1/29/2008

A bit late, but fascinating comment on Iowa Democratic caucus

I only came across this now. Penelope Trunk, who I read mostly for her advice on careers and managing work, has this on Iowa and the new generation of U.S. voters and activists:
My brother just started school at the University of Iowa, and this was his first caucus. He describes a room totally crammed full of young people: “It was basically all the students caucusing for Obama and the adults dispersing among the other candidates.”

In the end, in his Iowa City precinct, the students sat victorious at the Obama camp with 70% of the votes, while the caucuses for Edwards and Clinton were shouting over to the Kucinich supporters to abandon camp and come to them.

BTW, the image of Clinton and Edwards backers trying to reason with Dennis Kucinich supporters says it all.
Penelope follows this with:

This is a metaphor for the workplace. The young people have, effectively, shifted the balance of power to themselves, and the older people squabble between each other, as if their power structures still matter.

Millennials are fundamentally conservative

The victories of Generation Y will not look like the Boston Tea Party or Kent State. They will look like this Iowa caucus: Gen Y, playing by the rules, and winning.


Now think of Hillary Clinton and read Penelope's punchline:
This is not exactly the Civil Rights movement or grunge music. But Gen Y doesn’t need to rebel because, as I wrote in Time magazine, young people are already in the driver’s seat at the workplace. They can work within the established lines of business to get what they want, but they get it faster than we expect.

The gender divide is an antiquated view of the world

So many times I give a speech and explain to the room why women should not report sexual harassment. Invariably, the room divides. The millennials think the advice makes sense, the baby boomers are outraged.


Her problem is that "Hillary Clinton" is not the answer to a problem the new generation has. If Barack Obama was literally the hired help to stand in the group photo he would also be irrelevant.

Awesome. Read the whole thing.

1/28/2008

Ouch!

Not a great day for the Clintons, unless you buy the conspiracy theory that Bill doesn't want to be Hillary's First Lady.

Among the news of the Kennedys backing Barack Obama, I saw this today from Dick Morris.

In 1990, Morris found Bill behind in the polls in a Governorship election:
When he learned of his decline in the polls, he immediately blamed me, accusing me of spending too much time with other clients. Yelling and screaming, he escalated his charges, refusing to listen to me tell him that his latest ad had not been on television yet when the poll was completed. He kept ranting.

Finally, I had enough. I stood up and said I was leaving, quitting the campaign. I grabbed my coat and headed out of the mansion. As I crossed the foyer, I suddenly fell to the ground, tackled by Bill Clinton. I saw his large fist coming at me. Hillary was trying to get between us, yelling “Bill, Bill, stop it. Think about what you are doing. Bill, stop it!”

Bill got up and I walked out the door. Hillary ran after me. She tried to calm me and asked me to walk around the grounds of the Mansion with her. “He only does this to people he loves,” she told me. (I’ll leave that one for the psychologists.)

And ends with this:
Bill’s tantrums are causing the press to focus on him and not Hillary. That’s what he wants. No more questions about her experience, her ethics, her flip-flops. Now it's all about Bill.

1/27/2008

A Message to You Rudy

From the New York Times, it may not be over for the Rudolf Giuliani campaign. The former New York Mayor has banked on going for Florida and the 20 or so states that vote on February 5. However, the polls show him in big trouble, having been ahead for months.
It seems that:
There has also been a flood of early ballots from Republican voters, which has, again, already exceeded the turnout in the contests in Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada. As of Friday night, nearly 400,000 party Republicans had cast early votes, either in person or by mail, party officials reported. By contrast, just under 200,000 Republicans had voted in person or by mail at this point in 2006, when there was a heavily contested Republican primary for governor. There were 3.8 million Republicans qualified to vote on Tuesday.

The point is that neither Mitt Romney nor John McCain were campaigning to get early votes out in Florida: Romney concentrated on winning Wyoming, Nevada and Michigan, trying to win New Hampshire and Iowa unsuccessfully and not really doing much in South Carolina. Meanwhile Senator McCain didn't have any campaign money until his win in New Hampshire, which has now been assisted by his performance in South Carolina and Michigan.
If the Giuliani camp has in fact been quietly pulling in a 150,000 early votes, the polls will be wrong.
Unlike the other contests so far, this is a winner-takes-all job with 57 delegates up for grabs. The Green Papers has a different calculation method than RealClearPolitics, but seems less inclined to leave out Ron Paul. According to the former, the Republican delegate "soft" count, including the sanctions against some states for holding their primaries early, is as follows:
MittRomney: 59 delegates
John McCain: 41
Mike Huckabee: 26
Fred Thompson (withdrawn): 11
Ron Paul: 8
Duncan Hunter (withdrawn): 1
Rudolf Giuliani: 0

So even assuming the Republican party doesn't relent and award Florida the 114 delegates it would normally qualify for, a win for Giuliani by a single vote in a split result puts him second place on the Convention board ahead of McCain and right up with Romney.

Truth is, if Giuliani comes close to the winner, either a virtual three-way tie or a close second, assuming he has the money to contest February 5th, he still has a hope. Not much of one though. A win would turn this contest right round.

For the record, 1,191 (out of 2,380) are needed to get the nomination at the party Convention on September 1st.

"Super Tuesday", February 5th for the Republicans, involves the following contests:
Alabama Primary
Alaska District Conventions
Arizona Primary
Arkansas Primary
California Primary
Colorado Precinct Caucuses
Connecticut Primary
Delaware Party-run Primary
Georgia Primary
Illinois Primary
Massachusetts Primary
Minnesota Precinct Caucuses / non-binding straw poll
Missouri Primary
Montana Caucus
North Dakota Caucus
New Jersey Primary
New York Primary
Oklahoma Primary
Tennessee Primary
Utah Primary
West Virginia State Presidential Convention
This lot will bring 1,081 delegates, with California the biggest chunk with 173 and Delaware the smallest with 18. Some are open to non-party supporters, some are winner-takes-all. Some are both.

Before then, on February 1-3 Maine will be holding its Municipal Caucuses (the state has 21 delegates in total). So by the end of Super Tuesday, a majority of the Republican delegates will have been allocated. Anyone who comes out of that with a couple of hundred delegates or more, in a split field, may well want to stick around if they can afford to. It's more likely though, that the losers will drop out. Normally, we'd say with confidence that the winner in Florida will now win. But this hasn't been a normal campaign so far.

"Vote for me because the racists will..."

...seems to be the latest bizarre message from the Clinton campaign.

The Associated Press is not exactly where I normally go looking for dirt on Democrats, but this sums up the situation nicely:
Clinton campaign strategists denied any intentional effort to stir the racial debate. But they said they believe the fallout has had the effect of branding Obama as "the black candidate," a tag that could hurt him outside the South.
Let's just remember that we are talking about Democrats choosing their candidate for U.S. President.
How can being "the black candidate" hurt someone's chances of winning Democratic party supporters votes?
Let's leave aside the obvious point that one would expect racist bigots, who have "NO N*****s IN THE WHITE HOUSE" car bumper stickers, to come from Alabama (or South Carolina, come to think of it) rather than, say, Colorado, Hawaii or Maine.

Could it be that the party of affirmative action, of civil rights and political correctness likes to have its leaders photographed next to the hired help, but not, you know, actually let the servants run the country? "The poor dears, they try so hard, but they can't help it, you know?"
Until last year I would have found it barely conceivable. But the more "liberals" I have met who talk about their moral superiority because they demand that other people pay taxes to provide public transportation (for blacks), public schooling (for blacks), quotas for universities (for blacks) and corporations (for blacks), the more I see something ugly.
This is not "white guilt." These are white people who have a visceral unease with ethnicity and who project this by blaming "society," or "capitalism," or "a right-wing conspiracy" for racism. They remind me of nothing more than those British Conservative Party members who shouted loudest about the evils of homosexuality, demanding that it be outlawed or "all the boys will turn into perverts," only to turn out to be repressed gay men.
Is this really the Hillary Clinton base constituency? I hope not.
I like the bluff: "Me, a racist? No! no! I voted against having black candidate because I couldn't let him be humiliated by REAL racists."
Senator Barack Obama is not (in my personal view) the beautiful orator that Jesse Jackson was 20 years ago. On form, the Reverend is someone I would gladly buy a ticket to hear give a sermon. That's certainly not true of any candidate this time round for me. Sen Obama is more like a bank manager with the common touch, I like his demeanour and his "winner" outlook, but that's not the same. In fact, without Bill Clinton's attempt to not make race an issue, by making it an issue, it would not have occurred to me to compare the two. Senator Obama has plenty of flaws: some of his policies and the dubious Chicago connections. But if it comes to a "which candidate has the worst criminal connections" I don't see Bill Clinton as offering much constructive help. A list of the crooks he pardoned in his last day of office, and the one whose wife by an AMAZING COINCIDENCE gave a lot of money to his wife's 2000 campaign, will make anything Senator Obama is likely to have done look minor.
I'm not impressed with the Republican line-up so far in this election campaign, but if Hillary Clinton wins her party's nomination by pandering to racism, I don't see how any decent human being could campaign for her in November, against what is likely to be a fairly moderate Republican candidate.
In pure election terms, we now know how black women voted in South Carolina: they're misogynistic witch burners, apparently.

