How will Clegg do first time out?
January 9th, 2008
-
Will he be able to cope with the Vince Cable comparisons?
The first PMQs after the Christmas recess is at noon and will be the first occasion when the young new Lib Dem leader gets his chance to put two questions to the Prime Minister.
After yesterday’s 3% boost in the Lib Dem share with Populus Clegg must be feeling that bit more confident.
No one will be aware more than him what happened exactly two years ago when his predecessor, Ming Campbell, did his first PMQs in the first session of 2006. A wounding heckle about Ming needing to “declare an interest” over his age by the late Eric Forth brought laughter from all sides and left the acting leader floundering.
Clegg’s task today has not been made any easier by the way that the stand-in leader, Vince Cable has emerged as such a dominant commons figure particularly in the way he has been able to poke fun at Gordon. But without in anyway undermining Vince’s performance’s he has had an easier ride. There’s been no need for the other parties to knock him down because he was only temporary.
That won’t be the same with Nick Clegg for both the Tory and Labour thug elements having a real interest in inflicting early damage. Whatever they say the success or failure of Clegg’s party will have a big impact on the next election.
The voters that all three main parties are scrapping over occupy the part of the political spectrum where the Lib Dems have most appeal. Labour wants back the supporters who switched in 2005 and the Tories want to hold onto to those Lib Dems who have been attracted by Cameron.
Make no mistake PMQs are important for all the party leaders. In normal times the government has such a control of the news agenda that this weekly ritual can often be the only occasion that the opposition parties can get heard.
My guess is that Clegg will survive OK this lunch-time. He’s not one to leave things to chance and will have been working hard at game-playing and preparing some aces for Gordon.
Live streaming should be available here on the BBC Parliament homepage.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Ming was utterly surprised by the pertinence of Forth’s intervention. Did nobody in his team see this coming? Did whoever concocted the questions not see the irony?
Ming also falsely accused the prison service of releasing a certain foreign prisoner without deporting in one PMQ, and had to retract as his facts were wrong. It was embarrassing!
Clegg may struggle at PMQs for a while, but I hope he is better advised and not likely to fall into any traps like Ming used to.
Dear Mr Clegg, if you hold your order paper, it will show and exaggerate any hand tremors; if you write your question down, the Tories behind will read it first; if you read it out, you will sound dull. Love and kisses, wannabe PR guru.
Repeated on previous thread:
I understand not all of the states allow Independents to vote in the Democratic Paarty primaries. Can anyone clarify this for me and is there a list somewhere giving a complete delegate breakdown of the numbers of delegates representing each state and any other voting group? Then perhaps a better informed assessment of the Hillary/Obama contest can be made.
My guess is that he’s in for a very tough time - but will come through it OK.
Doesn’t matter really, does it??
Even if he has a great performance it will be drowned out by the news on the US elections on the 6 o’clock/10 o’clock TV bulletins tonight.
Clegg won’t even be heard.
Wait till Cameron gets back on the airwaves seriously in March/April. His poll rating will climb again. Then Clegg will be a busted flush.
From previous thread in reply to Marcus and several others of a like mind……
Certain Tories on here dislike Hillary for the same reason they dislike Cherie and read the Daily Mail. They think a woman’s place is in the home where they can hold coffee mornings to keep themselves occupied. Hillary like Cherie are real professionals who have put in the miles…….
….. In contrast to Cameron of course who after Eton Oxford and a stint as Carlton’s PR announces to Daddy over a port at Whites that he rather fancies being Prime Minister……..
From anyone looking at the Democratic race again and now that its not a procession. If your position allows, start totally afresh.
I did it with the GOP race and just considered any bets I was having from then on in as new and it gave me some interesting ways of looking at it.
6 - but to be fair, have any of the three party leaders ever had a proper job? (Ming did. Nuff said!)
6. May be they just feel that just because Dennis was married to Mrs T didn’t make him prime ministerial material. It is amusing the degree to which the US presidentcy is becoming a dynastic trophy.
Just looked at how the NH result has affected the GOP candidates’ odds to win their nomination:
Giuliani - weaker
Romney - slightly stronger
McCain - weaker
Huckabee - somewhat stronger
Paul - completely out of it
Thompson - completely out of it
So the only real winner has been Huck, yet his odds for winning the Presidency have actually weakened and are back at around 25-1 with Betfair. All rather curious.
Roger at 6. A pathetic post, even for you.
From previous thread in reply to Roger (only Roger mind……)
6. I’m not even going to comment on the total stupidity of that predjuiced load of rubbish Roger.
You really are an idiot.
And, may I add, you are even more of an idiot for thinking you were rather clever in posting it. Twice.
6. Roger, you really can’t hide your own prejudices when criticising the prejudices of others, can you?
Ever heard of Margaret Thatcher?
6. When recent threads have been happily focused on betting, why you insist in posting such imbecilic comments - let alone reposting them - is a mystery. Once again you simply show yourself up as a mindless loudmouth.
6 - Clinton is the candidate to lose the election for the dems, what’s the point of picking someone you like who isn’t the likeliest to deliver for your party? At least the GOP seem to understand that and are giving Romney, Thompson et al the bum’s rush.
Labour took ages to recover from its Foot problem and the tories likewise with their revolving door of leaders, are the dems going to continue making the same mistake (for the record, last time I thought they should have chosen Edwards over Kerry)?
6. On the other hand Roger as a non Labour voter I would strongly support the idea of Cherie following in Hillary’s footsteps and becoming the next leader of the Labour Party.
16 - Pauline Prescott for deputy when Harman resigns?
10. I am guessing that McCain’s victory was simply not seen as emphatic enough so perhaps that is being reflected in Romney and his position.
To compare McCain’s percentages with 2000 is wrong, its a totally different field but I do have my worries that it wasnt a real set up for him to go on.
The Huckster also has some strong states coming up.
History suggests that you win one of either NH or Iowa you are a potential nominee winner. Win none of those two, forget it. Guiliani is of course disregarding that and going on a different strategy.
I don’t understand why on PB.com we can’t have two threads running at once. Why don’t we leave this thread for the British political discussion and continue the US conversations on the previous one?
Hope all those who keep quoting opinion polls as more important than real votes re LibDem prospects have learned something from New Hampshire but I doubt it . FWIW my sole 2 bets so far on the Dem Presidential Candidate was to lay HC £ 20 to £ 6 at 1.3 and then lay BO £ 30 to £ 15 at 1.5 . So all Green HC + £ 24 BO + £ 3 all others + £ 50 . May lay HC again if price goes very low in reaction to NH .
BO or HC the Dems will win the presidential election easily in Nov IMHO .
15 - Hillary’s political stances are right-wing for Democrats. I can’t see her losing to Republicans.
I can see Obama losing, if he doesn’t think of “something” to say that might be of substance.
I think the democrats will win anyway.
@6 I’m a conservative and rooting for Hillary.
Who is this Clegg chap that you’re talking about? Never heard of him.
17. Tessa Jowell’s very own David Mills must be a shoe in as the next Minister for Health after all his experience in the Italian healthcare.
12 Casino (From previous thread)
“ Not sure I got across how much I HATE Hillary Clinton…..Do Democrat Americans not realise how despised and divisive she is?…….She’s an evil, sinister, artifical, calculating, self-obsessed, disgustingly repellant she-devil…..If she wins the nomination, I’m tempted to cross the pond to campaign for WHOEVER opposes her”.
And you call me a prejudiced idiot!
Goupillon @ 3 — iirc there is a list on wikipedia, and in previous threads. Unfortunately I do not have time to search just now. The trouble is that you really have to look in detail at each state party’s rules.
Looking at the position of Edwards in NH, depending on how you read it he polled a little under expectations or bang on it so its not as if Hilary necessarily got a huge pull there though possibly did get some advantage there, which in a close contest was useful.
I go back to the mundane though, her support base was simply bigger and more robust in NH than in Iowa.
Roger 1 Casino 1
Can we now call it a draw and get on with things. That said Casino should get off the fence, Does he like Hillary or not?
Clegg’s mission today is twofold. One, don’t F-up. Two, win a headline, however small.
His PMQ strategy going forward has to be a bit more subtle and nuanced. He needs to choose his enemies and his friends in the House.
Kennedy stood up for the non-aligned and Blair haters - this worked. Ming tried to cosy up to Blair/Brown while attacking the Tories - this failed miserably. Cable poured pity on Gordon’s head and asked the whole House to join him - this worked big time, but wouldn’t work longterm.
My suggestion for Clegg is to play the libertarian in the house, taking on the Stalinist Brown. This will gain him sympathy on the Tory backbenches, providing cover when the government benches heat up.
PMQs is all about the House and parliamentary morale. Clegg shouldn’t worry about equidistance or policy, he needs to develop a personality, a personality that is taking on the government with style, charm and ‘independent’ support.
24. Casino just doesn’t like Hillary, thats not prejudice that’s his own personal feelings about another individual. whereas your generalisations about large numbers of people and sweeping statements are prejudiced and unfounded. Please do keep posting Roger, always brings a smile to my face. When are you going to have a focus groupesque lunch with a bunch of advertising execs to tell us what the country is thinking?
Happy new year old boy
24. The school bell has rung Roger - time to go back in and do some more fagging for Mr.Bamford.
6 “Cameron …..announces to Daddy over a port at Whites that he rather fancies being Prime Minister”
Roger - after your top Public School education, did you ever sit down with Daddy and announce that you wished to be a £6,000 per day TV Commercial director with four homes?
From previous thread.
lol Dez don’t worry - I never bet on politics (I rarely bet ever -a mug’s game in my opinion), so my Obamania leaves me psychically bruised this morning, but financially untouched. If I did bet I could actually have made some cash last night - I sensed as soon as the first precincts came in that Hillary would do it (check my posts). It just felt that way. Even though the odds were saying she was still gonna lose.
But no harm done. Not to me, anyway. Sympathies to all who did lose.
And Obamania? Some people on here are saying he was over-hyped. well, not by me he wasn’t: I stand by my opinion. That if he were elected president it would be a marvellous thing for America, and the world. As a symbol of change and renewal. That remains the case, in my opinion, even if he doesn’t win another delegate from now on.
Hillary will no doubt be a conscientious and diligent prez. She will be boring. She might do good stuff. But emotionally and spiritually it doesn’t appeal to me - Bill Clinton back in the Oval Office with his cigar cutter. Yuk and Yawn. Same old same old.
I think America does need a change and young people sense it. But others differ. That’s democracy!
Who will win now? I agree with Nick Palmer. I think a lot of what happened last night was women and old-time Democrats not liking the predictions: that Hillary was taking a big delivery of whup-a$$. Her tears helped bring in the sisters. This factor will ebb but crucially she has saved her campaign from meltdown and her machine will now take over.
I think she will probably go on now to the Nomination, and the presidency. I can’t see mumblin’ John McCain beating her in November.
But then again… who knows?! This year-long race has already provided two major upsets. In the first week! Incredible stuff.
And some people want us to talk about… Nick Clegg. Ahem.
27. Fair enough Johnathon! Just one final observation and then I’ll call it quits….
The misogyny reeking out of Casino’s post (quoted by me at 24) will be completely invisible to him who just thinks it’s a witty post! How unreconstructed is it possible to be these days?
32 SeanT, you arfe not blameless. You were one of the original hypees, but yes you did think better of it eventually.
29 Calling someone “evil” and a “she-devil”, is that not a touch sweeping, prejudiced and unfounded too.
BTW On topic, perhaps Clegg should attack Cameron. There is defintely an audince out there for an end to the Tory leader’s smugness. If Clegg can lay a glove on Cameron in the MR Bean stylee, he wil win a headline and people will ask if he can do it why can’t others. Win win. Maybe the you were the future once line to Cameron would do the trick.
24. Yes - and did you see in my (detailed) explaination for why I despised her any mention of me thinking “her real place should be in the home” or “holding a coffee morning” beacause ’she is a woman’ ??
You just can’t get it through your impervious skull that people just dislike *her* and you want to bat it away by trying to claim all her opponents are sexist.
It’s as ridiculous as saying all fervent Obama opponents are racist.
It will not matter how well or badly Clegg does. He is going to get rubbished in the press regardless.
27.
29. Right on.
21 - A Right winger for Clinton.
Enough said, I think.
32 - if Hillary does get the nomination, just watch the sparks fly.
Also, how much longer will we get to hear the “youth/first timers will have a massive impact” spiel for? It was supposed to be significant in 2004 and the first proper primary (in somewhere I would have expected Obama to win anyway) shows it’s the older people who as usual are doing the actual voting.
Long way to go, but last night felt more like politics as normal.
“Long way to go, but last night felt more like politics as normal.”
That’s the most depressing thing, something must change soon and, if it’s not TO HAPPEN in the US, then how much longer do we have to wait?
Whoops, caps lock on at random in my last post.
I thought Roger’s number 6 was quite amusing actually. Surely it was tongue in cheek? No?
As for Clegg, I can hardly contain my excitement. It’ll be like watching a nervous young undergraduate stand up to make his first contribution at a Fresher’s Week debating society event. But rather less stimulating.
