What could Hillary demand for giving up?
May 8th, 2008
Could clearing her massive campaign debts be part of a deal?
In the aftermath of the Tuesday’s primaries speculation has started on how the Obama-Clinton contest might end and whether we could see a negotiated deal between the two of them.
An experienced political operator who has been involved in such an arrangement before, Dan Conley, has a must read piece in Salon in which he suggests three things that Hillary could demand to pull out.
Firstly there’s cash. The Obama fund-raising operation has been one of the wonders of this election and arguably is at the heart of his success. The reason Hillary has had to lend her campaign more money is that she was forced to deplete her resources in Pennsylvania. Conley argues that part of a deal with Obama would involve the latter picking up her campaign debts. In fact Conley goes so far as to argue that “Hillary can keep lending money to her campaign, at least in the short term, without much risk because it’s very likely that Obama will agree to pay it in exchange for peace.”
Secondly Obama could accept Hillary’s healthcare plan When she does concede she needs to show that her effort has not been in vain and acceptance by Obama of a version of this key policy plank could be vital.
Thirdly Hillary could have an effective veto on the V-P choice. If she did not want the position herself, Conley argues, she could have a means to “..tactfully say no to another woman making it onto the ticket to steal her spotlight. She could ensure that none of the potential 2012 candidates get positioned for a run in case Obama should fail in November.” Conley’s suggestion of a mutually agreeable choice is the Oxford-educated contender from last time, Wes Clarke.
Will it happen? I think we are in the end game and Conley’s piece sounds convincing. His observation about the V-P choice is very telling.
White House race betting is here.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
The old witch at last is now dead
But Barack must not lose his head
He must fight again
Against John McCain
Or make way for Al Gore instead
I wonder if Radnor & Brecon
Will form an example to reckon
For Nantwich & Crewe
Opponents split into two
But Labour in third, it will beckon
There was a young poet from Crewe
Whose limericks stopped at line two
I think that I’ll soon go to bed
Or maybe there’ll be a new thread
About Tamsin in Crewe
Or the Democrats two
Or the prospects for David and Ed
N.B. previous thread 404.
He can’t seriously clear her debts can he? That would surely violate Federal Election law limiting donors to 2,300 each. The Obama team would simply be diverting money from some people into another’s campaign. I’m no expert but it sounds illegal.
VP slot sounds quite plausible. I saw a piece today suggesting Ed Rendell - He’d get blue collor voters, unite Hillary supporters without her having to take the VP spot, perhaps win him PA and be a very effective attacker as compared to Obamas above the fray (supposedly) image.
She could demand a whole range of things. She won’t get any of them though: Obama’s in far too strong of a position. He wouldn’t want her pulling out now anyway: big losses in West Virginia or Kentucky to a ghost candidate would look very bad for the presumptive nominee.
Incidentally, McCain just gave a speech arguing about liberal activism of the Supreme Court (seems a bit spurious seeing that the court is four arch conservatives, three conservative-leaners and two liberal-leaners) denying the will of the people. He would appoint justices “like Roberts and Alito”. This has been seized on by pro-choice groups as code to evangelicals that he would appoint someone hardline anti-abortion, and they are very vigorously pointing out that one more anti-abortion Justice would overturn Roe vs Wade. I suspect this will put a LOT of women back in the Democrat camp - I know several women who are otherwise strongly conservative who ardently argue for reproductive rights.
2. Rendell would guarantee PA, he also could secure the Jewish vote and not risk any Senate seats being lost. However, he’s not that well known beyond his own state.
Still McCain’s strategy looks like he’s aiming to pick off Michigan and Pennsylvania, and to hold Ohio. Rendell could certainly blunt that effort.
Mike,
“White House race betting is here.” ==> link missing
Fantastic editorial by Colbert, yesterday, about Bush being a bigger liability for McCain than Rev. Wright for Obama-boy: http://www.comedycentral.com/colbertreport/videos.jhtml?episodeId=167536
2
McCain rised money to help the Giuliani campaing payback its debts.
2 - I believe it is quite common. In relation to your specific points, I do not think Obama’s campaign would count as a separate donor. They are probably holding donors’ funds on trust for a political purpose. But that purpose is no doubt sufficiently broad to cover paying off the debts of a rival if that is part of the price of a united party.
The last time Hillary had a say in the choice of running mate (Bill’s) she went for Al Gore, and (according to Sally Bedell Smith’s book on the Clintons) vetoed Senator Bob Kerrey. Given Gore’s woeful campaign in 2000, it wasn’t exactly good advice.
The idea that Obama could adopt her plan after attacking it on a variety of levels is silly.
And let me make something clear. While she can make this hard for everyone, she is also destroying her own future in the process.
She isn’t in a position to “demand” anything. She lost.
Obama probably will help retire her debt. And probably will pick a VP that appeals to her base somehow (a former supporter of hers or a woman). But the health care idea is off the table. Won’t happen. That would be exactly the kind of backroom deals he has campaigned against - and that he lost the Edwards endorsement on (because he would not promise to make him AG).
Are the denizens of PB.com discounting Hillry as a VP? I think he’d be crackers to choose her but her odds are mighty short.
9 - Why wasn’t it good advice? Gore was rather an effective VP who never overshadowed or embarassed Bill Clinton (indeed the reverse was true) and could be trusted to do whatever tasks Clinton gave him well. I doubt Bill cared massively that Gore lost in 2000. I hadn’t realised it was down to her but it seems to me it was rather a sound call by Hillary.
