The Next President?

Only a total cynic could possibly see Rudi v Hillary as a good thing for America :eek:
Both are scary beyond measure - we have no idea of, though we may guess at, the extent of their deviousness and disrespect for morality [and legality]

Warbler, you say you're a Socialist because you put people first. I'm afraid that the very essence of Socialism is that it puts the Group - the common good - before the individual, which is why Leftist regimes the world over have been so murderous and so controlling. I'm only interested in a political philosophy which respects the rights of the individual.

I used to be very involved in Leftwing politics in my youth, now I loathe the Left and all its works. The schisms on the Left are treated as a joke - in fact they are entirely symptomatic of the hatred which motivates many on that side of the plotical spectrum, esp those who seek power. I repsect the personal integrity of those like yourself who cling to the faith, as do many of my own lifelong friends - and in your won case your personal experiences of 84/85 explains a lot; but I fear you are woefully misguided.

As Dr Johnson put it in another context - to work for political power of the Left is "the triumph of hope over experience". History demonstrates that when any Leftist regime gains power, the carnivores soon dispose of the herbivores. Chile was possibly the only exception - for a while, and carnivores devoured that too
 
the very essence of Socialism is that it puts the Group - the common good - before the individual,
Click to expand...

okay...

which is why Leftist regimes the world over have been so murderous and so controlling. I'm only interested in a political philosophy which respects the rights of the individual.
Click to expand...

I am not sure about the logic of your leap of faith above.

But you seem to be, which is nice.
 
I'm only interested in a political philosophy which respects the rights of the individual.
Click to expand...

That's just what the Republican Party in the US claim.

That's the anti-abortion, pro-death penalty, pro-internment, pro-censorship, anti-homosexual, anti-stem cell research Republican Party.

Not for a moment suggesting you're any/all of the above (or even that you would consider that to be a bad thing) - that's not my point at all - it's just interesting, and not a little scary, how these beliefs evolve and become distorted over time.
 
Obama has out-fundraised Hilary in the last quarter. $32.5 million to an estimated $28 million.

Mel:

Hillary Clinton 2/1
Barack Obama 5/1
Fred Thompson 6/1
Rudolph Giuliani 8/1
Al Gore 12/1
Mitt Romney 14/1
John Edwards 20/1
John McCain 20/1
Bar 40/1
 
Originally posted by Gareth Flynn@Jul 2 2007, 02:19 PM
I'm only interested in a political philosophy which respects the rights of the individual.
Click to expand...

That's just what the Republican Party in the US claim.

That's the anti-abortion, pro-death penalty, pro-internment, pro-censorship, anti-homosexual, anti-stem cell research Republican Party.

Not for a moment suggesting you're any/all of the above (or even that you would consider that to be a bad thing) - that's not my point at all - it's just interesting, and not a little scary, how these beliefs evolve and become distorted over time.
Click to expand...
I can't see that any party which supports let alone thinks up the regime at Guantanamo Bay has any respect for the individual, whatever they may profess to believe. I'm more or less a total cynic about politics, ie about politicians, these days. I judge them by their deeds. I don't support much less belong to any party

Leftist regimes have been responsible for most of the politically-motivated genocide in the last couple of centuries, inc the Maoists, Soviets, Silver Path, Cambodians & Koreans, also Fascists and Nazis - and yes, those two were both Socialist parties in origin. There is little to choose between the far right and the far left anyway - both give rise to centralising, bureaucratic and anti-democratic systems whcih trample on the rights of the individual
 
20/1 Edwards :eek:

Do the compilers actually follow politics? I thought I had a steal at 14's :laughing: What I suspect they've done is look at the opinion polls and price a book up accordingly. Unfortunately for the bookies the American system is very different and I think they've failed to legislate for some key issues.

Few people doubt that the Democrats will win at the present. The disapproval ratings and the attitudinal answers to various questions are all recording figures in excess of what has normally precipitated a change in Adminsitration. John McCain's campaign has just gone into terminal decline and the one time Republican fav has been well and truly eclipsed by Giuliani now.