36. Augustus. Please see my post at the end of the last thread.
40 - it will happen when the yoof/first timers become the second-time, thirtysomething voters who will be more likely to vote when they have to deal with pesky things like mortgages.
Remember, there is still a huge older persons contingent in the US - the AARP claims over 38 million members - and they can’t be easily discounted.
Some will like the new tone that Obama is currently delivering, but even at this very early stage they’ll side more with the status quo. Obviously, the more who die off the more the voting blocs will be more of the Obama-style candidate. But you’ll have to wait for a while
Also, you can’t rule out McCain for being “too old”, when you’re effectively labelling a sizeable proportion of likely voters in that manner as well.
43 Thanks, stjohn, but you flatter me! It was more luck than judgement on my part, and a general suspicion that the euphoria was getting out of hand.
Roger@33 you just make an utter fool of yourself with statements like that. Why do you do it?
I don’t like Hillary either. Even less her odious husband.
re 19 Eddie, normally I’d reply just to the current thread, but when one has a US theme and one a UK theme like now, I’m with you 100%.
The two issues that interest me about US politics apart from the obvious of not electing another Dr Strangelove is a hope that the winning Democrat candidate will be against the death penalty and will stop supporting Israel. Only when the US stop giving Israel 100% backing will there be a chance of ending the conflict.
Both Democrat candidates are pro the death penalty and both are solidly pro Israel. So if it wasn’t that I believe women are horribly under represented in all politics I would be equally unhappy with both of them.
48. delusional
48. “.. if it wasn’t that I believe women are horribly under represented in all politics I would be equally unhappy with both of them. ”
Ah. Now I see. You support Hillary *because* she is a woman. You assume everyone else thinks the same as you do, so those who strongly oppose Hillary *must* be sexist.
Simple as that.
Osama disapppears and 18 months later this Obama chap pops up… Mmmm.
48. No chance, when the chips are down they’ll back Israel, always.
It does show however how detached we are from the US where our drivers for interest in a candidate are so much different that those in teh country itself.
44. I’m firmly of the belief, posted here that the US is not quote so age led about its politicians. Older people are a growing proportion of most Western populations and they tend to be more reliable voters. The whole swept forward on a tide of younger people is exactly because they are less inclined to vote thus when they do they can help shift things in what appears to be a fairly dramatic way. When it comes to election winning decsiveness, they often only relect a orientation thats also elsewhere in other parts of the populous.
Ignore the fogeys and the middle aged at your peril.
Stewart Jackson MP asking questions about NI now.
The odds on the MPC decision tomorrow are nicely balanced on Betfair I see…
42: you think he’ll be that good?
54 - today’s news on a High St slowdown to balance against inflation concerns from fuel price hike…
Come on Cleggy my boy- the UK’s version of Obama. Well maybe not quite. A bit too white, English, boring to be like Obama.
But heh I wish the guy well and hope that after today we start to see the LD’s pulling into the 20’s where they need to be.
56. Goodness, a candidate to join the MPC amongst us. What a depth of talent there is on this site.
Just seen the Hillary NH victory speech.
She is clearly, utterly formiddable, comitted and on top of the detail, much less puff than the others. Anyone who attacks “predatory student loan companies” is a bit of a leftie and has potential IMO.
Request for Mr Smithson. Assuming we have have no other dramatic impacting events, any chance of ‘where now’ thread on the Democrat & GOP races, perhaps at weekend when everything settles down?
I’m fascinated by this belief that Interest Rates can control price inflation. Yes, when it’s wages driven as in the past, but how will an increase in interest rates drive international Oil prices back down? Or Gas or Wheat? All of which are the main inflation drivers. I hope the Old Lady doesn’t get caught with her pants down!
Cameron starts on ID cards; this may shaft Clegg. Clever move.
62 - I’m sure Clegg and his team realized that Cameron was going to lead on this after the Marr interview.
Cameron on sparkling form.
OMG Brown just scored a point against Cameron.
61. Another economics expert! Fantastic, a whole shadow MPC in the making.
65 - really?
GB is worse than TB for not giving straight answers.
Brown is looking remarkably solid.
Brown reminds me of Karl Marx trying to answer a question on the Monty Python sketch “Communist Party Quiz”.
Presenter: Yes, yes! One final question Karl and the beautiful lounge suite will be yours… Are you going to have a go? (Karl nods) You’re a brave man. Karl Marx, your final question, who won the Cup Final in 1949?
Karl: The workers’ control of the means of production? The struggle of the urban proletariat?
Presenter: No. It was in fact, Wolverhampton Wanderers who beat Leicester 3-1.
Low inflation? RPI 4.3%. Highest in 16 years. Low inflation?
Brown looking poor talking about Cameron on Black Wednesday. It’s never worked before and it’s not going to work now.
Amazing from Brown, he’s even smiling for pete’ sake.
Cameron is all over the shop and boring. Same old record.
Obviously it was no-one’s resolution to stop the Punch and Judy show.
71 - it’s all he’s got. And even that doesn’t amount to much.
To be fair, I think GB is getting more out of PMQs now, a bit more polished. But you can only polish a turd so much can’t you?
Brown has lost it with the silly repetition about biometric Id for visa holders. He is so busy sticking to the script that he is in another world.
Then he tries to make fun of ‘pre-rehearsed lines’.
And in the meantime the pound burns, the debts increase, the ‘hard working’ families Brown like wittering about are looking harder times in the face.
I would give Brown and Cameron a score draw in the end. The line about “pre-rehearsed lines in front of the mirror” was good. Cameron started well but lost his way a bit.
Clegg starts OK…
Clegg was great on Q1!
He didn’t fluff the first question.
Clegg doing ok, I think Cameron won this today. The problem for brown is he is just repeating himself every week, and his attacks on Cameron are not as powerful.
That little exchanged rather illustrated the problems with electing an empty vessel to lead the Tory Party.
Glegg more substantive and less scoolboy than Cameron. Good start.
Bring back Vince Cable!!!
Is this brown trying to “lovebomb” clegg?
Clegg looked comfortable and was OK. That’s enough. Well done, him!
Clegg isn’t on the ball, Vince would have put Broon on the Northern Rocks by now.
Not impressed by Clegg yet. Broon seemed to patronise him.
But banging on about 1992 is pretty pathetic, as is Broon’s touching belief that inflation was only 2%.
Clegg on pre-paid energy meters. The big burning issue of the day. Sure to lead the Ten o’Clock News on that.
Hardly an impressive debut. They should have gone for Vince.
(ps: “burning issue” wasn’t a pun..)
So, we are in agreement then. Nick Clegg is the Barack Obama of British Politics (or at least of Sheffield Politics).
Interesting approach from Clegg. I think he was aiming to distinguish himself from the somewhat abstract arguments about ID cards, civil liberties and so forth which are more normal Lib Dem fare. Following the shouting match between Cameron and Brown, he succeeded in looking calm and collected with a focus on ‘real’ issues, but it wasn’t a spectacular blow either.
If he carries on plugging away on these kinds of issues and, crucially, getting coverage for them, he’ll be ok. It’s unlikely to go down particularly well here because we prefer to see fireworks, but it might resonate rather better with ordinary people.
Clever bread and butter politics from Clegg. Like it. Much more resonant than high political drama. He should get coverage anyway becausee it’s his first time. Will look like the people’s friend.
If anyone repeated themselves it was Cameron, get a new record Dave. So 2007.
It seemed to me that Cameron clearly expressed his view on ID Cards for foreign nationals? Am I missing something?
It’s funny how Brown accuses Cameron of pre-rehearsed lines with a line which was clearly pre-rehearsed!
I thought Clegg’s performence was rather underwhelming. Also I think Brown’s attempts to chum up with the Lib Dems will only end up with him alienating them further.
I really wish Brown would stop referring to events 15 years +, I don’t think they’re particularly relevant and it is beginning to grate.
A Swansea Blog
87 - i think DC scuppered him by raising ID cards first. It left Cleggy Boy with his boring back-up question on energy meters. Yawn…
I always love reading these PMQ threads for the sheer partisan nature of the responses.
Ditto 76 though. A score draw but those “pre-rehearsed lines” jibes from Brown could start to resonate as they tie in with the PR image Cameron must shake.
Looks like the Punch & Judy politics are back.
86. Obama without any of Obama’s positives as far as I can see.
In my opinion (I’m a Tory), Clegg came across as confident and assured. Not sure about the weight of his question though and the ‘open door’ Brown mentioned will probably the focus of any sound bites.
He is certianly going to present his questions confidently, however it remains to be seen what he is like ‘on his toes’.
What may be his biggest negative is that he doesn’t come across as a Lib Dem really, so half of his party may not be totally happy with his ‘Cameron-lite’ style.
76. I agree with SBS, although I think it was more a scoreless draw. Clegg also not particularly exciting but interesting that he seems to have respect from the House - Vince’s legacy?
Has cameron done all his Qs then? Coming to this late..
93 - I do not think that winter fuel and low income fuel poverty is a Cameron-lite style question.
95 Think so, he went on a bit and you didn’t miss much.
91 You’re so right. I was pleased and surprised by Brown so had to write about it. But generally beauty is clearly in the eye of the beholder.
Libdems going on pensions…
Clever idea, could badly backfire since the Tory record on pension is good.
” 93 - I do not think that winter fuel and low income fuel poverty is a Cameron-lite style question. ”
Not the question, the presentation of the man…
Isn’t it kinda pathetic for Brown to keep going on about 1992? It will be 16 years this year, for god’s sake? How many more times is he going to keep droning on about this? Cameron wasn’t even an MP at the time.
The great problem with Brown is that his every waking moment seems to be about attacking the Tories, rather than running the country for the good of the nation. As leader of the opposition, I’m sure he’d be excellent, but as PM, he’s just totally inept!
The most wicked moment was Brown alluding to private discussions with Nick Clegg and his door being open.
I didn’t think any of the three were particularly impressive. I liked Brown’s line about Cameron rehearsing in the mirror, but I also liked Cameron’s line about magnetic strips. Both got their soundbites in, and neither will change minds. Clegg was utterly unmemorable but didn’t crash and burn either. I’m sure he’ll be happy enough to have achieved that on his first outing.
89. “I really wish Brown would stop referring to events 15 years +, I don’t think they’re particularly relevant and it is beginning to grate.”
But a hell of a lot of people still remember what happened back then so the tactic of tying Cameron to a time when the Tories’ reputation for competent handling of the economy was shattered is understandable if said leader is vying to be the seed of change.
Whether it works or not is a different matter though.
98 - so remind me of how many above inflation rises given to state basic pension during the years 1979-1997?
And in how many ways was SERPS reduced?
97 Jonathan “I was pleased and surprised by Brown so had to write about it.”
You men you were not already at the keyboard with the pre-rehearsed Labour Central lines ready to go? You are slipping then.
100 - reminiscent of the Tories’ “New Labour New Danger” campaign really - and we all know how well that worked.
103. Yes but at least we didn’t bankrupt the only part of the pension system that actually represents a sustainable long-term answer to an aging population (i.e. the private sector)!
0-0-0 draw
100/102 - obviously there must be a point at which the electorate “forget” (or die, or are too young to remember). 15-odd years sounds about right to me.
102: I went to London once in 1992 as well - is it also partly my fault?
Really, it is lame. Cameron was a nobody then. Anyway it was the best thing that happened to this country for years, getting out of the ERM. In case you hadn’t noticed, we’ve had uninterrupted economic growth ever since.
106 - I don’t know what you would have done to that after 1997. You may not have done the tax raid, but I am sure greater regulation would have come in.
The Tory record on pensions in the 1980s was pretty dire. The state provision fell far behind average earnings and the mis-selling crisis of pensions was terrible.
Tory record on pensions good? Yeah, right!
91: Trying not to be partisan, Brown did a little better than usual, but asking Cameron to answer a question he already did sounds silly, Cameron needs to link the questions he asks better, and Clegg did reasonably well. A very slight Cameron victory.
And something else that irritates me intensly is the way Brown bellows all the time. It’s really off-putting to see our Prime Minister bellowing like some yob. The guy has absolutely no class or finesse at all.
Cameron wins - just. Brown good, Clegg OK but the choice of questions were bizarre.
108 - if Brown’s trying to bring up 1992, he’s gone into the Tories 1995 era of mentioning 1979
Not good for future success
A good start from Clegg, a pertinent, relevant domestic issue selected “Lib Dems Help The Elderly In Winter”. Confident delivery & no shaking hands as with Vince and Ming… I though Broon looked daft rolling out his “open door” and “The Liberal Party” stuff..
I used to get bored of Tory ministers talking about “the last Labour government” and its problems. I am now bored of Labour doing the same to the Tories.
If Clegg does well in the polls, with Brown go on about the last Liberal government?
What a wash-out. Drama queens sniping at each other for having the gall to rehearse. Why don’t they junk the whole show and just send tapes in to the broadcasters?
