The Next President?

Exactly, Warbler. The next election will, as always, be fought out in the same three states it always is: Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida. Remember, if Kerry had won Ohio in '04, he would be the president today. The next "tier" in terms of electoral importance are states like Iowa, New Mexico, Washington, Colorado and Wisconsin. These are always swing states (Iowa and New Mexico were incredibly close in '04) and while they may not have the electoral clout of New York, California or Texas, the fact that they will be firmly in play during the next election will see both candidates flock to them.

Thus, the notion that a Democrat must carry the South is simply not true. However, while I accept that if the Republicans somehow end up with the likes of Huckabee or Thompson (scary prospect, I know), Hillary hasn't a hope in the South, I'm not sure it's that clear-cut if either Giuliani or Romney end up as the nominee, given the former's fairly liberal stance on abortion and the latter's Mormonism (which will be an issue); remember, social issues tend to trump most everything else.. it's the Bible Belt for a reason! On a more superficial level (which-lets face it- is what this is really all about to a large degree), neither (nor McCain for that matter) possess the 'country charisma' that GWB did (or the fucking accent!) which Southerners tend to be drawn to!

It would certainly be folly to suggest that attracting at least a reasonable portion of the rural vote will be crucial for whomever the Democratic nominee turns out to be, considering Kerry lost Ohio largely due to attracting feck all support in the largely rural south of the state (which, for all intents and purposes, is very similar to the south).

I suppose your boy Edwards would hold an advantage over the likely GOP candidates. Heard today from a mate on the ground that Obama has a lot of momentum in Iowa at the minute, contrary to reports here that he's treading water, while Romney is on the slide.

On a different note, the prospect of an ordained Baptist minister becoming the president of the United States is a terrifying though indeed..

Happy new year to all.. :)
 
I take you're still over in the land of brave and the home of the free then?

Please keep us updated

I obviously have limited access to some of the better brains that theUK has on this (with occasional Americans). Actually thats not fair.......I can't go back to the States now (I'm banned) but i have a healthy disrespect for them.

PM if you want Trackside (as things develop) and I'll give you a wee bit of what I know. Not that it's secure you understand (no slant at themods intended)
 
Originally posted by trackside528@Jan 1 2008, 02:14 AM
Republicans somehow end up with the likes of Huckabee or Thompson (scary prospect, I know),
Click to expand...
Possibly the most scary candidate since Ross Perot. The prospect of Chuck Norris as Secretary for Home Land Security is a worry. I really can't see Huckerbee winning this though. Sure he'll pick up some nominations, and I can well see him taking out Romney in Iowa, but even Americans can only stomach so much christian fundamentalism, and it's not going to play out too well in the bigger cities I'd have thought. Rudy will win the Republican nomination, though God knows who his choice of running mate will be? He could do with some God bothering Sourtherner, but Rudy's normally been pretty loyal to his clan (once they're on the inside)

Class ic encounter on Ch4 last night with two campaign managers representing Huckerbee and Hillary. It wasn't so much what they said, (or didn't say) it was the look on their faces when Jon Snow explained that the British Prime Minister had said he didn't believe in God, and it had done him no damage!!!! Both blanched and looked decidely uncomfortable, wwwohh where's this going? type of thing.
 
you do bang on about Americans (would you have a "healthy disrespect" for Pakistanis or black africans too?) and christianity warbler

Sure its an overwhelmingly religous society but the comments that you refered to above would probably have been taken in much the same way in Italy or Ireland too. And in Iran or Saudi arabia?

In fact it is Britain that largely stands out as being very secular. But when did GB say he didnt believe in God?
 
I think that was forecast. The big three were close but it will be the second votes that get her. Not the be-all-and-end-all though.
 
Well she'll be hard pressed to put a positive spin on that, though I'm far from certain just how you survey a democrat caucaus given its vaguaries, and that it's done by process of elimination. Hillary's a devisive character as has been laboured previously, and most people have formed a pretty well entrenched position regarding her, making he rvote the most loyal, but also the one open to the least upward movement. Makes New Hampshire a must win for her I'd have thought, as there'll be no shortage of anti Hillary Dem's who will be happy to deal her the knock out blow if they can.

