Who’s the best bet: Boris or Obama?
March 20th, 2008
The current odds-in favourites in the two most active betting markets are Obama for the Democratic nomination and Boris for the London mayoralty. The former is at 0.4/1 and the latter at 0.68/1.
I think that the prices are the wrong way round and that Boris has a substantially better chance of making it than Obama does.
Of course with Boris everything depends on how Londoners vote on May 1st while with Obama the majority of state battles have taken place and he has a significant, though not overwhelming, delegate count.
But the Democratic process has more variables and, just maybe, ending up with most pledged delegates might not be enough. Hillary could just conceivably end up top dog in the popular vote which which give her an “in” with the super-delegates who could decide the thing.
What persuades me about Boris’s position is the polling - not only the latest survey from YouGov but the fact that Labour has not given any details of its latest private polling. Last month their MORI poll was published to defuse the YouGov survey that had Boris ahead for the first time - in March there has been silence and silence is very telling.
A new bit of detail from YouGov reinforces my confidence. Unlike the 2000 and 2004 contest Boris is holding onto the Tory vote. Four years ago, it will be recalled, a significant proportion of party supporters in the GLA election on the same day switched to Ken for the mayoralty. This time that is not happening. A total of 87% of those surveyed who had previously identified themselves to YouGov as supporting the Tories are sticking with their man on May 1st.
That compares 68% of Labour supporters staying with Ken and just 38% of Lib Dem identifiers saying that Paddick is their first choice.
The big challenge for Labour will be to get its vote out and my guess is that with Ken being seen to be in trouble they will do quite well.
-
But there is one number that should give the Livingstone campaign pause for thought - more than one in five Labour identifiers with YouGov say they are voting for the Tory.
I don’t normally bet big on such tight favourites. I am with Boris. On Obama I have lowered my exposure hand have a healthy positive position with Hillary.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
In my january predictions I backed both Ken and Hillary to win so will keep a dignified silence on this one!
“Who’s the best bet: Boris or Obama?”
My controversial view is that Boris is a better bet for the mayoralty of London, whereas I think Obama has more chance of being US President.
Hmmm, maybe Boris. Labour has so far shwon themselves to be inept at dealing with him, and ken livingstone certainly doesnt know what to do. Thing is I’d prefer Obama to HC, can’t stand her.
2 - but wouldn’t it be brilliant if Boris became US President….
re 224 “Socrates again you completely fail to understand how STV works. It is extremely unlikely that a candidate in a 3 seat constituency would win a seat with 17% of the vote let alone 14%. The parties with support over the quota would put up more than 1 candidate.
The old joke used to regard the Irish as stupid but here you’re going the other way as by implication you’re saying that the GB population is too stupid to understand an STV election. Perhaps Yokel would care to comment.”
Well there are different types of STV, but I thought that if the first seat was won by someone with over the share needed to get a seat (33% in a 3 seat race), then that candidate’s supporters would have a portion of their vote allocated to the second choice. In my example Labour or the Conservatives went over by a about 7 points - not enough to get a second seat, but enough to bring the Lib Dems up to one. Where am I wrong?
4 excellent idea. would solve many problems!
I have just checked my betting on the next US President If Hillary wins I am up £82, Obama up £8 and McCain down £124. Though if Obama or McCain have a sex change before November my positions would improve slightly!
On the London Mayor I have my £2 on Paddick and I think I will leave it at that!
Boris does look like a good bet although as you say there has been a shortage of polling so far. Better polling for Ken could shift the coverage a bit. In fact I think a lot will depend on the press that Boris and Ken get from here on in. So far Boris has had a relatively easy ride and you would expect that to change as the election gets closer. Alternatively, we could just get more of the ‘Boris is becoming surprisingly serious’ stuff. All in all though he still looks a good bet.
Boris, having been born in New York…………..
5. You would need 25% in a 3-seat constituency - the formula is 1/(n+1) where n is the number of candidates - the easiest way to remember is that in a 1-seat constituency you need half the vote. Sometimes a ‘+1′ is added to ensure that elected candidates must have more than losing ones, but this can create problems of its own.
9.In many ways Boris is like a more articulate Bush. He has that same folksy quality that many American’s fell in love with, combined with a right-wing agenda.
Bush also was well known for his good humour before his wits deteriorated. I can remember talking to some American friends at university who said that they voted for him not because they agreed with his politics but because he seemed like a decent friendly guy who they thought they could trust.
On topic, Boris is probably the better bet, in terms of value, but Obama is right to be the shorter priced of the two. Boris still has time to mess it up and while he hasn’t done so far, you wouldn’t rule it out as a possibility. Obama seems to have weathered his biggest storm so far.
In both cases, their destiny looks to be in their own hands. As things stand, both will win fairly comfortably unless the lie of the land changes dramatically between now and May / August. Both Ken and Hillary have done their best (or worst, depending on how you view it), to change the voters’ perceptions and have failed. In all probability, that means the people most likely to change how they’re viewed are Boris and Barack themselves.
In one way, Boris has the advantage there. I suspect that he is one of those people who can get away with a gaffe in a way that some others couldn’t.
11. boris agenda isnt right wing, its right of centre, but nowhere near bush or the republican party in general.
13. It was a comparison.
What odds can you get on Boris becoming Prime Minister? If he becomes a successful Mayor, it’s by no mean impossible is it?
Mike “more than one in five Labour identifiers with YouGov say they are voting for the Tory”.