When Brown was asked the question at the end about the New Year murder, was anyone else expecting him to find a way to attack the Tories about that? I was just waitng for it….
‘The most wicked moment was Brown alluding to private discussions with Nick Clegg and his door being open’
Yes it seems yet another Lib Dem leader has been drawn into Labour’s web. They just can’t resist tacking towards their ideological soulmates, even when Labour are unpopular and it does the Lib Dems no good at all to be associated with them.
Clegg falls at the first hurdle - ‘vote Lib Dem, get Labour’ will once again be among the most effective Tory slogans on the doorstep.
119 - I can’t see how Brown having a wicked little dig constitutes Clegg falling at a hurdle. I am sure that Brown and Cameron have private discussions too.
Right, if you want partsan, here goes…
Cameron was sh1t apart from the magnetic strip bit. His longwinded welcome to Clegg made him look like the arrogant SOB he really is. Brown was actually smiling by the end.
Labour morale up, Brown wins.
I am sure that Brown and Cameron have private discussions too.
I wouldn’t be so sure. As far as I can tell, they genuinely seem to loath each other.
120. Doubtful that they cover the same subjects, though!
Clegg has been very foolish to repeat Campbell’s mistake. The Lib Dems cannot afford to be associated with Labour.
121. Not so much partsan (sic) as merely pathetic.
Off topic, and my last comment for a while as I actually have to begin the year’s work…
A nice point in Gideon Rachman’s FT column. He cites a rich woman saying she didn’t like “all that civil rights stuff” Obama trots out. But Obama doesn’t bang on about civil rights. Was this, therefore, polite middle-class code for “I’m not voting for him coz he’s black?” i.e. Did race come into the Obama defeat?
Iowa - all white - voted for him. But that was in public caucuses. In the private polling booths of a primary, who knows.
There are just as many racists on the left as there are on the right, only the leftwing racists tend to be guilty and the rightwing ones shameless.
So: did lefty racists ditch Obama? I think this was probably a factor. How depressing.
Daily Politics scored it a win for Clegg. Good start.
Neither Brown nor Cameron landed killer blows today. Cameron was good, I liked the ‘magnetic strip’ line. Brown’s quip about ‘rehearsing lines in the mirror’ surely backfired, as I can just imagine him pacing the room before PMQs shouting “Dammit I’m never going to be able to remember all these tractor production figures from 1945-51″ He rehearses endless lines of statistics and meaningless waffle which he then pours out at every PMQs, regardless of the question being asked.
Clogg didn’t stumble, but no kiler “Mr Bean” line, in fact, if he hadn’t turned up, would anyone have noticed? Also, this business of sitting in the middle of the bench makes him look like a nonentity and slightly scared of the opposition.
Also, why did the Speaker (who is regularly the worst performer at PMQs) allow “Questions to the Leader of the Opposition” from Brown?
Interesting on BBC that they picked up on Brown ratcheting up Cameron’s job in the Treasury every weak. Chief adviser this week it would seem. By April he’ll be the former chancellor no doubt. Hague cleared up and said he wrote political speeches. Hadly in charge of economic strategy. Again a pathetic effort by Brown to use Blair’s tactics.
Cameron quoted as saying Clegg “is the fourth Lib Dem leader I have faced”.
Where? In Wednesday’s Questions to David Cameron?
Cameron - not stunning by any measure, but pretty good. He actually answered the questions Brown put to him (though the Speaker should’ve done his damn job and ruled them out of line).
Brown - odd, as ever. Accused Cameron of not engaging with big issues (like ID cards, presumably) and kept asking questions instead of answering them. However, was a bit more fluent than his usual (abysmal) standard and managed not to get the shakes.
Clegg - solid, but unspectacular. Better than Ming’s first outing, but it doesn’t take much.
Not that interesting really. I thought a Con backbencher’s question was best (about Peter Hain and his inability to declare donations). Hopefully it’ll spice up once Watt gets charged and Northern Rock has to be sold/nationalised.
121 - And Jonathan’s application as Labour’s new General Secretary takes a momentous step forward.
121. How could you possibly think that tired, hysterical and dated performance from Brown was good. He is useless at PMQ’s and a slight improvement does not mean he remains anything other than a boring, ugly, bully.
The whole of this ‘Brown Blitz’ has completely missed the point. Though the healdine numbers have gone up and down in recent months, what all the polls (regarding Brown personally) have shown is that the more ordinary people see him, the more they dont like him. So whats Labour’s new year policy. Lets have lots more of Brown, that will convince people. Wrong..just think what the rating will be like come 2010.
If I was them I would keep him firmly ensconsed in his bunker and trust to the electoral maths.
125. SeanT
“So: did lefty racists ditch Obama?”
Yes. Based on his own voting logic, this was why Roger wasn’t an Obama supporter (see 48 etc.)
Cameron was good,
Obama is going to win NH,
Cameron was great,
Obama is going to win NH with a landslide
Cameron was amazing.
oh dear.
Pb.com groupthink all over again. Can be costly guys. You should listen to your Labour buddies sometimes.
44 - Just as a point of information, I don’t see McCain as ‘too old’, in fact he reads younger than most of those younger than him (not in looks but in outlook).
I thought it was telling that Brown hung Hain out to dry when the question of his links to the loan company came up.
From what I hear Hain is a dead man walking.
“I’m not being partizan but…..” is as transparent as Cameron not answering Brown’s question about passports. I thought it was a rare interesting retort from Brown and it succeeded in giving the impression Cameron was only interested in a scatter gun list of questions with absolutely no knowledge of the substance behind them.
There are chinks opening in Cameron’s armoury and which are starting to gape. In a few months I wouldn’t be surprised if the tide hasn’t fully turned….
134. Brown was good.
Ron Paul will win the Presidency.
133. I think it’s true. And I think it’s shameful. Bigots of the left unite, you have nothing to lose but your souls.
SeanT@125: Possibly - but what’s potentially worse for Obama than that actually happening is if black voters think that’s what happened. The key will be whether he’s able to maintain his support in South Carolina, which IIRC was lower than Clinton’s until he got on a bit of a roll, then soared as people started to believe he could win. The next poll there will be the one to watch.
135 - you don’t, but plenty seem to. Granted, on this side of the Atlantic though.
133. ??
What is a pre-rehearsed line? A line you practise before you rehearse it?
“Brown was good” - what rot.
137. ‘There are chinks opening in Cameron’s armoury and which are starting to gape’
One for this week’s ‘Colemanballs’ column there.
137: Roger he DID answer the question.
I think Brown’s hope is that Cameron will eventually rise to his bait re the ERM and snap back along the lines of “It wasn’t my fault, I was just a child, all I did was write speeches…”. That, of course, would play very badly with the public and would hit Cameron’s standing quite hard. It is a difficult hand for Cameron to play, because he cannot personally convincingly disassociate himself from it, and he certainly cannot try to argue that it was actually the right thing to do (irrespective of the merits, and Brown’s agreement at the time) - he would be skewered if he tried.
So the tactic? Get Hague or other senior Tories to play it down in as reasonable manner as possible. It takes the heat out of it, and for most neutrals it makes Brown look a bit foolish. Only the most committed anti-Tory treats Cameron’s presence on Black Wednesday as something of significance, so while Brown’s repeated references to it score well with Jonathan and Roger, they are irritating or irrelevant to Mondeo Man and Worcester Woman (or whather the current equivalents are).
Mor generally remaining calm is the key for Cameron. Brown tried to force him to say something unpopular about ID cards today, and Cameron’s measure response that he is opposed to them generally worked.
Guardian called it for Cameron, btw.
Clegg did well for his first time out. Don’t forget it is not about knocking your opponants out in the first round each week - most PMQs are run of the mill. We were spoiled in the Autumn.
Roger @ 137
“is as transparent as Cameron not answering Brown’s question about passports”
Roger, what planet are you on? It’s PMQs, not Leader of the Opposition’s Questions.
Your posts are just getting more and more shameless in demonstrating your vitriol towards DC and inability to say anything positive about him. They are just one big yawn and you are vying with Gordon Brown for the “Who is most detached from reality” award.
142. Face it Roger, a lot of your conferes didn’t like Obama Because He Is Black. You went for the rich white woman. Polly Toynbee with better teeth. The nice middle class girl from Wellesley, the former first lady, the Establishment liberal. As for the Muslim dude with the black skin?
Not Quite Our Sort Dear.
This hasn’t been one of the left’s finest hours.
JohnO (eye eye!) One of my favourite columns!
Tommy Docherty- “To answer that I’d have to have crytal balls”
Tommy Docherty (again)- “I believe football hooligans should face some capital punishment. That’ll deter them from doing it again”!
“In what was apparently a mistake, Mr Brown also indicated that interest rates were likely to be cut this week.”
And if this happens, how will his prior knowledge be challenged? Can this be grounds for alleging compromise of the MPC’s independence?
When rates are cut tomorrow ,Gord will have to give some answers.
150 - Er, always nice to be mentioned…but you’ve lost me a bit there.
151 - I thought Gordon was just about to give a hint on interest rates, but what he said fell just short of that.
Actually, just on Obama, the figures are interesting:
If you look at his % final actual vote vs. “average of polls” in NH, he only underperformed by 1.5%. Prediction: 38.4% to Actual: 36.9% (I think). In other words, the poll predictions for Obama were within the margin of error of +/- 1.5%.
However, for Clinton, this was totally different. Her predicted score was 30%, but her received tally was 39%. Even when you take a point or two off Obama and Edwards, this is a huge difference.
In other words, the polls predicted Obama correctly. They massively underestimated Clinton.
This could be because of…
(1) Shy Clintonistas - like “shy Tories” people were embarassed to admit voting for Hillary, but she has significant hidden support
(2) Late swing - people felt sorry for her at the last minute and changed their minds to give her a “fair shot”
(£) High Turnout - Clintons supporters were, on average, poorer, female and more blue collar - polls aren’t picking up these supporters. If turnout is low in other primaries, this could benefit Obama.
If it is (2) then this effect might disappear now Clinton is back in the running. If it is (3) this similarly might affect turnout in other states if the contest is perceived to be over for Obama - her supporters could get complacent.
What it isn’t though, I think, is people saying “yes” to Obama and then voting Clinton. Obamas support was within predictions.
I therefore expect a degree of “over-correction” in the markets in response to the NH upset, which may affect betting prices on Obama.
It is also worth noting that, to date, Obama is still ahead on convention delegates.
149 Watch out, your blind hatred of the left is beginning to consume you. You can’t see any event or issue outside this narrow view point. Chill out a bit ok?
Clearly Clegg leads from the middle rather than from the front. It was bizarre to watch Cameron and Brown standing at the heads of their party whilst Clegg spoke from the middle of the bench. An idea they’ve had, but not a very good one maybe?
One for the conspiracy theories
Of course, there is plenty of room for hank-panky:
81% of New Hampshire ballots are counted in secret by a private corporation named Diebold Election Systems (now known as “Premier”). The elections run on these machines are programmed by one company, LHS Associates, based in Methuen, MA. We know nothing about the people programming these machines, and we know even less about LHS Associates. We know even less about the secret vote counting software used to tabulate 81% of our ballots. People like to say “but we use paper ballots! They can always be counted by hand!”
But they’re not. They’re counted by Diebold. Only a candidate can request a hand recount, and most never do so. And a rigged election can easily become a rigged recount, as we learned in Ohio 2004, where two election officials were convicted of rigging their recount….
149 - But Obama’s team are making a play of coming back strongly in South Carolina because there is a large black population in that state. Inevitably (and sadly) some people will be attracted to a particular candidate due to skin colour. But I don’t think Clinton’s campaign has focussed on that any more than Obama, and probably somewhat less.
What happened yesterday was a combination of:
1. Uncommitted people following the prevailing wind and telling pollsters they would vote for Obama, but actually not going to the polling stations because they are still fundamentally uncommitted types.
2. Clinton’s supporters having a backs-to-the wall spirit the media never really recognised and turning out in numbers.
3. More independents than predicted voting in a Republican race which the polls and media wrongly claimed would be closer than on the Democrat side.
4. An admirable bloody-mindedness amongst some New Hampshire people who quite deliberately chose not to read from the script the media had so carefully written for them.
I am broadly in favour of Obama as the person most likely to win the election for the Democrats (although I am more interested in foreign and trade policy implications and there the picture is more mixed). But I have to say, it was a great laugh to see everyone on the media and here (myself included) given an almighty dollop of egg on their faces.
SeanT 149. Ridiculous! I can’t think of any ‘lefty’ as you call them not wanting someone because of their ethnic origin. I can imagine several on the right wanting them for that reason. They think it makes them look inclusive and cosmopolitan but only conservatives could think like that in 2007. Most others passed that stage decades ago,
Interesting quote attributed to David Cameron
David Cameron on radio 5 live yesterday said that McCain was his favourite. What does that tell you?
156 - but don’t Brown and Cameron sit in the middle of their benches? Not really sure of your point…
156. Clegg was in themiddle surrounded by his front benchers, just like…. Brown & Cameron.
149. Indeed.
In fact, the reaction of “redneck” America - the erstwhile Republican and Republican-inclined red-states - so far have shown themselves to be far more open-minded and cosmopolitan than anyone gives them credit for.
