give Clinton her chance to gain SDs, if something comes up that the voters in the state primaries and caucuses were unaware of, that would excuse delegates to shift from the one to the other. There are only really two things that might do that: a scandal and head-to-head figures favouring Hillary.
Of these two, neither seems particularly likely. The head-to-heads favour Obama and there seems little reason why that might change. Perhaps the rhetoric might pall after a while or perhaps Hillary might look a safer pair of hands if things get more difficult economically, but unless Hillary can start making headway into McCain’s figures in a way that Obama can’t, that route looks difficult for her.
The other is a scandal involving Obama. I would be extremely surprised if journalists and investigators haven’t been scouring Obama’s background looking for one such. So far, after a couple of years when he’s been a putative or actual candidate, there is only one which could possibly have legs that we know about. And Hillary has had plenty of questions of her own to answer (though as these have already been aired, the additional damage they could do is questionable). Again, chances are, it’s stoney ground for the Clintons. Additionally, there is a danger to them should the release of any damaging information about Obama be traced back to them, they could become embroiled in a ‘dirty tricks’ row.
So, overall, it looks pretty bleak for Hillary, though not impossible. To me, the biggest winner of the deadlock is still McCain.
6. Point 1: Confirmation of Obama’s Texas caucus win will just throw further doubt on the validity of his other caucus wins. What’s to say that Hillary wouldn’t have won those states in a primary?
Breaking News!! RAF bomb Peterborough, does at least £25.00 worth of damage.
See here for latest news.
http://tinyurl.com/29apqf
A slightly off-topic question. Has any US presidential candidate ever campaigned outside the United States before? The prospect of either trailing out all the way to Guam would be quite funny, but surely not really worthwhile given that there are only four delegates up for grabs (plus 5 SDs), unless there was some ’stunt’ value. Puerto Rico on the other hand is a different matter. With 55 delegates (plus 8 SDs), that must be worth a visit during May if things are still unresolved by that point.
6 Entirely agree, Jack W. This week was always going to be Hillary’s week - if you had computer-generated her perfect state, it would look pretty much like Ohio. The fact that she only squeaked through on delegate count (Obama only needed to have won 6 more delegates for a majority, out of a total of 141 contested) wasn’t so impressive. And the MSM is now picking up that, actually you know, she didn’t win Texas.
After Tuesday it is six weeks until the next primary. The press will get rather bored by the lack of news, and may well decide that it is time to kick Hillary about her (lack of) publicly disclosed tax returns. Or what REALLY happened in Canada about NAFTA. But generally they will be happy to pick up on any molehills, mountains for the making of. SO - if Obama really does have a block of undiclosed Super-D’s, held back in reserve, he might try and go for the “this thing is over” momentum. Say next Wednesday, on the back of another win, this time in Mississippi. There must be some considerable disquiet in the top echelons about the propsect of six long weeks of a (very expensive) Democrat-on-Democrat fist-fight - in which the only winners are John McCain and those down-ticket sitting Republican senators and congressmen. It might just set off the avalanche he needs.
David Herdson @ 8 re head to heads favour Obama.
Yes they do but we need to be very careful in interpreting them. Don’t knows are typically excluded, and the real problem is that they are probably different don’t knows (and different numbers of don’t knows) in each pairing.
8. further to your SD doing their own thing point, i note that clintons superdelegate lead is down to 32 now, from 35 a couple of days ago and in the 40s before last tuesday.
14 I still have Hillary’s Super-D lead at 40, rather than 32:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pT_z8d3gptJ8U9nBteEAWXg
but the point stands either way - Obama still has momentum in the biggest race left, the Super-D’s. In the last four weeks, Hillary has added a net 21 Super-D’s; Obama has added 77. This pretty much wipes out her delegate advantage from New York and California combined!
4.
“What’s to say that Hillary wouldn’t have won those states in a primary?”
And what is to say that primaries are more valuable than caucuses? People who vote in caucuses do at least have an opportunity to discuss the issues. One wonders how many primary election voters vote on grounds of ‘their favourite’ rather than who is best placed to turf out the Republicans.
Actually the entire primary thing with a mixture of timing in different states, committed delegated, mandated delegeates, banned delegates, ’seated delegates’ and super-delegates is even more of a farce than their presidential election itself with hanging chads an electoral college and different election rules in almost every county. It may be many things (and great fun for betting folk) but democracy it is not. It is a massive industry, selling thousands of hours of TV time, billboard space etc.
Sorry ‘4′ in ‘16′ should have been ‘9′!
“If she does win I don’t think it will be the precise arithmetic, though, but momentum. If she wins a smashing victory in PA and then wins IN, NC and WV on the trot, I think it’ll be hard for the Obama camp to tell the superdelegates that hey, you gotta go for us, we got all those votes back in January.”
Momentum hasnt been of great use to any candidate this year (big contrast to the ‘00 or ‘04 cycles), furthermore i think most expect a strong win for Clinton in PA and that’s unlikley to have a massive knock-on effect… Obama 11 state winning streak didnt translate into momentum to carry TX or OH so no reason why Clinton winning one state would do the same in states like IN and NC which probably lean to Obama (although WV massivly favours her).
I agree it’s an issue of narative for Clinton… Bob Shrum had said she needs to develop a “moral case” for the nomination, thats most likley to be based on winning the popular vote (as it’s near impossible for her to beat Obama on pledged delegates) though that will be tough - even if there’s a re-run in MI and FL (as now seems likley).
9 - Obama won the caucus by a narrow margin in TX, Clinton won the popular vote by a narrow margin… in places like CO, ID, WA, KS Obama won by 30 or somtimes 40% i have a hard time beliving that a primary would have produced anything other than a big win for Obama.
O/T
THANK YOU to several of you for almost immediate help yesterday with my list of Top 10 LOWEST winning shares of the vote in seats in ENGLAND (exc Universities) for UK Parliament since Second World War (definition improved today!).
Where else could I expect such help - I certainly don’t know of anywhere.
