Team Obama claim victory in the second battle of Texas
March 30th, 2008
The Illinois senator claims a nine delegate caucus lead?
One of the aspects of politics that I find absolutely intriguing is how the contenders and parties deal with the sheer mechanics.
Consider the challenge facing Team Hillary and Team Obama yesterday as they sought to manage the 88,000 people who were elected in the caucuses that followed the Texas primary on March 4th. This weekend they attend dozens of district and county conventions at which 7.298 of were be elected to take part in a three day state convention starting on June 5th. And at that event the final key vote will take place for the 67 delegates who will go on to the national and critical convention in Denver at the end of August.
-
Sounds complicated? Yes - but at each of the three stages there’s the potential for the side with the best organisation to squeeze extra places.
Before yesterday the estimate was that the 67 would split 37 Obama to 30 to Clinton. Following the weekend’s ’s events the Obama campaign claimed it was now 38 to 29 - a triumph for their organisation in what were quite chaotic proceedings.
Hillary had a four delegate lead in the March 4th primary so if the latest claim proves correct then Obama could take a net five delegate gain out of Texas. In fact there is the possibility that they could gain even more from the process at the state convention.
In the nomination betting Obama is now at 0.28/1.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Endgame. Just give up Hills.
She’ll see the result of PA and, all being reasonable, she should then concede. The nightmare for the Dems is she wins by enough to make the process inch on for yet more weeks
But…….
McCain will still fry the opposition!
Go GOP!
Here is a prediction of the 2008 US presidential election:
Just worry about parties not candidate names…….
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ElectoralCollege1980-Large.png
OT, Max Hastings makes the case for Mayor Boris and why Labours expectation that he will be a complete disaster could be wide off the mark;
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/mar/30/boris.livingstone
She won’t quit, nor do I see any reason why she should.
She’s a 4/1 shot. These sometimes win, about 20% of the time. Why shouldn’t she give herself every possible chance?
Nor do I buy the argument that this is damaging to the Democrat party. In the short term, McCain gets a head start but longer term, the Democrats get a battle-hardened contender who carries the authority that comes from winning a tough contest. There’s a trade off.
Meanwhile, lots of people who wouldn’t normally get involved participate in the democratic process. How bad is that?
re 3. If he doesn’t have any senior moments or lose his temper. Who wants a warmonger?
6. Peter, how on earth does she have 20% chance of winning? Do you think she has a 20% chance of winning the popular vote?
It does disadvantage the Democrat party because they are busy spending their money fighting each other while McCain gets to defined himself in the public’s mind without them getting input.
202. So Moravia has more claim to being a nation than Catalonia?
From the last thread:
55. The “relentlessly free market” Republicans are nothing of the sort. They frequently provide big handouts to banks, the steel industry, agribusiness etc. They’re only free market when it comes to stuff which would cost big business: minimum wage, universal healthcare, lobbying influence in congress, helping the housing collapse etc. If they can provide subsidies to business at the expense of the taxpayer, they are more than willing to do it, and Bear Sterns was no exception.
187. If the Westminster goverment accepted Scottish independence, no other countries would have a problem with it. The Kosovan situation was problematic for Spain, Cyprus etc because it was done without Serbian agreement.
204. Stuart, do you believe Wales should also get independence? And do you think it would move that way if Scotland got independence?
206. The structure of governance and the electoral system in South Africa is not the sort that will create independent oppositions. Thus the problem with overly “consensual” models.
7. A country which considers itself at war, perhaps?
7. His latest line is that he has been through war, as well as suffering its worse effects in a Vietnamese prison camp. He thus hates war, and would only inflict that on the brave men and women of this country if he thought it was necessary. If he gets to frame that argument without the Democrats being able to respond for a few more months it could sell.
6 - “In the short term, McCain gets a head start but longer term, the Democrats get a battle-hardened contender who carries the authority that comes from winning a tough contest. There’s a trade off.”
So is it a bit like Brown having no battle so not being “battle-hardened contender who carries the authority that comes from winning a tough contest”?
3.
2008 will be the inverse of 1980.
The conditions are perfect for a wipeout. The terrible Bu**sh** Presidency, recession, inspirational Democrat in Obama and the need for change.
Goodbye Billary and goodbye McCain…
Ave It, I do think you are having another “Watford moment” in your support of McCain!
America is waking to the news that the Humvees they have equipped the Iraqi Army with are now in the hands of the Mehdi Army:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/30/wiraq330.xml
McCain has been a cheerleader for the Invasion and the Surge. There will be a price for him to pay for that.
12 hahahaha! If Dem win it will by the tiniest of margins.
More chance of Nathan Ellington scoring a goal in each of Watford’s remaining games…..
7 yes Mike - you and i don’t like the Iraq war (rightly) but ’silent’ USA love it!
6 - Obama has been strengthened over the Wright issue. He has lost soft GOP support but that would have happened anyway. The big advantage Hillary has is she is tough as nails and has been able to withstand everything thrown at her. Obama by contrast is incredibly inexperienced for a Presidential candidate. He has won one state-wide election against risible opposition. This is in many ways a huge asset in a change election but it creates vulnerabilities as well. Better the Dems find out if he can withstand the fire now. It seems as though he is doing. As long as the loser endorses the winner the Dems will have time to unite. They are losing an opportunity to define McCain but is that Clinton’s fault. Surely it is because Obama was unable to finish her off in Texas or Ohio?
13 Watford are indeed LOL
Sporting Index gives a spread of 15.5-16 on Obama, meaning if he does get a lock on the nomination its giving 2:3 against him winning the Presidency.
Given that Betfair puts the Democrats as 1.63 favourites and I don’t see any chance of Hillary getting the nomination, that seems like good value to me.
After lurking and being a reader here for about a year now, I’ve just made my first ever serious for money political bet. Bought @ 16 for £50 stake. A lot to risk on a ‘virgin’ bet, I hope I’ve not made a big mistake.
14 - If they love it they aren’t telling the pollsters. They may yet choose McCain as the “right man” to steer them through to withdrawal with honour but it is simply without any evidential support to say it has been a popular war in recent years in the States.