Obama wins again

Ron Gunzburger, who runs the very comprehensivePolitics1 blog, says it all on his Facebook profile status:
Ron Gunzburger
is thrilled that Obama won a LANDSLIDE victory in South Carolina. Congrats to the SC Dems for soundly rejecting the racially divisive Clinton strategy.
Updated about an hour ago
I think we can take it as read that we are not looking at a Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket for November given the bile, especially from the Clinton camp.
Bearing in mind just how convoluted each party's primary rules are, and the fact I got it wrong in Nevada[*], I hesitate to make any comparisons between the Democrat and Republican turnouts.
However, with under 60% of precincts reporting, it looks as though Senator Obama could win South Carolina in November, if we assume that the Clinton voters don't go for a Republican rather than the black man. Between them the Dems look like getting almost 500,000 votes, compared with 443,203 votes in the recent Republican primary.

[*]
A quick look at turnout suggests Romney is outscoring Hillary Clinton in Nevada too. This is very bad for the Democrats, if repeated in November. Husband Bill Clinton won the state in both 1992 and 1996.

1/22/2008

Wishful thinking 0, reality 1

Last weekend's South Carolina primary election for the Republicans did not get any coverage here, for which I apologize. The timing was bad.

However, I did wonder if the conservative blogs who seemed to doubt if Fred Thompson was quitting after coming third in what had been described as his "firewall" weren't putting hope before realism.

Unlike Ron Paul, who has the record of standing for President on a third party ticket and has the money and the message, libertarianism, to motivate him to stick around, I had the impression that Fred Thompson was never really hungry for politics. This, of course, made him the sanest candidate if he could have somehow won.

Here's the announcement that Fred Thompson has quit and here is a post on Real Clear Politics explaining what it could all mean:
In Thompson's exit we have our first real shake up of what has been a wide open Republican race, and it comes just a week before a pivotal vote in Florida. Thompson's campaign never lived up to the promise so many Republicans had for him in this race, and while he leaves with the disappointment of those unrealized expectations, what support he has left may prove to have a significant influence on the vote in Florida, and thus perhaps on the selection of the nominee as well.


If I'm not mistaken, in our podcast last Friday, Brian Micklethwait and I touched on the Fred Thompson campaign, or lack of it. I'm pleased to say the podcast can be access thru here.

And yes, I'd say Mr Thompson would probably make a fine vice-presidential candidate. He could be very dangerous to an aggressive opponent in a televised debate.

1/20/2008

Here's one for the Ronbots

I found a county in Nevada that voted Ron Paul ahead of the rest:

Nye County
Giuliani 33 votes 3%
Huckabee 172 votes 14%
Hunter 18 votes 1%
McCain 134 votes 11%
Paul 415 votes 34%
Romney 399 33%
Thompson 55 4%
Total 1,226 100%
33 of 33 precincts reporting
Figures from Nevada Republican Party.

Ron Paul SECOND in Nevada (98% votes counted)

This is the result of the primary season for the Ronbots. Their man is holding second position behind Mitt Romney in Nevada.

At 00:49 GMT Sunday morning:

Mitt Romney 22,629 51%
Ron Paul 6,077 14%
John McCain 5,641 13%
Mike Huckabee 3,607 8%
Fred Thompson 3,518 8%
Rudy Giuliani 1,907 4%
Duncan Hunter 890 2%
With 2% of precincts to report, so it's very unlikely to change, except possibly between Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson.

To beat Rudy Giuliani by three votes to one is one one thing, to lead John McCain is another.

However, this is clearly a great result for Romney, not just over 50% but also his rivals are nowhere near him. A quick look at turnout suggests Romney is outscoring Hillary Clinton in Nevada too. This is very bad for the Democrats, if repeated in November. Husband Bill Clinton won the state in both 1992 and 1996.

Resounding silence on Ron's performance at RealClearPolitics.

Over at Daily Kos, DHinMI writes:
And MSNBC just announced that crazy-ass Ron Paul finished second in Nevada. Thus, the top two finishers in South Carolina were unable to beat Ron Paul.


I think the point here is that none of the Republican candidates is shining at the moment. Mitt Romney seems the most effective so far, but is it down to the right states coming up early? We shall see.

ARRRRRGH!
Update: The Democrat votes aren't votes. Washington Post explains:
About the Nevada 2008 Democratic Caucus Results

The Nevada Democratic Party is not reporting votes for its Jan. 19 caucuses. Instead, the party will only release the number of county delegates won by each presidential candidate (or "Uncommitted"). This is the data being collected by the Associated Press and displayed on washingtonpost.com. There will be at least 10,446 delegates to the county conventions in the state's 17 counties. (More information here.)

On the Republican side, the party caucuses are essentially a straw poll. Thus, the votes reported by the party and collected by AP are actual votes. (More information here.)

My error demonstrates that the primary system is too complicated for a quick skim through of the rules, as I mentioned here and here [or will be when Brian loads our podcast!].

1/17/2008

Quote of the election campaign

Ok, so we've had the speech of the campaign from "uncommitted."

Here's the quote of the (Republican) campaign:

"These primaries are like the Special Olympics: Everybody gets a ribbon!"
Jim Treacher. [via Instapundit]

The speech of the campaign so far!

Uncommitted wins Michigan.

Victory speech here.

[Hat tip Instapundit.]

1/16/2008

Divisive?

In Michigan, a state John Kerry won in 2004 with a 3.42% lead over an unpopular George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton scored 55% in an effectively uncontested election.

Now pretend she has a Republican opponent in November.

You can see why the Republicans reckon they have a chance against the New York Senator. Let's not forget that she has vastly more resources than all her opponents combined, if we include the backing from George Soros' proxies, for example.
If I had to define "divisive"...

About the turnout, here's the score:
Democratic votes total= 592,798
Republican votes total= 867,577

Now the question is, how much did Kos' call for Democrats to vote for Mitt Romney affect this result? Did a lot of Democrats stay at home? Or is Michigan the first hard evidence that Republicans might do better in 2008 after George W. Bush?

My guess is that the wrong Democratic party candidate could get hammered in November. But so could the wrong Republican. A communicator like Ronald Reagan against Clinton-Edwards-Obama on current form would probably take the 50 states, leaving the District of Columbia to cling to. As for Bill Clinton against the current Republican field? No need for Ross Perot or an Oklahoma bombing.

Ron Paul hanging in there

The LA Times has noticed Ron Paul "thumped" Giuliani and Thomson In Michigan. Overall, Representative Ron Paul (Texas) is ahead of both Giuliani and Thompson, both of whom have to do well in at least one of South Carolina, Nevada and Florida. Thanks to the "Ronbots," he has more cash than his closest rivals. As he is putting out an ideological message rather than merely seeking the nomination, there is every reason to assume Ron Paul will stick around.
Here's the "popular vote" from Iowa, Wyoming, New Hampshire and Michigan for the Republicans.













CandidatePopular Vote%
Romney, Mitt443,13936.18%
McCain, John S.361,54629.52%
Huckabee, Mike207,30816.93%
Paul, Ron84,5546.90%
Thompson, Fred Dalton50,9254.16%
Giuliani, Rudolph W.49,1984.02%
Uncommitted17,9711.47%
Others4,7960.39%
Hunter, Duncan4,5670.37%
Tancredo, Thomas Gerald "Tom"3170.03%
Keyes, Alan L.2200.02%
Brownback, Samuel Dale1970.02%
Total1,224,778100.01%

I made this from data here.

Michigan thread and why it matters

I'm not staying up for the Michigan primary results, but you can follow the Republican-leaning viewpoint here and the Democrat-leaning viewpoint here (not sure if there's a specific thread on Daily Kos yet). Wordy but pretty straight reporting later here.
Here are my thoughts for what they're worth.
1) The Democrats will go and vote Republican to push Mitt Romney for two reasons. They are convinced he is beatable in November, and the more Republicans win different primaries (Huckabee got Iowa and McCain got New Hampshire), the more divided the Republicans will be. It's good politics, provided they start with the right "loser" to back.
2) Because the Democrats votes don't really count (it's a complicated issue to do with the party's nomination rules, see The Green Papers), there should be a lot less of them than Republicans, given that this is a very marginal state in the last presidential campaign. John Kerry beat George W. Bush with a 3.42% lead in Michigan. That's one of the SIX states the Democrats won with less than 4% leads (Wisconsin 0.4%, New Hampshire 1.43% [but a gain], Pennsylvania 2.5%, Minnesota 3.48% and Oregon 3.9%) in 2004. With a relatively unpopular incumbent...
For the Democrats, the easy targets are few in number: Iowa 0.67%, New Mexico 0.79% [both gains], Ohio 2.12% [yes FOUR states were closer than Ohio but somehow the conspiracy theorists never mention them] and Nevada 2.59% are the only targets under 4%. You can add Colorado on 4.67%.