Interesting but not entirely surprising that among a list of the top 22 of all seats it looks like only ONE meets my criteria!
Yes, Clegg definitely needs to be taken to a nice quiet room and reminded silence can be golden.
There’s a short-term tactical decision for the Clinton campaign - do they pile resources into MS before Tuesday? Several polls showing the Obama lead in single figures make it tempting - if she could win there it would really be against expectations up to now, and there are a fair number of delegates to go for. But if she puts in a big effort and loses by say 6% then that interrupts the momentum. On the whole I think she’s better off making a moderate effort - enough to avoid an Obama walkover, not enough for anyone to expect her to have a chance there. Does anyone know what’s happening there?
I get the impression that she’s not tried at all in delegate-light Wyoming: tonight’s result should be an easy Obama win without much resonance.
Amusing and maybe not too unfair piece by Matthew Parris about Europe and the voters:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article3508139.ece
19 Ben. Based on the 41% of returns the best estimate is that Obama will win the Texas by between 12-16%, hardly a narrow win.
8 David H. The ‘Insider poll’ in Mississipi used a model that depressed black turnout and had Obama taking a little over 70% of that vote. In recent votes Obama has taken almost 90% of the black vote and has never failed to reach 80%. Adjusting the poll accordingly I expect Obama to win by around 25 points.
You indicate that ‘time’ favours Hillary. IMO, it’s the opposite, the clock is running down and the large gap to Pennsylvania allows Obama time to squeeze her lead down as he has in other Hillary leaning states. Hillary needed some more quick wins after Tuesday to maintain her push. Instead she got Wyoming and Mississipi and weeks for researchers to pour over her papers !!
The Times reports that despite Brown’s statement yesterday :
‘….one senior air force source said that military commanders had to be aware of potential problems of personnel wearing combat and other military clothes in the street.
“We’re aware of the sensitivities, for example, in some ethnic minority communities…” ‘
And the sensitivities of the rest of the population, the armed forces personnel themselves, the Queen whose uniform they wear? Where are they in this PC world of the military 2008?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3508223.ece
At the same time the Sun rails at Croydon police who refuse to publish a thug’s photo as ordered to by a judge as to do so, the police decide, would infringe his human rights.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/sun_says/article244723.ece
See Ms Patell not too impressed by out three main party leaders.
http://tinyurl.com/33u8vc
Nice plug for little Willie Hague, still she’s probably still feeling guilty about his GE campaign.
Nice one Mandy!!
23. No. Parris (who is a very gifted columnist) nonetheless gets it wrong here.
He came to exactly the same conclusion about John Major (in relation to Europe, no less). When Major was in his Maastricht agony, Parris said precisely the same thing: that Major’s hesitant “wait and see” attitude to Europe - and to everything else - was a nobly British attitude, and a solid, sensible, traditional conservative perspective.
Parris predicted Major’s position would serve the country well, and would do well for Major and the Tories.
Major was hurled out of power in a comprehensive landslide a couple of years later. Not least because he had allowed his party to become hideously split over Europe with his vacillations and hesitancy, his wait and see.
Sometimes avoiding the issue is bery bad news for political parties: the Lib Dems are experiencing this now.
Where Parris is right is that 1. the British people are eurosceptic, but 2. they are unnerved by the more gibbering exponents of euroscepticism, however accurate they are (i.e. people like me).
This is why Cameron is very astute to do what he does: play down his own (keenly felt) scepticism, rein in the nutters, act nice and gentle, unite the party - andthen win the election.
When the election is won he can then sensibly detach us from the parts of the EU project we all detest.
I guess Cameron’s ability to do this - play a clever long game - is why he is a potential PM and I am a p1ssed-up philandering sex memoirist.
I have been saying for some weeks that though Obama is clearly favourite , Clinton is still in with a chance and the fight will go right down to the wire . Contrary to other opinion this will in fact be of benefit to the Democrats and the eventual winner . This fight is in reality for the presidency . Having been repeated laying Obama and then buying him back at a higher price , I have laid him again recently at 1.36 and now stand all green + £42 on him and plus £260 on Clinton , at some stage I will equalise it up again .
[23] Yes, I think Parris calls this one about right. Few of us - well, none of us - can be sure what difference the constitreaty will make to our lives and are left relying on our cultural “pull” to America or Europe as the case may be. I know that my own anti-Americanism would tend to hibernate in the unlikely (as I think) event of Obama winning the Presidency. Indeed, I wonder if You-Know-Who’s obsessive Obamaphilia isn’t based on the prospect of broadening the anti-European constituency on those grounds.
Still, I never expected to live in times where a plausible Democratic nominee was too left-wing for Labour MPs.
OT Spain -
We’ve seen plenty of money for PP to win the most votes tomorrow. Anyone have any insight in to this? All the polls seemed to suggest PSOE were ahead.
“The other is a scandal involving Obama. I would be extremely surprised if journalists and investigators haven’t been scouring Obama’s background looking for one….”
Well he’s a West Ham fan whereas Hillary supports United so when that 3.00 AM call comes I know whose finger I’d sooner have on the button……..
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article732401.ece
26,
“Never mind that Labour and the LibDems had pledged to hold a referendum. Both parties’ leaders found ways to wriggle round their betrayal.”
She seems rather critical of Brown and Clegg with that statement.
“It was left to the shadow foreign secretary William Hague to fight a courageous one-man resistance.”
Who was speaking on behalf of and with the full backing of David Cameron. She was a useless campaign manager and appears to be an even worse journalist.
Nice one Amanda!!
[27] Another way of putting it is that Conservative governments with small majorities (in 1970-74 and 1992-97) have to rely on cross-party support to carry their Euro-policy, whatever it may be.
And we have no idea how effective a negotiator Cameron is. He may be a wizz, he may be a clown - we just don’t know. We do know that the current parliamentary Tory party has 40 “refuseniks” in it, and if the Tories make a net gain of 100 seats at the next election I’d expect there to be at least 30 more - more than a fifth of the whole. I don’t see a huge rush for the Chief Whip’s job, somehow…
30 - Possibly because of yesterday’s assassination by Basque separatists of a former Socialist Councillor. Hasn’t the PP been extremely critical of the Govt’s handling of ETA? Echoes of the last election producing a sudden last-minute swing….