The crude opinion polls about party preferences (stripping away a named candidate) continually point to an unnamed Democrat, (the shrewder Republicans are given 2008 the swerve). However, unlike this country America doesn't vote anywhere near as loyally along partisan lines, and the cult of the personality is all important. You don't see conventions and rallies with signs up saying vote Democrat/ vote Republican for instance, you see the candidates name instead - it's weird, but the candidate is bigger than the party.

In this instance therefore the notion of pricing up based on Democrat versus Republican is questionable (even though you'd apply this logic for a British election). The opinion polls that matter at this stage are those that present the voters with hypothetical match ups. It's worth remembering the campaign will be fought out along these lines (Bush versus Kerry etc) not Republican v's Democrat, or Red v's Blue.

Amazingly the answers to this questions change dramatically, and in a way which is frankly incomprehendable to us.

In hypothetical head to head match ups Giuliani beats both Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama. The last piece I read on this suggested that even the nosediving John McCain was only 0.3% behind Clinton, and he's the most pro-war candidate in the race and is widely regarded as being damaged beyond repair for it, as all the others are seeking to distance themselves and re-write their voting records etc (Clinton has the most work to do here). As I've said before at length, people in the UK (and that includes our bookies) have got very little grasp of just how divisive and hated Hilary Clinton is in the States (and critically the Southern states at that)

When the penny drops with the Democrats, (as the White House is there's to throw away) and they realise that both Obama and Clinton will lose to Giuliani or Thompson (I wouldn't be too scarred of Romney) then they'll have to select Edwards, the white, southern, lawyer with a portfolio of championing the under dog and the televisual looks, and sharp mind to go with it. His price might get bigger yet, as I wouldn't expect him to be first out the blocks, but would expect him to come through when the Southern states start holding their primaries and when more opinion polls that use hypothetical match ups and start to set the alarm bells ringing amongst Democrat voters that both Hillary and Barrack will lose to Rudy, but Edwards will beat him.
 
Fascinating stuff Warbler, and esp interesting points regarding the head to heads and the cult of personality. This also makes total sense given the over-riding power of the President in the US
 
Well according to Oddschecker, it's VC bet who are offering the 20's about Edwards (I suspect he'll get bigger yet) but he's in it for the long haul, and has paced his funds accordingly. Mind you VC were also offering 100/1 about George Allen being President a few months ago, yet 10/1 him winning the Republican nomination, which is mathematically inconsistent in two horse race, if they genuinely believed his was 10/1 for the party. To be honest, he'd be about 3/1 if he contested for the Ku Klux Klan :eek:

Romney has sunk a lot into the early primaries, he's clearly trying to get a bounce and is pretty well the shite or bust candidate on the Republican side. My best guess is he'll do well in New Hampshire and Vermont and his price will contract thus. That would be the time to lay him, and there's alwasy the spectre of Gary Bloomberg or a militarist maniac lurking as invariably both New York Mayor's and a prominent miltarist get touted in every campaign before not ultimately declaring.

On the blue side, I still maintain that Hillary is unelectable, and I've been wanting to type "lay Hillary Clinton" for years and see if I end up dying under mysterious circumstances :ph34r: To put it in racing paralance neither Hillary or Barack are open to much improvement. Both have very loyal and very strong power bases, but they are concentrated disproportionately in the wrong parts of the country and are all over pwering in their own areas. I expect Edwards to come through in due course. If the Dems can win Florida then I think thats 27 votes? Edwards is the only candidate they've got who could do that. Both Hillary's and Barack's vote will naturally gravitate to Edwards. Hilllary might pick up Arkansas, but it's difficult to see Obama having much appeal outside of the his industrial heartlands. I expect him to be the first to fall out of the big three
 
Originally posted by Warbler@Jul 4 2007, 01:43 PM
His price might get bigger yet, as I wouldn't expect him to be first out the blocks, but would expect him to come through when the Southern states start holding their primaries and when more opinion polls that use hypothetical match ups and start to set the alarm bells ringing amongst Democrat voters that both Hillary and Barrack will lose to Rudy, but Edwards will beat him.
Click to expand...
Interesting stuff .. enjoy reading your thoughts Warbler BTW..