So my tip is to look at the vote totals. If the Democrats poll more heavily in total than the Republicans do, then its VERY bad for the Republicans. It adds to the evidence from Iowa and New Hampshire of a party in organizational chaos.


3) Check the accuracy of the pollsters. If they broadly get Michigan right this time, they might get November right in this state, which could be cricial.

Now for some background.
The November election will be decided by an Electoral College count, with 269 (if you get the casting vote in Congress) or 270 (to be sure) votes required.
Here's the breakdown in the most tightly contested states in 2004 that I mentioned above.
0.40% Wisconsin (D), 10 votes
0.67% Iowa (R), 7 votes (gain from D)
0.79% New Mexico (R), 5 votes (gain from D)
1.43% New Hampshire (D), 4 votes (gain from R)
2.12% Ohio (R), 20 votes
2.50% Pennsylvania (D), 21 votes
2.59% Nevada (R), 5 votes
3.42% Michigan (D),17 votes
3.48% Minnesota (D), 10 votes
3.90% Oregon (D), 7 votes
4.67% Colorado (R), 9 votes

Democrats "at risk" 69 votes. Republicans "at risk" 46 votes.

And just for fun, every winning Presidential candidate since 1972 inclusive has won the following SIX states: Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Ohio, Tennesee. In 1968, a third party candidate scored wins in some of the Southern states so I haven't included that election.

1/12/2008

Kos is a (fiscal) Conservative!

The man himself sez about Ohio Representative Dennis Kucinich's complaint:

I find it somewhat amusing that so many people are demanding the taxpayers of New Hampshire indulge their paranoia by paying for a recount. What I'm not seeing, however, is an effort to raise the money to pay for such a recount. It seems that no one wants to put their money where their mouth is. It's much easier to spread rumors and baseless allegations than it is to actually do something concrete about it.

Kos adds:
Again, if the people making unsupported allegations want to pay for a recount, all the power to them. That's not a bad thing, that's a good thing. But ante up the cash. If they are so convinced that fraud exists, they can even justify the expense as an opportunity to have me and other skeptics in the reality based community eat some serious crow. But other than Kucinich putting a $2,000 down payment toward the cost of that recount, I haven't seen any efforts to raise that money.


If a candidate loses by more than three percentage points, a candidate may demand a recount in New Hampshire, but only if he or she pays for it.

I can only imagine that Rep Kucinich thinks he should have got FEWER votes than the write-ins(*) (figures from Washington Post):

New Hampshire Democratic Party Primary
Candidate namevotes%
Bill Richardson13,2455
Dennis Kucinich3,9121
Total write-ins3,0761



Hmm. I find Kos making a lot of sense. Reminds of his proposal of what to do with John Kerry's campaign team in 2004.

I also agree with Kos' call for Democrats to vote for Mitt Romney in the Michigan primary on January 15. If I were a Democrat, the people I would not to face are: Rudy Giuliani and Senator John McCain (Arizona). (OK if it looked like they could lose to Ron Paul or Fred Thompson, this would set back the liberals 50 years, but I'm talking about someone who the Dems think could beat them.) So it makes total sense to have Democrats for Romney. I like the logo too.




(*) Some elections allow a voter to write-in the name of the candidate who isn't on the ballot.

1/11/2008

I'm at the Putney Debates tonight

I'm the last minute change of speaker for the Putney Debates in London tonight. The title of my talk is ‘Change at the Top: How the US Election Process Works and What are the Opportunities for Ron Paul?’

My audience will mostly be British so it's mostly about explaining just how decentralized the U.S. electoral system is. Because anyone turning up is likey to be a Libertarian, I shall be concentrating on Ron Paul's campaign and what he can realistically hope to achieve. I shall try to post a summary of the talk somewhere.

For details, see the Libertarian Alliance blog. Time: 7.30pm (GMT).

1/09/2008

Quicks thoughts on New Hampshire: Live Free or Die of Boredom

I don't recall opinion polls getting it this wrong since 1987 in the U.K. General Election, although maybe 1992 was also as bad.

Unless Barak Obama wins at least 70% of the remaining votes to count, he has come second to Hillary Clinton.

The Republican results are nearer the polls.

Yet again, Democrats outvoted Republicans in a battleground state. And the Democrat counting was faster for at least the early part of the evening. In November, this will translate into early declarations by the networks for the Democratic Party candidate and will influence voters further West (Colorado, New Mexico, California, Oregon, Washington), as they will still be voting when the Democrat victory will have been announced.

Ron Paul didn't quite match Rudy Giuliani. However, when was the last time someone focused the policy element his speech on the abolition of the Federal Reserve?

Final thought for know: Hillary Clinton, John McCain. This does nothing to enhance New Hampshire's reputation as an independent minded state. Very dull. Live Free or Die of Boredom.

Election thread

02:56
Spoke too soon: McCain lead down to 6% over Romney, Clinton down to 2% over Obama. Ron Paul 1% behind Giuliani.

02:42
Turning in.
Final count as I write:
Democrats
Hillary Clinton 49,941 39%
Barack Obama 45,850 36%
John Edwards 21,299 17%
with 48% results in.
(Exit polls now project Clinton win by 2%)

Republicans
John McCain 36,685 37%
Mitt Romney 31,085 31%
Mike Huckabee 11,506 12%
Rudy Giuliani 8,639 9%
Ron Paul 7,811 8%
with 47% of results in.
Fred Thompson is on about 1%.





02:18
HEH. Romney creeps into the 30%, McCain's 37%, with two thirds of votes to count, there's still time to start thinking of recounts...

02:08
My Twitter comment: " Turning in soon. Hillary looks very good in early results. Paul close to Giuliani. Obama underdelivers."

02:04
Kos is worried.

02:02
Over at the RealClearPolitics blog:
8:58 PM Michael Barone just said he thinks Hillary Clinton has a "good chance" of winning tonight. That would be an unreal outcome given the events of the last few days and the overwhelming amount of polling data showing her trailing Obama. - TOM BEVAN


01:57
Perry de Havilland writes: "If Ron Paul can only do single figures in NH, he is going to be pointless from our perspective."
Well it's less than 200 votes between Giuliani and Paul as I write. And it is becoming clear that it's going to be an open fight for some time.
Clinton staying clear of Obama still. Any conspiracy theories yet?

01:27
Credit where it's due. Washington Post has a quick loading quick reporting set of pages od results. In Iowa, they were far, far better than the Republicans at getting Republican results out.
Dems
Reps


01:22
The bad news: Clinton 5 points up to 40%-35%
The good news: Giuliani and Paul tied at 9%.

01:19
Democrats are outscoring Republicans again in a battleground state. Good for the Democrats again.

01:14
John McCain is projected to win the Republican vote. Clinton leads Obama 38%-36%.
Giuliani 9%, Paul 8%.

01:02
Polls closed in New Hampshire.
John McCain, the blogosphere's enemy, is leading the Republican field.
Hillary Clinton edging it in the urban districts (37% to Obama's 36%).
UPDATE: 00:43
From Drudge.
OBAMA 36; CLINTON 37; EDWARDS 17; RICHARDSON 4; KUCINICH 2...
MCCAIN 38; ROMNEY 29; HUCKABEE 11; PAUL 8; GIULIANI 9; THOMPSON 1...

00:39
Obama 37% Clinton 35%
Ron Paul 6%, Giuliani 8%

00:38 GMT Earliest figures showed Clinton ahead of Obama, but like Iowa, Obama is clawing back. Obama 36% Clinton 36%.

Voting still going on in some precincts with paper ballots, this will delay matters.

1/08/2008

Why does New Hampshire matter?

New Hampshire has a pretty good record as state that votes the same way as the country as whole, despite not being typical from a demographic point of view.

In 2004, John Kerry famously claimed that all he had to do was win there to overturn the 2000 defeat of Al Gore. He was wrong of course, because the 200 Census meant Kerry needed 11 extra electoral college votes than Gore needed the previous time.

Here's the record of New Hampshire in presidential elections since 1972:
1972: Richard Nixon (Republican, winner)
1976: Gerald Ford (Republican, loser)
1980: Ronald Reagan (Republican, winner)
1984: Ronald Reagan (Republican, winner)
1988: George HW Bush (Republican, winner)
1992: Bill Clinton (Democrat, winner)
1996: Bill Clinton (Democrat, winner)
2000: George W Bush (Republican, winner)
2004: John Kerry (Democrat, loser)

Two losers in nine elections ain't bad. I'd settle for that prediction ratio myself.

Another win for Barak Obama kills any notion (assuming anyone not on the Clinton payroll needs convincing) that a black man can't win a U.S. presidential election. The Clintons look so 1990s...

On the Republican side, Rudy Giuliani really needs to start getting some votes. I love having a former Libertarian Party candidate for President (Ron Paul) outscoring him, but come on! The G.O.P. nomination looks as wide open as ever.

