Have you got money on the Hillary bounce-back?
May 6th, 2008
What do you think of the recent market moves?
I have just three positions on the Democratic race.
One my 50/1 and 33/1 long-shot bets from 2005 and 2006 that Barack will go all the way.
Two bets at an average of 5/1 that Hillary will get the nomination
Three bets on her at an average of 6/1 that she will get the V-P slot.
The closer this gets to the convention the greater the chance she has of making it. Even if she doesn’t then I can foresee pressure on Obama to take her as his running mate.
This might all look so different in the morning.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Less bounceback, more backsplash.
I have no money on but can quite see a bounce-back. If she is within 10% in NC it will be huge and if she is over 10% ahead in Indiana then I think that Obama could be in a deep hole.
Socrates before PA broke down the analysis right. There are 3 scenarios.
1. She is knocked out tonight.
2. She does enough to stay in the race, but not change it enough to make the nomination likely.
3. She changes the race significantly.
Scenario 1 - If she loses both NC and IN.
Scenario 2 - She wins IN and keeps NC below 15 points
Scenario 3 - She wins IN by 10 points and gets a shock win in NC.
3 - Should add keeping Obama below 5% in North Carolina would also lean towards Scenario 3.
The bounceback is good for market traders who may be able to take profits as a result, bit I don’t think It’s a serious new challenge. The bounce is fine with me though, the more Hilary can weaken Obama, the more chance there is of the cirumcstances being created for my long-shot gamble on Al Gore coming in.
2. I would personally be surprised if Clinton got over 10% in Indiana. The black population is only slightly smaller than Ohio or Pennsylvania, but this one is an open primary, has more universities and has more exposure to Illinois. If she did get over 10% it would show a significant shift towards her. I don’t think Obama would be in big trouble unless he lost NC however.
6. I presume you mean a lead of 10%, not 10% of the vote?
Anyway, I am thinking more and more that Hilllary and Obama are both doomed.
I have a theory about Tactical Voting.
(1) Disappointed voters swing to the opposition parties as a protest. Result: government loses some by-elections, but has a chance of holding some if they are in the right places.
(2) Angry voters swing to whichever party is the main challenger, and supporters of the third party vote tactically for the main challenger because they want the government to lose the seat, without minding much who wins it. Result: government loses most by-elections, sometimes by big margins.
(3) Furious voters realise that the government is so unpopular that it doesn’t have a chance of winning anyway; some of them abandon tactical voting and vote for their preferred party anyway, even if it starts in third place, but some do double-tactical voting for the third party in order to split the opposition vote morer evenly and thereby push the government into third place. Result: government loses all by-elections, but not necessarily by huge margins. (I have always thought of Littleborough & Saddleworth (1995) as an example of this type of double-tactical voting, when voters swung directly from Conservative to Labour, and the Lib Dem only won marginally with Conservative in third place.)
If the voters of Crewe & Nantwich are angry they might vote tactically for the Conservative candidate and defeat Labour by a substantial margin.
If they are furious, they might be tempted by barchartism and vote Lib Dem, thereby making Crewe & Nantwich into a three-way marginal (possibly with Labour third). This might happen if they think that the Labour Party’s support has fallen from 48% to below the magic 1/3 level (i.e. 33% of the votes, not including the minor parties). Any government party which is sufficiently unpopular to fall below the 1/3 level in a constituency is bound to lose any by-election. Coming third may be perceived to be more damaging than being defeated by a large margin while still coming second.
Whether the voters of Crewe & Nantwich are angry or furious will depend on how national politics develop in the next two weeks, as well as what happensd locally in the by-election campaign itself.
Incidentally, if I were a disappointed former Labour voter in C&N, I think I would feel insulted or patronised at the suggestion or implication that I am expected to be more likely to vote for a candidate just because of who her mother was.
Last thread, 511: “Add to that there is little evidence of Crewe being a genuinely swing town, it’s Labour base support is stronger than many places with similar majorities. I think Labour will hold on by a small margin”
According to the papers at the weekend, the Tories “won” C&N by over 4,000 votes over Labour in the wards that make up the seat.
They’ve won it once this month, they just need to win it again in a fortnight. In the spotlight of a visible campaign, and with a government imploding, and a PM trying to make it up as he goes along, I’d be disappointed with a Tory majority of less than 7,000 depending on turnout.
A Labour hold is unthinkable for the Tories. Crunch time for Dave, this is bigger than his Conference speech last September because GB was always going to bottle out of the election anyway.
They simply MUST win, and win big.
Err, yes!
I was very very adamant a few weeks ago that everybody had to BUY Clinton’s stock on intrade — it was 15, 16.
Now: Clinton is on a ride, baby!
She will win Indiana, West Virginia, Kentucky — but lose, of course, Oregon.
Will she win the nomination? Don’t think so!
Will her stock rise to 30-33? Sure: I was accused by twits such as Stephen Phelps of ‘troling for Clinton’ for being so adamant in that precise prediction!
Do I care about her? No.
Do I wanna make money on her stock? You bet, baby!
Kieran, I think you’re wrong about 2. For once, HRC is on the wrong end of expectations. The media narrative has been about her fight back. No-one seriously expects Obama to win Indiana now. And the poll that showed HRC ahead in NC does her no favours. She is expected to win Indiana by the same margin as PA, and expected to lose NC by c. 10%.