Couple of points here though..

With the way the American primary system is structured, it is virtually impossible to win (ie become the candidate for either major party) without either winning or doing well in Iowa or New Hampshire.. however, the definition of 'doing well' has a lot to do with (possibly more so than anything else) what is known in American politics as the "expectations game" (ie where a candidate can perform relatively poorly but still gain momentum, without doubt the single most critical factor in American presidential politics).. no point going into that though..

This is unlikely to be an issue for Edwards, however, as he is currently neck and neck with Clinton in Iowa (depends on which poll you look at), although he hasn't a hope in New Hampshire (although the almighy powers of "mojo" could of course change all of that)..

You mentioned the 'electability' factor as well.. this saved the day of course for John Kerry last election, but it didn't come into play until very near the caucus.. there is of course a very real possibility of this happening again, but certainly not this early.. as you say, this perhaps presents an opportunity for some of the more 'electable' nominees to become value bets..

Interesting to note as well the impact (sometimes damaging in the long run) that the primaries can have on certain candidates.. obviously in the primary season candidates only have to concern themselves with the needs of the voters of their own idealogical ilk (supposedly at least :p ), thus serving to drive some candidates either wide left or right (party-dependent of course).. Edwards himself seems to be the primary example of that this time, as he has made a beeline for the wide left of late, as well as being particularly confrontational (with very little effectiveness I might add), in an attempt to barge his way into the invisible "top tier candidates"..

Lastly, Edwards (who is a complete and utter fraud as far as I'm concerned BTW) is far from a lock to win the south IMO.. I reckon that if the South Carolina primary were held today both Hilary and Obama would stuff him.. however, it is hard to emphasize enough the role of momentum in American politics and whoever comes out of Iowa and New Hampshire with that momentum is more than likely to sweep all before them..

And this isn't even touching upon the general election.. :eek:
 
Some head-tohead opinion polls:

Rudy Vs. Hilary

Polling Data
Poll Date Sample Giuliani ® Clinton (D) Und Spread
RCP Average 06/04 - 06/24 - 46.2 47.4 5.8 Clinton +1.2
CNN 06/22 - 06/24 907 RV 48 49 1 Clinton +1.0
Gallup 06/04 - 06/24 2,039 RV 49 47 5 Giuliani +2.0
Cook/RT Strategies 06/21 - 06/23 844 RV 44 45 9 Clinton +1.0
Newsweek 06/20 - 06/21 831 RV 44 51 5 Clinton +7.0
Rasmussen 06/20 - 06/21 792 LV 46 45 9 Giuliani +1.0

Rudy Vs. Obama

Polling Data
Poll Date Sample Giuliani ® Obama (D) Und Spread
RCP Average 06/11 - 06/24 - 44.4 45.6 8.2 Obama +1.2
CNN 06/22 - 06/24 907 RV 48 46 2 Giuliani +2.0
Rasmussen 06/22 - 06/24 1200 LV 44 41 15 Giuliani +3.0
Cook/RT Strategies 06/21 - 06/23 844 RV 41 42 15 Obama +1.0
Newsweek 06/20 - 06/21 831 RV 44 49 7 Obama +5.0
USA Today/Gallup 06/11 - 06/14 927 RV 45 50 2 Obama +5.0

