I have been following the USA Presidential Election for some weeks now, both on the TV, web and other media and have been reading Cassini's thoughts on the odds on offer. I didn't get involved with any trading during the run up, but managed to scalp a nice green by laying the incumbent at 1.09 at around midnight UK time last night, and hedging at 1.15 or so. Managed to do that a couple of times.
What I found most interesting about the whole thing is how the Betfair market, and Cassini to be fair to him, called this result some weeks ago. At the same time the catchphrases of the campaign seemed to be 'too close to call' and / or ' a close run thing'.
The convincing result for Obama, ultimately, is more a reflection of the US electoral system than the national split of opinion - hence the massive interest and focus on the key 'swing' states - chief of which was Ohio. This system has worked well for some time now but it would seem to be even less fair on the individual voter than our own much maligned 'first past the post' system spread across over 600 constituencies. A few hundred votes one way or the other in a key state decide the fate of whatever number of Electoral College seats that state has to offer. We might think it harsh that a Tory voter in Camberwell & Peckham effectively has no real voice in a General Election and neither does a Labour voter in Bromley and Chislehurst, but that effect is magnified enormously under the American system.
In my opinion Romney fought a good campaign bearing in mind the difficulties he faced. To gain the nomination he first had to court the more or less entirely un-electable preferences of the Tea Party and then to perform a balancing act of appeasing them and trying to appeal to the broader electorate. The fact that he managed to poll just under half of the total vote is testament to a great political skill and considerable public appeal.
I don't care for his religious views, but wouldn't vilify him for them either. There isn't a religious bone in my body, but I feel a sense of respect for someone who holds and defends a set of principles and standards out of a strong sense of conviction. We could do with some conviction in this country, where, for example, a sitting MP (drawing a rather nice salary from the public purse - care of you and I in other words) feels it's quite acceptable to disappear to the outback to take part in some vacuous 'reality' TV show whilst parliament is in session!
On balance I suspect that the Americans have returned the right man for the job. But anyone who thinks Obama's second term will become a great reforming presidency needs, in my opinion, to take a reality check. The Republicans have a majority in the House of Representatives and the Democrats a majority in the Senate. The American political model features a much more visible and real division of power than we have in the UK with the President being the Executive and Congress the Legislature. There are bound to be clashes and the President might well find himself hamstrung, despite Romney's calls for Americans to unite in an hour of need. The first challenge for the President Elect will come when America falls over the so-called Fiscal Cliff on 1st January 2013. Challenging times ahead for Mr Obama - good luck to him.
I think I'll take more notice of the political markets on Betfair going forward. This one was quite easy to nick a few quid from and my suspicion is that it is a more realistic guide to what is likely to happen than opinion polls.
One thing is for sure, the 10% surge in defense spending and the build up in the gulf suggests the US will be at war faster than expected.
ReplyDeletethat's hope you can believe in.
I did the same as you last night - only I fell asleep after having entered the market. Woke up this morning 30 quid poorer!
ReplyDeleteIgnore Al - not only did his betting bank take a hit today, but so did US defense stocks. Obama will be making cuts, not because there will be a 10% surge in spending. Where does he get his numbers from? He sounds like my father-in-law.
ReplyDeleteOne comment on the Electoral College system - it hasn't worked well for a number of years. When it was devised, it had some merit. Communications were poor but times have changed. An individual in Hawaii is well equipped these days to form an opinion on a candidate from Maine and vice-versa. The EC was the reason that hundreds of thousands lost their lives in unnecessary wars. Had Gore win in 2000, and he won the popular vote by 500,000, the world would be a far different place today.
That defence stocks fall on the election of a moderate politician is not too surprising. They'll bounce back, I'm sure.
DeleteHalf a million votes seems like a large number. Or it represents 0.51% of total votes cast. And Bush was ahead on the Electoral Vote result by a similar margin. Funnily enough, had Gore managed to hold his own state, he would have won the Presidency! Again, it's how the numbers are interpreted.
As regards the possibilities of Gore as president, who knows? The catalyst that lead to the wars you describe was the 911 attack. I don't think Gore having been president would have stopped that, and it's impossible to know how he would have reacted to it. Probably in a less gung-ho fashion that did Dubya, but pressure situations can lead to strange decisions being taken.
A question from an exam paper I sat many years ago: "History is the study of what did happen, taken in the context of what might have happened. Discuss."
...and it's White House - two words...
ReplyDeleteNoted - thanks. Perhaps I was thinking of a magazine I used to glance at occasionally in my teen years ;-)
Delete