Could the Bayh plan screw Barack?
March 24th, 2008
Creating a measure that puts Hillary ahead
With Team Clinton desperately trying to get a foothold to further their argument with the super-delegates an ingenious plan has been put forward by one of Hillary’s key backers, Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana.
His idea is simple - that “the super-delegates consider the electoral votes of the states that each of them has won.”
He argued: “So who carried the states with the most Electoral College votes is an important factor to consider because ultimately, that’s how we choose the president of the United States.”
Clinton supporters like this because unlike the pledge delegate count, the popular vote or number of states won this is one measure where Hillary comes out on top.
The reason this works for Hillary is that it gets round the rigid proportional nature of delegate numbers to replace it with a winner takes all system. Clinton has done better in the bigger states but in most cases her margins have been relatively small so her delegate gains have been kept down by Obama.
This is not about re-writing the rules but providing arguments for the super-delegates to enable them to go in one direction. It acts as a counter to the strong Obama case that on all the other measures he is ahead.
And the betting? I still don’t rule Clinton out and am maintaining positions on both Betfair and the spread markets.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Fight, bight, assault. Use any measure; the Clintons are back in town.
Malcolm
Maybe they will fight to reduce the legal age of buggery in the US?
2. As New Labour have done in England.
Tom Baldwin in the Times writes a lot from the Clinton perpective.
He says today that the Clinton camp say they have only a one in ten chance, (1-10), of getting the nomination. That is more like reality.
There is also some chatter on the Obama site of Gore and/or Edwards supporting Obama after the Texas result is finally declared for Obama, on March 30th. Frankly if that happened I am sure the Democratic National Party will ask Clinton to withdraw.
I would suggest the book worth running at the moment is on the Clinton withdraw date, bet it will be sooner than later.
There is also a lot of obvious concern over the damage the contest is doing the Democratic party.
Do not forget the Democrats got the most votes in 2000 and still lost in the College.
To any sensible party chief this just cannot go on, especially when ordinary voters of the Clinton and Obama camp are telling CNN they will not support the other candidate. The Republicans must be rubbing their hands with glee, in almost disbelief. The Democratic National Committee must be having nightmare at the moment, especially looking at some of the polls, State by State showing McCain doing well in the marginals..
Perhaps Nader will get 10%?
2 and 3. Not sure how active the *bugger brigade* are in democratic politics though?
What a silly plan - it implicitly assumes that if Clinton was chosen, states that votd for Obama would go Red and those that voted Clinton would go Blue. And if Obama was chosen, Obama’s states would go Blue and Clinton’s states would go Red.
If that isn’t the case - if (for example), California would go blue for either candidate, then his logic is fatally flawed. I’ll go out on a limb and say that his implicit assumption is, in fact, a pile of pants.
The question is whether the super-delegates are dopey enough to go along with his “logic”
It is terrible that somebody from the Democratic Party wants to ignore the voters, the ordinary people and reward the nomination based on party insiders. Nothing Democratic about that!
This is a complete nonsense, not least because Clinton in 2000 as a newly elected Senator opposed the Electoral College for the General Election because of its apparently intrinsic undemocratic nature, and called for a popular vote measure to decide the winner. This quote will be thrown in her face if she support a plan that is more disingenuous than ingenious.
The EC argument is a nonsensical extension of the ’she won the big states’ argument. Any Democrat could win CA, NY, NJ and MA in a General Election. The EC votes will bear no resemblance to EC-falsely-applied-to-the-Primary-process, because they are different electorates.
Being most popular amongst identified and regstered Democrats in Manhatten and San Francisco doesn’t mean you will be more electable by the country at large.
Nice story but fantasy. As Dick Morris says doing that without PV or delegate edge to Clinton’s name would ignite a Civil war, totally alienate the African - American Community as well as sink the Democrats for a generation never mind 2008. Forget it, they’re not that crazy.
Fine plan - if you discount by 90% the EC votes of the states which will automatically be won in November, by whoever is the Democratic Nominee. States like New York, California….oh, which have the largest EC votes - and oh, were won by Hillary.
Sorry, but that dog won’t hunt. And it is poor politics. It is already being portrayed by Obama’s people as desperation - because it highlights that Obama is ahead on all the other measures.
The next suggestion from the Clinton camp: Superdelegates should cast their votes for whichever candidate comes first in alphabetical order (by surname). It’s the only democratic thing to do, rather than by whoever wins the most pledged delegates or popular vote …
As a detached observer of American politics (I have never been there for example) I do find the primary system fascinating. Not only does it give substantial influence to the ordinary people in deciding who the ulimate candidates will be, but it is also shining a powerful light onto the workings of the party machines themselves. I suspect that the Democrats are not particularly happy that their somewhat murky shenanigans are open for all to see, but I think the ultimate outcome is preferable to decisions emanating entirely from the “smoke filled rooms”.
8 Is Peter Smith looking a better bet these days. He seems rather savvy at getting the media atention in this controversy than Cormac or his major in house rival Nichols.
11 Isn’t she Rodham Clinton, Hillary??
12 Richard, the irony is that Hillary’s only real remaining hope is a “decision emanating entirely from the “smoke filled rooms”" - at a brokered Convention!
14, Umm - okay … by reverse alphabetical order by first name - or by star sign if Hilary’s is first …
Overall, the proposed new Democrat slogan would have to be something like: “2000 election, we weren’t robbed, actually!”