10 - He would not be “crackers” to choose her at all. She attracts a very different constituency than Obama - particularly working class women and pensioners. It would be an sensible and complementary choice. The disadvantage is it might seem “unrealistic” after a tough fight but he could sell it I think.
My feeling, though, is that she would be “crackers” to do it. If he wins then she is much better off as a key senator (quite possibly majority leader) than with being a VP who Obama does not personally like and who he would sideline. By 2016 she will probably be too old. If he loses, she is better off not being associated with the campaign from June to November and standing again in 2012.
10 PtP. Not this denizen !!! Yesterday I called this :
**** ARSE BETTING CALL **** ARSE BETTING CALL **** ARSE BETTING CALL
ARSE is recommending Hillary Clinton @ 10/1 with William Hills to become Vice President !!
*************************************
Sadly the 10/1 has gone but 7/1 with VC is still there.
10
As Dem VP-Candidate, I put few weeks ago 100$ at 6 to 1.
I’ll put no more; it’s very volatile; and manyfold.
14
On Bill Richardson - a hispanic governorof New Mexico — to help Omamessiah with Latinos
13
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/7/115034/2431
The one thing about HRC is that they attract such different voters that they would blow McCain from the water. Especially if she was given the healthcare policy plank she wants. I know the Dems’ healthcare plan is not perfect but it’s a start.
If they kiss and make-up after Hills makes a strong finish (which seems inevitable looking at the states left) and announce they have patched up the ‘dream ticket’ McCain might as well not bother campaigning.
The advantage to the situation that they are in now is that they have 5 weeks of campaigning left where they can bang out the unity message and slowly come together. It would look less forced if we’ve had a month of headlines and speeches in preparation for the unity candidatures to be made.
Having said that, the odds are not tempting any more.
16 - Nasty piece by Kos. It totally ignores the fact that Bill has done nothing wrong for the last two months.
Why do people hate the Clintons so much? She seems to have gotten much better in the last three months. So has Obama for that matter. Both of them seem more presidential than they did around NH time.
The only real danger of the primary season was if there was no clear winner. Now there is, the big campaign looks to have battle-hardened the winner and made him more electable.
Obama doesnt need to play ball at this stage unless the campaign feels that they are genuinely in danger of losing Clinton’s bloc of votes come the race in November. THAT is the key issue.
3: Obama certainly doesn’t need to give her any concessions, but he’s too intelligent not to. There are two traditionally Democrat constituencies that he needs behind him: blue-collar whites, and people who like the Clintons, notably many women voters. Many of the former at present think McCain may be more their sort of guy. Some of the latter are bruised by the sarcasm and hostility of some of Obama’s over-keen supporters.
If he wins the nomination by a historically narrow margin and then brushes off his rival as irrelevant, he’ll look arrogant and offend a large number of voters who he’ll need in November. And there’s no good reason to do so unless he really is arrogant (which I don’t actually think he is). Adopting the healthcare plan costs him nothing and I shouldn’t think he really dislikes it so much he can’t live with it. And something personal is likely to be a good idea, not just to build bridges to Hillary but to signal to her supporters that they’re on the same side. Support to get Majority Leader (tough on the incumbent but it wouldn’t be uniquely rough politics) might be a better bet than the dubious prize of the VP slot.
19 - They would rather he would be candidate in the next fortnight than in August. Even if he gets endorsements to take him over the edge it is not a given that he is nominee unless he gets the one endorsement that counts above all. She could hang about and hope for more Reverend Wright revelations etc. He would surely rather stand up on a stage with her, nicce speeches all round, battle moves on to take on McCain.
Why do people hate the Clintons so much?
A quick bit of web surfing using various key words and phrases might enlighten you.
20 - I agree that Senate leadership would be a much better prize. Being McCain’s VP has its grim appeal (there is a real risk of death or temporary incapacity or no re-election bid) but probably not for Obama unless you are young and can wait eight years or are so close to him you know he will make it a serious job. Harry Reid is pushing 70 so it would not be at all surprising if he left the job in the next two years anyway.
22 - Yes, try Googling “Bill Clinton”, “popularity” and “electoral success”. That is why the American right hate them so much.
24. oh yes, its a big right wing conspir….. snore snore snore
Gaz @ 25 re right wing conspiracy.
In America, the shares of income taken by the top one per cent and ten per cent are back at 1920s levels: 17 and 44 per cent. You can see why that might appeal to billionaires funding think tanks to promote tax cuts for the rich.
The Tories have slipped a bit on Spreadfair. Why? I am not aware of any new, significant market-moving info. Perhaps they just bounced a bit too high after Labour’s meltdown last Thursday?
(seats won by party at UK GE 2005)
Con 335.6 - 343.9 (198 seats)
Lab 242.0 - 250.0 (356 seats)
LD 42.9 - 46.9 (62 seats)
SNP 8.0 - 10.9 (6 seats)
PC 3.0 - 4.0 (3 seats)
next House of Commons = 650 seats (therefore 326 needed to form a majority government)
25 - Not a right wing conspiracy. Just that right wing Americans wouldn’t hate Clinton particularly if he wasn’t successful. That’s simply a point of fact. Would Thatcher and Blair be the hate figures they are had they been less electorally successful and personally popular? Of course not.
As Nick P indicates Obama doesn’t have to give concessions but he’d be smart to. In policy terms there’s little that seperates them. In reality most of the differences have been about style than substance and their attitude to how polics work.