HRC has two problems today that go beyond expectations. Firstly, North Carolina is the 10th largest state in the US, and a 10% point win for Barack claws back a lot of the lost PV from Pennsylvania (a 15% one would be enormous - given NC is an open primary, there will be a similar total turnout to PA). Her second problem is the allotment of delegates in Indiana, it’s possible for her to win by 7% or so, and only make a net delegate gain of 1 or 2.
In other words, your scenario 2 may technically keep her in the race, but her chances would have declined quite sharply.
My guess, for what it’s worth, is that now is a good time to go long Obama. And, assuming something like scenario 2, then back Hillary again in time for her 50+% win in the (extremely small) West Virginia.
9.Crunch time for Dave - why? They don’t need the seat to win a UK GE anyway! It is a bit like the E & S from last year - that was another seat the tories did not need to win. I think E & S was in the top 100 of labour’s safest seats. this must be in the top 200!
speaking of Lab losing a by-election, Raith Rovers lost their playoff semi-final, so that bet is looking promising again
Incidentally, Dave needs to stop talking about “people in Crewe” if he’s not to alienate the substantial number of voters outside the town, and in Nantwich particularly. I don’t know the area too well, but I suspect Nantwich and its environs is Tory and Crewe is Labour. He doesn’t want to upset the retired colonel/Heffer contingent in the leafier parts of the seat by talking of “Crewe” all the time…
MATT J : I WANNA BET ON IT TO!
There is a guy named ‘Matt J’ who claimed in the last thread
that he bet money ‘on Clinton doing a lot better than the 15 point deficit ‘ in North Carolina.
That J must be an anal retentive kind of guy; for he is not relaxed enough to answer my simple request:
–>Please tell Daddy where you put your money ‘on Clinton doing a lot better than the 15 point deficit ‘ — ’cause Daddy wanna bet on it too!
no money on after closing obama poistion at small loss - too much risk when it starts being decided behind closed doors - from this side of the Atlantic I can not judge what is going on - but it looks like Hilary has the momentum and Obamas pastor has really put a spanner in the works for Obama - so tempted to go long on her
14. Do you think Brown will go to the by-election?
11 - That is a fair enough analysis. I suppose scenario 2 can be split into 2:
2a - Clinton carries on but is weakened as SDs continue to move to Obama and her campaign deflates.
2b - Clinton carries on and it is acknowledged that she has every right to. Most SDs hold off endorsing.
2a - Clinton wins Indiana by 0-6 points, loses NC by 9 to 15
2b - Clinton wins Indiana by 7-10 points, loses NC by 4-9 points
12 - I don’t deny that it’s not a target seat. But when E&S was fought, they Tories weren’t nigh on 20% ahead of Labour and with Brown on the rack.
If the Tories don’t win this, having “taken” it last week, then it will be 2 more years of “Tories can’t win in the north”, “Dave can’t win when it matters”, “poll lead is an illusion”.
Anyway, it’s academic. The Tories will win C&N handsomely, it is inconceivable that Labour could hold on.
Unless the Tory candidate is found in bed with a goat, or something…
18. Even if Obama wins i don’t think he will win the swing states in the GE - basicallt because he is black i am afraid to say.
11
Man, you cannot be serious: you REALLY think that it is now time to buy Obama.Nomination?
No way!
Wait at least after the West Virginia primary! — and the good press Clinton will get after that victory!
16
I agree!
Brian Taylor, BBC Scotland’s political editor:
- “Tories are angry. They say Wendy Alexander is seeking a way out of her own and her party’s woes - and is prepared to risk the Union in the by-going…. Annabel Goldie also says that the prospect of a referendum campaign which pitted the currently popular Alex Salmond against Wendy Alexander and Gordon Brown is a “nightmare”.
Like the Tories, the Lib Dems are exasperated Ms Alexander has pursued a freelance route while simultaneously joining them in the Calman Commission.
What next? Labour MPs meet tonight to consider their views. Labour MSPs are meeting right now. Expect a new line from Labour this afternoon - quite possibly outline plans for their own Bill in the light of the Scottish Government’s refusal to advance their own plans.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/briantaylor/2008/05/taking_a_risk.html
21. If you reckon Obama could keep Indiana under 5 points and win NC by more than 12 it might be a good time to back him.
11 Agree that the main focus is the dlegates. A shock “win” tonight would be one where Hillary makes up double-digit ground on the pledged delgate count.
But she is running out of road….
19. Parliamentry elections are different to local elections!
Plus the recently deceased MP’s daughter was not running in the local elections.
This By-election is about Gordon Brown and his survival as PM. If the Tories don’t win - CAMERON still has 2008 local elections in the bag plus the rout of livingstone in London. It is a Brown referunder - Clegg is lucky again as Brown is the question. Next time it could be him because Nick Clegg still reminds me of Neil Kinnock!
15 Relax Phillippe. I think it’s a reference to odds of 5/6 about Obama winning by less than 16 percentage points in NC which were offered by Shadsy’s firm, Ladbrokes. Opinion was divided at the time, an indication that Shadsy had set the price astutely. That was a couple of weeks ago and much has changed since. The market is still open, but the price is now 1/7 - not a value bet, imo.
OK?
21; I want to be long Clinton into West Virginia.
But in the next 24 hours Obama will:
Close the SD gap by 5
Increase his pledged delegate lead by c 20
Increase his PV lead by more than 100,000
And I think that’s how the media will spin Kieran’s scenario 2
16. It will be interesting to see the effect Wright has had on this. I think, paradoxically, it puts Obama in a better position for the general, because he now doesn’t have to tightrope the position of not disowning the guy while he disagrees with everything he’s said.