Shadsy Local opinion in Spain is that the Socialists will win with a small majority.
The wild card is the murder of the Socialist politician, Carrasco, yesterday, and although everyone is playing for national solidarity it does remind voters that Zapatero has been criticised for being weak on ETA.
Any woman who can climb Everest is good enough for the White House
25. The Sun doesn’t believe in human rights! Now there’s a surprise!
34. I thought that if anything that might have brought the issue of their spectacular mis-handling of the Madrid bombings back in to play. Plus the suspension of the campaign must help the front runners.
Also, the block on opinion polls in the last week of the campaign must make it difficult for the closers (if they are closing) to portray any kind of momentum happening.
35 Witan, what are the chances of the PP winning a a majority of the vote, but Zapatero still ending up as PM again.
Mike, did you receive my article? I appreciate, you’ve more important things on your mind, right now.
29 Innocent Abroad. You think Labour are heading for a catastrophic defeat at the next election, and will implode thereafter. I’d like to agree, although, personally, I think there are 200 constituencies that are unloseable for Labour.
However, if you’re correct, (a) what do you think the effect will be on the Conservatives and (b) what party will take the place of Labour?
“We’re aware of the sensitivities, for example, in some ethnic minority communities…” ‘
Nauseating, isn’t it? But no doubt the extremists in these ‘communities’ are emboldened when senior Lib Dem politicians say make remarks like ‘the English need to be defeated’.
Obama has won 10 out of 11 primaries in core Republican states; Utah, Idaho, Nebraska, North Dakota, Alabama, Alaska, Kansas, South Carolina, Georgia and Louisiana.
In 2004 Kerry lost each of these states by 15 points or more.
Isn’t that a concern to the superdelegates?
seanT @ 27 shows why Cameron and Obama are where they are now.
seanT forecasts: “When the election is won he can then sensibly detach us from the parts of the EU project we all detest.”
Yet there is not the slightest evidence that Cameron will do any such thing (leaving aside who are “we all”).
By keeping quiet about policy, and talking in platitudes about hope, uniting America, and letting sunshine win the day, Obama and Cameron let voters believe the candidates share their concerns and will act accordingly, while each voter’s kith and kin can support the same candidate while expectign quite different policies.
And when platitudes wear thin, the modern politician can raise issues: off-shoring is costing American jobs, the EU should be more democratic. Again this confirms to voters that candidates share their concerns without, on closer examination, there being any commitment to policy or action, or even a statement of a desired end goal.
Blair did it too. And remember how all the lefties were convinced Brown would usher in the new Jerusalem.
It’s brilliant. It works. But it ain’t democracy.
And seanT, you’ve been had!
43 Perhaps. But I think the Conservatives have one last chance to get things right in office, or find their support fades away for good.
43 Is it or is not the case that a 6% Tory vote lead would likely produce more Tory MPs due to an above average swing in marginal seats than UNS suggests. Rod Crosby says not and uses 2005 to cement his case. What’s your view
*44*
39 - No expert on this, but I would have thought that the PP would have to be clearly ahead in seats (10 or more??) for them to form a (minority) government (apparently the electoral system also marginally benefits them), as the Socialists have more natural allies among the other parties.
43 It was always so, and doesn’t apply to Obama and Cameron any more and possibly applies less than to Clinton and Brown. President Clinton supported by Hillary quickly moved away from his 1992 promises in 1995 when he saw the GOP victories. Brown has offered little of substance, little of change since he became PM.
Robert Browning spoke for all activists disappointed in the actuality compared to the promise.
http://poetry.poetryx.com/poems/144/
22 – Nick, take a look at the internals of that poll… Obama takes 65% of the Black vote, it’s going to be more like 85% in Mississippi (as it was in GA, SC, TX, VA, MD and pretty much everywhere else)… as for Wyoming a “win is a win” as far the Obama folks are concerned and Clinton’s not really ignored it, She’s been up there and pottering around MS while Bill has been camped out in WY for the last few days.
But on the subject of MS, it’s likely to follow the trend of the other deep southern primaries – a nasty degree of racial polarisation, but when your talking about the state with the largest Black electorate in the country that wont hurt Obama.
24 – IIRC the forecast was for a 10 point win… in caucus terms that’s narrow, considering the massive “winners bonus” the process confers (Clinton won some caucuses by hefty margins in TX, Obama failing viability at times in the Valley area – so the process cuts both ways).
It’s also worth noting that Obama’s big caucus wins have reflected both his campaign organisation superiority but also the demographics of the states contested (places like CO, WY, ID, WA, KS, ND etc… are all western states where Obama has performed strongly all along the one surprise in terms of caucus results was ME which was expected to go to Clinton).
38 - I think the Times yesterday published a poll (banned in Spain) that showed the PSOE 4% ahead. But of course this was before the assassination. I imagine your punters now feel that this event will benefit the PP
45. On a uniform swing, the Conservatives take the lead with a 6% lead, even if the Lib Dems’ share remains unchanged. If the Lib Dem share falls, then the likelihood is that the Conservative lead increases. 41:35:16 gives the Conservatives a lead of 13 over Labour, 40:34:18 a lead of 5 over Labour.
My own opinion is that a swing of that magnitude would produce a better Conservative performance than that. The Conservatives did do somewhat better in their target seats in 2005, and Labour did somewhat worse, than uniform national swing would imply. IIRC, the Conservatives won about 12 more seats than they would have done had every seat moved in the same way, compared to 2001. I would regard it as unlikely that the degree of anti-Conservative tactical voting that built up from 1992 to 2001 would remain in place if there were a strong national swing to the Conservative Party.