They have shown huge courage.
Not over for Obama yet. He still made a strong showing in (as you say) a very establishment Liberal inclined-state.
152. JohnO. Apologies. I thought you were the poster “eye eye”! Struck me as your sense of humour not to mention your interest in the misuse of the language!
159, Roger, you are defining “left” very narrowly there to the achingly right-on intellectual left, the stereotypical Guardian reading, Islington dwelling, dinner party hosting New Lab construct. If you go to a working mens club in South Wales, or some of the old industrial towns up North and ask your audience there, Labour to a man and far to the left of the present Government, to talk about the big issues of the day, you’d find racists amongst them.
Sadly they walk amongst us and wear every political stripe
155. Jonathan
“149 Watch out, your blind hatred of the left is beginning to consume you. You can’t see any event or issue outside this narrow view point. Chill out a bit ok? ”
Substitute “Cameron” for “left” as the 8th word in this statement Jonathan.
Then amuse yourself by reading it back to yourself.
Now it applies 100% to your good self.
Seant good point many might not say it,but the USA might just be ready for a female president, but in my opinion Hilary Rodham will just get beat to a republican this year.
However I am not sure in the secrecy of the polling booth, they may shy away from voting for a man of mixed race.
Depressing in the extreme but a major factor.
As for Nick Clegg well done, must admit its the first Lib dem I am going to vote for, now my seat has changed to outer York.
It was wasted in Rydale for too long.
165. In Roger’s world (an asylum in Hampstead?), that former group of people is the only one that exists (or at least appears to).
159: Roger just look at how the Democrats behaved when they ran the South of the US.
155, 159.
Lol. Squawk squawk squawk. Hark at the flustered lefty chickens.
Obama lost, I believe, because of two things - women swinging back to Clinton after her tears, in sisterly solidarity. And, yes, a hidden racism on the left, amongst people like you in America.
“Oh we got over that years ago”. Bollox you did. The most sinister aspect of lefty racism is that it is so hidden the sufferers cannot even begin to see it inthemselves. Racism is part of the human condition. We all suffer from it, but some of us strive to improve ourselves.
Lefties, by contrast, think themselves so pure their motives are unquestionable. To imagine that deep down, subconsciously, they just don’t want a black president, which is in fact the case, is so threatening to their moral self image they can’t even countenance it.
Here’s the deal. Older people, like you, went for Hillary. Young people went for Obama.
Older people are more racist than young people. Case closed.
SeanT is doing this just for fun, I know, but I can’t help but think of Avenue Q: “Everyone’s a little bit racist…sometimes”
164 - I see ;). As you once guessed, I did have an occasional alter-ego, but she was told to leave the site.
I think the tears did the trick. Call me Gene Hunt, but that was just a huge sign of weakness from me. Not crying in itself, but losing (or appearinc to lose…maybe she’s an actress) composure like that isn’t top of Morris Dancer’s Leadership Quality List.
Running the PMQ again I think Clegg is mistaken in his seating, although I understand why he has done it, to emphasise he leads a team and to mirror the PM and HMLO sitting in the middle of their front benches.
But it does look as if he is either moving away from the point of power, the Dispatch Box, or looking for cover, because his bench is at the far end of the chamber. I suspect this looks more so on TV than in the Commons itself.
I suggest a rethink. Sitting in the traditional place brings him as close as possible to the position he aspires to, and it can give a sense of courage, standing out against the crowd, something different to the other parties in their weekly cockfight.
“Clearly Clegg leads from the middle rather than from the front. It was bizarre to watch Cameron and Brown standing at the heads of their party whilst Clegg spoke from the middle of the bench. An idea they’ve had, but not a very good one maybe?”
Both Brown and Cameron speak from the middle of their own benches
175, true, but they both have a dispatch box in front of them.
It has nothing to do with lefties and skin color why Obama lost - look at the demographics of the voting results and you will see why - a black guy on MSNBC tried to say that and a woman told him to look at the demographics and see that women voted in larger numbers and FOR Hillary.
This leftie does not like Obama nor does my partner like him - we like Hillary - she comes across better - and Obama just keeps harping on his message for change without saying really what he will do - and he is as hawkish as Clinton on Foreign policy - I think most American politicians are - it is just something you notice when you live here for 7 years - nationalist and we are the greatest nation on earth come out a lot so they have to dance to that tune no matter which party you are in.
And we’re off, allegations of NH fraud !
From RonPaulsforum.com
My mom, aunt, and dad all voted for RP today in my hometown, My mom and aunt both work passing out ballots, and checking them off. I just looked at the politico map and it says their town has ZERO votes for Ron. Now i know that there isn’t corruption on voting in that little town, so where they reported it must be. What do I do, anyone know???
Originally Posted by sstjean View Post
This was posted to ronpaul-801 tonight: “This town numbers are wrong wrong wrong on this map. I am from Sutton originally and my parents and one aunt all voted for Ron Paul today and Sutton says 0. So this is wrong. This is a town that had 20 people counting the ballots and I have no reason to believe that they cheated. Small town and I was born and raised there. The real numbers will come in by morning. The electronic machines in the big towns are the ones we have to worry about.”
BUMP
169 - true but American politics has moved substantially and really realigned since the heyday of the Dixie Democrats.
170 - you can always say for any majority ethnic candidate who stands against a minority ethnic candidate that they won because of racist voters and in close races that is probably true. But what’s your point? Clinton didn’t deliberately go for those votes and it is swings and roundabouts in more ethnically diverse states. I have absolutely no doubt the story would have been the same on the Republican side (and it is instructive that Rice and Powell declined to run in this and the last election). It also looks more like a late move - people were happy to tell pollsters they were backing a black man and if they were racists, they probably wouldn’t have done that.
174. I can see what you’re saying Witan, but I think he’s right to give it a go. The ‘traditional’ position I think is only such as a hang over from when the Lib Dem front bench was the second one up the aisle. Now that it is at the front (& has been for 11 years) it makes sense to try out new things. If it’s found overall to be a negative then it can change back. I also think that the old position isolates you from your party as when you turn to face the speaker, you have you back to all your colleagues.
174 - See your point but don’t agree. I have always thought that it always looks as if they haven’t bothered giving the Lib Dem leader a despatch box which looks a lot odder (and more pathetic) than just standing in the midst of your MPs.
177. Search your soul, dude, search your soul. You went for the prissy rich white woman over the charming poorly-born black guy.
I mean, it’s not quantum mechanics.
Can’t see what the fuss is. Just admit race played a part. The chances of it not playing a part, given the history of America, and indeed the history of humanity, are approximately nil.
172. Quite right too - she should have been in the home, looking after dear little Colin, not wasting her time surfing the net.
160
Ha! But he might have been talking about Oven Baked chips!
and to just prove these lefties don’t even think racist - this is the web page of our local congressman - House of Representatives and this is the guy we will vote for again in November 08,
http://ellison.house.gov/
the first Muslim to get elected to the House, and a fantastic politician - the crap he took of the right wing when he stood was disgusting - racist and islamphobic - but the proud lefties of our district stood up and elected him …
Zzzzzzzzzzzz it’s turned into another US thread
bye bye
165. Might explain the theory that the BNP get 3 votes from ex Labour voters to every ex tory vote.
177. You really do live in a sad world Sean where you see things in such superficial terms, act on them & then assume everyone else does the same to make up for your own inadequecies. Most people look at people, not stereotypes.
Sorry, 188. is for 182.
187. I suspect that’s more to do with where the BNP stands (higher concentration of existing Labour votes) although I’d like to think not.
188 - thanks - exactly what we do when we choose our candidates we look at people not stereotypes - we like Hillary not because she is a woman, or white but because of her politics and ability to win the Presidency - we just don’t think Obama is electable - his message is wishy washy and he is as Hawkish as Clinton so that does not affect our vote - we would prefer a candidate with a more globalist foreign policy doctrine but we can’t have everything …
From Iain Dale:
” Brown was at it again, overtly lying at his press conference, when he said he had no plans to meet David Beckham. A few hours later, there was Beckham’s Bentley, pulling into Downing Street for Goldenballs to have a quick chat with the Prime Minister about our World Cup bid.”
I wonder when Dale and Guido will start preparing the Little Book of Brownies.
As we all know there are no women-haters or racists on the ‘right’
If u don’t believe me click on the link.
http://tinyurl.com/2q8bkx
Do the polls overstate Obama’s popularity?
Consider this:
Fox News’ exit poll was Obama 39, Clinton 34 this is hugely out. The same poll with the same methodology had McCain beating Romney by 35-30 - as near as dammit.
Could it be that much as the UK has “secret” Tory voters who tell pollsters they want to vote Labour, Democrats would like to be seen to be Barack supporters but really the only trust Hillary.
192. Brown’s attempt to bask in the glow of a has-been football star was, IMHO, perhaps his most pathetic stunt yet.
188. lol. Let’s play a mindgame. I’ll try and make it a game for smaller minds, so you understand.
Let’s say the right had a black candidate, with broad popularity, and huge charisma, and - according to polls - the best chance of winning the election. Let’s say there was one other right wing candidate, an old rich white establishment candidate, known to be less popular across the board.
If the white rightwing candidate mysteriously won, against all predictions, I am fairly sure the left would suspect some subtle racism at play.
And I fear they would be correct.
So you see? The left is just the same, just flesh and blood. It’d be bizarre is there weren’t some racism at work. We are all sinners.
I’m not saying you are all Nazis over there on the left. But sometimes a little honest self-scrutiny might do you some good.
195
Yeah! nearly as bad as Cameron’s snuggling up to Kate Moss
191 The contest was always going to be close, unless you bought into the bubble. You don’t need racism to explain the result. So why use it at all.
SeanT’s rant is purely a smokesceen to defect attention from his foolish over hyping of Obama that cost people dear. He can’t admit he just got it wrong and move on, he has to find someone else to blame. Guess what it, he chooses “lefties” yet again - only this time they’re racist too.
maybe you are looking in it too deeply - the polls may have been wrong - Hillary may have been more popular - it takes more than charisma to be popular - I agree that racism is prevalent in a society but so too is sexism, and homophobia - if I had chosen Obama would you then be arguing that I was a sexist ? - Did Hilary lose Iowa because she was the victim of sexism? Life is not that simple - some men vote for women, some women for men, some blacks for whites, some whites for blacks - and so on - racism exists, sexism exists, homophobia exists, and that is just a fact of life - did it play a part in New Hampshire and Iowa who knows - being a Brit in the U.S. is intriguing as trying to learn the American mindset is very difficult …
197. Well I know which one I’d rather snuggle up to! fnarr…
Re 196 “But sometimes a little honest self-scrutiny might do you some good. ”
So it might. However it is a little presumptuous on having discovered ones own particular faults to assume everyone else has the exact same ones.
196 - You have a point seanT and also I would consider exhibit B that Barack Obama is pulling in lots of male votes as evidence of a small amount of mysogyny at work.
197. Good point. The subtle unspoken racism of the left might also explain why we are getting these truly bizarre poll results.
When asked by a pollster, people want to appear inclusive and non racist and nice and groovy, so they say they support Obama.
But when these Democrats and Indies get in the privacy of the polling booth… hmmm… somehow Barack seems just a bit.. well.. you know… all that civil rights stuff. Think I’ll go for the safe option. America will never vote for him anyway so I don’t feel so bad…
etc etc
I think we have the answer to the polling confusion, which is largely restricted to the Dem side.
196. Your outlook truly is bleak, oh for some joy in your hopeless world. Is it me, or is there a black MP for ultra right wing Windsor? Oh there is, I thought so.
Anyway, I’m not of the right or left. I’m a Liberal!?
198. I refer you to my answer at 203. I presume your squeaky tone-of-voice means I have touched a nerve. Sorree!
“Mr Cameron continued, flanked by what appears to be the most masculine cheerleading squad in history (with the possible exception of George Osbourne) - why can’t the PM give a straight answer? What is his personal view?”
low innuendo from sky?
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,91211-1299979,00.html
204. Er, I would reply, but I don’t even UNDERSTAND that post.
204. Sorry, should say solidly not ultra (I’m not saying Windsor is full of blackshirts!?).
You’re the squeeky one mate. You just don’t need racism to explain the result.
You are just trying to push your agenda and hide your previous foolishness. You got it wrong, get over it man.
207. Hardly surprising Sean, you don’t really get liberal do you?!
209. lol!! I love it when someone ends the sentence with “mate”. The veiled hint of pub violence. You watch it, “mate”. Listen here, “pal”.
Calm yourself, darling. x
200
Looking at her choice in males, I don’t think I would!!
Interesting article (On ConHome) from Stephan Shakespeare on ‘Frothy Polls’
http://tinyurl.com/34wayh
202. I would agree that there was arguably some “misogyny” at work in the anti-Hillary camp, too. She evokes such passionate dislike, it’s hard not to discern some femophobia.