Does anybody else think that David Milliband looks like a gremilin on that anomated tv show on sunday nights by the way?!!
Last word on the Iraq debate (for now).
I kinda like Kieran’s “blame anyone else when you do something disastrously wrong” stratagem.
Take my own heroin addiction circa 1998. That can clearly be blamed on Osama bin Laden, seeing as he protected the Afghan poppyfields which provided the opium which went to make the smack which I was practically forced to ingest.
Meanwhile, the Tories should blame Danny de Vito for the poll tax. If only the halfpint comedy actor had said something about the iniquities of regressive taxation, during the 1980s, at the height of his popularity, then Maggie might not have instituted her disastrous municipal impost.
And why is Brown fessing up to guilt about the the abolition of the 10p bracket? The true culprit is a small Pomeranian dog in suburban Munich which failed to register a complaint during the Budget.
29 - I don’t think it puts him in a better position in November because of two words, selective quotation.
27
Thanks for the information. Yeah, I’m a little agitated, for I have too much money in play, in Indiana… Too much. I’ll take a break, after that one!
BTW, following your advice, I ordered this morning ‘The Political Punter’…
Nick Delves has been selected as OMRLP candidate for C&N. He is the Shadow Minister for the Abolition of Gravity, and has contested Derbyshire West in the last three general elections.
‘Cable accuses Tories of joining ‘dangerous alliance’ with SNP’
- “[Vince Cable, Deputy Leader of the Liberal Democrats] claimed Tory leader David Cameron ran the risk of destabilising the Union between Scotland and England.
“There’s no doubt Alex Salmond is a very smart politician… “”
http://news.scotsman.com/politics/Cable-accuses-Tories-of-joining.4052502.jp
17 Perhaps thats the first question Dave should ask Gordo…
36.
yes! That would be funny!
32. Words aside, he is now fully opposed to Wright, which makes it easier for him to bat questions on the matter out of the park. Vefore he was walking a difficult line.
24
You might be right, but I doubt it.
For the press has a remarkably short memory, and the Clinton campaign might be able to spin as a meaningful victory, especially after next tuesday…
But again, you might be Right, wise Socrates.
38
It’s indeed an open war between them, now!
39. I’m not saying it will happen! This is the first primary where I think the range of reasonably likely results is very, very broad.
18 Kieran
Hillary’s basic point though (although she won’t say it explicitly) is that Obama won’t win the general and therefore superdelegates should hold off. Obama winning a Democratic primary on the back of AA turnout in North Carolina doesn’t refute that. I realise this seems like I have bought into the Clinton machine spin, but unless she gets hammered across all demographics in NC, then the implicit message won’t change, and the race will keep going.
31. Am I alone in wondering whether that post suggests you might have reverted to the occasional use of H, seanT?
35. This is the first time I’ve ever been interested in your Scottish posts, Stuart! Could we really be having a referendum?
If the Nominee,
Clinton will have a hard time winning in November because of stuff like this: http://www2.nysun.com/pf.php?id=75851&v=5755800121
So, in other words Mike: you’re going to win big on your two Obama bets, and lose all the rest. What’s your likely profit/loss going to be winning two out of five?
42. I don’t know. If it was on the back of a huge increase in AA turnout, thats a significant advantage for the Dems in a GE. Likewise with younger voters.
I want credit as a veritable soothsayer for being the first PB-er to defy Jack’s ARSE and say she could do it, if she does.
I profoundly hope Obama hangs on, though. He is by far the more ilkely to lose against McCain.
‘Political Wire’ via North Carolina media reports that turnout is already ‘very heavy’ in NC :
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/05/06/turnout_very_heavy.html
Hilary *cannot* win the nomination. It will split the democratic party in two. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton will ‘unleash hell’ if they think Obama has been robbed.
Back to the Patriots - Does PB.C finest political minds agree with the statements below?
“If you’re good and you’re in one of the main parties you’re a MP. If you’re fairly good then you’re a MEP or someone else on the Euro gravy train. If you’re really not very good at all then you end up in one the councils, right at the top with four or five sub-committees under your belt, getting lots of money for doing not that much. In the case of the Labour Party and the Tory Party especially, in the London assembly, we are up against their fourth-rate minds. Fourth rate minds - fourth rate people.”
http://simondarby.blogspot.com/2008/05/about-time-for-bit-of-video.html
If mono-racial schooling is acceptable for Black children, then why is it racist when it is for White children?
http://www.bnp.org.uk/2008/05/06/boris-and-the-liberal-hypocrites/
41
I understood that. My post was about the effect you predicted on the Obama stock in case of an Obama lost ‘under 5 points’ in IN and victory ‘by more than 12′ in NC.
My point was: I don’t think it might have the effect of his stock that you think it will have.
48
Were I McCain, I would wish for the witch.
43. My drugtaking these days is restricted to overuse of Sudafed, and the occasional blast of Tescos own-brand anti-hayfever nasal spray.
39 Phillippe
I agree with what you say but you tend to overlook the fact that the clock is running out on Clinton. That’s why Kieran’s analysis at 3 above is so apt. Tonite, as in Pa, and Texas/Ohio before that, she’s got to knock him out to draw. She may do it, and the Nomination process will drag on, but she can’t win the Nomination tonite. He can. That’s why you can’t get too long on HRC.
I’ve hedged my bets, because I think she’ll do well tonite, but only to the extent of being green on her to the tune of £1k; I’m still green £3k on Obama. I’d like to dump the £1k, but it’s too early - for all the reasons you have given.