Hillary will bring to the ticket demographics that Obama is weaker in - women, seniors, blue collar and conservative Democrats and she puts Arkansas into play. There’s also the not inconsiderable advantage of having a truly national figure on the ticket as Veep and that effectively the Democrats will have five figures in the field for the campaign proper - Obama, Michelle, Hillary, Bill and Chelsea.
The calculation for Hillary will be if she thinks that Obama will win in November does that leave her a shot at the Presidency. Probably not. Perhaps her chance at history will be as the first female Veep to the first black President - two historic firsts for the USA.
26. If the rich are doing so well anyway, why do they need to fritter away their money on think-tanks to try to persuade the powers that be to ease their tax burden?
30, because everyone always wants more.
It’s a simple fact of human nature. We feel that, like the moon, we have to constantly increase our speed just to keep pace with what we feel we deserve.
[29] Jack, which voters does Chelsea Clinton attract that the others can’t? She looks the spit of her mother to me…
31, clarification for sleepily badly written moon thing.
The moon constantly accelerates though its speed remains constant. This is because to maintain equal speed whilst turning (and the moon of course is always turning as its orbit is circular) a constant increase in velocity is required.
If Obama adopts the Healthcare plan - which is something that has been close to Hillary’s heart for many years - it would make a lot more sense for her to be in the Senate to see it through than to be sat in the White House cheering it on with no hands-on control. Support for her to become majority leader (to which she is surely more suited for than VP anyway), would dovetail nicely.
One other point about her as a potential VP that I’m a little surprised that no-one’s mentioned yet is the question of whether she would be? The Clintons are one of the strongest teams in US politics. Obama surely wouldn’t want Bill floating around in the White House, if only by proxy (that’s a bit unfair to Hillary, but you get the gist).
Still, I can’t see him wanting to get her out of the race just yet. McCain polled quite poorly (for a contest in which there’s only one effective candidate) in Tuesday’s primaries; were Hillary to drop out now Obama would have a couple of tricky results to massage away, where a lot of absent votes will have already been cast. It would be better for him and for Hillary to let this run the distance to Montana and S. Dakota, and then do the deals.
OT. Brown still hasn’t formally congratulated Londons new Mayor, then;
http://broganblog.dailymail.co.uk/
Given what we know about Browns petty, sulking behaviour that shouldn’t be a surprise. Its a job to imagine Tony Blair being that childish.
re 27. Stuart - the reason the Tories might have slipped is profit taking. Gamblers like me go in and out of this market to make short term profits without regard to the final outcome which might by up to two years away.
29. Hillary needs to accept that her chances of winning the presidency are over. Not just for this year but for ever. If Obama wins, she can’t have a shot for another eight years, but which time she’d be pushing 70. True, McCain is even older, but by then it would look like a real step backwards after an Obama presidency, irrespective of whether he won re-election or not. If Obama loses in November, then she would have to get round the fact that she lost to a loser and explain why she’d do better in 2012, probably against an incumbent president - or his VP.
There is much more to American political life than becoming president and if she keeps chasing that rainbow she’ll end in failure. Time to move on.
36. Thanks Mike. Yes, I thought about that just after I clicked the ‘Submit Comment’ button. When are you going to post your Dummies Guide to political spreadbetting for people like me? I am still kicking myself for not making some pocket money on Boris and the Labour seats fall. I’m a big cowardy custard, and need a little hand-holding to jump in for the first time.
32 IA. Chelsea helps at the margin with younger voters that Obama is already strong in. The US media have bigged up her role in the Clinton campaign and she is popular. You’d rather have her on board than not.
Obama will get women voters, they’re not his problem in any way. McCain is hardline pro-life.
re 38. When we have a quiet period Stuart and that will certainly be after C&N
40. What’s wrong with being in favour of life? Favouring death doesn’t seem very humane or liberal.
40. What’s wrong with being in favour of life? Being in favour of death doesn’t seem very humane or progressive.
37 David. If Obama loses in November and she is not on the ticket then her line will be something like ‘more in sorrow than anger, but I told you so’
She’ll run in 2012.
As it is my view is that an Obama/Clinton ticket will cream McCain in November. The more I see of him the more I think the campaign will unravel him as a weak candidate representing the past and all that failed in the Dubya years.
37 - Surely her argument if he lost would just be, “there, I told you a liberal elitist couldn’t win it against McCain and tragically so it proved - Obama was the McGovern of the noughties. What you wanted was an old school candidate who would deliver seniors, blue collar folk, women etc etc etc. Democrats need to look at who might win this time”.
Actually, I think Obama is slightly more likely than her to win in November but the hypothesis will never be tested and if he loses he will be a joke, a by-word for failure by the weekend after polling day. And she will be the winner who might/should have been. That’s politics.
She probably wouldn’t need to beat a candidate as formidable as Obama in 2012 and would have a reasonable shot against an incumbant - her husband did it and whilst it always is the tougher contest, it is hardly unprecedented to beat an incumbant.
I have long posted here that the Democratic contest was the main battle ground for the 2008 POTUS. The November campaign will be a sideshow. And what a primary campaign it has been.
I expect Obama’s odds to drift in to about 4/7 once he gets the nomination, be less than 1/2 for the campaign proper, falling to 1/5 on election day.
HRC must be the favourite for the VP now- I took her at 8’s. Crikey- the prospect of Obama, HRC, with Bill, Al Gore, J Edwards in toe. You can get a feel of what the Poles thought in 1939.
This is the most uneven election campaign in memory. The only fly in the ointment would have been a Bloomberg maverick, but that ain’t going to happen.