Excluding TX (not clear) FL & MI (at present), Obama has a 202 v 185 lead in this DNC Electoral College. If he ,(as expected) wins TX on delegates, as well as OR, NC, IN, SD, MT, but Clinton wins WV, KY, PA and seats MI and FL, then he still wins 275 v 263.
8 A much better political operator than the Cardinals (not saying that much), and is the only member of the Magic Circle that could actually do the job properly, though he sometimes completely loses the plot. I think the RC Church is finding it harder to garner the support it needs partly because of how poorly it handled previous attempts to influence legislation, esp Gay Adoption.
I think 12-1 is a value bet (if still available), but I still reckon it will be an ‘outsider’, if just to accentuate the displeasure of the Vatican at the Bishop’s Conference.
15. Then the electors will have more of a clear choice. Clinton would then be tainted with having emerged from the process by some form of subterfuge. Chances of ultimate success lower than a clear cut process.
Clinton does poll better than Obama against McCain in the key states though. According to RCP avgs she’s 2% closer in Pennsylvania, 4% in Florida, and over 7% better in Ohio. She also seems to be polling exceptionally well in Missouri compared to Obama, and NJ is less of a longshot worry (whereas Obama-McCain is neck and neck on current polls, somehow). Then there’s the Hispanic thing, which will be pretty useful in the SW.
Obama probably does better in a lot of other potential swing states in attracting indies though, eg NH, Wisconsin and Minnesota.
Strange old electoral map, all told.
The Clinton Family are not interested in the Democratic Party or the American people; they are soley concerned with self-perpetuation. They believe they have a kind of divine right to produce American presidents and that their succession should be accepted by the population; a ‘keep it in the family’ at all costs attitude. They are their own Costra Nostra.
Having written that, I realise how similar they are to our jolly own Sax-Coburgs.
If we’re finding new ways to measure ‘winning’, I poseted this on the Medvedev thread on March 2nd:
“People may or may not find this interesting, but in the Electoral “Connect 4″ of the last 100 years, only 4 Presidents could not drive from the West to East coasts staying entirely to the states that they won: Kennedy, Carter, Clinton (both times) and George W Bush (both times). Of these only Kennedy was *also* unable to drive from Canada to Mexico (without a boat-car that could traverse Lake Michigan).
In the Clinton v Obama contest, assuming Clinton wins West Virginia (as predicted), Ohio (as predicted), and Obama wins Texas and Mississippi, everything comes down to KENTUCKY.
If Obama wins it, he gets both the West-East drive (Virginia, Kentucky, Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, Colorado, Utah, Idaho, Washington) and the Canada-Mexico drive (albeit an ill-advised route of Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, Kentucky, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas)
If Clinton wins, the drive is almost the same whether going from East-to-West Coast, or Mexico-to-Canada:
California, Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania, then either New York (for Canada) or New Jersey (for the East Coast)
Remember people - it’s all about Kentucky.
by Morus March 3rd, 2008 at 12:03 am ”
(You can do both journies with just a total of nine states (CA, WA, OR, AZ, NM, OK, AR, TN, NC), though ‘East Coast’ is defined as Florida up to Maine (AL, MS, LA, and TX are on the Gulf of Mexico, not the Atlantic)
Obviously, Clinton is heavily favoured to win KY, so maybe Evan Bayh will take up this suggestion in due course?
Embarrassing admission from Hillary’s campaign about how she landed “under sniper fire” in Bosnia (but actually stood on the tarmac with her daughter Chelsea by her side for a presentation by an eight-year old girl).
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/24/clinton-misspoke-about-bosnia-trip-campaign-says/
Should you really be having another serving of your home-made Over-Egged Pudding, Hillary? A moment on the lips….
Is there another Obama scandal about to break which is going to make pastorgate pale into insignificance?
see the story about alleged links with Rhashid Khalidi on
http://www.commonvoice.com
Exciting stuff but remember that Obama thinks Obama should win just as much as Clinton thinks she ought to. Let’s not pretend one of them has solely altruistic motives.
24 — not much of a terrorist if he’s a professor at a top American university. There again, most of the recent so-called scandals around both candidates seem pretty small beer.
24 - Comes across as a bit of a hatchet job, working more by insinuation than anything substantial. “Obama friends with Palestinian moderate academic who teaches in US” is not a scandal - I remember the claims that Khalidi was ‘linked’ to the PLO, which he denied, and there wasn’t much to them. Obama is pretty clearly pro-Israel, and has been attacked for it.
Scandal used to be something that a candidate did that was immoral and illegal. With Obama it is always: someone he once knew quite well is not someone we’d want as VP: Pastor Wright, Rashid Khalidi, Tony Rezko. There is only so many times that people can claim guilt by association, before it re-enforces the idea that, by most politicians’ standards, Obama is a pretty scandal-free politician.
For Obama’s views on Arab-Israeli conflict:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Barack_Obama#Arab-Israeli_conflicts
I think it is to his credit that he can both hold these views and yet count Palestinians amongst his friends and supporters.
24, That article is kind of weak. Well, very weak.
After a spiel about the Rezko thing again, they allege that an academic who held a fundraiser has alleged ties with terrorism. Unlikely to gain traction, methinks.
In other stories on The Common Voice, we have “Can a Christian be a Democrat?” (answer: No, apparently), which may hint that they’re less than totally objective …
29
“which may hint that they’re less than totally objective …”
possibly
“which may hint that they’re less than totally sane …”
Malcolm
How much more ridulous is this going to get? The goalposts have been moved by the Clinton campaign so much that they are somewhere miles from the stadium by now.