MArtin Day @ 20 — Obama’s weakness is not his colour but that much of his support is borrowed from the GOP and might go home come November.
52 no, Obama’s Wright controversy, his wife’s unpatriotic remarks, all make him highly vulnerable. He does not win the crossover voters in the crossover states.
Hillary has impressed me more and more. I worry about her with Obama as VP. That would be unstoppable (unfortunately).
47 That’s where I’m not sure Socrates. I have always presumed that in the key swing states, the Democratic organisation gets the AA vote out anyway. Obviously it will be easier if Obama is the nominee, but activists in Missouri (St Louis, KC) Ohio (Cleveland), Michigan (Detroit) Pennsylvania (Philly) are well used to driving AA turnout I would think even when the candiate was Gore/Clinton/Kerry. The vote of someone who was dragged to the polls counts just the same as someone who rushed to the polling station with enthusiasm. There would probably be a big upswing in AA turnout in places like Oklahoma, South Carolina, Alabama etc but it wouldn’t make the difference electorally.
42 - Yes but there is a difference between her spin and what other people do. That is what causes the flexibility in scenario 2. She may be able to carry on but the margin of defeat in NC will have an impact on how quickly people endorse Obama, fundraising etc.
50 - Whoever is the nominee the chances of a Democratic victor depend on how the loser loses. If Obama for example refused to endorse Clinton would lose. If he was VP and accepted the result she would probably win.
Sean - I don’t want to derail another thread, and apologies for the last one for those annoyed by it. However you are willfully distorting my position. It seems to me that you see things in a very binary way, things are right or wrong. The EU is evil, Labour are evil, the Iraq war was evil. I prefer a more nuanced approach, accepting that the world is multifaceted. In this example Labour are clearly responsible for Iraq, but that doesn’t mean the Conservatives had no responsibility whatsoever. There is a shade of grey.
57. What about Virginia?
55 John L - even if a portion of his vote goes back to the Republicans, it will be more than made up for by those who remain and who are joined by the Hillary Democrats - who will largely come home to the party, sad as they may be that their gal didn’t make it. Taking any Republicans is the bonus he has. Hillary just fires them up….with hatred.
48 Test
If HRC does somehow do it, the Democratic Party will implode. Surely that would be beyond your wildest dreams?
Welcome back, by the way.
60 - By November Obama will fire up the Republicans with hatred.
61 - That isn’t certain. It would depend upon how Obama reacted.
55. Yeah, that was what they were saying about Tony Blair and his support from former Tories in 1997. Didn’t go home, did it (at least not until the current disaster forced him out prematurely)?!
A key question for tonight. Who do cross-over voters help?
56 “I worry about her with Obama as VP.”
Fret not, Test. Ian Paisley and Martin McGuinness would be a more probable combination.
56. Wright is a genuine issue. A single remark of his wife is not. The thing is Obama has charisma, which means when the GOP paints him as an aloof, elitist snob it doesn’t chime with what people actually see of the guy - unlike Gore of Kerry. It’s the same reason Democrats failed in painting Reagan as a warmonger - he seemed too nice for that.
Marquee Mark @ 60 — Obama’s demographic triangulation! Who said Americans don’t do irony?
Stuart - what odds would you say would be fair for a referendum on independence this side of the next GE? What odds on winning it (assuming it’s held)?
John Loony - pleased to hear the OMRLP have got their candidate in place. But I can’t help feeling the Loonies are going about things all wrong with the abolition of gravity stuff. You want to repeal a law of physics - friction has to be the one to go for. No more rope burns, and people in Lincolnshire will travel for miles with just a single push.
65 Not sure, Kieran, but if I were a Republican, I’d vote HRC - keep the process dragging on and with luck get the easier opponent in November.
65. Depends if its people crossing over genuinely or Operation Chaos voters.
61. Peter, I am an ideological Conservative and do not want either Obama or Clinton appointing to the Supreme Court. If Clinton wins and Obama accepts as her VP then it’s a done deal.
I can’t remember an election when so much depended on the choice of the Republican for Vice-President.
Clinton’s argument is absolutely correct: she can win in the swing states and Obama loses there. He also loses with white bluecollar voters, “Springsteen Democrats”. I think he loses to McCain, war hero. But then I like going against conventional wisdom.
Something I haven’t seen much discussion of yet; Obama loses heavily amongst seniors, and you know what Mike S says about them.
So I hope Jack W is right and he wraps it up tonight. But I don’t think he will. Sadly.
65; well, if they’ve been listening to Rush Limbaugh, then HRC benefits. If, on the other hand, they’re young and/or college educated, then probably Obama. But the Wright controversy has undoubtedly harmed Obama’s crossover appeal.
Tonight will be interesting. My forecast is Indiana, Clinton +6%, North Carolina, Obama +12%.
But we shall see…
48 Much as I like and respect McCain I cannot see him winning in November as he can’t diss GW too much and that association will hurt him. Would like to see it though as it would disturb and disempower the shock jocks. Similarly Obama as a Presidential candidate will hopefully nail identity politics in the USA - Jackson, Farakhan et al will be consigned to the dustbin of history. Hillary though is a continuation of special interest groups and identity politics. It’s time we left the 20th Century behind.
Trouble is we baby boomers are much more likely to vote than the younger generation, are still in power and still stuck back in the 70’s and 80’s in political terms. So Hillary still has a chance and her clever playing of the race card might see her through - but at what a cost.
O/T.