Well, this evens it up for the state which Clinton won twice (I forget which one now) after a re-count.
I’m almost convinced that Obama will win it now, though I am sceptical of these “Who is best placed to beat McCain?” polls - remember Ken Clarke used to win these kind of polls here, but IDS and Howard won the “nomination”.
16. Hillary needs a ‘WBA moment’ - a last-minute equaliser followed by a last-minute winner.
15. It is her fault. Why couldn’t she bow out like Romney? It’s clear she can only win by a stitch-up that overturns the voters views. Even if she won by that she would be in deep trouble come the main election. It would be different if she was fighting for the direction and views of the party, but her platform is very similar to Obama’s. She’s harming the party’s chances (and the country’s) just so she can be the woman in charge.
18 remember the right wing view is always understated to the pollsters. People over there - as over here - will say what they perceive to be the ‘nice’ thing to the pollsters ie not supporting the war but privately they support it.
I think most people in the UK do realise now that it has been a f*** up. I used to support it but am now opposed.
20 HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Best post of the month!
Yes I really enjoyed sitting at home yesterday and seeing the developments on 90 at WBA and Bristol City…..
Well done for yesterday - even if you had drawn that game, your season would have been over. But now you are right back there. PS Can we have Roman next season and you can have Ellington back!
18. Well, except perhaps for McCain’s lead over both Dem contenders?
Mike, McCain is no warmonger; a tortured military prisoner with a son in the Army currently serving, “warmonger” will be a hard Dem sell.
8 Socrates, as to how Obama could lose, the answer is “God Damn America” pastor Wright - scandal now seems close to him. The HRC campaign is apparently waiting for another shoe to drop - a second racist/anti-American as a close acquaintance, perhaps. That’s how I read it, anyway.
8 - Her chances are between 5 and 10% now. They would be higher if MI and FL were re-run. To win the PV she would need a significant shift in her favour in the remaining states, even then she would probably have to include FL in her claim. None of this looks very likey to happen.
On Moravia and Catalonia I don’t know enough about there histories or opinion to judge. But Scotland is different to both. It had a long independent history and has remained a nation within the UK, rather than simply a region.
21 I agree that Hillary would be in a better long-term position if she suspended her campaign now, but certainly after PA. She may be given some credit at last in acting for the best interests of the Party - and perhaps even build up a decent head of steam leaning on Obama to choose her as his Veep. (Not that I think he will - but then she will have some grounds for her righteous indignation!)
24. Maybe not - the Premiership is real football, not the kick and rush of the Championship.
With our (good) attack and our (crap) defence, I recommend buying the spread of aggregate goals for the Albion-Pompey semi.
15,Kieran as always on both the US elections and the British political situation a very balanced post.
25. It seems harsh to give Scotland more of a status than other places just because the Westminster government was willing to compromise and keep the place’s status. In France the revolutionary forces overrode any compromise in the quest for centralisation. It seems a bit harsh to give places like Brittany less than nationhood because they were dealing with a more oppressive central government.
If we are going to go to history, one could also point out that the Germanic Lowland Scots are closer culturally to the English than they are to the Celtic Gaels. But history should not be a guide, whether an ethnic group decides itself to be a separate nation should be down to the people of that nation and no-one else.
24. If there was a scandal of enough proportions for superdelegates to override the will of the voters, it wouldn’t matter if Clinton suspended her campaign or not. She could always step back in if needed.
The idea of Moravian home rule makes me laugh! No chance!
What about the ethnic Hungarian in southern Slovakia? That’s much more of a hot potato!
21 - In the RCP average she is 16 points up in Pennsylvania. That probably overestimates it, she is probably about 12 points ahead. But lets say she outperforms there and the pastor comments have a bigger impact than the polls suggest and wins 60-40. That is probably worth 400-500k in the PV. That would put her 300k behind, or about level including FL. She could then do well in Puerto Rico and come out just ahead. This is a very unlikely scenario, but there is a 5-10% chance of it happening. Romney had NO prosepct of winning. He was down 800-200 with only 1200 needed. PV doesn’t matter in the GOP race because there are very few SDs. On the Dem side winning the PV could persuade the SDs. Romney hardly won anywhere outside his home states. Clinton is only down about 52/48 in the PV, there is little comparison.
Also, look at it from Clinton’s perspective. She won the Ohio and Texas primaries. Coming off those victories she would be thinking she had the momentum and a right to carry on. At what point does that change? Obama has not been tested in the post-Wright period. She will only stop before the end of the primaries if she is given a big defeat. It will be healthier for the Dems in the long-run for her to be defeated at the ballot box rather than forced out by party big-wigs. That will only increase the animosity from the Clinton supporters towards Obama and would hurt him in the fall.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/129660
Spurs are 3-1 down at home to Newcastle…. 15 mins left….
OT(from previous thread):what effect do you think AV would have in Scotland at Westminster level? Because it is a genuine 4-party system the results would be quite interesting. It would probably hurt Labour at the moment as I guess they would be the least ‘transfer-friendly’ party.
It’s hard to make certain predictions, but one thing seems clear, based on council results under STV. Only about 60% of voters are expressing second or subsequent preferences. This will naturally diminish the capacity of AV to alter the winner.
The distribution of 1st preferences is also important. Parties which find themselves in 3rd or 4th place in a seat are very unlikely to be elected. At the moment that is going to be mostly the Tories and LibDems.
However transfer patterns are important. I suspect AV may be of value to the LDs in holding seats that are at risk of loss, while at current levels of support gains seem unlikely. The Tories would not really benefit. I suspect they are not that transfer-friendly and have few close second-places anyhow. That leaves Lab and SNP. At current levels of support there are probably 5 Labour seats that could be tipped to the SNP by LD and Tory transfers, although as I’ve indicated previously small changes in 1st preferences could alter that markedly either way.
27 - I would like to see WBA win but expect Pompey to win and play the mighty CARDIFF in the final
Cardiff in the final? Maybe LDs will win the next GE after all! (Mark Senior where are you?)