The Telegraph has a good response from David Trimble to Hillary Clinton’s claims she “helped to bring peace to Northern Ireland”. Her comments all sounds a bit Hainesque to me.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/08/wuspols108.xml&page=1
Sean Fear. I have got your article and will publish it when I get home later this afternoon
51 So what does Rod Crosby base his theory on then. Basically it seems a slightly less hardline version of UNS. I don’t think the Tory 6% lead were it to occur would be reflected as much in Glasgow where no one votes Tory or Surrey where everybody already does that.
49 Interesting Obama’s appeal in libertarian Western states like Colorado etc traditionally Republican apart from the Perot year and less appeal in traditionally Democratic states like Pennsylvania. Likewise McCain less popular in the South greater appeal in the Rustbelt and Northern states. Could an Obama - McCain contest rip apart the electoral map which essentially hasn’t sahifted since 1988 and put states into play for both that the Romneys and Clintons would have ensured stayed the same I think
[40] My expectation of the post-election political landscape is as follows:
Labour will have 220-230 seats - a loss of about one-third of their present number. A comparable smash to 1983 or the Tory experience in 1997. The latter is probably a better analogy. Sean Fear is probably better placed than I am to say how much renewal the Tories achieved in 1997-2001: I doubt Labour will do any better. The problem for Labour is that it is now clear that the State cannot deliver an egalitarian agenda. And without an egalitarian narrative, there is no point to the Labour party, other than as a vehicle for individuals’ ambitions.
The size of the Conservative majority depends on the Lib Dems’ performance - gains from Labour can take them past the winning post (just) but a comfortable majority requires a Lib Dem implosion - hence all the bile heaped on Clegg here and elsewhere on the Internet. I accept that Cameron’s instinct is to govern as a “One Nation” Conservative. Ironically, for all its apparent advantages as a political stance, it is the one which has virtually no support in the media : as far as I can see, all the commentators, on- and off-line take positions either to the left or the right of this (well, there is Matthew Parris). It may be that success will change things: Cameron must hope so.
But Cameron’s support, like Blair’s was, will be broader than it is deep. Unlike Blair, his ultras still feel they have a viable narrative - who actually likes paying tax, who isn’t a teency-weency bit xenophobic? Political experts here like to decry the possibility of a populist party arising to Cameron’s right - I am less sure. I can see a disgruntled right-winger doing a Dick Taverne and holding his seat against the Cameronista candidate at a by-election: add in a celebrity leader and a paymaster and we could see some very strange polls by the third year of the next Parliament.
Indeed, Sean, you would be very torn yourself, wouldn’t you?
42. that argument only works if you assume clinton supporting democrats won’t support obama.
55 Labour at 220-230 would I think have to involve large numbers of Lib Dem gains from Labour too. I can’t see how the Tories could push them below 240 on their own unless Labour dust of the 1983 Manifesto again
54 - Suvery USA did a 50 state poll the other day which suggests an Obama/McCain race throws the blue/red state divide out the window… polls this far out are only so much use, but either way it’s interesting, not to mention very important for Democrats and Republicans further down their respective tickets - it’ll be interesting if for the first time in deacdes both party (particuarly Democrats)see their presidential candidates as an advantage across the country.
43. My understanding of Cameron is, I would posit, rather better than yours, if only because he is a rightwinger of roughly my age; likewise William Hague.
You are not.
I share these guys’ euroscepticism because it has been formed by the same experiences: the initial irritation with Brussels (while liking some of the ideals of EU co-operation); this followed by the slow deepening of the disenchantment, as the EU split the Tories wide open, and as europhile lies grew evermore odious and obvious.
Then came the eventual collapse into serious dislike, and anger about Brussels - especially with the latest betrayal.
And of course people of my generation and younger have not the same scarring memory of British economic decline, which I think propelled many older europhiles into their position. We think it perfectly feasible that Britain could flourish on her own, or in a semidetached EU position.
We don’t see Korea or Australia or Norway or Japan or Canada or Switzerland overrun with rats and despair.
Boris Johnson is another example: my age, pretty libertarian lke me: he also has a deep knowledge of Brussels combined with deep dislike.
This generation is now in control of the Tory party. Thatcher’s children. There is no remote prospect of the europhiles coming back into power in the Conservative party, as far as I can see.
For this reason I think Cameron is sincere in his scepticism: and will act on it in power (even as he plays it down now, for clever electoral reasons). But even if he IS kidding us all, the pressure on him to do something from his MPs and activists will be irresistible.
Because Europe motivates the Tories like nothing else. The EU is kind of anti-catnip for the right, combining all their pet hatreds - bureaucracy, left wing nannying, overweening Germans, restrictions on freedom, unnecessary taxes and laws, fraudulent yet preacherly politicians, French self aggrandising, government wastage, destruction of British sovereignty, Belgians.
So I think you are totally wrong. Cammo will do summat about Europe, coz even if he doesn’t mean what he says, his party certainly does.
But he is playing the long game, and keeping it quiet, and that’s smart politics.
[59] Yup, that’s why lefties are morally inferior. We’re biologically incapable of that visceral hatred of Belgians that is the true mark of homo superior…
The challenge facing the Tories is that once Labour jettisoned any pretence of socialism, and assumed the middle of road platform vacated by the Tories in the 80’s they have become almost unbeatable;
well they are unbeatable with one small provision- they elect a deeply unpopular leader who struggles in the job,
and oh yes- what have Labour don?, well…. not even elect, but coronate a deeply unpopular leader who does not resonate with the pubic. Dreary me.
Labour are there for the scalping because they allowed someone so unfit to lead the party let alone become PM, yes lead the party and become PM.
Poor ken Livingstone is going to be the first major casualty of electing Brown I am sorry to say.
Getting back on track,the Democratic nomination may very well go to the wire as Mike forecasts.
An article to digest from slate.com prior to watching the football.
Conflicting Signs
Clinton is either badly trailing Obama or performing above expectations in Mississippi.
