A tough time to be a Salmond?

It was a great pleasure to stand by the River Tyne at the site of Chesters Roman Fort a few weeks ago and witness a salmon leap out the water. In fact, my excitement was beaten only by that of the two men near to me who had trudged to the riverside with rod and fly in the hope of catching one of these beautiful creatures.

Salmon fishermen catch these fish as they swim upstream to spawn, which is something they do all year. However, most fishermen accept the end of October as being the time to leave them alone so that salmon populations can recover. Maybe it is an interesting irony (or maybe it’s because I need a rubbish segue) that the end of October may prove to be the start of testing times for the Salmond of the North, Alex Salmond, the leader of the Scottish National Party.

A few weeks ago it all seemed to be going so well. Salmond had got Dave of Westminster to agree to a referendum on Scottish independence. Whilst he had not got the two question deal he wanted, he had got Cameron to agree to allowing 16 year olds to vote, a major coup as young Scots are overwhelmingly in favour of the end of the Union.

However, the following weeks saw major issues arise, two of which have struck at the very core of the SNP and their future plans.

Firstly, and for many SNP members, most importantly, the historic view of the SNP on nuclear weapons seems to have changed. Traditionally the SNP has been fiercely anti-nuclear, opposing nuclear weapons sites in Scotland and even refusing to allow nuclear power stations to be built in an independent Scotland. However, the issue of nuclear weapons, and specifically membership of the pro-nuke NATO alliance, was raised at their conference 9 days ago, with Salmond and other top brass arguing in favour. A vote was called, the motion was passed and a lot of SNP members became disillusioned. In fact, two MSPs, John Finnie and Jean Urquhart, have resigned from the SNP, stating that they will vote in line with the Party on most things and are still pro-independence but that they cannot support the new stance on nuclear politics.

All this may seem minor, but let me say two things – firstly Salmond and others have changed a major distinctive of SNP policy. That takes guts and has proven unpopular. Secondly, the loss of two MSPs has led to the SNP majority in the Scottish Parliament falling to one. Now I don’t think this is as cataclysmic as many others do, especially as Finnie and Urquhart have promised to support almost all the measures that government recommends. However, I do think it is bad PR for the Party on whom the pro-independence cause all but rests. Many will be wondering why, if they can’t keep themselves in check, should they be allowed to run a new country?

The other issue that has rocked the SNP in the last few days concerns their leaders and claims surrounding an independent Scotland’s standing in the EU. This issue was raised many months ago and at the time Salmond and his Deputy Nicola Sturgeon (both SNP) said that legal advice had been taken as to whether an independent Scotland would need to join the EU or not. When pressed on this legal advice they both claimed they could not reveal it due to it possibly being a breach of the ministerial code, which was actually a fair enough excuse (the Ministerial Code of Conduct is different for Scotland but basically asserts the same thing – propriety in their role – and so Salmond and Sturgeon mentioned it so as to not use their position to make a sly argument for independence, a cause which is clearly separate from their roles in the government of Scotland).

This however did ruffle a few feathers and so the issue of whether the SNP leader had to reveal legal advice went to court. The case cost the taxpayer more than £12,000 and ended earlier this week when Salmond was forced to admit that no such legal advice had been sought and therefore did not exist. He has since referred himself to an independent panel to investigate whether he acted appropriately. The issue has become a hot topic in Scotland, with the Scottish Sun, which traditionally supports the SNP, branding Salmond ‘an EU liar’.

The SNP therefore faces two challenges, the first to its make up and policy, the second to the honesty and uprightness of its leader and deputy leader. All this is hard to take with a referendum which, although still roughly 2 year away (the date has not yet been set), is very obviously on the horizon.

Debate warmly encouraged

Second Attempt – US Election Predictions

As before, below are 3 tables. Several states are guaranteed wins for Romney – they are coloured in red, are found in the second table and give him 154 votes. Several states are guaranteed wins for Obama – they are coloured in blue, are found in the third table and total 186 votes. The crucial table though is the first one, where I’ve outlined all those states that are still on the table for both candidates. These are those states considered pretty certain bets and the so-called ‘swing states’. I’ve either given them an ‘L’, for ‘leaning’, or a ‘P’, which stands for ‘predicted’.