33 make that 1-4
Is Hillary’s campaign going broke?
http://www.suntimes.com/news/sneed/865494,CST-NWS-SNEED28.article
She has not won any votes in the way she pays (or doesn’t pay) her bills:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9259.html
26 - An interesting suggestion from Mario Cuomo a few days ago suggesting a pact between Obama and Clinton. Whoever wins the PV is the nominee, the runner-up is the VP. I’m sure Clinton would agree to it but Obama wouldn’t. However it would do a lot to take the sting out of the race. It also probably assures Obama of the nomination and helps him in November. He is highly likely to win the PV, his agreement would make him seem generous given his lead. Although Clinton might hurt him with Independents it would unite the party base which may be enough for him. Of course he has a good chance of the nomination and the Presidency without Clinton so may choose that option given his personal dislike.
Small road-side shrines start reappearing in Newcastle….
27. As a Bristol City supporter, I’m hoping you hammer Portsmouth. Anything to distract you from the league!
34 - Thanks Rod, that all seems fairly plausible.
34. But wouldn’t bringing in AV make the Tories and others act in ways that make them more “transfer-friendly”?
40 - I am gob smacked you lot havent blown up yet! Although if you hadnt scored on 90 yesterday you would have been behind Hull in expectation for promotion (even if currently ahead in the league).
I think Hull are up (Hull in the Premier???? maybe LDs will win every seat at the next GE!). Its between you WBA Stoke (9 points 08/09 LOL?) for the other two places.
42. Well, it might, but….
i) there appears to be scant evidence from the STV/AV council results so far.
ii) even if it happens, it’s no use if the Tories can’t also dramatically increase their 1st preference support, since transfers can’t help you if you are already eliminated from the contest….
43. I don’t see Stoke managing it really. I’m just hoping it doesn’t all come down to our risible goal difference.
34. Agree with most of that, Rod.
There have been 8 council by-elections so far in Scotland, fought under what is de facto AV (STV for one vacancy). The winner has been the candidate with most first preferences in each case.
35. The advantage of playing Cardiff in the final would be a bye into the UEFA Cup, since a Welsh team cannot take an English qualifying place. Well, that’s how I understand the rules at the moment.
44. Fair enough, but I do think council results are affected by politicians at the national level, who are not working with an AV/STV mindset.
45 I dont see stoke doing it either. They are a pile of shyte!
44 - It will be interesting to see whether voters learn to use the system and parties how to campaign. E.g. making explicit appeals to certain groups for 2nd preference votes. That is the difficulty in analysing any system, the unknown is how the participants react.
43. I wonder if the Premiership regret refusing Celtic and Rangers?
“No - we’ll have Hull and Bristol City instead - that’ll draw the crowds”
50:
LOOOOOL
LOOOOOL
LOOOOOL
LOOOOOL
Is Hillary’s campaign going broke?
http://www.suntimes.com/news/sneed/865494,CST-NWS-SNEED28.article
And she’s not making any friends with the way the remaining funds are being disbursed either:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9259.html
50. I’ve often wondered if the UK would be far more cohesive politically had we never had separate football associations for each home nation.
46 That will probably change in the Dumfriess/Galloway Abbey byelection where the Conservatives will probably lose the seat to Labour . Analysing the 2nd preference votes here and elsewhere in last May’s elections the Conservatives are the least transfer friendly party for 2nd preference votes in Scotland .
On the topic of AV (and its variants TRS-(French system) and SV-(London Mayor)), here’s an interesting result.
30 ACBD
35 BCAD
25 CDAB
10 DCAB
AV elects C
TRS elects A
SV elects B
Which is more “correct” or “fair”?
54 ah back to politics. Mark, little council by elections do not matter!
The only poll which matters is the GE!
Mark don’t be downhearted see my post at 35!!!!
PS the rental policy is looking good at the moment - told you it made sense!
47. Despite their advocacy of PR elections, the Lib Dems have not yet mastered the knack of fighting them.
They still have the ‘FPTP’ mentality, though as long as Westminster elections are fought under FPTP, I suppose they are forced to keep thinking that way.
In the Scottish elections in 2007 the gap between the Lib Dems’ FPTP and list vote widened again to 16% v 11%.
And in several places they put up too many candidates in the STV local elections (as opposed to the SNP who blundered by fielding too few).
Similarly, in Wales in 2007, while they made good progress in several FPTP seats, they fell about 1000 votes short, I think, of gaining a list seat in South Wales Central.
Rod, in order of fairness: AV, TRS, SV.
The failings of TRS compared to AV were showed with the French presidential election of 2002.
SV is rubbish as a preferencing system! There is no reason to use it, unless you believe your general public to be utter idiots.
PS, Rod, Condorcet is better
17 Philip - Congrats on making your virgin political bet and quite a brave one as you will owe Sporting the not inconsiderable sum of £800 should Hillary win the Democratic nomination. Relax however, I’m sure it isn’t going to happen and and on this basis it will become a straight one-on-one contest against McCain at odds of 6/4, that is to say you win £450 if Obama is successful and you lose £300 if he is not. I agree this may look quite attractive against the best fixed odds for him winning of 6/5, but of course your downside is greater on account of the possibility of Hillary prevailing.
Contrary to Mike Smithson’s views I know, but if you are going to consider further spreadbetting, I would suggest you open an account with Spreadfair - yes you have to pay out a deposit on political bets, but the spreads are often more attractive although its markets, which operate on an exchange basis, i.e. punter to punter can be somewhat illiquid. The equivalent spread with them on this same bet is currently is 14.4 - 15.0 (only £5 is available at 15.0 and you’d have to pay 15.2 for the other £45 element of your bet) so, as near as damn it, this increases your odds, ignoring the Hillary factor, from 6/4 to 2/1, quite a big difference. The other thing to bear in mind it that Spreadfair will charge you 5% of any profit, by way of commission, rather like Betfair. Because it operates on an exchange basis, you could instead offer at or above the current sale price of 14.4 and hope a seller will match your offer.
Even if you decide against Spreadfair, it’s probably worth opening a credit account with IG, which operates in exactly the same way as Sporting, but inevitably there will often be small differences between their respective spread prices and you can therefore always pick the more attractive.