But as I said in a previous thread, men will happily vote for women if it is the right woman. There’s just something about Hillary that is annoying in a way peculiar to women. She’s a shrew.
Is it misogyny to dislike this? Or just personal antipathy and therefore perfectly fair? If you disliked a man, cause he was taciturn, anoraky and bearded in a very male way, does that make you a manhater?
Complex issue.
211 I love you too SeanT!! You just got it wrong that’s all. Not your fault I suppose. Bless, you’re a romantic at heart. I’ll buy you a martini.
But your pet racism theory is totally unecessary to understanding what happened. All you have to do is forget your little bubble and the result is obvious.
Big hugs sweetie. You’ll get it right one day.
Interesting Andrew Sullivan post here about the ‘Bradley Effect’ or saying you will vote for a non-white candidate and then voting for the white candidate.
214. What a childish thread - we just need ColinW to pipe up now.
206. I’d imagine it refers to his less than masculine voice…
Sean - the polls you cite telling us that Obama is a much more appealing candidate were exactly the same ones that told us Obama was going to win the NH Primary and which turned out to be totally inaccurate.
The fact is that lots of people came to their own view as to who was more appealing and much to everyone’s surprise it was Clinton (including probably most of those who voted Hillary). That’s inconvenient for those people who think Obama is more appealing (me included!) but it doesn’t merit accusations of widespread racism.
One reason for Clinton’s appeal to a minority of voters was that she is white but:
1. It didn’t apply in overwhelmingly white Ohio (and there it was a caucus so the voters were more generally liberal/left leaning than in NH where it was an open primary).
2. What Obama loses on the New Hampshire swings he will presumably gain on the South Carolina roundabouts.
3. There are at several other MAJOR reasons for Clinton’s perhaps surprisingly great appeal - she is perceived rightly or wrongly as having had more political experience, her policy positions probably are better developed, people are attracted by the prospect of a First Gent who like it or not remains a hugely popular President (indeed loved by quite a few Americans, not least many African Americans) and she is a woman which appeals to some voters.
203. Sean - you might be right, but is there not also the possibility that older, more conservative, people are more inclined to vote for ‘the devil you know’, in the form of someone who looks and sounds (and has the name of) a normal sort of politician. By contrast, the ambition and ‘change’ message Obama made much of are things that often enthuse some, and especially the young, but can scare the more vulnerable - those on lower incomes and the elderly. Older voters turned out more.
Sean T, did you see that great gag on the BBC the other night? The Correspondent in NH said that there was something about Hillary “..that reminds American men of their first wives”. One of my favourite political put-downs of all time!
216. Roger started it!
Re PMQs, and being non-partisan about it, I do think on reflection that Cameron overplayed things a bit today, trying to get too much in. There was more than a hint of “Flashman” about it today, and he needs to watch that. He did score some pretty good hits, and a few good gags, but he needs to be careful. It’s a fine line.
However, there’s no doubt that DC is now totally assured in the role and like Tony Blair once he “got into” the Leader of the Opposition role properly by about 1996, it is hard not to watch his performances now and not think “PM in Waiting” like one did about Blair.
Brown is getting better in terms of not stuttering as much, and being a bit more combative. However, he is even more evasive than Blair in not answering questions, has no sense of humour or ability to deliver a good gag (contrast with Blair), and cannot self-deprecate. He also cannot hide the fact that he loathes Tories and first and foremost that his job as Labour PM is to do whatever it takes to put the Tories down rather than whatever is in the country’s interests.
Clegg? Non-entity, and though it’s early days, I cannot see him commanding the House’s attention in the way Cable was able to in just 3 or 4 brief appearances. He committed three tactical mistakes today:
1 - failure to come up with a good alternative pair of questions to use if Cameron scuppered him by raising ID cards
2 - failure to scotch Brown’s “open door” comment as Ming had done when Brown tried the same trick on him - the failure to rebut that will confirm what we all know, namely that the Clegg Lib Dems will prop up Labour in a hung parliament (wearing a red tie didn’t help him either)
3 - moving further down the Chamber and away from the seat of power was naive, and Cameron was bang on when he made the comment “although I see he is already moving further away from me”.
Much work to do. I think the LDs will be back to square one again by the summer.
I caught most of PMQ’s , typical first loaded question, bla bla bla, then tractor production figures etc etc. What was new was Gordo’s reference to “global turbulence” that will be the excuse euphemism for dire economic news on the horizon. Didn’t hear Cleegie , but by all accounts he did ok. Gordo was better than usual, but I still thought Cameron had the edge… but then I’m a Conservative.
Incidentally, Brown must not be allowed to get away with saying inflation is 2% , it isnt. its 4.5% or therabouts and heading north.
215. Andrew Sullivan agrees with me! Great minds. Ahem.
Here is the opening para of the article he cites:
“The term Bradley effect or Wilder effect refers to a phenomenon which has led to inaccurate voter opinion polls in some American political campaigns between a white candidate and a non-white candidate. Specifically, there have been instances in which statistically significant numbers of white voters tell pollsters in advance of an election that they are either genuinely undecided, or likely to vote for the non-white candidate, but those voters exhibit a different behavior when actually casting their ballots.”
I think we can let the matter rest now. The proof is in the polling pudding.
Anyway, its no biggie. So lefties can be as racist as righties. It’s hardly news.
221. Very possibly.
Not news at all, but totally unecessary to explain the NH result IMO.
Lets move on and agree that Obama is a damn fine candidate, who we would love to have on the anaemic UK scene.
226 - damn, I just sprayed tea everywhere - nearly choking at the fact that I am in agreement with Jonathan on something!
224 - it’s not necessarily racist Sean. Voters in the UK have a tendency to say they will vote Labour but vote Tory.
226. But you need something to explain the bizarre poll results. And the “Bradley Effect” is by far the most satisfactory. Indeed its the only explanation in the circumstances.
Glad that’s sorted. I bet a few punters on here wish they’d known about the “Bradley Effect” before they wagered on Obama.
A couple of good bits of news from Fox and their urgent queue:
#
Wednesday,Jan. 09 2008
Per Carl Cameron:
Mitt retrenches in Michigan
Aides say the week’s schedule is being overhauled. With the exception of the FNC debate, all previously planned SC events are being rescheduled until the 5 days after Michigan.
Romney will leave Michigan ONLY for the debate.
He is not abandoning SC, but aides say the only way to compete there effectively is by roaring out of Michigan.
They are not predicting victory in Michigan, and promise to fight on either way, but when pressed, do not argue that a defeat would be devastating in the state where his father was governor and the family name is well known.
#
NV SEIU endorses Obama
Wednesday,Jan. 09 2008
LAS VEGAS (AP) - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has won the endorsement of the Nevada chapter of the Service Employees International Union, union officials said.
The influential union claims to represent 17,500 health care and county workers in Nevada. Its executive board approved the decision in a conference call Tuesday night, shortly after the Illinois senator finished a close second behind Hillary Rodham Clinton in the New Hampshire primary.
SEIU President Vicky Hedderman said she believes Obama is a candidate “who could take the campaign all the way through November.”
Nevada’s Jan. 19 caucus is the next major Democratic nomination contest. Under union rules, the endorsement allows SEIU locals in other states to lend resources and volunteers to its Nevada counterpart on behalf Obama.
Obama has won the support of SEIU locals and state councils in five states, including his home state.
229 Let’s move on. But another possible explanation is that people don’t like to appear stupid.
When you have that much media hype, people will say that they are backing the supposed winner even if they eventually vote for someone else “who deserves a go” in the polling booth. It’s a little bit like what happened to Kinnock in 92.
This could easily account for the underperformance of Obama, especially when you consider the tight Clinton political machine.
No need for mass racism.
229 - Actually another explanation could be ‘ground war’ and GOTV exercises being more and less effective!
I think in the UK, it’s clear that non-white candidates generally underperform, slightly, compared to white candidates from the same party, in the same seat. You can see that quite clearly in London local elections, where there are 3 candidates in each ward. Almost always, the candidate with the least votes for his party will be the non-white candidate. It is usually only a slight difference, and only counts in highly marginal wards.
Racism among white voters is often at work here, but also sometimes a preference among non-white voters for a white candiate, rather than a candidate from an ethnic group that they are on bad terms with.
Sometimes of course, this prejudice can work the other way. Compare the performances of Muslim and white Respect candidates in the East End, for example.
I tend to think that late swings happen because people are following the media and polls too much and therefore switch, trying to be clever about using their vote. Clinton won because she looked as though she wouldn’t is therefore a possible partial explanation.
The other main reason appears to be that some are not happy in admitting they were going to vote for her, in which case hpw is Clinton like the tories of yesteryear?
229 - Where was the Bradley Effect in Ohio, Sean? Exactly the reverse happened there.
OT I have a question. Did anyone other than Quentin Davies switch parties in the Commons in 2007?
Judging from the previous threads, many pb.ers must be insomniacs. They will know, therefore, that America is full of serious, articulate, intelligent and moral people. In the early hours of our morning, when there is loads of time to fill, Radio 5 regularly interview political and business experts, police chiefs in small towns, fire fighters at emergencies etc etc. They all seem brilliant. How come, with this vast resource, so few rise to the top to become brilliant politicians ?
229. Experienced observers disagree with your analysis Sean
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenumbers/2008/01/new-hampshires.html
I don’t disagree with you on principle that lefties can be racist, but the results from Iowa belie what you are putting forward; are voters in New Hampshire significantly more racist, consciously or subconsciously, than voters in Iowa? I hardly think so.
It seems clear to me that what happened was that after all the media reports that claimed that Hillary’s candidacy was dead if she lost in New Hampshire, significant numbers of voters (and particularly women) there couldn’t bring themselves to pull the trigger on her.
In my analysis New Hampshire didn’t so much vote for Hillary as abstained: they decided to let her stay in the contest and give the rest of the country to decide.
237 Because they also have the ability to spot the hospital pass, and avoid it.
fr, because anyone brilliant has more sense than to become a politician.
238. Though it has just occurred to me that Iowa is a caucus, which is even more public than an opinion poll, than the primary in New Hampshire, so Sean could well be right about race being a factor after all.
Does anyone else remember Harvey Gantt?
He was the black Democrat who on more than one occasion was ahead in the polls to beat Republican Jesse Helms in North Carolina Senate races, yet always lost.
I always mentally reduced the opinion poll standings of black candidates in the USA by five per cent when trying to predict. There was undoubtedly a tendency to say one thing to a pollster and then do another in the secrecy of the polling booth (or maybe not turn out to vote).
I wonder if this is still happening - would be surprised if it had disappeared entirely. I know the reverse seemed to apply in Iowa, but they were caucuses, not secret, and composed much more of activists. I’d be a little wary of Obama poll figures.
241 - but this website is a caucus not a primary, so Roger should be backing Obama here (and Hillary in private).
Some appear to be making the simple mistake in thinking that democrat voters are just like labour voters; to base assumptions on knowledge of the left in the UK is presumptuous and explains some of the talking past each other that is going on in this thread.
A caucus is as democratic as a union meeting at Longbridge used to be. All in favour raise your hands……….
236: “Did anyone other than Quentin Davies switch parties in the Commons in 2007?”
Didn’t the Tory MP for Croydon Central become an Independent Tory following the alleged wife-beating affair?
238 Great link, thanks… I hope they get to the truth.
For now my pet theory is that the it was the hype that led to Obama over estimating his support through over enthusiasm in the undecideds. And that predictions pre Iowa were more useful if you see Obama mopping up the undecideds 2:1 as you might expect rather than 100% as the later polls suggested.
Pre Iowa
Clinton: 34.5% (39% result)
Obama: 25.5% (35% result)
Edwards: 17.5%
Richardson: 5.5%
Kucinich: 3.0%
Other / Unsure: 14.0%
Read this…
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/7717.html
236 - I think I know why you are asking this question. I am only aware of Quentin Davies defecting from the Tories to Labour. The Croydon Central MP simply had the whip withdrawn when charges were made by the police. I think the charges were subsequently dropped and the whip restored.
237- fr- yes I agree. I am constantly amazed by the quality of US staff in the NHS. They are great presenters, hard working, well organised, conscientious…
Italians as well make superb workers- I sometimes wonder just how far advanced Italy would be with an effective government.
Andrea on this site typifies the industriousness of an Italian
238: Or people are more willing to play games, for whatever reason, when a ballot is secret.
246: Wasn’t he just suspended from the party?
246 - He was suspended but went back when charges were dropped. It cannot really count as a switch of party.
245 - That’s a ridiculous comparison. The stakes (for the individual voters) are much lower in caucuses than strike ballots and it is much less “personal” so people are highly unlikely to come under serious pressure. They are different to secret ballot elections but you might just as well say jury decisions are like old-style strike ballots.