Clinton (Hillary)... NUL POINTS!

For non-European readers, the title of this post is a reference to our version of presidential primaries, the Eurovision Song Contest, or the cultural atrocity to end them all.

Two little hamlets in New Hampshire, Dixville Notch and Hart's Location, have an exemption which allows them to close the polling station as soon after midnight on election day as all the registered electors have been to cast their votes. So we have our first tallies of the the day.

Dixville Notch:
Barak Obama (Democrat): 7 votes
John McCain (Republican): 4
John Edwards (Democrat): 2
Mitt Romney (Republican): 2
Rudy Giuliani (Republican): 1
Bill Richardson (Democrat): 1
Hillary Clinton (Democrat): NUL POINTS
Mike Huckabee (Republican): 0
Ron Paul (Republican): 0
Fred Thompson (Republican): 0

Hart's Location:
Barak Obama (Democrat): 9 votes
John McCain (Republican): 6
Mike Huckabee (Republican): 5
Ron Paul (Republican): 4
Hillary Clinton (Democrat): 3
John Edwards (Democrat): 1
Mitt Romney (Republican): 1
Rudy Giuliani (Republican): 0
Bill Richardson (Democrat): 0
Fred Thompson (Republican): 0

So the total so far in New Hampshire is:
Democrats:
1. Barak Obama (Democrat): 16 votes
2. Hillary Clinton (Democrat): 3
2. John Edwards (Democrat): 3
4. Bill Richardson (Democrat): 1

Republicans:
1. John McCain (Republican): 10
2. Mike Huckabee (Republican): 5
3. Ron Paul (Republican): 4
4. Mitt Romney (Republican): 3
5. Rudy Giuliani (Republican): 1
6. Fred Thompson (Republican): 0

To say that this would be catastrophic for Clinton, Giuliani, Romney and to a lesser extent Richardson and Thompson is not too extreme, if these tallies were proportionately repeated across New Hampshire. No I'm not predicting. But it looks terrible for Mrs Clinton. Level with Edwards here is a very poor showing.

1/04/2008

A shambles

Last night's Iowa caucus was a triumph for the U.S. Democratic party's organization and a warning for Republicans. As Kos put it, all the Republicans had to do was give out pieces of paper, let people mark it, count them and put the numbers on a website.

The Democrats on the other hand, had to hold informal hustings, jostle around a room to form bunches, get counted, argue, haggle and plead the "unviable" candidates' supporters to switch, count again, and then post their results.

Guess which turned out quicker?

The Democrats had over 100,000 more votes to count, and did so more effectively. It got to the point that I never got a score out of the Republicans own website, whereas I found the Democrats to be very effective.

If this was Wyoming, or Massachusetts, it might not matter. But in the past 36 years, Iowa has changed from Republican to Democrat and back again several times.

In 1972, 1976, 1980 and 1984, Iowa went Republican and the party's candidate won in cases apart from 1976. In 1988, 1992, 1996 and 2000, Iowa's electoral college votes went to the Democratic party candidates, who won the presidency in 1992 and 1996. In 2004, the Republicans came back to narrowly win the state, by 10,059 votes out of a total 1,506,908. That's a majority of 0.73%. In a British parliamentary election this would be about equivalent to 540 votes in an average sized constitutency.

For those who remember the fuss made by some people about Ohio in the 2004 presidential election, the majority in Iowa was one third of that in the Buckeye state. Although there are "only" 7 electoral college votes in Iowa, a shambolic local organization by the Republicans is not a good omen for the coming election proper.

Kos is right. If the Republicans can't handle this caucus in Iowa, they're not about to sweep places like Pennsylvania or Michigan. He also has a point about the Mike Huckabee movement being a mirror of the Kossaks in 2004.

I would also add that Barak Obama has the look of a winner right now, in a way that no British Conservative has looked for the past 15 years. Considering that inexperience is the only serious objection (from a Democratic party perspective) to his taking his party's nomination, if he wins New Hampshire and John Edwards focuses on attacking Hillary Clinton, we could witness a sudden realignment.

Turning in

The news from Iowa is not great for Hillary Clinton, good for Barak Obama, lousy for Mitt Romney, good for Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson. Ron Paul leading Rudy Guliani, 3 to 1, is curiousity of the night.

I'm turning in. Further updates tomorrow.

Ron Paul thrashes Rudy

Ron Paul 2,425 11%
Rudy Giuliani 830 4%

after 25% of precincts reporting. Not bad for the Libertarians. Figure from Associated Press via Washington Post.

UPDATE:
Giuliani comes back, threatens to overtake John McCain. Ouch! However, Mike Huckabee with less than 5% of the spending of Mitt Romney, appears to be making the case against "money buys elections."
Iowa Republican Caucuses Results
Candidate Votes * %
Mike Huckabee 14,045 31%
Mitt Romney 10,084 23%
Fred Thompson 5,950 13%
John McCain 5,194 12%
Rudy Giuliani 4,901 11%
Ron Paul 4,379 10%
Duncan Hunter 168 0%
Tom Tancredo 2 0%
Key: * Explainer: What are these votes? | Red Checkmark Winner
Precincts: 41% | Updated: 9:20 PM ET | Source: AP

Iowa

I'm following the early Iowa caucus returns for the 2008 U.S. presidential election. The BBC's first error of the night was to predict that Republican returns would appear an hour before the Democrats.

In fact the Dems here got off to a brisk start.

The first result gave John Edwards 50% and Obama and Clinton 16.67% each.

For the Republicans here. Nothing as I write.

Latest figure:
Democrats:
Senator John Edwards : 34.24%
Senator Hillary Clinton : 32.12%
Senator Barack Obama : 30.28%
Governor Bill Richardson : 2.02%
Senator Joe Biden : 1.11%
Senator Chris Dodd : 0.14%
Uncommitted : 0.10%
Precincts Reporting: 205 of 1781

UPDATE:
The pundits suggest Barak Obama will have strength in depth, which suggests that he can pick up in the later reporting precincts.
Latest figure 1:48am GMT
Senator John Edwards : 33.44%
Senator Hillary Clinton : 32.24%
Senator Barack Obama : 31.63%
Governor Bill Richardson : 1.80%
Senator Joe Biden : 0.78%
Senator Chris Dodd : 0.07%
Uncommitted : 0.05%
Precincts Reporting: 367 of 1781
(Percentages are State Delegate Equivalents.)

UPDATE:
I was about to post figures showing Barak Obama ahead of Hillary Clinton, but the second place switched back. John Edwards is the leader though. But not by much...
Senator John Edwards : 32.52%
Senator Barack Obama : 32.41%
Senator Hillary Clinton : 32.15%

UPDATE:
with 530 precincts reporting...
Senator Barack Obama : 32.70%
Senator John Edwards : 32.38%
Senator Hillary Clinton : 32.02%
If Clinton comes third it's an open contest.

UPDATE: (2:40am GMT)
Senator Barack Obama : 36.68%
Senator John Edwards : 30.24%
Senator Hillary Clinton : 29.99%
Governor Bill Richardson : 2.01%
Senator Joe Biden : 0.94%
Uncommitted : 0.11%
Senator Chris Dodd : 0.03%
Precincts Reporting: 1487 of 1781

Hillary Clinton below 30% is not good for her, but Edwards failing to pull ahead of her is OK. Barak Obama's team can certainly feel good right now.

12/12/2007

Update

I've been working at a desk with Blogger-hostile equipment, and I've been concentrating on the day job. Because of spam, I try not to leave my e-mail address lying around on-line. But anyone interested in a business contact should be on Linked In, and anyone wishing to socialise should be on Facebook.

5/11/2007

Sarko

Tonight I'm speaking at the Putney Debates on the recent presidential election in France. Details from the Libertarian Alliance. I hope to post comments over the week end.

1/25/2007

10,000 not out

Last week I hit 10,000 hits on Antoine Clarke's Election Watch.

It's a milestone. And I'm happy about it. I once set up a newspaper with a circulation of less than 100, so a trickle of readers does not bother me.

I realize that the key to better visibility is more writing, more often. It took from 13 July 2004 to 17 January 2007 to hit the 10k mark (visitor #6,969). We shall see how long it takes to hit 25k.

Netroots against Hillary?

From MyD, Matt Stoller writes:

Hillary Clinton's strategy is to scoop up money from the elites, keep
enough women to hold off from losing badly in Iowa and New Hampshire, and rack
up huge margins in the black vote in the later states.



This doesn't read like a fan...

Hillary Clinton's strategy is to scoop up money from the elites, keep enough women to hold off from losing badly in Iowa and New Hampshire, and rack up huge margins in the black vote in the later states.


So it looks like Republicans aren't the only ones hoping the situation in Iraq stabilizes soon.

I did find this funny though:
I didn't realize this until I was in Connecticut, but Maxine Waters is a hero in the African-American community.

Not funny for the African-American community that their selection of heroes is so poor, but the "with it" Democratic white boys should be a little more aware of who and what their allies are. Next they'll discover that Nation of Islam is anti-Jew.