How recently did YouGov update their identification classifications. Could this not be explained by the general swing in the past year towards the Conservatives ? From your description, it doesn’t sound as though these “Labour” Boris voters have said they would vote for Labour in the GLA elections either, so it might not be comparazble with the stats you quote from 2004.
O/t - I have a betting technique question.
Whenever I am on betfair i always have a strong urge to Bet (as opposed to Lay) - I presume I can’t be the only one. I was wondering if there was some way of exploiting this natural extinct by predominately Laying bets on the other side rather than betting? Does this make sense?
Also - I am curious as to why so often layers on betfair offer such generous prices compared to the bookmakers - Is it simply a case of bookmakers being greedy and mean?
thanks
15. boris to take over from Cameron in 2023-5?
RE: Obama v Boris - Obvisously Obama is the Safer bet - betting for Boris is based on opinion polls and future events whereas Obama already has all those delegates in the bag.
19. That’s one way of looking at it; another would be to say that Obama’s lead is less than a couple of hundred delegates out of 4000 or so, with over a thousand still in play (if you say that superdelegates can change their minds) and over five months to go, while Boris’ lead in the polls is huge and there’s less than six weeks for him. That said, if the two were equally priced, I’d still go with Obama.
18. Rather your money than mine.
In reality the Mayoralty campaign is only just starting and there’s plenty that can happen and banana skins Boris will need to avoid.
I can only wonder what someone transported here from 2006 would make of these favourites to be the new US president and Mayor of London. I’m no Boris supporter but I wonder how Nick Palmer feels aboutt he current situation given his rather blaze attitude when it was first announced Bozza would be the candidate.
re 17 My normal approach is to lay - simply because it gives you more options. Thus on the Democratic nomination I have been laying at various times both Hillary and Obama. If in the very unlikely event it went to somebody else - Gore for instance after a split convention - I pick up lots of cash.
re 19. Despite what the Mayor’s office says YouGov were spot on in 2004 and there are indications that Labour’s private polling is showing a similar outcome at the moment.
The party ID weightings in the YouGov poll split LAB 41%: CON 28%: LD 10%. these are based on what those on the pollsters panel told YouGov at the last election or when they signed up. Boris is getting one fifth of the Labour group.
10. So my examples still hold true don’t they? If both major parties failed to reach 50% and the bulk of their second votes went to the third party?
7 Icarus. I understand the Governor of the Bank of England had to take account of you positions when assessing the liquidity crisis.
Thank god for your charity bet on Paddick !!
re 22. I don’t think that the campaign will do more than just get the parties talking to their own supporters and getting them out to vote. Thr only allegiance switching I can see is towards Paddick as the Lib Dems argue that he is the only way of stopping Boris.
23 - thanks for that. Yes the polls are looking good for Boris - all that 2/1 money looking very clever!
17 Steve
Also as I understand it people who had previously made long term bets on betfair can realise some of the implied profits by laying on betfair and thus realising some cash. e.g. if you had taken the 50-1 on Obama, you might be quite generous when offering to lay Obama today, as you want to liquidiate your position.
The bookies don’t have this problem
23 - Thinking about the Boris situation a bit more - isn’t his betting price trajectory following that of the SNP last year - opinion polls very close and then eventual leads while the betting markets lag behind a bit - eventually the SNP only just got it as people got scared of the consequences near the end…I wonder if something similiar will happen with Boris.
I think your totally right Mike, Boris is looking in a great position. If we look at it in another light, would anyone feel confident having had £2k on Ken to win? The answer being a big fat no.
We have had a couple of polls now that indicate Boris has a lead and i believe the press on the whole are pro boris and anti ken.
I would not be surprised if Boris’ poll lead actually increases as time went on. Ken’s scathing attacks through civil servants just looks bad and it looks unnecessarily nasty, not to mention dirty.
Boris all the way for me!
I see that Geraldine Ferraro is storming back into the fray. She doesn’t like being compared with the pastor.
http://www.dailybreeze.com/ci_8629143
28 - thanks for that Paul - yeah I get that part - although I don’t think i’d ever see liquidising Obama 50/1 bets at the moment as a problem!
31. Ferraro is a gift to the Obama campaign. She just doesn’t know when to stop digging.
re 29. I’ve got several thousand pounds now resting on the mayoral race and that’s all based on my confidence in the polls and the long history of the Tories being much more able to get their vote out than Labour. If Boris and Ken were neck and neck I would make the former the favourite.
You also have to take the national situation into account. The Tories are up big since last time - Labour is down and the Lib Dems are steady. UKIP, which was eating into the Tory vote in 2004, is not registering.
My betting is about making money - not a statement of what I would like to see happen. When I move into that territory I lose big time.
Another US poll - Clinton leading in this one - just
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,339988,00.html
Barak Obama working one day per week would make a better mayor of London than would Boris Johnson. But then so would several billion other people.
34 - That’s fair enough, all good points and why Boris is the favorite - All I was saying was that Boris’s good opinion polls could tail off towards the end as it becomes more of a real possibility and people get scared (a la the SNP last year) - this seems to me a real enough possibility to think about without heading into “what I would like to see” territory. But yeah - if i had sum spare betting cash I would put some on Boris (or Obama, errr….)
Ken’s biography is to be published 22 April and serialised in the Daily Mail.
http://www.booktrade.info/index.php/showarticle/14194
So they’ll be luny left history and maybe some ‘private life’ revelations that can be added to his current sleaze problems.
