Will the battle of these forms have saved Hillary?
March 25th, 2008
Who’s won the lion’s share of Pennsylvania’s newly registered Dems?
Since New Year’s Day 218,000 residents of Pennsylvania have filled in forms like the one reproduced above so that they will be eligible to vote in the crucial primary that takes place there on April 22nd.
More than 120,000 of them are new voters while a further 86,000 others were existing voters who filled in Question 9 to register as Democrats. In addition 12,000 switched to become registered Republicans. All this is the product of massive organisational operations by the two camps in the state. Getting people to fill in complex forms is not easy.
The mechanics of this election are crucial because unlike in many other states only those who are registered with a particular party are entitled to vote in the primary and to do so your form had to be in by yesterday.
So the big cross-overs from independents and Republicans that we have seen elsewhere, often on the day itself, had to have happened in PA by the deadline. This, of course, has been one of the areas where Barack Obama has had particular success and why the April 22nd primary is so challenging. The kind of flexibility between the parties that he has benefited from in other states simply does not exist.
According to the New York Times “…Some of the biggest numbers of those who switched to become Democrats were recorded in the Republican suburbs of Philadelphia, which are likely to be an important battleground in the primary. Analysts say suburbanites who registered Democratic are probably either opponents of the war in Iraq who want to vote for Senator Barack Obama or professional women who want to support Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.”
Who knows what the outcome will be though the state’s demographics favour Hillary. One good pointer for the Democrats for November’s general election is that a total of 4,044,952 people are now registered Democrats against a total of 3,215,478 who are registered as Republicans.
In the nomination betting the Hillary price has eased over the weekend and now stands at 3.5/1.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
All these rather spurious statistical analyses remind me of the post I read during the 2000 Presidential election when some Democrats were clinging to the fact that Gore had actually polled more votes than Bush.
It went something like “I just played a tennis match with Jimmy Connors. I won the first two sets 6-0 and he won the next three 6-4. So I won 24 games and Connors won only 18. Why did they give him the trophy?”. The response, of course, “It’s the rules, stoopid!”.
1 — and a rather off-the-wall interpretation of the rules by the US Supreme Court.
The most important figures are geographic distributions. If these are mostly in Delaware County, Chester County, Montgomery County and Bucks County, Obama may be able to make the PA primary close. Those are the Philadelphia suburbs, which have historically been intensely Republican. While today they vote Democrat (except Chester, which is the most rural of the four), they still have overwhelming Republican registration advantages.
The idea that professional women will re-register in significant numbers to vote for Clinton is mildly absurd, especially as she has failed to win upper-income bracket women by anything more than tiny margins in the vast majority of states outside of the South (where upper-income means white and the racial divides are most intense).
The question comes down to how effective Obama was at registering voters, or perhaps how willing voters were to switch. I’m not quite sure what these numbers mean, to be honest.
Breaking News
‘CIA intelligence officers… Barack Obama and former Weather Underground honcho William Ayers funneled money to Professor Rashid Khalidi, a known terrorist sympathizer.’
http://www.commonvoice.com/pda/article.asp?colid=8310
2.
“It was the stoopid way the stoopid supreme court read the stoopid rules, stoopid!”?
4 This report from Saturday (hardly “breaking”) has already been flagged here, discussed and largely dismissed. In summary, the “known terrorist sympathizer” is a Palestinian - but making the huge leap that this somehow tarnishes Obama doesn’t ring true as Obama has close (too close for some) links to Israel.
Roundup of weekend coverage of the presidential race in America:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGI9iwC2F6U
Interesting point that comes across is that both Iraq and Race are two areas that America just doesn’t want to talk about at the moment.
What are the implications of the US electing a terrorist sympathiser into the Presidency?
Having hard the preacher Obama listened to for 20 years delivering anti-white racist rants it seems strange that the US public might elect an articulate traitor.
His speech in defence is funny. A pretty straightforward ‘distraction con’ speech designed to deflect from the fact that he enjoys listening to anti-white racists every weekend.
Combined with his links to terrorist-sympathier Rashid we are beginning to see a pattern. Perhaps the Barack ‘Osama’ Obama label is apt.
8. The links between Bush and the Bin Ladens didn’t seem to do him much harm.
4: Marquee Mark accurately summarises the reaction here from all sides.
The fact that PA is a closed primary should in any case give Hillary an edge, since she’s been ahead among Democrats throughout most of the campaign. It’s independents who have given Obama the edge. One can argue either way about that (that Democrats should be allowed to pick who they like, or that it’s better to reach out and involve non-Democrats) but as mirthios says it’s the system so we jusdge need to be aware of it.
8: Look, troll, I’m not an Obama supporter, but calling Obama is a traitor is idiotic abuse. Get lost.
3.5/1 is still good value. If she can pull off two more big wins, you just never know. Obama is still in pole position but he must be getting nervous.
http://lettersfromatory.wordpress.com
Inflation is out-of-control. It official. Even Labour are no longer denying it in one of today’s lead articles.
If Brown gives us an apology over the bogus CPI figures, justice will be done. This is the least we deserve.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=544111&in_page_id=1770&ct=5
Interest rates will have to rise to combat inflation.
13. And… on to the next target.
I would be wary of reading much into the ratio of the party split between new registrations - especially new registrations since early February.
I don’t know whether Pennsylvania is always at this time in the schedule, but this will certainly be the first time in a very long time that its primary has mattered, or more accurately, that one of its primaries has mattered. At a minimum, it will be the first one since 1988, probably the first since the Republican primary in 1976 and the first on the Democrat side since 1968. These voters don’t get this chance very often: it could be quite literally a once-in-a-lifetime chance.
