(sports) Pacquiao V Marquez: prepare for a night of war

After being robbed by the judges in his last fight against timothy Bradley in June, Manny Pacquiao look set to step into the ring at Caesar palace for what is sure to be another war with the mercurial Juan Manuel Marquez for the fourth time. While the fight will be watched and will make large numbers, the feeling that Pacquiao should be in the ring with someone who goes by the name of Floyd Mayweather. It is the fight every boxing fan wants to see and even the casual watcher of boxing would like to see the two greats go toe to toe.  

Nevertheless, a Pacquiao v Marquez bout, needless to say, is a more than watchable. In their last bout, many would argue that Marquez won AS he was landing well with a number of his trademark counter-punches while keeping steady eye on Pacquiao’s left hand, the same hand that saw Marquez hit the ground a number of times inside the first few rounds. There was notable boos in the crowd when Pacquiao hand was foisted in the air in victory, an experience usual crowd-pleaser Pacquiao would not like to be subjected to again.

Their previous fights have been too close to call as both Pacquiao and Marquez prove the overused boxing that ‘styles make fights. Pacquiao gung-ho style of boxing is countered by Marquez, the master counter-puncher always looking for an angle to exploit to the maximum. While Pacquiao is favoured by the bookies to win the fight, previous fights suggest that if you were to take a position, you are going to spend the whole bout at the edge of you seat and biting your nails to the nub.

In sum Pacquiao v Marquez will be the closest thing to war we can get without casualties as both boxers leave everything in ring and both fighter will be vying to see one of them hit it.      

(Video) US Election 2012: when the future is easy to read

(Opinion) Why Labour will Sweep Into Office

While there are concerns about labour leadership and the viability of  labour leader Ed Miliband, Labour look primed to take office in light of a highly unpopular conservative and liberal democratic coalition. if its not the drastic cuts, an uber sluggish economy, the constant climb downs on policy, political scandals then it must be the utter dislike of a coalition government that has lost the trust of the British public.

Labour have not been the most effective opposition party but have been good enough with the conservatives feeling the pinch from the phone hacking revelations and the public sentimment growing against the coalition. Labour have a healthy lead over the conservatives in most polls by 8-10 points, even Ed Milliband is starting to creep ahead of David Cameron in favourability.

Another trend that is starting to gain traction is labour point growth with regards to issues traditionally dominated by the conservatives.  Despite a serious wane in the last two years before the 2010 general election, voters have always trusted Labour with regards to pensions and the NHS, however labour have made gains with regards to law and order, gains that look set to increase with the conservatives pereceived to be out of touch especially during the relativley long period it took for the government to respond to the 2011 london riots. 

Another reason that Labour may sweep into office is the next election may mark a minor shift to the left as John Cruddas, a well established and well liked figure of the labour left, has been tasked with the responsibility of drafting labour policy. New Labour embraced the 'business is good' mantra and represented close links with tthe business community as they tried to get rid of the perception that labour weren't pro-business. This involved tough stances against unions (reminiscent of thatcher at times) and the dropping of clause four.

Despite Ed Milliband stated ambivilence towards being painted as a man of the labour left, not helped much by his father being a prominet marxist and beating his heavily tipped brother in the race for party leadership with the help of unions, this can definitley help as may appeal to a large sect of voters who at once dislike conservative polices and values.

In sum, Labour have a chance to sweep into office as the Coalation government suffers from a credibility 

(conservatives) and trust (liberal democrats) deficit that looks unllikely to be bridged anytime before the next general election and mark a clear transition of the era of New Labour.

Prediction 1: Obama Will Win Election 2012

Despite less than encouraging poll numbers, a discontented base, and a shot economy, Barack Obama, probably by a close margin, will win election 2012.

WHY?

