It’s back to a smiling Gordon with Ipsos-Mori
February 1st, 2008
Is Gord’s party really doing better than in 2005?
The results of Ipsos-Mori January face to face survey of more than 2000 people are just out and give Labour a one point lead - a huge change on the last survey by the pollster just three weeks ago. Unlike this survey the earlier poll was by phone.
These are the latest shares with comparisons on the earlier survey CON 37% (-5): LAB 38% (+6): LD 16% (+1). The fieldwork took place the week before last finishing on January 23rd. A YouGov poll that closed on the same date had an 8% Labour Conservative lead.
The 38% share for Labour is two points more than Tony Blair’s party secured at the last general election and, according to the Anthony Wells seat calculator, would give Labour 343 MPs an overall majority of 36. The Tories would be on 245 and the Lib Dems on 35.
While the size of the move to Labour is quite a shock it is in the same direction as all the other polls. The Tories have been faltering of late and that has been picked up by four of the five polling organisations
So what are commons seats spread-betters supposed to do? There is an enormous gulf between the polls and you can make the case for a Tory total ranging from 245 to 320 seats. That’s a big range. I turned my Tory BUY position into a Tory SELL at 300 seats last week. It looks like it was a good call.
UPDATE: I’ve just had this comment on the poll by Julia Clark - head of Political Research at Ipsos-MORI:-
No doubt you will notice that fieldwork was conducted more than a week ago; the delay in release was due to the fact that we were doing additional checks on the data as we did not expect to see a Labour lead (albeit a very small one)! However, we are confident that the data is correct and that it does reflect a temporary ‘blip’ of support for Labour, which was linked to dissatisfaction with Cameron and potentially also concern about the economy.
As you can see, net satisfaction with the Govt and Brown has increased since December (Govt: Net of -37 in Dec to -33 now; Brown: Net of -23 in Dec to -16 now), but net satisfaction with Govt and Brown among party supporters has dropped (Govt: Net of +21 in Dec to +17 now; Brown: Net of +41 in Dec to +28 now). This suggests to us that the very slight Labour lead figures are due to floating voters (or neutrals) moving towards Labour — despite their dislike of Brown himself.
This is also reflected in the ICM poll carried out over a similar time period, which also showed a Tory share of 37%, and showed a Labour share of 35% (well within the margin of error to our poll).
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Thanks Mike, it’s like old times.
re 1. I thought of you as I dug back into my files to find a smiling Gordon.
PS Are Labour doing better than in 2005? Probably not.
Will it be easier to get the vote out? Surely, if Labour play their cards right.
If a poll looks like a rogue, as this one does, it may well be a bit rogueish, but you can’t ignore it altogether.
I would make the assumption that this poll is indeed overly favourable to Labour, but also that the “true” underlying value has indeed shifted (e.g. maybe to C 38 - L 36). And bet (or not) accordingly.
Nice to see a smiling Gordon again instead of a grinning Dave
A rogue poll is one that produces numbers that contradict all the other pollsters.
Mike , it is not strictly correct to compare changes between this face to face poll and the early Jan Sun telephone poll . A Mori representative has posted on Anthony’s site that the face to face polls give a consistent couple of % higher Labour rating than their telephone polls mostly at the expense of the minor parties .
2 Good Stuff, must have been quite some feat of archeology. It has been a while. What’s your gut feeling on how the Lib Dems are doing at the moment?
BTW was sorry that my sick bed kept me catching up with you (and everyone)at the party. Would have been fun! Next time!
4 - This looks a little bit roguish but reflects a little bit of Conservative drift and probably a bit of the fact that January has been politically rather odd. I would be surprised if Labour build a sustained lead off the back of this, I think the current default position is stalemate to a Tory lead of 4-5%. Obviously with Conway and any other expenses detonations which may include other parties then the next few polls will probably be erratic. I think it also reflects that people are probably not actively taking much interest in politics at the moment.
The Con and LD points are within one standard deviation of the mean for january, the labour is within four.
What you say about the YouGov. poll, is that unweighted for certainty to vote?
The MORI polls was conducted on 17-23 January and gave Labour 38, Conservatives 37. The ComRes poll was conducted on 23-25 January and gave Labour 30, Conservatives 38.
Either (a) something is wrong with one or both polling mechanisms or (b) something caused Labour to slump 8 points in a few days (Peter Hain?). If the latter then I’d expect the Conway incident to have made an impact since those latter ComRes figures and some/all of the Tory 8 point lead in the more recent poll to be wiped out.
Have I got my order of play right?
8 Hope you’re feeling better, Jonathan. I expect there will be a Summer Party, and maybe some other events.
More anon.
Bizarre poll. I think it has to be a rogue. Things were always likely to get a little better for Labour after the November debacle - could it have got worse - but what possible reason is there for a turnaround?
Cameron still seems unconvincing and I’m still sure that he was tactically wrong on marriage and maybe inheritance tax aswell. The whole Conway thing is bad too because it plays into the negative pre-conceived ideas that people have of the Tories - that they like rampant nepotism. With the frontbench looking like an old boys reunion and plenty of their MPs employing family members they’re gonna have to deal with this fast. But is Dave really in touch with public opinion?
I’ve said it all along. People won’t vote for the Tory toff. They were merely “flirting” with the Tories in the polls. The more tough the economic outlook becomes the worse the Tories will do. Who on the Tory front bench has any experience of running more than a bath, never mind a UK PLC needing some TLC? The Conway affair will be devastating, because it shouts “See. The Tories never change..” The Tories also made a strategic mistake in installing Cameron too early in the cycle. His freshness has worn off now…
Meanwhile, back in the USofA…
http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
Obama creeps a little closer.
sorry ComRes was 25-27 Jan, so the Labour slump (if there was one) was between 23-25 Jan. How does that tie-in with the Hain story?
Mike, you refer to an 8 point Labour lead in a YouGov poll in the article. Do you mean 8 point Tory lead?
15 - and how exactly do you build those sentiments into your swingometer, Rod?
Who will be most disappointed: call-me-Dave or the Blairite plotters from two threads ago?
15. Verging on the hysterical…a pastiche of Roger and Coldstone
I don’t dismiss this as its in line with the trend of other polls. But does this really feel like a country where Labour are more popular than in 2005? or that the Tories are behind? So underlying message yes, headline figure, No.
15. Quite a lot of wishful thinking there I think. Check out Yougov’s figures on economic competence/handling Northern Rock etc.
Just found some exciting news!
The Cheeky one is doing his 1st interview with the Romanian pop princess tonight (just one of them I think). Al Murray’s Happy Hour on ITV.
Who says they’ve dumbed down?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7220965.stm
Signs that the SNP regime in Scotland may be running out of money.
25 - sorry correct link is http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7220965.stm
Is the Salmond honeymoon over? Could Holyrood raise taxes in Scotland by up to 3p?
19. I don’t have to. The swingometer is “blind”, like Justice itself. As I’ve told you before, I’ve never voted Labour in my life and am unlikely to do so at the next election either. I say it as I see it - straight down the line…
FWIW, I don’t believe this poll is any more accurate than any other poll. People here get too hung-up on each one individually, instead of looking for trends. I indentified the trend a couple of weeks ago on here, saying the Tories peaked in the second week of December 2007. Seems like I was right…
Some really massive McCain leads in new State polls by Survey USA:
New York - McCain leads by 34%
New Jersey - McCain leads by 23%
Connecticut - McCain leads by 22%
Someone said McCain was only getting 1/3 of the vote up to now. These polls show him up around 50%. See Real Clear Politics:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/latestpolls/index.html
Rasmussen do a fun little thing where you can buy and sell candidates on different markets. At the moment (huge pinch of salt) the summary for Tuesday is:
Clinton: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah.
Obama: Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, North Dakota.
Very tight: Minnesota, Connecticut.
Romney: Colorado, Massachusetts, Montana, North Dakota, Utah.
Huckabee: Arkansas.
McCain: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Tennessee.
If that’s right it looks over on the Republican side. The Democrat side is more difficult because they are not winner-takes-all whereas several Republican ones are.
Interestingly 70 Tories employ members of their families. 12 Lib Dems.
As for the MORI poll so close behind the ICM one surely shows what has been obvious to political watchers for some weeks. David Cameron is starting to remind people of their first wives/husbands. He either stops behaving like a hectoring fish-wife or I can only see it ending in tears. He needs to get back to his shirt sleeves and relax. He’s not behaving in a very attractive way at the moment!
If this poll is an accurate reflection of national voting intention I will eat my hat.
I think RodCrosby is right to say that the Conservatives have peaked for the time being and also I think Labour have bottomed out for the moment at least.
Consequently there will be a fight back from Labour and a narrowing of the polls during the lead up to the Budget, but a turnaround like this in a week? No way.
I’ve just checked the changes agaisnt there last face to face poll. the tory/LD changes are the same down 5 and up 1 respectively. its the labour swing thats different from plus 3 to plus 6. Given that its taken before both hain and conway i suspect they may just cancell each other out or we might get a “jennifers ear” style LD bounce.
Still any deluded LD who thought the party would get an automatic “New Leader” bounce must be feeling sick. all the polls I have seen since clegg took over have seen 1 or 2% increases in the party share. a consistent trend i grant but within the margin of error.
28 - It really looks all over on the Republican side, doesn’t it? I can see Romney calling it a day on Wednesday (Huckabee may press on for a laugh but he hasn’t got the overheads to worry about).
28. Further to the above, New York, New Jersey and Connecticut are all Winner Takes All. Even if Romney staged a comeback and managed to edge ahead throughout the rest of the country, as long as McCain wins the North East he should still be OK.
28: Those three aren’t really competitive after the Giuliani endorsement, and presumably no advertising from Romney. They’re all dead contests.
What we really need are more up to date polls in California, Illinois and Missouri - Romney probably needs all three (as well as miracles elsewhere) to avoid a complete knockout.
