A merciful mid-campaign lull precluded the need for a “minus two weeks” thread, but things are well and truly picking up again now. Real Clear Politics’ Pennsylvania Democratic poll average has Hillary Clinton leading Barack Obama 47.4 per cent to 40.4 per cent, which is not as much as she would like. However, the most very recent poll from SurveyUSA puts it at 56-38 (UPDATE: Whoops, that’s not the most recent poll after all. There have been quite a few others since that have been around the RCP average). Statistical anomaly, or Obama’s elitist chickens coming home to roost? I report – you decide.
The idea of the remaining SD’s voting in a ‘bloc’ as suggested by some earlier was never likely and now a distant Hillarian fantasy.
‘Coalesce’ – it’s a much softer and more positive term than ‘bloc’.
If Hillary is still standing, or staggering, by then Obama will be enfolded by a coalescence of super delegates on June 4.
It’s another one of those collective nouns like ‘a flock of birds’ – ‘a coalescence of super delegates’
yes AL ,
You have a point. However GG highlighting that “Obamabot” had been pubished in the ‘Age’ brought mirth to some and disquiet to others and in particular the Obamabots themselves. You may well be an independent but supporting Obama observer
Ferny #1485
you’ve been caught out & you still can not rebute my #1088 , 1098 & 1108
1499
Ron
I hate to inform you Ron, that many people, serious ones, with many qualifications and much experience would disagree with you. I doubt it would be the first time.
It’s laughbale that Obama would touch Greenspan with a barge pole, in fact most of the criticism has been that Greenspan was too far up the wazoo of the Bush adminstration and Wall Street to realise he had an obligation to the American people.
And oh the irony, because Hillary wanted RObert Rubin as well, who as Bill’s Sec Treasury had also overseen some pretty godawful ‘de-regulation’ that also helped open the floodgates for the sub-prime debacle.
But no doubt, you knew about all that Ron?
So…what time can we expect the results to start coming in tomorrow?
Based on previous states, I expect to see the state called for Clinton (or Obama) after the first person leaving a polling booth is exit polled 🙂
Ferny – I think the results should start to come in about mid-morning tomorrow shouldn’t they? They’re 12 hours behind AEST I think.
Mid-morning would be good. I’m lecturing all afternoon.
No – Polls close at 8 pm Eastern Time over there, which is 10 am tomorrow morning AEST – they’re 14 hours behind.
Ferny at 1505
Assuming results come together around 9pm east coast time – that would suggest that should be seeing things here in Australia about 11.00 in the morning for everyone over on the East coast, 10:30 for Adelaide, and about 09.00 am for the people over in the West.
Forecast is for a fine day in PA
Kirri
#1504
You did not rebut the economic cause or the responsibility that I outlined in #1499 because you know that would have been false
You mentioned Obama , and as I said I think Obama would love to have him. Also I believe Obama’s OWN economic team would have told him that Greenspan would be a good advisor to him. What I did suggest is Greenspan is not responsible for the credit crisis , not even the executive of Citigroup & Bear Stearns knew !!!! As to the choices Greenspan faced , well hindsight is helpful now , however pushing up rates & depressing the $ and decreasing economic activity also would have had consequences. it was a choice Bill also faced.
My thesis is the responsibilty ultimately lies with Pollies of both Partys and their blind faith in the almost unregulated market economy which is so doctrinaire into the American psche.
So I have no problem with Greenspan with Hillary and i would not do so if he was with Obama both Candidates may lack alot but sound economic advice may not be one of them although whether either listens is what makes Pollies Pollies
1512
Ron
Sorry Ron, I’m not even bothering to read your post.
Oh, I’m not allowed to say that! LOL
Ron, from your earlier post, I’ve concluded that you do not actually have much idea of the subject, and so will not bother to get into an argument with you about it.
Ferny, can I have that zip now please! LOL
Greenspan ignored warnings about the subprime market for well over a year before it all went ass up.
Our own Reserve has been issuing dire warnings about US interest rates for what seems like forever.
1515
dogb
It even went back about 5 years dogb, when another Fed board member raised the issue with Greenspan and he told him to sod off!
Greenspan will be remembered as one of the biggest disasters that America ever had the misfortune to endure, and that is NOT an exaggeration.
Kirri #1414
I knew you knew little of the subject but I like to assist
1515
dogb
Absolutely. Getting notice is the easy part. But a 4 trillion economy with the multitude of players involved requires alot of planning lead time to alter
Whats more important as i’ve said is 2 of the biggest losers in all this were supposedly the top in the world (Citigroup & Bear Stearn) and they were on the inside dogb. Blame ALL the Partys Pollies , their policys were & still are flawed
Ahem, the US GDP is close to $15 trillion.