12 - Did you contact PtP about the bet?
24 - US talk radio is populated by human detritus, ignore. Hopefully the sheer weirdness of their attacks will destroy the extreme right’s credibility but, then again, there are always a bunch of fools who prefer to blame others for their own inadequacies. They are much worse than our own unlovely Tom Watson MP and, as I described him as ’scum’ maybe they and their supporters should fall under the label of ’subhuman scum’.
Agree with 10 above. I’m a California voter, and in the current environment we’d be more likely to vote for a bucket of wet cement than a Republican for president. The Clinton campaign’s logic here is faulty.
Yes, the Common Voice sounds a bit, well, Melanie Phillips… Agree with John L’s comments at 25/26.
Bayh’s argument is a bit inconsistent.
Either the issue is internal democracy within the Democratic Party, in which case what counts is who has the most delegates and / or votes.
Or the issue is who’s most likely to beat McCain. In that case, the issue is head to head polls, nationally and in key states.
At a pinch, it’s just about reasonable to argue that it’s important who wins marginal and large states, but democrat primaries have different electorates to the national election. Motivating Democrats to vote is important, but winning over the independents is far more important, and motivating people to vote in primaries is different from motivating them to vote in national elections. Presumably people are far more likely to vote in general elections than in primaries, so they’re different people you’re trying to motivate.
Who wins the Democrat primaries in states with the largest number of delegates, is just not a relevant measure, because it conflates the two issues of electability and internal democracy.
Having said that, it’s not just important what’s coherent. It’s also important what can be claimed. Mike puts his finger on it when he says that this will ENABLE some super-delegates to claim they’re going with this much of internal democracy and electability.
The superdelegates were put in place to give the Democratic party a get out of jail card in case the primaries produced a candidate who was unpalatable to the national electorate. Lets suppose for instance that some crippling news comes out for Obama. As has been noted on here he will probably still win the delegate race regardless, but the superdelegates will need some kind of rationale to stop him from being candidate. All Bayh is doing is giving them a plausible rationale should they need it. I don’t find it compelling myself, but it doesn’t need to be that compelling.
What the Common Voice story does show though is that Obama is already being “swiftboated “. With McCain and even Clinton their pasts have already been crawled over and it is unlikely anything new will come out pre- November.What discount do you apply to Obama to reflect the risk one of these guilt by association stories might actually stick ?
Here’s a thought. What if the Democrats decided, for next time, that all states after Super Tuesday revert to winner takes all? That way, there’d be all the advantages of PR for the first states, but no chance of deadlock. Obviously the early states would want winner takes all as well to give them more influence.
36 - Fair point. Most of the dirt on Clinton and McCain probably has already has come out, but then I think if you tally up the columns, Obama comes out by far the cleanest candidate, if only because he hasn’t been in politics long enough to accuulate the sort of dirt that comes with 30 years at the top.
In context, Obama and McCain are both pretty clean candidates, given the level they are playing at (you don’t get there if you could star in a soap commercial), and I think both will relish a positive issues-based campaign. I would expect there to be less swiftboating than we saw last time, if just because I can see these candidates insisting that integrity is part of their brand, and not wanting or needing to go too dirty. How naive is that?!
Its a measure ok but I doubt it will fly in the end up.
Popular vote would be the key and with MI & FL voters being disenfranchised by their own state committees Clinton is unlilkely to get that thus Obama has to totally mess up to lose .
There is no doubt, however, that Obama does have a problem that so far, apparently brilliant speech or not, he hasnt got clear of.
What will make some Democrats nervous is any hint of Clinton making a bigger race of these final contests than perviously forseen because of the whole Wright business and the questioning of Obama’s Americanism. Obama now has a question mark over him just as Clinton always had. assuming he takes this nomination his key task is to eliminate that question mark.
And before those strident Obama supporters who seem to have their head so far up the man’s arse (at a distance which is a remarkable feat) care to comment on this post by suggesting there is no question mark, don’t waste your breath. I couldnt be bothered listening to any more of the eulogies. There is a question mark in the eyes of many more people than there was just a few weeks ago.
About the only people talking US presidential poltics right now, are the media and bloggers. All the “real” people I know are burn-out cases right now; you bring up the subject at your social peril!
A daily electoral college poll:
http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/election_2008_electoral_college_update
Right wing talk radio thrives on hate and division, it’s quite clear why they will do everything they can to stop a politician who is trying to move away from that. It’s why they don’t particularly like McCain either.
I find it amusing watching them get to explosion point, although if I had to live in the same country as them it would be much less amusing.
It would be nice to see both McCain and Obama attack these bigots, maybe if they did there is a chance to make a real difference to how politics is debated.
All I’ll say is that people should start laying Bayh for VP. No chance Obama will select him now.
38 - they may want a clean election but these 527 Committee’s may have other ideas:
http://www.opensecrets.org/527s/527cmtes.asp
38.I think you are right that McCain won’t want to play dirty ( at least unless he has to to win).There are many McCain supporters however who have been encouraged by the success of the swiftboat campaign against Kerry who are already mobilising!
OT - BTW, has anyone noticed that over in dear, dirty Dublin BERTIE AHERN is skating on very thin ice.
This is because his former constituency secretary just testified under oath that she deposited sterling into private accounts for Bertie and his two daughters. When previous testimony by her and An Taoiseach stated that all sbe deposited was his official salary checks - made out at the time in punts, not pounds!
Look for Bertie to get the boot in the not-so-distant future, replaced by #2 Brian Cowen.