The Democrats are going to take a firm grip on all 3 levers of power in November.
There have been two epoch changing PMs since the war (Attlee and Thatcher). There have been two political giants in British politics over the same time, both in the last 30 years. We are now in an era of political pygmies. Very different times. Extrapolating from the past—’the tories need to be X% ahead because in 19xx….’ zzzzz
And what’s worse is that these claims are supported by statisical ‘analysis’. This gives them spurious weight and influence.
I’m not ignoring ‘form’. The only form tip you need is to follow the most successful UK political punter (in % return terms) over the last 20 years. And he puts up 2/3 threads a day on…..here.
[42] You’re being obtuse.
43 - I absolutely agree with you Jack. I don’t put much weight in them either way but the polls currently put McCain running second against a Democrat candidate who doesn’t even exist yet - that’s better than most Republicans but still bad.
He has had no pressure on and already the “Americans are better off now” gaffe, the “100 years” gaffe, the “my energy policy means no more Iraq Wars” (i.e. it was all about oil” gaffe. The man is a flawed, weak candidate. He is going down like Dole.
43- see 45- Jack W- great minds and all that.
To be honest I cannot get over just how good this primary campaign has been for the Democrats. Like watching Ali versus Foreman- the slugger Clinton against the nimble footed Ali.
Obama transcends politics, and HRC has proved herself to be the most effective political campaigner since well Bill, maybe even better than Bill since Bill never faced an Obama.
Obama has won this one on merit, just. But HRC has proved just what a formidable politician she is without Bill.
O/T, and apologies if someone has already posted this, but:
The Conservatives got more votes than Labour across Greater Manchester last Thursday. Greater Manchester! When did this last happen - 1968? Has it ever happened? Labour still well ahead in Manchester, obviously (though much less than in previous years), and ahead in Wigan, but the Conservatives within sniffing distance in Tameside(!), Salford(!!), Rochdale and Oldham.
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/1048591_tories_beat_labour_in_race_for_votes
McCain is not a weak candidate I reckon he would have beaten Al Gore to a pulp in 2000.
But no Republican confidently predict a win after Dubya. By picking McCain, a strong maverick, they will stop an Electoral College annihilation but the evidence of the opinion polls suggest he can’t win.
He certainly can’t win against a properly united Democrat party.
How the Daily Mash sees Boris (Nanny State) Johnson’s alcohol ban.
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/johnson-bans-scotsmen-from-the-tube-20080507932/
Hmmm were are all our libertarians attacking this decision, strangely quiet!
Notice the cannabis/alcohol bans get massive support from the Tory press.
35. GIN - “Brown still hasn’t formally congratulated Londons new Mayor”
But Alex Salmond did. Immediately after the result was announced. It took Brown absolutely ages before he congratulated Salmond, and he did so in a most ungracious manner.
- “”I am always prepared to do business with anybody who is democratically elected by the people,” said Mr Salmond. “I have also written to Ken Livingstone, an old friend of mine.
“I’m actually sad he lost because whatever faults he has, and we all have faults, he has done some substantial things for London.”
Mr Salmond said he had written to the new major suggesting: “If there’s things we can co-operate on, let’s co-operate.”"
http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/news/display.var.2246844.0.Salmond_congratulates_Londons_new_mayor.php
‘Let’s cooperate, Alex Salmond tells Boris Johnson’
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article3873153.ece
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6667169.stm
48/49 James/Tyson. What can I say …. Jack’s ARSE leaves a trail that others can only follow.
Now what about McCain’s pick for Veep !! …. Romney
53
Salmond obviously doesn’t read the, ‘Daily Mash’
50 - Well they didn’t gain a seat in Rochdale. But the Liberals are making strong ground in east Manchester.
I expect the Lib Dems to win Oldham East and Saddleworth (no more Phil Woolas hurrah) and retain Rochdale itself. Leaving only Heywood and Middleton in Rochdale still held by Labour.
I think it would take an earthquake to unseat Labour there.
But a reminder of the BIG Liberal history in Rochdale…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyril_Smith
41. Mike. Something to look forward too then, in addition to having a good larf when Labour come in 3rd in C&N
Ive just seen this photo of Tamsin Dunwoody out campaigning in Crewe & Nanwich on a link on Guido. Is the poor woman anorexic? She’s as thin as a rake and pale as a ghost. Was ill health part of her problems which led to her demise as a politician in Wales?
58 sorry missed link
http://bp2.blogger.com/_Ly0-moWuUjU/SCDJ33s1N9I/AAAAAAAAC7s/zu2XXMwGyOA/s1600-h/Jack+Straw+%26+Tamsin+Dunwoody,+May+08+(small).jpg
54 - The sun shines out of your ARSE as far as I am concerned.
On Republican VP, oddly he could do a lot worse than going for Guiliani. I know he has become a bit of a joke over his awful Florida gamble, but he is a highly capable man, all his skeletons are out in the open and he may bring a serious state into play against Obama. Huge amounts of scrutiny will be on McCain’s VP nominee (far more than Obama’s) and it is no time to go for a bright young thing who may have some awful flaw. Rice is another possible but I think she sincerely doesn’t want to be President and is also too close to Bush (with a capital B).
56 - I was going to say that it was a good performance for the Lib Dems in GM too. But that wasn’t really true - across most of the county* they stood still**. But it was certainly a very good performance from the Lib Dems in Oldham and Rochdale. As they keep doing, they’re concentrating their successes geographically, and this is more likely to pay dividends at a GE than the Conservatives’ generally rising tide.