28. Grudgingly, I think I’ll have to back McCain for President now. Obama seems to be standing still (there’s been enough mood music) and there’s too many people who dislike Hillary. Shaun Woodwood’s defence of her on QT last night just sounded ridiculous.
31 - “If this poll is an accurate reflection of national voting intention I will eat my hat.”
But we will never know Marcus, so that is a hollow boast.
32. Actually the LDs are up more like 5% from their nadir of 11.8%, which occurred in late October 2007. They are hovering around the 17% mark now….
UPDATE - I’ve just had an email from Julia Clark - head of Political Research at the firm which I have added to the main article.
I’m old fashioned and think the Government will get a small lift in february. Its light at 5pm now and everyone has had there first pay packet of the year.
My gast is flabbered.
Even bearing in mind my anti-Brown bias I’m very surprised. Of course, even with a sample size of 2,000 it’s entirely possible to get an unrepresentative sample.
There’s nothing really to explain that turn around. It’s… bizarre.
39. Thanks Julia. You took the words right out of my mouth…
42 - Have you ever admitted to error?
(strange to recall the ding dong the witch is dead (twice) after Iowa)
32 “Still any deluded LD who thought the party would get an automatic “New Leader” bounce must be feeling sick.”
I consistently argued against the idea of a Clegg bounce. I am not aware that any LD or Liberal leader of the last 60 years has had a bounce on ascending to the leadership. Steady as she goes is more the way.
SEAN FEAR’s SLOT. This is being held over until tomorrow.
27. Oh come off it Rod. Your comments on recent threads show clearly that your claim to be some kind of scientific observer of political trends is false.
You are merely a peddler of selective and dubious stats, a slightly more sophisticated version of Mark Senior and the other ‘two-horse race’ bar chart merchants.
41. Except you should never take a single poll as Gospel. The Tories may well still be ahead, but the gap has narrowed by about 4% - say a 2% swingback to Labour in the past 7 weeks..
If 12 LibDems and 70 Tories have declared that they have some family members working for them there is no problem provided that the work is done, and accounted for accurately. I’m sure that some clarity from NuLab ministers and MPs would be welcomed. In any case keeping such work in the family may prevent the usual ‘desert island problems’ associated with MPs and their secretaries/researchers.
Publishing old poll data does seem to be odd, it doesn’t really add to Mori’s credibiliy.
42 Julia Clark mentions a “temporary blip”, which I think is rather different to your argument.
The more recent Yougov and ComRes surveys put Labour on 33% and 30% respectively. Either Labour’s boost turned out to be very shortlived indeed, or most likely, a rating of 38% was an outlier.
39: Such a ‘temporary blip’ no other pollster noticed?
44. I agree with you entirely. Ashdown and Kennedy had miserable starts. LD leaders don’t get Honey moons. Try telling that to some in the party though. To many people think the Pre iraq 23/24% high water mark is the norm and are avoiding long term questions of narrative and strategic direction.
38 quite correct. however nearly all of that increase has come from the ledaership coverage and Vince shinning at PMQ’s. ie the abnormally low polls during the brown bounce were because of lack of coverage not Ming being useless per se.
So looking at the last 4 polls, we have:
ICM (ended 20 Jan) - Con lead 2%
MORI (ended 23 Jan) - Lab lead 1%
YouGov (ended 23 Jan) - Con lead 8%
ComRes (ended 27 Jan) - Con lead 8%
Overall average - Con lead 4%.
27 - Figures are manipulated by people. They don’t lie of themselves but people use them to back up their own lies.
28 - McCain surely should be on his own after Tuesday of this is the case, I doubt that will be so with the dems though (I also note our resident Clinton supporter’s support for Brown - QED on that one I think).
29 - The one that looks like value is Delaware, I think it’ll go Obama not Clinton. On the GOP side, Massachusetts for McCain? Surely not, and yet…….
I thought that in the report I sawthe figure was more than 70 Conservatives which could mean 71 , 120 or any figure higher than 70 .
29 That’s a simple and very helpful summary, James.
The huge leads McCain has in delegate rich NE States make him a very strong favorite. In fact, I’m calling it for him (even if Yokel won’t yet.)
The Democrat race is far tighter than might be apparent from that list, largely because they are not winner take all, and at least one big State - California - looks like being close.
I make her a 1.6 chance (which I think we now all now know is 8/13, yes Aaron?)
Before everyone gets too excited. Mori produced a poll for the Observer back in October (23rd) which was out of step. It gave Labour a 1 point lead when all those around it showed a Conservative lead (3-8) points.
Perhaps it is just something to do with face to face polls on a periodic basis?
Over the past few weeks it seems to me that increasingly the polls are giving a confusing picture. The ICM Guardian / ICM Other dichotomy and the now repeated Mori out of step poll. All this is leading me to trust them all a little less.
39 Mike
It really is very good that Julia Clark is prepared to explain her firm’s figures in the way she does. I trust you thank her on our behalf.
Rod - I have answered your taxi problem on the previous thread… if you could confirm…
56. MORI’s polls are very volatile, as a look at the time series shows. Looking at monthly changes you probably see more noise than signal.
52. “Overall average - Con lead 4%”
I’d put it a bit higher actually, but certainly down from about 10% in mid-December..
Odd poll, such a massive swing is probably a rogue.
53 - Maybe Utah for Obama as well, both it and Delaware having had no reliable polling done.
The Progressive magazine did a good article on the debate …
http://www.progressive.org/mag_rc020108
a little taster …
Overall, Hillary won, mostly because Obama was on his heels almost the whole time. He seemed meek and hesitant–overly deferential and reluctant to throw punches, lest he be accused, as he has been lately by the Clinton camp, of seeming unfriendly. He was fighting on two fronts: against Hillary, who seemed full of confidence and had the crowd with her, and against Wolf Blitzer, who interpreted everything Obama said to distinguish himself, however diplomatically, as a “swipe” at Hillary.
I wonder what is happening in Connecticut - Obama now has a 4 point lead …
63 - Raise you with - overall, Obama won.
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/01/31/debate-thoughts.aspx
“Apart from Iraq, immigration was the one substantive issue that wasn’t a draw, and it was Obama who got the better of it.”
” As for Iraq, it’s the only exchange the Clinton camp should be truly concerned about after tonight.”
“The question was: Will you be able to control your husband? Coming on the heels of today’s New York Times expose about Bill’s junkets to Kazakhstan, I felt like she had an obligation to confront it directly. She didn’t come anywhere close.”
And on we go….
Perhaps one explanation for the volatility is that YouGov polls tend to reflect the political story of the day more than the other pollsters not least because their respondents are likely to be more politically sophisticated than other pollsters respondents. The first day of their last poll was on the day Hain resigned. As for the Com Res poll; I though no-one took it seriously?
On the Dem side Obama is definitely closing in. The Rasmussen tracker is at Clinton 43 Obama 37, but since Edwards pulled out its Clinton 44 Obama 42 (the sample size is small though).
In all the state polling the gap is shrinking - Clinton isn’t falling but Obama is rising. It looks like Edwards voters are moving more to Obama than Clinton.
State polling released today:
Rasmussen: Illinois Obama + 36
New Jersey Clinton + 12
SUSA: Massachusetts Clinton +24
New York Clinton +16
New Jersey Clinton +12
Connecticut Obama +4
Given the proportional nature it could well be that Clinton comes out with a lead under 100 delegates, in which case the race carries on. However if either manage to end up with 150 more delegates, or win more than 14/15 states I think momentum plus the desire to end the contest unite around the nominee would give that candidate a big advantage.
What is great is that it is still open and Super Tuesday is still up in the air.
65 UKPaul - And for what very little it’s worth, Luntz gave it to Obama by a country mile.
But then Luntz is a country member.
“(CNN) — In the latest sign that a conservative backlash is starting to build against John McCain, conservative commentator Ann Coulter said Thursday she is prepared to vote for Hillary Clinton over the Arizona senator in a general election match up.”
If you have Ann Coulter on your side, you’ve got to be very, very worried. It’s like being praised by the bastard lovechild of Simon Heffer and Janet Daley. Be careful the company you keep…..
“”if [McCain's] our candidate, than Hillary is going to be our girl, because she’s more conservative than he is,” ”
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/01/coulter-wants-clinton-over-mccain/
“Coulter also said she is prepared to campaign on Clinton’s behalf should McCain win the party’s nomination.”
Oh. My. God.
69, guaranteed McCain win. Ann Coulter’s just mental.
58. ‘Fraid you’re first line is wrong… Check that conditional probability equation!
29 et al. With Obama closing in on Clinton, especially in the smaller states whilst she focuses on defending the her large delegate ones, the 7/2 Ladbrokes now offer for Obama to win more states than Clinton might be value, especially versus 6/4 for the nomination.
The 1/4 for McCain to win most states on Tuesday looks to be better value than backing him for the nomination and will payout sooner as well.
69 - and watch the heads of the more “passionate” Dem explode should that happen
O/T: Credit Crunch update: Merrill Lynch charged with securities fraud by Massachusetts over CDO sales. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=avXBG8Hbmm8U&refer=home
Any Sean Fear
Coral’s stand out price of 7-4 on there being no overall majority at the next GE looks good value to me.
I know that PtP has long been a big fan of this bet at around these odds.
I just can’t see the Tories having any realistic chance of achieving a majority unless the LibDems win fewer than 30 seats, which seems unlikely.
Whilst Labour could get there, there are mega problems with the economy just around the corner(like very necessary and substantial tax increases as well as huge cuts in public spending). Add to that falling house prices and Labour will be hard pressed to improve on their current poll ratings over the next two years.
The net result, IMHO, is that both parties will win between 260 and 300 seats, well short of the 326 fifure required for an overall majority. If pressed, my current expectation is for Labour to secure a slightly higher seat tally (280-290) than the Tories(270-280).
72 Thanks Caveman but for once I’ll pass over your hint. It seems to me that ‘doing well’ for Obama could mean running her closer than expected in her States, whilst winning comfortably in his.