251. I think a bit of hyperbole was at play there James, but the principle remains the same, surely?
40. The market had priced in a McCain victory. I have to say that for one I was relieved that both McCain and Hillary won their respective contests. Whatever my differences with the insincerity of her support for the Iraq war and her eagerness to disntance herself from it - Obama is simply not up to the job of President and would be a disaster for the world. Maybe if he had another eight years to mature it would be different but on both domestic and foreign policy he is an empty suit, which is not something you want to have in a time of crisis. Yestoday’s clash with Iran may have forced voters to confront the reality of the situation (which is why McCain did much better with registered republicans than expected).
RE: the ‘Bradley’ effect. I have to say that the ‘reverse Bradley effect’ is probably a better explanation. The fact that supporting Obama has become ‘hip’ means that many people lied to pollsters (and probably to their friends) in order to avoid the scorn that they would receive if they said that they were voting for Hillary. Of course in the Iowa caucus you had to visibly show who you were voting for so you couldn’t say one thing and (secretly) do another.
The reverse Bradley effect (or its counterpart the ’silent’ voter) is why left-of-centre parties (such as Labour) do better than in polls than they do in real life (and also why the exit polls got the 2004 election badly wrong). It’s also why pollsters have increasing moved towards automated surveys - which are far more anonymous.
It is all getting a bit bitchy boys.
Roger, Tories do not believe a woman’s place is in the home. I am a woman, a Tory and in the home - by choice - mine. My Tory hubby would have no objection to me getting a job [ he would be thrilled]. Your comments tend to a mysogny of their own, suggestting we are all submissive, weak non-entities. I can assure you we can be just ‘as evil sinister she-devils’ as our working sisters [no testimonies required].
As for PMQs Cameron started well with Brown making some bad mistikes in the middle. Brown regained his footing by returning to previous tactics. Not unwise, just unimpressive.
Clegg as forgetable, which given Ming’s start, was vital, but he didn’t use his newness to surprise/be brave etc. Those proclaiming his greatness may like to take an honest look at Cameron’s first outing under much more pressure/scrutiny and against a much more formidable opponent. He has [some]time on his side but the third party is squeezed, playing it safe may not be enough.
As/If they increase in the polls the public will increasingly ask, ‘Which side are you on?’ whether they like it or not.
Brown/Cameron’s overtures will keep the pressure on.
(And surely the whole point of a jury is to arrive at a unanimous decision…)
Re New Hampshire
Looking at this article (below) I think its clear that the key thing here was that Obama simply didn’t get enough people to change their minds in the last month.
If you look at the voting patterns highlighted in:
http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2008/01/the_morning_after_1.html
A quick analysis of this article shows that of the 285,000 or so people who voted for the Democrats, the largest group decided over a month ago. Clinton won that group 46,500 approx to 30,000. In the last month prior to the vote Obama clawed back around 8,000 or so votes only to lose around 1,500 in the last 24 hours. Even if Clinton had not won the last 24 hour battle she would have still won by 7,000 or so votes. Interestingly enough this seems to also reflect the polls and the media coverage at the time when people made their decision.
Basically, the Clinton machine won with the Obama team not doing enough in the last few days (after Iowa) to hold media attention and convince voters to change their minds. From my impression Obama didn’t control the debate over the last few days.
As the article’s author points out Clintons emotional episode may have helped mobilise her support but it would seem it was not the critical factor. As for the underlying reasons why, who knows?
I suspect it was more likely experience, track record and higher profile that won it in the end for Clinton. After all New Hampshire is traditionally, a conservative state and therefore as part of that conservatism is not particularly open to change. Having only just returned a Democrat legislature (after over 100 years of republicanism) choosing the radical new Democrat on the block may just have been a change too far for the majority in New Hampshire?
The other question is how much did the Edwards vote holding up hurt Obama? If Edwards had done badly in Iowa how much of his vote might have moved over to Obama?
Robert Waller @ 242 re race and US polls. That is possible but there are other explanations such as poor sampling, differential turnout, vote suppression or even electoral fraud.
237. Money.
241. Well, exactly. Doh!
I think we need a bit of Ockham’s razor here. We have an election between white and black candidates, where the polls predicted a huge black win but were way way out, in the most extraordinary way. Yet they were accurate for another election on the same day in the same place between all-white candidates.
We have an (apparently!) well-known phenomenon called the Bradley Effect, whereby the performance of black candidates is overstated in polls where they face white candidates, sometimes to an extraordinary degree. This is due to subtle racism or “pc embarrassment” - call it what you will.
I really don’t think we have to go any further for an explanation. But I am not saying it is the ONLY explanation. Other factors surely played a part.
Yes we need to move on. But this is important in terms of Obama’s future performance. I fear the Bradley Effect means his overall polls are overstating his case. i.e. he cannot win the Nom, and he is unlikely to win the Prez.
Barack Obama was a lovely lovely dream, but I think it is finished. American lefties ain’t ready for a black nominee.
Re: Croydon MP Pelling. Prior to his little bit of difficulty, I understand that there had been rumours he might defect. Trying to Google out the rumours… no success yet.
252/255 - Juries generally reach unanimous decisions (although far from always and they aren’t required to) because sufficient evidence or not sufficient evidence is a bright line test not because of intimidation in the style of an old-style union meeting without a secret ballot. The choice of one candidate over another is not that sort of bright line test - it is more like chosing paint from a colour chart (if that isn’t a totally inappropriate analogy today). I am not saying caucuses should be extended to all domestic elections or anything like that - just that to dismiss caucuses as being in any serious respect akin to old-style union public votes shows an understanding of neither process.
overall I thought Cameron got some good questions in, Brown now no longer shakes or rattles, he does something worse, bores us. His constant attacks on David Cameron’s history are shaky at best seeing as his own politics back then were considerably different than they are now. He also kept asking Cameron questions, then claiming victory when he didn’t get an answer. This tactic is also useless as a tactic, as the media see it as a cheap trick and the electorate for the most part never see it. His constant use of lists to prove his history (low inflation, high employment, plentiful rice pudding etc etc) gets boring very quickly too. Overall Brown attacked the wrong points, Cameron did ok but looks a lot more comfortable than Brown or Clegg, and Clegg did ok but should have denied any talks with Brown.
The moment he starts to become Brown’s poodle is the moment the lib dems are stuffed.
http://www.croydonguardian.co.uk/search/display.var.1943084.0.croydon_mp_andrew_pelling_takes_a_break_to_be_treated_for_depression.php
Andrew Pelling is now being treated for depression. I do feel sorry for the guy.
259: No sign of the Bradley effect in Iowa, in fact the opposite - Obama outperformed his polling.
We also know that the polls got Obama more or less right, with a slight downtick due to the youth vote not turning out. You may like to claim that for racism, but a less contentious view might just be to say the youth vote hardly ever turns out. Relying on it was always going to be dubious.
The Clinton machine did its job. They’ve been ahead in NH for ages, but hype got ahead of people on Obama’s side. Possibly a smaller win in Iowa may have been better for him - complacency among new voters and independents is a pretty dangerous thing, because they’re less motivated to vote than the regular party base.
“Barack Obama was a lovely lovely dream, but I think it is finished. American lefties ain’t ready for a black nominee. ”
There is a stark decision facing the dems now; continue the politics of division where a one or two percent lead is just enough to win whilst keeping the country divided *or* to attempt to heal by creating a larger more all encompassing coalition (the same on the other side but I can’t see a similar candidate for them to choose).
The new labour supporters are tending to the former, harping on about Iraq and the nineties. Well, their history menas that they would, wouldn’t they? Just once in maybe a generation there is someone who will attempt the latter, however, so if not now, for those who have been handed that chance, then when? Frankly, I’m getting too old adn impatient to have to wait much longer to see the fruits of this happening.
I’m used to coming nowhere near any UK politician when I do surveys of political allegiance. It’s almost as though tthe UK political scene is a different world to mine with very little crossover. Amazingly on the US versions I have done recently I have been pretty much dead on the Obama co-ordinates. Makes a change to feel part of something I can tell you.
If not the US then how about the UK? Any chance of Obama for PM?
Oops, missed a bit: meant to say the Bradley effect is largely a pre-1990 issue. There’s not really been any evidence for it for two decades now - polls involving black vs white candidates are no less accurate than between two white candidates.
I listened to PMQ’s on radio. I thought cameron clearly won although he neds to be careful not come across as a bully/debating champion as i think that will turn a few people off. Brown was ok ish, a bit more combative than usually but did seem flustered to me and not really setting the agenda which given that he gets the last word is poor.
Clegg? Well his only real task was not to make a horrlicks of it which he didn’t ergo he did ok. but… (a) I haven’t seen the TV pictures of him sitting mid bench. whats that about? (b) can’t believe he didn’t rebut the brown open door think. Even Ming had his trap door line in response. Brown knows this sort of stuff will destabilise Clegg and is a dog whistle to soft ex labour voters that have gone lib dem.
As for fuel poverty/pre payemnt metres. I can’t imagine many people on this site have a pre payment metre hence some of the comments but its good bread and butter stuff and an excellent plan b when cameron pinched ID cards as the issue.
265. I completely agree. There is a sense, if and when Obama loses (as I now fear he will) of a real opportunity missed. Whether it was racism that stopped him or not, the Democrats are passing up a remarkable chance: a generational advance in attitudes, symbolised by a black prez with the middle name Hussein.
That would have been transformational, in the way the world saw America, and the way America saw itself.
But instead they are retreating to the past. Another Clinton. Bill back in the Oval Office. More endless sniping about the 90s and the rest of it. No doubt they think they are being sensible, but dear oh dear.
I think, once we are a few months into the tedium of another Clinton administration (in the 21st century!), they will look back and regret this as a shameful and silly mistake.
264. FFS. Iowa was a public caucus. Like a massive opinion poll during a neighbour’s dinner party. Read the threads.
Obama’s poll leads were all over the shop. Extremely volatile. But in the end he got nothing like the leads predicted, indeed he had a four percent deficit. Yet another election on the same day in the same place between all-white candidates was.. weird this… accurately forecast by the polls.
There’s something fishy there, and its called Bradley.
My last word, aren’t we forgetting the really big winner of New Hampshire.
John McCain.
The Democrats now need to be very careful about what happens next. If the Clinton-Obama camps start fighting, there is a really good chance that the Republicans could get in yet again. McCain could unite the GOP unless of course Rudy screws it up.
Clinton-Obama ‘08
268 -
1. The race is no more over for Obama now than it was for Clinton last Friday!
2. Obama would be less experienced as President than George W Bush, hardly an inspiring augury.
268 - Sean, that huge change from the poll numbers to the actual result (baring in mind the small samples and large (5%) margin of error) could be down to all manner of things. I think we should wait for a few more primaries before we start talking about the Bradley effect. Its a very nasty and very serious accusation and I think we need more evidence before we start throwing it around.
At 268, Sean T said “There is a sense, if and when Obama loses … of a real opportunity missed … the Democrats are passing up a remarkable chance … a generational advance in attitudes” etc.
The same feelings pervaded some Democrats after they chose Hubert Humphrey over Gene McCarthy.
268. But Obama’s vote share matched the poll predictions. The one who exceeded polling predictions was Clinton.
So, I don’t think the explanation lies in people telling pollsters they’d vote Obama (while really intending to vote for Clinton)but rather that Clinton’s machine was able to turn out her supporters in big numbers.
271. I think commentators will be bending over backwards to find alternative explanations for the bizarre discrepancies between the polls and the results.
Fair enough. It’s not a nice thought.
But I bet there’s a few people in Zogby and Rasmussen right now, who are glumly reading about the Bradley Effect in Wiki, and nodding quietly to themselves.
WRT the overall election, the Democrats are bound to extend their lead in the Senate, because of the seats that are coming up.
But the Presidency may well be extremely competitive, and IMHO, could be won by either side.
Is the House likely to be won by whichever side wins the Presidency, or is it likely to stay Democrat in any case?
274, But Sean makes a good point. Hillary got the last minute voters (1 in 7) and the machine really got the support out.
Unbelievable
The following items appeared on the Reuters screen earlier today (January 8, 2008):
• 12:09 08Jan2008 RTRS-UK’S BROWN SAYS BY THE END OF THE YEAR BELIEVES INFLATION WILL BE AROUND 2 PCT
• 12:31 08Jan2008 RTRS-UK’S DARLING SAYS WILL DECIDE ON REAPPOINTMENT OF BOE GOVERNOR IN NEXT FEW WEEKS
• 12:35 08Jan2008 RTRS-UK’S DARLING SAYS POSITION OF STABILITY IN ECONOMY HAS GIVEN BOE MPC ROOM FOR MANOEUVRE
I could not believe my eyes. Are they mad or are the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer really trying to nobble the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England through coordinated messages at a joint press conference, two days before a rate setting meeting of the MPC?.
Full transcript here
http://blogs.ft.com/maverecon/2008/01/et-v…ti-th.html#more
Enough from me,I’m off to the Emirates to see if Arsenal can help me recover my losses due to backing Obama.
265,
Afraid not you will have to leave the Libdems and join camerons conservatives.
Just as I begin to vote for Clegg in outer York.
So you better get a move on and emigrate to the USA for your Obama and the promise of utopia.