Changes

There is no doubt some changes have taken place, so I’ve now given Florida (29 EC votes) and Colorado (9) to Romney. I’ve also changed the voting status of West Virginia from a prediction to leaning to GOP, meaning I’m more certain this is the way that state will go. The other status change is Wisconsin to leaning Democrat, so again I’m saying the result there seems a bit clearer

My conclusion is a win for Obama with 281 votes, just over the 270 votes needed

 

Reasoning

 

My first prediction had Obama winning with 319 votes, well over the 270 needed. My thinking then was that Obama didn’t need to win by much in a few states to get a large majority (though still nothing like the whipping he gave McCain in 2008). And that is still true. However, the reverse is also a possibility – Romney could scrape a few states to take it to the wire. And that seems to be more like what is happening. Romney has managed to catch Obama on the economy and to sow enough seeds of doubt in the minds of swing voters to make them think that he has the answers and that the President will only bring more trouble.

 

I suspect this message will most strike home in Florida, with its large elderly population, and in Colorado, where Romney has managed to move from a 5% deficit in September to a dead heat contest. Indeed the races in Colorado and Nevada are still close enough to mean any current poll results are well within the margins of error. Romney’s route to the White House could well go through the mid-West.

 

I think Obama still has a fair chance in Florida, especially with its large Hispanic population, but I’ve given it to Romney for now to make things more interesting. I’ve also given him Colorado as I suspect his quick rise on the polls there will continue unless there is a major hiccup.

 

So those are my thoughts for now. As I said before, this is a hard and yet easy game to play – you can put hours of research in and yet still recognise that everything could change in a few hours, no matter in the  days left to the election.

 

Debate warmly encouraged

 

Arizona	11	L
Colorado	9	P
Florida	29	P
Indiana	11	L
Iowa	6	P
Michigan	16	L
Minnesota	10	L
Missouri	10	L
Nevada	6	P
New Hampshire	4	P
New Mexico	5	L
North Carolina	15	P
Ohio	18	P
Pennsylvania	20	L
Virginia	13	P
West Virginia	5	L
Wisconsin	10	L
	198

 

Romney

Alabama	9
Alaska	3
Arkansas	6
Georgia	16
Idaho	4
Kansas	6
Kentucky	8
Louisiana	8
Mississippi	6
Montana	3
Nebraska*	5
North Dakota	3
Oklahoma	7
South Carolina	9
South Dakota	3
Tennessee	11
Texas	38
Utah	6
Wyoming	3
	154
	+ 4 leaning = 186
	+ 4 predicted = 257

 

Obama

California	55
Connecticut	7
Delaware	3
Hawaii	4
Illinois	20
Maine*	4
Maryland	10
Massachusetts	11
New Jersey	14
New York	29
Oregon	7
Rhode Island	4
Vermont	3
Washington	12
District of Columbia#	3
	186
	+ 5 leaning = 237
	+ 4 predicted = 281

 * Nebraska and Maine divide their EC votes but I don't think that will happen this election

# Washington DC isn't a state but still gets EC votes

 

Debate 3 – Foreign Policy Showdown

...and so we come to the last debate. Just a reminder, this will be a return to the format of the first encounter – podiums and questions from a moderator. So no barstools and undecided voters here! One big difference however will be the focus – this is the only debate where the candidates will answer questions that are solely on foreign policy. Whilst they touched on it in the second (which covered both domestic and foreign policy), this debate allows the candidates to show the deep contrasts in their views on overseas affairs.

‘So what will the main issues be??!’, I hear the one person who reads this blog each year exclaim. Well below is a list of crucial topics that will have to be covered and covered well.

 

1. Benghazi – the death of a US ambassador in a recent terror attack is something that will have to be brought up, especially as its being mentioned in the last debate and the moderator’s interjection caused some outcry. For those who aren’t aware of the issue, Romney perceives Obama as being weak in response to the events by not naming the event as ‘a terror attack’ and by supposedly being apologetic towards Muslims in the aftermath. Romney stated this immediately after the events and has continued to make this allegation. This will be his chance to convince voters of Obama’s soft touch, whilst it will give Barack his main chance to clearly reply and rebut.  Hillary Clinton recently accepting the blame for the attack will help the President make his case (and has severely wounded Hillary’s chances of nomination in 2016 – but that’s for another time).