I rest my case.
A good superficial look at some of the real McCain, the guy that the Dems will actually be contesting once this Primary season is over and they don’t need to talk in hushed tones about their mighty adversary that only (insert favoured candidate here) can beat. Talking points and ad spots fly out of even this light hearted piece a mile a minute. The conclusion is that
‘he’s a flawed candidate whose views on the major issues confronting the nation differ from those of most Americans — and whose talents and temperament are not well suited to facing those challenges.
McCain is no pushover, mind you, but he’s eminently beatable. The hypothetical matchup polls mean very little at this point; most of the fundamentals still favor the Democratic candidate in the fall. Clinton and Obama just have to avoid destroying each other — and they have to remember, from time to time, whom they’re really running against.’
The whole article is worth a look though: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/21/AR2008042102552.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
Resist, KR
Ron,
It was not the policies of Congress or the President to artificially hold interest rates at 1.0% while Greenspan was being informed that having interest rates that low was encouraging people to overburden themselves with debt.
After holding interest rates at 1.0% for a year, Greenspan then recommended to people that they switch from their fixed rate home loans to Adjustable Rate Mortgages right before a period of successive interest rate rises (which he would have been informed was coming). By artificially holding interest rates lower as he did, he encouraged people to over borrow and drove up house prices, and then after advising people to switch to variable rate loans, let the interest rates move up and the mess that followed is the sub-prime crisis.
1520
Ferny Grover
Ferny, I’ve been doing quite well, haven’t fallen off the wagon yet, and with your help, should be able to, as you say, ‘resist’!
But really, the garbled ill-informed chatter that passes as ‘argument’!
Kirri #1516
“It even went back about 5 years dogb, when another Fed board member raised the issue with Greenspan and he told him to sod off! ”
Ron says:
So the Fed is made up of 2 members Greenspan 7 the guy who puts to avoid responsibility. Wow. what about all the OTHER members of the Board
To demonstrate how silly the argument is , Citigroup & Bear Stearns & others have deliberately lost (guess 50 billion or more) all because of Greenspan.
No , they made poor business decisions within a non regulated flawed market
Kirribilli #1518
Ahem, the US GDP is close to $15 trillion.
I rest my case
Then you just lost your case , the total US economy is under 14 trillion
I was referring to the financial sector of 4 trillion.Whether that is accurate was not the point either but the magnitude of turning a big ship around
Ferny Grover #1520 Says:
Resist, KR
Ron says:
Ferney a lawyer you say you are but are unable to rebut #1088 , 1098 & #1108.
and making comments from the grandstand is hardly going to bury that reality
Al
“which he would have been informed was coming)”
IF that was the case where are the millions & millions of class actions.
These simplistic comments originate from SOME financial press who should
know better and in any event the economic problems the whole Board faced , the POTUS , the Congress and the various players in the finance & share market
are far gteater than the simplicity of a few lines by Kirri , yet he claims in a few blogg lines in australia to know. nonsense
1519
Pancho
I think McCain’s not going to look so “Ike like” when the light gets shone on him, and the current Democrat race is distracting the public’s attention from that.
In the blogs, it’s McBush, and no matter how he tries, he’s got that legacy, as in the taz cuts they cannot afford (and which Greenspan gave a pass on), to the war they cannot afford.
I cannot wait for the general race, and to get over this tiresome primary!
KR – But who PB is going to fight for McCain?
While Ron’s political & financial antenae may be slightly out of alignment, i dare any of you “smarty elitists” to take him on in his strong suit…..cricket.
Catrina, there are some eloquent and tenacious conservatives about who will give it a good shot. A fellow called Max is on his game, and Glen won’t be taking a backward step, for starters.
Clinton invoking bin Laden in her TV ads?
Crikey that’s rich! And straight out of Rove Moves 101 (or Rove for Dummies, as it’s known).
That’s so tacky George Bush could do it! (oh, yeah, that’s right, he has! LOL)
Who else?
Why don’t you chip away at few Clintonites Glen? There’s surely some common ground there 🙂
HarryH – But I wouldn’t didn’t think someone who plays and misses more often than Darryl Cullinan facing Shane Warne would be into cricket.
Nah i know what its like to know you’re going to eventually lose it aint that nice.
HarryH,
Calling from the bleachers again. Never anything to contribute except snide (KR patent pending) comments.