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/mahon-tribunal/those-tears–that-handbag–the-damage-to–ahern-is-lethal-1325955.html
46. He wont last the year by all accounts but then some of us felt he wouldnt last 3 months after his election.
Hot favorite is Broan Cowen but Lenihan might be an interesting outsider with a skip a generation kind of feel about it.
The irony is that a lot of people like Bertie but he is pretty damned corrupted. Don’t know what it is about Irish politics but it seems to be a serious feature over the decades, possibly because they are a bit less discreet over it or maybe it is genuinely more ingrained.
I should also point out that thats the view within Fianna Fail that he wouldnt last the year.
45. McCain has made it clear to his campaign not to bother with the smear stuff but when his age gets mentioned it’ll be interesting to see if that changes. Suggesting someone’s age, when they are of sound mind, is a barrier to them ascending to the presidency isnt much different to suggesting that someone’s color may be a barrier.
The current odds on Hillary Clinton are very good value in the current market. While I admire Barack Obama, I also think that the fascination with him will soon wear thin and this may be happening already. I also think that we could get a drip drip effect of bad stories likes Ritzo, Jerimiah Wright which will have an impact on his showing and who knows what else is out there, at least with Hillary everything has already been thrown at her and little remains to be dug up.
When it comes to face off with John Mc Cain, the Republicans will win as Obama’s polling with hispanic and white voters is not good at all. Indeed I’d not be surprised to see further polls showing Clinton performing better the Obama. August is a long time away and an eternity in politics; Clinton should hang on as I can see it all ending in tears with Obama which will be a great shame as he does have the potential to make a great president, he’s just not quite the finished article yet.
Hillary will win if the nominee against Mc Cain as he’s more akin to a Bob Dole type candidate who will also unravel if put under pressure. With Obama he’ll get away with as more focus is put on Obama.
Yokel. I agree there have been many PBers who have been swept forward by Obama’s charisma and oratory and I am one of their number. This undoubtedly can and will have affected some of us in our betting positions and you I believe have profitted from that. Well done. But you almost seem to be as personally motivated against Obamania as we maniacs are in favour? Agreed or not?
Me thinks the Clinton camp is now clutching a increasingly desparate straws
Just to add there have been calls with FF for him to go but its low level FF personnel so far.
It could however get a bit more choppy shortly, especially if the polls get bad. The public know rightly that Bertie liked his brown envelopes and it didnt kill him. What could occur is that people could just get plain tired of the show and say that Bertrie should exit.
As I said at post 22, only 4 Presidents in the 20th and 21st centuries have not been able to drve from the Pacific to the Atlantic coast ony through states they won: Clinton (twice) and George W Bush (twice) join Carter and Kennedy. Of these, only Kennedy was also unable to drive from the Canadian border to the Mexican border.
To continue the “Connect 4″-style understanding of Electoral College maps, some other points of trivia:
Only won landlocked states: Taft in 1912 (UT and VT only), Robert LaFollette in 1928 (3rd party only won Winsconsin), and Mondale in 1984 (only won Minnesota and the District).
Years the map was split into entirely-consolidated geographical blocks: Eisenhower v Stevenson in 1956, Coolidge v Davis (v LaFollette) in 1924, Harding v Cox in 1920, Taft v Bryan in 1908, and T Roosevelt v Parker in 1904. Reagan v Mondale in 1984 would have been if you discount the Federal District.
Won Entire Atlantic Coastline: 1912 Woodrow Wilson, 1894 Reagan
Won Entire West Coast and Mexican border: Coolidge 1928, FDR 1932/36/40/44, Eisenhower 1952/56, Nixon 1972, Reagan 1980/84
Won Entire Canadian border: Nixon 1972, Johnson 1964, Eisenhower 1952/56, Coolidge 1928, Harding 1920, Taft 1908, T Roosevelt 1904
Ang just by magic this appears on CBS’s website - another smear story
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/24/politics/main3964240.shtml
And just by magic this appears on CBS’s website - another smear story? - this was I meant to type - bringing up past forgotten events, In reading between the lines is this a subtle way of knocking him?
Yokel @ 39: “… FL voters being disenfranchised by their own state committees”
My understanding is that holding Florida’s primary too early was not due to the state Democratic Party but rather the state legislature — controlled by Republicans.
54 And candidates who couldn’t connect four states:
T Roosevelt and Taft in 1912, Lafollette in 1924, Hoover in 1932, Landon 1936, Strom Thurmond in 1948, McGovern in 1972, Carter in 1980, Mondale in 1984, Dukakis in 1988
57 - It had bipartisan support. The FL Dems were very much in favour of going early, and furious at being disbarred or having to re-run the race.
51. I am personally motivated against Obamamania because its been plain misleading on occasions. Support yes, people staking money on him, yes, but its got to the stage where some people are blowing the the hype over absolutely everything, including good sense. And it isnt just once, its multiple occasions to the point where there is no balance at all.
Hes a politician for gods sake, not jesus. The hate of Clinton, very often by people who arent even from the US is just one indicator of how ridiculous it has become. I don’t have any like of the woman, her husband seems a first rate arse but am I dancing like some gleeful child over her failure?
Months and months ago, last year in fact I put forward the line that Clinton was no shoo in so I have clearly no personal investment in her or Obama.
Bearing in mind that there has been a fair amount of money staked on the primaries this had massive potential to mislead still and if we are honest we have seen it, including in running commentaries on contests where it was clear that Clinton might win a primary and yet to the last we had how Obama was going to do it.