Hilary Vs. McCain

Polling Data
Poll Date Sample McCain ® Clinton (D) Und Spread
RCP Average 06/11 - 06/24 - 45.0 48.5 5.0 Clinton +3.5
CNN 06/22 - 06/24 907 RV 47 49 1 Clinton +2.0
Newsweek 06/20 - 06/21 831 RV 45 50 5 Clinton +5.0
Rasmussen 06/20 - 06/21 792 LV 42 46 12 Clinton +4.0
USA Today/Gallup 06/11 - 06/14 927 RV 46 49 2

Edwards Vs. Rudy

Polling Data
Poll Date Sample Giuliani ® Edwards (D) Und Spread
RCP Average 06/11 - 06/26 - 45.3 47.7 6.0 Edwards +2.4
Rasmussen 06/25 - 06/26 800 LV 45 45 10 Tie
Newsweek 06/20 - 06/21 831 RV 46 48 6 Edwards +2.0
USA Today/Gallup 06/11 - 06/14 927 RV 45 50 2 Edwards +5.0

Might post more up later if anyone's interested or if anyone has any specific polls they are interested in I'll try to put them up..
 
Ron Paul out to 80/1 in a couple of places having not made the impact on the mainstream June opinion polls that I expected.

There is not really any point backing him at any price, becaue he can't win, but I would love a cheap buy on a performance index somewhere.
 
Wow great stuff folks!!! A lot to digest there, let me take it all in, and I'll come back bit by bit :D
 
I'll take them chronologically so Trackside first;

Take the point regarding primaries Iowa was the one I missed out of course, and your observation regarding the definition of "doing well" is very pertinent. No dispute there. If Clinton can't carry New Hampshire then she's got a lot to worry about? It's natural territory for her afterall, if she can't landslide it, she's in trouble. I expect her to win comfortably.

Appealing to their own voters is part of the bet. If you believe the Americans are ready again for a Dem? then surely the answer is to back the most likely winner of the convention for Pres, given that we price them up over here so differently. Candidates should be their nomination price + their parties price? There is value to be had

I suspect Edwards is shifting left for good reason (is he likely to be branded a liberal) it might be harder to make it stick on him? His own war voting record wasn't brilliant, but having left the circus he is at least permitted the line of 'guess how I might have voted' Hillary by contrast is up to her neck in it.

I share your observation that making early hay doesn't always work. It might give you momentum but it also puts you in the cross hairs and builds expectations. Remember the parable of Gary Hart.

As regards Edwards being a fraud :laughing: Since when has that been a barrier of entry to the Oval Office? I'm not declaring an allegiance understand, just a bet shrug:: My observations about the South are based purely on he being the Dems best chance. South Carolina won't be held tomorrow, and I reckon that with due notice and local activists, plus the dirty tactics that are always used in such circumstances he'd beat both in South Carolina. For crying out loud even dear old Walter won Wisconsin I think? as well as DC of course which will always go blue
 
Fair points all of course Warbler..

Couple of things though..

Just as much as Clinton is dependent of a win in New Hampshire (as is Obama), Edwards is equally dependent on winning (or going close at the very least) in Iowa.. if he runs flat there, he won't even be in the race come South Carolina (where Obama is doing a fantastic job attracting support among African-American's, who form a very large part of the primary voting electorate).. South Carolina is Obama's to lose at the minute IMO..

I also suspect Edwards is shifting left for good reason- to get noticed by the liberal primary voting electorate.. by outflanking the other candidates to the left, Edwards is desperately trying to make a name for himself as a "true democrat" (his posturing on the war is hilarious BTW)..

As for him being a fraud, I would have thought that would have shortened his odds quite considerably.. :D
 
We're out of sequence trackside (am i to assume you are US based?) because for whatever reason the system closes on me at 01.00 so I've had to save in word what I typed and the res-ubmit.

I accept what you say about what I'm prepared to call the 'black vote' but surely the 'hispanic vote' is more important these days. Is there any evidence yet that Edwards has Heinz money behind him? I certainly haven't heard it reported or even suggested?