All part of Warblers masterplan :nuts:

Barrack and Hillary to tear each other up, whilst WASP'y Edwards sneaks through as the compromise by virtue of attracting the least flak. As the race tightens up though, they'll get nervous about the inexperienced Obama and cold feet will prevail. I need Hillary taking early damage from which she can't recover, allowing Edwards to inherit the role of 'safer pair of hands etc' I suppose the old WASP acronym is about out date now, (i need male in it :brows: )

I'm not sure it was forecast BM, (or not until very late on) She went to Iowa to win, and was long time favourite, and her campaign were certainly talking her prospects up for a long time too. She's spent a lot of time there, and the longer she did, the less inroads she's appeared to make. She made a few big city mistakes in what is an affluent rural state, but few people are prepared to forgive Hillary such is her devisiveness. Even this weekend, the last polls had her as neck and neck with Obama and Edwards tucked in behind in third. If she has indeed come third, that is a poor result for her however she tries to mask it, and if I were a Dem I'd be asking myself just how much appeal she has outside of her core voting block? Can this women reach out to a broader constituency and win me an election? etc

Mind you, as BM suggests, there's a long way to go, and remember the parable of Gary Hart!!! You can't win the nomination in the early primaries, but you can sure as hell do irrepairable damage. Still, they're only exits at this stage, lets wait, the American pollsters have been wrong before.
 
1. Clinton
2. Obama
3. Edwards

1. Huckabee
2. Romney
3. McCain

Early returns suggest it's as tight as we would have expected on the Dem side, though I'm surprised to hear Edwards seems to be doing surprisingly poorly (especially so given his organisation).. early days yet though of course (and I'm mostly going by entrance polls I've seen as well)..

Edwards is actually up 2 on Clinton at the moment though i'd expect that to change tbh..

Heard 60% of Republican caucaser's identified themselves either as evangelical or born-again christians.. says it all really..

Of course I'd be prepared to eat my socks if the above proves to be bollocks, though I'm fairly confident I have it right.

will try and update again.

you get my pm btw warbler?
 
Huckabee has won anyway.

Interesting to see will Fred Thompson hold for third. Lot of word earlier today that were he to bomb out he would fold and endorse McCain.

Bad night for Romney.
 
BBC's reporting Obama, with Edwards shading Clinton. Mind you, they've made a complete feck up of their coverage all night with their Hillary love fest. Romney will bomb in NH and could well be toast by the weekend.

Mind you, they also suggested that such a result allows all 3 to claim victory :eek: I can't for the life of me see how third place for Clinton can be viewed as anything other than a poor showing all things considered. The basic issue again comes down to personality, and whether she can connect with the voters in the key states that she'll need to. She basically lacks the charisma, and it's difficult to see that she can build too much. What she's got, is pretty well..... what she's got.

We'll see of course, there's still along way to go, and Iowa has turned up the odd strange result before. I get the impression though there's a few Dem's who would be prepared to give her a bloody nose if they get the chance. Conventional thinking was that she was a bombproof shoe in of course. All of sudden she doesn't look quite so unbeatable.

BF's got Hillary and Edwards neck and neck in running

I picked up the PM by the way
 
http://politicalbetting.com/

It was on May 27th 2005 that I first suggested on the site that the then relatively unknown junior senator from Illinois was a good bet for the 2008 White House Race. At the time you could have got 50/1 on him going all the way and I know that many site visitors did place bets. Those odds have shrunk to 7/2 this morning after his victory in Iowa - the first state to decide on the candidates. That price looks great value.


The margin of more than 8% that pushed Hillary Clinton into third place was greater than the polls were predicting and was particularly significant because of the independent voters and the numbers of young voters who turned out last night to support Obama at the the caucus meetings across the state.