 

2. Afghanistan and the Taliban – the Administration’s commitment to remove US troops (currently numbering over 60,000) from Afghanistan by 2014 will no doubt be questioned by Romney as he sees it as potentially leaving the Afghans in a bad state to face the Taliban unaided. Romney has also agreed to the 2014 deadline but has kept in the proviso of only leaving under the guidance of military officials. Mitt does though face the challenge on military issues of having committed THE cardinal sin of not thanking the troops in his acceptance speech. Obama can and probably will play the death of Osama card to remind voters of that particualr military success. Those points aside, both candidates will need to balance the issues of Americans wanting troops home with Americans not wanting their soldiers to have died in vain.

 

3. Iran, nuclear warheads and Israel – Romney has been very clear on this crucial area of foreign policy, stating that Iran must not get nuclear warheads and that the US must stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel in resisting any Iranian production of atomic material. Indeed, Romney’s running-mate, Paul Ryan, has hinted at the idea of war with Iran over nuclear materials, stating that ‘the military option’ is not ‘being viewed as credible’ by the Democrat incumbent in the recent VP debate with Joe Biden. Obama’s policy has always been diplomacy over sabre-rattling and so, whilst he cannot claim clear moments of victory, he can state that the lack of a nuclear-armed Iran now is guaranteed to continue under the sanctions he has helped introduce.

 

4. Syria – one of the big foreign policy issues of the moment for the wider world is how to resolve the civil war in Syria (yes it is a civil war and it has been for some time – the BBC ran a very good piece recently on comparisons with the Spanish Civil War of 1936-39). So far the UN has not been able to control the situation, with its observation teams having withdrawn and the former Secretary-General Kofi Annan accepting his ceasefire plan never worked. The most that has happened so far is the UN securing condemnation for the Assad regime if chemical weapons are used on the rebels. Romney will want to attack Obama on perceived inactivity, Obama will want to attack Romney on his plan that aims to support and give arms to ‘responsible members of the opposition who share our interests and values’ without outlining the vetting scheme for that plan or how the US will prevent arms they have given away getting into the hands of the groups of jihadi rebels already involved in fighting in Syria. Both candidates will also want to deal with the now very large problem of the war spreading to Lebanon, which the assassination of a general the other day all but ensures.

 

5. China, currency and trade – China is rising, scary and Communist. Add in that Chinese-Americans make up a very small number of voters and you have a very handy bogeyman for both candidates to attack. For his part, Romney has promised to label China a ‘currency manipulator’ on the day he enters the White House. This is a dumb statement even though it is true – China does artificial lower the value of the Yen in order to lower the price of its products overseas. But that is the way of things and labeling China as something that everyone already knows it is won’t change the Chinese policy and won’t affect the economy. Tariffs on Chinese products won’t be raised as that only raises prices in shops whilst any statement on national debt won’t be tolerated because it enters into domestic policy. Both candidates will have to watch their words and be aware that, if they win, they may have to eat their words and get cozy with the new Chinese leaders who take power this Autumn.

 

6. And finally, Romney’s overseas debacle a few months ago. This for me created the main reason I would vote for Obama (again, with a bullet heading down the barrel of the gun that was held to my head!). Romney simply didn’t appear to be a potential national leader, a man who could take the mantle of the US and represent it fairly, justly and honourably in an overseas trip. To remind you, he questioned whether London was ready to host the Olympics (which made Dave rather angry), he mocked the culture of Palestinians and stated Jerusalem was the ‘undisputed’ capital of Israel and in Poland a Romney official told the press to ‘kiss my ass’ at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier (admittedly not Romney’s fault but still very funny!). These blunders were only enhanced by the lack of press contact with Mitt, leading to one reporter (working for FOX!) memorably stating that the press felt like a ‘modified petting zoo’ as they were stuck in a bus with Poles taking pictures of them. Obama will rinse these events for all their worth – after all, whilst the topics are important, Americans will be voting on the person who will argue these topics to others, and will not suffer fools gladly. Romney on the other hand will want to defend and deflect criticism. Sadly for him, he hasn’t had a ‘Hillary’ take the blame for him, unlike Obama with Benghazi.