I mean, if she’s only 12 ahead in New York she may come up well short on her total number of delegates, especially if he does well in California.
McCain is indeed value at anything better than 1/8, but it’s not my kind of bet.
Gallup national tracker: Clinton 44 Obama 41
Tomorrow will be the first day when all the data is after Edwards dropped out.
76 That’s about what I have in mind, PfP, but I’ve bored everybody here to death about NOM so I’ll say no more.
71 - Yeah… spotted really obvious mistake - have put second answer (without calcs) for confirmation, but pretty sure it’s right this time. (Hangs head in shame)
Something very few people will be interested in; assuming that respondents to a polls preference for a political party follows a poisson distribution, with mean 39.71 for the conservatives, 33 for labour and 17 for the LD. i.e. the average of the last eight polls, not including the latest MORI.
If we are looking for the probability of a poll giving a Lab lead of 1% we get 3% the probability of choosing respondents who’d give a Con lead of 1% is 4%.
The probability of getting this exact poll is: .02%
78 Yes, I noticed that Kieran.
The striking thing is that the two trackers, Rasmussen and Gallup, have been moving slowly in the same direction for a while now.
I have just heard from a private source is that the super-delegates from Connecticut have decided that en mass that they will back Obama.
83. Three of Connecticut’s four Democratic Reps have announced that they are endorsing Obama. Does that mean a Dodd endorsement, too?
re 69. Hillary, off course, has a GOP past. In 1964 she was an avid supporter of Barry Goldwater.
If our household is typical of Democratic households we are both Clintonistas at the moment but could easily turn into Obamatrons depending on how Super Tuesday goes ..
At the moment we both would vote for Clinton in MN - but after the debate where we thought both candidates did really well - I thought she won by a whisker, my partner thought it was a statistical tie - we are now wondering if the momentum is going so fast towards Obama that by the end of Tuesday night he will be in a clear position to win ..
It is still too close to call but Tuesday could be very interesting … we may even switch horses on Wednesday depending on how it goes …
30, Roger,
How many Labour members employ members of their families? The “newspaper”* I read with the “70 Tories” headline also emphasised that the Labour Party had refused to answer.
(*It was one of those free London ones, thus the quotes around “newspaper”)
It might make for one good headline, but personally I’d say that the Tories are playing it as they should(as are the Lib Dems, if they’ve answered and it’s “12″ as mentioned above). We all know here that, as Frank Field said, there are acceptable - even good, in his opinion - reasons to do so, regardless of whatever hysteria the media whip up. I’m still a bit uncomfortable about the whole concept, but those who support it have made a decent case.
Labour may get away with keeping schtum - it’s about time the media took a breather from kicking them, because it’s getting a bit samey, which is a bad idea in media terms - but they may also open the door marked “why are they not saying … what are they hiding?”.
I think that the Parties who are openly saying who is doing what happen to be doing right. I hope that Labour end up doing so as well - one thing we’ve all learned from the negative attacks from all Parties over the past few decades is that they end up tarring all politicians with the same brush, so even if my Party does end up benefiting (ie, the media do decide to attack on the grounds of “why aren’t Labour telling us?”) in the short term, all Parties will end up losing out in the long term.
A CNN quick poll
Which is the dream ticket for Democrats?
Clinton-Obama 29% 4424
Obama-Clinton 27% 4068
Neither 44% 6674
Total Votes: 15166
the poll is still live
As I’ve been saying both here and on Anthony Well’s site, its becoming obvious that Cameron needs to move his strategy on and start developing a coherant narrative in the publics mind as what this guy is all about and where he wants to take the nation. We’re not at a crisis point yet, but slowly the Tories failure to develop a narrative is handing the initiative back to Brown.
Apologies to stjohn and Jon I re last night’s debate on conditionals - which I missed being asleep. See end of previous thread.
I’m as baffled as anyone else by the poll, and we’d better await more polls before trying to spot trends. But it’s worth noting one thing: the *same* sample is extremely pessimistic about the economy. That suggests that swing voters tend to feel that Labour and Brown are better in times of economic uncertainty, which sort of fits with the comment from Julia Clark.
I think James Burdett has a good point on voters not paying much attention at the moment - they feel there’s unlikely to be an election soon (little knowing that as we speak the car is revving up to head for the Palace…
) and they aren’t much impressed by anyone. So they swing more readily with whatever happens to be in the headlines. I always felt the doom and gloom about Labour from friend and foe alike was overdone: I’ve registered mild fed-upness rather than loathing on the doorstep. That doesn’t mean I think we’re poised to win - it seems to me very open.
90 Sleep, Barnesian?! PBers don’t sleep.
I do hope you will be with us through the nite on SuperfantasticincredibleTuesday.
72 Caveman - your spot of Ladbrokes offering on Obama winning the most States looks excellent value. Should he however decide to jack it, say after Super Tuesday, presumably he wouldn’t then recceive any support from the later voting States?
81. Sounds fishy to me.
79 That’s about what I have in mind, PfP, but I’ve bored everybody here to death about NOM so I’ll say no more.
That being the case PtP, we’ll have a very exclusive party after the event to celebrate our spoils.
90. No problem Bayesian. Right off to play p*ker. Laters! as someone here used to say. Someone who will be encouraged by the poll moves in Obama’s favour.
94. Never heard that one before.
What it means in Layman’s terms is that if you assume the actual population follows the averages from the last eight polls, then 3 out of 100 polls will show Labour 1% ahead. Personally i think that’s too low a probability to dismiss this as a rogue and we must assume the population has changed.
91 - I would say though in terms of future direction of opinion that Labour carries slightly greater downside risk in that longevity will amplify any shift albeit only slightly. The economy probably plays two ways and will harden up some support but will probably peel away others. From here on in is crunch time in terms of shaping the overall narrative for the election. Labour have a slightly harder task in convincing voters who are open to switching that there are compelling reasons not to, the Conservatives have only got to encourage the switch and in their direction.
95 And toast Rod Crosby, and his famous thesis, PfP.
80. Yes, both you and Barnesian are correct. In other words, relying on a 80% accurate witness in these circumstances will more likely than not result in sending the wrong guy to jail! These kinds of non-intuitive results are in turn related to prospect theory, which would explain why Labour may well win the next election…
Barnesian, I think you are wrong in your U-turn on stjohn’s equation, although as I pointed out in post 86 on the previous thread, the problem is not really susceptible to a simple solution.
97. I probably should apologise for that bad joke G. But in the words of that famous chanteur Norman Lamont, Je ne regrette rien.
96 Laters!
Short for “see you later”, as a throw away expression, i.e. without literally meaning it. Suddenly I’m seeing and hearing this everywhere. From memory, “See you later” is Wm Morrison’s corporate jingo equivalent to Tesco’s “Every little helps”, both equally nauseating!
99 Yes, Rod can come for free.
85,Maybe,but Hillary was only 18 at the time of the 1964 presidential election:as a 12 year old boy in 1983,I wanted Mrs.Thatcher to beat Michael Foot-to this day I hang my head in shame
Has there been any movement on the spreads?
104 in 1983,I wanted Mrs.Thatcher to beat Michael Foot - to this day I hang my head in shame.
Patrick, don’t you have a stiff neck by now?
101 Stop codding!
104 - do you really really really think that Foot would have been a better PM than Thatcher.
I dread to think what this country would have turned into. We would have left the EU and Nato much the same as Albania left Comecon and Warsaw pact. Nobody would have given a toss about Britain.
94 Sounds fishy to me.
Is that a coded request for me to post, once again, my Brummie kipper tie joke, probably the finest ever to appear on PB.com?
109 - a classic joke. But I prefer my Polish bride joke.
The Telegraph this morning identified 34 or so Labour MPs who employ family members, mainly wives or partners. That was just the number that they could identify. As Labour whips have told their MPs not to take part in the survey we can only assume they have a lot more to reveal and a lot to hide.
re 105. Yes - IG Tory seats are down 4 and Labour is up 4. All the markets seems to have 294-300 seats for the Tories with Labour on 272-278 seats.
109 Go on then SBS, if you insist, it sounds contemporary.
113 - what does a good Catholic Polish bride get that is long and hard on her wedding day?
115 - Her surname?
115 - indeed!
108
We’d have left the EU, there are plenty of Tories, (the majority?) who’d be blessing Foot’s name.
The poll, Labour should be giving a vote of thanks to one Derek Conway. It probably proves what many of us think, the Tory lead is somewhat soft. The voters are bored and dissatisfied with Labour, but not convinced by the Tories.
Saw on Conhome, that the News of the World has been ferreting about over the MP’s allowances issue, could be more bad news to come, who will it be this time?
114-116 ROFL, I have to say!
Ann Coulter is indeed mad. If I were McCain, I’d be delighted if she were campaigning for the other side.
Heffer and Janet Daley are actually very moderate by comparison with her.
117. The poll was taken before the Conway affair, plonker.
As I pointed out in 2006 when discussing the Samplemiser technique, polling involves trying to separate out two components; the sampling error, and real change of opinion. If opinion never changed, we would just average out all the polls to give us the best possible estimate of opinion. On the other hand, if there was no sampling error, we would just take the most recent poll and discard all the rest. The truth lies somewhere between the two extremes. My best guess is, despite the Mori poll, the Tories are (were?) still considerably ahead of Labour (by 5-6%), although that would only put them a handful of seats ahead, with the LDs as kingmakers. The electoral system rides to Labour’s rescue again.
We still don’t have a post-Conway poll however, which I think will do more damage to the Tories than Hain et al did to Labour.
My best guess is the polling shifts have seen the projected Tory seats tumble by about 40, from 330 in December to 290 at the moment.
Another point. Even if we “sampled” every single person in the UK on polling-day, that survey may not necessarily be reflected in the actual voting outcome, due to differential turnout, etc.
I will repeat my plea again. Don’t get too excited by a single poll. You will be wrong more often than you are right..