The incentive to register to be able to vote in a presidential primary must be stronger than usual. True, that could debar voters from participating in primaries for other offices (though not if they’re closed as well), but it could make the difference for Democrat-inclined voters who haven’t bothered to register in the past. That’s not the case for Republican voters in the state who’ve had their candidate decided for them several weeks ago.
11
Rough night, Nick? Calm down dear, it’s only a blog.
OT, markets
UK mortgage banks are flying with HBOS up 15%!
16: lol, EDW! Here’s a more rational piece for us non-Obamamaniacs:
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/michael_tomasky/2008/03/how_hillary_can_win.html
13 judging by the other comments I have seen of yours you are somewhat lacking in the analytical skills department.
your constant refrain that interest rates need to go up is however getting annoying. We are faced with the worst liquidity crisis that most central bankers have ever or will ever see. Your solution would guarantee us a nice long depression.
you are I am afraid politically and economically illiterate - I reccommend a diet of Ben Bernanke books.
4, 8, All been discussed and rejected - so everything beyond “What are the implications…” in your second post is ignored.
It does also detract noticeably from all your other posts, I’m afraid - the default assumption has shifted to “Troll, ignore”
18, 19. Please put forward a rational argument that inflation is low, etc. I would be very interested to hear it. If we can’t then no one will be persuaded, and any reader will agree by default that inflation is high.
The government seems to agree inflaton is out-of-control today.
OT, Boris
Johnson in secret talks for running London
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9efe6b94-fa0c-11dc-9b7c-000077b07658.html
Boris knows!
18- kingbongo - fascinating analysis, thank you. And your recipe to cater for rampant inflation is….? Do tell, please.
16 - EDW - wondered how long it would take for you wet yourself as the stock market rebounds to a point where we are now only 880 points down on the position bequeathed by Tony Blair. That’s a drop of a mere 13.43% during the illustrious nine-month reign of The Great bLeader. Let joy be unconfined!!
19. Although it is easy for us to ignore this, it is becoming pretty obvious that these accusations and other similar ones will be used against Obama.
The very nature of being a high-profile politician is that you meet greet and gain associations with hundreds of people. There is always that risk that one of those associations is going to come back and bite you in the arse.
As we have seen with Livingstone, if you fire enough accusations at somebody, then they will stick regardless of the lack of any connecting evidence. It is easy for people to believe accusations about Livingstone because they don’t like him but to dismiss those about Obama because they do. It is pretty clear that their is very little meat to these claims, but that does not mean that they will not be significant.
21
And for the second time in a week, I attract an angry no-life troll for no particular reason who is obsessed with urine and it’s not even 9.00am. Sad.
Last time I was in the States I couldn’t help noticing not only is it a large country but also that quite a lot of people live there. Coverage of presidential elections would suggest that only three families inhabit a rather small island - the Kennedys, the Bushes and now the Clintons. A victory for Hilary would be depressing for its affirmation of oligarchical family rule, as seen from this side of the pond by me. The only answer to this problem is to visit the States more regularly and try to understand America better. Have there ever been or are there now any debates in the States about radical reform of the electoral system?
22 To be fair, the evidence that Livingstone runs a sloppy administration is a lot stronger than the evidence Obama is a terrorist sympathiser.
24 - EDW time. Some of us are fortunate enough to have very happy lives outside the time zone in which you eke out you sad existence.
The Daily Mash may have unlocked the reason for some recent posts here:
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/sharp-rise-in-numbers-talking-absolute-shit-20080323814/
22 there will be no rampant inflation - I agree with Ambrose Evans Pritchard that we are beyond woorrying about that as a problem becaue we have a much bigger one. Interest rates on credit have and will continue to rise faster than the BoE Base rate in any case.
When the Japanese property/equity bubble burst they adopted the accepted approach of being concerned about apparently high inflation and kept rates too high for too long. In fact they made the opposite mistake to Alan ‘inflate the bubble’ Greenspan.
Of course the worst Central Banker in US history is now an advisor to the Dear Leader - gawd elp us.
26. The evidence may be of sloppyness but the accusations are of Ken being a ‘corrupt bullying drunkard’. As we will see with Obama, it is the art of distraction politics. Keep the news padded with accusations that go nowhere and reap the benefits.The evidence may show Obama met someone who knew someone etc, but the message that comes out will be ‘Obama, Osama.’
30, hehe, an honour to be quoted by you. Incidentally, if you’re criticising such things, surely Ken is the most guilty man, as he and Labour keep trying to convince the universe that Boris is in fact an evil racist fascist?
30. In what way is the Newt not a corrupt bullying drunkard…
Pretty clear he is a bully and often drunk.
You can argue over the exact meaning of corrupt but you try and insinuate its all just smoke and mirrors when there are ongoing police investigations and currently missing funds running into millions.
31. I have always argued (including on this board) that Labour should not have used those types of attacks on Boris. The best line of attack would have been on Boris’ competence and work-rate. These can be pretty easily demonstrated and believed. The other stuff although containing some truth, is less creditable and does not have such a broad effect on voters.
Back to the topic. It seems inevitable now that this Democratic contest is going to go to the wire with all the famous ‘fight for the last single vote’ desperation from the Clintons in full destructive view.
This is just a joy to behold.
The one election in a generation that the Democrats should have been certain to win, and they are going to blow it in spectacular style.
An undamaged unifying Obama was their one hope - a damaged Obama or a divisive Clinton leading a divided party guarantees the White House for McCain.
34. Guarantee is a bit strong. No candidate goes into a presidential election undamaged and we don’t yet know what attacks will be used against McCain. The fact that Obama’s have come out early could be seen as lancing the boil at an early stage. The attacks on McCain will probably come closer to the election and could therefore be more damaging.
34- very poor analysis Marcus. McCain is the candidate struggling with a weak and divided base.
