The Betfair Contrarian: Why Barack Obama won't be the next US president

US Politics / The Betfair Contrarian / 12 June 2008 / Leave a Comment

The Contrarian tell us what the odds of Obama winning the Presidential election come November are too short at present, and why John McCain will be the next President of the United States...

As races go, the US presidential election is one of the tougher ones to win, requiring a ton of money, a willingness to accept intrusion into every aspect of your personal life and an ability to work closely with some truly disgusting people. Even with this discouraging job description there are always a few runners eager to give it a go, and like all races, someone has to win.

Current favourite is Barack Obama, [1.62] on Betfair to be the next US president, with his Republican opponent John McCain at [2.94]. A race between a young, inspiring candidate who seems full of promise, and a crotchety old war-wounded pensioner looks at first glance like a bit of a foregone conclusion, but the Contrarian believes Obama will not be the next person who gets to pick something from the White House wallpaper sample book, for the following reasons...

The drawn-out nomination race has caused dangerous fractures in the Democratic party. The race to determine the nominee is traditionally over after the first few primaries, but his time they managed to drag it out until the very last day, reinforcing the message that almost half of Democrat voters would have preferred someone other than their candidate. Some Hillary fans are going to find this bitter pill too hard to swallow. In a Gallup poll last March only 59% of Democratic voters who support Clinton said they would vote for Obama against McCain, while 28% say they would vote for McCain. If they follow through on their indignation, a swing of that size would deliver the White House to the Republican.

The Republicans have more refined election-winning skills. Although McCain is not employing quite the same brutally methodical tactics that served George Bush so well, the Democrat strategists have let their candidates down badly in recent elections. They should have won in 2000 and didn't. They should have won in 2004 and didn't. Anyone detect a pattern?

The Democrats have also let a huge lead slip before. In 1988 Michael Dukakis looked like a lock for the job with just five months to go until a combination of a flawed press strategy (most famously an ill-advised ride in a tank, looking like a Lego man) and Republican dirty tricks swung public opinion against him.

And Obama has his own glaring weaknesses...most notably Pastor Jeremiah Wright, the man who conducted Obama's marriage ceremony, christened his daughters and said some incendiary stuff about America ("God Bless America? More like God Damn America!") that doesn't play too well with a white audience at the best of times, let alone in an election year.

Neither has he shown he can confidently deliver the white working class. This was one demographic that Obama struggled to convince during the entire primary process. Not only does this impact on numbers, but it also has an exaggerated significance in certain "swing" states, those states which are most inclined to tip either way and which hold the balance of power. The last election hinged on which way Ohio went, yet Ohio, at the heart of the rust belt, much preferred Hillary in the primary. No president has won the election without carrying Ohio since 1960.

Neither does he have enough appeal to the people of Florida. The closeness of the vote in Florida caused deadlock in the 2000 election, but it's not a state Obama can be confident of winning. Hillary beat him there by an even wider margin than she did in Ohio. Only one candidate has lost in Florida and gone on to win the election in the last ten contests (Bill Clinton in 1992.)

Betfair Politics Zone