By Mark Blumenthal and Charles Franklin
Updated Friday, March 7, 2008, at 3:32 PM ET
Two new polls from Mississippi report that more than 20 percent of white voters plan on voting for Barack Obama in the primary Tuesday, but they have drastically different pictures of the race overall. An American Research Group poll shows Obama leading Hillary Clinton by 24 points, thanks to near-unanimous support from African-Americans, who make up 55 percent of ARG’s voting pool. Insider Advantage (PDF), on the other hand, has a much closer race, with Obama ahead by only six points. This is partly due to less support among African-Americans and a surprisingly high percentage of independent voters who favor Clinton.
One last note: ARG reports that 48 percent of white voters say they would never vote for Obama.
Off topic. Just back from a week’s holiday and noticed a Tory proposal regarding tax rises on “strong beers”.
Does anyone know if they would make any distinction between the beers that actually cause problems (i.e. those brewed and purchased purely for strength) and the kind of quality - yet strong - beers that I and others like me frequently favour? Or do the Tories not “do” detail?
I’ve blogged my thoughts if you care to click my name…
59. That analysis of David Cameron seems sensible to me. Indeed its pretty much what Michael Portilo (who I believe is quite close to the Notting Hill Set?) was hinting at in a recent article, when he told people like Heffer and Hitchens to grow up, and that it was only by going on the strategy he is now, that the Tories have a hope of getting into power, and dealing with some of the things like Europe, that exercise the like of Heffer, so much.
My suspicion is that in the first term (with probably only a tiny minority) Cameron would be very, very similar to Blair. It would only be after a second term win (with a much bigger majority) that we would truely find out where David Cameron is politically and what he wants to achieve with issues like Europe.
61: The main reason the Tories have been unelectable for the last ten years is that they were the Tory party.
59 - I do sometimes enjoy what you like but that rant makes you sound like a weird obsessive. You aren’t on this planet when it comes to EC/EU issues, I’m afraid.
62 HP Snr. One other factor in the Insider poll is they indicate that black turnout will be less than for the Gore or Kerry primaries. Hardly likely.
59. That analysis of David Cameron seems sensible to me. Indeed its pretty much what Michael Portilo (who I believe is quite close to the Notting Hill Set?) was hinting at in a recent article, when he told people like Heffer and Hitchens to grow up, and that it was only by going on the strategy he is now, that the Tories have a hope of getting into power, and dealing with some of the things like Europe, that exercise the like of Heffer, so much.
My suspicion is that in the first term (with probably only a tiny majority or even a minority government) Cameron would be very, very similar to Blair. It would only be after a second term win (with a much bigger majority?) that we would truely find out where David Cameron is politically and what he wants to achieve with issues like Europe.
66 - PS. Since becoming interested in beer, I’ve had nothing but love and respect for Belgians! Great people, great country.
62 – Mississippi will follow the trends of the other deep southern primaries, a big Obama win but horrible racial polarisation in the eventual result – polls from SC, GA and AL all grossly underestimated Obama before and the same is probably happening in MS (plus it’s a horrible state to have to poll).
As to the 40% of white voters refusing to vote for Obama, that sounds plausible in MS, thankfully its a phenomena largely limited to the Deep South and Appalachia (the reason I think WV is going to be Clinton biggest win of the primaries so far).
re 20 Martin S - and what criteria were they then?
69- I don’t think I’ve ever spoken to a Belgium, or could name one for that matter.
69 - absolutely! Belgium is land of beer (a greater variety than anywhere), chocolate, steaks and muscles.
Isn’t Belgium meant to be coming to and end soon?
re 33 speaking of Chief Whips, I noticed yesterday on theyworkforyou.com thinks that our very own Nick P is one of Geoff Hoon’s bestest friends.
72 - http://www.famousbelgians.net/categories.htm
There have in fact been 259 famous Belgians. Some were good at painting.
72- I will correct myself- someone from Belgium is a Belgian.
Out of interest I googled famous belgians- it came up with a list of 239 and I don’t think I know any of them. Not that famous in my book.
75- 259 sorry SBS- I thought Rubens was Dutch.
Next they will be claiming that Berkamp is a Belgian.
69. I was kinda kidding about the Belgians. I rather like chips with mayo. I also find Belgian politics fascinating: if anything its lefties who should hate Belgians, as the Flemish are some of the most rightwing people in Europe. Vlaams Blok and all that.
I pretty much think that Rod Crosby has it spot on and Tories who think that they’re going to be sitting with a healthy majority next time are deluding themselves. Probably the best result would be for a 5% Tory lead with Labour slightly ahead on seats. That surely would push Tories into seeing the merits of STV in a coalition with the LibDems.
[76] Poor Sean has obviously never had an intimate relationship with a Belgian… I, on the other hand [REMAINDER OF POST MODERATED IN THE INTERESTS OF DECENCY]
I am sorry for hijacking this thread to talk about Belgians. Will stop now.
Does remind me of a joke though- what is the shortest book in the world?- Italian War Heroes.
You see Belgian is so boring there are no jokes about the country. End it now. Sorry
re 69 does Belgium have a government yet? Was there last weekend and it all seemed to be operating perfectly normally.
70 Ironic given that WV was the home of the Union cause in the border states in the Civil War. Quite plausible McCain and Obama could trade WV and V in a General Election especially if Obama picked Kaine, Warner or Webb as VP. The more I think the more that survey sounds plausible. Two candidates who appeal in places their Parties haven’t managed in years at the same time. I think Election night will have some serious head wagging by the Pundits as States go blue or red very unexpectedly. Always possible one could build a head of steam for a landslide though
“You see Belgian is so boring there are no jokes about the country.”
There is the one about the Dutchman who moved to Belgium and doubled the IQs of both countries.
80- very good!
Obama advisor sacked because of calling Hilary a monster:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/07/barackobama.hillaryclinton
79. Here’s an interesting what-if for Lib Dems.
What if the Tories, as seems likely right now, win comfortably the most seats in the election and have a serious advantage in the popular vote, but do not have quite enoughs seats for an outright majority.
What if, at that moment, Cammo offers a coalition deal to the Lib Dems, but also says to them: we are going to get serious with Europe: we shall claw back powers, put a referendum lock on future transfers of sovereignty, and we will be considering some kind of semi-detachment overall.