O/T
Well worth checking out CNN trades for super Tuesday
A lot of fun and its free !!!!
Who will win the Democratic nomination for U.S. president in 2008?
TIP: Current value = probability prediction will occur, e.g. $10 = 10% chance prediction will occur.
Select one:
PREDICTIONS CURRENT VALUE TODAY
Barack Obama $52.19 $5.08
Hillary Clinton $47.81 $-5.08
John Edwards $0.00 (closed)
None of the above $0.00 0.00
Interesting prospect and one I wouldn’t rule out !!!
(CNN) – Many Democrats call it a “dream ticket.” Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton — in whichever order.
And after the civil affair at Thursday’s debate, it seems like more of a possibility — at least, perhaps, more of a possibility than it was in the last several weeks when the two candidates were locked in a heated back-and-forth on the campaign trail.
But both Democrats artfully dodged the notion of running together in a general election when CNN’s Wolf Blitzer raised the possibility.
“Well, obviously there’s a big difference between those two,” Obama said to laughter regarding whether his name or the New York senator’s is on top.
“But, look, let me say this,” Obama continued. “I respect Sen. Clinton. I think her service to this country has been extraordinary. And I’m glad that we’ve been walking on this road together and that we are still on that road.We’ve got a lot more road to travel. And so I think it’s premature for either of us to start speculating about Vice Presidents — I think it would be premature and presumptuous.”
Clinton also would not say whether she thought it was a possibility.
“This has been an extraordinary campaign, and I think both of us have been overwhelmed by the response that we have engendered, the kind of enthusiasm and intensity that people feel about each of us,” she said. “And so, clearly, we are both dedicated to doing the best we can to win the nomination, but there is no doubt we will have a unified Democratic Party.”
Rogue polls
Latest Mori could indeed be a rogue, or blip as pollster lady prefered. However seems consistent with US polling and actual primary results, which have shown significant volatility in voter motivations, intentions and choices.
California debating
Here is how the recent CA primary debates were covered on the NBC Today Show - still a morning institution, esp. the first half hour.
GOP: McCain & Romney sparing, Mitt appealing to conservatives and going on attack, but JMcC getting the best lines; clips showed McCain vigorous and Romney looking gobsmacked (to use an apt Britism). Tim Rusert & other talking heads agreed McCain got the best of it, both on Iraq and as being more authentic (the two being related).
DEMS: Clinton and Obama making nice, like friends and potential presidents should. No coverage re: health care or immigration, just two things featured: Hillary’s “Clinton having to clean up after Bush” line; and Obama challenging her on Iraq. Rustert and other talking heads said Obama was right and Hillary wrong when she tried to claim the key vote wasn’t really a vote to go to war.
My point is this: a relatively small number of voters watched the actual debate. A great many more will see clips and commentary on cable tv and other outlets. Of these I would argue that the Today Show is perhaps the most influential, both because it reaches a mass audience (though but a fraction of what it got when the networks were all the TV there was) and because it has a big impact via local TV news on NBC (and other network) affiliates, on national news organizations, plus weekend news shows such as “Meet the Press” and “Washington Week in Review”
re 121. Rod - we should have Populus in the Times on Tuesday. The fieldwork, which incidentally is usually carried out here in Bedford less than a mile away from where I am writing this, would have started today and continues until Sunday.
I like Populus and the firm’s head, Andrew Cooper.
Latest Fox national has McCain +28 over Romney. Gallup also says it’s heading that way on their 3 day tracker, as figures minus Giuliani arrive. Looks like Giuliani’s support went overwhelmingly to McCain, as expected.
Also an Alabama (48 delegates) poll, showing McCain +9 over Huckabee, and +19 over Romney.
All the doomsters have kept very quiet today as the FTSE rose strongly to close back over the 6,000 level .
Only just noticed that there is more pressure on Wendy Alexander.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7223100.stm
93. Just to be clear, the prices on who will win the most states apply to next Tuesday’s contests only.
Ref 2o - John L
Presumably you’re referring to me. Not a Blairite plotter at all!
Honestly. Believe me! (I’m NOT a politician.)
;0)
I don’t think this Ipsos/Mori poll sounds all that accurate. But if it is, well, the present PM is not yet dead in the water. We’ll see.
More polls from Fox:
Clinton 47 Obama 37
McCain 45 Clinton 44
McCain 43 Obama 44
Clinton 50 Romney 36
Obama 51 Romney 33
SUSA:
Alabama - Clinton 47 Obama 47
Missouri - Clinton 48 Obama 44
Greenberg (a Democratic pollster):
New Jersey - Clinton 44 Obama 38
This getting tighter and tighter. I just don’t see how Clinton can get a commanding lead in delegates on ST with these kind of numbers, especially if the trends continue. Although Clinton’s support sems to be holding up, but Obama is winning undecided/Edwards votes.
Incidentally, McCain’s lead increasing from single digits to 28% is headlined by Fox News as ….. “McCain maintains lead”.
127.
Yes
Sterling back below 1.97.
Could Merv be planning a Ben and go for a .50 bp cut? After all Ben is targeting asset prices and not inflation these days.
Number crunching
Glad that the learned and entertaining, if occassionaly baffling math discussion is continuing.
Seems reasonable, estimating at no more than 1% the likelyhood that a candidate running for major party nomination will fail, but still go on to win the Presidency. Esp. since it’s never happened since 1789.
Indeed, there has only been one presidential election where a candidate won major party nomination but finished third: 1912 when Wm Taft finished behind Teddy Roosevelt, who came in 2nd after winner Woodrow Wilson.
Incidentially, heard Ron Paul quoted today, on the possibility that he might run this year in the general election as Libertarian nominee, like he did in 1988. In response, RP deprecated the effectiveness of a 3rd party run, the difficulty of getting on the ballot in all 50 states, impossibility of being allowed to debate the major party nominees.
91: Interesting comment about the economy, that ‘concerns’ lead to an increase in Labour support. I confess to not understanding this. The logical extension is that when floating voters are made unemployed and have their houses repossessed, they will then join the labour party…
Bizarre, inexplicable and depressing poll. Again, who are these people who want to vote Labour????? Why?????
131 Proportionality of the Democratic nomination process is now working in Obama’s favor, because he keeps him in the game as long as he’s competitive with Clinton in the delegate counts.
Will also keep Hillary from doing a swan dive a la Giuliani or Romney if she starts to slip.
However, by the same token, if one or the other begins to build a lead on Super Tuesday and sustains this trend, then they will quickly start to pull ahead in the (prospective) delegate count.
So a prolonged stalemate is unlikely, unless of course Clinton and Obama stay dead even, or close enough that the (prospective) Edwards delegates become the racer’s edge.
135 There are two arguments that are advanced on the economy that favour Labour. One, that if inflation and unemployment remain low, a greatful electorate will return Labour to power. The other, that if the economy suffers, people will rally to Labour. Either may be true, but both can’t be.
MAINE REPUBLICAN CAUCUS - FEB 1-2, 2008
Maine GOP will select 18 national convention delegates via process begining with caucuses being held in towns across the state. Delegates elected by towns will attend the state GOP convention.
Some towns scheduled their GOP caucuses for tonight, but most are meeting on Saturday morning or afternoon.
Only registered Republicans eligible to vote in Maine GOP town caucuses.
Fearless prediction: McCain
137 - I don’t see why they can’t both be true. In theory it is possible that people now trust Labour more on the economy than the Conservatives, and credit them with good management over the last decade. If this continues then Labour will be able to trumpet this performance. If it doesn’t then they can argue that they are best placed to deal with the problems. There is an argument that this was a factor in 92. Ironically, under the later scenario Labour may do better because the economy will have more saliency.
I don’t think either scenario is right. The economy will have some impact but won’t determine the election. I don’t think Labour have or will get that much credit for good economic performance.
If the economy suffers, which looks likely, the political consequences will be determined by the perceived causes. If it is put down larger to internation effects Labour may get away with it. If not they could be damaged.
46.
“You are merely a peddler of selective and dubious stats, a slightly more sophisticated version of Mark Senior and the other ‘two-horse race’ bar chart merchants. ”
‘Harry’, on the other hand is a totally unsophisticated pedlar. Not in the Conway league, obviously, just pushing-Hain.
Given that the Democrats look (to me) as though they are wiping each other out, and that McCain seems to have a fairish chance of the Republican nomination, I have two questions:
Who will McCain choose as VP? Rice?
How will the House and Senate elections turn out if it is close?
142 Dems are certain to increase their lead in the Senate, because of the seats that are coming up.
But I’d like to know from wise commentators like Socrates, and Sea Shanty Irish. Will the House go to whoever wins the Presidency, or will the Dems hold it in any case?
139 “Fearless prediction: McCain.”
Wow, you’re a brave man, SSI. I tell you what. I’ll match your courage.
You can back him with me - 50/1 on. Maximum bet 10$.
Canadian $.
143 Must be gobbling up you medicine chest if you think Obama & Clinton are “whiping each other out”.
But that’s your affair.
As for McCain’s running mate, certainly won’t be Condi Rice; has a surface attractiveness but has demonstrated she’s a bumbling lightweight. Also, McCain needs a VP with domestic political credibility, as he’s already got hawk side covered.
As for US House & Senate, should be good year for Democrats. Both McCain & Obama has some potential for significant coat-tail effect, likely Obama moreso than JMcC. Whereas Clinton by contrast would likely have little or no coat-tails.
The most damaging economic scenario for an incumbent government is for a shortish recession that is over by the time of the election.
You get the down side of the “economic incompetence” tag and none of the potential upside of the “cling to nurse for fear of worse” meme.
Which means, paradoxically, that if there is a downturn, a government should avoid a recovery until just after the next election (an ideal time to say “we told you that we’d fix it if you trusted us”)
144 - would think that particular bet (at least the legal tender) more suited to John Looney!