Mike “odds-on” favourites surely
24. Both Labour and Tory might well put up two candidates each in your example three member seat, and if the candidates split the votes fairly evenly the LibDems might well be eliminated. In other words they would not be around to benefit from your putative transfers. Even if only the strongest party put up two candidates the LibDems could still be eliminated.
In other words, your prediction of no-change between 3 elections with one seat apiece would only occur if each party put up only one candidate, which is not at all likely.
Consider the following
1979: [both Lab and Con put up two]
Con1 24%
Con2 20%
Lab1 20%
Lab2 17%
Lib1 14% Eliminated 1st
1992: [Lab only puts up one]
Con1 22%
Con2 20%
Lab1 34%
Lib1 18% Eliminated 1st
1997: [Con only put up one]
Lab1 23%
Lab2 20%
Con1 31%
Lib1 17% Eliminated 1st
The Libdems only chance of election would be a miscalculation by the second party in either 1992 or 1997, but even then it would not be guaranteed.
1992: [Lab put up two]
Con1 22%
Con2 20%
Lab1 19%
Lab2 15% Eliminated 1st with most going to Lab1
Lib1 18% Eliminated 2nd
1997: [Con put up two]
Lab1 23%
Lab2 20%
Con1 17%
Con2 14% Eliminated 1st with most going to Con1
Lib1 17% Eliminated 2nd
re 5 you are wrong in that a party with 42% or even 33% support in a 3 member constituency would never just have 1 candidate but would always have at least 2, with the result that in all the scenarios you mentioned the winning party would win 2 seats and the second placed 1. You then might object that a party with only 42% support wins 66% of the seats but that’s a lot fairer than winning 100% of the seats with 42% of the vote.
So, why does Boris appeal to Labour people in London. Much of the Liberal elite dismissed hima a kind of other-worldly country bumpkin - alright this may have been defensiveness at the threat of Johnson, but they certainly underestimated him.
Double up - they are both winners.
re 38. Isn’t the Mail part of the Associated Newspapers group - who also have the Evening Standard? I cannot see this biography helping Ken.
42 - The Blair factor? A smiley unthreatening face may be all that is required nowadays - look at the hatred that Brown gets from all quarters all because he ain’t so photogenic - a worrying situation has developed in modern politics I believe.
40. But is there much chance of a party’s voters splitting their choices between two evenly? 70%+ of say, Tories, would put the Tory with the biggest name first, then the other Tory, then the Lib Dem. Same with Labour. Regardless, we still have a system of one seat up for grabs, with the other two being safe, despite huge swings between 79 and 97.
45. Brown gets stick not because he isn’t photogenic, but because he’s not up to the job. Alex Salmond is hardly George Clooney but he gets a media love-in.
47 - There isn’t any actual policy or ideological differences between Blairitism and Brownism though is there?
And are you sure about the Salmond love-in - at the end of the day he is leader of a minority party where different rules apply.
40. Although in the 1992 & 1997 one candidate election I accept that the LDs could benefit from transfers. Something I didn’t make clear. I suppose that would be an interesting dilemma for Con or Lab in such circumstances. Run one candidate and increase the chance of the LibDems depriving the strongest party of a second seat, thus negating the relative strength of that party while disproprtionately helping the LibDems.
38 marcia. Thanks for that.
Headline figures :
Clinton 40% .. Obama 38%
Plenty of pastorgate polling too.
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/032008_release_web.pdf
46. Vote management strategies would be employed to achieve this aim I suspect, as in Ireland. There is not much point in running two candidates if one is likely to be eliminated early.
45. Was Charles Kennedy photogenic? I don’t think so. Even when he started to look like Henry VIII with a permenant hangover, the public loved him. Gordon’s problem is that he is Gordon Brown. Dull, unimaginative, discourteous, charmless and narrow-minded. Worst of all and most unluckily for him, he’s a poor actor too. So the public know it.
31
Ouch. She certainly made sure she hit all the soft spots.
A McCain campaign aide has been suspended for producing a ‘racially charged’ anti Obama video :
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/mccain_aide_actively_pushed_ra.php
re 46 Socrates I still can’t see why you don’t get it. The third seat would still oscillate between the parties so swings would be reflected. Say you currently lived in Bolsover but were an arch-Blairite, you would have to vote for Skinner with a heavy heart because YOU would have no other choice unless you were a part member to elect an MP of your party. In you mythical three member seat you could have say Bolsover, Nottingham South and Broxtowe joined up so you could then vote for Nick Palmer with joy in your heart and a spring in your step. And what’s more if as you believe Nick P will be so popular if you vote is not needed to elect him it could go towards electing Skinner instead. You have the ultimate choice about what sort of Labour MP you want and not the party.
52 - Ok, perhaps photogenic isn’t quite the right word (although it Is an important word - dishearteningly so) - but you kind of make my point for me - it’s personality politics - hense why Boris is doing so well (and some might say Obama…) - It’s disheartening - policy and ideology is what I vote and campaign for.
24. Rod gave a good response to your post on the last thread at [246]. It would be possible for a party whose share was as low as 17% or even 14% to get a seat in a 3-member STV constituency, but not in the way you suggest.
The larger parties would certainly run more than one candidate, otherwise it would simply be a FPTP 3-vacancy election. A smaller party might not, and indeed it would very probably be interests not to.