Would the Lib Dems agree to this? They say their europhilia is heartfelt - but the Tories could say “we are definitely the most popular party, and all the polls show the public shares our euroscepticism. We have a mandate”.
Would Europe be a deal-breaker for Dems? Would Clegg give up the chance of sharing power, merely because of loyalty to Brussels?
Can’t imagine it would make Andrew “traitor” Duff very happy, the Lib Dem leader who yearns for the “defeat of the English”. Nor Shirley Williams.
But, ah, the chance of power, after all these years!
Given that pollster.com, my main source for polling data, have now put national polls up on their website, I have updated my projections.
McCain leads both Hillary and Obama but Hillary’s figures are slighly better than Obama’s.
http://thepoliticaltipster.wordpress.com/2008/03/08/mccain-leads-both-clinton-and-obama/
79. I agree that the Conservatives aren’t going to achieve a “healthy” majority in 2010. My view on what a healthy majority would be, is anything more than 20.
What I think will happen is that the Con’s emerge as the largest party (in terms of vote and seats) and form a minority adminstration with a nod from the Unionists and possibly even the Lib-Dems, who will plege to allow Cameron’s first budget to go through and then judge everything else on merit. Labour will be looking for the Lib’s to form a coalition with them, but if as I expect the Tories are the largest party on noth seat’s and vote, it will put great pressure on the Lib’s to go with the Tories, not in coalition, but in some kind of informal pact.
The best the Tories can hope for, I would have thought, is a majority between 1-15 seat’s.
One interesting comparisson could be between 2010 and 1964. Wilson won in 64 with only a tiny majority. He governed for a couple of years, and then called another election in 1966 where he won a much larger majority. Now, supposing Cameron gets a small majority in 2010. He then governs until 2012, almost as a Blair type administration, not doing much of anything, just bobbing along and not frightning anybody. Then in 2012, off the back of a sucessful Olympics, the Conservatives call an October election and win a much bigger majority. That is surely one of many possibility’s.
79: Determining if the Tories can get a majority, let alone a healthy one involves looking at things like tactical voting (for and against them) and who will or wont vote, not just the on paper swing needed.
The woman was on interviewed on World Service before the sacking. She is off the radar- building up Obama to the 2nd messiah, a once in the history politician. She was arguing that Obama campaign is an act of selfless generosity by a man who wants only to share his gifts. She was as mad as a box of frogs.
I can tell you one thing Obama is an ambitious, careerist, calculating, politicking, politician like the rest of em. Like Blair, and Clinton, and to a lesser extent Cameron, he is just very good at concealing the dark arts of politics.
83 - Obama’s apeal in the plains states is whats most interesting, Dems did well with rural, culturally moderate, fiscally conservative voters in ‘06 and Obama is well placed to exploit that in the general if he’s the nominee… meanwhile Clinton gets locked out of those states and is forced to focus on a narrower more convetional electoral map. Another interesting feature is that Hispanics favour either Democrat over McCain which is interesting looking at the primaries.
But as you say, either candidate could be able to build up a head of steam that might translate into a landslide for one party or another… i think Obama the most likley to pull off a landslide of any of the candidates, but at the same time he’s probably also the candidate most likley to lose by a landslide it could break either way for Obama in a general, while McCain can always rely on a solid bloc of electoral votes (even if he were to lose out in tradtionally strong Republican areas like the plains states) while Clinton would probably be able to rely on the core ‘Gore/Kerry’ States.
Post 91- in response to 86, and Obama’s adviser- forgot her name already. She must be Belgian
Who would want to win the next election?
Whoever wins will be a minority government. With a negative press, a divided party and a bad economic situation. A while ago SeanT posted saying the Labour party should aim to narrowly lose the next election. I reckon both parties should.
52 - Dan
The point I was trying to make in my usual hamfisted way was that many of Obama’s successes have come in states where the Democrats have little chance come November. Whereas Clinton can point to success in the must-win states like Ohio, New York, California, Texas, she’d probably have a good chance in Florida. It’s true that Obama may win those states anyway vs McCain, but in those states the voters have shown their preference.
94. Yes, it will be difficult for whoever wins the next election, but not an impossible situation. In 1964 Wilson won with a majority of just 5. He governed for 18 months without frightning anybody and in 1966 increased that majority to 96.
I accept Harold Wilson was an exceptional and popular politician, but it just goes to show the situation, even with a tiny majority, is not hopeless.
95 - Texas is hardly a “must win” for the Democrats.
Add to that New York and California are very unlikley to flip to the GOP, even with McCain as the nominee… Clinton does better in the rust-belt swing states, but Obama has wider apeal that translates into stronger showings in rural (often tradtionally Republican states) states… indeed Obama consistetnly out performes Clinton in the upper midwest and plains states by very wide margins. States like Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Missouri are critical to the Dem this fall and Obama does far better than Clinton there (the same is also true in VA and the Pacfic North West where WA and OR are key states as well for the Dems).
John MCain is the best candidate for US president followed by Clinton - Obama is reheated Bill Clinton with a “trojan racial backcloth”. All the stuff about hope etc that Obama articulates is the same stuff Bill came out with. Problem for Obama is Bill did it better!!!
43/44.
I worry that all Cameron will do on gaining power is;
(1) Make a statement that there will be no further transfer of powers to the EU
(2) Pass a law that requires a referendum if any such future proposals are made.
And that’s it…
55. Innocent Abroad.
Love to agree, but I fear that Labour are neither *that* hated, nor the Conservatives that loved, for that to happen.
This is not 1995 and the Conservatives do not have the same electoral demographic advantages that Blair did.
Wouldn’t be good enough for me, nor good enough for most Conservatives.
72. Belgium might not exist by the time you get a chance to.
A Belgium a Frenchman and an Englishman were all going into space for 5 years. All were given a choice of 1 luxury. The Engishman wanted every film John Wayne had ever made the frenchman wanted a blond a brunette and a redhead and the Belgium 5 million cigarettes.