Whatever you may decide, I wish you the best of luck!
Re all football posts,it seems increasingly certain there’ll be at least one romantic-but-hopeless-out-of-their depth Premiership squad for 2008/9-out of Bristol City,Hull City (though John Prescott alone would fill one stand
),Stoke City-it must be somewhat galling to supporters of the likes of Watford,WBA,Charlton Athletic,who could at least aspire to finish 17th next May,were one/or more of them to go up
(FWIW,Andrew G,40,I have met a handful of Bristol City fans in Bournemouth,my home town-NONE of them want to be promoted)
Re Texas. Another interesting view are the Clinton and Obama party blogs. There is some real venom on them against the other candidate and their style.
Question: will the media keep reporting Clinton winning Texas, in fact do they understand the system and its outcomes?
61 Sorry Philip, in fact a buying price of 15.2, with a minimum losing value of 10 and a winning value of 25 i.e. a two horse race, in fact equates to fixed odds, before commission, of 1.88/1 and 1.79/1 after commission. It should always be borne in mind that apparently small spread movements on these 25-10-0 markets make very considerable changes to the effective odds!
Obama has a 10% lead in Gallup. Up 52:42. His highest tally yet:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/105841/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Now-52-Clintons-42.aspx
In reply to Philip Thompson, Macleod et al on the previous thread - a truly award-winning failure to address the question. Your disingenuity reveals your discomfort.
My point was not that Spain would “refuse to recognise Scotland’s independence”, as you surely know, but that certain countries in the EU could and would be obstructive when Scotland came to reapply for EU membership, as she (and probably residual UK) would have to do.
Another country in the EU - which Scotland’s independence requires - means a renegotiation of the Treaty of Rome, as it means another divvying up of Council powers and parliament etc etc. To alter the Treaty needs unanimous support from all members of the EU.
Here is the SNP problem, and it is unsurmountable. The Spanish, Cypriot, Belgian, Greek, Romanian, Slovakian and Hungarian opposition to Kosovo’s independence shows that these countries are loathe to encourage seperatism even in a country not applying to join the EU.
To actually encourage seperatism within an EU country would be even more uncomfortable for countries like Spain, etc. They simply won’t do it. The views of the UK government are irrelevant to the national positions of Cyprus, Spain, Hungary etc. They will seek to veto, or otherwise obstruct Scotland, for their own very serious internal reasons. And all you need is one of those countries to veto.
What’s more, it wouldn’t even have to come to a veto. A referendum on Scotland’s independence would be hard enough to win anyway. The only way it could be sold to a nervous electorate would be if EU membership after independence was absolutelty guaranteed, a shoo-in, over in a week, no need to be worried, we’ll be fine.
All you would need to totally destroy this would be the faintest question mark over the reality, a stray remark from, say, a Spanish foreign minister, and then the necessary certainty would be gone. the referendum would therefore be unwinnable.
And you can be sure that any Scottish referendum would get a lot of attention from Basque seperatists, who would then provoke the Spanish government and so on.
The only SNP answer to this, as far as I can see, is wishful thinking: so-and-so in Brussels says we will be fine, the Lord high EU wotsit has told us it will be cool.
The trouble is you cannot guarantee this. There are some EU bigwigs who think Scotland might be OK, there are others who think EU membership might be severely problematic. The evidence from Kosovo certainly indicates that it would be problematic.
So the best that can be said, from your perspective, is that no one knows what would happen - whether Scotland would slip easily into the EU or not.
That uncertainty is fatal for any independence movement.
Here’s the original FT article which kicked off the argument.
http://tinyurl.com/yoh8kp
The only riposte I have seen from SNP people is a kind of loud whistling, in the hope this-unpleasant-reality-will-all-go-away. Oh dear.
The advocates of AV on grounds of fairness are inventing a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist. There are many who question the fairness of an electoral system that gives a party a majority on a minority of the vote, and can claim the support of a fair proportion of the wider population in principle. They support PR as the logical solution.
There are really very relatively few who have any particular problems with the fairness, on a seat by seat basis, of he who secures the highest vote winning. AV is not a solution to combat manifest unfairness, it is a solution to those who like their politicians to be moderate centrists who seek the support of all, regardless of the inconsistencies that such a thing involves. Politicians who can not take strong positions on any issue for fear that to do so would put off people from voting for them on their 3rd or 4th preference.
64. be interesting to see if this sudden nationwide surge towards obama is being replicated in Pennsylvania.
58. I agree, partially. SV can be shown objectively to be worse than FPTP. (it has all FPTP’s failing AND AV’s failings as well) Introducing it was an awful, retrograde step. AV will tend to elect the Condorcet winner, provided he or she has significant 1st pref support. The danger is of course that the LDs usually are the CW, so at some highish level of overall support they will tend to win every seat, assuming 100% transfers, which admittedly is unrealistic. TRS (like AV, unlike SV) will always block a Condorcet Loser, but is suceptible to clone vote-splitting (like FPTP and SV)
59. I disagree. A “pure” Condorcet system may elect a candidate who is the first preference of no-one. This scenarios would be unacceptable in a “democracy” as we have come to understand it, whatever theoretical utility values may say…
If Scotland were to vote for the end of the United Kingdom then all parts will have to re-apply. The present agreements are with the United Kingdom and not with a Greater England.
65 - I’m certainly not a supporter of the SNP and am opposed to Independence, although ultimately it is up to the Scottish people to decide. How do you know for certain what the position of these other EU countries would be towards Scotland? As I made clear in the last thread we don’t know what would happen and there would have to be renegotiation. Surely you recognise that Scotland is different in several ways to Kosovo and the attitude of the UK government would be important. Given that we won’t know who is right unless it actually happens it is possible to have different views but your certainty is misplaced. Also, you seem to be suggesting that the Scots have a great love for the EU and even if they dearly loved Independence would reject it if their EU status was in jeopardy.
