The Next President?

More polls (bible belt style!)..

Florida Democratic Primary
Poll Date Sample Clinton Obama Edwards Gore Spread
RCP Average 07/12 to 08/06 - 41.3 17.5 10.5 -- Clinton +23.8
Quinnipiac 07/30 - 08/06 380 RV 43 13 8 11 Clinton +30
Mason-Dixon 07/23 - 07/26 400 LV 31 17 12 1 Clinton +14
Rasmussen 07/18 - 07/19 457 LV 46 15 13 -- Clinton +31
American Res. Group 07/12 - 07/15 600 LV 45 25 9 -- Clinton +20

South Carolina Democratic Primary
Poll Date Sample Clinton Obama Edwards Richardson Spread
RCP Average 06/13 to 07/30 - 34.0 30.0 14.5 2.5 Clinton +4.0
American Res. Group 07/26 - 07/30 600 LV 29 33 18 2 Obama +4
Insider Advantage 07/23 - 07/24 536 RV 43 28 13 5 Clinton +15
CNN 07/16 - 07/18 380 LV 39 25 15 2 Clinton +14
Mason-Dixon 06/13 - 06/15 329 LV 25 34 12 1 Obama +9

Hilary v. Mormon Mitt:

Polling Data
Poll Date Sample Romney ® Clinton (D) Und Spread
RCP Average 06/21 - 07/18 - 38.3 48.0 10.0 Clinton +9.7
FOX News 07/17 - 07/18 900 RV 35 50 15 Clinton +15.0
Zogby 07/12 - 07/14 1012 LV 38 48 -- Clinton +10.0
Rasmussen 06/27 - 06/28 800 LV 42 46 3 Clinton +4.0
Cook/RT Strategies 06/21 - 06/23 844 RV 38 48 12 Clinton +10.0

Hope for Warbler:

Giuliani vs. Edwards
Polling Data
Poll Date Sample Giuliani ® Edwards (D) Und Spread
RCP Average 06/20 - 07/26 - 44.7 46.7 -- Edwards +2.0
Rasmussen 07/25 - 07/26 643 LV 42 49 9 Edwards +7.0
Zogby 07/12 - 07/14 1012 LV 46 43 -- Giuliani +3.0
Newsweek 06/20 - 06/21 831 RV 46 48 6 Edwards +2.0

12/1 about Romney is a rick as well IMO, although I havn't paid as much attention to the GOP race..
 
Long way to go :P

American polls are notoriously volatile as people like the association with being seen to be on the winner, and they do swing wildly. Surprised that Edwards isn't polling better in South Carolina given that he was born there, but at this stage a lot depends on where he's been putting the effort in. If any of them can get a bandwagon rolling that momentum will automatically transfer. Mind you, at least he's got a surname as his middle initial (that seems to be a pre-requisite for most American Presidents) George Bush's father made a slight spelling mistake by one letter in his sons case, but then Giuliani is clearly named after a reindeer.

John Fitzgerald Kennedy
Lyndon Baines Johnson (wife named after an insect)
Richard Milhause Nixon
James Earl Carter
Ronald McDonald Reagan (alright I made that one up)
William Jefferson Clinton

I've never understood what it is with Zogby that leads them to overstate Republican support (or is it an illusion I'm under?)

I might start conducting my own Oxford polls :laughing: I reckon I could easily match any of those sample sizes, without trying. Thursday's round the table meeting I tended to concentrate who they wouldn't vote for, and the 3 names that tended to come back were the three who Boyles are big on.
 
Just by way of disgression (don't worry the nets full of this conspiracy theory - or so I'm hoping as I have no particular desire to join the alumni). I was wondering who Hillary's running mate might be if she secured the nomination? Or more to the point, if someone else did, would you dare to ask her to be a VP :suspect:

America is of course the land of conspiracy theories and some of these will doubtless be tenuous, but the laws of probability really are stacked against it, even in a gun mad culture.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/P...ICS/BODIES.html
 
You're certainly spot on about the American polls being volatile as a result of all the bandwagon jumping that comes with the coveted "momentum" every candidate desperately tries to claim..

As for Edwards in South Carolina, his accent is about all he has going for him at this point.. Edwards seems to be hitching his wagon to the populist message (hence his constant pandering to the union at last week's debate), which doesn't really resonate among South Carolinian Democrats.. Barack and Hilary have both made a strong impression there as well..