We’ve priced up Crewe and Nantwich at ladbrokes
4/5 Cons
7/4 Lab
4/1 Lib Dems
link via this site available.
69 - or working the other way, expanding the application of the laws of quantum mechanics. It could be very convenient being both in the office and not in the office at the same time. I could get a lot more done, and wouldn’t feel so guilty about hanging around politicalbetting.com
70 - Do you really think she would be that much easier. Assuming (I realise its a big if) that Obama accepted the result Clinton would get a bounce and she is already leading McCain in the polls by more than Obama. This is a very good year for the Democrats and whoever gets the nomination has a good chance in the fall.
48 Test my ARSE !!!!
……………
IndyStar reporting significant Republican crossover voting in Indiana :
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080506/NEWS0502/805060396
72. You are aware the Boss has endorsed Obama right? When you say “ideologically Conservative” you mean pro-death penalty, anti-abortion then? They’re the only two big issues the Supreme Court decides on.
Zogby still good for Obama on polling day.
http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/polltracker/2008/05/election-day-poll-obama-strong.html
44. Socrates
Yup. The Scottish independence referendum is going to take place now. The only question is: when? Probably late 2010 or early 2011.
72: well, with a heavily Democratic House and Senate, any Republican President is going to have a hard time putting idealogical conservatives on the Supreme Court.
The best outcome for the Republicans is undoubteldly an inconclusive result today. Hillary pulls back a bit, but not too mich. Keeps the level of invective up.
What are the current McCain odds?
75 Cons favourite? I don’t understand odds.
34. Not updated recently, methinks
http://www.delvsie.com
O/T This is the leading betting internet site in the country. We have MPs as posters and visitors.
It looks as though we have another bookie failure; NP bet is uncontactable. The failure of Premier bet last year was expensive (for me).
Punters’ funds at bookies ought to ring-fenced. If they’re not, the govt should make it a criminal failure, not a civil wrong. The penalty should be prison. It would hardly increase the prison population, but it would stop punters being ripped off.
Can any of our MP readers/posters help? Please.
72. ‘I am an ideological Conservative and do not want either Obama or Clinton appointing to the Supreme Court’
What are you sorry worried about? Especially as you are not even American?
44, 69. I think a referendum on Scottish independence is inevitable, and sooner rather than later.
The Scottish Labour party now thinks the best way of scotching, ahem, the rampant SNP is by calling a referendum on the SNP’s ultimate aim, independence - i.e. by calling Salmond’s bluff.
The SNP do not want a referendum now, as they fear they would lose it, but I can’t see how the SNP can vote AGAINST having a referendum if one is proposed in the Scottish parliament. Their whole raison d’etre is getting and winning a referendum; to suddenly vote against having one would split the party terminally, and make them look a fraud to their supporters.
So if Labour propose a vote the SNP will have to support it. So the Scots will get a referendum.
The tragic thing is that Labour are so unpopular they might actually lose this vote, even though I think most Scots would prefer not outright seperation but a stronger devolved government.
That would be the true legacy of New Labour. Half a million dead in Iraq and the end of the United Kingdom. The most disastrous government in British history.
Well done Gordo, well done Tony.
79: Why does America leave appointed judges to make law rather than elected legislators?
Just a question…
79 the boss has, his fans have not, cf: PA. No, the Supreme Court also decides on affirmative action, Title 9, all sorts of stuff. It’s vital in American governance.
78 Jack W you have your nose to the ground over there, do you still predict Obama for the nomination? I hope you are correct, if so!
81 - If McCain is elected his presidency would probably reflect Bush Snr. Forced to compromise with Congress the Bush tax cuts would likely expire and he would be attacked by the base.
78
Thanks for that link; it brings me confort.
I’m beginning to love that ugly fat bastard of a Limbaugh!
It’s because of him I bet with amazing odds on a clinton victory in Tx: his Operation Chaos is very very effective!
85 a good Tory likes to see the center-right in power all over the world. I root for the Conservatives globally!
87: They don’t.
59 Socrates Fair point on Virgina.
Virginia will be an interesting case anyway, because the recent Democratic successes there have been in part due to having candidates like Webb, Kaine and to a degree Warner who don’t alienate social conservatives and hence can put up a decent showing outside NoVa and Richmond. Interesting to see how this stands up in a national election with Clinton/Obama.
I would love to see McCain running with that guy:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWZjMmI4MzY0ZTRhOGIyYjhkYjVhY2FkOGFhNzY5NzU=
Won’t happen, tough, for the sake of Louisianna.
87. They don’t necessarily. The common view is that they simply deem whether legislation is in contravention of the Constitution or not.
69. Cookie - “… what odds would you say would be fair for a referendum on independence this side of the next GE? What odds on winning it (assuming it’s held)?”
Personally, I consider it to be highly inlikely that we will be having the Scottish independence referendum before the next UK general election. Odds? I dunno. Maybe 25:1 against (but I’m useless at odds).
Winning it? Right now, today? Probably about Evens. But it will not be today
If the Tories win the next UK GE then I would say that a ‘Yes’ vote becomes the odds-on favourite
87 Why does America leave appointed judges to make law rather than elected legislators?
Judges don’t make law, they just interpret the constitutionality of the laws passed by elected legislators.
72/88 Test. For the record I’ve predicted NC Obama +12 and IN TCTC.
Hillary will go on even with a narrow IN win. She remains the ‘Micawber’ candidate. However she’s running out of time, contests and her SD lead. Obama will win the nomination and offer Hillary the Veep. He’ll win comfortably against McCain and with a solid prospect of a landslide !!