If there was a large vote for smaller parties - and under PR, that is more likely - then that reduces the initial share that any candidate would be likely to need to get elected. Staying in the game would mean picking up lower preference votes from both those who are knocked out, and from those who are elected with a surplus. If there were two or more parties with similar aims, that would work in the same way as one party running multiple candidates. It would have solved the Liberal / SDP problem of which would contest where, for example.
Realistically, as Rod says, STV constituencies would probably be larger than 3-member - more like 5 or 6, giving some scope for change, but not much. Even so, in a 3-member constituency, outcomes of 2-1-0, 1-2-0 and 1-1-1 are all credible with the present party structure in an average constituency - and of course there would be local variations as there are now.
44 - Yes, Mail and Standard are the same stable. I can’t see it helping Ken either. It’s been years since he was cuddly and people aren’t goiong to get misty eyed about 1970s Marxism.
I think the papers are tired of him now and see an opportunity to have fun with Boris. They’ll use the book to pick out what ever suits their editorial line - ignore the cuddly, magnify the scarey.
… and Gilligan - I’d be surprised if hasn’t saved a couple of big fireworks for Ken.
46 - In N Ireland the parties allocate different parts of the constituency to each candidate to try and get their vote shares as evenly distributed as possible. See West Belfast 2007 for a good example.
re 57 If there was a large vote for smaller parties - and under PR, that is more likely - then that reduces the initial share that any candidate would be likely to need to get elected.
Eh? Mo it doesn’t the share needed is always (V/(n+1))+1 where V is the total votes and n the number of seats. So if the number of votes increases for minor parties as you suggest (and I don’t see why it would) then the share required will go up
56, although personality isn’t the be all and end all it does matter. If Alexander the Great hadn’t been impetuous and impatient he never would’ve smashed the Persian Empire. (Then again, he wouldn’t've worked himself to death when he had a fever in his early 30s either…)
56. Well I would always vote on policy aswell. But it’s very hard to have any sympathy with Brown. He seems like a man who is driven purely by personal ambition, with a dash of religious guilt into the bargain. The poor are just a useful tool in achieving that aim. Rich people would never back a man so clearly empty of empathy.
52 re Brown’s problems. The main one is that, when times are getting harder, he is surrounded by people who for one reason or another are not up to the job, either because they are simply not very good ro because they have no understanding of ordinary, working class people. The result is a series of gimmicks that are at best silly and often actually make things worse.
Blair as PM was arguably worse, with legislation by slogan aimed at grabbing headlines rather than solving problems, botched constitutional reforms and disastrous foreign policy mistakes. But Blair did have some competent people around him, including the bloke next door.
New SUSA Presidential Polls for Minnesota and Wisconsin :
Minnesota :
McCain 46% .. Clinton 49%
McCain 47% .. Obama 46%
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=15dcd0cc-83df-4097-911b-3fd75fcb8894
Wisconsin :
McCain 47% .. Clinton 46%
McCain 44% .. Obama 48%
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=3e1b7d41-5888-4c26-8937-e3a4d7578ed9
60. Under STV, there is more benefit to voting for a minor party. On the one hand, they might actually get elected, and on the other, the votes will still get transferred if they lose. I’d have thought it much more likely that both the share of the vote that minor parties get and their absolute vote will go up under STV as against FPTP. They will also be likely to be on more ballot papers. The results of the Euro-elections surely proves this point, even though regional lists aren’t as kind to minor parties as STV as the votes don’t get redistributed.
You are right that the quota is always the same for an election with a set number of vacancies, but my point - badly worded, perhaps - was that if the share of the vote taken by minor parties increased, then by definition, the share of the vote going to major parties will fall. In a 3-vacancy seat, it’s still unlikely that any minor party will get elected, so the major candidates will themselves be starting from a lower base, but three of them will still get elected. Hope that’s clearer.
63, it’s because of his personality (sticking with my theme). Brown’s chief approved attribute is loyalty, which is why his cadre of incompetent minions are secure. His second attribute is paranoia, which is why Jacqui Smith is Home Secretary rather than John Denham.
Now, to drift into on-topicness: Ken is now being seen as nasty both in himself and in his strange attacks on Boris, who, by contrast, is seen as at least competent and very likeable. Obama too seems like a great guy, and when there isn’t a jot of real difference between him and Hillary on policy personality is the sole dividing factor. She’s a power hungry divisive person, and he’s more conciliatory. That’s why I’d vote for Boris and Obama, had I the chance.
61. Absolutely. How many great leaders have been great beCAUSE of their personalities?
I can think of Elizabeth 1, Winston Churchill, and (more contentiously) Oliver Cromwell, from British history alone. They were great for reasons often entirely unconnected with their personal politics.
For instance, to be a great leader, in most circumstances, you have to exhibit some moral and personal courage. And courage is a human characteristic - it’s got nothing to do with ideology; there have been courageous leaders from the left and the right.
Obama, interestingly, is courageous: cf the Philadelphia Speech.
55. I DO understand that as a single voter, you get to record your preferences more accurately on the voting form. But my point is that there’s a paradox. Despite that fact, because name recognition is such a factor for most people voting, most seats will be guaranteed year after year and thus voters collectively have less control. If you instead had an AV system, virtually EVERY seat would be competitive, putting the electorate firmly in the driving seat.
57. Your three possibilities still involve two seats being guaranteed: one for Labour, one for the Conservatives. Even in an atypical seat, I suspect two of three seats would be uncompetitive.