As for running mates, both Chris Dodd and Joe Biden seemed to be blatantly campaigning for the Veep spot at last week's debate.. both were going after Edwards and Barack at every opportunity.. however, both are northerners and experienced senators (washington insiders according to edwards) so have little hope..

Apparently in 1989 after allegations of Clinton's affair with Monica Flowers, Bill wanted to divorce Hilary for Flowers (claimed he had fallen in love with her), but Hilary refused! How's that for leadership girls! :D
 
Just taken a more detailed look at those poll figures :eek: Some of the discrepancies are truly alarming. I didn't spot the slant at Romney first time either. I take it Trackside isn't based in Salt Lake City.

My best guess is that Republicans would least like to face Edwards, and most like to face Obama. In Giuliani they have a candidate who I think could beat Clinton, especially in set pieces (although these are usually so choreographed and scripted its difficult to establish an advantage in them). My spies tell me that she's not coming across as quite so frosty as she has done in the past, and isn't getting tripped up on some of the more complex issues either. I really can't see any of the Rep candidates beating Edwards though (all things being equal - which of course they never are). My best guess, is that in a long haul, Rudy would beat Hillary, or is the only candidate capable of doing so, but guess is all it could be this far out.

I'd expect Obama to be the first 'big hitter' to drop out of the Dem race, and when this happens in the campaign will be crucial. If Hillary's been able to build up momentum by then, then it might be too late, but quite where his support will go would be critical. Most people hold an opinion on Hillary, and they tend to be polarised between top gear and reverse. Despite the fact that his voters would seemingly have more in common with her, my instinct is that they're disproportionately likely to shift to another candidate. Afterall, if they aren't already voting for her, there's a better chance than there is with most candidates, that the reaosn is because they don't like her. I'm not sure she's the sort of person whose going to pick up second preference votes in bucket loads, and a compromise candidate would stand to be the beneficary, which as I said, could generate momentum at a crucial time, depending on when Barrack calls it a day, and whether he endorses anyone in doing so.

I seem to think Edwards tried this Washington card on John Kerry late in the day in 2004 too, but then Bush played it very successfully in 2000, so it obviously can strike a chord somewhere.

To be honest Obama and Edwards are the wrong way round at the prices, but it's starting look like Giuliani's going to be lining up in the red corner, with Romney as the biggest threat. I've always had the impression that Rudy's a bit accident prone though, but I'd never under estimate what he's capable of
 
Originally posted by trackside528@Aug 11 2007, 08:16 PM

Apparently in 1989 after allegations of Clinton's affair with Monica Flowers, Bill wanted to divorce Hilary for Flowers (claimed he had fallen in love with her), but Hilary refused! How's that for leadership girls! :D
Click to expand...
Hillary has stuck with Bill for career reasons, and she's now getting her payback. She was always the ambitious one, but she knew first time around that she stood no chance of being elected President- it was way too eartly then for a woman - so imo she calculated it might come on Bill's coat-tails, and stuck it out with him. Some sense of this may be why so many women are wary of her.

I think she stands a good chance of picking up Obama's votes given the Clinton support for black issues over a long time
 
I loved these, all in row:

Clint Eastwood 750-1
Ted Kennedy 750-1
Bill OReilly 750-1
Laura Bush 500-1
James Carville 1000-1
Jesse Ventura 1000-1
Al Sharpton 500-1

Also a bit further down, Michael Moore @ 1000-1 :nuts:
 
I wouldn't be anywhere near as confident that Hillary would be the natural beneficiary of Barrack's voters HS. There's a host of reasons why, but at the heart of it, it requires an understanding of the moisaic that is her constituency, which is an incredibly difficult one to get a handle on, and often goes against the grain of expectation.

Far from taking on black issues, she hasn't sought to immerse herself in them at all really. Certainly, not as much as she could have done. Her links with big business interests are much more prevalent. Indeed, some of her positions on immigration would make Bill O'Reilly blanche

From a social perspective, her background started off in childcare issues and education. Her legal career was mixed in terms of who she represented, (but that isn't unusal) she certainly didn't take on the equal opportunities and the under dog causes that one would expect her to have. Indded, she was more interested in stitching up business deals.