The broad opinion may nor be wrong on the guy’s chances but i don’t trust zealots extremists of any kind and some of the support on here is extreme. Whats even more confusing is the fact that much of it is from people who have no real assocaition with the US politics at all. Most of it I suspect coming from people without a penny staked on the events which riles me even more.
57 - And the Democrats also voted in favour of the Republican’s actions. They can’t try and claim innocence now.
59 Morus
Having worked with the Florida Democratic Party I have to say that, in my opinion, they are absolutely useless. They have difficulty in attracting candidates of stature, run hopeless campaigns and have settled, in recent years, for a position of the hapless victim of the big bad Republicans.
Couldn’t organise the proverbial in a whatsit.
Malcolm
Malcolm
The Florida & Michigan situations were both engineered at least in part by the Clinton -even their supporter admit that their fingerprints are all over the scene of the crime.
In Michigan, the Clinton’s worked hand-in-glove with Romney, in Florida with Giuliani. In both states they also played footsie with the Bushies.
Plus, ask youself why the Clinton’s and their henchpeople like the has-been James Carville are so incensed by Bill Richardson’s endorsement of Obama?
Because in their eye’s he was just a Trojan Horse against Obama, and not truly a “candidate” at all, leastways not for president?
Think they are living in their own private Idaho.
63. So this was a conspiracy between Clinton, Romney & Guiliani?
62 - Thanks for that Malcolm - Daily Kos has been pretty scathing of the Chair of ‘Red to Blue’ in FL for not supporting candidates, which is why I think it is so important that Obama support seating their delegations in Denver. I think he will lose FL whatever, but he should at least support the state party, as they need that support.
60 - Yokel, don’t know if I’m on the guilty list, but I think you’re being a bit unfair - the Obamamania here has been pretty muted compared to some other websites, and there have been die-hard Clintonistas pushing her line as well.
I am a moderate Obama supporter, but like all three main candidates left in the race, and have recently (a fortnight ago) written about ways she could still win the nomination - however, I have also given pretty short shrift to the nonsense smears that have been thrown at him. He is a pretty clean candidate, and the desperation in trying to find ways that he ‘cannot win’ irks me. HRCs chances at the Convention are now no better than 5%, and I have bet accordingly. I think McCain is massively good value as long as the US is at war, but cannot deny that Obama is unlike any American politician I have ever seen. If ever a campaign deserved the hype, this is it.
TRIVIA CONTINUED:
It is possible to win the Electoral College with only states beginning with the letters M, N, C and T (or M, N, C, and I).
It is possible to win 40 ’states’ (39 plus DC) and still lose. You can win with only CA, TX, NY, NJ, PA, OH, FL, GA and MI.
I thought the Florida and Michigan issues were money saving attempts by the local parties.
46 / 48 - I think I posted something colourful about Bertie at about 4am on Good Friday morning when I was feeling a bit “tired and emotional”. Granted I have been predicting his demise for years and with increasing regularity but he really seems toast now. ‘Papers are calling him a liar without a peep of a objection or threat from him. The secretary testified that “in all probability” she deposited sterling but the qualification seemed to me to be aimed at giving her a defence against any possible charges arising from her previous testimony denying this (testimony blown out of the water by the bank concerned). The record is clear though - either Ahern is a liar or he is, on the basis of his own story, the world’s worst “accountant” / financial manager. The transcripts of the tribunal go up in almost real time and are better than most soap operas.
66 “You may well think that, but I couldn’t possible comment” Francis Urquhart
67 Think Bertie’s letting his old retainer hang out to dry showed the Irish people a side of him they’d not seen before. And don’t much like.
69 - Quite probably, corruption they will put up with but hiding behind a frightened lady who had to be warned about the consequences of perjury they probably wont.
“Bayh himself is a charismatic and influential player and was being topped strongly a couple of years ago as a possible nominee.”
Bayh is many things, a prominent conservative Democrat who’s held down the governorship and now the junior senate seat in Indiana (a traditionally Republican state - with an upcomming primary that likley to be close) but he’s not charismatic and not likley to exert a great deal of influence.
As to the idea of looking at the electoral votes Clinton would have carried… it’s all a bit abstract to sway SDs IMHO, would Obama be likley to lose MA, CA, NJ etc… and for that matter would Clinton be likley to carry TX or FL as the nominee. It’s an argument that just isnt plausable if you ask me and i doubt it’ll sway many supers (and it’s the supers who Clinton will have to rely on in order to somehow clinch the nomination).
68 - Haven’t seen House of Cards for ages, but can still remember those wonderfully Shakespearean eyebrows! Theme music was good too, IIRC.
TRIVIA CONTINUED
It is possible to win a majority in the Electoral College without winning any of the Canadian and Mexican borders, nor any state that touches the Pacific Ocean or the Gulf of Mexico (ME,NH, VT, NY, MI, MN, ND, MT, ID, WA, OR, CA, AZ, NM, TX, LA, MS, AL, FL plus AK and HI = 259). No-one has ever done this.
65. No you arent on the angry list.
Secondly, this is ultimately a betting site. If it was purely a site about politicos expressing opinions on their political favourites, not an issue but it isn’t. It has taken time to sort the wheat from the chaff as these contests have rolled on.
My issue isnt usually with people with the cash on though I was pretty heavy in criticism after New Hampshire when there seemed to be a total loss of equilibirum.