I have Manchester Gorton as an outside bet of a Lib Dem gain at the next election. They often get one seat that swings much further than usual, and that’s the one I have my eye on.
*Calling Greater Manchester a ‘County’ still rankles rather. But I can’t think what else to call it that fits the rhythm of the sentence.
**Well that’s what it seems to me from my South Manchester/Stockport point of view. East Lancashire types might see things through a different prism.
50 I think that using LibDem thinking, that makes the Tories “the natural party of government in Manchester”!
Truly staggering numbers all the same. Next stop Glasgow….
60. Marquee Mark - “Next stop Glasgow… “
The Tories will only make a (modest) comeback in Glasgow post-independence. And probably quite a long time even after that. It would need serious boundary changes to bring the suburbs back into the same council area as the city proper.
Hillary should take any offer of the Vice Presidency because it is the most power she will ever get. Otherwise it’s game over.
http://lettersfromatory.wordpress.com
Fred Barnes piece about poss VP pick suggest Gov. Rendell of Pennsylvania - a must win state, very popular Governor who wouldn’t be alternative power point in the administration. Rendell is also male, white and connects with the working class in a way Obama can’t.
Mike at 36.I just found your message today.
Spread Betting is a very dangerous pastime for the uninitiated and an initiation from yourself would be great.
I am typically very short term.Some of my trades don’t last a minute in the sense that a Spread bet could be followed immediately by a countertrade on Betfair.
The mainspring is almost invariably the Spread bet and there are many gems knocking around.
Two examples: Don’t know if it was truly available but IG were offering a four point arb with Spreadfair on Tory Seats a couple of days ago you could buy at 336.0 and sell at 340.0.
Yesterday morning I managed to sell H.Clinton at 4.2 on a 25-10-0 index for decent money(£30)It is not always like that and things can be painfully slow at times.
61 Stuart, if the Tories ever make any sort of come-back in Glasgow, I won’t live to see it through: I will have keeled over laughing first. I just hope Brown gets to look upon his works - and despair.
65. Brown as Ozymandias does seem quite apt
@66:
Brown as the most intelligent man in the world?
HAHAHAHAHAHA.
As For Republican VP McCain cannot pick Condi Rice, as Americans ALWAYS vote for the candidate who is forward looking, optimistic, idealistic…Rice would be a reminder of Bush. A referendum on Bush is not something McCain can afford with swing voters. Gulliani would bring no new state to the Republican column. Huckerbee would energise Christian vote, Romney would be popular with Conservatives..I suspect however McCain will choose someone he is comfortable with..Lieberman, or better still Mel Martinez from the key state of Florida. Charlie Christ, Governor of Florida would be my guess though.
65 Poetry corner:
OZYMANDIAS
I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand,
Half sunk, a shatter’d visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamp’d on these lifeless things,
The hand that mock’d them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear:
“My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!”
Nothing beside remains: round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away.[
Hillary would take VP I think if offered. As Cheney has shown it can be made into a powerful position. There is also the chance that she becomes President. Morbid as it is to suggest it there has to be a real danger of assassination if Obama wins and history isn’t too kind on theose Presidents directly elected from the Senate.
In the end I don’t think Obama will offer it. There are other people who could appeal to the white working class more. She brings with her high negatives and Bill - where would he fit in? But I certainly wouldn’t rule it out.
50 the comments of Ivan Lewis, Labour MP for Bury South, read like those from the Monty Python knight having lost his limbs, “merely a flesh wound”.
Lewis “The Tories know that if they want to win a general election they need to be doing a lot better.”
A lot better!
67.
round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away
72 I thought
“Half sunk, a shatter’d visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command”
captured Gordon as if he had sat before Shelley himself….
O/T but of interest to C&N gamblers:
Sam Coates of the Times suggests the Cleggistas are giving the Tories a free run in the ole railway town.
http://timesonline.typepad.com/politics/
Yes. That bit is very apt too.
55. coldstone - “Salmond obviously doesn’t read the, ‘Daily Mash’.”
Unlike your good self Coldstone, the Rt Hon A Salmond MP MSP has a country to run
re 51 I hope you are right about the poll evidence, David. But last I saw, McCain was ahead on the Rasmussen tracker?
Mike, I’m keen that you get full benefit from this site, so could you make it easier for us to trigger your commission on bets we place? Could you put a link button at the top of the page so we can go directly to your commission betting site which gives the best current prices, please? If it already exists, I’m a complete idiot.
74. Maybe funds are low at LD towers ??
Or they are saving their energies for Henley - titter…
71 - Yes, I thought that was an odd comment. Essentially he’s saying that it’s not that the Tories are liked, it’s that Labour are bitterly hated. Strange that this should be preferable for him.
74. Odd decision, why exactly would the lib dems have a better chance in Henley?
79. And talking of money… is No 10 safe from the bailiffs if they find Labour Party HQ sadly lacking in assets to cover the £20m they owe?
79. Hasn’t there been another funding scandal lately? Involving a person being put forward as a peer who just happen to be large Lib Dem donor?
If the LDs are not giving C&N their best shot my opinion of Nick Clegg’s leadership will sink even lower.
81 - They are second IIRC rather than a distant third. Although they have little chance in Henley and none in Crewe & Nantwich. If they are not even contesting C&N then they might just be waking up to political reality.
85. I doubt they have a chance in Henley, the tories are on an upsurge and they have Boris as a massive booster for the tory campaign.
81 and 85 do not overlook the problems the LDs created changing the candidate. A segment of the LDs are boycotting C&N.