1/17/2007

10,000th hit sometime this week

OK. Instapundit or Daily Kos this ain't. But I can remember hoping to reach the 25th issue of my 100 circulation TANSTAAFL Times.

1/13/2007

Politicians adverts target bloggers and blog readers


Two U.S. presidential candidates for 2008 have started advertising on blogs.

One of them, John Edwards, was the 2004 Democratic Party Vice-Presidential candidate. He is using a video broadcast hosted on YouTube to launch his campaign for his Party's presidential nomination. The other, Mitt Romney, is a medium chance to be the Republican Party's candidate for President. His adverts point blog readers to mittromney.com.

It's worth noting that the ads are both cheaper than television and will be better targeted.

1/07/2007

12/15/2006

Final results for 2006 mid-term U.S. elections are in...

...except they're not!

The final counts have been made but there are still two loose threads.

In the House of Representatives, the 23rd congressional district of Texas has been won by Democrat and former Representative Ciro D. Rodriguez, defeating Congressman Henry Bonilla (Republican) with 54.32% to 45.68% of the vote.

This means the House of Representatives final score would be 233 Democrats to 202 Republicans. However, according to the Green Papers, in Florida's 13th congressional district:
Democratic Christine L. Jennings filed a lawsuit requesting a new election arguing that a malfunction in the voting machines caused a 13% undervote (blank ballots). An audit indicated the machines worked correctly. Jennings' legal challenge will be heard in Leon County on 19 December. She has until 20 December to file a notice of contest with the U.S. House.

The declared winner there was Vernon Buchanan (Republican). However, I gather the House of Representatives will appoint the Democrat candidate if the decision is made by the new majority. This will kick up a stink.

Meanwhile the Senate could change hands back to the Republicans before the Democrats and allies take over in January.
The voting last month produced a split of Democrats 49, pro-Democrat Independents 2, Republicans 49.
However, the news [received by email] that 59-year old Democratic Senator Tim Johnson (South Dakota) has been hospitalized with a brain haemorrage opens the possibility that he will be replaced by Governor Mike Rounds's choice. As the latter is a Republican, he could push the Senate back to an effective 50-50 split, with Vice-President Dick Cheney casting the deciding ballot.
Expect lawyers to pore over the definition under South Dakota law of "incapacity."

11/08/2006

"This should not be a 50-50 nation"

I think most people would agree, but Mark Steyn argues that President Bush blew it in 2001:

"11.40pm
How you read this election depends on which way you pick up the book. If you look at it as a conventional sixth year race, the Democrats underperformed, as noted below. If you look at it as a contest between the September 11th party and the September 10th party, the Democrats did distressingly well. I look back on what I wrote in 2001/2002 - some of it's in The Face Of The Tiger - and I'm more than ever convinced that Bush and the Republicans lost a big opportunity to shift the culture in the wake of 9/11. This should not be a 50/50 nation."

Mark Steyn also rates this as the best night for Democrats since 1998 if not 1992. In the sense that this is about revenge against George Bush, a bigger hate figure than Newt Gingrich was, I should have thought that emotionally this was on a par with Little Rock 1992.

Republicans hold Senate: final forecast

With Democrats needing to find three wins from Arizona, Missouri, Georgia, Montana and Tennessee it looks like the Republicans have held the Senate, albeit by a thread.

The forecasts for the House of Representatives look better for the Democrats but at this time they are just that: forecasts. Good results for them in the gubernatorial elections.

No news yet on the the South Dakota abortion referendum, or Arnold Schwartzenegger. I expect the latter to be re-elected.

From 2004, tonight has been an excellent result for the Democrats. Will they think so? Only if they either sweep a lot of close races in the next few hours, or if their expectations were a lot lower than they claimed.

I'm off to bed at 03:55AM GMT (10:55PM EST).

Update: Jim Talent has conceded in Missouri and local report does not suggest that litigation will follow.

With George Allen and Conrad Burns looking weak in Georgia and Montana, the Democrats could yet take the Senate too.

If this narrow Democrat victory is cathartic for the Republicans, it will bring the latter down to earth with a solid bump (the voters have not done a 1997 UK election to the incumbants). Yet no one should underestimate the extent to which Democrat House and maybe Senate committees will dictate the headlines over the next two years. They would be foolish to miss the opportunity to hold hearings designed to embarrass their opponents on lobbying practices, the public finances and Iraq. The Democrats will not however be the Gingrich restraint on Clinton that fiscal conservatives and libertarians dream of. They will support almost every spending plan of President George Bush, and push forward their own pet schemes. The only surprise would be to see this president start vetoing spending bills.

Democrats winning tight races in House of Representatives

Tradesports is offering trades at effectively 16 to 1 against the Republicans hold in the House of Representatives, but odds on to hold the Senate.

To my U.S. readers, it may be illegal for you to use Tradesports. I use it to measure punters' estimates of future events, as they are generally more accurate than the so-called experts.

N.B. I have never placed a contract on the site and they haven't paid me a commission, nor am I looking for one.

Good results for Democrats in the Senate

Fox News says Rick Santorum has lost Pennsylvania (no surprise, he was behind all year). However, Menendez holding New Jersey is good for Democrats.

Disgraced Tom Foley does not cost GOP his seat...

...though he may yet contribute to losing the House of Representatives by discouraging some loyal supporters elsewhere. Vote counting in Florida's 16th congressional district is showing a lead for Foley's replacement.

Republican presidential hopeful looks finished

Perhaps one of the most significant developments has been the implosion of Virginia Senator George Allen's ambitions to become the next Republican candidate for President.

As I write, he may actually have lost his senate seat (where George Bush did "badly" to win by 9% in 2006). Even if Senator Allen is re-elected narrowly, his credibility as a presidential choice is shot to pieces. Double bonus.

Score 1 to the Democrats.

High turnout means polls could be wrong

Either the angry masses come out to "throw out the bums," so Democrat leads are underestimated.

Or the silent majority comes out and turns the pollsters into a laughing stock, again.

First results: no change in Indiana or Vermont

Early report here.

No indication of local swing, but I expect that there will be a lot of local variation. I don't expect to read too much if any Republicans or Democrats win by bigger or smaller margins, unless they are 2008 presidential hopefuls (George Allen [Republican] in Virginia for example).

11/07/2006

Live blogging US mid-term elections

Tonight I risk my shirt: here's a round up of predictions:

Pro-Democrat sites
Politics1 says Governor: Dems 30, Reps 20; Senate: D 51, R 49; House of Representatives: D 235, R 200.
Electoral Vote says: Senate: Dems 51, Reps 49; House: D 239, R 195 and 1 tie.
ThinkProgress: uses CNN early poll data to predict exactly six Senate gains and no losses for the Democrats.
Chris Bowers at MyDD says: Senate: Dems 50, Reps 50; House D 229, R 206.
Jonathan Singer at MyDD says: Governors: Dems 30, Reps 20.

Pro-Republican site
RealClearPolitics says: Governors: Dems 28, Reps 22; Senate: D 49, R 51. House: D 222, R 213.

In 2004, RCP got it right, the others were way out. We shall see.

My own view is that the Senate stays Republican but the House of Representatives goes Democrat. This is a good night for them after the débacles of 2002 and 2004. A majority of governorships will be useful, but California stays Republican.

10/18/2006

Turnout: elector bums on seats

Kos writes about the U.S. Republican get out the vote effort (GOTV), which he says, will actually determine the outcome of the elections in two weeks.

The Congressman Foley affair is precisely the sort of scandal that can cause a small number, but spread across all the narrow contests, of Republican voters to just sit at home and not bother to vote. The only chance this had of turning into an advantage for the G.O.P. was if there were evidence that Democrats knew about the activities of Mark Foley, and did not act to protect underage youths from being harassed, for the sake of using the scandal at election time.

There is some feeling among Republican supporters that this is exactly what happened, so far from demoralizing Republicans, the scandal could reinforce the sense of partisanship, which is precisely what mid-term elections are won on.

I'm holding my prediction of no change in control of either House or Senate, but major Democrat gains in the Governor elections (apart from California, Florida and Texas).

9/05/2006

Swedish hacker to swing the election?

Kristine Lowe offers a curious tale of 11:30pm press conferences to deflect attention from the opposition.

I can honestly say this is a new one to me.

The story of a hacker caught interfering in the intranet of the governing party is noteworthy however. This is surely, at face value, a Watergate-style violation.

Nice way to kick off Election Watch's coverage of Sweden's election campaign!

Updates from Kristine here and here.

9/02/2006

A good idea!

A good idea!

Boing Boing: Wikipedia founder calls for political campaign wikis

A daft idea

I should have covered this earlier:

MyDD :: Movement to Render Electoral College Obsolete Gains

Counting the Gains, Ignoring the Losses

From the The Rothenberg Political Report, comes an assessment of the chances of U.S. Republicans winning some seats while the Democrats make inroads.