140: But Labour will say if it’s good, it’s down to them, and if it’s bad, it’s because of ‘global effects’
Can’t have it both ways in theory, but this poll and experience suggests that gallingly, they might. There are, for example, people who still believe that Brown was a good chancellor
It is, however, still very much up to the tories to provide a coherent alternative. That (i.e the perceived lack of such a thing) I think is the most likely reason that they are not way ahead in the polls right now.
Joe public does not focus on political matters mid-term that much, but the combination of a possible economic downturn and an election coming up will make it tougher for Labour in a year or two. But again, it all boils down to Dave having some (or more) credible and sensible policies, not Blair-lite or ‘anyone but Gordon’.
(the latter is probably enough for me I confess… but not everyone)
O/T - Well - I guessed Derren Brown’s system. Does that make me clever or was it obvious?
143 - Think US House will stay Democratic even if McCain wins Presidency.
But would expect a win by JMcC to limit potential Democratic gains in places like suburban Philadelphia & Chicago.
147 Nothing wrong with PB’s OMRLP candidate, mate!
145. Hmm. I said “wiping” and was derisively quoted as saying “whiping” (whatever that is). Sorry, I posed a question out of ignorance. As usual, political people just sneer.
151 - I absolutely revere the sainted memory of Screaming Lord Sutch, and no dissing of esteemed Mr. Loony or any other ORMLP stalwart intended!
My feeble reference was to Canuck currencey aka “loonie” (after the noble arctic bird featured on the coin).
135. It can be explained by Prospect Theory. Why do most people lose at investing (and gambling)? The way to win at these endeavors is to follow the age-old advice “Cut your losses and let your profits run..” Unfortunately, it can be shown that human beings are hard-wired to do the exact opposite, i.e. chase losses and cut profits short!
So applying this to politics, we can see why in economic bad-times, the voters might be reluctant to “cut their losses” by ditching Labour, but instead gamble that things might improve. Conversely, in good times, voters are more likely to gamble that a change will lead to even better times. Or put more simply, Greed and Fear, those inexorable movers of markets, act in rather different ways…
152 - My apologies for aspherating your argument. Spellling is pore, but responz sinseer.
The odds are heavily in the Dems favour in both the House and Senate. So far 24 Republicans have announced their retirements (and 5 have already left this cycle) while only 5 Democrats have done the same. That means the GOP will have lots more open seats to defend which is difficult because incumbency factors are so strong. Some of these are districts that voted for Kerry or where Bush was under 55%. Also the Democrats have more money. Their congressional committee has $35m compared to $5m for the GOP. If McCain wins I don’t see him winning big.
SSI - Do you think it is possible that the clear prospect of Dem gains in Congress may help McCain with independents worried about giving the Democrats a lock on government? Or do you not think that’s a factor.
Also, another boost for Obama, he’s been endorsed by Moreon.org which has 1.7m members in ST states. He got 70% of the members’ votes (they have rules that say they only endose when a candidate has over 2/3 support). This matches Daily Kos where Obama is supported 7-1 over Clinton. This may not matter in terms of votes in a big way but in terms of energy and money the ‘netroots’ can have an impact. That part of the Edwards support has almost wholly transferred to Obama.
142 - McCain doesn’t have any obvious VP picks - Giuliani is clearly angling, though I don’t see what benefit McCain would get, except maybe forcing Clinton to spend a little money in her own back yard. Huckabee or a similar conservative would mollify the base, and prevent a potentially dangerous third party Social Conservative challenge from a madhouse like Brownback (a punishment for wresting the GOP from their hands).
The question is whether he can get a Big State supporter who pacifies the Social Conservatives and the hard-core anti-tax types, but who is not so radical as to turn off the Independents who could otherwise be his ticket to the White House.
Sen (ex Ohio Gov) Voinovich is perfect for others, but not McCain. I cannt see him choosing a Democrat, an Independent, or a fellow Gang of 14 Senator, because he doesn’t need to, and it could hurt him.
Tim Pawlenty (MN Gov), or Rick Perry (TX Gov) would be my preferred picks. Mark Sanford (SC Gov) is more likely if Romney gets the nomination, from what I’m told.
153 His ‘Jack The Ripper’ remains one of the all time pop classics.
As for our own John L, I read his prospectus when he stood as a candidate at Ealing. Apart from the custard in the ears bit, it had much to commend it.
Didn’t know about the coin though.
Amazing what you learn on PB.com.
Free advice for Boris Johnson for London Mayor
To win against wiley coyote like Red Ken, adopt one of the following two alternatives:
1. Appeal to reason via comprehensive (but targeted) proposals on range of critical problems and opportunities facing London, with emphasis on new leadership on behalf of specific proposals.
2. If 1 is not on (and don’t think it is in Johhson’s case, he’s too typecast) then harness celebrity in politically useful way, by walking and/or working in EVERY Greater London borough between now and polling day. Like Lawton Chiles and others did in US in the 1980s. Was a great technique, becauase the media loved it and it actually brought the candidate into contact with real people, an amazing concept.
148 - I find it hard to understand why you think it so strange that people (in fact probably a majority) think Brown was a good Chancellor. I can understand why people think he was bad (pensions, tax rises, massive spending increases, selling gold too cheaply).
But surely you can see why others think he was good? 10 years unbroken economic growth (when every other major industrial nation experienced a recession), historically low interest rates, inflation and unemployment. In comparison to most previous chancellors (except perhaps Ken Clarke) he has an impressive record.
159-Boris has been in Sutton and Croydon today and from his performance which i saw first hand he has a lot of work to do to have a realistic chance of winning in May.
It gives me little pleasure in saying this but its true.
There is a good run down of possible VPs here.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/02/the_line_on_runningmates.html
157 - Perry makes lot of sense, has some good georgaphic, ideological and generational balance. And Perry won reelection in 2006.
Wouldn’t advance the ticket much otherwise (no swing state help) but sooth the conservatives a bit and pass the sniff test.
161 - What was the problem with his performance?
164-Yer again style over substance and a distinct lack of gravitas.
He is not compering “Have i got news for you” He is in a race for the second most important elected job in the country.
156 - Hard to gauge how independent voters in particular are going to look at things 9 months from now; that’s one reason they’re independents!
But my Ouija board is telling me that preventing Democratic dominance of the presidency and both houses of Congress will not be that big a deal.
Because the prospect is as yet theoretical. If it comes to pass, and the results are discouraging to swing voters, then a hard rain could indeed fall in 2010.
160: He mortgaged the future to pay for it all, and has run a huge deficit throughout, bending the ‘golden rules’ all the way. Thus we have a massive current account deficit, and traed balnces off the scale, the worst of all time. Britain’s economy is built on a quicksand of personal and government debt, into which I fear we may all slide.
He could have been worse, but he has made the tax system hugely complex, the tax take has increased A LOT, public sector spending was splurged upwards without concomitant productivity improvements (the very opposite in fact) and he has, even in good times, spent more than he can affford. He has raided private sector pensions whilst letting public sector ones alone - they are now absurdly generous on comparison, and utterly unaffordable in the long term. He has done precious little about a ruinous housing bubble which has created an underclass of mainly young people with little or no hope of owning their own house, unless they inherit it from their parents - hardly a socialist ideal. Meanwhile pensioners in their paid-for houses get £200 a year for merely existing.
The global economy has been going through a possibly never to be repeated golden age with the China effect dampening down inflation wordlwide and growth surging everywhere. To come out of this in the parlous state which we find ourselves now is manifestly not the record of a good chancellor.
I must admit on reflection that you are probably right, for now there are many people who are doing nicely thankyou, and so probably do think he’s done fairly well. Ask me, and them, again in a couple of years though and I suspect the answer will be different.
Actually they’ll probably blame Darling, or ‘global factors’…
I saw Screaming Lord Sutch in concert, he come on driving a Roman Chariot, pulled along by some girls, give the public what they want, that what I say.
Sorry that poll was taken before Conwaygate, bloody hell, Labour ten percent lead, in the next one!!
137
Not necessarily sean, people could be just looking for an excuse not to vote Tory.
‘I would have voted Tory if the economy hadn’t been so bad/good’: delete where applicable.
165 - My point exactly, or rather inexactly.
Boris Johnson’s advantage is he’s a likeable, brainy celebrity. His disadvantage is that the public sees him as an entertainer, not a serious politico.
If he applied himself to subtaance and showed himself to the people in perhaps uplikely setting, and at the same time conciously shunned punchlines for a few months, he’d surely help his electoral prospects.
Feeling very happy with my Labour buy @273 of a few weeks ago. Always thought that looked a good bet. There were bound to be two big reactions last summer/autumn:
First the Brown bounce then
Second the end of the honeymoon.
Both those are now out of the system and unless there really are cataclysmic external events (God forbid) we should now see much less volatility in the polls. I continue to predict a narrow Labour victory and the best the Tories can hope for currently is a hung parliament.
167 - You’re right that the international situation has been benign but we have outperformed most other countries. Our GDP per capita has overtaken many in the G7 since 1997. Not making a major macro-economic mistake is an achievement in itself. Yes, the government has borrowed too much in recent years but that isn’t disasterous. Deficits as a percentage of GDP were much higher in the early 1990s.
Also a quick point on a possible downturn. You’re right that the government will blame ‘global factors’ but that is what you are doing to explain economic success. The truth is somewhere in between.
160-We would have had 10 years unbroken growth if a monkey had been in charge.
The internet revolution and the emergence of China producing cheap goods meant the economic miracle was nothing to do with Brown…
Betfair have opened a ‘Next VP’ (based on 2008 election) market.
They have also clarified that their ‘Next President’ market will be decided by the 2008 election, so suddenly the 320 on Cheney has gone from excellent value to worthless.
Labour are powering ahead.
Arent there local election in May?
Couple of amusing articles in the Times reflecting on the peculiarly British nature of the Conway affair..
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/graham_stewart/article3291157.ece
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/ben_macintyre/article3290388.ece
168 - Am sincerly envious of you miscreant youth!