@68 - I agree on Rice, plus she’s been quite consistent that she has no interest in seeking elected office. Martinez was born in Cuba, so I’m fairly sure he’s counted out. Not sure about how a McCain-Crist ticket would play with conservatives. My flyer for McCain’s pick - JC Watts, well worth a look. I’ve already backed him @ 50-1 with Ladbrokes (now 25s) and nibble at anything above that on Betfair. Unfortunately I didn’t take Mike’s advice on Obama @ 50-1, but have got McCain as Republican nominee at 12s, plus for the Presidency at 33, 25 and 20-1 so can afford a bit of a speculative punt.
On the Democrat side the obvious candidate to me is Richardson (he brings executive and foreign policy experience, plus appeal to Latinos) though I agree that Rendell is an interesting one. Can’t find odds on him though!
87. Why did they change candidates? Doesn’t seem like a smart decision with such a short time before the bye election.
87 What is your authority and/or evidence for that statement?
81 The LibDems are delusional if they think they have a snowballs chance of winning Henley. Especially in the current political environment. If the Tories can hold Maidenhead in the face of the “decapitation” strategy, nearby Henley is several orders of magnitude safer.
59 - I know no-one in Rochdale that doesn’t use Lancs as postal address. I certainly always have done. Manchester is in Lancashire. It doesn’t matter how many local government reorganisations say its not. It’s like Hull never left Yorkshire despite the idiotic obsession with destroying history of successive governments.
**gets off high horse**
Exactly why does Obama need to negotiate? He’s in an extremely strong position, he got more funds and clearly the momentum is back with him after the last feew days. If Hillary wants to banrupt herself, she’s welcome to. It’s not Obama’s responsibility. If I wer him I’d come out and say that she’ll be getting no campaign funds from him, to clear her debt - money that could be spent on fighting McCain. And does Obama really want to box himself in with Hillary’s policies or VP choice.
He’s almost certainly got the nomination, I think it’s worth risking it to maintain his independence. If Hillary wants to risk financial meltdown by carrying on, let her. She was the front-runner, the ‘name’ candidate at the start; I don’t see why she has earned the right to influence Obama’s strategy. Her bargaining position reminds me of Saddam Hussein, when the American soldiers found him in his bunker and he declared ‘I am ready to negotiate’.
The problem for the Lib Dems in C&N is that it is getting a lot of media attention and the battle is being presented in terms of a fight between them and Labour. The normal Lib Dem strategy is to establish themselves early as the only way of getting rid of the incumbent party - and this can be challenging in the current context.
The betting odds won’t help them either. The more the Tories are able to say that the bookies make us odds-on favourites that harder it becomes for Rennard’s boys.
It struck me that them having a woman candidate might make it a touch harder for Labour’s Tasmin.
That said they will out leaflet everybody and the sheer quantity going through people’s letter boxes will help to underpin their “main challenger” claim.
If it starts to look as though a Labour defeat is a certainty then there are 18k Labour voters from last time who might respond to a propostion that only the Lib Dems can stop the Tories.
Vince’n'Liz in C’n'N
http://www.elizabethshenton.com/category/news/
re 94 surprisingly Labour’s price has come in to 3.2 (last traded) after quite a lot of £££ at 4.0 yesterday. Not sure why, i would have thought range 4 to 5.0 was about right.
boris bans drink on the tube, tories howling for tougher state punishments on soft drug users
Where are the tories stand for freedom and won’t use the power of the state to micro manage our lives brigade then?
89 - Lib dem rules say that there has to be a fresh selection contest for a by-election.
91 - I agree. No point Tory activists even bothering to take the trouble to help.
77 - I think there’s still a significant number saying they would not vote for Clinton/Obama depending on who they support. I think a sizeable proportion of those people are lying (even to themselves). Once the decision is Democrat v Republican Obama will open up a largish lead (especially if he picks a unifying VP and is properly backed by HRC)
97. The howls of anguish continue…
Off Topic - I do not want to start arguments (!) - but can someone explain to me or direct me to information about the oil and gas resources we have in the United Kingdom?
I only ask because I am interested in what percentage of North Sea Oil is actually in what would be Scottish and English territorial waters. I am sure I read somewhere in the past, that the division is not quite as straightforward as it may seem, with the English getting nothing - but is there anyway of knowing more?
Thanks in advance.
Jack W
“As it is my view is that an Obama/Clinton ticket will cream McCain in November. The more I see of him the more I think the campaign will unravel him as a weak candidate representing the past and all that failed in the Dubya years.”
I agree with the first part of this, sadly, as I dread an Obama-Clinton WH. But not the second. McCain is the only Republican who stood a chance because of his moderate record.
As a Rep sympathiser, though, I am in despair because the Republican base is simply not rallying to him. Read the Corner. They’re like the idiots of all parties who would rather be ideologically pure and lose than compromise and win. They make me sick, frankly.
If I were a gambler I’d have some your betting call on Hillary. He’d be insane not to pick her.
98 Henley is Tory-monkey country. The unkind used to suggest how else could Boris get elected to Parliament…..!!
Good to see Boris setting the political agenda the hoem secretary now follows his lead
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7389280.stm
@97:
Don’t be so melodramatic, it’s hardly micromanaging your life. Unless your life comprises a non-stop whirlwind of hard drug and booze abuse on the Circle line.
Mike
“That said they will out leaflet everybody and the sheer quantity going through people’s letter boxes will help to underpin their “main challenger” claim.”
I wouldn’t be so sure about that one this time.