The energy and fight in the Democrat race is one of the most spectacularly intriguing contests in modern political history. Whoever emerges from it is going to be a strong odds on favourite for the presidency
36 Totally agree Tyson , the contest between Clinton and Obama is the real contest to be the next president . The economy has done for the GOP this election unless the Democrats were to select a raving loony leftie which they will not do . Clinton and Obama are strong capable candidates both of whom having the potential to be good presidents .
Thinking back to the 1972 and 1964 Primaries. Why are Republicans in their strongholds reregistering? McCain is confirmed as their candidate. They can re-register as Democrats and cast a vote for his perceived weakest oponent. In 1964 Democrats re-registered to support Goldwater and in 1972 Republicans re-registered to support McGovern.
In the General Election they can vote for who they like!
As said above, the USA is a very large country with a large population. Sometimes European commentators simply do not get it.
36,37
I agree 2008 is the Democrats to lose, but they are setting about losing it with gusto.
4. 8. etc.
I see it’s ‘care in the community’ day once again…
As:
1 - Hilary cannot realistically catch Obama without a scandal torpedoing him (and effectively making him an electoral albatross); and
2 - The superdelegates exist in order to overturn a decision where the elected delegates have come up with an unelectable nominee; and
3 - It’s not realistically possible for Obama now to garner 2025 elected delegates anyway (ie the superdelegates will hold the choice);
Then would it not be logical for Hilary to suspend her campaign (a la Romney), have Obama anointed as nominee presumptive and stand back for the Obama/McCain battle?
We’re all speculating on what would happen with a long and possibly dirty GE campaign battle (which is the logic of the “let’s get the dirty linen examined now” theme); it would surely help the Democrat cause if the attacks come from the Republicans rather than the Democrats; both Democrat camps would then be inclined to rally round. And if a true torpedo does come along, the superdelegates would then be well within their rights to exercise their power and hand the nomination to Hilary.
It could be argued that the Republicans will just keep their powder dry until after the Democratic convention; personally, I can’t see Fox News having the self-control to not attack Obama for quarter of a year.
That’s more like it, Marcus (39)! I agree with Tyson that your post at 34 was a “very poor analysis”, but now your message does seem a bit more upbeat. After all, Tories here do seem to favour Obama…
And how is your campaign faring in Torbay? Any forecast about the results? Or is it still too early to say?
41 - I think she’s still hoping to get the SDs to topple him because she wins on PV (which probably assumes MI and FL are included based on Convention Vote not re-runs).
There’s probably as much chance of this as there is of a real Obama scandal - maybe 4-5% likelihood for each instance (I would say she’s about 9/1 at the moment), so *suspending* her campaign would cut her current chances in half, although make her look a good deal better.
If she wins PA by less than 10% and then loses NC and IN, or if the Platform Committee meeting unanimously opposes a vote on seating MI and FL, then your scenario becomes very likely indeed, I think.
41 - Andy - but isn’t the beauty of the situation that Fox News doesn’t have to attack Obama - Bill’n'Hillary are doing just fine and neither of them have the nouse to stop. They have both allowed their personal egos (egae, egi, egeese?) to overcome their political judgment (if it ever really existed).
This week’s PMQ market now available at ladbrokes.
Make sure you check those rules before risking your hard earned.
What will the topic of Cameron’s first question be?
Economy / Stock Market / Banking 6/4
Education 4/1
Embryo Bill 6/1
Childcare / Family Issues 10/1
Crime / Policing / Prisons 10/1
Health / Nhs 12/1
Iraq / Afghanistan 14/1
Green Issues / Environment / Energy 16/1
Post Offices 16/1
Defence / National Security / Terrorism 20/1
China / Tibet 25/1
ID Cards 25/1
London Mayoral Elections 25/1
Constitutional / Parlimentary Issues 33/1
European Union 33/1
Immigration / Asylum 33/1
Iran 33/1
Transport 33/1
Gambling 100/1
Even the Clinton Luvin ‘Gruntfutock’ appears to concede that Hillary is in the last chance saloon and she has slim to no chance …. and Slim has just left town :
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/mar/24/hillaryclinton.barackobama
43 and if Clinton wins PA by 20% and NC by a small margin and loses IN narrowly what does it do to your scenario . Obama is clearly favourite but Clinton will fight hard as long as she still has a slim chance because the prixe is the Big One .
This is the latest, and probably the best, Obama Girl video.
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=4515895
45 - Cheers Shadsy!
At first pass, 16-1 on Post Offices looks quite good (now the Labour rebels have voted against a carbon copy of their own EDM at Hutton’s urging, it is more embarrassing than last week).
However, I think 6-1 on Embryology is a massive value bet *as long as ‘giving a free vote’ counts as embryology not as a ‘Parliamentary Issue’. Of course, you could put a covering bet on that at 33-1, and argue the toss with Shadsy, but I cannot believe Cameron will not tighten the screws on what will be an embarrassing rebellion/capitulation because of a bungled whipping.
‘Five Ways That Clinton Leads Obama’
http://cameron-fredman.dailykos.com/
49. Our rules say “Categories should be considered exclusive unless mentioned e.g Crime does not include Terrorism, questions specifically on the Embryo Bill will not count as Parliamentary Issues.”
43,
True, but she’s then just focussing on the nomination - the true prize is the Presidency.
Suspending now would reduce her chances for the nomination - but increase her chance of the Presidency given that she wins the nomination. She’d be more likely to get the Obama fans on side and possibly reap the benefits of the Obama Independents. A prolonged fight reduces both Democrat’s chances.
The question, of course, is by what level does her continued fight for the nomination reduce her chances of winning the Presidency after taking the nomination? 10% (chance of winning after long drag-down fight) times 40% (made up chance of winning after the bad feeling of the fight) is the same as 5% (chance of winning after suspension) times 80% (made-up chance of winning as the nominee of a united Democratic campaign), for example. Will the prolonged fight have that kind of effect?