11
Oh my God. If Boris is anything like the boy Bush then the good burghers of Reading had better watch out, he’ll invade them in the twinkling of an eye.
Malcolm
re 68 but you would still have only 1 choice of Labour candidate, say, to support. The likes of Bootle, Huntingdon etc will never be competitive under AV and Tory and Labour voters in those respective seats will remain worthless.
17. decimal odds of 2 represent a 50% chance
…………… 2.5 represent a 40% chance
……………5 represent a 20% chance
……………10 represent a 10% chance
……………20 represent a 5% chance
the bigger the odds the lesser a percentage change of winning they represent.this is why layers on betfair can offer bigger odds about bigger odds!they would not offer 5 about something offered at 2.5 by the bookmakers but would offer 300 about 100 by bookmakers.
Okay all you personality loving fans - I take it you can all see the opposite point can’t you? It’s basically X factor - why bother having policy in the first place - perhaps all the policy could be decided beforehand by some central quango and we just let them all fight it out on a week by week basis with the loser dropping out.
Evening all
First, let me wish everyone a Happy Easter.
Second, can I thank this site for introducing me to a brand new experience - agreeing with every word of a seanT post at 67. I read rather than listened to the Obama speech - the words themselves are incredibly powerful. I would love to know how much of that was Obama’s own input.
I dread to think how he could follow this at the Democratic Convention
On Mike’s broad topic, the omens are very good for Boris. I think a lot of his support comes from the “time for a change” argument. Ken has been a part of London politics for a generation and everyone has a sell-by date. I’m far from convinced how radically different a Johnson mayoralty will be but it will seem like a breath of fresh air, at least initially. I’m still of the view that Brian Paddick is far and away the best candidate but unfortunately he won’t get votes in the first preference.
67 - I like Cromwell because of his policies - no man between me and my god - no absolutist monarchy - parliamentary sovereignty being key.
73. Obama wrote the speech. Historically, he has always written his own speeches, but since running for President he has so little spare time that he has employed a single co-writer to draft ideas before they finalise it together. However, this one he wrote on his own apparently.
31 - Most hilarious thing about Geraldine Ferraro, is the fact that she appears oblivious to the fact that the ONLY reason she was nominated for VP in 1984 was because she’s a woman.
Which makes her remarks re: Obama one of the proofs of the Cosmic Joke.
Ferraro’s career in the US House was lackluster at best; only thing that made it notable was her ability to convince then-Speaker Tip O’Neill to become her mentor.
As a VP nominee, aside from making history she was less than average, thanks to her dubious hubby.
After 1984 she ran twice for the Democratic nomination for US Senator, and lost twice. Both time she started out strong, but went downhill the longer she campaigned.
Socrates is right, she is truly a gift for Obama.
74. As long as it was a parliament that contained no opposition. He kicked out all the MPs he didn’t want!
71 - excellent - thanks for that - yes that makes perfect sense.
Re: 75 - Thank you, Socrates, I had assumed it was a “team” effort. That puts him up another few notches in my estimation. It’s quite clear, however, that Fox News have decided they don’t want him and will be strongly pro-McCain for the next seven months or so.
77 - yeah, he was also a bit of a religious nutter - but I can’t help but respect the man would brought about the first british revolution - I will never understand why so much respect is given to the monarchy.
72, only if you assume personality to be all important, which I don.t But it does matter and pretending it doesn’t is to neglect the fact that politicians aren’t walking talking filing cabinets stuffed with policies but human beings.
Plus, personality and behaviour are obviously closely linked. If you’re a paranoid control freak you don’t appoint the best people to the job and your personality has affected the running of the country.
73. Agreeing with me is a sign of moral progess, Stodge.
They say Obama wrote most of the speech himself, and only had editorial advice from his speechwriters. e.g. Favreau.
BTW I heartily recommend watching the speech on Youtube. Yes the words are strong and resonant, but the delivery adds something extra. It’s partly his timbre, and partly the very clever and elegant understatement (there’s no “yes we can!”). Another factor is the audience response: they start off dead quiet, almost funereal. And then they sense there is something very special going on - and they start to applaud, politely but spontaneously.
All in all it’s quite moving.
I wonder if this will be known as the first Youtube Speech: a speech watched again and again by the internet generation. The first political hit single on broadband.
Obama is revolutionary in so many ways.
11. I think Boris has a certain down to earth charm and he’s probably more right-wing than he let’s on (witness his support for the Iraq War), but I think the comparisons with Bush end there.
Whatever the truth behind the image, Boris seems self-assured, open-minded and not at all reactionary. Not things I would ever associate with Bush.
76. Actually, she has admitted that the only reason she was on that nomination was because she’s a woman.
68. I doubt if AV would produce results vastly different than FPTP.
There have been 8 by-elections for Scottish councils since May 2007. By-elections are in effect AV (STV for 1 vacancy, quota = 50%).
In every one, the candidate with most first preferences has been elected.
Re: 82 - “moral progress” ? Well, perhaps, the first step. By the way, I’d have called your tome “The Deuteronomy Directive” but I suppose that would be too pretentious and subtle for your publisher.
I take your point re: listening to the speech. To be honest, I had heard so much hype about it I just wanted to read the words for myself. In my view, they stand on their own. I suppose had such things as youtube existed in the 19th Century, the Gettysburg Address would have received similar treatment. Instead, we have the words.