Thanks Stuart - interesting. I’d not thought that it’d be more likely to be won if a Conservative government was in place. Makes sense, though.
91. Yes, but what specifically are you concerned that the Supreme Court might do if a Democrat president appoints to it?
86: “The tragic thing is that Labour are so unpopular they might actually lose this vote, even though I think most Scots would prefer not outright seperation but a stronger devolved government.
That would be the true legacy of New Labour. Half a million dead in Iraq and the end of the United Kingdom. The most disastrous government in British history. Well done Gordo, well done Tony.”
A perfectly plausible scenario.
However, Westminster has to legislate for a referendum and one sanctioned by Holyrood without Westminster support would be unlawful and void.
More likely is that the Labour Party would be split on the issue and it would create an unholy mess and yet another headache for GB, having to use his Westminster MPs to vote down something the Scottish MSPs support. It will be blocked in Westminster, but will create still yet more ‘Mr Beanery’ to add to the ever-growing charge sheet against this increasingly accident-prone shambles of an administration.
I like “the most disastrous Govt in British history” tag though. That could be the consensus view on the 1997-2010 administration.
91. The Democrats are the centre-right party in the US. The Republicans are hard right-wing.
95. Is there any chance David Cameron does several high profile social justice and cracking down on yobs policies that could go down well in Scotland? Please try to answer honestly and put your own beliefs to one side!
75 Thanks Shadsy
Those odds look very fair, although I suspect we may see Labour drift a bit. A Con win nets me £600 from Will Hill from that long range by-election bet last summe and now Raith are safely out of the way, I’ll be taking some of the 7/4 now, and a bit more later if the anticipated drift happens.
Cheers.
95. This depends entirely on how the question is put in the referendum. I think if you get a multiple choice question: outright independence, more powers for Holyrood, or the status quo - then your chances of winning are minimal.
People will surely vote for more powers - in a “let’s see how we go” kind of way.
If it’s Yes/No, and if you have a Tory government in London, then your chances of winning are much higher. Wouldn’t go as far as evens though, certainly not odds-on. But still dangerously high.
There is still the Kosovo Conundrum: Scotland’s EU membership might be vetoed, or “somewhat delayed” by Spain, Cyprus, Greece, Romania or whoever kicking up a fuss (as they did over Kosovo, in fear of their own secessionist minorities). That seems to be a very tricky problem, no matter what the SNP’s lawyers say. The merest whiff that Scottish membership of the EU might be problematic (or “delayed”) could scupper the chances of a yes vote.
But the fact that we have even come to this is shocking, and redounds to the outright shame of Labour, who said Devolution would “kill Nationalism stone dead”.
What a bunch of cretins Labour are. What a bunch of useless unwashed lying incompetent morons.
101. Yes, think Czechoslovakia, and the divorce few people really wanted. The SNP have drawn Labour into their trap - Labour are simply idiots.
96 - I have to say, I think the SNP are being a little bit greedy, aiming for the whole hog in the short term. Might it not be more sensible to call Wendy’s bluff, and take a referendum now? If it’s won, great; if not (more likely, right now, I think) then the SNP have made themselves ’safe’ for all those voters who might have voted for them but for the independence issue - come the 2010 GE, they’ll be able to exploit the nadir of Labour’s fortunes to eviscerate them at the polls, becoming the dominant force in Scottish politics. Then, in another ten years or so, with the Cameron government beginning to flag, they’ll be able to resurrect the referendum, and win it from a position of strength. Why the mad rush to get this done in the next five years?
12 - Yes, C&N *is* in the safest 200 Labour seats at position 189.
75 - cheers Shadsy - think that 7/4 on Labour with a Dunwoody on the ballot looks excellent value.
103. PtP - hi Peter, the Henley bye election should be coming up soon so I do not see the point of betting on Labour for C & N just to cover the old Hills bet. Hills should pay out on a non Labour win at Henley or does this need to be clarified?
106. animal - “Why the mad rush to get this done in the next five years?”
Well, we have been waiting 301 years already you know
101. The one sure way for Labour to fuel the fires of Seperatism would be for Brown’s government in London to forbid a referendum supported by the majority of MSP’s in Holyrood.
Not possible. Doesn’t compute. If Holyrood wants a vote they will get one (and rightly so, that’s democracy).
How on earth did we get to this position? Nobody thought it through. We are close to dismembering the British state simply because Labour MPs and ministers are pathetic, self-serving retards.
109 - …so what’s the harm in a few more?
104 SNP most probably will vote against a referendum on the grounds their commission and the oppositions’ commission haven’t yet reported back - a defensible argument.
Michael Carmichael of ‘Huffington’ calls the North Carolina Primary for Obama !! …. off to bed then ?!??!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-carmichael/the-firewall-obama-wins-n_b_100269.html
69. John Loony - pleased to hear the OMRLP have got their candidate in place. But I can’t help feeling the Loonies are going about things all wrong with the abolition of gravity stuff.
A few years ago, Comrade Delves spent several weeks in hospital after he had an argument with Gravity and lost. (He went paragliding or hang-gliding or something, and the process wasn’t entirely successful in its outcome).
108 - I would be careful - I would expect Hills to classify lose a by-election as meaning a seat they previously held - otherwise it would be ‘fail to win or hold’. Also - I am doubtful we will have a Henly by-election - The local Tory association have already said that ‘they do not want to be rushed into choosing a candidate, and will do consider the possibilities over the summer’. I then expect Boris / Tory Central Office to say ‘in all normal circumstances, there would be an election in May-09, that is just 6 months away so we will wait till then and save the taxpayers the additional cost.’ Come May-09 - shock horror - Labour dont call a GE - Boris says ‘well that’s hardly my fault… it’s all Gordons fault - he could still call at any time - I’ll go when he goes’ or similar.