42 “Tories here do seem to favour Obama…”
Not sure if it is true of the wider Party, but there does seem to be little or no appetite for McCain here amongst what should be his natural cheerleaders. It matters not a jot as we have no vote in November, of course - but if Obama can attract support from the right here, might he not do the same in the US?
Oopppps …. CBS exposes Clinton being a tad shy of the actuality on the ‘experience’ front …. watch out Hillary there’s journalistic snipers about :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BfNqhV5hg4
42. He seems the most intelligent and honest of the 3 candidates. Probably what we crave for over here - we must have the most evasive govt with the lowest average IQ for many a year.
42. I favour Clinton for Democrat because I think she will guarantee a McCain win.
As it happens I am becoming convinced that, in spite of the hopes of millions of Europeans and BBC journalists everywhere for Mr Obama, McCain is going to win.
A lot of Europeans impose their own ideas of what a US Presidential election is all about and usually get it totally wrong. It’s not the economy, it’s homeland security; and Americans still feel safest under the Republicans.
55 The story of how this is unfolding badly for Hillary can be seen from the various updates to this post on Daily Kos:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/24/145341/201/815/483295
“It makes the case for Senator Obama that all this experience that she’s been talking about is at least partly her imagination.” Mike Allen at CBS. Oh dear….
57 MM. In fairness the DK is Obama territory, especially after the Clintonista’s threw their toys out of the pram a few week back.
51 - I should have guessed you’d have it covered, Mr Shadsy!
In that case, I think 6-1 on Embryology is great value, and I will prepare to eat my words at 12:08 tomorrow!
56. Surely most of Obama’s support among Tories reflects their loathing of Clinton, with a dash of Obamania reflecting his apparent freshness and ‘charisma’.
The recent revelations - and those surely yet to come - are going to weaken that support, though.
56 I’ve no strong feelings either way, but were I an American, I’d probably vote for McCain.
52 - Andy I entirely agree, but I think this battle with Obama is becoming so all-consuming, that her attitude to McCain in November is ‘let’s burn that bridge when we come to it’.
I think if she wins the nomination (10%) she has only a 40% chance of winning the White House = 4%. If she withdraws (gracefully) that gets cut to 5% chance at the nomination, but only maybe 50-60% at the White House (ie 65% chance of Dem party winning, minus some aggrieved Obamaniacs) = 2.5-3%.
If she does somehow win the nomination, she will not care about the wreckage, because her style of winning is brutal, and she will merely act to inflict as much damage on McCain as she herself has suffered. She alone could win that sort of fight, but as long as the nomination is the necessary but not sufficient step to the Presidency, I think she will risk *everything* to win. November will not be on her radar until she has the nomination.
60. Correct - Clinton and her “right” to be pres despite not being popular reminds us all of the current incumbent of No 10.
I can’t speak for Tories generally but I haven’t met any who feel wild about an Obama presidency.
Why is it that American Democrats jump on every presidential candidate under 50 and liken him to Kennedy? It’s becoming seriously sad, like calling every new boy band ‘the new Beatles’.
The more I see of him the more vacuous I think he becomes. Yelling ‘we can!’ a lot is all well and good but is that it? Is that all he can offer?
I think that a lot of people on this side of the pond are in for a (nasty) shock about just where popular American opinion lies when it comes to their stance worldwide.
OT, any chance of the Conservatives winning a vote on an Iraq inquiry? With the Tories and Lib-Dem’s voting for this, it wouldn’t take too many Labour rebels to defeat the government, would it?
58 “the DK is Obama territory”
Jack, agreed - but it has a good set of links to the MSM on the issue. However, it isinteresting how many of the updates that get referenced come from Daily Kos. There seems to be no equivalent on the right in US Blogs. The Drudge Report is far less interactive,
http://www.drudgereport.com/
and Redstate is far less tolerant of opposing views (You’re barred!!”)
http://www.redstate.com/
Any other right-of-centre US blogs covering the elections which others would recommend?
65. Will the Lib Dems vote or will they abstain unless they get to have a vote on travelling back in time and not invading ?
56 - Surely the point about European attitudes to US elections is that they accept homeland security is a major issue, perhaps the major issue, but don’t understand the view that the Republicans are best placed to deal. There is no question in most European minds (a few British Tory and Labour politicians excepted) that Iraq made us less secure and that McCain’s hawkish position on Iran makes our position more precarious still.
The economy doesn’t help either, but unlike Bush Senior in 1992 (effectively a 12 year incumbant), McCain can distance himself from that.
67. LOL!
59. I am open to suggestions on other ways to handle this market. No matter how hard we try to phrase a rule, we are bound to hit some sort of amiguity sooner or later. Our host has suggested simply betting on which one of a list of words or phrases Cameron uses first with a “none of the above” option.
68 - If you agree the line that Obama would be the best Head of State, McCain the best Commander in Chief, and Clinton the best Head of Government (Senate Majority perhaps?), then it make McCain still at 2/1 even better value.
I had so many friends who were aghast that Bush won in 2004, and couln’t understand how America could ‘make the same mistake twice’. European culture, being so much less comfortable with military power and patriotism, clearly struggles to understand what for most Americans is almost self-evident: That in time of war, the election is first and foremost for a Commander-in-Chief, and in times of peace it is for a Commander-in-Chief who can cut taxes and reduce the deficit.
70 - Shadsy, I don’t think there is aything wrong with the rules - I appreciate the fact that Ladbrokes are normally a good deal clearer and fairer on tangental interpretations than the other bookies/exchanges (as exemplified by Texas Democratic Primary results!). All it was is that I can’t access your site from my place of work, so couldn’t check the Rules before I posted.