A number of threads back I compared the happeninsg here with the legend of U2 playing in Belfats many years ago just before they really took off. the venue they were playing at would hold no more than a few thousand, if that but if you were to believe everyone who claimed to be at the this gig it would equate to about 100 000 people……
Most hilarious thing about Secretarygate over in Dublin, is that the Irish Times and RTE are quoting a most highly-placed source within FF & govt cirles in support of Bertie - his brother!
No wonder these edjits drove Vincent Browne off of RTE. Would give me cousin Yokel’s left you-know-what, just to hear a dramatization of last Friday’s Mahon Tribunal testimony, done the way that Vinny used to do it on his old show.
Next Fianna Fail leader odds from Hills
Brian Cowen 1/3
Michael Martin 6/1
Mary Hanafin 8/1
Brian Lenihan 8/1
Mark Durkan 14/1
Dermot Aherne 18/1
Noel Dempsey 25/1
Willie O’ Dea 33/1
Eamonn O’ Cuiv 33/1
Off Clinton thread, Gordon Brown’s political strategy director, resigned after Brown bottled the Election that never was.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3602648.ece
It would help explain the Plastic Bag Hotline and Brown’s disasterous plumet in the polls.
Just think how different if Brown went to the polls - and won.
70. Can’t argue with that. Looked at that way he is way more likely to go.
Question is, it it the Biffo coronation or is there a rival?
75 - Dermot Ahern (not Aherne) is amazing value. Hills are at it again! I think Cowan will win but Ahern is a better than 18/1 shot. Much, much better.
78. Any idea what the process is should (when) Bertie go? In other words is there any chance for a rival to Biffo (Cowen) to get a bandwagon rolling?
I should turn over to RTE 9pm news but i couldnt be arsed……..
78 - I rarely give tips because I dont want to be responsible for people losing money but Ahern is a confirmed candidate and as current minister for foreign affairs the joint-top-ranking-minister (with Cowan) in the cabinet. 18/1 is nuts odds that are guaranteed to come in. Whether you can lay off or not if you feel you need to is the issue.
79 - From memory it is a straight vote of the Parliamentary Party (unless they’ve changed the rules).
73 Yokel I agree wholeheartedly.
Fwiw I do have money invested in Hillary at 11/4 and upwards, which I am not yet minded to lay off. And I don’t especially care for her.
Would the U2 gig be the one where he kicked off on the lad waving the tricolor ? Its not just an Irish thing however -
the Stone Roses gig on Spike Island has similar, as does the Jam’s gig late 70s at Deeside Leisure Centre, which half of Merseyside was seemingly at.
76 - Gotta laugh at the suggestion that Brown should be asked to resign on the grounds that the backbenches think he’s going blind
75 just noticed Mark Durkan at 14/1. Is that the same Mark Durkan who is head of the SDLP? Could he even be a candidate if he doesn’t sit in the Dail ?
83 - No, he couldnt. They are presumably pricing the possibility that FF will merge with the SDLP before Bertie goes (nil) times the possibility Durkan will run for the Dáil in time to be a candidate (nil) and coming up with 14/1. I’ve put a small amount on Ahern with Hills - he will be one of the 3 or 4 (if even) declared candidates and his odds will come in. There might be enough of a market on betfair in the leadup to lay off but even if not it’s a good value bet.
81. That flag waving gig werent in Belfast as far as I know. I did try to gatecrash their outdoor gig in Belfast about 10 years ago via a plan to loosen some bolts on nearby fencing to the park that they were playing then, then dropping asucidially stupid number of feet into the gig area which may ell have seen me backstage. Had monkey wrenches and ring spanners with me and all only to find that on the night the security had cordoned off the fencing area as well. From what I gather I wasnt the only one to think of that move and there were a few people in bars around the area who were clanking every time they walked to get another pint.
83. A definitely no. He’d kill the party anyway, the man is moribund.
80 - “Straight vote” by FF parliamentary party??? Surely you jest!
Am wondering, if another factor souring the mood against Bertie, is the emerging economic crisis.
Believe Irish voters were reluctant to throw out the govt. in the midst of the continuing economic boom. Which was a REALLY big deal for a country that had previously been an economic basket case since the days of Dean Swift.
73. I don’t think it’s fair to have a go at people on here for the predictions before New Hampshire. No commentator thought the polls there would be out by twice the margin of error.
84. He’s not short of ambition is Dermot I suppose and if he was willing to take Newry into ROI jursidiction and declare it a metropolis along with Dundalk I’d be keen to see him win.
Not least I’d have less distance to drive to get cheap petrol…..
82 According to a rebel MP “Gordon is blind in one eye and there is evidence that the sight in the other one is deteriorating. Increasingly he seems to be missing words when he is reading statements in the Commons.
I first read it as politically blind - is Gordon Brown really going blind? If it is linked to his shakes, it may affect the betting.
87. The problem Socrates was that the race was considered over by a large number of people after Iowa.
Neil
Any chance the Greens could pull away from Bertie?
91 - I wish. They wont pull out of the government. It is up to FF to depose Bertie.
88 - Isn’t it amusing enough, that you get that cheap(er)fuel thanks to a (partly) Green government?
Should confess, even greenies out here in the Pacific NW think it’s outrageous that gas is now $3.60 per US gallon (only 4 quarts for you old imperialists).
http://politicalbetting.com/
http://politicalbetting.com/
http://politicalbetting.com/
http://politicalbetting.com/
http://politicalbetting.com/
http://politicalbetting.com/
http://politicalbetting.com/
http://politicalbetting.com/
http://politicalbetting.com/
http://politicalbetting.com/
http://politicalbetting.com/
84 Thanks Neil. I just put some money on Dermot myself…
Curious - how does one paste a link to a webpage on to here so that it comes up blue and one click on it and you go to the webpage? This is bugging me!!