 

So there we go. Debate 3 begins in a few hours and will be rather interesting. Hopefully I’ll get to watch it at some point tomorrow. Romney won round one, round 2 was a tie (though if you had to pick a winner it would be Obama for making it a tie and not a defeat after the first debate) and the third and final round is on its way. I predict the President will come out on top, though I’m sure Mitt has been going over foreign policy in debate prep in the last few weeks. After all, Republicans all to easily remember Sarah Palin’s comments 4 years ago – she was ready to be VP and was clued up on foreign policy, even though she accepted the only other countries she been to before 2007 were Mexico and Canada, because..........Alaska was near to Russia. Poor John McCain.

 

Debate warmly encouraged

Debate 2: Obama’s chance to shine?

By all accounts, Romney won the first Presidential debate by appearing confident and composed whilst Obama appeared unsure and hesitant. That they argued over the economy and the minutia of each other’s spending plans didn’t matter much (except to the fact checkers, who had a field day with whoppers from both candidates!). Their composure and ability to appear to comprehend what is going and what they would do about it is what matters.

 

Tonight the candidates meet again but in a different environment and with a different topic. The debate will be ‘town-hall style’, with people allowed to ask the candidates questions in a supposedly informal atmosphere (informal being easy to do when 30m+ people are watching!). The focus will be different as well, with Romney and Obama talking about foreign as well as domestic policy.

 

So what do the candidates need to do differently, either regarding their previous debate or their wider campaign?

 

For Romney the issue will be appearing relaxed and charismatic. He stood at the podium in the last debate and never seemed to change his facial movement when the President was speaking. His head was slightly to one side, his mouth in a half-smile, his gaze directed at Obama. He was as steady and unmoving as cardboard cut out placed in concrete. This will need to change as he tries to interact with each voter who gets to ask a question and deals with the issue at hand.

 

Charisma is also an issue for Romney. His voice rarely fluctuates and his body language appears restrained and far from relaxed. Whilst his opponent has the ability to relate well to those he talks to, Mitt struggles and will need to appear warm, open and lively. After watching him deliver the same speech over and over again round the US, I can tell you this is a big ask!

 

As for Obama, he has two things to work on as well. Firstly he must focus. Many people commented on how he didn’t seem to engage with Romney, how he ‘erm’ed and ‘uh’ed a lot in his answers. Some blogs and pro-Democrat news sites even ventured that he was weighed down with Presidential business, that some great news story would appear to show why he appeared pre-occupied. Now this didn’t hold water for me at the time because of his excellent speech at the Press Club dinner earlier this year, when he joked and appeared relaxed whilst knowing Navy SEALS were taking part in an operation that could see the capture or killing of Osama bin Laden. But it also wasn’t backed up by later reports – big things were going on in the world but nothing major to distract Obama.

 

Secondly, Obama must go on the attack. He simply didn’t go after Romney enough in the first debate. It’s true that incumbents traditionally have a rotten first debate, so maybe Obama didn’t want to break that pattern. But now he really must go on the offensive – go after Romney on the 47% comment, deal with his fiasco of a foreign policy trip earlier this year, really wrestle with Mitt’s big money backers and lack of clarity on what he’d do with Obamacare (the President needs to really claim that policy and outline why it is brilliant...well most of it is).

 

I said I wouldn’t watch the last debate and I kinda...slightly...did. But this time I really won’t be watching it, so I will wake up tomorrow to see what happened. Obama really has to do well in this debate to set himself up well for their final meeting. This election is still his to lose.