I think this is a great market - along with the Budget Speech, one of the most fun to play. Similar markets on Clegg’s questions, or how Cameron splits his questions by topic (accumulator bets) coming soon, perhaps?
68. I know it’s a bit hackneyed, but it really did all change on 9/11.
Many (- I’d speculate, most) Americans have come to believe that attack is their best form of defence.
I’d guess that Americans would cheer to the rafters any president ‘brave’ enough to bomb Iran. They would argue that it was strength and threat that defeated Communist Russia, brought Gadaffi and North Korea to heel and defeated ‘terrorists’ like Saddam and the Taliban. I think there is a much stronger appetite for these things than the European media are reporting.
Most Americans believe that the only reason Jerusalem isn’t like Beiruit or Gaza is because the Isreali’s are willing to strike first where necessary to defend themselves.
In America today it’s all about being the tough guy.
71 - Hearing some of McCain’s foreign policy views, I think he would make the best Chief Inspector of Public Sewers to be honest.
I accept that McCain’s appeal is the Commander in Chief appeal because of the ludicrous but widespread notion that spending time as a POW gives you special insight into international relations. I was just disputing Marcus’ view that the reason Europeans don’t “get” American elections is because they are about security and not the economy. I say Europeans understand that, what they don’t “get” is the view that a hawkish foreign policy almost necessarily aids security.
73, as exemplified by Fry and Laurie: http://youtube.com/watch?v=6riY-103vbc
64- marcus- now I see where your very poor analysis come from- you are coloured by your dislike of US democrats which leads you to dislike Obama.
The Democrat contest is completlely engrossing- it doesn’t matter a jot if it plays out until the late summer. Infact the longer it plays out, the more money will be made as the odds will remain good to back either Obama or Hillary.
Once the winning candidate makes their conference address the race from a bettting perspective will be more or less over. Up until that point there is value on backing Obama, or a longer shot Hillary.
I would guess that on polling day the Democrats will be more than 5-1 on for the election, and the amount pledged on betfair will be over 20 million.
Having Tipped Tibet last week (did not bet on it though), it is too early too decide what the first topic will be at PMQs.
By 10am tomorrow it should be pretty clear.
[73] Marcus, am I right in thinking that if you had any polling numbers to back your argument that it’s about national security rather than the economy, you’d be sharing them with us?
This is quite interesting - even though Florida’s pledged delegates are not going to be seated without a vote, the Super Delegates from FL (and I suppose MI) still are, if they choose to turn up.
Mark Tomasik (D-FL-16, took over from disgraced Mark Foley in 2007) reckons that if it goes to Denver, Gore-Obama or Gore-Clinton would be welcomed by all. I’ve scoffed at Gore being on top or bottom of the 2008 ticket - I think he’d be awful, I think he was the reason he lost 2000, and I think if a guy can’t carry his own state with $100m of advertising behind him he should leave politics altogether - but is he perhaps worth a covering bet?
What *are* the recent odds on Gore as President or Nominee this time?
73 - I think you are grossly overstating the American appetite for war. A CBS poll a few days ago had 59% of Americans saying the US should have stayed out of Iraq with only 36% saying it was the right thing. A CNN poll had a similar result - 62% saying it wasn’t worth it to 36% saying it was.
The 36% scores are quite high by European standards but a clear minority. Of course, some may mean “we should have bombed Iran instead” but I suspect that factor doesn’t explain the results.
79 Click on the first word (”This”) to activate link - not sure why the whole post went blue!
74/80 - I don’t think it’s an appetite for war, more an acceptance that security is intrinsic to every aspect of American life, and having that military guarentee gives the confidence to act in all other areas of life. You can disagree with the Iraq War, but still say “given we’re in there, we should do the job properly”, or “it would be wrong to leave it to falll apart now - we have an obligation to cleanup after ourselves” etc etc.
McCain isn’t pseudo-qualified because he was a POW. The guy comes from a family where his father and grandfather were both Admirals, he fought in a war, spent 5.5 years as a POW, and has taken an active interest in Foreign Relations and Veterans’ Affairs throughout his 20-odd years in the Senate. He probably is, alongside Kerry, better placed than anyone else to speak on the military and international relations. It’s not just sacharine fawning because he got tortured. However, that does not excuse some of the ill-judged comments he’s made about Iran in this campaign - but I think these come from lack of political judgement rather than a failure to understand the issues.
78 - I get the feeling Marcus is trying to polish up his credentials as an expert on military/security issues. On the evidence of today, he is no Nigel West!
82 - His position on Iran is dangerous in my view but you can of course always have a debate. But his comment on Iran training al-Qaeda tends to suggest that his view isn’t even based on any real knowledge.
Sort of on thread…
Just received an e-mail from Brian Paddick claiming he’s appointed a former Hillary Clinton campaign manager to run his campaign for Mayor. Anyone know who this is? Not the one ’sacked’ by Hillary after super Tuesday?
84 - This was my concern. I think he is clearly too well-informed to believe Iran is training AQI, so he was either being as disingenuous as Bush was in 2003, or he was having a Senior Moment. Both are troubling, but I still think he has very strong credentials to be CiC.
Interestingly though, the last 4 elections, the American people have chosen uniform-shy candidates (GW Bush and Clinton) over those with military experience (GHW Bush was the youngest fighter pilot in WWII, Dole fought with 10th Mountain Division in WWII, Gore was with the 20th Engineer Corps briefly in Vietnam, and Kerry’s Vietnam record is well-known).
80 - indeed. Marcus should remember the previous time the Democrats won the presidency - just after a a previous (and far more successful) gulf war.
‘It’s the economy stupid’ was Clinton’s mantra then - and it will be on the GOP’s economic record that the election will be lost.