In summary, although pundits predict that Democrats will win enough seats in the U.S. House of Representatives to take control back for the first time since 1994 (I don't), they fail to take into account any Republican chances of local victories.

A Fascist is always a disappointed Socialist

One of the best kept secrets among the socialists of the world is that their favourite object of insults: "Fascist!" is in fact a mutation of themselves.

Benito Mussolini, the original Fascist Party leader, was of course the erudite Marxist intellectual, who translated the original version of Karl Marx's Das Kapital (Volume 3) into Italian, who wrote copiously about the injustices of capitalism, and who at gatherings of international socialists would take the chair, as his preeminence over such characters as Lenin was universally recognized in the movement.

Andres Lopez Obrador is taking the same route.

Mussolini took power in Italy in 1922 after staging the infamous "March on Rome". The reason being that he couldn't win an election.

After losing the Mexican presidential election, guess what?

9/01/2006

The love that dare not speak it's name: pork barrel

A secretive U.S. Senator has put a "hold" on legislation proposed by colleagues from both parties in the Senate, Tom Cockburn (Republican, Oklahoma) and Barak Obama (Democrat, Illinois), which would require organisations that receive U.S. federal tax funds to be listed on a website, with the amount received.

Daily Kos thinks this is a disgraceful abuse of senatorial privileges. I agree.

I'm sure that under U.S. law it would be illegal to "out" the snivelling coward. Under British law, where I am writing, I suspect that this would not hold up in court. You can leave an anonymous comment here (see below).

Update: Busted! And you what what? I would have bet serious money the Porkmaster-General, Senator Robert (ex-KKK) Byrd (Democrat, West Virginia) was involved.

8/28/2006

That's all right then!

Don't panic. The Alabama, U.S.A. Democratic Party has not disqualified an openly lesbian candidate from contesting a seat for the southern state's House of Representatives on the grounds that she's not straight.

The rule under which she was disqualified after winning the primary hadn't been enforced for over twenty years and neither the Party's candidates for Alabama Governor or Lieutenant Governor had followed it. It's not like the scandal would affect the result: no other candidate has registered to contest the full election.

No the reason is that Patricia Todd is WHITE and most of her voters and political colleagues are BLACK.

So that's all right then!

Details: Politics1 - American Politics, Elections, Candidates & Campaigns

powered by performancing firefox

8/26/2006

Questions about my shirt

I'm starting to face questions about my shirt.

The Rothenberg Political Report: 2006 Governors Ratings endorses one of my themes for 2006, which is that the Democrats have real opportunities to gain back some of the Governors' mansions they've lost since 1994, notably New York.

Meanwhile, I'm keeping calm over my prediction that the Democrats would fail to win control of either House of Congress at this November's Mid-Term elections. Flicking through an election predictor for 2004 shows just how volatile estimates can be from state to state.
November 8 has the actual result but check out the prediction made on the eve of polling day based on opinion polls.

For real fun see this August 17 prediction John Kerry 327, George W. Bush 211.

powered by performancing firefox

8/22/2006

Do demographics kill liberalism?

It's an old debate: do free-markets breed generations that sustain capitalism? The eugenicists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries thought not.

This time it seems that liberals aborting their foetuses by the bucketload are failing to transmit their culture to subsequent generations. The Wall Street Journal carries an interesting take on this here.

I've just finished calculating projections of the U.S. electoral college from 2012 to 2020, based on figures supplied by the U.S. Census Bureau. It's worth bearing in mind that they are using population estimates for 2005 to predict trends to 2010, which means plenty of opportunity for error. Just one event: Hurricane Katrina, is bound to skew things if only a little.

BTW. Apologies for the lack of postings. I have been contemplating moving away from Blogger, but I've decided to give the new Beta version a spin soon, with the category function. Expect disruption and new posts soon.

6/19/2006

Whale democracy

The moment voting is done by blocks of states, regardless of population size, of intensity of support or opposition, and of property rights, then there is a tendency for the worst decision-making to occur.

The International Whaling Commission allows any country, whose government levies the taxes (or borrows) to pay a subscription, an equal vote to decide whether the hunting of whales should be permitted, and if so, how much.

For years the animal lovers have successfully bullied and bribed their way: offering inducements and partial expemtions for eskimos and "scientific research" in exchange for a "commercial whaling" ban. One country, Norway, has refused to play ball and two other, Japan and Iceland, have managed to get whale meat caught for "scientific purposes" to end up on the dinner table.

It was only a matter of time before scarcity drove the price up, making whale meat an exotic luxury, so that the consumers have now bullied and bribed their own way to getting the votes overturned, if not this year, then surely in the near future. [Report in French here]

Watch out for votes coming from those countries where whaling is such a way of life: Rwanda, Burundi, Chad, Bhutan, Nepal, Slovakia, Liechtenstein, Macedonia.

Also watch out for some sour grapes as environmentalists complain that some governments vote for reasons other than animal welfare or hunters' rights.

It's the same problem in the Eurovision Song Contest, and the European Union generally.

5/31/2006

Another podcast with Brian

Brian Micklethwait and I did another podcast this evening. Areas covered included Peru, Columbia, Italy, the U.K. and the U.S.A..

5/30/2006

More from Columbia

Reuters (permalinks are rubbish so I don't use theirs) reports:
BOGOTA, Colombia (Reuters) - Colombian President Alvaro Uribe, a key U.S. ally in Latin America, swept to an emphatic election victory on Sunday, rewarded by voters for confronting guerillas, paramilitaries and drug traffickers in a country bloodied by years of conflict and crime.

In Colombia's most peaceful election in years, Uribe won a second four years in office with 62 percent of the vote.

The key to Uribe's expected success was a crackdown on the right-wing militias and leftist FARC rebels, who use the profits from supplying cocaine and heroin to U.S. consumers to sustain their insurgency.

The story goes on to explain why Mr Uribe should lose the guerrila war, by not being beastly to the Communists.

Gateway Pundit has a more positive view of the events, from a U.S. perspective:
Pro-American President Alvaro Uribe, whose father was killed by guerillas 22 years ago, won big in his re-election attempt as Colombian President.


Pierre Rousselin in Le Figaro (sorry the link is broken, try searching "debats" page for 30 May 2006) offers a robust endosement of President Uribe's re-election:
La présidentielle a été un plébiscite pour la politique de fermeté du chef de l'Etat. Réélu dès le premier tour avec un record de 62% des voix, Alvaro Uribe sort considérablement renforcé du scrutin. Les Farc, qui, à la différence des précédents scrutins, avaient appelé les électeurs à se prononcer contre le président, subissent, de leur côté, une grave déroute politique, notamment dans les zones qu'elles prétendent contrôler. Leur cruauté et leur refus obstiné de tout contact avec le gouvernement ne pouvaient conduire à un autre résultat. Il remet à leur juste place les prétentions politiques d'une organisation mafieuse pour qui l'idéologie stalinienne n'est plus qu'un paravent.

Rough translation: Presidential election was plebiscite about the tough policies of Uribe. Outright winner in the first-round [so no second ballot necessary] with a record 62% of the vote. FARC, unlike previous elections had called on the population to vote against Uribe [instead of boycott - they must have REALLY been scared of him]. FARC was routed in the areas it claims to control. The group's cruelty and lack of negotiation was bound to lead to this. FARC exposed as a mafiosi outfit with pretensions of Stalinism.

Accusing Stalinists of being fakes is pretty wild! Only in France.

5/29/2006

Have I missed anything?

A destroyed society.

Politicians loot. Vote for bigger looters. Politicians loot even more. Rebels who are even worse than the politicians kill. The army kills too. Vote for really bad looting politicians.

Blame the U.S.A.. Vote for the most anti-U.S. candidate possible. The candidate loots even worse than everyone else so far. Blame the U.S.A. Support a rebel who kills anyone.

The economy is a disaster (no kidding!). Politicians blame the U.S.A.. Vote for them. Politicians carry on looting. Vote for the officer who tried to take over by force. The officer cancels elections and kills more people. The officer loots even worse than the others (but kills anyone who talks about it).

Run away to the U.S.A..

Complain that the U.S.A. does not adopt the same political-economic system that is familiar from the home country. Blame the U.S.A.. Campaign to turn the U.S.A. into part of Mexico.

Then, repeat all of the above.

Peru is a basket case. The election will make things worse, unless people start acting responsibly. There are few incentives to do so however.

Daniel Hannan writes:

On the far Left stands Alan García who, as president between 1985 and 1990, suspended foreign debt payments and nationalised what remained of the private sector, including the banks. The result? An absolute decline in national wealth, mass unemployment and 7,649 per cent inflation.

On the even further Left stands Ollanta Humala, a cashiered ex-officer who sees Velasco as his role-model. Humala combines socialist economics with aggressive nationalism and a millenarian appeal to the indigenous peoples. His violent rhetoric has left opponents wondering whether, if he were to win, there would be any more elections.

Why have Peruvians put these two men in the final? Precisely because they have had enough of politics and politicians. They have been systematically looted by every regime they can remember.