Initial US Presidential Election Predictions

So, below are my initial predictions for the 2012 US Presidential Election. I've done this in conjunction with my good pal and fellow geek Joe Williams  (http://wordsof50.blogspot.co.uk/). We are both publishing our thoughts today and neither of us knows what the other is going to predict.  I’ll explain what I’ve done but first let me outline a crucial difference between UK and US elections:

 

Winning the Election - The Electoral College

 

The US Presidential election is NOT decided on the percentage of the vote a candidate has. Instead, voters in each state vote for the candidate they support and then that state (on the whole) announces who the majority of the votes cast were for. However, a candidate does not add up states to win (i.e. first to 26 states). Instead, through a system known as the Electoral College, each state is allotted a number of Electoral College votes based on the state’s population (Montana is a MASSIVE amount of land and only has 3 votes, New York is roughly half the size geographically but because of a much higher population it has 29 votes).

 

For those who want to know, there are a couple of complications. Firstly, two states, Nebraska and Maine, share out their votes between candidates by Congressional District, so whilst Obama lost Nebraska in 2008, he still won one of its electoral votes for winning in its 2^nd Congressional District. The second complication is that the District of Columbia, whilst not a state (it’s the home of Washington, D.C. and therefore the White House, Congress etc and its position as its own District is protected in the US Constitution) is allowed to vote and wields so 3 electoral college votes. I don't think either of these will be issues though. I have given Maine as a whole to Obama and Nebraska as a whole to Romney. DC will go Democrat

 

In most states a candidate wins ALL that states votes through winning the popular vote and adds them to his total. This year the total number of votes is 538, so a candidate needs 270 votes to win. Remember that – 270 is the magic number

 

If you want to know more (or you can’t sleep) the official report on the Electoral College can be found at http://www.eac.gov/assets/1/Documents/The%20Electoral%20College%20(Jan.%202011).pdf

 

So, hopefully you’re still reading after that thrilling introduction. Below are 3 tables. Several states are guaranteed wins for Romney – they are coloured in red, are found in the second table and give him 154 votes. Several states are guaranteed wins for Obama – they are coloured in blue, are found in the third table and total 186 votes. The crucial table though is the first one, where I’ve outlined all those states that are still on the table for both candidates. These are those states considered pretty certain bets and the so-called ‘swing states’. I’ve either given them an ‘L’, for ‘leaning’, or a ‘P’, which stands for ‘predicted’.

 

My conclusion is a win for Obama with 319 votes, well over the 270 needed

 

Let me though add two points

 

Firstly, there are several states still in play. I have called Ohio and Florida for Obama and Virginia for Romney. I cannot sure though that any of that will actually happen!!

 

Secondly, if a week is a long time in politics, a month is..is...an even longer time in politics (well done Mark, really profound). I’m not saying this is definitely what will happen. I’m saying that I think if the election was held in the next few days this is a possible result. We have had one debate that Obama definitely lost. Incumbents never do well in the first debate. The next two debates will be interesting to watch especially as the last one focuses solely on foreign policy, a known weak point for Romney.

 

Anyway, enough of me. Have a look at the figures below and let me know what you think

 

Debate warmly encouraged

 

The tables

Arizona	11	L
Colorado	9	P
Florida	29	P
Indiana	11	L
Iowa	6	P
Michigan	16	L
Minnesota	10	L
Missouri	10	L
Nevada	6	P
New Hampshire	4	P
New Mexico	5	L
North Carolina	15	P
Ohio	18	P
Pennsylvania	20	L
Virginia	13	P
West Virginia	5	P
Wisconsin	10	P
	198

Romney

Alabama	9
Alaska	3
Arkansas	6
Georgia	16
Idaho	4
Kansas	6
Kentucky	8
Louisiana	8
Mississippi	6
Montana	3
Nebraska*	5
North Dakota	3
Oklahoma	7
South Carolina	9
South Dakota	3
Tennessee	11
Texas	38
Utah	6
Wyoming	3
	154
	+ 3 leaning = 186
	+ 3 predicted = 219

Obama

California	55
Connecticut	7
Delaware	3
Hawaii	4
Illinois	20
Maine*	4
Maryland	10
Massachusetts	11
New Jersey	14
New York	29
Oregon	7
Rhode Island	4
Vermont	3
Washington	12
District of Columbia#	3
	186
	+ 4 leaning = 237
	+ 7 predicted = 319