GOP round-up: 5 things we learned

Endorsements, gaffes and delegates from another week of the Republican candidate race.

Mitt Romney's convincing win in the Florida primary on Tuesday has put him firmly back in front of the race for Republican presidential nominee. Yet as John Stoehr noted on Wednesday, the GOP's new rules for candidates mean that unless the three other hopefuls run out of money in the next month, Barack Obama's opponent for November may not be named until March. Before then hundreds of delegate votes are up for grabs, with the Nevada and Maine caucuses taking place tomorrow (4 February), Colorado and Minnesota caucuses on the 7th, primaries for Arizona and Michigan on the 18th, the Washington state caucus on 3 March, and Super Tuesday, this year falling on 6 March.

The New Statesman's Republican primary tracker is tabulating the share of delegates so far, but here's a round up of recent developments in the race for which Romney and Newt Gingrich -- plus Ron Paul and Rick Santorum -- are still running.

1) The Donald Trump endorsement

On Thursday the billionaire real estate magnate and TV celebrity Donald Trump annouced his endorsement for Mitt Romney, as the man who's "not going to allow bad things to happen to this country that we all love."

 

On Tuesday, Trump (a former possible GOP candidate himself) told ABC's George Stephanopoulos that "in a very short time [he'd] be making an endorsement," though up until the moment his citation was unclear. Reports before the announcement suggested Trump's backing would go to former House Speaker, Newt Gingrich; two members of the Gingrich campaign even confirmed the rumours Wednesday evening.

But what's it worth for Romney? A poll by the Washington Post/Pew Center at the beginning of the year showed 64 per cent of voters would not be effected in their decision by Trump's endorsement; 20 per cent said they would be less likely to vote with Trump, and 13 per cent said they would be more likely to back his candidate. And as CNN's Alyssa McLendon notes, today's endless TV coverage and online debate over the merit of candidates means "voters feel they have more than enough information to make up their own minds," without being swayed by the mutual self-congratulation of politicians and public figures.

2) Romney's "not concerned about the very poor"

Until now he may not have been GOP's king of the gaffe (his sympathetic "I'm also unemployed" was possibly the worst), but Romney has certainly been called up on Wednesday's comment during a CNN television interview that he was "not concerned about the very poor" because they have an "ample safety net."

 

Campaigning in Hannibal, Missouri today, Rick Santorum said Romney's comment "sort of sent a chill down my spine as a conservative and a Republican . . . I want to belong to a party that focuses on 100 percent of Americans and creating opportunity for every single one." Gingrich took a plainer line yesterday, saying: "I really believe that we should care about the very poor, unlike Governor Romney . . . What the poor need is a trampoline so that they can spring up."

The Democractic National Committee got in the fastest, creating an attack ad around the comment in less than a day:

 

3) Who's in the money?

This week the Federal Election Commission released its donation data showing the half a million external contributions received by the campaigns of 2012 presidential hopefuls until December 2011. Obama raised $140m; Romney -- $56.5m; Newt Gingrich -- $12.7m; Ron Paul -- $25.5m, and Rick Santorum -- $3.3m.

Interestingly, the data also showed the sectors and professions of the donors, revealing that Romney's campaign received money from fewer, wealthier individuals and proportionally more corporations, whilst Obama's funding came largely from many small donations. The president's super PAC donations were made largely by individuals connected to Hollywood and labour unions.

4) Newt's still rooting on the moon

Despite dwindling funds, the Rick Santorum campaign has used $100,000 on national conservative radio ads to play over the next week. "Out of this world" urges potential Gingrich voters and Tea Partiers to back Santorum, "the one true conservative that can stop Romney and defeat Obama." The ad addresses the former House Speaker's support of the Wall Street bailout, his "radical healthcare mandates" and -- possibly his easiest target -- Gingrich's proposed $100 billion lunar colony.

 

5) There's 46 states remaining

As Newt's placards remind us, only four US states have voted for their Republican nominee so far; that's 103 delegates out of a total 2,286, with candidates needing a minimum 1,144 delegate votes to secure the nomination.

 

On Super Tuesday alone, the southern states of Georgia, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Virginia -- where Gingrich typically fairs best and his strategy is largely focussed -- offer 226 delegates; over twice the number already awarded.