Anyway, leaving that aside I'll hopefully repost what I tried to originally;


Personal appeal to trackside :D

Can you keep these polls coming through please, as I believe they're the best barometers to work on this far out. The one's Ive seen had Rudy doing well against both Hillary and Barack, and to that extent some of that is born out, considering Rudy beats her on some and loses on others but is close enough to make him a value cover bet.

I'll indulge a wee bit because I'm sure Iv'e told you before about my own clash with Rudy. But in case I haven't :p It was somehere between third and Madison when I walked into his entourage campaigning against Ruth Messenger for Mayor. Rudy approached me and asked for my vote. Now i was attached to the UN at the time so mknew he was, and had watched NY1 (there's not much else on the TV by way of current affairs) and I'd watched his Friday 'questions to the Mayor' slot. I explained I was a UK national, and I couldn't vote etc but if I could, I wouldn't vote for him. Most polly's I'd expect to cheesey smile me, shake my hand and move on? Giuliani didn't :) We proceeded to have a funny kind of debate/ argument as we were scratching round for common ground to fall out on. I couldn't speak to him about New York politics, yet I suspected he wanted my international perspective. On reflection, we chewed as it were for a minute (until I dragged him into very uncomfortable territory) and that was when he moved on.

I was being mischievous in doing so though, he was sharp enough to realise where that would have ended up (in front of cameras). It sticks in my craw to admit it, but I've got a lot of respect Rudy. There were times I though the was the devil incarnate. I thought he made a twet of himself at the TWA downing, and his final (pre-9-11) months at dis-gracie Mansion are well documented (as were his missues appearence in the Virginia monologues).

I'll be honest, I don't scare that easily at this level, but Rudy was a guy who definately endede up thinking I wouldn't fancy taking on. He was lethal. I reported abck to the mission that this guy could be Pres one day "he's that good". THey laughed, I bet they aren't now. Though in fairness the Rudy I met and witnessed in NY, is nothing compared to the watered down version he is today. Crikey he almost looks cuddly (amazing what a bit of Prostate can do for a man
 
Not US-based Warbler (actually based in Dublin), but am on a work experience trip in the US at the moment (today is just my second day actually) in the political field as well.. maybe that accounts for the problem.

As for the "minority vote", there is certainly a major chance that the ne
election could witness a major tide shift towards the Latino vote..however, just like with the African-American vote, the major problem will most likely be registering and mobilizing voters.. much too early to say who will attract the most Latino support (which could be vital particularly in the South if maximised)..
comment about the importance about of the black vote was in reference to the South Carolina primary btw (not too many Latinos in that state)..

As for Edwards' funding, he "only" raised USD$9 million last quarter (April-June).. only a fraction of the likes of Obama (USD$32 million).. however, he is a very wealthy man himself (not quite sure if he's near as wealthy as Heinz though)..

Interesting account of meeting Giuliani Warbler.. he certainly is a hard-nosed operator.. I just think that he could very well be exposed in a general election campaign running on one issue and one issue alone (9/11)..

As for the polls, will do my best to keep them coming although I fear I may be unable to post very often, if at all, from Friday on, as that is when things really get busy (apparently.. :p )..

The most striking polling feature on the GOP side seems to be the disparity between Romney's position in Iowa and New Hampshire (leads in both) compared to in nationwide (only conducted ocassionally)..

Republican National:

Polling Data
Poll Date Giuliani Thompson McCain Romney Gingrich Spread
RCP Average 06/11 - 06/28 26.3 18.8 16.7 9.8 7.0 Giuliani +7.5
Rasmussen 06/25 - 06/28 24 27 12 13 -- Thompson +3.0
FOX News 06/26 - 06/27 29 15 17 8 8 Giuliani +12.0
CNN 06/22 - 06/24 30 19 18 9 8 Giuliani +11.0
Cook/RT Strategies 06/21 - 06/23 20 14 20 10 5 Giuliani +0.0
Newsweek 06/20 - 06/21 27 19 15 12 -- Giuliani +8.0
USA Today/Gallup 06/11 - 06/14 28 19 18 7 7 Giuliani +9.0