Obama now goes into the New Hampshire primary with all the momentum on his side and he could even by the betting favourite by the weekend to get the nomination. The latest Betfair price has him at 1.3/1 with Hillary still odds-on at 0.83/1.


A lot now depends on how the US media reports the outcome and how the rest of the nation will view a state which is 95% white giving so much backing to a black challenger. His colour, my guess, will become less and less of an issue. I’ve stepped up my betting on him.



Mike Huckabee’s emphatic victory in the GOP race could surely be the death-knell of Mitt Romney’s campaign and makes next Tuesday’s clash in New Hampshire even more interesting. Without sounding too self-congratulatory I suggested here in August that he was worth betting on for the nomination when the was 60/1.


There has been a tendency amongst many observers to write Huckabee off - but he is hugely dangerous to the more well-established contenders. His victory speech in Iowa proved to me that he is head and shoulders above the others when it comes to coming over well in the media. This former preacher-man might continue to surprise us.

What was common to both parties in Iowa was that the youngest candidate won in each case and that the victories went to the strongest and most able communicators. In the TV age you have to make an impact and both Obama and Huckabee can be very effective.


Mike Smithson
 
Good posts by all and interesting stuff

I always thought that Edwards would have been a far stronger democratic candidate last time around than the wooden Kerry and I am a little suprised he isnt closer to the front runners this time around.

But im not drawing any conclusions at all from this primary. Boring as it might sound, i still believe it will be Rudi vs Clinton
 
Originally posted by Warbler@Jan 3 2008, 08:43 PM
I'm not sure it was forecast BM, (or not until very late on).
Click to expand...
It seemed to be an idea that grew as yesterday approached. There was actually a guy on Radio 5 very early yesterday morning (form the University of Iowa I think) who explained how he thought the voting was likely to go and why Hilary would come third.

I am presuming that you have backed Guiliani and that Hilary's failure at an early stage is beneficial to you as it will avoid potential battles further down the line?
 
The precinct map makes an interesting scan, though in fairness it's easy to read too much into it. Again, I reckon it's Clinton who would be the loser, and have the most to think about.

Iowa's obviously a decent sized state (geogrpahical area) and sits at something of cross roads, drawing influences from all directions (illinois, the Conservattve North, The Early South and the Mid West). Obama's certainly picked up votes in the Eastern part of the state which borders Illinois/ Chicago, and some of his message will of course cross over the border as will his appeal. He's also picked up the Wisconsin border too, which might be a little bit more of surprise. I'm not sure that bringing in Illinois staff would have made that much difference, but at the same time it won't have done him any harm. Where as he might have expected to perform well in the East, where he will most certainly draw a lot of comfort is in the fact that he seems to have carried the urban areas, and that's got to be worrying for Hillary in particular.

Edwards has a crumb of comfort in that he's clearly taken the southern precincts bordering Missouri, although this need not necessarily translate into a strengthening of his appeal the further South he goes. Too many of the Southern States vote too late, and they tend to be coronations etc, as momentum has largely dictated the winner by then. Clinton's vote is much more spread about and seems to have held in the rural areas, and the West bordering the Dakota's. At one level this might be encouraging in so far as she wouldn't be expected to be strong in such areas, but on the other hand these are Democrat voters remember. There seems to be little prospect in my mind at least, that she could make any in roads into this base when there's a Republican alternative, and if Obama is able to replicate his support in other Northern/ industrial areas amongst the urban vote then she's potentially in big trouble.

To my mind she's sending out a slightly confused message. She's embraced the 'change' agenda of Obama, but is poorly qualified to play the card being the most establishment 'Washington' candidate of the lot. Obama has drawn heavily on Blair (and doesn't make that much secret of it) and is talking in nebulous terms about visions, aspirations and non specific themes. I still feel he's vulnerable on a few fronts but someone's going to have to drag him into specifics and test him in heavyweight issues of substance and statemanship. Clinton's the best qualified to do that, and she might have to sooner rather than later, or risk losing ground that she might not re-cover. It does open the prospect of course that the two of them could indulge in some unedifying negative tear up, in the name of self-preservation.