In a poll by Facebook/Politico in Nevada yesterday, 81 per cent of voters said they will not be influenced by the result of the Florida primary; only 8 per cent said it would effect their vote and 7 per cent said it might.

Alice Gribbin is a Teaching-Writing Fellow at the Iowa Writers' Workshop. She was formerly the editorial assistant at the New Statesman.

Getty Images
Show Hide image

Is there such a thing as responsible betting?

Punters are encouraged to bet responsibly. What a laugh that is. It’s like encouraging drunks to get drunk responsibly, to crash our cars responsibly, murder each other responsibly.

I try not to watch the commercials between matches, or the studio discussions, or anything really, before or after, except for the match itself. And yet there is one person I never manage to escape properly – Ray Winstone. His cracked face, his mesmerising voice, his endlessly repeated spiel follow me across the room as I escape for the lav, the kitchen, the drinks cupboard.

I’m not sure which betting company he is shouting about, there are just so many of them, offering incredible odds and supposedly free bets. In the past six years, since the laws changed, TV betting adverts have increased by 600 per cent, all offering amazingly simple ways to lose money with just one tap on a smartphone.

The one I hate is the ad for BetVictor. The man who has been fronting it, appearing at windows or on roofs, who I assume is Victor, is just so slimy and horrible.

Betting firms are the ultimate football parasites, second in wealth only to kit manufacturers. They have perfected the capitalist’s art of using OPM (Other People’s Money). They’re not directly involved in football – say, in training or managing – yet they make millions off the back of its popularity. Many of the firms are based offshore in Gibraltar.

Football betting is not new. In the Fifties, my job every week at five o’clock was to sit beside my father’s bed, where he lay paralysed with MS, and write down the football results as they were read out on Sports Report. I had not to breathe, make silly remarks or guess the score. By the inflection in the announcer’s voice you could tell if it was an away win.

Earlier in the week I had filled in his Treble Chance on the Littlewoods pools. The “treble” part was because you had three chances: three points if the game you picked was a score draw, two for a goalless draw and one point for a home or away win. You chose eight games and had to reach 24 points, or as near as possible, then you were in the money.

“Not a damn sausage,” my father would say every week, once I’d marked and handed him back his predictions. He never did win a sausage.

Football pools began in the 1920s, the main ones being Littlewoods and Vernons, both based in Liverpool. They gave employment to thousands of bright young women who checked the results and sang in company choirs in their spare time. Each firm spent millions on advertising. In 1935, Littlewoods flew an aeroplane over London with a banner saying: Littlewoods Above All!

Postwar, they blossomed again, taking in £50m a year. The nation stopped at five on a Saturday to hear the scores, whether they were interested in football or not, hoping to get rich. BBC Sports Report began in 1948 with John Webster reading the results. James Alexander Gordon took over in 1974 – a voice soon familiar throughout the land.

These past few decades, football pools have been left behind, old-fashioned, low-tech, replaced by online betting using smartphones. The betting industry has totally rebooted itself. You can bet while the match is still on, trying to predict who will get the next goal, the next corner, the next throw-in. I made the last one up, but in theory you can bet instantly, on anything, at any time.

The soft sell is interesting. With the old football pools, we knew it was a remote flutter, hoping to make some money. Today the ads imply that betting on football somehow enhances the experience, adds to the enjoyment, involves you in the game itself, hence they show lads all together, drinking and laughing and putting on bets.

At the same time, punters are encouraged to do it responsibly. What a laugh that is. It’s like encouraging drunks to get drunk responsibly, to crash our cars responsibly, murder each other responsibly. Responsibly and respect are now two of the most meaningless words in the football language. People have been gambling, in some form, since the beginning, watching two raindrops drip down inside the cave, lying around in Roman bathhouses playing games. All they’ve done is to change the technology. You have to respect that.

Hunter Davies is a journalist, broadcaster and profilic author perhaps best known for writing about the Beatles. He is an ardent Tottenham fan and writes a regular column on football for the New Statesman.

This article first appeared in the 05 February 2015 issue of the New Statesman, Putin's war