83 - Could be Steve Morgan (Morgan Allen Moore in Cardiff were Hain’s preferred outfit and Morgan was UK Press Officer for Clinton up until Super Tuesday at least) - I’ll ask about.
‘Campaign Manager’ is a bit elevated a title unless it really is Patty Solis - a little embellishment on the political CV is fair, but that’s just silly.
84. Well it’s always a privilege to hear from a genuine expert on the subject such as yourself.
81- what a great addition to the site it would be if we could colour code our responses according to our political affiliations. Lefties red, righties blue, greenies green, lib dems an anaemic, boring colour- magnolia perhaps.
84
Are you suggesting US foreign policy is based on facts?
(real knowledge).
The last two major wars - Vietnam and Iraq - were started with deliberate lies.
90 - Tyson: are you calling me a Tory?!
PMQs: inflation, I assume. The Tory claims (quoting things that go up but not things that go down) got some coverage and DC will want it to get some more. He’s done embryology twice now, and in today’s Times he’s hastily backing off from being identified with the Catholic position - as I said here last week, there was a tactical alliance over the free vote issue but it would break down before the votes, because Cameron isn’t going to oppose stem cell research when it comes to it.
re 45 another modest overround of 50%
89 - In all fairness, I decided to resist the strong pressure to run for President this time out partly because I lack the expertise. Not being American and having insufficient intellect, charisma and money were also factors.
93, I think that your reading is a little inaccurate. From what I understand, Cameron’s attacks on Brown haven’t been saying a yes or no vote is right, but that a free vote is right. It’s entirely consistent to call for a free vote and either oppose or support the measure.
I really don’t know what his first question will be. Were I a punter, I might be tempted to go with the London Mayoral Elections, although recently he seems to be having a few serious questions followed by some Punch and Judy.
93. Good call Nick. Cameron will have planned a new square on the grid for the post-Easter period… I’d guess he’ll move onto economic competence issues between now and May 1st, and that this inflation argument will be the first salvo.
Stem cells is never an election-winning argument on either side… it was just an open goal that Brown left open and Cameron (rightly) decided to exploit.
Won’t be inflation, too obvious. Cameron goes for the more prosaic on his first question. (but I suspect it might be there in the second set.
The trouble for labour is the Tory analysis of inflation chimes with a lot of voters perception of inflation (it is different everyone I know). It feeds into the entire credibility of this government.
The point I am trying to make has nothing to do with my own politics, I am merely suggesting that, as ever, many commentators on this side of the Atlantic (especially those of the left) don’t fully understand the American psyche, especially at the moment.
Americans want to ‘get’ the ‘bad guys’ more than anything else.
They have bought into the whole (flawed) Hollywood-style concept that you can ‘end this terrorism thing once and for all, right now’ and they are going to elect a President who they think is going to do that for them.
Proof? Bush won a second term.
As betting folk you forget this at your peril.
Back vaguely on topic, would it be an idea for the Democratic Central Committee (or whatever it is) to force all the undeclared unpledged and super-delegates to declare their preference now, rather then wait until the convention?
That way, there would be no nasty surprises at the convention and the finishing line would be clear, if not already passed.
re 93 Nick the things that go up seem to be the things that people buy most often. No-one would doubt that an MP3 player or laptop, for example, is cheaper now, but you don’t buy those every week. You do buy staple food items and fuel. You also pay housing costs but Brown and Darling’s oft quoted measure doesn’t include these at all. You’re doing yourself no favours by having Darling constantly going on about 2% inflation because a) people do not believe it, b) it undermines the veracity in all other government statistics.
Note I’m not implying that the ONS are fiddling the figures as they’re not, rather that like with the 4 Iraq enquiries what they’re being asked to calcuate is very tightly defined in order to give the right answer.
99- Marcus- Bush won a second term because he is actually quite a charasmatic, likable and charming guy. He is also a guy’s guy- the kinda guy you can crack open a Bud with. He connects easily and effortlessly with the public. Rove saw all these skills, skills you cannot buy.
And he was faced by Kerry who had none of Bush’s charm.
Two things to remember about American military campaigns that tend to colour their views:
1. The US usually wins
2. The victory is usually fought to a position where terms are dictated, rather than negotiated.
There is therefore a belief in strength of firepower bringing security, because that is what has mattered in the wars of the past. Where it has proved less effective, because of the nature of the fighting or opponent, such as Vietnam, Iraq, or peacekeeping operations, things have come unstuck more rapidly (actually, it’s probably wrong to list Iraq seperately from ‘peacekeeping’ there, as the Iraq War itself was massively successful; it was the occupation where it all went wrong).
Tyson,
Do you know thats the best reason written on this site as too why Brown is tanking in the Polls. As none as those traits are apparent in Brown.
90, 92, I wonder if the font color tag is valid on wordpress.
Testing
Testing
Testing
102. We can debate the reasons why Bush won a second term forever and still never really know.
My point is that no-one on the left saw it coming, especially in Europe, and they are in danger of making exactly the same mistake this time, too.
105, Nope. The “Testings” would have been blue, red and yellow if so.
[79] - Well, Gore as nominee might work if Obama and Clinton trash each other in the mean-time, but I can’t see either of them giving way to him voluntarily. Plus Gore would lose.
This reminds me that people argued Gore should not run for the nomination as doing so would make him into the “Green” candidate and make the politics not so good for taking action to avoid the worst effects of global warming.
It seems to me that the effect this has had has been mainly to allow people to forget about the issue, against others such as the economy, War and whether Obama is an angry resentful black man or a black man pretending to be a white man or.. whatever.
104. Indeed - Brown is utterly charmless, with negative charisma. He also looks like a blunderer, a ditherer, a control freak, and increasing an incompetent.
No wonder he won the Labour leadership without a contest LOLOLOLOL!