When her husband was elected Pres, she branched out into an ill-fated Health Reform programme that she totally mishandled, and couldn't even garner enough support to bring the bill forward, (even with Democrat majorities in both Houses). It was notable that when she ran for Senate, she spent most of her time 'upstate' (which was shrewd imo) but it could easily have been interpreted as taking the poorer New York boroughs for granted.

Since becoming a Senator she seems to have involved herself in poverty, but increasingly so has gone into fiscal policy, immigration control, and national security.

Culturally there's another dynamic potentially at play, and that's the division of the black vote according to gender where Hillary's concerned. I take it you're not familiar with gangster rap. Leaving aside the role of the black urban youth being encouraged to "smack up their bitch" etc (it's a largely disenfranchised, apathetic, non-voting block anyway) even so the black male isn't easily given over to culturally regarding a woman equally, yet alone voting for one as President. It has always been my impression however, that black women by contrast, seem to be a lot more positively disposed towards her, although this has largely been as a result of her wider childcare, education and anti-poverty stances. Even so, I drew the conclusion from my own New York experiences that she was well ahead of either Giuliani or latterly Rick Lazio within this group (but then she'd have to be in all honesty)

I'm not sure that any of the Democrat front runners, are natural inheritors of Obama's constituency. Edwards might be a little bit nearer given that he's appreciably more liberal on immigration than her, and has actively been courting the NAACP in recent years. His own legal career is punctuated with contradictions, but has at least taken on under dog causes in medical compensation cases.
 
That's an interesting point about the black male vote not being naturally inclined to go for a woman - I'm sure that's right. I'd question that the black vote is inherently liberal though - I'd rather think it wasn't in spite of it being largely Democrat. Many blacks in the USA are highly religious and traditionalists or small-c conservatives aren't they? I predicated my remarks on the fact that the black vote was soldily behind Clinton when he was running, but that may not of course translate to Hilary!
 
My suspicion is that about 5%- 10% of the black males who say they won't vote for Hillary - will, (but as I keep coming back to, the big question is Hillary against who?). It's an ego thing, as they couldn't possibly be seen to enodrse her. The black female vote for her will be appreciably stronger.

In truth though the black vote isn't the lobby that it used to be in the Democrat party, and increasingly the most sought after group is the Hispanic vote. This has only really mushroomed and started to change in the last decade. I'm not convinced that the analysts have really got a handle on how it's maturing yet, but it was certainly a noticable factor in which way New Mexico went Red last time round, as there's a Republican inclined middle class starting to figure.

Giuliani is on record as saying that he's the only candidate who could beat Hillary (well he would say that), I for one think he could. But he's got skeletons galore all over teh Big Apple when he seemingly used the NYPD as his private army (shades of feudalism) and it wouldn't too difficult to dig out a few excesses where the victims were black (48 warning shots etc).

The term 'liberal' means something totally different in the US, (indeed to be branded one is tantamount to an electoral kiss of death). It's similar to Japan where the Liberal Democrats have been an almost permanent post war government fixture, even though they bear no resemblence to what we'd classify as a Liberal.

The black vote wouldn't be liberal therefore, but you might think of it instead as predominantly 'blue collar'. There's long been a tradition of small c conservatism in such areas, in much the same way as there is in most rank and file trade unions for instance, and historically the black vote has exclusively fallen behind the Democrats, tiem and time again. All of the Democrats candidates would get this support from the traditional industrial heartlands of the North (though Hillary would be the least palatable to them). But the demographic changes means that these states are increasingly given less votes in the college as the population moves South and West, and the days when the democrats could carry the college on the strength of their industrial base in places like Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, New York, Pensylvania, Maryland, Delaware and Ohio have largely evapourated. (well they went about 25 years ago in honesty). It's largely been the mobile middle classes who've been moving though, and so all this has done is reinforce the strength of the Republicans (the irony of it) in the South as their growth has translated into a larger share of the college.

Hillary is probably going to pick up amongst the 'black professional' classes, but again, I wouldn't have thought she'd be anymore inclined to inherit that vote than Edwards, in the event of Barrack being first out.
 
Interesting stuff. My own gut feeling is that most Americans have made their mind up about Hillary and as I've said before, she's a deeply polarising person with few shades of grey. The article half confirms that, but then somewhat contradictorarily goes on to suggest that he approval ratings have oscilated wildly before, which would of course give the lie to my assertion that she's got less scope than most given that people tend to hold reasonably intransigent position about her.