Rasmussen National Tracker:
Obama 47 Clinton 42
McCain 47 Obama 44
McCain 50 Clinton 40
Favourables:
McCain 54/44
Obama 49/48
Clinton 42/56
66. Yes, talk of AV is just a distraction to avoid talking about Proportional Representation.
Though I accept AV as the logical way of conducting by-elections if a single vacancy under an STV system arises.
It is certainly preferable to give the voters a say, than have the ‘Buggins turn’ of next-on-the-list when a vacancy on a PR list arises.
65 - It is an argument, but i don’t think it is by any means a conclusive one. I think you exaggerate the extent to which the Independence case is dependent upon being in the EU. It is true that several years ago the SNP were strongly pushing the EU as a reason for independence - as an argument (using Ireland) that Scotland could not just survive as an Independent state, but prosper greatly.
It is much rarer to hear that line these days, and in fact from what i’ve seen there is a significant strand of Eurosceptic opinion within the SNP, particularly with relation to Fisheries policy.
It is no surprise that the Oil argument has resurfaced in recent years as the alternative to the EU argument (above) which had previously usurped it.
8 Socrates - Sorry, wasn’t ignoring you; just had work to do.
I wasn’t trying to be contentious, but was just reading off from the bare odds on Betfair, which made her about a 4/1 shot for the nomination. Personally, I think she’s more like a 10/1 shot, but my point still holds. 10/1 shots do win occsionally, so she’s perfectly entiled to plug on.
I disagree with you though about damage to the Party, but let’s agree to differ nicely. It’s Sunday.
Latest Gallup 52 -42 for Obama! Seems a bit much.
Taken 27-29 March, said that the 29th was particularly heavy for him, that was yesterday, does this follow Senator Casey’s support or are other factors at work. Surely that 10% will come back towards equality or will it?
Wonder what the next Pennsylvannia polls will show.
64,67 Not sure, bu Ladbrokes have rather generously, IMO, held their Obama +12% handicap bet to win Pennsylvania at 5/6, with Hillary, handicapped at -12%, also held at the same odds.
72 - Not sure about that. Is it right, considering the whole point of having a PR system, that in a constituency that elects, say 3,2,1 candidates (from three parties) should then have 4,2,0 after a by-election caused by the resignation or death of the third party MP? I would say fairly clearly no.
65. I’m a unionist and a eurosceptic, but I don’t think there’s any real doubt the EU wouldn’t eventually let Scotland in. Kosovo does not show Spain et al are completely against any separatism, merely that they are against separatism without the consent of the “mother” country. They would probably kick up a bit of a fuss, but it would be a position similar to Poland over the voting system - they do it to make a point and extract some minor concession somewhere else. And I don’t think that the prospect of a problem would necessarily cause the people of Scotland to turn against independence - they may vote for it out of resentment of a foreign country sticking their nose into Scottish affairs.
69. Not at all. If Scotland chose to leave a United Kingdom of four home nations, then the three would still remain, unless they chose to do otherwise. I don’t see why the residual 55 million people would have to break apart because 5 million left.
Scotland won’t vote for independence.
If it comes down to a vote - like Quebec - enough sober minds will prevail on the night itself to vote: “NO”.
The SNP may not like to admit this, but they know its true. Hence, why they true and fool the Scots about maintaining “Social Union” and keeping the Queen etc. It’s also why they prefer their 3-option ballot with “transferable preferences” to try a bounce a “yes”-vote. Even that will fail. Only 25% of Scots are passionate about independence. Roughly the same number that want the Euro nationwide.
Scottish people simply won’t take the risk of cutting their nation loose from a union which they’ve been part of for over 300 years and casting off into the unknown. I know of no stable long-lasting integrated nation that has cast a vote for independence when the cards were down; Quebec, Catalonia, Basque, even Belgium… it just doesn’t happen. I don’t count “Yugoslavia” amongst these - Kosovo, Montengero etc. They are new nations from what was a false post-war federation held together by Tito alone anyway.
I expect an independence referendum would be lost: 58%/42% - maybe even by more than 60%?
The appetite for independence will further diminish once the next Westminster Conservative Government transfers further powers to the Scottish Parliament and Scots tire of the SNP - and Salmond in particular.
I expect a more autonomous Scotland in charge of almost everything except macroeconomic policy, foreign affairs and defence. There may even come a time for a Scottish veto on Scottish troops partaking in UK deployments abroad - if it is sensitive.
A looser, more federal UK is inevitable.
But Scotland will never leave the UK.
Never.
79. Norway?
80. What about “Norway”?
70. You are right to say that I cannot be certain these countries would oppose or obstruct Scottish membership of the EU; my personal hunch is that they certainly would - I agree with the constitutional expert who wrote the FT piece, which says the Kosovo Conundrum is very ominous for the SNP.
However, yes, I cannot be certain. But that is my point. No one can be certain - either way. The SNP cannot be certain that EU membership would be a shoo-in, no matter how much they bluster.
I am sure therefore (and this is my reply to post 78, too) that this uncertainty would fatally undermine any referendum campaign. Because the SNP’s whole independence policy is now premised on “independence within the EU” - a kind of safety net for nervous semi-nationalists.
Your last point is clearly specious. How many Scots would vote for independence outside the EU? Only the tartan-wearing hardnuts, I think.
I am obviously a Unionist, and I want the English and Scots to stick together - as I am sure they ultimately will - whatever we feel about each other we are “family”, rather than neighbours or flatmates. We are like bickering brothers - but brothers nonetheless.
However, if Scots wish to leave the family, good luck to them; I am merely pointing out the realpolitik of the referendum issue - it is paradoxically very hard to secede WITHIN the EU.
76 PfP - I took some of that 5/6 on Obama with a 12 point handicap, so Shadsy clearly not worried what I think!
Hillary wins PA by 10 points (which I think she will do) and she’s right back in it, or at least damages Obama enough to make him unelectable (although Wrightgate has pretty much destroyed his chances of winning in November anyway). Either way I’d give him no more than a 5% chance of being the next President.
84. Ah, a message from our correspondent in Doolally Tap.
79: True, Salmond thinks the election of a Conservative Govt will lead to independence. I think your right. Dave has seen him coming. A Tory Govt will only lead to the revival of the Scottish Labour Party not independence.