Racial voting alive and well in Bucks
http://www.buckscc.gov.uk/bcc/content/index.jsp?contentid=-1660493114
Every election with same-party different-race candidates seems to break only one way. Strange that.
274 - But Rasmussen’s final poll overestimated Obama by only 1% while it overestimated Edwards by 2% and Richardson by 3%. In Rasmussen’s case at least, its error (as Sean Fear says) was massively underestimating Clinton NOT overestimating Obama as the Bradley Effect would suggest.
Zogby was indeed miles off in his final poll - but perhaps the lesson is that John Zogby is a self-publicist whose polls are somewhat unreliable (remember his confident call for Kerry in 2004?) Zogby places a lot of store by momentum, something pollsters really don’t have the tools to measure. We were all told the Big Mo was with Big O but that was really just something the media (and a lot of people) chose to believe because it was a nice narrative.
271. Not quite true.
Here:
http://tinyurl.com/2exju2
The overall average poll gave 38.3 for Obama. In the end he got 36.
The last five polls gave him an average nearer 40
He dropped almost 4%.
Margin of Error? Sure, its possible. But the mysterious surge for Clinton… hmmm…
I think we saw a combination of factors: Bradley - and, yes, Clinton working the machine, and the sisters doing it for themselves, after Hillz blubbed.
Anyway we will know more after the next one. Still quite exciting.
257 et al.
There is always a chance of sampling the wrong voters, as I’ve always said on here (which is way the ‘margin-of-error’ is always a fiction), but the R primary polling was pretty accurate compared with that result.
For a more recent example of the problems of black candidates than Gantt, which was the one D target not gained in the Senate in November 2006?
Tennessee, where the D candidate was Harold Ford Jr. - he had been level or ahead of Bob Corker in polls for most of the campaign.
Anyone who thinks that there is no problem at all for black candidates in majority white contests in the USA seems to me to be living in a world of their choosing, not the world as it is (very unfortunately). A black candidate can win, but it is more difficult. And the more likely their win, the harder it will be. In addition to the other points about Iowa, Obama was seen as an outsider before that contest, but as the favourite before primary day in NH.
265 - I come as spot on a match with Obama too. Doesn’t everybody British though? I understand Marcus Wood comes out a Democrat on
http://www.electoralcompass.com/page/0/thema+s/
279 I don’t know what the ethnic make up of the division is, although I assume it has quite a large white majority. It really bears out my point - a large majority of party supporters will vote for their party candidate regardless of ethnicity, but an observable minority won’t.
The most striking example of voting on racial lines I’ve seen though is in some of the Bradford wards.
seant, at least you admit you dont bet, and are a crap tipster.
Pity you have all these thories after the event.
Yesterday you were ranting the wicked witch of the west was finished.
You keep saying you have leftish friends, well you don`t ever listen to them you must just talk over them.
Clinton has a magical name to many in that it was the first sign the new left could win in 92 after years in the wilderness.
They look back to the late middle nineties with some effection.
Also the word change might mean from Bush, but not to the unknown.
248. Alex, I take it the answer you need is that no-one else defected after him. Which I think is the case. I promise to resolve this by tomorrow if that’s OK.
282. The recrudescence of the Bradley Effect in New Hampshire might also be linked to the importance of the vote.
No one has ever failed to win the Nomination, after winning Iowa and NH, in more than thirty years.
If New Hampshire voters had gone for Obama, they were, therefore, practically handing him the Nomination on a plate, and making him rather likely to be next president. A black president with the middle name Hussein.
Did this concentrate minds? In one direction? As you say, in an ideal world, no - it shouldn’t. But its a very generous and arguably naive person who thinks this notion didn’t occur to anyone in Nashua, Manchester and Rochester yesterday afternoon.
286. Hello! What happened to that poor punter who put £1600 on Obama at 1/33? Did you ever get a tearful phone call?
And what happened at Paddy Power? Was someone sacked?!
286 Thanks
283. I am on John Edwards. Uggh!!
283 - Totally meaningless to complete that survey as a UK citizen. The big issues in the USA are so totally different for historical reasons. This means you simply wouldn’t have the same view if you were a US citizen and, more profoundly, equivalent political positions have different meanings.
For example, in the USA, a strict line on tight gun control is a slightly edgy, out-there position. In the UK, it is absolutely mainstream, consensual, middle-of-the-road fare. So if you advocate tight gun control in the US you are making a much broad statement that you are a radical proposing out-of-the-box thinking to old problems. If you advocate it in the UK you are saying you are a safety conscious moderate.
This is rather like a much more moderate version of the old point that if a lion could speak English, you couldn’t have a meaningful conversation. Totally different frames of reference.
286 - I think David Laws defected to the Tories. We were constantly promised it would happen by breathless halfwits anyway, so I assume it did.
290. Please omit the word “on”. I match up closest to him on the electoralcompass. Can’t stand him though. His voice grates.
I am though “ON” Obama and McCain, in the betting sense that I have my cojones on them, as Sean T might say.
282 - I had forgotten about that very recent example. And Ford’s family has a long history in the state. He is a big name and a political big hitter. Hmmm. Not nice this Bradley stuff. I hope our worst fears are dismissed with some stunning psepsology for the forthcoming contests.
284 - Yes, or Bradford West as a whole, where the LDs in 1997 and the Greens in 2001 got handsome increases simply by fielding the leading white candidate.
In fairness, I think the negative effect is decreasing, and it tends to disappear once the ethnic minority candidate, if victorious, develops an established profile.
290. I agree. Very good point. As a British citizen I prefer gun control - in Britain. We don’t have that culture. And I do think it probably brings crime down. I like our unarmed police.
But if I was American I think I’d not be in favour of gun control. Because they have a totally different culture. The armed militia idea is not a bad one. And I would be very wary of changing a Constitution which has served so well. Also guns are everywhere in America. Gun control would leave the crims with guns and the nice people unarmed. Not good.
So I would vote and feel differently on the matter depending where I lived.
Indeed I didn’t even understand some of the questions - what they were referring to - so I had to put “neutral”. That probably helped me finish where I did: halfway between Reps and Dems.
That said, it was still a bit of fun.
287 - Sean, I think its time for some serious investigation. Find chat rooms and blogs for primary goers in NH and see if there’s anything sinister. (I’m half serious)
On vote Liberal get Labour. I don’t think this tactic will work to put people off voting Liberal, neither will Vote Liberal get Tories. The two main parties policies have been converging for a while, and if the Liberals ever come up with some policies I’m sure there’ll be the same.
I think this election isn’t very high stakes because of it, there’s no leftwing seeking to nationalise everything and there’s no rightwing wanting to sell off public services. With this election it’s going to be more a case of “Vote for a political party, get the government.”
298. Both political parties have put forward the idea of a coalition with the liberals.
274. Interesting analysis on how the pollsters are trying to shirk responsibility for their bad forecasting:
“It is simply unprecedented for so many polls to have been so wrong. We need to know why.”
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenumbers/2008/01/new-hampshires.html
298 “If voting changed anything, they’d abolish it”!
297. Yikes, I’m not that interested! Just whiling away another afternoon on pb.com, winding up the lefties and making a semi-serious point at the same time (I do think racism or “Bradley” played some part in the weirdness of NH; nothing else quite fits).
Anyway the case at the moment is unprovable, in either direction. We need more hard data. And I need to start writing my thriller!!!!
*stares mournfully at unopened file*
Maybe people in NH voted for Hillary simply because they got fed up with Obama being the Inevitable Candidate?
302 - the allure of pbc is too strong. I have books open and files open strewn around my desks but can’t quite manage to concentrate on anything other than the primaries.
304 - hm, I was thinking the blanket US elections coverage on here would help me kick the habit, but it’s not working out that way. Perhaps I need to find a more interesting job…!
Nice quote reported on Andrew Sullivan (obviously worth adding him as an RSS feed as this is the second time I quoted the site):
“As the exit polls have shown, the Democratic primary is turning into a battle between the people that pay for Social Security and those that collect it. “
306 - nice
I like Andrew Sullivan a lot, but for the last few weeks he’s been trying to challenge Michelle Obama as Barack’s possible first lady.
He seems a bit more subdued right now, and no bad thing
304. I just did a quick Google on “Bradley”. There is indeed speculation all over the blogs as to whether Bradley was at work in NH. One Clinton aide - apparently - admitted that it was. Others differ, natch.
Here’s another Democrat who certainly thinks Bradley warped the result:
http://tinyurl.com/2z8dga
But as she says, we will have to wait for another election to know more. And even then it might be inconclusive. File under: Case Unsolved.
284/295. Worth pointing out that the most striking examples within Bradford though are for Asians not voting for (some) white candidates - the 2004 all-out election gave some pretty spectacular examples of this. Even so, that wasn’t really voting along race lines: it’s a good deal more complicated than that and relates to extended families, village allegiences in Kashmir and so on. The ‘wrong’ Asian candidate could do just as badly as a white one and the ‘right’ white candidate can beat an Asian one, so not strictly racial.
There may indeed be some racism element - all I’m saying is there’s absolutely zippo evidence for it at present, since Bradley as a reliable theory is long dead.
All that happened was an Obama hype bubble, while in reality Clinton produced the same % of the vote as the polls said she would before Iowa made things crazy. Look at the 5 polls done between Christmas and Iowa:
Reuters/CSpan/Zogby 01/01 - 01/03 Clinton +6.0
American Res. Group 01/01 - 01/03 Clinton +4.0
Franklin Pierce 12/27 - 12/31 Clinton +4.0
CNN/WMUR/UNH 12/27 - 12/30 Clinton +4.0
American Res. Group 12/27 - 12/29 Clinton +4.0
Actual result: Clinton +2.6%. Obama got a smallish Iowa bounce, but the pollsters were unable to adequately sample the new voters Obama was seemingly bringing to the game. Thus: silliness.
If anyone should be stretching for Obama excuses it’s me - that result meant the difference between +4100 quid and -120
303 - I think there’s a big element of that. The people of New Hampshire are a sophisticated electorate due to their position in the electoral cycle. They are well used to doing things quite deliberately to upset the “narrative” and may very well have felt that their support was being taken for granted by a somewhat triumphalist Obama bandwagon in the final few days.
311. “There may indeed be some racism element - all I’m saying is there’s absolutely zippo evidence for it at present, since Bradley as a reliable theory is long dead.”
That’s like saying the theory of gravity is long dead, as no one has fallen off your roof for a decade. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Moreover, it seems we now have a smidgen of evidence.
Sympathies on the “losses” though. Ouch. I hope Peter the Punter is not sticking his head in the microwave.
I will say something US-based, for which I may be likely to get flamed, but here goes:
Clinton is a good candidate and it should be noted that she is a formidable opponent.
I say that because wandering onto PB in the past few days you would have thought she was the Major in 97 of the Democrats. I myself made that mistake when I compared her to Gordon Brown, but I can stick my hands up and admit that I underestimated her.
Some people cannot, it seems.
Whatever your personal views on Clinton, you have to admit that she fits a narrative, just as Obama does. She is the first woman within striking distance of the White House. She is a professional lady, intelligent, smart and savvy. She appeals to many people in America (in particular, I expect, many women) who see her as a strong and independent lady. For many that will have just as big an impact as Obama’s background.
What is more, Clinton plays the triangulating game well. She spells out her views, which are comfortably moderate. She gives the impression that she’ll get rid of the bad parts of the Republican culture in Washington whilst not rocking the boat in a way that would upset older voters or (Cameron’s favourite phrase) liberal-conservatives. She’s familiar - people remember her from the ‘good times’ of Bill’s Administration.
This isn’t to say she’s brilliant or the girl-wonder, but it must all have an impact, especially with Democratic voters who fondly remember the 1990s.
Obama is an excellent orator (easily the best in the contest for many, many years) and he inspires. But beyond his “change” rhetoric, there’s a lot of unknowns there. He has come from nowhere to become a prominent politician. What does he stand for? What exactly will he do? He is the candidate people would *like* to vote for, but they’re *afraid*, because whilst they want change, maybe they don’t want it all in one go. Maybe they want a bit of a transition first.
Maybe Hillary can provide that transition.
All purely hypothetical, but I would like to put forward the other side of the argument after days of pro-Obama love from the majority of folks on this site. Yes, Obama is good. But Hillary is not automatically poor or a bad candidate in comparison, especially when examining the mindset of American voters.
Had meetings earlier so only just watched PMQs on the PM’s website. One thing I noticed is that Steve Webb went on a very similar tack to Clegg.
Is this a new strategy to work as a team in PMQs?
314 - “What exactly will he do? He is the candidate people would *like* to vote for, but they’re *afraid*, because whilst they want change, maybe they don’t want it all in one go. Maybe they want a bit of a transition first.”
I said something along those lines a few days ago, although I suggested McCain would be that candidate.
Hillary as the new front runner (despite the polls, she has the momentum now) puts a spanner into many theories concocted since Iowa.
309 — Danny Finkelstein reckons it is too. He warned about it earlier in the week before predicting a landslide for Obama.