Still hold a grudge against the entire British establishment for not confiring upon David Sutch the peerage he earned fair & square through his years as the UK’s longest serving party leader.
Not to mention the infinite goodwill that he generated among electors of all parties and no party across Britain, and indeed across the world.
harking back to the previous thread, given that even the venerable PtP made a mistake how about a guest article on all you need to know about probability to avoid losing your shirt.
RodC or Barnesian, perhaps?
Thought for today.
Why not confir upon whomever is Leader of the ORMLP a life peerage with ex officio seat in the House of Lords?
Hard to argue this would not be a step forward for more representative government.
Likely problem: adverse impact upon the ORMLP itself. But I think with appropriately “loony” leadership downside would be limited.
168 “I saw Screaming Lord Sutch in concert.”
Bloody hell Coldstone, you must be older than me! Since Jack left, I thought I was the oldest living PBer in captivity.
177 It was a deliberate mistake, Chris A. Just to make sure the boys were awake.
Oh my Gordo- now he has his smiley face back we are going to face all those election shenanegans again, soon.
This is a rogue poll
170 Richard - it sounds like you’re with me in #76 above.
179
Shhhh I shouldn’t have advertised that should I.
In fact a mate of mine backed him, he also backed Johnny Kidd of Johnny Kidd and the Pirates and many many more.
171: As I said, he could have been worse. One reason Labour won in 1997 was that they finally accepted free market capitalism as a reality, and Brown has not been anti-business in general. So we have outperformed several countries who have not had such ‘enlightened’ governments. We have the City of London as a global leader raking in billions for UKPlc almost weekly.
We will have to agree to differ on how well he did I guess. I think history will judge him more harshly than his contemporaries. Meanwhile, cash is king…
183 Hmmm…Johnny Kidd? Shaking all over?
173 Morus
VP Market? It’s a lottery, isn’t it?
182. Broadly yes, except that I still slightly favour the Labour narrow win - similar to Major in 1992. I also agree though re. hung parliament, and completely concur re. the slim chances of an outright Tory win.
Obviously I have a vested interest in that having backed Labour @273, but I wouldn’t have made that bet if I didn’t really fancy my chances.
Think that turned Screaming Lord Sutch into a Great Briton was his Hollywood experience. Same as for Sir David Niven.
Politco ha obligatory story at the stars who turned out for the Clinton-Obama debate last night.
What passes for moguls today seemed to give a slight edge to Hillary. Robert Reiner for example really liked the “Clintons cleaning up after Bushs” remark.
Was a bit of a chill in the room apparently when Obama expressed concerns as a parent with some broadcasting decisions. Good for him, methinks.
The Daily Mail will stop at nothing to expose the swines in parliament, who are exploting their position. Even to the point of publishing this photograph of David Cameron’s sister-in-law.
http://tinyurl.com/39lmaa
Sweet dreams all!!
sorry half sister.
sorry is it half sister-in-law??
177. Yes, I was toying with one, but it may be a while yet before I’ve refined it down to a manageable, meaningful size.
Consider this rather startling fact. In the 1970s a university experiment was conducted as follows:
Forty Ph.D students were given a computer game to play. They started with $10,000 and were given 100 trials playing a game in which they would win 60% of the time. When they won, they doubled their money. When they lost, they lost their stake. They had freedom to choose any stake.
How many Ph.D.s made money at the end of the experiment? Two. The other 38 lost money. 95% of these very bright people lost money playing a game in which the odds were stacked in their favour. Why did they lose?
183 Anyone remotely connected with Screaming Lord Sutch or any other aspect of ’60s Swinging London is eternally young, by decree of the grateful inhabitants of the universe.
193
He’s the one on the left, I’m not the one on the right! I took the film
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEHrVHlsylw
So I made predictions on the vain hope that Rudy would win Florida and keep the races interesting. He failed miserably, so I need to pin my colours to the many masts of Super Tuesday.
GOP Race - Romney to win Mass, Utah, and maybe Montana (total=about 104 delegates). Huckabee to carry Arkansas, and maybe Oklahoma (total=about 75). McCain to win all others (800 ish). McCain wins nomination by Wednesday morning. Romney would probably need to win Connecticut, Delaware, California and Illinois to stay in contention, and I can’t see that happening.
The Dem race is pretty close - I think the following would be plausibe:
Clinton (Florida, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Utah)
Obama (South Carolina, Alabama, California, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Massachusetts, Missouri, Tennessee)
Real question marks are over California and Massachussets (both Kennedy and Kerry have now endorsed him, so 4 is a value price on Betfair) - Georgia is a must-win for Obama and Tennessee will probably only fall securely into his camp if Gore endorses him on Monday/Tuesday.
If it panned out something like this, I’d expect Clinton to get marginally more delegates from the day, but only 20-50 more, out of 1700 or so.
189 - Enough to make a Gery Adams sing “Rule Britania!”
189. I’d put her on the payroll!
Evening all
London will be a fascinating contest this May. There is simply no middle ground with Ken - I have long believed that in the Outer London suburbs for example he is a far greater hate figure than either Brown is or Blair ever was. A lot of his success in both 2000 and 2004 was, however, down to two factors. One was the choice of Tory candidate and the other was the weakness of the Conservative vote.
If you are thinking about backing the Conservative candidate this time, you have to consider whether both these factors have been dealt with. We can probably assume the second one has (and polls do indicate a strong recovery in Tory support in London) but have the Tories picked the right candidate ?
In my part of London (Newham), Boris isn’t going to make much impression. With the implosion of Respect, Labour is once again dominant but how much of that Labour vote will turn out in May ? My gut feeling is that a lot of the Respect vote will simply abstain and Ken’s fear must be that enough of the core Labour vote will abstain to give Boris a chance.
The nub of the gist in the London system, however, comes from the second preferences. The polls show the order of second preferences to be LD, Green, Labour, Conservative and this is Boris’s problem. He simply has to persuade more non-Tories to put the Tory down as the second preference otherwise I don’t see him winning unless he can build up a substantial advantage on first preferences.
Ken has the relative luxury of knowing that he is more likely to pick up second preferences from non-Labour voters than Boris will from non-Tories. Ken has to be close to Boris in the first preference to win but that means he has to get the Labour vote out.
I think it looks very difficult for Brian Paddick who has made an encouraging start. I cannot see Boris imploding to the extent Paddick needs to get second place and although more LD supporters might give the second preference to the Tory than was the case in 2000 or 2004 the presence of a Green candidate provides another option (also of course true for other parties).
My conclusion is that unless Boris can establish a healthy lead on first preferences, he will lose. I’m not a huge fan of Ken’s though he has become a significant national political figure in a way that another London mayor might not have and I now don’t detect (apart from some on the far Right) any appetite for abolishing the Mayoralty (though, rather like the EU, many argue with some conviction that the institution is bloated and in need of reform).
186 - PtP. Pretty much, yes. Hard to really narrow the field unless you are uberconfident on who will top the ticket.
Only way to make money is to lay against those you think are no-hopers. They have Romney (hated by all nominees except himself), Rice (never elected, and too close to GWB), Kucinich (hahaha), Lieberman (again? GOP will hate Gore’s wingman, Dems dislike a defector - one for Matthew JGC Partridge methinks), Bloomberg (VP?!), Paul (more likely to run as Libertarian than get chosen by a serious candidate) up there, and I have no idea why.
Similarly, Clinton wouldn’t go for it, and nor would Gore, when someone inevitably ask for odds on him. Not sure Giuliani is where McCain is thinking, leaving Richardson, Huckabee and Edwards as the only vaguely plausible solutions.
199 Hmmm…this is a variation on PfP’s famous lay-the-favorite strategy which works so well with football managers. I can see it working here, IF there’s enough liquidity in the market. Trouble is, the overrounds on the lay side are usually horrendous.
I’ll sit and watch if you don’t mind.
198 - Ken’s advantage, though, is that - all in all - he’s probably less hated in the suburbs than he was at the height of the GLC period. The antipathy against him is of long standing - but people are also used to him.
This was Mrs. Thatcher’s cardirnal error in abolishing the GLC. Getting a Tory who could plausibly serve as a “Mr/Mrs London” type could have done for Livingstone in 1985, and he’d be forgotten now.
There is a sound case, which Tories and LDs can both potentially support, for transforming the GLA into an Assembly-led body on the traditional council model, although arguably that could lead to more bureaucratic bloat in the long-term. The GLA is probably as lean and as mean as a London-wide body can be. The structure is always going to lead to exercises in dodgy patronage and jobs for suitable cronies, but that’s unavoidable in any system.
195 Republicans
Think Montana more likely for McCain, otherwise agree with your assessment.
Democrats
Concur with your list EXCEPT
–Obama ahead in Alaska, Idaho, North Dakota
–Clinton ahead in Tennessee
–Tossups: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri.
Kennedy endorsement helps Obama with Latinos in California & Colorado, also AZ & NM. Proximity to Illinois helps him in Missouri; NYC orbit helps Clinton in Conn.
Minnesota is caucus state, and based on experience of neighboring Iowa think it could tip to Obama.
199. The problem with that approach is that there are number of less well known politicans who could be on the ticket:
- Sanford, Collins, Snowe, Diaz-Balrat, Powell, Palin (GOP)
- Kaine, Webb, Sibelius, Salazar, Patrick, Ford Jr, Graham, Bishop, Booker (DEM)
My guess is that Coulter’s meltdown has made a McCain/Lieberman ticket more likely and Billary’s dodgy tactics have made a Clinton/Webb ticket less likely (though not implausible). I would expect Jim Webb or Michael Bloomberg if Obama manages to pull off an implausiblw victory. If Romney gets it expect Fred Thompson.
199 - Other possible solutions are senators and governors who didn’t run for president, plus handful of generals; not Petraeus, but guys like Wes Clark on the Democrat side.
Ann Coulter has zero impact except for ad banners on obscure blogs.