I didn't realise how well Rudy was fairing :eek: As I've also said before Giuliani versus Clinton would be the dirtiest election in history. I was actually more interested in the Senate election than the Presidential in 2000, for such time as these two were on a collision course. I apologise if it sounds pompous (well it does, so I'm sorry) but I think you need to have spent a bit of time in New York observing the Mayor's modus operandi to get an insight into this potential clash of titans. (I do believe it's on that scale). Rudy is truly ruthless, and Hillary's not above pulling the odd dirty stunt either. Had they clashed in New York, then there would probably be no chance they could face off in a Presidential election, as the loser wouldn't get selected. Now it seems we have a fair chance of this spectacle being played out globally.

My own best guess is that Guiliani would beat her in a long haul, and to some extent taking the VC price on him, is not bad saver rather than backing her. I personally feel the Republicans will come to realise that he's their best 'stop Clinton' candidate and will select him specifically for that purpose. So if you're of the opinion that Hillary wins the nomination, then the smart bet would be to back Rudy for both the Republican candidate and the White House I think.
 
Have you ever seen The Wire Warbs?

http://www.hbo.com/thewire/


It`d be right up your alley i reckon. It`s not just a Cop drama, it basicaly details the workings of an entire American city (Baltimore) and politics features very heavily in the third and fourth seasons as a white councillor (played by an Irish actor, the guy that was in Queer as Folk) challenges for Mayor against the black incumbant in a predominantly Black area.
Quality wise it shades The Sopranos imo, it`s that good.
 
Originally posted by Warbler@Aug 22 2007, 10:42 PM
My own best guess is that Guiliani would beat her in a long haul, and to some extent taking the VC price on him, is not bad saver rather than backing her.
Click to expand...
Is John McCain finished?
 
Originally posted by Gearoid+Aug 23 2007, 05:29 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Gearoid @ Aug 23 2007, 05:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Warbler@Aug 22 2007, 10:42 PM
My own best guess is that Guiliani would beat her in a long haul, and to some extent taking the VC price on him, is not bad saver rather than backing her.
Click to expand...
Is John McCain finished? [/b][/quote]
I'd say yes (about 8 years ago) Having said that Boyles 3/1 clearly think not, but Ladbrokes and Chandlers 33/1 seem to think so. All of which means it can't have been VC who had Rudy at 8's ( I was taking the figures from memory - it clearly failed me).
 
Best Prices

Clinton, Hillary 2.55 (PortlandBet)
Giuliani, Rudolph 9/2 (General)
Obama, Barack 5/1
Thompson, F 13/2
Romney, Mitt 11/1
Edwards, John 14/1
Gore, Al 16/1
Bloomberg, Michael 28/1
McCain, John 33/1
Richardson, Bill 33/1
 
Edwards must be the value looking at that. Romney should be 111/1 - surely no chance America will vote in a Mormon?
 
Edwards is the value isn't he? in fact it's blindingly obvious. Rarely have I seen a more contradictory market in any betting heat though, I reckon at various times over the last few months you could have covered half the field and still be showing a healthy book.

I've taken the following from 'adherents.com' (don't ask I don't know :D )

Denomination Number of
Presidents

Episcopalian 11
Presbyterian 10
Methodist 5
Baptist 4
Unitarian 4
Disciples of Christ 3
Dutch Reformed 2
Quaker 2
Congregationalist 2
Catholic 1
Jehovah's Witness 1

TOTAL 42

I can't account for the missing one, but it doesn't look good for Romney. I always thought the American public was more inclined to tarring and feathering mormons before they vote them into the oval office. It doesn't look good for Giuliani either. The only previous catholic was shot dead. No blacks, no women. You can wipe over half the field out on stats. I'm curious to know who the Jehovah's witness is/ was?
 
Yep, you learn something new everyday Gareth. I reckon you could have given me about 30 guesses before I came round to Ike

The 'disciples of christ' sound spooky too

LB Johnson
James Garfield (another one who got assassinated)
Ronald O'Reagan (attempted assassination)

Quakers

Herbert Hoover
Richrad Nixon (I did know that one)

I assume Martin Van Buren would be one of the Dutch reformed? Couldn't think who the other one would be off hand
 
I'm just plain confused. It looks a no bet market for me. I would lay Hillary Clinton though.
 
Wouldn't you be better off backing the Democrat field if you think Hillary's a lay, given that most of the book is composed of Republicans
 
Back
Top