90 Nice idea,but one topical-and BIG drawback-the USA goes against the rest of the world by the fact its most right-wing party,the Republican Party,has red as its colour and the less right wing,tending to centrist,Democratic Party has bkue as its colour!
Tyson is on to a winner with the colours. The main colours could be subdivided (a la Dulux) into Rich, Fresh, Calm and Warm. Then we would all know where the writer stood.
106 - despite his disasterous adventurism and lacklustre domestic record Dubya won because he was more likeable than Kerry.
The fact that Kerry polled the second highest vote in history (and Dubya the first) showed the strength of feeling against him. That election (plus the mid terms) transformed the Democrats in congress and gave them the platform to win this time round. If Kerry hadn’t been quite so wooden - the Dems would probably have beaten Bush last time round.
It’s why my view is that the Democrats will win this time - very comfortably with Obama and less so with Hillary because of the likeability factor. I actually think McCain’s only chance is with a Hillary candidature.
You fail to understand the importnace of domestic (and local) politics in the US - in fact if anyone has fallen for the Hollywood hero line - it’s you. Most americans can see the difference between Rambo and having their house repossessed - which unfortunately too many of them are suffering at the moment.
101. The constant trotting out of 2% inflation does make the government look daft. If they just said it was higher or admitted inflation had risen I think most people would just agree, instead they keep clinging to a figure the public see as a blatent lie and the tories can exploit.
What odds an Obama-Clinton ticket ?
http://www.observer.com/2008/case-obama-clinton-ticket
99 - In late 2004, polls showed Americans very evenly divided on the “Iraq War - right thing or wrong thing?” question with a small majority saying right but with more questioning the scale of casualties. A lot of the debate was over handling of the war, not the war itself. As my comment at 80 demonstrates, there has been a lot of movement since late 2004 and there is now a large and stable majority saying the Iraq War was a mistake full stop.
On the main topic - In the end it doesn’t really matter as Clinton is too far behind to catch up without the Obama campaign collapsing.
“Just received an e-mail from Brian Paddick claiming he’s appointed a former Hillary Clinton campaign manager to run his campaign for Mayor. Anyone know who this is? Not the one ’sacked’ by Hillary after super Tuesday?”
Not the greatest tactical move, the Clinton campaign hasn’t quite been as bad as the Giuliani one but they’ve managed to turn an unassailable positoin into a losing one. I would also be turned off by any of the negative type of campaigning that they’ve used. I wouldn’t have thought that Clinton is a lib-dem friendly figure in any case.
Is Clinton’s target now 2012?
The tactic could be to damage Obama enough now to ensure a McCain victory this year and to leave herself favourite for four years time. It would be extremely disloyal to her party of course, but that doesn’t seem to have bothered her too much so far. She has already implied that only her and McCain are suitable commander in chiefs, so could four years of McCain be a less worse option for her, than four years of Obama?
On the Presidential race, I’m wondering how to interpret the recent polling that’s putting McCain even with or ahead of Clinton and Obama. Obvious options being:
a) Clinton and Obama are being damaged by the current infighting, and they’ll be in trouble if it carries on.
b) Clinton and Obama are being damaged by the current infighting, but they’ll gradually recover once the nomination is settled as people forget about it and concentrate on the contest with McCain.
c) The polls are actually showing tactical moves by Obama and Clinton supporters, who know that their responses will help determine the nomination. So even if you’re real order of preference is Obama->Clinton->McCain, you’d tell the pollster that you’d vote for McCain over Clinton. Ditto for Hillary supporters.
I’m not sure, but I think I’m inclined to believe (c). Any thoughts? Are most people honest in answering opinion polls, or at times like this would a significant proportion play games with them?
David Mark of ‘Politico’ looks at the prospect of a ‘voter tsumani’ in turnout for the Presidential election :
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9196.html
And right on cue comes Gordon offering a free vote on embryo legislation:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7312715.stm
Looks like the vote on the whoel bill will be whipped, but that individual elements will be sbject to a free vote. Sensible decision, however could have dealt with it better by making it earlier.
Tyson - I don’t think the 2004 victory was a massive vote of confidence for Bush, but more about a country that saw itself at war and thought it was the wrong time to change President. Also, remember that relatively few Presidents ever lose. Bush Snr had spent the previous 8 years as VP aswell, of course. It was only bush and his cohort around him who thought they’d been given a huge vote of confidence. Just part of their self-delusion (more of in a minute).
David Herdson - I know America has been fortunate to be able to dictate terms with its overwhelming force in the past, but that can’t fully explain the attitude pre-Iraq. The fact is that a great many Americans don’t have a realistic worldview. They delude themselves as part of an entirely bogus ‘feel good’ culture. Europe is still scarred by WW2 and yet many Americans have clearly chosen to ‘forget’ the inconvenient history of Vietnam. That, along with a dogmatic rather than pragmatic attitude towards obtaining justice and a rather simplistic view of criminality (I’ll tell you what causes crime - criminals) makes them unfit to deal with the problems of Iraq.
118 - 36% of Clinton supporters say the wouldn’t vote for Obama, and 27% of Obama supporters say they wouldn’t vote for McCain. The latter set of numbers are more believable, because of the Independents for Obama, but I think you’ve hit the nail on the head with option c, at least for Clinton supporters, who need that news to influence SDs in their favour.
120. sensible decision, already made by the other two main parties weeks ago.
122 - That should have been “27% of Obama supporters say they wouldn’t vote for Clinton” - I got the figures from a Fox TV interview with Richardson on the weekend about the Carville jibe.
83 - Paddick’s Clintonista is Rick Ridder, who ran her campaign in Arizona. Now I’ve heard the name, I think I had read this in the paper a few weeks ago though - anyone else heard it?
BBC opening paragraphs read “Gordon Brown says Labour MPs will be given a free vote on controversial parts of his embryo research proposals.