As an orator and all round general charismatic campaigner he's well ahead of the often frosty and aloof Hillary, and she's going to be no match for him if she tries to trade punches thus. She's got to weigh in with substance, and hope that despite his flying start the American public will grow wary of him as things unfold and the prospect of a comparatively unproven and inexperienced President Obama dawns on them, and hope they lose their collective nerve. My suspicion is that they will, but there were some interesting comments I heard yesterday about the black female vote needing to be convinced by Obama. Clinton has traded off much of this block which proved very supportive to her husband, and she's supposidly carried some of this over. If they decide that Obama is the 'real deal' she might start to shed another constituency in the patchwork that are her followers. It was speculated that this could well follow through to New Hampshire.

It's clear that in head to head stump campaign activity, Obama's got Hillary's number I think, but as the primary season moves on it will be impossible for candidates to keep up the required level of focus and activity. Polls come thick and fast, and with her bigger war chest and campaign team, some of the personal vote that Obama was able to garner by virtue of only having the single state to focus on, with a long lead in time, might get eroded. Essentially it means having to dilute his challenge by not being able to be in 6 places at the same time, some of the impact of his stump might lose some of its potency through having to spread the intensity thus. This should assist Hillary, who is the inferior campaigner, and thus deny Obama one of his best weapons.

To be honest (I was thinking this today) if you stripped away the 'Clinton' name, and then looked at her voting record (indicates left, and turns right etc) what is there to really commend her to the Democrat rank and file? She's actually a pretty poor candidate I reckon bar the reflected glory of the 1990's. She succeeded in talking up pre-poll expectations, and developing an aura of invicibility etc but that could be easily punctured, and once that veneer of being unbeatable is stripped away, she doesn't look half as formidable all of a sudden. As I've also said, she's made enough enemies down the years, and there's enough Democrats with whom she remains deeply distrusted who, if scenting blood in the water, wouldn't be averse to trying to finish her off.

The final point I heard on the Democrat side that I quite liked was that made about Obama. "He's not that black is he? I mean he's no Al Sharpton". It's not so much a pigmentation thing (although I think there's a bit more in this than America would like to admit). But he's a kind of Lewis Hamilton, Tiger Woods type of urbane and what I crudely call (for want of a better way of expressing it) "acceptable black".

The only comment I'll make of the dysfunctional Republicans, is to replicate another sound bite.

"Romney made them think. Huckerbee made them laugh"..... The result? say no more really, vote for Huckerbee and Chuck Norris as running mate. I expect Romney to be a lame duck by early next week, McCain to win NH and Rudy to take Florida. Ultimately, I think Rudy will prevail here, although there is the fascinating spectre of him running as an independent (which I could see him trying yet if Hillary and Huckerbee were to win). Mind you Bloomberg's recently indicated he's independent hasn't he, which can easily be interpreted as clearing the decks too.
 
Originally posted by betsmate@Jan 4 2008, 12:30 PM

I am presuming that you have backed Guiliani and that Hilary's failure at an early stage is beneficial to you as it will avoid potential battles further down the line?
Click to expand...
Presume wrong I'm afraid.

I'm actually trying to combine the ability to keep an objective analytical mind seperate from where the money's gone. :D and am far from convinced I'm succeeding.

Backing Guiliani after New Hampshire for the Republican nomination would be my way of betting him.

I've got a sneaking admiration for him, but feel that Hillary's success is more likely to benefit his chances rather than hinder them. He's the one Republican candidate who might be able to take her on over a pro-longed campaign. If I were Hillary's campaign team, Rudy would be the Republican I'd be most scarred of, though with her charisma problems, there's always a chance that the folksy Huckerbee could beat her, but ultimately one would hope that her superior knowledge and intellect would triumph over that raving nut case.
 