Not sure why we are discussing the minutiae of a failed candidate’s funding arrangements in the American elections, when we have the unfolding drama of the Scotland Question in our own country.
It’s very sad. I now think Scottish independence is the most probably outcome of all these shenanigans - i.e. we are now witnessing the slow, tragic break-up of the United Kingdom.
And virtually the entire responsibility for this lies with Labour, and the venal, myopic, pathological ineptitude of the Blair and Brown governments.
The question bears repeating. What have they wrought, these dung-eating morons, with their ten years in power? Nothing. Except for half a million dead people in Iraq, and the dismemberment of Great Britain.
Labour 1997-2010: the Most Disastrous Government in British History.
106. havent the tories already leafletted 3 times?
97. The Labour Humanist
You lot do not have a leg to stand on when it comes to numpty statism. Labour wins that contest hands down.
108 - Yes and counting I would have thought…
100, 105 so easy to rationalise infringements of liberty when it’s “your side” doing it no?
We all know the “personal freedom” thing for tories is a delusional spin
Test - I’m not convinced with this ‘lets be friends with the Clintons’ strategy. Hillary is very divisive and to me, is an overall electoral liability.After a pretty bitter campaign, might Obama not look a little disingenuous if he suddenly starts compromising. There are other people who can help him win Hillary voters, who at the same time won’t lose him the voters Hillary would. Much of America can’t stand her.
I think that strategy is highlighted by the first Lib-Dem bar-chart that they produced, Mike (94). A straight fight between Lib Dems and Tories….
101. James M - “… what percentage of North Sea Oil is actually in what would be Scottish and English territorial waters.”
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1999/19991126.htm
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1999/99112601.gif
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Adjacent_Waters_Boundaries_Order_1999
re 99 probably, but eight years ago weren’t we saying there is no way even US will elect that clown Bush? we need to bear in mind that Dem v Rep divisions run deeper than they did and the split is remarkably even. McCain is still going to clean up lots of states and has more chance in OH and FL against Obama. (I’d still back Obama to take OH and the WHite House, but it’s not a given).
and hence, re 93, Obama needs Hillary on side ’cause he needs Hillary’s core Democrats to add to his newer, younger, better educated enthusiasts. Going with the Health care plan would be sensible; letting you veto the VP would concede too much, in my view.
102 “can someone explain to me or direct me to information about the oil and gas resources we have in the United Kingdom?”
The Brown Book is the definitive starting point. (Google it) You’ll get a broader international context from BP’s annual review (which is often used by the industry when preparing presentations!) - due out next month I think, so the current version is looking a bit detached from the current world.
Of interest, the biggest disaster for the UK economy in the twentieth century - far, far worse than Black Wednesday, devaluation, ERM, IMF - was the decision taken to finally settle the international boundary with Norway (I think in the early sixties?). Anyway, after a good lunch, we essentially allowed the Norwegians some mighty generous concessions on where to draw the boundary between the UK and Norway. And in that sliver of territory on which we gave up our claim sat much of Norway’s oil wealth…. Doh!!!!!
@111:
I’m assuming you are either a moron, or the precise nature of concept of liberty rather passes you by.
You are aware that “liberty” does not, and never has meant, the freedom to do whatever you want, to whomever you want, whenever you want to?
re 111. Spot on. Why should any government have the right to prevent an individual doing whatever he/she likes with his/her bio-chemistry provided others are not being affected in the process.
The bus ban on booze falls in with that. Others are inconvenienced by drunks.
105 - that’s my weekend ruined then.
118 I did once see the driver of a routemaster going down Oxford Street drinking a can of Red Stripe!! Not sure where that fits in with the argument…
*** Crewe & Nantwich ***
Sam Coates Chief Political Correspondent, The Times vs Chris Rennard & Mike Smithson;
http://timesonline.typepad.com/politics/2008/05/do-the-lib-dems.html
Lib Dems on the offensive.
@118:
Mike, I’m surprised at you. As a good liberal, I’d expect you to have read ‘On Liberty’, and have at least a firmer grasp of enlightenment concepts than some random Labour mong.
117 - poor, straight into tory troll mode - label anyone you don’t agree with a “moron”.
It’s a bit uncomfortable to address the nub of this one. If it had been done by lab politicians all the nanny state cliches would have been on here. When it’s done by tories there is silence.
114 - as I am sure you are well aware, those statutory instruments are for domestic use only. The question at international law remains to be settled.
115 - The closer the election got the more I thought Bush would win. I long thought 2004 was a foregone conclusion and that was confirmed when the Democrats insanely chose Herman Munster to run for them.
He doesn’t need Hillary on the ticket but he really does need her onside and taking on her healthcare policy plank would be jolly sensible.
As for Hillary turning off voters she has encouraged millions of people to vote for her. I think people are letting their own anti-Clinton bias blind them to the sheer evidence of the ballot counts. These primaries have been awesome for energising the Democrat voter. If they can re-unite behind Obama they will win the election.
50, 56, 59. Those figures for Greater Manchester are amazing, particularly the ones for Salford (!!) but they also show how the FPTP system is hurting the Conservatives in many places. Their performance in Salford and Bolton is down to massive votes and majorities in Places like Worsley and Astley Bridge, although they did do remarkably well in Eccles - they actually ‘won’ the Swinton and Eccles seat. I also fancy the LDs to grab Gorton, while I think the Tories will certainly take Bury North and Bolton West. I think some of the other seats will be too much of an ask however, though if these trends continue anything could happen.