203 - Wouldn’t argue with your counters, although I think Romney might just swing Montana. I have a feeling …
I think that the African-American vote in Memphis and Nashville could help Obama in Tennessee, and there are growing rumours of a Gore endorsement (though I’m not sure how that would help!).
With Alaska, Idaho, and North Dakota, I wonder if the blue collar men who would have voted Edwards will push Hillary to victory.
Very good point on Minnesota - would not surprise me if he took that one through caucus, but not convinced that Kennedy’s endorsement is enough to help Obama with Latinos as much as he needs in Colorado, Arizona or New Mexico. Salazar or Richardson, or even Mayor Chavez of Albequerque would be needed for that impact to really register I think.
Think that you guys have tendancy to overrate Michael Bloomberg. Who is a very credible guy in many ways.
But you are ignoring fact that he is mayor of New York. Which has not and has never been a pathway to the presidency or the vice presidency.
The fact that Giuliani got as far as he did, was a VERY special circumstance indeed.
For residents of all 50 states, including NY north of the Bronx-Westchester line, New York City is a strange land, at best a half foreign country.
Meaning Bloomberg would be more trouble than he’s possibly worth for either party’s ticket.
Re: 201/202: Interesting points, Tangent. I’m still convinced there is a residual contempt for Ken in the suburbs (and I think the Congestion Charge is a big factor in that). What I don’t know (and I’d be interested in Sean Fear’s thoughts) is whether there was an “anti-Ken” element in the Conservative performance in London in 2005.
2001 was, I believe, worse for the Conservatives in London than 1997 so the swing figures for 2005 were probably better than the national average anyway but I still think the Tories in London benefitted from a CC backlash.
As for the GLA, the problem is that the London Boroughs (and I’ve done some work with a few of them) actually enjoy the powers they have and most of them work reasonably well. Apart from the various residuary bodies and the LFCDA, there were a number of ad hoc cross-Borough working parties and more or less formal member and officer forums.
The problem for the GLA is that it’s not going to have the same relationship as Counties & District Councils have to each other so if it cannot function in that two-tier environment, its role is little more than as a scrutiny body for the mayor.
Oh, one other thing. If I’m reading the odds correctly, 3/20 (or 1/7 in old money) John McCain for the GOP nomination has to be buying money. I imagine one or two people here would be happy to stack £2,000 to win £300 or perhaps £20,000 to win £3,000.
McCain has gained so much momentum since Florida that he will have the GOP nomination sewn up by Wednesday morning.
I’m off to Lingfield tomorrow. My one thought for the day is SILVER PRELUDE in the 3.20 and I can pass on a word for LIBERTY VALANCE in the 4.25. I wasn’t the man who shot him though
204-205 - Of course - sorry, I was only commenting on the runners that Betfair has included at present.
Of those Matthew mentioned, Sanford is the only one I’d back on the GOP side, but not over Pawlenty or Perry. Kaine and Sibelius are astute choices for Obama, but Clarke or Richardson have to be frontrunners before any of those.
I’ve been pretty critical of the McCain/Lieberman idea, and I feel I should explain myself. If McCain was seeking to transform American politics, and fly a flag for bi-partisan/independent politics - I’d buy into the idea. However, I think that having come this far, from such a poor position (33/1), I think he wants to win, and a fairly-conservative GOP VP whom he can ignore is a pretty cheap price for a safe-ish victory, and seeing off a right-wing third-party candidacy. Choosing Lieberman would be a rash move under the circumstances - not impossible, but I think it would cost him more than it might gain him.
My opinion of Lieberman isn’t high - I felt he did little for Gore, he is a Senator from a small state, and hasn’t done half as much in his career as some other candidates. If McCain chose a moderate/independent/Democrat, I’d hope he’d make a statement and go with Powell, or Clarke, or Obama, or even Bernie Sanders - not a half-hearted nod to bi-partisanship that fools no-one.
207 - In Tennesee, the Black % of the electorate (and thus Dem primary) is significantly lower than in SC, north FL or GA. Though Gore endorsement might help swing it, for old time sake. But am still doubtful.
The northern tier of AK, ID and ND ex-Edwards voters are more likely to break to Obama than Clinton, in part because they are exposed to strong doses of heavy anti-Hillary feeling from their many GOP neighbors
Agree re: Ted and Latinos, may not be enough to win the state but cannot hurt and given proportionality could win Obama a few delegates in heavily Hispanic congressional districts where he’d otherwise get skunked.
See zero likelihood of Bill Richardson endorsing, unless he can make a deal in next 48 hours for VP, which seems unlikely but also not impossible. Chavez helps some in Bernallio County but not little beyond Albq metro area.
149 Steven Ronald.Yes- betting scam obvious- but how did he force the pictures?Still can’t see it.
I say that whichever Democrat wins California will be the next President of the United States.
Anyone care to oppose me for a straight £20 evens money bet?
214 - Yes. Clarify wins popular vote, or most delegates, but I’ll take £20 evens either way.
216 Thanks Morus - being an old fashioned sort of guy - let’s say the bet is to be based on the popular vote.
PtP, if you’re still there, please would you record this bet.
215 Did you see it reported that the move to abolish the non job of Welsh Secretary was only postponed after Hain because Labour think they’re up against it in May. Bizarre. Even if they are I hardly think that will help them
214/5/6 - PfP/Morus
Yup, I’m here and the bet’s duly recorded. No need to send me addresses. I have them already.
218 Many thanks Peter, good luck Morus - you’ll need it!
Rod’s riddle: I’d guess that the students, once they found they were mostly winning, sooner or later started going all in. Quite soon they’d lose the lot. It’s an example of greed conquering fear.
221 I didn’t so much see this as a quiz question as a factual event. Presumably it was simply a case of backing too many losing bets at the end of the competition. Based on Rod’s usual complex reasoning, I imagine it has to be more involved than that.
217 - Didn’t see it, but can’t see it helping. Abolishing Welsh Secretary was a popular idea when people knew who it was, but since the Assembly made it a non-job, it could just as easily be taken as a slight. We are a prickly nation at times.
219 - Nonsense!! I reckon California is evens between Hillary and Obama, California does not give a lock on the nomination for either because it is proportional so they could win CA but not win the nomination, and even if selected by the DNC either one of them is only about evens against the likely McCain.
You are betting that one of them will win California, the nomination, *and* the Presidency. I think that is a cumulative bet where each part is about evens. I got value my friend!!
218 - PtP - sorry, I’ve clogged up your inbox, because I thought you were probably offline.
Rod 192-
As someone with a passing interest in risk and game theory, please could you provide some sort of reference to this experiment (website, journal article, name of mathematician etc). Although I am not doubting your sincerity the result sounds barely credible and i feel there must be some sort of catch.
220,221: it may just be a freak event- 40 is not a particually large sample size.
224/5 - surely that’s how casinos make most money? People who win go back and bet higher and higher stakes till they lose.
Re Minnesota - I would say even as a Clintonista that this is Obama territory - he has picked up a lot of key endorsements in Minnesota and a key one today Oberestar - who was backing Edwards - the poll from MN did not ask the people if they would vote - the system is a caucus which favors Obama …
This Minnesotans verdict is - MN going for Obama
222 I think that is a cumulative bet where each part is about evens. I got value my friend!!
I’d be grateful if you would direct me to a bookie who is offering even money on the Democrats winning the Presidential election - the best odds I can see are 1/2. I think Cal will be hugely influential to the winner in terms of forward momentum and nowhere near the evens you suggest, so we’ll just have to disagree!
oh forgot to say Obama is visiting MN on Saturday - and Clinton just announced a visit on Sunday - and is going to watch the Superbowl in the state too
14 - It sure feels that way, with respect to votes anyhow. As California goes, so goes the nation.
Which last happened, with respect to the general election, in 1916.
That year, Charles Evans Hughes was the Republican nominee, and was looking good to defeat Democrat Wooodrow Wilson for reelection.
California turned out to be one of the key swing states. And most politicos figured the key to California was Gov. Hiram Johnson.
Johnson was leading progressive, on of the most popular politicos in CA history, who’d fought the railroad and other criminal elements, and bolted with Teddy Roosevelt and the Bull Moose in 1912.
Four years later, Hiram Johnson had rejoined the GOP, but was still sore about it being dominated by rightwing conservatives, such as Hughes. Plus, HJ was a rather vain man, and over sensitive to perceived slights, esp. from upper-crust types like Hughes, who was a Boston Brahmin.
Anyway, in the early Fall of 1916, turned out that Charles Evans Hughes and Hiram Johnson were both guests one day at the same California hotel. A fact that was known to both parties. So Johnson waited in his room to be contacted by the visiting Hughes, as was standard practices. He waited and waited. Finally, Johnson sent one of his aides in search of Hughes - who it turned out had already left the hotel.
Proud and already perturbed, Hiram Johnson took Hughes’ failure to meet with him as a deliberate snub. He did not bolt the party or the ticket. BUT neither did he exert himself one bit in California or anywhere else for Charles Evans Hughes.
Hughes lost the White House because he failed to win California. And he failed to win California by a margin of just 3,420 votes out of 1 million cast.
230 Thanks for that SSI - it’s quite a story, plus it made me feel better about my bet!
29 - Was thinking they could send her to a really big tailgate party. But am guessing that your slightly frosty weather is a disincentive for that activity!
228 No bookie is offering that, but in the match-ups against McCain, no Democrat leads by more than the MOE, which is why I’ve bought heavy on GOP to win at 2.7 or so.
Re California, you’re probably right in terms of the media narrative, but the delegates will be apportioned by popular vote (or thereabouts). If Obama wins, they are pretty much tied overall after Super Tuesday, and if Hillary wins, she is only 100 or so ahead, and he will have done well to come back from 30 points down in CA, so the momentum could be claimed either way.
Put it this way, if Obama wins California, I would put him odds on (about 10/11) for the nomination. If Hillary wins it, I’d put her at 4/7 or so for the nomination. Whoever wins still has to do well in Pennsylvania and Texas and Ohio and Virginia, and both sides are too big and too entrenched to just fall apart for the sake of a united frontrunner as Rudy and Huckabee’s campaigns have done.