106. But that IS the SNP’s policy - to play it long. They think they would lose a vote in the next few years, so they want to wait for a Tory government in London, and wait for that government to become unpopular: the perfect storm for Separatism.
The whole point of this Labour move is to shoot the SNP’s fox by demanding a vote now, a vote Salmond can hardly refuse (without looking a fraud).
Highly dangerous politics, but you can see the Labour logic. What is depressing, as you say, is that Labour are so utterly pitiful they got themselves into this position in the first place.
The Tory position will be interesting. The party is innately Unionist, but a Britain shorn of Scotland would be much more rightwing. And I think the departure of Scotland would be the one way Labour might actually disappear as a force: so much of Labour’s intellectual energy and manpower comes from north of the Border.
Without Scotland, Labour would indeed die.
Jack W - yes, if Obama chooses her as veep. The dream ticket is favourite. But if he doesn’t, I think he loses decisively, by five points in re popular vote.
113. Why is your ARSE not making any pronouncements on the US elections? Does it not have access to a representative sample of blue-collar America? Or maybe the SOAMES weightings need to be recalibrated for American voters.
106 116
Consider Scotland voting 45% for independence,55% against .
Strengthens SNP , makes Wendy Alexander look like the muppet she undoubtedly is…
THIS from Devil’s Tower at Daily Kos is well worth a read - on the different polling companies and their performance in the week before each primary.
Also, on the preceding article, there is a grey-box quote about how after tonight there are more delegates available in smoke filled rooms (SDs plus MI and FL) than pledged in the remaining contests. The campaign is going to enter a new phase, and the audiences for those campaigns are not going to be the voters in KY/WV/OR/PR/MT/SD. Interesting.
116 - seanT - sure, it makes sense to wait for an unpopular Tory government. But that gives the Scottish Labour party an opportunity to regroup & recover. A lot of Scottish votes come from being ‘agin’ the current government, which by then a resurgent Labour party might also be able to exploit. Strategically, it just makes more sense to try to pulverise Labour, now, even if it pushes the final referendum a few years further off. IMHO.
112. Logically defensible, as you say. But not politically. Salmond’s core supporters are fervent nationalists, who have been yearning for a referendum on independence for decades.
If Salmond turns down the chance of definitely having a vote now, in the hope they might get a more winnable vote (not guaranteed) sometime in the future, he risks tearing his party in two.
If he is offered one, I think he will have to take it.
I can’t see Hillary winning in South Carolina at all - the polls are consistently too wide to Obama. What may be worth the backing is an Obama win in Indiana at about 6 on betfair. Any views?
Isn’t a three option referendum the most likely? In which case, held now or in 2010, it will almost certainly end in greater powers for the Scottish goverment?
Alan Cochrane in the Daily Telegraph:
- “… the decision to commit the party to an astonishing U-turn over the holding of a referendum on the break up of the United Kingdom was hers alone.
Amid all his other troubles following last Thursday’s humiliation, there is little doubt that she has “bounced” Labour and Mr Brown into a position they had always tried to avoid.
The stunned silences amongst ministers and their aides last night clearly suggested that they hadn’t a clue what was being planned.
“This is a freelance operation by Wendy,” said one disconsolate Labour apparatchik.
This is another extraordinary slap in the face for Mr Brown, as well as to the Tory and Liberal Democrat party leaders in Scotland who had backed the commission plan.
Those senior Westminster Labour strategists who would talk professed to know absolutely nothing of the new tactics last night. “If it’s a mess, it’s Wendy’s mess,” said one last night.”
Nope. If it is a mess, it is Gordon Brown’s mess too.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/05/06/do0604.xml
104. The most depressing thing about all these independent movements, is there isn’t a serious one in France!
126. Corsica is moderately serious about independence, I think.
123 Fred. You’re correct Hillary will lose South Carolina big time !!
117 Test. IMO Obama wins with or without Hillary. Bigger with.
118 Matt. ARSE’s USA affiliate BUTT will be undertaking a full bottom up operation once the nominees are officially declared.
127. A quarter of a million. Pah! Can’t we get the Bretons going? Or even better, start funding an Occitan revival!
108 Understood, Goupillon, but you could win both ways - Labour hold Crewe and lose Henley - and 7/4 is not a bad price.
125. Stuart Dickson. If it is true that this decision has been made without reference to Gordon Brown that is quite asonishing!
Latest Gallup Presidential and Primary Trackers :
McCain 45% .. Clinton 46%
McCain 46% .. Obama 45%
Clinton 46% .. Obama 48%
http://www.gallup.com/poll/107038/Gallup-Daily-Obama-48-Clinton-46-Democratic-Nomination.aspx
Personally I think I referendum is fine in Scotland. It’d be lost, then the world can get on with real issues.
If I’m wrong, and Scots want independence even with devolution, a favourable financial settlement and a Labour national government led by two scots, I think they’d definitely want one under a putative Tory government, so what difference would it make in the long run?
Mind you’ I don’t mind if they don’t have one either, because i think even under a tory government of the most hardline english sort, people would vote against independence in the end (qv Quebec).