Poor Stuart Dickson will not be leading the torch light parade down Princes Street for some time yet.
66. AV is not a perfect system for either single member elections or for electing a parliament of single-member constituencies. In truth there is no pefect system. However it can be shown that AV cures some of the long-understood failings of FPTP, to wit.
Condorcet Loser: a candidate who would lose in a head to head with every other candidate may nonetheless be elected under FPTP. Surely that is crazy.
Majority Loser: a candidate who is hated by the majority may still win under FPTP. Surely that too is crazy.
Vote-splitting clones: a party that would otherwise win can lose by the entrance of a similar candidate into the race, resulting possibly in either of the above crazy outcomes.
Wasted Votes: Those who don’t happen to vote for the FPTP winner, effectively waste their vote.
AV is probably the best compromise between curing these ills and going too far in ensuring the Condorcet Winner (least unacceptable candidate) ALWAYS wins. By a lucky accident it will usually result in an acceptable overall distribution of parliament.
82. “Your last point is clearly specious. How many Scots would vote for independence outside the EU? Only the tartan-wearing hardnuts, I think.”
Agreed, but it wouldn’t be a hard and fast choice. Even with murmurings from Spain etc, I think most Scots would know they were still 95% likely to stay in the EU, and the “interference” effect could win support for the SNP.
I would very much like Scotland to stay in the Union, but I’m sadly pessimistic on this. In terms of purely predicting the future two things stick in my mind:
(1) I can’t think of any example where, once the idea of separate “peoples” has set in, that division has lessened over time.
(2) Scotland only has to vote once for independence, but it has to vote for the union every time to stay in.
84 Either way I’d give him no more than a 5% chance of being the next President.
Matthew - I would think about 99.9% of those reading your post above would diagree with how you rate Obama’s chances of becoming the next POTUS.
Friendly tip: don’t give up the day job to become a bookmaker!
78 - Might impact on the voting structures.
84 I trust then that you have bet the farm on McCain?
It’s the animals I’ll feel sorry for when they have to be found a new home.
84. To have a chance of winning the popular vote, Clinton needs to win by at least 15 points in Pennsylvania (which I think she could do), but probably 20 (which I think she won’t). If she gets under 10 points she is out for sure.
If you think Obama has only a 5% chance of winning in November, why aren’t you putting your house on it?
82. Norway had only been in union with Sweden for 90 years when it became independent in 1905. Prior to that it had been united with Denmark for 400+ years, however.
83 Ditto, PtP
77. It is far from certain the minority party could not win the by-election. Our own FPTP electoral history shows this. Even if it occurred, who would rationally choose the existing system? You can have the off-chance of losing a seat in a by-election versus the off-chance of winning won…
On the basis of the present polls one would expect Pennsylvannia to be much much closer than that and for Obama to win Indiana.
If Clinton wins by 10% a tornado could not remove her!
88. “I think most Scots would know they were still 95% likely to stay in the EU, and the “interference” effect could win support for the SNP.”
It might win support, but the fact is the potential instability (will the EU let us straight in? Will we have to wait for years? What if Spain vetoes?) would scare off lots of others - business people for a start. I think these scaredy voters would vastly outweigh the supporters enraged by “Spanish interference”.
I was pessimistic about the Union, but I’ve changed my tune since thinking about it a bit more, and seeing that the sky hasn’t collapsed since the SNP got into power.
I’m with Casino. If you look at history, examples of secession are very hard to find in stable countries, and when they do exist there has nearly always been two different languages at work. Language is crucial - when a language is shared it means a culture is shared, and when that is the case, separation is very hard to sell.
I guess Ireland seceded - but then there was a horrible history of instability. And they were on a different island.
Even Quebec has yet to secede, and they have a huge language gulf. Indeed, contrary to your point number 1, the support for Quebec independence has fallen in recent years -
“Reuters
Published: Sunday, March 16, 2008
TORONTO (Reuters) - The separatist Parti Quebecois has softened its stance on breaking away from Canada and will no longer make an early referendum on Quebec independence a cornerstone of its policy, Canadian media said.”
81. Just that it was a stable long-lasting integrated nation that has cast a voted for independence when the cards were down.
93. I don’t think whether its 90 years or 400 it makes much difference in the minds of voters. It’s beyond living memory and that’s what makes the impact.
re 84. 5%. Come on Matthew that is hardly rational.
What odds would you like to bet at?
96 Even if she wins PA by 10%, if she is still 10% behind Obama and 15% behind McCain in the Gallup polls, then her money dries up. End of.
87 - those are theoretical ills that nobody (in any significant numbers) really cares about, to the extent that it is worth the effort of mucking about with the electoral system, and the increased complication that it implies.
I can respect those arguing for the introduction of a PR system, because their case is predicated on a complete overhaul of the way government in this country is conducted.
AV is just mucking about at the edges, and is only ever contemplated for introduction because the Labour Party think it will benefit them/hurt the Tories.
97. With Ireland there was also a different religion which made it much easier to breakaway psychologically than Scotland.
With regards to Quebec, support for independence has softened, but the idea they are a people distinct from English-speaking Canadians has certainly strengthened.
95 - I’m not sure what your point is? I’m saying that an AV by-election in an STV system has few benefits. It would make more sense to not have a by-election at all.
88. Socrates.
Scotland has considered itself to a be a separate people for centuries. And, indeed, it is. Even at the height of the Unions popularity, it had its own legal system, education system, its own bank and a strong culture - even internationally.
Scotland having greater autonomy doesnt need to threaten the Union.
What the Scottish separatists fail to realise, is that Scots don’t want independence because of emotional films starring Mel Gibson or defeats at Murrayfield, they want it to get a fair deal and some self-respect.
If the Scots are given that - greater autonomy over their own affairs, whilst being allowed to remain in one of the most economically stable and politically influential nations in the world - they will be happy. They will have the best of both worlds.
Give them tax-raising powers, allow them mineral resource revenue rights, end the Barnett formula, halt the West-Lothian issue and (maybe) give them a veto over deployment of their own troops and support for independence will wither away.