83. I very much agree. I look forward in seeing what dirt tricks Ken has planned in the last few weeks
re 87. Well the postal vote rules are there for all to exploit.
re 88 but Mike didn’t you know that getting the turnout up is all that matters
85. Yes, you would need more than one candidate for each party for AV to be competitive. The best way to do this would be a nonpartisan primary.
86. The Gettysburg addressed was panned by newspapers at the time.
80
“I will never understand why so much respect is given to the monarchy.”
The monarch is the personification of the people. It’s no small thing.
80 So were Gladstone and Blair
86. Lincoln had by all accounts an unsatifying speaking voice - higher and weaker than might be expected in someone of his political, physical and moral stature. Although he was capable of making long and persuasive speeches, of which the Gettysburg address is justifiably the best known, it is probably a good thing that recorded sound wasn’t around in the 1860s. On paper it is extremely powerful; the contemporary reports of those who heard it live were much less complimentary.
83. Can we nail this Boris/Iraq thing one more time?
Boris Johnson supported the Iraq war, like most of the British political elite. Unlike most of that elite, he has since publicly apologised for supporting such a tragic misadventure. I know this, because I saw BoJo make the apology: on BBC TV’s Question Time.
For that courageousness he deserves some credit.
86. Yes it’s interesting to think how many speeches of the past would have been Youtube hits. Elizabeth the 1st at Tilbury would be a shoo-in - “I know I have the body but of a weak and feeble woman, but I have the heart and stomach of a king, and of a king of England too”.
Yay!
Churchill’s Commons speeches, of course, would be in there. Gettysburg too. Ian Duncan Smith’s “the quiet man is turning up thE VOLUME!!” I’m not so sure about.
88. Mike, I’m not expert on voting methods. Why is it so much easier to cheat with a postal vote? Surely you could vote in person several times?
That said, I would prefer to avoid postal voting at most costs. My gran used to have one (for good reason) but that should be the only circumstances. The polling booth assures anonymity and the system was developed that way for good reason. And finally, let’s have some real punishment for the cheaters. I’m talking proper jail terms, not some embarrassing slap on the wrist, cessation of priviledges. How can we discredit democracy in countries like Iran or Egypt, as having supposedly corrupt polls, when we can’t really be bothered to hold proper elections here.
92 - i’m sad to say I’m somewhat ignorant of gladstone era history - but, yeah, Blair was a religous nutter without any redeeming qualities and that’s why I hate him.
Labour core vote strategy in London:
i) scare stories about Boris and how right-wing he is
ii) scare stories about BNP and how much progress they might make for GLA
iii) not very much about Ken
95 - In person there is always the risk someone will recognise that you have already voted. No-one will notice someone putting 10 letters in a post box.
97
Tory toffs?
95 - are you taking the piss? evryone knows that postal voting is all too open to fraud. Yes, you could vote in person serveral times (vote early, vote often etc.) but polling booth voting is a deterent that should be the least we should expect from a fair voting system.
98. Not a very high risk. Can’t you just go to a different polling station?
The other thing I wanted to say is why don’t we make this part of REAL citizenship classes. You only have to look around the world to see the importance of fair elections. And if people want to cheat, well, we might not always be able to stop them. But let them know if they get caught, they’ll be spending plenty of time at her Majesty’s pleasure.
re 88. I think that what you do is register a pile of phoney names at particular addresses and then get postal votes for them. This is all possible because of the weakness of the registration controls.
There are some guys in Birmingham who can give more specialist advice
101. You can only vote in person at the polling station for where you are on the electoral roll.
In any case, the main problem with postal voting is not illegitimate ballot papers being returned, but legitimate ones being cast after the voter has been intimidated into voting one way or the other. To a large extent, postal voting does away with the secret ballot.
102 - It can of course be more subtle than that (altough that is the main problem) - if there is any sort of family leadership issues then it’s all to probable that you’ll get the “leader” of a family voting for the whole family.
103 - to be fair Frank booth does have a point about polling booth fraud - for some reason people don’t seem to ever get asked for ID (a reason for ID cards? :-))
104. We all know of families where there are children over 18 who are probably not very interested in politics. How easy is it going to be for a parent just to fill in the form on ther behalf? I’ll probably sound like a real Tory now, but New Labour clearly has no pride in this country or it’s institutions, no conscience over its actions and no motivation other than victory.
106 - you’re making the same point as me(??) - I, of course, agree.
105. That’s true. I’m not saying the polling station is perfect, but it’s far better than postal voting. There are improvements that could easily be made to voting at polling stations and requesting ID or proper verification of voters would be one.
108 - again, I totally agree.
108. Is it true that a generation ago many people may not have had proper ID? Many didn’t drive - certainly women - and many wouldn’t have had a passport either. Poor people, in particular, might have no way of proving who they were!
110 - poor peopl nowadays could just show their benifit reciepts - not sure what to do about the homeless though…
110
Little if any postal votes,long walks or public transport to polling stations and yet the turnout was much higher,maybe they had someone or something to vote for?
105. I got asked for ID last time I voted in the UK. (The last local elections I think.)
102- I do not think that this voting lark is all what it’s cut out to be. I mean look at all the silly things our esteemed premier is trying to do in a desperate means to get votes, let alone the even more esteemed leader of the opposition.
Without having to secure the votes of plebs it would be interseting to see just how our political leaders would behave!
112. Maybe they were just more worried about the opposition getting in!
Re: Obama, perhaps the greatest praise was that of Peggy Noonan, who was Ronald Reagan’s speechwriter.