Do you really think either of them can beat McCain in November? I am not denying it, but I don’t see what makes you so sure. Share with the class!!
220. You’re (kind of) correct. It’s worse than that though, Nick. There is a mathematically-justifiable technique that would have seen the students, on average, turn $10,000 into ten billion dollars in just those 100 trials…..
Basically, the students didn’t understand money-management, which is the sine qua non of any successful investing or gambling strategy. The optimum stake in the students’ example was 40% of the bankroll on each trial. So the first stake would have been $4,000. If a win on the first trial, the second stake would have been $7,200, if a loss, $2,400, and so on. That would have maximised the average bankroll growth rate at 14.83% on each trial.
And as Einstein said: “What is the most powerful force in the Universe? The power of compound-interest, of course!”
The wonderful insight that there was an optimum fraction to bet in a positive-expectation game so as to maximise bankroll growth was the work of a young genius working in the 1950s in the field of information theory. His name was J. Larry Kelly, and I hope to do a guest article on his theory…
The most disturbing news is Blair wants to be EU President.
http://news.sky.com/skynews/picture_gallery/picture_gallery/0,,70141-1303704-7,00.html
If there is one way to create anger and resentment among the hundreds of millions of Europe it is to have a narcissistic warmonger as their unelected President.
This proves that the EU is doomed to fail and the sooner it falls apart the better for all of us.
Sea Shanty Irish, you are a positive mine of information for obscure US election facts, which makes everything you contribute a positive pleasure to read.
226. Nick. The reason people lose in the c.a.s.i.n.o is because the c.a.s.i.n.o.s only ever play negative-expectation games (except b.l.a.c.k.j.a.c.k..) In other words, from the punter’s perspective guaranteed losers…
237. Just realised. With the spam filter on I think we are going to have some difficulty discussing this topic!
Another Cautionary Tale
In 1884 Republican Sen. James G. Blaine of Maine was running for president against Democratic Gov. Grover Cleveland of New York.
New York was a key swing state in this election. And while Gov. Cleveland was well regarded for his honest, frugal administration, he not widely popular with New York City bosses or voters, with the one becauase of his incoruptibility, the other because he was from far off, upstate Buffalo.
On the other hand, Blaine, whose nickname was “The Plumed Knight” was a fine orator in the old tradition, and popular with workingmen for his common touch mixed with a slight air of pleasing excess. Also, he won the hearts of many an Irishman thanks to his eloquent denuciations of British perfidity.
So it looked like Blaine was on course to take the State of New York, and with it the Presidency.
Until a Protestant minister speaking for Blaine the day before Election Day made the following fateful one-liner as an attack against Cleveland: the Democratic Party, the rev’d dr. proclaimed, was the party of “RUM, ROMANISM and REBELLION!”
As soon as eagle-eyed managers for Cleveland say the news reports, they immediately began printing handbills and distributing them en mass throughout New York City’s many teeming Irish neighborhoods.
The result: James G. Blaine lost the election of 1884 because he lost New York State. And he lost NY State by a margin of 1,047 votes out of over 1.1m cast.
SSI no details of her State visit yet - but I do no that Obamamania is here - 20,000 free tickets to an event in the Target Center in Minneapolis - with 2,000 at the last count on a waiting list - Clintonista camp say they can’t match that figure and it is not a competition - can feel a bit of despair here - looks like odds on Obama victory - but who knows with us hardy Minnesotans - it will be a mild 28F on Sunday for a high so no need for winter clothes when she is here …
Do we have any recent polls for California yet?
233 Morus - In reality my bet was based on my assessment that Hillary will win both the nomination and the presidency, where the best current odds (with Betfair in each case) are 4/11 and 7/12 respectively. This equates to cumulative odds of 1.16/1 or 1.10/1 after Betfair’s 5% commission, so yes I have given you the edge in terms of value, but that’s me, all heart!
Just as test am using word casino, which I did without thinking abou it the other day re: Indian gaming
209 - The hostility to Livingstone shouldn’t be underestimated, certainly. It’s probably higher than in 2004, and could still give BJ the eletion if differential turnout is strong enough. But it’s counterbalanced by the sense that Livingstone is a London institution (of course, the unwillingness of some places in outer London to identify themselves with the “London values” also has an effect). My own eeling is that there was no anti-Ken swing in 2005, and that his impact on Labour’s vote was mildly positive; although it’ll be interesting to consider htis further.
The GLA certainly cannot become a county ocuncil type authotiy in the LCC/GLC sense. The key is to ensure that its powers are limited to London-wide issues (which is certainly going to cause friction with boroughs who are happy with post-1986 cross-borough bodies, but that’s inevitable), taking functions from GLC-successor bodies or from central government. It could be done through an Assembly, but it’d involve abolishing the Mayor altogether on the leader model, and having no Mayor altogether.
You’re a saint, PfP - never let it be said otherwise!! A blessing upon your house!
Obama has just clinched the Service Workers’ Union in CA, previously Edwards people. MoveOn.org are also backing him - SSI, would I be right in thinking they have big numbers in the Southern CA universities?
These poll shifts show how futile British politics has become. Up for Tories when Cameron has a good speech, down when a Tory MP is caught fiddling. If members have fiddled their expenses, then that should be for the police to investigate and self-righteous MPs should not be debating it in the house or demanding apologies when there is HUMAN SUFFERING in Britain that needs to be a priority.
Underage girls, gang raped in Eastern Europe and brought to Britain by traffickers to be bought and sold as slave prostitutes as reported by Sky News this week. I want to know what parliament is doing about that. Just one example. Isn’t that more important than debating what one member has done who in any other job in the real world would be instantly sacked or suspended and reported to the police?
41 Think they’d still like to get their hands on Roman Polanski.
Just like Bobby Knight can never go back to Puerto Rico
The calculations are that with the pre-vote that Obama needs to win the votes on the day by 5% to clinch the state …
249 of CA that is
234 - Shouldn’t the second stake after a win by $5,600?
45 - College vote will be important but its not quite a big a deal as in Iowa, Minnesota or Massachusetts.
Do believe Move.on has significant CA strength, though no necessarily in numbers; most impact as opinion leaders and donors. But the more things tighten the more every increment matters.
Question re: Service Employees International Union (SEIU) in CA is same as with Culinary Union in Nevada a few weeks ago.
Both are superior unions, in terms of fighting for members and membership. But in Nevada, the leadership went one way and the membership went another.
So both Move.on and SEIU endorsements are good news for Obama, but not slam dunks.
248 SSI, It’s time to have an update on our one man US-based opinion poll, i.e. your goodself. In a word, who is going to win the Democratic nomination?
251. Oops. Yes, that’s what I get for having one eye on the TV(”True Confessions”) and a drink in one hand, and confusing decimal odds with standard odds! The optimal fraction in the example is 20%, and maximal growth rate 2.01%, still pretty damn impressive.
I’ll continue this subject when my faculties return!
49 - Think there is (natural) confusion by many media, esp national, on how vote counting works in Pacific Coast state that have substantial numbers of postal ballots. Oregon is all vote-by-mail, WA state is about 85% postal (in more ways than one!). Fewer absentees in California but still a huge number.
Here’s how the system works in all these states.
Ballots go out three weeks or thereabouts before Election Day. Once voters receive their ballots in the mail, they return their voted ballots at their leisure, provided they get them back to election officials by E-Day; in WA returned ballots must be postmarked by EDay, so they can come in the day after or even later and still be valid.
In all these states, county election officials will process returned ballots as the come back, validate them and prepare them for counting. Then on EDay they release the results of the absentees that came back in time to be processed and approved for the first count. In many states these votes are the first onces reported after the polls close, with the actual poll vote begin reported later in the evening as it comes in.
Bottom line is that the early returns from CA on ENight should be slightly skewed for Clinton, balanced by possibility Obama may do better with the later absentees, the ones cast on or just before EDay.
53 - My heart and head still say Obama. But the liver and spleen are shakey, and less said about bowels the better.
256 - Magic!
Off to Twickenham in the morning, to watch my countrymen take on the English, so it’s goodnight from me.
Skilled punter can buy baby a new pair of shoes, just by betting against whatever I say half of the time or more.
See below for links to two recent dispatches by Seattle Post-Intelligencer political columnist Joel Connelly, about presidential campaigning in Washington, Idaho and Alaska.
Clinton Comes Calling: Time To Repay Favors
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/connelly/349446_joel31.html
Political Candidates, Surrogates Arriving
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/connelly/349664_joel01.html
On a lighter note there is a photo of Dave with Mrs T on CentreRight.com under “The Closest CentreRight got to Hello”. Note Dave’s apparently receeding hairline.
This isn’t as surprising as it sounds and shows that media opinion is increasingly out of line with public opinion. The fact is that people are a bit bored with Labour but are still not that keen on the Conservatives. The fact is that Cameron has spent all of his energies on wooing the Media elite (and succeeded) but no time on wooing the public. Have a look at the Sun website on the day of their ‘Police Cameron Action’ story and compare the article to the comments underneath. There was barely a positive response among them. Also, from chatting to family and friends, a few Labour policies such as teaching cooking at school have gone down well with the public, even though they have been largely ignored by the press. It is not enough for Cameron just to attack all the time and not offer anything himself. Also, I think while his performance at PMQs has got some headlines, it has also played into public perception of him as being a bullying toff. It has been a case of one step forward, two steps back.
224. The Ph.D experiment is known as the “Ralph Vince Experiment” after the trader and money management theoretician who described it in “Technical Traders’ Bulletin, March 1992″
Similar expriments have been conducted by other mathemeticians, such as Dr. Van Tharp. http://www.iitm.com/tips/Tips-MM.htm
There is even a downloadable simulation of the experiment
http://members.aon.at/tips/Money%20Management%20Experiment.zip