A good, old-fashioned, British compromise.
87 - “Wasted Votes: Those who don’t happen to vote for the FPTP winner, effectively waste their vote”.
Wasted Votes: Those who don’t happen to vote for the AV winner, effectively waste their vote.
I think the a non-EU Scotland being a reason against independence is a total strawman. There is no way that an expanisist EU that already has Cyprus and is looking to include Turkey would put up much barriers to Scotland.
I am a unionist scot living in england and but indepedence is starting to look all to plausible…
104. I entirely concur that would be the best strategy, and I think that’s the only chance we’ve got to hold the union together long term. I just feel that issue after issue will increasingly be seen by an English vs Scottish lens. If they decide to open up the Post Office to competition and price flexibility, it will be about how the English are benefitting without respect to the at risk delivery routes in the Scottish highlands. If an expensive treatment is approved on the NHS UK-wide for liver disease, it will become about how the English are going to have to pay for higher alcoholism in Scotland. Resentments will breed and then one issue will blow the lid off it, and one vote will get through.
It would be a huge shame, but I think its likely to happen.
104. Moreover, the harsh truth is that, by the time any referendum becomes politically feasible - in a decade maybe? - North Sea oil and gas will be severely depleted.
http://www.hubbertpeak.com/uk/
Output is expected to halve over the next five to ten years, and dwindle to nothing in the following decade. By the time a vote comes around, if it comes around, North Sea Oil will look a decidedly dodgy safety net. The SNP will need to come up with another argument.
Whoever made the point about the football authorities being seperate having an affect on unionist sentiment - I think this was a good point. I think it’s insane that on this small island that we can’t play football together. I also very much dislike the fact that my history lessons were shyte and I had to do Standard grages and Highers - it’s just a mess for University applications. As for tutor fees - words fail me to express how unfair the current system is. If indepedence comes about a large part of the blame must go to those west-lotian question ingoring 97 new labour devolutionist drones.
101. You are merely stating that “ignorance is bliss.” It was ever so, but “thinkers” have been striving to improve FPTP for almost 2000 years…
As for “theoretical”, the failings cited happen at every FPTP general election, with increasing frequency too. They always have and always will occur under this system.
I agree that the question of electoral reform should be taken out of the political arena. In British Columbia it was passed over to “citizens assemblies” who could debate the merits objectively. [They selected STV, which was passed in a referendum, but unfortunately narrowly failed to reach an unfair 60% threshold.]
As it happens, AV may not help Labour very much, but it would probably hurt the Tories a bit, and help the LDs a bit.
103. I’m a Conservative supporter but I would prefer AV, because I think its more fair.
111 - a conservative supporter who believes in fairness?? - how bizarre
108 - (as a unionist) - if they oil runs out the SNP will just say we’ll be like Ireland (or those other small succesful EU countries) and cut Corp tax.
RE:nationalist sentiment - what I don’t get is how much pity Tibet seems to get - they show all the signs of showing the worst kind of ethnic-nationalism…
113. That’s because China is trying to ethnically cleanse the Tibetans, by making them a minority in their own homeland.
103. Well my point is perfectly clear, I would have thought. It’s a false assumption that a minority party could not win an AV by-election, and thus lose their representation. The LDs win FPTP by-elections quite often, don’t they?
105. I said it wasn’t perfect, but it’s certainly an improvement.
“It is the greatest of all mistakes to do nothing because you can only do a little. Do what you can.”– Sydney Smith
84. Are you drunk?
114 - Ethnically cleanse?? - surely the most humane kind of ethnic cleansing possibly imagninable…
84. I’m utter perplexed by your analysis. Please explain!
117. Indeed. Ethnic cleansing does not have to mean genocide.
114 - so Tibet want so to be ethnically “pure” - imagine how outraged everyone would be if, say, the BNP were to suggest that the UK should be ethnically pure?? And yet this is what the Tibetians are after…
120. No, not at all. They just don’t want a deliberate policy of moving ethnic Han Chinese in, for the purposes of securing a majority in favour of remaining obedient to Beijing - which, we should remember, is an autocratic, authoritarian regime.
84. If Clinton wins PA by 10%, she might pull back 16 delegates off of Obama’s lead - less than 10% of the current 164 lead…
Will anyone even notice?
117. What ignorance. Read some history - especially from the 1950s. China has an appalling record of brutality in Tibet.
123 - but that’s not what the tibitians are rioting over - they’re rioting over the fact that they’re having to live with chinese people - to put it bluntly, it’s ethno-nationalistic BNP style rioting…But yeah, China is evil so they’re probably right to do so…
Do Plaid have a similar argument? Err no is the polite answer to that.
What is the SNP view on the viability of an independent Wales? - SFW is their view probably.
by SBS March 30th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
212. Stuart, until a couple of months ago I thought Labour would have finished second next year…but with Scottish Labour you never know: they still have a year to mess things further. - Err how do you think Labour could finish 3rd in Pictland. To whom?
And yes, if LD collapse, they may the ones losing the seat. - In a low turnout, unlikely IMHO as far more Labour supporters unless climate changes will opt out. Assuming no GE on the same day!
If it ends up something like SNP 30 (+11), Lab 23 (-3) Con 18 (unchanged) LD 13 (unchanged).
It would be SNP 2 Lab 2 Con 1 LD 1
by Andrea March 30th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
14
“Silent USA” is a diminishing minority.
Malcolm
124. I disagree. I think they are rioting over the fact that the vast majority of them wish to be independent from Beijing, and believe, rightly, that the Chinese being moved in are a tactic to prevent their independence.
I’m sure the nastiest of the rioters are BNP-esque, but the peaceful protest of the Buddhist monks and the Dalai Lama? I don’t think so.
Note: there have been massive boundary changes since 1997. The biggest change is that Scottish constituencies are an awful lot bigger since the number of Scottish Westminster seats was reduced from 72 to 59. But here were Labour’s gains from the Tories in 1997:
- Aberdeen South (the new AbS looks pretty safe for Anne Begg, and her main challenger is now the SNP, not the Tories)?