New Hampshire:

Polling Data
Poll Date Sample Romney Giuliani Thompson McCain Spread
RCP Average 06/20 - 06/30 - 26.3 19.3 13.3 16.3 Romney +7.0
American Res. Group 06/27 - 06/30 600 LV 27 19 10 21 Romney +6.0
Rasmussen 06/28 - 06/28 466 LV 26 17 17 15 Romney +9.0
Suffolk 06/20 - 06/24 200 LV 26 22 13 13 Romney +4.0


Iowa:

Polling Data
Poll Date Romney Giuliani Thompson McCain Huckabee Spread
RCP Average 06/13 - 06/30 24.3 15.7 16.0 9.7 4.3 Romney +8.3
American Res. Group 06/26 - 06/30 25 18 14 13 1 Romney +7.0
Strategic Vision ® 06/22 - 06/24 23 14 17 10 5 Romney +6.0
Mason-Dixon 06/13 - 06/16 25 15 17 6 7 Romney +8.0

Going out now to see the fireworks on the mall .. Happy Independence Day to one and all from the sunny USA.. :D
 
Just realized how fucked up the polls look the way i posted them (copied and pasted from word document lol).. :what:

should read as: dates polled - candidates individual % - leader (with % lead)

appologies for any inconvenience..
 
Interesting Trackside;

That was my impression (Romney has front loaded his campaign) if he generates momentum then fair play, but in doing so he'll have built expectation and I can see him fizzling out. It's why I think he might make a good lay after the first round of results when his price will be at it's shortest.

As regards Rudy :laughing: What can I say? The man is more than capable of fighting off ore than one ticket and he'll doubtless start inventing himself as Mr law and order too in due course (even though Bob Bratton is probably responsible for much of Giulianis gains in the Big Apple) but he was removed from office and air brushed from history when it became expedient to do so. As I said, I've got a lot of respect for the man, his intellect and above all else, his kick ass sense of getting things done. I even bought his book, and I rarely do something like that, as by the late 90's I'd become convinced there was something a little bit special about him. In a daft way he reminded me of Thatch (who I'm sure anyone who's read my stuff knows I hate). He was the kind of person you could admire from a distance, (as indeed many Americans do with regards to her) but would hate to live under.

Rudy ran a quasi tyranical regime in NY, and he's certainly mellowed a lot since. To hear him described as socially conscious and left leaning just makes me realise what a desperate state America must be in. Operationally though, I've rarely seen a better 'in touch' politican and his ability to plug into the common person is probably better than any one I've seen previously with the possible exception of the early years Tony Blair. Mind you he's got 101 skeletons in his closet which means he's never going to be 'one of us' which means the organised religious zealots of the Republican and middle American lawn mowing christian (Flanders types) will be alienated by him. If I were a Dem though, he'd be the one I'd least like to take on.
 
It's rumoured. The thing about Gary Bloomberg is he can underwrite his own campaign so he can enter late aka Ross Perot. I can't agree it would make Hillary a lay though (quite the opposite) if Hillary wins the Democrat nomination, a Bloomberg candidacy would make her pretty close to a shoe in for the White House, as indeed it would for any Democrat.

Quite what the country would make of a former New York Mayor, running against a New York Senator, and the current New York Mayor is anybodies guess. New York politicians have a poor record in running for the ultimate office, (as indeed do Senators, JFK was the last successful Senator I seem to think?) and it strikes me that every campaign sees the prospect of the New York Mayor discussed, or some high ranking Military figure. Invariably they never run though. Ed Koch was the last Mayor who might have stood a chance, and the looney Wesley Clarke the last military figure.

All Bloomberg would achieve is a split in the Republican vote, although he would draw off some of the anti Hillary Dems too. His impact would however, be much larger on the Republicans, and I personally wouldn't expect to see it
 
Back
Top