Could the Presidential race be a tie?

HIGHLY UNLIKELY, but a colleague of mine in American has just sent me this:

Sen. Barack Obama’s victory in the Oregon primary last night all but mathematically ends the fight for the Democratic presidential nomination. Though Hillary Clinton - her impressive win in yesterday’s Kentucky primary notwithstanding - is likely to continue her campaign, expect more Super Delegates to soon announce for Obama, thus allowing him to officially eliminate the former First Lady even before the final Montana and South Dakota primaries commence on June 3rd. Going into Oregon and Kentucky, Obama was just 109 votes from reaching the magic 2,026 number in committed delegates necessary to clinch total victory. Tonight’s results should leave him within 63 votes of that apex. With more than 200 Super Delegates alone still uncommitted, Obama should have little trouble in soon reaching presumptive nominee status.

The Illinoisan took 58% of the vote in Oregon, meaning he won approximately 30 committed delegates. Clinton scored a 65-30% win in Kentucky, but it is apparently too little, too late. Her only hope is to claim enough delegates to get inside the range where adding the sanctioned states of Michigan and Florida actually changes the outcome. With only three primaries remaining (Puerto Rico votes June 1st, in addition to Montana and South Dakota), she now has little chance of gaining the 78 committed delegate votes needed to make the penalized states count.

Turning to a general election forecast of an Obama-John McCain race, based upon the latest available public polls from each of the 50 states, McCain has a slight 249-242 Electoral Vote lead, with three places, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin (47 aggregate Electoral Votes) all rated as dead heats. Comparing the data to the 2004 presidential election map, Colorado, Iowa, and New Mexico would switch from Republican to Democrat, while New Hampshire returns to the GOP column after voting for John Kerry four years ago. It takes 270 Electoral Votes to win the Presidency. Under this scenario, should Ohio vote McCain and Michigan and Wisconsin choose Obama, the election would end in a 269-269 tie. A presumed Democratic House of Representatives would then serve as the tie-breaker (each state casting one vote) and elect Obama as the 44th President.

Alex Massie on "cigarette permits"

GOOD TO see Alex Massie having a go at the SNP for their ludicrous attempts to "denormalise" smoking.

However, as Massie points out, the Scottish Parliament have also voted to ban coin-operated sun beds.

The rationale?

"The aim is to provide protective legislation - legislation that protects young people and the public, that makes it clear there is a risk associated with these machines." - Ken MacIntosh MSP

Protective legislation? What next - a government Bill preventing you from going outside on a hot day? Massie asks the obvious questions: what next?

I shudder to think.

Karl Rove on Obama's foreign policy rhetoric

YES, MANY of you may snigger at the thought of a Bush administration lackey offering advice on foreign policy, but I thought this was an excellent article.

Obama has regularly called for a dialogue with several countries hostile to the United States, particularly Iran. The apparent Democratic Presidential nominee claims that what he's advocating is nothing new, adding that "Nixon went to China" etc etc. Not only is this one of the most overused phrases in politics, but Obama is bang wrong on the circumstances surrounding rapprochement with China - as Rove points out.

"I recommend that he read Henry Kissinger's book, "The White House Years." Mr. Obama would learn it took 134 private meetings between U.S. and Chinese diplomats before a breakthrough at a Jan. 20, 1970 meeting in Warsaw. It took 18 months of behind-the-scenes discussions before Mr. Kissinger secretly visited Beijing. And it took seven more months of hard work before Nixon went to China. The result was a new relationship, announced in a communiqué worked out over months of careful diplomacy.

The Chinese didn't change because of a presidential visit. In another book, "Diplomacy," Mr. Kissinger writes that "China was induced to rejoin the community of nations less by the prospect of dialogue with the United States than by fear of being attacked by its ostensible ally, the Soviet Union." Change came because the U.S. convinced Beijing it was in its interest to change. Then the president visited.

The same is true with other successful negotiations. President Ronald Reagan prepared the ground for his meetings with a series of Soviet leaders by rebuilding the U.S. military, restoring confidence in American intentions, and pressuring the Soviets by raising the specter of a missile defense shield.

Reagan knew rogue states only change when they see there are real consequences of their actions, and when it is in their interest to change. This requires patience, vision, hard work and the use of all the tools, talents and relationships available to the U.S. We saw a recent example when Libya, fearful of American resolve after 9/11, gave up its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. These programs, incidentally, were more advanced than Western intelligence thought.