@123:
Well, this is what it boils down to, isn’t it? Tories and Liberals have a profound philosophical understanding of traditional, post-enlightenment values, and much of what they do can be explained in that framework.
Labour has no such luxury. Thus what they do has to be interpreted in a framework of ineptitude and/or malice.
Thanks for all these links - looking at the map in particular and with my very limited knowledge - what approximate percentage of oil and gas resources are we talking about in Scottish and English territorial waters?
112 Frank, but are you aware of all the polls of Obama/Hillary supporters saying a significant chunk would never vote for the other person?
the dream ticket solves that one neatly.
I support McCain but fully agree with Jack W that Obama-Clinton would be unstoppable.
111. It’s amazing what a lot of anguish the supression of pot generates, especially when you consider that its adherents insist it isn’t addictive.
I used to live in Australia and drinking alcohol on public transport was illegal in Melbourne. No-one battered an eyelid about that, public transport is not a bar.
91 “The LibDems are delusional if they think they have a snowballs chance of winning Henley.”
In honour of pb.com, I will no longer say ‘a snowball’s chance in hell’ but rather ‘Snowflake’s chance in Henley’. I think it sounds better.
ON TOPIC - having said that the so-called ‘dream ticket’ would never happen, I am starting to suspect that Obama may be weak enough to agree to a deal. I agree almost entirely with Daily Kos (as linked by Phillipe at post 16) - she brings no state, no executive experience, and energises the GOP base and fundraisers like no-one else. And without meaning to be nasty, but Bill is gaffe-prone when talking about Obama, if just because (having reached the zenith of his political career) he has little reason to be careful about what he says.
I think if he pays off her debt, it will look like he was irrationally worried he couldn’t beat her, and paid her off. “He had an insurmountable lead for the final 4 months of the primaries, but could only dispatch his rival (who had 49%) by writing her a cheque”. Credibility would be hit hard by that - “Typical Liberal - throws money at a problem to make it go away”. Absolutely the worst thing he could do.
If you are worried about women and blue collar men - Sibellius.
If you are worried about Foreign Policy experience and Hispanics - Richardson.
If you are loking to solve John McCain’s fundraising problem, and *really* nail New York - Hillary Clinton.
115. Yes, but the Republicans would mercilessly play the ‘Obama’s friends with the Clintons’ card.
Obama’s trategy should now be focused on beating McCain. Will Hillary help him? I’m not sure. If he broadly agrees with the Healthcare Plan then he could be a good idea to adopt it, but really she has very little to offer him that plenty of running mates could supply. To me there’s a bit of establishment political sentiment at work here. Poor Hillary, she fought a long campaign. At least give her a prize.
NO!
I don’t like the booze ban but that’s me as a libertarian. I can understand it as night buses are getting scarier all the time. I do worry about enforcement.
Before someone jumps down my throat saying that buses are great and Ken Livingstone was God I will point out that I get the bus after work every night at 3/4am. I am qualified on this one
Basically, the jury is out for me on this one.
129 - They are lying, or just wrong about their own intentions.
If (as a Clinton fan) you admit you’d vote for Obama, why is Clinton still in it. To defend the rationale of her candidacy, her supporters are claiming that she is so much better than Obama, that they wouldn’t even vote for him. It is rhetorical. Once he is the nominee, I expect over 90% of Democrats to vote for him *provided that she does not withold her endorsement*
113 Except the Tories are at the same game but with a much better argument. The LDs refer to the last election! A battle a political eternity ago between Blair Howard and Kennedy.
The Tory bar charts are from last week.
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/goldlist/2008/05/conservatives-c.html
109 - Yes, it is with huge regret to say that the current govt has done far too much pandering to tory authoritarian prejudices.
118 - Mike, I think on the booze ban, aren’t there existing provisions for anyone who behaves likes an anti-social idiot in public? Really is silly to take away the dubious privilege of drinking a can of lager on a 30 min northern line ride into town on an evening in the summer when it’s hitting 30c below ground.
There a peripatetic bridge club on my train. They have the occasion gin and tonic and Pimms. They’re right in the firing line of nanny Boris.
PB.com golden rule #28
Tories: libertarian in opposition, authoritarian in government.
137. There are other cold drinks besides alcohol you know, your acting like Boris has banned cold drinks!
@137:
My primary concern is, that in wanting to prove how much you HATE Boris, you have to resort to a sixth form common room view of liberty. It does you no credit.
134 Night buses are fight buses
138. I think that is your own rule old chap.
138: Boris made no secret about the ban when he was in opposition.
137 - Can of lager on a stinking carriage on the northern line on a sunny day … yum. You’d have to be a chronic alcoholic to think that’s a good plan.
drinking on buses hardly compares to 42 days detention either
138. Good grief, Boris bans alcohol on public transport, like most of the rest of britain I might add, tory or labour, and suddenly he’s handing out identity cards and barcodes stamped on peoples foreheads! Get a grip!
@138:
I am neither libertarian nor authoritarian. Both are essentially intellectually vacuous views of the concept of liberty. An intelligent government needs to be subtle, whereas both of these concepts are sledgehammers.
Perhaps when Boris bans booze in the home, then you can screech melodramatically about authoritarianism.
For now, we’ll simply smirk at what bad losers you’re being.
Not only did the Tories outpoll Labour and the LDs in those authorities that make up the area known by Whitehall bureaucrats and the BBC as “Greater Manchester”, across the whole north west, they now control 14 councils to Labour’s 8. That is a staggering change - 10-12 years ago, I guess the Tories had