93.l I get cheaper fuel when I’m near the border thanks to the British government and its taxes. If I’m near the border it would be mad of me not to grab the fuel.
90. I think it would have been 80% his had he won New Hampshire by more than a couple of points, sheerly because of the media love-in would have granted him so much coverage.
Just look at the first spike in the polls:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html
Reports suggest that the Clinton campaign was on the verge of pulling out of all the early states and staking their firewall on Super Tuesday. Obama drew that as it was, and then won a 11 in a row afterwards. Had he had a bit more momentum going into Super Tuesday, and Clinton a lot less, then he would have won that day, and the nomination within a few contests after it.
.Text displayed here.
But without the initial stop.
106. I’ll try that again.
(a href=”http://www.yourlinkhere.com/”)Text displayed here(/a)
But with pointy brackets instead of curly ones.
109 - if this was in response to 106 makes no sense to me!!
{”http://politicalbetting.com/”}
111. Try 110!
These ones: > <
92. So no one would break ranks in the coalition?
I hope thisone works!!
116 - No, or at least I find it extremely doubtful at this stage. They might demand FF do something about it’s leader but the government should not fall over this (nor, perhaps, should it seeing as the electorate voted Bertie in knowing 99% of all this anyway).
For those who want to play Blockbuster with the Electoral College this is a good site
Scampi - you need the A HREF= bit
It sometimes helps to know exactly what is needed and why.
How it works:
The triangular brackets tell the computer “this is html code, watch for the “tag”, or descriptor of what to do”
The A HREF = bit tells it that the tag is a hyperlink
The bit in quotes is the hyperlink.
The bit after the close of the first triangular brackets is the blue text that is displayed
The triangular brackets again indicate some more html code.
The /A bit says “end of tag, resume displaying everything as text”
93. In the UK they’re paying over found pounds per gallon, so I wouldn’t complain.
121. Four pounds. Scampi’s posts are muddling my brain.
Scampi:
Type this, but with a pointy bracket everywhere a curved bracket is:
(a href=”http://www.yourlinkhere.com/”)Text displayed here(/a)
It will produce this:
Text displayed here
Try this:
<a href=”http://news.bbc.co.uk”>BBC News is here</a>
Except replace the address with whichever one you want and the text (”BBC News is here” bit) with whatever you want
85.”81. That flag waving gig werent in Belfast as far as I know.”
Think that happened more than once at concerts in America, IIRC Bono gave quite a rant about the flag appearing at a concert they gave there just after the remembrance day bombing at Enniskillen?
It made the UK news.
125. That gig was in the states, its on youtube somewhere
121 its nearer £5 than £4
108.9 x4.546= 4.9505 per gallon/
diesel is well over £5(1.149 /litre
126.Yes, the Joshua tree tour. I missed out on their gig at Celtic park just a few years later, bought tickets for myself and a group of friends months before it. Fitaloon put his foot down because I was nearly nine months pregnant, now if it had been at Pittodrie I might have got away with it.
Cheney just made it a little easier for Senator Obama.
In an ABC TV interview:
“The president carries the biggest burden, obviously,” Cheney said. “He’s the one who has to make the decision to commit young Americans, but we are fortunate to have a group of men and women, the all-volunteer force, who voluntarily put on the uniform and go in harm’s way for the rest of us.”
Cheney’s disrespect for the families of the 4000 killed in Iraq and those that were badly injured, physically and mentally, will not go down well with independents. McCain is stuck now between criticizing the driving force behind the Bush presidency or saying nothing and being tainted.
Bush carries the biggest burden. WTF!!
Malcolm
re 127. and OT but….I posted earlierabout the real cost of inflation and that I didn’t believe the official figures but just noticed this appeared on the Spectator Coffee house blog today.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/572416/the-cost-of-living-under-brown.thtml
130 and this too
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/torydiary/files/cost_of_living_report_march_2008_final.pdf
129. Wont make any difference whatsoever to Obama’s campaign.
132. Just having Bush or Cheney in the news helps the Democrats.
132. The battle lines have been drawn on this a long time ago. The pronouncements of Bush & Cheny will lose impact as people look to who is next.
134. So many people have strong feelings against Bush & Cheney that people will wish to vote for the other side simply be being reminded that they are still there. John McCain may be seen as an independent, but he will still be running as a Republican, with the RNC advertising for him. Thus the more people remember Bush & Cheney, the more the Republican name will be stained and the more McCain will be hurt. It won’t be a huge effect, but it will have a small subconscious one.
And if the feeling amongst Americans that Iraq isnt such a mire continue to grow? What then?
131. Thats an excellent piece of research from the Conservative Party. Thats really Opposition at its best. Now Cameron should follow it up with three or four questions at PMQ’s. For too long the Tories have been running scared of raising economic matters, but the time has come for the Tories to take Labour head on.
136
5 years
4000 dead troops
constant attacks throught Baghdad
up to a trillion wasted dollars leading to huge defecits
Sounds like a real success story to all my US friends; they all want out and the conservative Republicans [it’s the economy, stupid] are leading the charge. If McCain continues with his bellicose views then they’ll vote ‘none of the above.’
Malcolm
93 more pertinent is that a US gallon is only 3.63 litres.
Does anyone know why the differential between petrol and diesel which used to be 2-3p is now nearer 7-8p?
