U.S Endorsements... and a prediction

PRESIDENT

John.F.Kerry (Democrat)

U.S SENATE

Democrat in all races except for:

Arizona: John McCain (Republican)
California: er... the Libertarian candidate
Ohio: No Endorsement
Pennsylvania: Arlen Specter (Republican)
Washington: er... I think a Greeny is running

U.S House

Democrats in most races (except for whackos. I ain't endorsing them) and Bernie Sanders (Soc) in VT.

Gubernatorial

Democrat in all races (although I'd like to see the Mountain Party crack 5% in WV)

...
So... who's going to win?
It all depends on turnout: if turnout is as high as Democrats claim it is, Kerry wins. If not it could be very, very, very close (if turnout actually falls, Bush wins easy).
In other words it's... uncertain...
No idea who's going to win the Senate... I guess the GOP *should* expand it's majority... but who knows...
Gallup are saying that the House could be close, but I don't see it. Maybe a few Republicans will go down, but I don't see it being enough.

Uncertainty and the American Election

The defining feature of this election has and will probably continue to be uncertainty; the polls are jumping about more than an atheist walking on hot coals, both campaigns seem visibly nervous, the list of battleground states appears to be growing and partisan idiots are acting in more idiotically partisan ways than normal (which, judging from past form, indicates that they are very worried indeed). I'll go as far as saying that the only certain thing about the election is that the outcome is uncertain.
It shouldn't have been this way.Both sides were sure that after the Conventions/Debates/"Big Story x"/"Big Story y" their candidate was going to pull away leaving the "enemy" howling in their victorius wake.So much for theory.
Unless something changes (and folks I mean really changes... we're not talking Bush/Kerry gaining 3pts in some dodgy tracking poll here...) exactly who the man sitting in the Oval Office in January is will remain uncertain until Election Night... and judging by the armies of lawyers (and what a frightening concept an army of lawyers is) there's a good chance that it will remain uncertain for a while afrerwards.
Uncertain doesn't mean Close; it's possible that the bulk of the undecided voters (and there's a lot more of them than anyone seems to have banked on) will swing behind one candidate; it's also possible that they won't and it's even possible that undecideds will break differently in different states. Maybe even in different parts of the same state. But all of that is uncertain.
While uncertainty is a pain for pundits, partisans and political journalists, I think most people will agree that all three are due a come-uppance.Besides, uncertainty means that watching the election results live on the telly will be that more enjoyable.

This was first published on the www.uselectionatlas.org members weblog.

Ian Wright M.P

So Wright's done it and Hartlepool now has a local M.P... Rennard's been outwitted again (yay! Give Fraser Kemp a "thank you" card) and the Tories... have come... have come... FOURTH!!!!!!!!!!!!! behind UKIP... fourth... ha!
I figure that now may be the time to make the following crass joke: Hartlepool has made a Monkey out of Howard...

Hartlepool Endorsement

Hartlepool Stuff: I'm endorsing the Labour candidate (Wright). He's a local boy and looks like he could be a solid, hardworking M.P (which is what Hartlepool needs) as opposed to the LibDem candidate... who's remarks about locals are just disgusting.
The odd joke about the Monkey is fine, going on about all the locals being: "drunk, flanked by an angry dog or drunk" is NOT acceptible behavior for anyone, let alone a prospective M.P.

The Ignorance (or deceit) of the LibDems?

Has anyone else noticed the breathtaking ignorance that Senior LibDems show towards Elections in general?

Lord Rennard (a quivering mass of lying blubber... and their elections "guru") said in a Radio interview last night that support for the LibDems is evenly spread across the country and social classes.
Either the "Noble" Lord is an idiot or he's lying through his teeth.
Support for the LibDems (and the Liberal/SDP Alliance in the '80's and the Post War Liberals) is concentrated amoung middle class voters... LibDem support amoung Working Class voters is tiny (you can count the number of LibDems is heavily working class seats on your right hand).
LibDem support isn't evenly spread across the country: almost all their support (and seats) are in the South, whether it's rural seats in the South West, or suburban seats in the South East.
LibDem seats outside Southern England tend to be in very remote areas (the Highlands, Mid Wales etc) or a result of a personal vote for the M.P
Rennard went on to imply that if the LibDems won 35% of the vote nationally (fat chance) they would win a landslide.
I don't know what set of figures the "Noble" Lord is using, but if you take a little look at these and mess about with swings on a calculator (as I've done), what Rennard said appears to be wishfull think at best... and that's assuming a uniform swing. If the LibDems *did* win 35% nationally, most of their existing seats would be won by massive majorities and most of the upswing would be in seats they don't have a prayer in anyways.

But enough about Rennard... Charles Kennedy is at it as well.
On several occasions when asked whether he thinks he can somehow win the next election, he's stated that "anything can happen with FPTP" citing the Canadian Federal Election of 1993 ("where the Conservatives were reduced to just two seats from a majority government") as his example.
Some facts that Kennedy neglected to mention:

1. At the time of the election, Canada was in it's biggest ever Constitutional Crisis (remember Meech Lake anyone? Charlottetown?) and there seemed a real possibility that Canada would not exist going into the next century.
2. The PC's had split into three parties: Bloq Quebecois, Reform, and the rump of the PC's.
3. The Canadian Electorate is far, far more volitile than the British Electorate (just ask Gordon Campbell, David Peterson or Bob Rae...) and Class Divisions do not dominate political allegiance (except in the Greater Vancouver Greater Winnepeg areas... and even in those Cities, Class was far from the voters minds in 1993).
4. Incumbent P.M, Kim Campbell, ran the worst campaign in Canadian History, and had taken over a scandel plauged (when the Canadians do scandels they do they French style...) Government very recently.
5. The Canadian House of Commons has half the seats the British House of Commons does.
I could go on... and on... and on...

And then there's Ed "I don't know when the Labour Party was founded" Davey...
If I wrote about Ed "Pendle District Council is a big Northern City" Davey I think I'd start ranting (think the above paragraphs are rants, eh? You ain't seen nothing yet...)
So I won't write about that irritating little suburban schmuck.

Bye, Bye Big 'Ead

"At last England have appointed a manager who speaks English better than the players."
On the appointment of Sven Goran Eriksson as England manager.

Brian Clough
1935-2004

Conference Time...

Politicians, Municiple Hacks, Ultra-Partisan fanatics, Idiotic Journo's heading to the seaside for a few weeks to bore us all with their fatuous analysis and dull speechs.
Yes it's Party Conference time... take cover...
Oh and for a few days the media will head up to Monkeyville to cover the by-election (September 30th).

Reflections on 9/11

As you all know, today is the third anniversary of the abominal terrorist atrocities on the United States, and doubtless a lot of media attention will be focused on it (and rightly so), but it's worth remembering that 9/11 is the anniversary of two other events:

The Pinochet Coup d'Etat in Chile (1973)
The attack by Italian Ultra-Nationalists on the small Slovenian town of Fiume (either 1919 or 1920... can't remember which) which in effect created the Fascist movement in Italy.

Let us remember the victims of all three events, both direct victims and indirect victims.