Kirri #1526
“and which Greenspan gave a pass on),”
Ron says:
A sneaky little cheap shot within an Iraq blog eh
And where is your evidence for this ridiculous assertion.
How about putting your reputation on the line & prove this.
Really throwing unsubstantiated allegations against Greenspan as you have now done re his OK to Iraq…how many bloggers agree with Kirri on this claim ????
1535
was that a growl from the old labradour?
we are all mere pups.
OMG this is really too easy!
January 25, 2001: 2:09 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON (CNNfn) – Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan gave his broadest endorsement of tax cuts to date Thursday, while also indicating that the U.S. economy has slowed dramatically, raising investors’ hopes that further interest rate reductions are on the horizon.
In testimony to the Senate Budget Committee, Greenspan declined to comment on President Bush’s $1.6 trillion, 10-year tax cut plan, saying a decision on the size of a cut was best left up to Congress and the political process. But the Fed chairman’s backing of tax cuts as economically sound likely will provide a boost to the new administration’s proposals
…the last sentence says it all.
Bush took a healthy surplus and then dragged the US economy into massive deficits, and all the while incomes for the middle class stood still (but went slightly backwards if you take real inflation into account)
Well it wasn’t cheap fighting the ‘War on Terror’ something Clinton never had to do.
KR,
Why is it so heinous to show a picture of Osama Bin Laden? I’ve heard he is an enemy of the US. Maybe him and Alan Greenspan are hanging out somewhere.
This is another opportunity for you to show off your “Tony Abbott” like people skills. (but, please no cutting and pasting because your unexpurgated stream of intellectual conciousness is all we want to read).
Glen
it was Bush,McCain and Hillary’s “choice” to go into Iraq.
Iraq has been the money sponge.
The world was fighting Al Queada, and the price was manageable.
Hmmm, let’s see:
Which war was the one where they could have taken out bin Laden?
Which war did Hillary give her backing to?
Oh that’s right, Hillary thought invading Iraq would reduce their vulnerablity to terrorists.
Gotta say it, she’s not been on the right side of that argument.
KR bugger!
Harry, Ferny & I dealt with that a few posts back; not to mention Judge Hansen.
I’m not just talking about Iraq HarryH I am talking the whole thing!
Osama cost America trillions of dollars for what he did.
Afghanistan and Iraq and other operations and moneys for security and beefed up military spending all came as a result of 9/11 and they spent the money they had.
Harry how many Senators didn’t vote for war?
Just because Obama wasn’t there doesn’t make him a saint he’s using hindsight and saying ohhh from the beginning i was against it when he was a small fry State Senator.
Kirri $ 1538
‘But the Fed chairman’s backing of tax cuts as economically sound likely will provide a boost to the new administration’s proposals’
Ron:
So , so what. if you had understood my #1499 & #1512 blogs and actually understood economics you would have understood the FED. (including Greenspan) were in favour of tax cuts for the economic reasons of increasing depressed economic activity & employment and protect the $ amongst other factors. greenspan could have taken the reverse road with some of the reverse consequences & other factors
That was a judgement call & making hindsight opinions after the event is silly
Where is the evidence of Greenspan Ok to Bush for Iraq ???
You imply you know more than Greenspan or are equal…..
Glen at 1544
I heard that the slit in spending between Afghanistan and Iraq was totally disproportionate. I don’t have the number but it was like a couple of order of magnitude difference and that for all practical purposes the Afghanistan stuff didn’t come into focus as far as budget is concerned. For me – that makes me wonder why Iraq gets branded as the war-on-terror when it fact it is only creating a bigger problem.
1544
Glen
bin Laden and then Bush’s mad war in Iraq have made Halliburton lots and lots of money, even when they get caught charging hundreds of thousands for a tap washer delivery.
So no, it all hasn’t been a waste, especially if you’re a shareholder in US arms companies or the like. In fact it’s been, how shall we say? A bonanza.
Glen
Osama hasn’t cost America a fraction of what the neocons have.
Plenty of Democrat senators voted against Iraq. Hillary(and the others) who are indebted to lobbyists like AIPAC were not among them.
The 1 statement, above all others uttered this campaign, that has led me to hope Obama wins this election is when he said…. i not only want to end the Iraq War, I want to end the mindset that got us into it.
Speaking of finances – Hillary’s campaign is in financial trouble. It was $10 million in debt as at the start of April. She’d be a great manager of the US and its economy wouldn’t she?
1548
HarryH – i hate to sound like a child and i know you will label me one for this comment but it is a strong argument against attacking Bush for going into deficit given the amount of money needed for their security/military/Afghanistan/Iraq….
‘He (Osama) started it!’