136. Even if that happens, which looks highly unlikely, then Bush & Cheney are disliked for a whole range of reasons. Iraq is a central one, but there are certainly several others. Not least the two bouts of tax cuts that the working class saw little of but were supposed to revitalise the economy.
138. So we ignore the polls showing an increase in optimism amongst the US population about Iraq then….they are totally irrelevant.
Your claim was that a few comments by Dick Cheney, who has long had little cred amongst the US populous has made Obama’s life easier.
I am still waiting for the evidence that these few comments will have any impact at all from you Malcolm.
This just relates to my point further on up the thread. Its pure zealotry, there is no possibility of an alternative being considered viable at all. If it isnt good for Obama it doesnt exist.
Christ, forget it.
141. Because people aren’t won over by your arguments it’s pure zealotry? Bush’s approval ratings might have climbed up from his lowest point, but he’s still at a shockingly low 30%. The surge has only managed to get casualty levels down to what existed 2003-2006, which gave a favourable media spin for a bit but can’t last forever. Recently hitting the 4,000 dead mark will certainly counteract that.
140. Yes they have crap ratings but McCain has yet to be sunk by them which is pretty damned remarkable.
Why? Because McCain is seen by large swathes of the US population as being the anti Bush. Whether we like or not, that is exactly how he is seen right now and exactly why GOP voters and independents voted him in.
Whilst the Dems knock on about who is best for change the GOP got on and voted someone who was seen as the antithesis to Bush within its own ranks.
Are we going to ignore this because it doesnt suit or is to be acknowledged. If we were to take the Democratic lines about McCain, he should be dead in the water already.
He isnt. Those are the facts as they stand right now.
Socrates
What do I believe, people who have a clear political agenda or the polls?
142. If you see the surge as a body bag measurement.
You put more people on the floor more get killed generally thats the rule of war because there are more to get shot at.
The surge has shown progress in the eyes of the US public and yet no one has answered my question what happens if levels of optimism amongst the US public continues to grow?
Its simply denied that this trend could continue. Again what do I believe the polls or people who just deny that its possible that levels of opitmism could continue to grow?
The trend could continue, it might not, but to simply suggest that it wont is just closing eyes to something that doesnt suit.
143. The vast bulk of US voters haven’t paid much attention to McCain that. I agree that he is a very different animal to Bush, although the Republicans largely elected him by accident. My point is though, that McCain can be linked to Bush easily enough because they have come to back the same policies - most people won’t be politically astute enough to realise they came to them for different reasons (Bush because he’s a Christian evangelical or because his VP represents big industry, McCain because he had to pander to his base). McCain isn’t Bush, which means he won’t lose by a landslide, but that doesn’t mean he can show enough clear difference for him not to lose.
144. You should make your own decision after taking in all evidence. But the best betting opportunities will come from predicting the polls before they change. I said more than a week ago that Obama would decline in the polls until about Wednesday, and then start to rebound on Thursday/Friday. That’s precisely what happened.
So let me try again.
What if levels of optimism amongst the US public over Iraq continue to grow?
Does that therefore lessen the possible impact of the attack line on McCain?
Yes or no?
See 140: “Even if that happens, which looks highly unlikely, then Bush & Cheney are disliked for a whole range of reasons.”
Improvement in Iraq would clearly help McCain, blunting one attack line. But that’s one attack line, when the Republicans are now unpopular for a range of reasons.
ie the Obama attack line over Iraq.
148, Absolutely, I personally can barely believe that McCain is where he is the polls after two terms of Bush.
The only reason I believe he is there is because he is considered as big a break from Bush as any one else. Whether Obama’s camp can break that perception is something only time will tell.
Equally theyt have to watch their own rears because have no doubt, Obama’s Americanism is going to be question. And whether we think it will or wont work, only time will tell on that as well.
The latest two RCP trackers are both showing slight upticks for Clinton (reversing the downtick noted by Mike yesterday), who is also marginally better in match-ups with McCain, but it’s all within the MOE and essentially the polls remain tied between them - with McCain favourite against either. Suspect they’ll stay that way until there’s some significant new development.
150. Obama’s “patriotism” issues will certainly hurt him among a certain working class types. But I think in a time of economic uncertainty people turn to the Democrats, as they often have in the past. Healthcare is going to be a huge issue at this election, and McCain has his hands tied behind his back in trying to put forward his own plan due to anything resembling “socialised medicine” being opposed by his own base/donors.
And I simply do not believe McCain will make it to the General Election without the idea that he’s somewhat connected to the Republican party - because the Democrats are going to hit him on this hard. They will give the impression that he’s the same as Bush on a whole range of issues, which he is not, but he’s taken enough pandering positions so it can be made to look like he is.
The only way McCain can avoid this is to actively run as a strident independent, bashing his own party. But this will lose him his base once again, and he can’t win without reasonable turnout among conservatives.
151. It’s just statistical noise isn’t it?
Thanks for the great information. *stumbles*
Socrates - I’ve noticed there are two massive stories about African American executive officers in the news at the moment: new NY Governor Patterson has had to admit to Marijuana and Cocaine use after last week admitting to extra-marital affairs. Now Kwame Kilpatrick, Mayor of Detroit, is facing perjury charges over an alleged affair and associated corruption charges.
Although neither of these are linked to Obama, is there any mention of concern that scandal has attached itself to two very prominent African American male executive officers at a time when Obama is trying to shake of pseudo scandals based on guilt by association? What effect might this have on the e