They have seen a country that has colossal natural wealth - tin and copper, petrol and fisheries, silver and gold - reduced to pauperism. Such is their mood that, the more obnoxious a candidate seems to the governing caste, the more they want to support him.

They are voting, not in the hope of sensible economic reform - they have long given up on that - but as a howl of protest against the system.


Update: Thanks to Brian Micklethwait for correcting an embarrassing spelling mistake.

5/28/2006

How to create a conspiracy theory

Give Ariel Sharon the wrong injection and put him in a coma at the start of an election campaign.

Warner still looks like a good outside bet

Hillary Clinton remains the front-runner for the Democratic nomination for the U.S. presidential election in 2008. If she doesn't get the nod, my consistent guess has been that Mark Warner, the Virginia Governor who stood down with over 80% approval ratings in a broadly Republican state is the best pick.

Here, My DD publishes a somewhat glowing plug for Mr Warner.

Warner has been tracking a clear second place for several months now. Unlike John Edwards, who stood down as Senator in North Carolina (to avoid getting beaten in 2004), I would expect Warner to be an asset in the South.

There are solid (if only in terms of national name-recognition) and well-funded alternatives: John Kerry and Al Gore immediately spring to mind. Anyone offering good odds that Mark Warner will not get either the President or Vice-President nomination should be taken on.

Moment of glory

Ok so it was over a month ago, but I made top billing on Pyjamas Media. And the hit-counter went beserk.

I still think the Democrats won't win either House in Congress this autumn, although the Republicans seem to be helping them as far as humanly possible.

Do the Rights Brothers have it right for George Bush?

You can be sure that there isn't a British rock band that is technically as good as this, nor that has such a pro-Bush, pro-Blair line. The camera work on the video seems better than amateurish too.

The Right Brothers project the U.S.A. more accurately than the MSM (now there's a surprise). It's a safe bet that anyone with brains on the Al Qaeda payroll sees the U.S. economy doing a lot better and the U.S. military as more effective than Reuters or the AP do. It's probably fair to say that among Al Quaeda operatives, stories of U.S. military atrocities and torture (to the extent that they are real) do not come across as a sign of moral weakness.

Interesting times...

5/27/2006

Back in business

I've had a few interruptions lately, but normal service is resuming, as I sift through the 250 odd saved clippings in my Newsgator account.

I'm looking at some upgrades to my Blogger account, as well as whether to have a feed of my selected news stories in the side bar.

The upgrades I'm after include:
1) categories;
2) a custom skin;
3) technorati taglines (maybe using del.icio.us);
4) more outward links;
5) maps and charts;
6) feed of relevant stories;
7) links to my podcasts;
8) various security features.

"Further updates as we receive them."

4/24/2006

Nepal: Communists winning

The King of Nepal has agreed to the primary demand of the united opposition, that includes political parties and the Maoist terrorist who struck today. The restoration of the lower is no doubt calculated to split the parties into those that will be satisfied with moderate demands and those that will will want to turn Nepal into the new Cambodia.

If previous revolutions are any guide, the King should either get the hell out now, or strike very hard against the Maoists. Louis XV or Napoleon would fire grape shot into the crowds and survive, Louis XVI would order his troops not to shoot and watch them get torn to pieces before he eventually was executed in public and his family tortured and killed.

Elections don't work when one side promises to exterminate the losers and the only rational course is to stop the election. It's bad and may not improve for some time.

4/13/2006

The most feared words in politics: Move On says, "We're here to help"

Move On helped Francine Busby in the California special election for the 50th congressional district, which is in San Diego County.

Guess what? She failed to hit 50% on a low turnout. I'd love to see the scripts they use for tele-canvassing.

I can see the Democrats winning in June, only to lose in November, but there are too many imponderables at the moment to give a serious forecast.

[Hat tip Daily Kos]

Podcasts and milestones

Exciting week: I've crashed through the 6,000 hits and 4,000 visits yesterday. It seems like only last week I was crowing about 5,000 hits (yes I know, Daily Kos gets that every hour or so).

Brian Micklethwait has uploaded the first two Election Watch podcasts.

Podcast #1.

Podcast #2.

Democrats will not win U.S. House of Representatives

I would bet my shirt on this now. It would take a massive terrorist attack, the assassination of Ted Kennedy, George W. Bush (or a close relative) caught in bed with a dead child, the accidental introduction of total gun control by the Republicans in the Senate, or four million illegal immigrants given the vote (and they all vote Democrat in the right districts).

If Francine Busby, despite all the blogging efforts of the pro-Democrat left, couldn't win outright the 50th Congressional District of California - covering San Diego County - her party will not win the 11-15 seats its needs to gain nationally to take back the lower house after six consecutive general election defeats. Daily Kos is unhappy about turnout. So they should be: 36.19% should have been low enough to give the Democrats a chance of an upset victory, clearly not enough angry San Diego voters.

A classic example of failing to manage expectations on the part of MyDD (but then they make Pangloss seem like Cassandra).

In fairness to Mrs Busby, the run-off on June 6 coincides with the Republican primary for the seat's re-election in November.

Confused? In plain English it means that the 13 losing Republican candidates will not be able to campaign to be elected Congressman in June, but they can campaign to be the Republican candidate for Congressman in November. Voters on June 6 will have two votes, one for Congressman today and another for Republican candidate in five months. If that doesn't split the Republican vote, nothing will. Expect the Republican Party's National Committee to try and broker an uncontested primary on June 6. Expect it to fail.

I said it last year (see below), the best chance for the Democrats in 2006 is to pick off the governors. New York, California, Florida and Texas are all up for grabs and all in Republican hands. If the Democrats can capture three of these they should be very satisfied. Forget about the House of Representatives, forget about winning control of the Senate (another fantasy).

Where the Democrats can do real damage is in taking on potential Republican candidates for the presidency. John McCain may be the front-runner, but not decisively so.

At this time, I still think it would be wildly optimistic for the Democrats to win control of either chamber in Congress. But if they keep holding their Governorships, and pick away at the Republican lead in the House of Representatives, they may hang on until 2008, when the Republicans will be defending large numbers of Senate seats, and they have as yet no clear cut presidential candidate.

4/10/2006

Solomon Islands throw out the bums

Solomon Islands: from Reuters [world page doesn't have proper permalinks]
HONIARA (Reuters) - Solomon Islands voters ousted half their parliament in the first election since peacekeepers restored law and order in the South Pacific nation three years ago, officials said on Monday, announcing final poll results.

Prime Minister Sir Alan Kemakeza won his seat in last Wednesday's national election but will now have to lobby with winning candidates to form a coalition government ahead of a secret parliamentary ballot for prime minister on April 18.

A government spokesman said many of Kemakeza's elected People's Alliance Party (PAP) candidates have since deserted his party.

"Its difficult to tell how many PAP candidates have been elected as many stood as PAP and have now joined other parties," spokesman Alfred Maesulia told Reuters.

A total of 453 candidates from 13 parties contested 50 seats in an election dominated by government corruption, after several ministers were arrested on corruption charges in the past year.

The Solomon Star newspaper said that, based on the candidates' listings, 18 members of the new parliament are independents.

New parliamentarians will travel to the capital, Honiara, this week, many by boat from far-flung islands, to begin horse-trading to form a new coalition government.

Peru doesn't decide yet

Peruvian tentative results here from the BBC.

One Socialist anti-democrat and the sort of social-democrat who could turn Switzerland into Bolivia in five years, versus a "conservative" woman, whose main selling point is a Socialist woman got elected in Chile recently.

Do you get the feeling I'm not impressed with the breadth of choice on offer?

And there will be a run-off on May 7th.

It ain't over till Berlusconi's Mama sings*

First this, this and this ["Clear victory for Prodi according to early polls"]

Then this.

Then this.

And it's not over yet.

Any guesses why I don't rate exit polls? The next time they don't predict the Socialist wins in a tight race, only to underestimate the non-Socialist vote, I'll be interested.

The latest from Reuters [I'll use permalinks when they make them permanent]:
ROME (Reuters) - The result of Italy's general election hung in the balance on Monday, as one pollster said partial returns suggested Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi might win a shock majority in both houses of parliament.

A second pollster predicted that center-left challenger Romano Prodi would just hold off Berlusconi, leaving the result of the two-day vote on a knife-edge.

Exit polls at the end of the two-day ballot said Prodi had won the election, taking between 50-54 percent of the vote. But as the count proceeded, Nexus pollsters said the center-right was advancing and could eventually end up the winner.

Center-left leaders reacted with dismay and disbelief as the polls changed direction, revealing a country split in two after five years of Berlusconi government.

4/09/2006

I love Norway

The country was supposed to become poor because it was outside the E.U.. Nope.

The country was supposed to join the E.U.. Nope (three times I think).

Now, the Progress Party is teaching Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard and Hans Hermann Hoppe to its aspiring candidates. That's the sort of progressives I could vote for!

Singapore tries to ban political blogs

Ha!

Good news from Japan

The Socialist/Conservative Democratic Party is a shambles.

