Well, first of all, listen to your Uncle Ed. All those who posted saying “get with Obama” should realise that Hillary is a phenomenal campaigning machine. Don’t get me wrong, I like Obama, I am just saying that in all likelihood Hillary will beat him. Anyway, we’ll see what happens in Michigan.
Also, on Romney, again, McCain trounced Bush in New Hampshire, and then look what happened, so McCain’s victory is not as significant as it looks. Romney is much better funded and better placed, though it will be interesting to see if Giuliani’s strategy works.
So, I hold to my earlier prediction.
Other lessons…
Well, turnout is significantly up, thus proving another theory of mine, which is that voters vote when politics is interesting and don’t when it isn’t. And in fact there is nothing more boring than seeing politicians emoting about how they will increase the vote and get people more “engaged” in politics. Turnout wil be up at the next British election because Cameron vs Brown is the first interesting contest we have had for 15 years.
Young people are also voting, also proving the same point. Give young people something interesting to vote for - in this case a crowded field, no clear leader, a woman candidate and a black candidate with a real chance of winning for the first time in presidential politics, and guess what, the young come out to vote as well.
Finally, a theory put forward by Frank Luntz this morning, that negativity isn’t working. I am not sure if that is right - he is using it to explain why Romney isn’t doing better. But certainly the positive candidates are having a very good showing at the moment. If it is true that voters want positive and not negative that would be fantastic news.