He said he thought the measures were of huge importance but that he respected the ethical issues involved for some.
The prime minister said if those plans were backed by MPs, he expects all Labour MPs to vote in favour when there is the final vote on the whole bill.”
How is it possible to have a free vote then issue ‘an expectation’ that all Labour MPs to vote in favour when there is the final vote. Either the report of Broon’s position is misleading or there appears to be some illogicality in his pronouncement. Perhaps Snowball has misheard Comrade Napoleon’s words again.
123. Oh dear, Brown displaying Grand Old Duke of York (or is it Duke of Plaza Toro?) syndrome yet again…every week seems to bring fresh evidence of a remarkable lack of judgement.
So what happens if the contentious aspects get through the next stages on a free vote - will the Catholics still defy Brown on the whipped vote for the whole Bill? Everything we have heard to date suggests so - in which case all Brown has done is defer the damaging Cabinet resignations/dismissals to nearer the next election.
Why couldn’t he just concede gracefully on the point?
The govt was always in a more complex position than the oppositon parties since it is the sponsor of the bill. The other parties have no pratical responsibility towards the bill or in finding a solution.
I think it’s unlikely that more than a handful of respondents give misleading replies to pollsters in the hope of influencing the outcome of the Democrats’ nomination process. Most people aren’t that cunning, or politically motivated.
I am disappointed that Brown will allow any free votes on this. It is a crucial bill which shouldn’t be stopped by religious leaders. If there are cabinet members for whom religion is more important than the needs of the people they represent, then they should do the honourable thing and resign. MPs are not elected on the basis of their religion and shouldn’t vote on that basis either.
125 - Rick Ridder - yes it was announced a week or so ago (just googled it). Rick Ridder has worked for Ashdown in the past - which is why I remember the name. Interesting to see whether he’ll have the effect Rove (?) did on the UKIP campaign last time. Given he spearheaded Dean’s campaign last time I fear not.
130 - True enough, but I didn’t mean it to sound quite as deliberate as I did. I think it’s more that there are Obama supporters who would be gutted if he didn’t win, and when asked would you support Clinton anyway, feel that to respond ‘yes’ undermines their candidate. There are also Clinton supporters who would like to project that they are with her because they genuinely think he is not ready (or other disqualifying reasons), so when asked would you support him, to answer ‘yes’ feels slightly inconsistant.
I don’t think many people are actively seeking to project this into the news, rather that when confronted with the question, they respond in the way that best helps their candidate at this stage.
8
What a load of crap. When the brains were being given out I guess you must have been in the Smarties’ queue.
Why would you post this load of crap here? Is it an intellectual exercise to aid people in their betting choices on the US election?
Maybe you should stick to subjects you understand.
Malcolm
MPs are not elected on the basis of their religion and shouldn’t vote on that basis either
On what basis are they elected/should they vote, then? On the basis of their party’s manifesto, perhaps?
127. Ditto “car sharing lanes” - has been scrapped.
LOL, more humiliation for Gordon Brown - And on the day he’s supposed to be launching Labours general election campaign.
I wonder if he’ll have called a COBRA meeting to come to this U-Turn? Why is this guy always making a drama out of a crisis? His ebtire thinking process seems to be flawed.
135. Yes they should (cue response: well what about the referendum then?) Well I think their should have been a referendum as well.
On the original point, there are certain issues that demand a free vote (going to war for instance), but I don’t believe that this should have one. Religion and religious leaders should not be involved in politics. I don’t want this country to go the same way as the US where policy and campaigns are dictated by religion and religious belief.
131 MPs are entitled to use their best judgement about what is right and wrong in deciding whether to support or oppose a particular piece of legislation.
It’s obviously up to the Labour party to decide whether it will allow a free vote or not, but, if you anticipate a significant revolt against the party line, on issues of conscience, a free vote is generally a sensible idea.
Re. 137 that should have been he’s launching Labour local election campaign. I’m getting ahead of myself.
138 Religion involves questions of ethics, so I don’t see how religious leaders can fail to express their opinions on ethical issues.
141, So, for example, I would regard it as entirely appropriate that religious leaders should express an opinion about going to war, for example.
I’d draw the line at religious leaders instructing their congregations to vote for a particular party.
138 - I don’t understand the clamouring from Liberal Secularists on this one. The RC Church, and every other faith, are just another set of actors in a Liberal Pluralist democracy - as entitled to use whatever means they like to try an influence the debate.
No one minds that David Heath rebelled because ‘I Want A Referendum’ threatened to target his seat, no-one minds that Friends of the Earth can pursuade MPs to vote their way, or that Stonewall have been effective at cajoling MPs to their cause.
It is complete hypocrisy to deny a group’s right to lobby simply because they are a religion, and completely unfair to say that MPs can vote on their conscience when lobbied by one set of campaigners, but that not on another.
I like Free Votes, and wish we had them on more things, but they are political pragmatism. Parties traditionally give them on things that are seen by MPs as moral or ethical issues, of which this is one (as was the War, and they should have had a free vote on that too). If Brown gets bloodied by this, and I hope he will, then it will be utterly deserved. It is ridiculous to offer a free vote of Fox Hunting, but not on this Bill - irrespective of which side you fall on the debate, there are at least serious ethical questions to be asked, and a whipped vote shows contempt for MPs.
138. Religion doesn’t swing too many votes in the UK, nor is the Christian kind likely to in the future.
But striking anti-religious poses won’t win any votes, either. The quixotic attitude you express is reminiscent of the foaming at the mouth many Labour supporters suffer from when the subject of ‘faith schools’ emerges.
It’s very strange to listen to people trying to argue that village CofE primary schools are somehow factories of religious intolerance.
Brown should have allowed a free vote from the start, there aren’t enough MP’s opposed in any party to