Leaving aside the fact that I don't seem to know the difference between a precinct and a county!!! (God knows why? I've filled enough American registration forms in before now). It would appear there's a few sub plots in the rural areas. Despite doing well in the West of Iowa, the dynamic (according to the BBC) was one of age, rather than urban/ rural, regarding Hillary's vote. In an number of precincts that they snapshotted, she seems to have been an 'unviable' candidate on the first ballot, which for someone who was 20pts ahead at one time, truly is testimony as to just how divisive she is. Loyal support, co-exists alongside outright loathing.

The other interesting factor, which is something I think we picked up on earlier, is her support amongst women voters. It would appear that Obama polled more than her, contrary to popular perceptions in the UK that women vote for Hillary etc The significance of a black male in a state that's something like 98% white (I find that stat difficult to believe myself) out polling a front running female candidate of her profile, amongst women voters, truly is significant. I think we've noted before that she's actually more unpopular amongst women than men, and that her female vote is kept within tight (and largely loyal sub-groups) but right now she can't be happy, with polls allegedly closing in around her in other states.

The decision to disqualify Florida won't help her, but she might have benefited from Michigan falling foul too, although she's left her name on the ballot there, where everyone else has withdrawn. I'm not completely convinced of the sense of doing this, as it can easily run the risk of turning Michigan into a Hillary referendum, and if all the anti votes fall in behind the stalking horse she could get very embarassed (provided of course, I've read and interpreted the events correctly)
 
Great to see so much interest on here, and everyone bringing serious quality to the table to boot.

What makes Obama's victory all the more impressive is the sheer size of the turnout, which was twice the size of that in 2000. I know people will roll out the "it's all down to Dubya" line and, while it is of course hard to refute that, Obama deserves an immense amount of credit for energising the state, especially the youth vote (traditionally a low-turnout demographic). I've been banging on about momentum for ages on here and that was something Obama certainly had (though I wasn't convinced that alone could defeat Clinton) in the last three weeks of the campaign. The question now is will that momentum carry over to NH, and I have a hard time seeing how it won't to be honest.

As for Hilary, it's on to New Hampshire now, where it's absolutely crucial she make a stand. While it would be too soon to say it's a "must-win" IMO, given the national organisation and war chest at her disposal, it's not impossible to envisage Obama riding a tidal wave of momentum right to the nomination. Quite frankly, I was surprised how poorly Hillary performed last night. The most worrying aspect of course is the fact that she had little to no support among younger voters; granted, she got the solid support from her core (older women) but even among younger women she was soundly beaten by Obama. Warbler, I think you make very pertinent points regarding the charisma issue. I would certainly agree with you that Obama is a far better orator (he is some orator in real life btw, tremendous charisma) than Clinton. In fact, one of Clinton's problems was that she just keeps piling on the issues in her stump, as opposed to broader message of change that seems to resonate.

The real loser on the night was Edwards. I don't see where he can go from here, given that he virtually staked everything in Iowa. The fact of the matter is he has very little cash, less of an established national organisation, and has failed to generate the momentum to garner much cash. He did win second, but the fact is he was beaten comprehensively and for a man who staked so much in Iowa, he is the real loser amongst the Dems. On a personal level, the sheer hypocrisy of the man continues to astound me.

Pretty much went how we predicted on the Republican side, with Huckabee winning comfortably and Romney getting stuffed. Will be interesting to see if McCain can harness the momentum he has garnered (though probably a bit less than he would have liked) into New Hampshire, which is increasingly shaping up to be a litmus test for both him and Romney.

Was talking to a fella the other day who reckons Huckabee could well take Florida given Rudy's vulnerability and his strength in the pan-handle and the upper and even central region; not sure I see it myself though..

He has absolutely zero chance in a general though, even if he won all of the south, including Florida.

Will post more thoughts later.