317. Another factor going amiss is that even the exit polls showed a lead for Obama. Fox had him 5% ahead.
WTF is that about, if not Bradley? Why would you lie to an exit pollster, unless you were embarrassed to admit the way you voted, and why? Was there a massive conspiracy to humiliate the pollsters? Did ten thousand people get together in a VW combi in Nashua and decide to lie about their vote, after the event, for a prank?
I’m sorry for all those nice lefty people who don’t want to think ill of nice lefty voters, but the evidence is pretty damning.
313: Rather it’s more like people repeatedly falling off your roof for 20 years, yet hardly anyone hitting the ground. There have been plenty of high profile black candidates in that time. As you say, not evidence disproving that it happened here, but just that it’s not that common now.
314: Yup. Clinton is a formiddable politician. I said as much after Iowa when people were writing her off completely, and got pounced on here. Perhaps if I’d followed my own advice…..
319. Yes, your alleged political wisdom would be more impressive if you hadn’t actually made a £4k loss on the markets yesterday.
As for the gravity thing, I refer you to my exit poll point at 318. Something went wrong in NH. It begins with BRAD and ends with EFFECT.
And now I’m off to buy some cheap wine. It’s been another educational day on pb.com. And I mean that quite sincerely.
Ciao everyone.
A couple of points about NH and PMQs.
The ‘poll of polls’ in the Guardian yesterday (an average of the 5 most recent polls) has the following prediction:
Clinton 29% Obama 37% Edwards 19% and (by implication) Others 15%.
The result was:
Clinton 39% Obama 36% Edwards 17% Others 8%.
So the pollsters did well enough for Obama and Edwards, but were 10 percentage points out for Clinton, who appears to have taken half the vote originally destined for the minnows of the contest. There is no evidence from these numbers of racism influencing the result, in the sense that it appears that people saying they would vote for Obama actually did so.
So why did Clinton pick up so many last-minute votes from the Others? Last-minute deals? Or did she make statements specifically designed to encourage switching?
I see PM is leading with Gordon Brown’s lack of enthusiasm for ID cards, as expressed at PMQs today. Cameron did well to bring this important point to a wide audience.
318 - that exit poll is very dodgy and does suggest there is something amiss. However, we are familiar with voter shyness. I.E. 1992 Tory voters too ashamed to admit what they were. With Obama getting all the positive coverage, the hope for america etc etc perhaps some primary goers wanted to be a part of that without actually voting for him. I for example would have told a polster the day before that I would have voted for BHO, mainly for the reasons you tend to outline, however I may very well have actually voted for the “roundhead” (to use Nick Palmer’s terminology) when I got to the booth because I like doers and think there is much to be done and Hillary would be better at doing that. This shyness or desire to be ascociated with BHO could account for some of the discrepancy. Race might come into it but it need not be the sole or even the main cause.
321. Hm. Realclearpolitics gives Obama an overall 38.3% in the NH polls. The last five put him near 40%
He shed nearly 4% - at least on their data.
Moreover, you ignore the exit polls. Fox had Obama 5% ahead in the EXIT POLLS, in the end he trailed by 4%. A massive nine percent drop.
Unless they are complete idiots at Fox, the only explanation is.. yawn, I know… Bradley.
281
As I understand it, if you vote in the Democratic NH primary, you can’t vote in the Republican primary.
Much of Mr Obama’s support comes from independents, his loss was due to a resurgent Mr McCain taking the independent votes that Mr Obama needed in the Democratic primary. So (independent) voters preferred McCain to Obama, not Clinton to Obama
http://www.newsweek.com/id/87883
Amused to hear that Cameron now says he favours McCain. In this morning’s paper he was saying he really liked Obama - but that was before the result. McCain, Obama, they’re so similar, you can see why he’d like them both.
320: Quoting 322 above “that result meant the difference between +4100 quid and -120″. Not a chance in hell I’d risk 4k. I do this for a living so that sort of exposure if a complete no-no - to get into a position like that inevitably meant cover all over the place (on Obama when the market price lowered post-Iowa, already big on McCain and lays on Paul). I’ll certainly admit to a dose of luck on Paddy paying out, but it wasn’t that risky even without.
314 Matt - although it is clear that Hillary is more like the current administration on, say, Iraq, and presumably the middle east generally, she is also more the agent of change on eg healthcare, where her proposals are much more radical than Barack’s. Anything in a view which says:
Hillary Domestic Policy Radical change, Foreign Policy Timid / Moderate change
Barack Foreign Poicy Radical Change, Domestic Policy Timid / Moderate?
And what implications might that have if the US electorate start to perceive it?
324 - but that still doesn’t explain the polling disaster
328 - I guess it just shows that the polls are flawed. Mr Cameron, consider this… don’t take a nice lead for granted!
There’s a fascinating claim on real clear politics that Clinton gained about 3% in NH from the fact that her name, in a random draw, appeared near the top of the ballot whereas Obama’s was at the bottom.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenumbers/2008/01/new-hampshires.html
329 - Cameron’s lead (when it was 10% plus) was very soft, as we are now seeing. We have a problem that we are trying to view this government and the opposition through either a 92 or a 97 paradime when really its neither
Bullseye
:lol: 
For someone who knows abslotly nothing about politics and is accused by LD’s on this site as being less intellegent than pig sh*t. I score another truiph in predicting Obama was nothing like the run away democratic candidate some on these pages have said. Obama has peaked far too early and the Clinton campaign has shown how good they are at managing the media!
On Nick Clegg he was a complete bag of f*cking b*llocks
:lol: 
Listening to Radio 4 in the car i laughed my head off when Clegg used the “wrong” soundbite about ID cards. He said the government policy was “death by a 1000 cuts” - completly the wrong thing to say. If it was about the rape of the NHS and cuts in spending per head due to mass immigration. Or the rape of the armed force budget by the government fair enough. But a measure being cut that is still not even legislation? Clegg is hopeless - He makes Skeleton look like the terminator!!!! 
:lol: 
oh dear calamity Clegg at PMQ’s - could not even land a punch on the lying Scotsman!!!
We are just wondering how much damage Bush can do before January 20 2009 - this rhetoric about Iran is pretty creepy - is he gearing up for another war before he leaves office !!! I wonder how this will play in campaign 2008 - what will the Democrats do what will the Republicans do - will it play to the Democrats or play to the Republicans ??
25. favours McCain
really liked Obama
If i said i really liked Nick Palmer MP but i favoured XXXXX the Tory candidate in your seat to win would this indicate that there was not much difference between your good self and the candidate of change for Broxtowe XXXXXX
I see a lot of similarities between the ‘Bradley effect’ and the concept of ‘Shy Tories”, which many on this will agree exists. They are largely the same thing.
Obama caught the public mood in Iowa and it was good to be seen supporting that mood. Take the Luntz findings as an example of this. Everybody was publicly ditching Clinton in favour of Obama.
The Iowa caucus was effectively decided by a show of hands so it would have seemed very odd for people to openly go against the public mood, and what they had been personally saying.
By contrast, NH made it possible for people to vote in private and in accordance with the dark recesses of their hearts. Recesses which in my view are likely to contain an element of racism across the political spectrum, and particularly amongst older people. Recesses that make shy Tories vote in accordance with their best self-interests, regardless of what they told the pollsters.
So, I’m with SeanT’s diagnosis. No doubt other factors are at play, but given that the November election will ultimately be held by private ballot, this does suggest that Obama could, sadly, be finished.
Something odd here.
http://ronrox.com/paulstats.php?party=DEMOCRATS
In the votes counted by hand, Obama led Clinton by 3.7%
In the votes counted by machine, Clinton led Obama by 3.3%…
NH just changed its motto to “Live free or Diebold..”
how heavily influenced have south carolina voters been influenced by previous primaries in the past?
332 - It’s an open forum and you should at the very least moderate your language in a mature manner.
OT - For those that like to bet on Football Managers - Newcastle have parted company with Sam Allardyce. Shearer early favourite, but personally I’d be laying him. (Strong warning - I’m emotionally involved as a Newcastle fan!)
336: hrrrm, in votes counted by hand, Obama wins by 3.7%. In votes counted by machine, Clinton wins by 3.6%
Would be interesting to see a distribution of electronic counting - are the hand counting areas merely because some countries are poor? Or is it a control sample for the whole state?
Monsieur Punter (of the Peter variety) are you here??
Just having a bit of a chuckle looking at the thread from yesterday evening:
“311. 304 Nite Casino. You should be a richer man in the morning.”
Errrr………..
336. Yes - something fishy is going on.
What happened last night just doesn’t compute. And I’m not being bitter just because I lost a lot of money.
The odds of what happened must have been over 100/1 against.
Just a thought for punters: looking at Betfair I see the Obama is a massive favourite for SC (1.38!), but looking at RCP I see that Clinton was ahead there until the Obama post-Iowa boom put him 7% up. Assuming the the boom now subsides, that looks like value, unless Hillary skips SC - there was a rumour that she would, but mow I shouldn’t think she will.
We live in a world where only three or four leaders out of several hundred are women. There is now a real possibility that the most powerful country on earth could be about to buck that trend. Yet SeanT cries foul because a man not totally white lost .
For those looking to recoup after losing on NH !
Monthly meeting tomorrow on interset rates (UK)
Betfair odds on a 0.25% cut have shortened to 1.79.
Odds for a hold now 2.1.
Roger @ 344
Where does he ‘cry foul’ exactly?
Fraud allegations building up a head of steam….
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7753
http://www.bostonnow.com/blogs/boston911truthorg/2008/01/09/major-allegations-of-vote-fraud-in-new-hampshire
http://www.maltastar.com/pages/msFullArt.asp?an=17896
343 I see the Obama is a massive favourite for SC (1.38!), but looking at RCP I see that Clinton was ahead there until the Obama post-Iowa boom put him 7% up. Assuming the the boom now subsides, that looks like value
Eh!! - What on earth on you on about Nick?
343. Good spot. I’ve availed myself
347: needs to be something a bit more credible than the malta star and some fruitloop 9/11 “truth” site
345. How is that a good spot?
What are you recommending?
344. Does the fact he’s not “totally” White upset you? How would you have felt if he’d been “totally” Black?
Given we know you’re only voting for Clinton because she’s a woman; would you be more or less prejudiced?
347 This looks like a potentially massive story. Just off to bbc.co.uk to see whether they’ve picked up on it yet.
347. *If* this does build up a head of steam (and even if it’s only the allegations alone towards the Clinton Camp that stick) this could fatally damage her chances on Super-Tuesday.
Think about it…
“HILLARY CLINTON ACCUSED OF GERRYMANDERING MASSIVE VOTE FRAUD IN NEW HAMPSHIRE”
Her whole campaign would be in jeopardy and there’d be a huge swell of sympathetic support towards Obama.
Don’t lay off those Barack Obama bets just yet.
345. Paddypower offering 6/5 for a 25bp cut under Current Affairs.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601102&sid=azIiahpnsthE&refer=uk
New thread now up - what did you think would happen in 2008?
Thanks
Double Carpet
dodgy voting surely quite a sensitive subject amongst democrats after what happened in 2000, this could be really bad for clinton couldn’t it?
Hilary clinto won because her people voted by post (absentee ballots) before the Iowa rsults came in. It was good organisation in a state with a strong clinton base.
Obama only has to win either south carolina or nevada to stay competitive.
I was one of the many who believed the polls…mainly because I wanted to ..its why i dont bet on politics
353 It seems that both US parties are now involved in vote rigging. When will Left-Right politics move out of stone age? Never.
Nationalism is the way forward, as it the only true force of the people. Fianna Foil in Eire is a good example of a nationalist party living in the real world.
I thought Clegg did very, very well in PMQs today. I hope that Clegg continues to use the Lib Dems obvious appeal on more cerebral issues to talk about the more everyday things that really make a difference to people.
332 - well I hadn’t expected you to pour praise on Clegg, so I read your post with a large dollop of salt. Still, at least I read it!
358 not really convinced you can call the Democrats a party of the left.
On exit polls - and I was largely responsible for the ITN general election one in 1992! - yes, I do think that the shy Tories / ‘Bradley’ effects have an impact - in 1992 the exit poll of over 20,000 actual voters had a 5% Tory lead, it was in fact 8%.
However, it is not so much a matter as seanT suggests of lying to the exit pollsters, but of differential refusal to take part. You can replace a little old lady as a respondent with another little old lady, but if the first one refuses because she is an unfashionable Tory / hasn’t voted for Obama … you have a shortfall.
359
He read a question from a piece of paper, a question others helped him to write and failed to rebuff Brown’s ‘killer’ invitation, something Ming managed to handle [trap doors etc.].
What a low standard you have set. He didn’t make an obvious hash of it but if he has shown a weakness by failing to respond when he should, others may exploit it in future and I may need to review even my ’scrapped a pass’ assessment.
Think back to Cameron’s first outing against Blair! Raise the bar!
363 - spin, spin, spin!
Ann Treneman’s take on Mr Clegg’s PMQs debut has some good gags.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article3162653.ece