While you can rightly argue whether Barack Obama has done good job as the president of the United States, but even Reince Priebus, head of the RNC, recognizes Obama’s unmatchable talent for political fundraising[1]. In election 2008, Obama broke records in political fundraising by raising $744 million, which meant he was able to outspend his rival John McCain, whose funds were limited due to him accepting public funds[2]. This made all the difference as Obama was able to outspend McCain at a crucial juncture in the election with Obama spending $136 million while McCain spent $26 million in the same period[3]. While campaign funds it aren’t the only factor to consider in winning an election it definitely hands a major advantage to the candidate who can raise more funds than his competitors. 

It allows a candidate to reach ad markets his rivals can’t and even allows the given candidate the ability to be a real threat in states considered to be sewn up by his/her rivals. This advantage belongs to Obama’s campaign in the 2012 election as he has raised more funds than mitt Romney, the republican’s top fundraiser, by a three to one margin[4].Obama is already using his advantage in the knowledge that his appeal, in comparison to  election 2008, has waned. The Obama campaign plans to be competitive across the board, allowing him to fight effectively in swing states and states that usually voted republican, states which previous democrat candidates couldn’t because of a lack of funds[5]. 

This means that Obama avoids the democratic strategy of putting “all their marbles on a couple of states”[6]. its also a key reason why the Obama campaign “are opening offices, airing TV ads and building up campaign machinery in(red state territory such as) the upper South, in Rust Belt Midwestern states and across the Southwest”[7]. The money advantage carries over into the parties as the DNC has raised and spent more money than the RNC which found itself bargaining with the republican presidential candidates to help tackle it’s $21 million debt[8]. This allows the DNC to back Obama as he attempts to pass his needed and wanted jobs bill by launching attack ads that promote parts of Obama’s jobs bill while blaming Republicans for slowing down its passing through the senate in states considered being key in the election[9]. 

Money aside, many suggest that how Obama does in  Ohio could decide whether he will have second term or will go down in history as a one term president. Poor numbers in the polls has Commentators openly wandering aloud about whether Obama’s ‘coalition’ African-Americans, Latinos, young people, and women can seal victory for him in 2012 as they did in 2oo8[10]. but recent polling suggests that despite the tangible dislike of his presidency, he still trumps his republican rivals. A poll taken by Quinnipiac University regarding voters in Ohio, a key swing state that sealed George bush reelection in 2004, has Obama four points ahead of republican front runner mitt Romney despite their discontent about his administration with 51% dissatisfied with the ‘handlings’ of his ‘duties in the white house’ and 49% of Ohio voters indicating that Obama ‘don’t deserve a second term in office’[11] .In sum, Presiedent Obama will have second term due his money advantage and despite the palpable dislike of his presidency, voters will vote for Obama because he represents a better choice to the republican alternative.

---

[1] M. A. Memoli, 2011, RNC chairman says Obama is a great fundraiser, bad president, http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/13/news/la-pn-rnc-obama-funds-20110713

[2] A. Matsui, 2008, Obama campaign fundraising totals nearer $750 million, new records show, http://www.pbs.org/newshour/vote2008/reportersblog/2008/12/obama_campaign_fundraising_tot.html

[3] Ibid

[4] E. Carmi et al, 2011, the 2012 money race: compare the candidates, http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance

[5] P. Nicholas, 2011, Obama Strategic edge: cash to campaign everywhere, http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/07/nation/la-na-obama-states-strategy-20111107

[6] Ibid

[7] Ibid

[8] Associated Press,2011, RNC may sponsor debates in exchange for help on debt, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/03/us/politics/03debates.html

[9] A. Joseph, 2011, DNC ads push Obama’s jobs plan,  http://influencealley.nationaljournal.com/2011/11/dnc-pushes-obamas-jobs-plan-in.php

[10] D.Balz, 2011, does Ohio hold the key to Obamas’ 2012 hopes? http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/does-ohio-hold-the-key-to-obamas-2012-hopes/2011/11/08/gIQAVhis0M_story.html

[11] P.Steinhauser, 2011, Poll: Obama Advantage in Crucial battleground state?, http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/26/poll-obama-advantage-in-crucial-battleground-state/