Well done to Gearoid btw. :)
 
I'm tempted to think that Edwards probably has hit a 'high water' mark to be honest, and until someone can try and get underneath the Obama skin and drag him into substantive issues he should continue to ride the crest of the wave, talking about values, principals, and visions without actually spelling out what he's really about. The similarities with President Blair are all too evident, but American politics are volatile and strange things happen. I mentioned Gary Hart earlier, another one who walked away from Iowa with a Republican nomination of course was Pat Robertson. Now George H Bush was a former Director of the CIA, and strangely enough a few revelations appeared about him shortly after he threatend to de-rail Bush's bid, and he was never credible again. The name escapes me but the Democratic winner of Iowa in 1992 is now a footnote in history, Bill Clinton finished well down the field as an also ran.

I think there's a danger in staying in the cross-hairs for too long and the media and public can tire of you. Hillary's allowed something like a 20 point plus lead in Iowa to turn around into a 5 point third place defeat, which however she tries to paint it, is poor. She has the personal charisma of a rattle snake, and as a delegate said in a Ch4 piece last night (whose coverage is a damn sight more impartial than the BBC's who are obviously trying to do their bit for Democrats abroad, and have nailed their colours to the Clinton mast). "She's so 1990's". Their correspondent made a slightly waspish remark by way of observation;

"She's talking about change, and been forced into adopting Obama's language. However, she's offering no more change than 'back to the future."

It was always assumed that her voting block was established and loyal, and thus open the least amount of swing either way, but she's presided over a 25 point haemorrhage, and is clearly going to have to re-think quickly, as the compressed nature of the primary season this year, could mean it runs away from her, before she can respond. A defeat in NH means that she's going to have to lay in a bit a take battle damage in the hope of sticking a few on Obama, or otherwise she's starting to look like the beaten candidate that I think well over half the population always wanted her to be. If the Clinton vote continues to evapourate, it's far from clear where it will go. Americans like winners rather than under-dogs and Obama will doubtless pick up some. With her age cohort being what it is though, (40 pluses) there has to be an expectation that Edwards will draw off more, it's just that as things stand, the evidence of a collapse in the Clinton vote isn't necessarily there yet, though a 25 point fall clearly shows that it isn't as strong as initially thought, and it is now demonstrably possible that she could lose momentum. A couple of hits in heartlands and it's suddenly looking bleak

Being on EST I suspect we'll see the first set of post Iowa polls hitting the news feeds in the next couple of hours. The only ones I've picked up so far are suspicious.

Suffolk WHDH has Clinton +12, and Zogby has Clinton +6. Interestingly Obama remains unchanged in both polls, and the Clinton -6 goes to Edwards. I'm highly suspicious of the accuracy of this though, and would tend to ignore it. The trading activity on some American political betting exchange indicates something like 66% Obama and 30% Clinton, but considering the amount of money that's been traded (it's clearly not as big in the US as it is here, it wouldn't disgrace a seller at Fontwell).

I've actually been surprised just how fragile the Clinton vote in Iowa proved. Obama's obviously got to test his appeal in the South yet, but sicne the primary's are restricted to Democrats (or broadly sympathetic neutrals strictly speaking) we've got something of a false barometer which will only really become more apparent once a Republican is put up by way of alternative.

Incidentally, the neutrals who intend voting in New Hampshire have indicated that two thirds will vote in the Deomcrat primary, which again points to Obama winning I'd have thought. If Hillary can't put up a strong showing, she's in trouble. Personally I expect she will, and she'll go on. Money is not the issue to her, but she's starting to look unelectable to me (well I always thought she was) but have to conceed I thought Obama would be too, albeit for different reasons. ONly a fool would try to hold that position now norty but then American politics isn't averse to throwing in the unforeseen.

I still have discounted the spectacular yet :suspect:
 
Rasmussen reporting Obama 37, (up about 8) Clinton 27 (down about 8) Edwards 19 (unchanged)

Looks like something in the region of a 15-16 pt swing, hasn't quite brought Clinton into striking distance for third yet, but if this flight of support becomes a crisis of confidence who knows?
 
Way down the bottom of the list, because he didn't campaign, preferring to wait to spend his money later on.
 
Back
Top