Reagan knew he must not squander the prestige of the American presidency and the authority of the United States by meaningless meetings that serve only as propaganda victories for our adversaries. Mr. Obama seems to believe charisma and smooth talk can fundamentally alter the behavior of Iran, Syria, North Korea, Venezuela and Cuba."

Although the bulk of America advocates greater diplomacy and engagement with hostile states, I think that this comes with the caveat that negotiations are conducted through strength. I may stand corrected, but I would be surprised if the majority of Americans support Obama's stance for unconditional negotiations. Anyway, if Obama wants to lecture people about Kissingerian foreign policy he should have a read of Diplomacy - it's a cracking book.

George Will and the Polar Bears

I RECOMMEND George Will's article 'March of the Polar Bears'.

Will mentions Nigel Lawson's new book, 'An Appeal to reason: A Cool look at global warming', noting that the New York Times mentioned as far back as 1975, that the world had to prepare for a new ice age.

I thought I'd flag up the last few paragraphs:

What Friedrich Hayek called the "fatal conceit" -- the idea that government can know the future's possibilities and can and should control the future's unfolding -- is the left's agenda. The left exists to enlarge the state's supervision of life, narrowing individual choices in the name of collective goods. Hence the left's hostility to markets. And to automobiles -- people going wherever they want whenever they want.

Today's "green left" is the old "red left" revised. Marx, a short-term pessimist but a long-term optimist, prophesied deepening class conflict, but thought that history's violent dialectic would culminate in a revolution that would usher in material abundance and such spontaneous cooperation that the state would wither away.

The green left preaches pessimism: Ineluctable scarcities (of energy, food, animal habitats, humans' living space) will require a perpetual regime of comprehensive rationing. The green left understands that the direct route to government control of almost everything is to stigmatize, as a planetary menace, something involved in almost everything -- carbon.

Environmentalism is, as Lawson writes, an unlimited "license to intrude." "Eco-fundamentalism," which is "the quasi-religion of green alarmism," promises "global salvationism." Onward, green soldiers, into preventive war on behalf of some bears who are simultaneously flourishing and "threatened."

More violence in South Africa

WITH SUCH barbarity in South Africa, I wonder what the African Union plans to do?

I've found the coverage interesting, especially when observers have stated that "frustration" rather than racism or xenophobia have sparked the riots. That so?

I wonder how long it will be before the colonial legacy is invoked?

Nick Clegg: Why would you?

WHY ON earth would Nick Clegg reveal that he would back a Conservative administration in the event of a hung Parliament?

Seriously.

Perhaps the Liberal Democrats need to be taught a thing or two about negotiations? With an outright Conservative majority looking increasingly likely, I find it astonishing that Clegg would make this statement. Although this has been known for a while amongst the chattering classes, I think this is a poor calculation from Clegg and could seriously damage his hand in the event of a hung Parliament.

It also raises questions about the Liberal Democrats and floating voters. Why would a floating voter back the Liberals if their leader has already pledged to surrender to the Tories in the event of a hung Parliament?

Perhaps Clegg and Danny Alexander have something else in mind, but I always thought in these instances, one should keep their cards close to their chest.

SNP seek to "denormalise" smoking

I'VE BEEN relatively supportive of the SNP and Alex Salmond, but this is just ludicrous.

If I can just release my inner Poujadiste for one second, I see absolutely no reason whatsoever to ban the sale of tobacco behind shop counters. The BBC has an interesting snippet about small shop owners and the Scottish Grocers Federation, who are obviously highly critical of the idea. Both claim that the ban will hit small businesses financially, and do absolutely nothing to prevent people from smoking. The Scottish Government claims that such as move will "denormalise" smoking, something that I would have hoped died with New Labour.

I have a problem with any government attempting to stigmatise any group of society, especially smokers, when there's no evidence that this will lead to a healthier society. As noted in the article, cigarettes are not an impulse buy, and if evidence from Ireland is any thing to go by - sales do not decline. However, we do end up stigmatising smokers. Perhaps that's the point? But my real concern is where this will stop? Will the Scottish Government do the same with fatty foods? What about Irn-Bru? Will your average cornershop end up being a mini version of Argos?

But I guess people had the same idea with pornography when they put it on the top shelf. Has this resulted in a sudden decline in sales of pornography? I would doubt it. However, I guess it allows government to believe that it's doing its job and protecting people. For all the SNP's rhetoric about helping small businesses, this is clearly evidence that they have a lot more work to do.