124. True. But Labour are supporting a yes/no referendum, believing a defeat for Salmond would render the SNP purposeless, whereas a vote for “more powers” would simply give the SNP more purchase. But this seriously risks a Yes vote, breaking up Britain altogether.
So the UK might be dismembered, simply because Labour are crap and useless and are desperate to save themselves.
All very sad. What we need is a good and noble war - to unite the British against a common enemy, as before. I vote we attack the Belgians, just for being so annoying.
134 - Talking about the Belgians, do they have a working parliament yet - seems ages since I last heard anything…
134 - don’t diss the Belgians. They’re living proof that government is unnecessary.
“All very sad. What we need is a good and noble war - to unite the British against a common enemy, as before. I vote we attack the Belgians, just for being so annoying.”
What about freeing the Occitans from the imperialist French?
LOL jack’s us affiliate BUTT!
Just tried to bet on C&N with Ladbrokes. All they would let me have on the Tories was £125.
Mike - you think 4/5 on the Tories to win a by-election, overturning a 7000 Labour majority against the deceased MPs daughter in the North West, when the Lib Dems are also viable is either good value and also worth a bet of *more* than £125?
Not ruling them out, but unless I’ve missed something, the 7/4 on Labour (even the 4/1 on the Lib Dems) looks far more attractive.
http://www.dailykos.com/
Very helpful “Your poll of polls” article a quarter way down.
141 - See my permalink at 120!
New Republic’s take on the NC and IN primaries :
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/05/05/what-to-expect-in-indiana-and-north-carolina.aspx
102. I don’t think that’s true. All three candidates have got quite protectionist and populist economic policies that would be seen as on the left normally. McCain and Hilary favour a price freeze on gas, Hilary wants to re-negotiate nafta to protect wages, Obama wants to raise taxes on the rich and Obama and Hilary both want to continue affirmative action.
140 - What makes you think the Lib Dems are viable…? 18% last time and as short a by-election period as possible. Sure, they’ll do well, and the by-election machine should stop them getting squeezed… The bet that I want to see priced up somewhere is Labour to come 3rd.
139
Lads prices.
Cons. 55%
Lab. 36%
Lib. 20%
Overround 112% + chance of fourth party winning call it.
Still worth backing cons. at this price, don’t think BF will be any better plus commision.
It’s a braver man than I that stands against Jack’s BUTT.
As an Englishman and a unionist, perhaps we could relax the laws just for a brief time to allow Wendy Alexander to be fired into space using some sort of giant artillery gun?
Bloody Labour. Pointless and anti-English devolution could now lead to the breakup of the UK, and for what? A pathetic vote-garnering exercise. Bloody hurrah.
I actually feel sorry for Brown over this.
127- Most people in Corsica are very proud of their region and want a kind of special status. But Corsica is also very patriotic and very attached to France.
Most “nationalist” movements in Corsica call themselves autonomist. Independentists are very few and despised by most corsicans.
125. Have you seen this, Stuart? It’s a polling-station-by-polling-station breakdown of last year’s Holyrood elections.
http://www.scotlandoffice.gov.uk/our-communications/documents.php?doctype=pubs
Apparently Wendy Alexander got 66% of the votes cast by person in the ward I live.
The Scottish Jacobite Party got 0.07% !
144. The tax holiday (not price freeze) on gas is a gimmick just for the summer. The renegotiation of NAFTA is to include enviromental standards - pretty centrist these days - and more importantly would still KEEP the agreement. Clinton & Obama’s tax rises would leave the US still way below Western Europe in terms of its tax base. Affimative action I’ll give you but Obama wants it more in terms of income background rather than racial differences - so not much difference between UK university admission.
Obama also supported Israel’s attack on Lebanon. Clinton sabre-rattles about “obliterating” Iran. They both favour a majority private healthcare plan - Obama’s doesn’t even have a mandate. Obama argues religion has a “legitimate role” in politics and opposes gay marriage. He believes the worse crimes should be punished by the death penalty and supports an individual right to bear arms. Both have praised American capitalism as being superior to socialised markets.
149. I didn’t know an actual French person was reading this - I was only joking about wanting to split up your country!
EXCLUSIVE FOR PB ARSE BETTING CALL **** EXCLUSIVE FOR PB ARSE BETTING CALL
Release Time 1930 hrs
*******************************************
145 - Sorry, just by viable I meant not completely hopeless (sub-5% and not going to bother).
Odds-on on the Tories seems poor value to me - I can’t believe they have a better than 50% chance of winning it - so I am intrigued by Mike putting proper money on them at those odds, unless he is arbing against his failed Raith Rovers promotion bet?
What do you know, Mr Smithson?
When are betfair putting up a market on c&n mike?
129- Occitan revival has started a long time ago but it’s only a linguistic phenomenon (limited to some artists and scholars).
Anyway Occitan Oc languages basically covered half of France and you will never find someone from Bordeaux thinking he has more in common with someone from Montpellier than someone from Tours…
Breton militants are very limited in number and confined to folklore issues (traditional music, signs in breton language in some villages…).
And we have one football team that all France supports (and will play the Euro unlike some sides I could name…)
152 - That’s how it always starts Socrates, and before long, you’re firing up the Apaches and tabling UNSC resolutions…
152- I knew it was a joke. But it was an occasion to correct a point made by SeanT.
Get a flavour of what the locals are saying in C&N in local paper comments.
http://www.thisischeshire.co.uk/news/crewenews/display.var.2246153.0.gwyneths_daughter_aims_to_be_next_crewe_and_nantwich_mp.php
Sample:
********************************
Post