- Ayr (exactly the same scenario as AbS in the new Ayrshire North & Arran seat - Katy Clark) - Meaning?
- Dumfries (Tories could easily take the new Dumfries & Galloway seat from Russell Brown - he looks like a sitting duck)Possibly. Wil require a Tory squeeze on others IMHO.
- Eastwood (a bit more tricky, but the Tories could feasibly take Renfrewshire East from Jim Murphy)Agree.
- Edinburgh Pentlands (now the much bigger Edinburgh South West. Alistair Darling may hold on due to the SNP and Tories both being strong challengers here)- Perhaps. Dependent on SNP IMO. I’d have thought their eyes would be on their more electorally fruitful City of Glasgow. In any case Labour could be firefighting and thus stretched everywhere assuming you are correct.
- Stirling (Anne McGuire is much more likely to be kicked out by the SNP than by the Tories)- Only assuming a straight link between Holyrrod and Westminster voting patterns. I thought this was SNP anyway at Westminster?
So, to summarise, Wendy “10-out-of-10″ Alexander’s new-found “Socialism” may just help the Tories to gain back a couple of Scottish seats they lost in 1997. - Names?
by Stuart Dickson March 30th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
127 - I wouldn’t put the buddihist monks and the Dalai Lama on too high a pedestel - they were/are political rulers with the same motivations and fears as all political rulers.
84
Partridge; remember that everyone always bets against your advice, so keep it up. You are wonderfully the worst pundit/propagandist I’ve ever come across; they should have you on the tele.
You’d come across as a kind of Sid James, without his intellect and sophistication. Keep posting, we love you. Incidentally where we live in North Dakota they love Partridge shooting.
M
Having read all comments, about AV, Scottish Independence and the US delegate count, I have come to the firm conclusion…. that Obama looks absolutely great in that hat.
129. In which case we should make no distinction between, for example, the King of Bhutan and Pol Pot? What trite nonsense.
125. “Err how do you think Labour could finish 3rd in Pictland. To whom?”
it was Stuart who raised the prospect of Labour not finishing second not me. I said that as things stand now I see them second..the “they still have a year to mess things” is not to rule anything out…you never know: I don’t want to be quoted next year if they don’t come second
What is it with people who will just not brook any negative comment about those that they support?
Yet again, Howard Dean’s comment a few days ago that he expects the FL & MI delegates to be seated in some shape or form have raised nt one eyebrow here at all. What form this is in, be it part of full, we have yet to see but it could add to the problem if Clinton hangs on or a bit longer. The great irony of this is that Obama, if his campaign had said yes and threw his support behind run offs probably would have done better in both than how things have currently stand in each state and thus killed the issue off. Infact we had some posters on here suggesting he’d win MI. So why didnt the do so?
Principled stand? Wise up. Tactical error. He could have killed the issue off and should have done.
Obama has the whip hand come November assuming he gets the nomination thanks to two terms of GWB. What I find confusing is that if he’s such a unifier and everything else the polls have McCain close to if not in front of him.
What it suggests is unavaoidable. At this time enough people in the USA are clearly not convinced to make this election interesting, fact.
Never mind the propoganda. He has work to do, lots of work.
Meanwhile over in Ireland, lovely Bertie Ahern is to make a statement to the Dail on Wednesday whilst his partners in government are wobbling. More importantly perhaps, voices are being raised in FF mainly at local council level where the next elections are due and FF’s poll ratings have fallen since the last GE.
He’s not the only Irish party leader in diffs. Whispers are coming out about Gerry Adams that he has taken things as far as he can including from some former allies who are still on the SF bandwagon. At least he won’t suffer a pissibel toppling in the way the Provos tended to topple rivals in times of old…..
130.
Well, people mocked me when I was touting McCain, and betting against Ron Paul and Giuliani last November but I’ve made over £1000 on my betfair bet on McCain alone (even after laying some of it off) and my Intrade account is healthy so lets see if my detractors on this site are still singing the same tune the day after the election.
Thinking outside the box, here. Didn’t Berwick on Tweed recently vote to join Scotland. Why doesn’t the whole of England do the same? We could have the capital in Edinburgh, a beautiful city. The Queen could relocate to Holyrood, near her beloved Balmoral. All these English lawyers would need to retrain or be out of work, so few tears shed over that. A Moderator rather than an Archbishop, but who cares. We could all unite behind one football team at long last, called Scotland. We could even have a Bartnett formula in reverse, with more money per head for those living south of the Tweed. Is this the answer to the West Lothian Question?
129
Wow! You’ve discovered a new kind of stupid. Better give it a new name, maybe Buckminster Fuller stupid or Buckystupes for short.
134. Michigan and Florida will not be seated in a way that affects the nomination. Either they will be split down the middle, or Obama will have won by such a margin that they can be seated as they stand. Dean’s statement does not change this.
His choice was the right tactical one. It looks like the nomination can now be wrapped up if Clinton does not do as well as needed in Penn, or (more likely) after Indiana/North Carolina. Had Florida and Michigan revoted, they would have done at the end of the nomination process, and would probably have given her momentum going into the convention, as well as keeping the contest open much longer.
As for the main election, no-one is thinking Obama can sit on his arse until November and expect to win. The Democrats are going to have to put all they have into this. But they have a lot, lot more to put into it than the Republicans: more funds, more enthusiasm, and most public opinion on their side on a range of issues. They also have a lot of arguments with sway they can use against McCain. Most of the arguments McCain has against Obama have been used ad nauseum over the last eight years and hold less water purely because the electorate is tired of them.
135. How much did you lose when Brown became leader of the Labour Party?
135. Who on earth advised against betting against Ron Paul? No-one on Earth thought he had a shot!
38. Her could have killed off the issue. He didn’t. Instead its still running and may damage Democrat hopes in both states.
Tactical error. End of.
135: people mocked you for betting against Ron Paul? Huh? That was about the safest bet possible, short of laying George Bush as next Pope.
136: would be the only way you poor blighters down south will ever experience beating France at football *wink*
A rumour is doing the rounds that the army will declare Mugabe the winner on a few hours…..
If he does, this won’t go do quietly….