Saw some posts earlier on pb that criticized Obama for “dissing” his White grandmother, because he said in the speech that she’d harbored various prejudices about and againt Black people.
Well, my own grandmothers both had feelings about black people that mirrored what Obama reported about his grandmother. In my hearing they always refered to Blacks as “colored people”, believed any number of racial sterotypes, and while cautiously & theoretically supporting integration as a goal also were against going overboard, though exactly where to draw the line was far from clear, even to them.
In other words, pretty similar to Obama’s grandmother.
Fact is, race has been America’s biggest bugaboo since Jamestown plantation. And every American has some racism in their personal chemistry, history and/or identity.
Enoch Powell once said that a successful army regiment was a continuum between the man of incredible bravery who wins the VC on the one end, and the most shirking coward who bolts at the first sign of danger. Couldn’t have a regiment all one way or the other, indeed you needed various bits of both in the individuals up and down the line to ensure a effective whole.
Thats kind of the way it is with racism in America.
And it’s clear that Obama understands this, and feels it. And most amazingly, is prepared to actually TALK about it and dare we say even do something about it in a way that is truly Presidential in every sense of the word.
For one thing, he is speaking to millions of fellow American’s whose grandmothers were like his grandmother, and my mine. From their perspective, we’ve come a LONG way. For our own, we’ve clearly got a far piece to go, as a nation and as individuals.
And at this moment, we have a potential President of the United States, the grandson of a Black woman and a White woman, who is reaching out to millions of Americans of all races & perspectives, including plenty who won’t or don’t plan on voting for him, but who are gaining in respect for him.
That’s got to be good for us as a nation. And it can’t be bad for Obama among millions of voters in Gettysburg and other parts of the great Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
114. Probably like the Chinese government in Tibet.
Tyson - are you calling for a revolution? I’d like to see one too, but I still think we can do it from the ballot box. And my opponents may get pretty angry about subjugation.
re 116. good post SSI. Well said
90. “Yes, you would need more than one candidate for each party for AV to be competitive. The best way to do this would be a nonpartisan primary.”
Surely this contradicts your stance that STV entrenches safe seats, since STV is just a more proportional variant of AV? unless there is confusion in the definition, as I indicated on the previous thread. A safe seat for a party. Yes. A safe sear for a particular candidate. No.
On the second point, the point about STV is that it effectively combines a primary and an election at the same time! It’s a very clever yet transparent system.
An accessible analysis of how effective, but highly sensitive and responsive to voter choice STV is can be found here.
http://www.electoral-reform-scotland.org.uk/downloads/NIbriefing.pdf
74 Steve Ronald - “I like Cromwell because of his policies”
Cromwell’s policies ???? He made the Taliban seem reasonable - closed and smashed up the theatres, pulled down the maypoles, banned Christmas celebrations, stopped people doing anything on a Sunday. Apparently at Christmas soldiers went around London house to house pulling Christmas dinners out of families’ ovens.
And I haven’t even got to what he did in Ireland at Drogheda and elsewhere.
There was a reason why people at the time were so happy to see Charles II back in charge, (and I am not especially a monarchist)
re 101 Of course you can but going going round one station after another takes effort and you’ve got to make sure that when the polling station official asks you to confirm your address that you get it right, and you have to hope that your victim hasn’t beaten you to it or else you’ll have some explaining to do. Whereas filling in 100 ballot papers in the comfort of your own front room is child’s play.
But who’s to care; after all our political masters only care about numbers. In new Labour circles the crook in Slough is probably a hero for getting the turnout up by several percent
118- Frank Booth- but can you see my point?
How much better would Gordon behave if he wasn’t thinking of getting votes? No press calls with old Thatch, no Iraq stunts, no silly electioneering, no pathetic attempts to steal IHT proposals to bribe the rich- indeed he could tax the buggers until they really did squeak. No ID cards, silly announcements on drug users, no even more ludicrous attempts to get our kids to swear allegiance to some old prune face at Buck House.
All Gordon’s mistakes are because he is flailing around in a wretched attempt to get votes, anyone’s votes. Especially old white dodderers.
121 - you’re making all that stuff sound like a bad thing! But seriously…I do understand…but I admire the revolutionary and anit-monarchist spirit.
121- but Gordon is a miserable dour louse. I mean did you read that security strategy? Misery, wretchedness, turmoil, and strife.
123 - perhaps swing voters should not be allowed to vote - you have to vote for the same party for 3 times on the trot before it counts - a nice comprise between western democrascy and the ,err, chinese method.
120. My problem isn’t so much with the system, but with the number of seats per constituency. The more seats there are the easier it is for big names to get elected, because smaller names get lost in the mass of candidates. STV is certainly better than other forms of PR though.
But what I like about the two stage process is that it means the candidates get narrowed down by a knowledgable electorate, while also getting a mandate from the wider electorate.
Tyson 123 & 125. Please be careful what you say about our reverred leader - I don’t want them closing the site down.
128 Mike. Have had a post spammed three times. Not sure of the problem word ??
‘Misery, wretchedness, turmoil, and strife.’
Is that the slogan for the next Labour Party Con?
126- I know at the end of the day that we cannot think of anything better than democracy, but by golly it makes people do the most stupid, crass, and cringingly awful things.
Gordon is of course prime suspect. But Kerry on a geese shoot, Cameron on a skidoo with some huskies, Boris trying to be normal, Hillary supporting Iraq. Just some things that spring to mind.