5 years later as they walked out of their spaceship the Englishman was walking like John Wayne the Frenchman could hardly walk at all and the Belgium asked ‘Anyone got a light?’
95- I think this would be right if the 2008 November camapign looked tight, and in a tight race the Democrats would be stupid not to go for Hillary. She will pull in Florida, Ohio and Pennylvania.
Fact is that McCain is fighting a loser from the outset- cannot energise the conservative base, the independents more likely to swing to the Democrats after 8 years of Bush, and Democrats will be well and truly energised. McCain is facing all the problems that Major faced in the 1997 election.
So whoever wins the Democrat nomination will win in November, easily, and most probably by a landslide a la Clinton 1996.
78. SeanT.
You should know by now that lefties have no sense of humour.
“Liberal-Democrats” are even worse. They all a medical certificate confirming they’ve had a full-frontal lobotomy of the humour section of the brain - just to join.
I’ve stated this before so I’ll put it forward again.
Clinton’s strategy is clearly not about purely closing the elected delegates gaps. Its about using the popular vote to sway the superdelegates. It requires Clinton to show battling efforts to stop Obama getting thumping wins in the upcoming primaries, something the campaign should have learned, ie fight state by state. Without being clearlt mathematically capable of overhauling Obama in popular vote (including MI & FL) her ‘i win where it matters’ line of attack becomes much less useful whilst trying to sway superdelegates.
The most siginificant outcome of last weeks results was not Clinton’s victories or the delegate numbers but the Obama camp’s reaction. In response to what was a disappointing night for them (have no doubt they were disappointed), did Obama carry on with the inspiritional dream stuff to rally the troops? Nah he talked about mathematics. Its logical because Clinton cant close the elected delegate gap but is it good politics given his campaign has focussed on high falutin talk until this moment? Possibly not, because his opponent smells a bit of worry and so do some of the US politicos.
Obama’s campiagn has hit a bit of a bump because they geneuinely thought they were going to effectively kill Hillary off on Tuesday. Thanks to the scheduling of upcoming primaries it can and should regain its more certain footing with a win or two under its belt again. If, however, things turn into a state by state trench warfare with wafer thing margins, Obama’s campign has not shown a consistent ability to win those, in fact I’d back Hillary to so better than she should in such circumstances. Obama is a great cruiser when in front and expected to win. He needs to show a bit of street fight when its closer in states. Show that, eke out the extra one or two percenet and Clinton has no chance, mathematically or on any other plane you care to mention.
97 Be interested if anybody knows of any polling on whether the Latino vote would move over to support Obama in a general? The Republicans would be seriously worried about holding Texas if they can be persuaded to put aside thier, shall we say, considerable “reserve” in voting for an A/A. Losing Texas would smash a mighty hole in the Republican’s Electoral College vote and they would need to counter it by winning a number of solidly blue states. If that polling exists - and shows Texas is competitive - that may be a very serious consideration for a large number of Super-D’s.
89. I like that scenario.
99. Don’t worry, I think Cammo will go considerably further than that. But it may take a while: he may have to wait until he’s got a serious majority.
However even if he did just do what you say, it would still be a major and revolutionary change in Britain’s position within the EU. And it would comfirm our detached status.
Why? Recall that the EU is premised on ever-closer union. The “bicycle can only go forward” and all that guff.
By putting a referendum lock on any future transfers of power Cameron would be committing a future Labour government to calling a referendum if it wanted to go along with the next stage of EU integration (which is coming down the line, as any fule kno).
As almost any referendum on Europe would be lost, the only alternative would be for the next Labour government to actually repeal the referendum law first: politically very difficult. They won’t do that, hence no further integration. Hence we would have climbed off the EU bike.
A further alternative for the Tories would be this radical move, which might get some purchase on lefties, too: a written constitution for the UK, sorting out Europe, the WLQ, the Lords, and all the rest.
Because we haven’t got a written constitution, all kinds of indecencies have been done to the UK, by the vile europhile rapists and constitutional Bruxellois kiddiefiddlers.
By contrast the Irish have had to have referendums every time, thanks to their constitution.
I would be surprised if such ideas aren’t floating around Tory HQ. A written constitution might be a good idea in many other ways - and it would, as I say, recruit some left wing support too.
Watch that ideological space.
101 - But would a tight race favour Clinton as the Dem nominee? A race between Obama and McCain could be tight but see McCain carry Ohio while Obama carried Montana and Colorado… it’s also worth noting that while Clinton does better in match-ups in the rust belt swing state (OH, PA and WV) she does much worse than Obama in the upper midwestern swing states (MN, IA and WI) which are just as important… FL i think could be a bit of a red herring it leans very much to McCain and the GOP (maybe not by a wide margin but certainly a solid one) regardless of the nominee on the Dem side.
101. You must be careful when comparing British political history with the US. Just look at 1976, when you would think after watergate and the last congress results the democrats would walk it!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1976
The key thing with US presidential politics is the onus on the candidate, this can more than offset politics. I think the Republicans will have a much stonger campaign than many on this site have presented.
Major led a party that had been in Govt for 18 years, he had led the party for 6. 5 years. MaCain has not been president, his party is also in the minority in both senate and the house. The situations are not comparable with the UK in 1997. The US also has a lot of split ticket voting, i think a Macain presidency and strong control of the senate and house by the democrats is not an inconcivable scenerio. Macain also has strong leader (War credentials) as commander in chief), whey are the sole super power and it is more than likely that the US will use its forces in miltary campaigns in the next 4 years. This reinforces the chance of a Macain presidency as i would summise that a coalition of regan democrats etc would be the type of voting block that may go for Macain.
104 - Survey USA and other polls have suggested that while Clinton would do better with the Hispanic vote in a general election match-up, Obama would still gain the majority of the Hispanic vote over McCain… so regardless of the nominee the Dems seem likley to do well amougst Hispanics, despite McCain being perhaps the most Hispanic freindly GOP nominee since Bush in 2000.