Bad choices in Hungary

I trained Hungarian politicians in Slovakia back in 1991-1992. I got some insight into the FIDESZ party then. [If I have time someday, I'll put down what happened on the day of the anti-Gorbachev coup-d'état in August 1991.]

Today's election is portrayed as a Socialist/free market alliance versus conservative nationalists.

I really don't have time for a coalition with politicians who were complicit in the Soviet era. However, my guess is that the good guys have lined up with the Socialists, so economically we want them to win.

Expect bad relations with neighbouring countries if FIDESZ wins, especially Romania and Slovakia.

Peru election round-up

Not much time, so here are links.

BBC, and here.

Looks tight.

Other U.S.A. round-up

Matt Stoller's dreaming of a Democrat majority in November over at DD.
French proverb: "Il ne faut pas prendre ses désirs pour des réalités."

Will New Orleans voters kick out their mayor? They should, the guy turned down help to evacuate the city before Hurricane Katrina. I'm not sure if having the exiles vote helps him or not.

OK, My DD predicts a Democrat landslide, and then it reports this.

Electronic voting is not quite worth as much as the paper it is written on, says the former CEO. Trust the government to buy a computer? I don't.

The auditors at the GAO look at military and overseas votes here.

Busy time on the highways between Washington D.C. and New Hampshire and Iowa.

Unless someone can fool youngsters into thinking that Bushitler is up for re-election this, expect them to find something more interesting to do in November.

Michelle Malkin has this on the racist-cops-butted-my-fist-with-their-torsos incident, aka Congresswoman McKinney had another strop. [I think she's a Karl Rove spy, who's job is to undermine Democratic Party press coverage over their excellent policy launch last week. Hope, he's paying you good, lady!]

Heartland Institute Citizen's Guide to Conservative Organisations. If there's a Liberal equivalent, please let me know so I can post it.

Ohio: a congressional election for November has already attracted national Republican campaign spending. This is attack money against a Democrat incumbent. Unless you're bluffing, you don't spend this sort of money this early, unless you think you have a chance of gaining seats.

Tom DeLay: Drama Queen

Tom DeLay's decision on the 4th of April to announce that he will not stand for re-election risks giving Democrats in California a fillip days before a crucial vote.

It may have given DeLay plenty of coverage (the news outlets wanted to cover the story in the run-up to a potential Democrat "anti-corruption" victory in San Diego), but it is stupid party politics. Didn't anyone tell the outgoing Leader of the Republicans in the House of Representatives that you make these announcements after the polls have closed, preferably during the holidays when most of the reporters are on skiing resorts or whatever?

Hint: doing what your political opponents want you to do, when they want you to do it, is probably bad.

Good riddance, if this is an example of DeLay's strategy.

CA-50 special election news

My final verdict: low turnout, Democrats might squeak 50%. High turnout, wait for the run-off on Tuesday June 6. (And no, I haven't a clue who the top Republican will be.)

With 48 hours to go, the Democrats are talking up their chances of winning the San Diego County election to the U.S. House of Representatives.

I've written about this previously, here and here.

In addition to whipping up enthusiasm, Daily Kos and others have been taking on the Republican candidates, and with some success.

The amount of money raised is unusual, according to Federal Election Commission returns. But I'd say all sides should throw everything at this. If the Democrats can win, they can boast an "anti-corruption crusade" and try to carry this into the November elections. If the Republicans hold on, it will help with the recent jitters. (Frankly I consider Tom DeLay a vastly over-rated party strategist if he thinks standing down within a week of this election is a clever move. The correct decision was to either go last November, or hang on until later this week. Sorry, but for all the money in U.S. elective politics, I'm seriously under-impressed with the strategic thinking, on both sides.)

The money becomes the issue.

How to lose the next election

The U.K.'s Labour Party is trying to lose the next election.

Someone needs to grow up, I think.

Every little helps

With negotiations on-going to form a government in Israel, I guess this is helpful.

Final count [adapted from BBC]:
1. Kadima: 29 seats, "centrist"
2. Labour: 20 seats, centre-left
Possible partners
3. Shas: 12 seats, ultra-Orthodox
4. Pensioners: 7 seats, single-issue
5. Torah Judaism: 6 seats, ultra-Orthodox
6. Meretz: 5 seats, left-wing
Unlikely partners:
7. Israel Beitenu: 11 seats, Russian emigres, far-right
8. Likud: 12 seats, right-wing
9. Arab parties: 9 seats
10. National Union/Religious: 9 seats, far-right, settlers

Majority: 61.

Zapatero loves Apartheid!

So much for Spanish Socialists being in favour of democracy and against racism: they want to prevent people living in Gibraltar from voting in the U.K.'s European elections on the grounds that they are from Pakistan, Nigeria or India.

Note: the U.K. allows citizens from all Commonwealth countries the right to vote in U.K. elections. Gibraltar is part of the South West England constituency, so the Spanish/E.U. ruling would create an apartheid electoral system based on race in part of the U.K.. I'd love to see how advocating that fits in with anti-racism laws.

Let's hear it now: "Zapatero loves Apartheid!"

Close in Italy: a shame they can't both lose

If the foreign commentators had anything to do with it, Italy's election today and tomorrow would be a shoo-in for the Socialist-Communist-fellow-traveller coalition. Silvio Berlusconi was taken ill during the long campaign and the almost universal view is that he came off worst in all the television debates. In Sicily, he was denounced as an unwitting tool of the Mafia, elsewhere he was described as a crook, a loon and an American stooge.

Berlusconi also upset his opponents when he suggested that Italians aren't big enough "pricks" to vote Socialist.

And yet the man may win.

To the extent that a Berlusconi triumph will put all the people in London, who swallowed the wasp over George W. Bush's re-election in 2004, into a hissy-fit, I'm hoping for the narrowest win possible. But I'm not expecting it.

If Berlusconi wins, it will be because he's had some luck in the last few days.
1) Abdul Rahman. The report in Le Figaro [in French here] rightly call the issue a "blessing" for Mr Berlusconi. The Christian vote may be less than a majority, but it is hard to imagine what Mr Berlusconi could have done to shore up the church-going vote at cheaper cost. What are the leftists supposed to do? Not much it seems.

2) Abortion. These days the abortion-haters and the abortion-lovers are both minorities. But the pro-abortion types either voted left-wing already, or can't be bothered to vote (it's not cool). Net effect, condemning the excesses of abortion pays off for a non-leftist party.

3) Berlusconi=global player vs. Prodi=euro-fixer. I know people who voted against John Major in 1997 because his haircut was rubbish compared with Tony Blair's. The man knows how to dress and how to sit next to the U.S. President without looking out of place. If style loses votes, Mr Romano Prodi is doomed.

4) An attempt to "do a Madrid" was foiled by the Italian security forces. I've seen very little coverage of this incident. But it is hard imagine how it helps the left to be the party Al Quaeda wants to win.

On the other hand, Mr Berlusconi is facing another round of investigations over criminal activities (although nothing serious enough for the British Labour Party to refuse taking money for or worry about connecting with).

His support among business leaders is not as solid as it was. Italian expatriates get to vote for the first time, my guess is they're more likely to be moralistic about corruption and pro-E.U.. Anyway, if its a contest between left-wing ballot-rigging and right-wing ballot-stuffing, my money's on the labour unions.

We know which way the U.S. Democratic left is leaning: weird how they 1) deny that they are fellow-travellers of Communism, 2) support a coalition that includes Communists, at every turn (Italy, before that Cambodia, Chile, Cuba, Spain, Venzuela, Vietnam). Sounds like Gulag-denial to me.

For the record. I do not advocate a vote for Forza Italia, it includes some very unsavoury people. "It's a shame they can't both lose."

Big week

Elections today in Hungary and Peru.

Monday: two days of voting in Italy end.

Tuesday: special election in San Diego, California for the 50th Congressional district seat in the U.S. House of Representatives.

All of these elections are forecast to be close, with the Californian election a race for Democrat Party candidate Francine Busby to get the 50% of the total vote in order to avoid a run-off against the highest-scoring of 14 Republican contenders, where she would normally be expected to lose.

And last week we had the first election in Kuwait that allowed women voters.

Action posted today from Norway, the U.S.A., Israel, Gibraltar, the U.K., Japan and Singapore. Afghanistan gets a mention.

And today is Liberation Day in Iraq.

4/04/2006

Sickness and health

I've had to slow down on the postings for the past few days, what with the Chris Tame funeral, my going down with gastric 'flu and the domestic upheavals involved.

However, tonight I shall be visiting Brian Micklethwait where we shall experiment with poscasting. Being absolute newbies I have no idea if, how long, or even on which site the result will appear.

I intend to cover last week's Israeli elections and next Tuesday's special election in California's 50th congressional district (San Diego county).

UPDATE. The recording went well. We covered Israel and Thailand but didn't touch on California's election. We're working on keeping the format tight so that podcasts don't last longer than 15-20 minutes. Though the more I think about it probably 5-10 minutes is better.