You know one thing, love him, or loathe him- Dubya is one of the most unreconstructed politicians we have had for a long while.
129 - Jack W
131 - The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter - Winston Churchill.
131. I’d rather our leader’s did silly embarrassing things than democidal things.
FWIW (since I know he’s not well thought of by many here) here’s a link to transcript of a Frank Luntz review on Fox of Obama’s speech.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,339250,00.html#
Frank Booth at 22: How do I feel about the prospect of Boris winning? Surprised, based on what I’ve seen of him in the Commons - I won’t say more. But it’s obviously a strong possibility.
One point that hasn’t come up much - looking at at details of the polls, whether they show Obama or Hillary ahead, they usually show Hillary doing better among Democrats and Obama among independents. I’m not too keen on independents helping choose nominees, but it does seem likely that it’ll be easier for Obama to rally dubious Democrats than for Hillary to rally dubious independents. The Democrat campaigns seem to have stepped back from the brink of mutual annihilation so some sort of post-convention amity should be possible.
130- right on Sally girl- our dear leader (thanks Mike for reminding us just how omnipotent he is)- is really trying to make us think the world is some orrible, scary, plague ridden, miserable, infested, terrorised, criminalised place just so we are drawn to negativity.
Indeed the next election could well be won on who comes on top of the horror stakes. At the moment poor Gords looks like he wins it hands down because he has them look of a bit part player of a certain 1984 Michael Jackson video.
Socrates [113] - are you black?
127. I don’t understand your issue about name recognition.
Surely an essential skill for a politician is to get their name known?
One problem with 2-stage elections is politicians flip-flopping (which I assume you are against). They would play to their party’s core vote during the primary and then trim like mad in the election proper.
130 ‘Misery, wretchedness, turmoil, and strife.’
Is that the slogan for the next Labour Party Con?
No - it’s the name of the next COnservative Manifesto:
In Place of Misery, Wretchedness, Turmoil, and Strife
131- point taken Socrates- unless of course people were disposed to give my good self the reigns of power. I would try and avoid genocides, but obviously if one has all the power the temptation is always there to deal with the annoying people.
133. Democracy: the pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of the individually ignorant - HL Mencken.
136- Nick Palmer- the difficulty with Ken is that he is fighting this election carrying ole Gords on his back, and a big sack of spuds he is too.
135 caveman. Even as a betting champion for Obama, I’d have to say that Luntz’s ‘review’ is the most piss poor analysis of a political speech I’ve come across. Absolutely dire. It’s even worse in video. Cringeworthy.
135. Vid link
http://tinyurl.com/38ud4l
I think you’ll find his is omnipresent rather than onmipotent. Easy mistake bearing in mind he’s a big d***.
Pop Quiz: you are a Democratic Party Super Delegate. You are wavering between Obama and Hillary. You also have obligations to your state - a Republican Senator to topple perhaps, and a number of target Republican Congressman you would love to unseat.
You read in the latest Rasmussen poll that African-American’s who would vote for Hillary in November has slumped to 55%.
Question: what do you do?
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
136 - If you kept an ear on the voters by letting Independents help you select people you wouldn’t have, as a party, sleepwalked into a Gordon Brown premiership.
Tony Blair was an election winning machine and you all forgot that.
124. For goodness sake. Cromwell was a ‘revolutionary’ in the way that the Iranian Ayatollahs were in 1980. If you admire that, god help you.
Sorry last post was alittle crass. Tyson’s reference to me as ‘girl’ caused a rush of blood.
142. I think there may well be a section of the “me” generation who don’t vote because they consider their own opinions (which they promote through single-issue pressure groups and networking) too important to be reduced to the same weight in the ballot box as those of lesser mortals.
Two interesting by-elections tonight (looking at vote-2008) - LDs ought to take the Labour seat in Lambeth if the polls are right, and it’s anyone’s game in Havering, with BNP last time a nose ahead of Tories and Labour in that order. For once the BNP by-election isn’t because the councillor was convicted of something but because of ‘family commitments’. The local paper sniffily says the Tory candidate has gone on holiday so they name the BNP and Labour as the main favourites. But the Tories might win anyway on the crest of the polls.
148. By the end he was Tony B.Liar the man who lied to the people, the parliament and the international community in order to wage an illegal war for oil.
Cameron was beating Blair in the polls, he was damaged goods.
‘ I think there may well be a section of the “me” generation who don’t vote because they consider their own opinions (which they promote through single-issue pressure groups and networking) too important to be reduced to the same weight in the ballot box as those of lesser mortals.’
I think you’ll find they vote Lib Dem
153 well said. too many people think blair was a success because he managed to get elected 3 times. he was a success for the labour party and himself but a complete disaster for everyone else.
145/ 135- Caveman- Luntz in a Kuntz with a capital C, minus the z
116.
I’d agree that race is an issue in American politics and that Obama’s election would be ground-breaking and a great thing for race relations. But I would disagree that it is the most important issue or even in the list of important issues for most voters. After all, this is an election in 2008, not one in 1988 or 1968. Indeed, I’d go so far as to say that the immigration debate, which McCain (as opposed to Clinton or Obama) took a stand on, is more pertinant to race relations than anything else.
If the only controversy about Wright’s comment was to do with the racial angle, it would probably make me support Obama more not less. However, the fact remains that Obama’s acceptance of Wright’s comments undermine his credentials on national security and on foreign policy, which are major issues. No-one should have an issue with Wright saying ‘H