100. I think finding the fairly meagre humour in that joke (you’ve told better ones, Roger) depends on knowing that the French regard the Belgians as we used to regard the Irish: as the stock comedy idiot.
I understand the Eastern Europeans have the same kind of attitude to the Hungarians, except the Slavs consider the Magyars as devious as well as stupid.
This is my favourite Slavic joke about Hungarians.
Question: What do you do if you see a Hungarian walking down the street?
Answer: Punch him. He’ll know why.
Hillary tries hard in Wyoming :
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23529824/
106. I hope you’re right.
The danger is that the Lisbon treaty with its “self-amending” clauses renders all future treaties, and therefore referenda, unnecessary. The train just steams on regardless..
In addition to the basics (see post 99) I would like Cameron to;
(1) Repeal the self-amending clause/s
(2) Negotiate a British veto to QMV decisions transferred under Lisbon, in areas in which we are not comfortable
Then, maybe during a 2nd term Conservative government with a stronger majority, he could then negotiate a new treaty (let’s call it the “London” treaty for arguments sake) which would supersede Amsterdam, Nice and Lisbon and redefine Britains relationship with the rest of the EU.
The legal wranglings could be messy, but it could wrap up what the debate about competences the EU and the UK should share for good.
Europe Solved.
23
Matthew Parris was amusing - I agree.
But to argue that MPs refelct the wishes of the population at large suggests they are delegates …a viewpoint MPs strongly refute.
And I believe Abolition of Capitla Punishement was passed when the overall opinion in the country was strongly in favour of retention - so hardly reflecting the wishes of the population.
So amusing ? Yes.
Insightful , analytical and broadly correct? Err no. Load of baloney.
109 Ben, thanks for that.
103- Yokel- good analysis
108. 1074 House elections.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_elections%2C_1974
I suppose on the other side of the coin, the 1968 election and another contentious war resulted in a close election, when Nixon just manged to pip the democrat to the post. This was despite Johnson quiting the campaign and Bobby Kennedy being shot! Plus the democrats having a mare of a conference!
A change in candidate at the top can add a whole new dynamic as it means any candidate is change!
108- Martin- fair points made here.
McCain has something of the Jimmy Connors. Wasn’t the best tennis player, nor a great athelete, but when on the ropes could slug it out, and figure out his way to win by just staying in there and wearing the other guys down.
In one sense it doesn’t give McCain any real advantage to be presumptive candidate so far in advance. The only way he will win 2008 is not as front runner, but from coming from behind and slugging it out in the last few days of a campaign. That is his only hope- the time until then is just treading water for him.
116. Interestingly, the cabinet government and collective responsibility in this country means that Brown cannot campaign as an agent of change. He can only campaign as a candidate of continuity! (He really shot himself in the foot last year by dangling an election and advocating that he was change and then being chicken for October!
:lol:
117. Very True! Connors always had the “Tennis mom’s” on side as he was seen as being a less agressive contender than another MAC!!!
101 Truly delusional if you think Hillary guarantees Florida. The GOP owes Crist big time his endorsement alone got McCain the primary and with 70% approval ratings very likely the state in November.
105 I concur with Colorado but would Montana seriously be in play. Not many EV votes there surely. If I was looking for a big Obama inspired surprise State I’d cast a gaze at Florida. Largely rural but not as heavily bible belt flavour, bit more international flavour as home to CNN and a huge black vote largely untapped. As for Ohio McCain could do it, but NAFTA is a huge albatross around him. He’d need the military vote big time and even then be likely to be as tight or tighter than 2004 I think
117. To be fair McCain edges it over Clinton for me but Clinton is a definite head and shoulders over Obama. If Clinton was in the UK, she woulod have made a great first women PM for the Labour party!
120. I thought CNN was in Atlanta.
Maybe its moved.
105. For my scenario to work, its reliant on the Conservatives in Parliament and party to shut up for that first two years and basically allow Cameron to govern as a Labour-Lite government. I’m not sure have it in them to do so, but if they can see the longterm goal of a much increased majority in 2012, then they may just allow Cameron the room to do what I suggest.
Of course, all this is on the proviso that the Tories end the 2010 election as the largest party in terms of both seats and popular vote. Anything less and the Lib-Dems will simply enter a coalition with Labour.
123: If the Lib Dems and Labour can form a majority together they will regardless of who is the largest party.
122 Oops meant to say Georgia!
OT heres the excellent Peter Oborne on Britain’s rapidly worsening economic situation and why Alistair Darling may not be equipped to deal with it in his first budget next week;
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/columnists/columnists.html?in_article_id=528618&in_page_id=1772&in_author_id=382
Makes for grim reading.
124. Ordinarlly I would agree. However, I do think that personally Nick Clegg has more in common with Cameron and Brown, and if the Tories ended the next election as the largest party in seat’s and national percentage, Clegg may just be able to take his party into an informal deal with the Tories.
Then again, with the bit of luck Cameron will be able to get his majority with just unionist support.
That should have been Cameron has more in common personally with Cameron, than Brown.
Another excellent thread by Mike. As you will know, I have been suggesting this for some weeks, to occasional derision!
Most on here will probably subscribe to the sort of odds he suggests at 25%. I see Jack W is still cheerleading for Obama, but anyone who describes Hillary as ‘dead in the water’ is so wide of the mark as to call to question their political nous. She may well not do it, but she’s most certainly not dead in the water.
Mike’s point (from Nick P) that this isn’t going to be about pure maths is completely right I think. The super-d’s just won’t be persuaded on those grounds, particularly given 1. much of Obama’s arithemtical advantage relies on January 2. Floriday & Michigan still throw a spanner in the works of any alleged moral advantage and 3. the caucuses were, anyway, so bizarre that they render the whole thing almost meaningless when it is this close (I emphasise those last 5 words).
When I sit back and reflect on this I genuinely think the Democrats will nominate Hillary Clinton. I think at the moment she has the slight advantage: the more so if the grandees can persuade Obama to be her VP. Regardless of whether you agree with my odds, she is most certainly not out of this.