Sunday, October 17, 2010

Intrade Odds Now 15:1 That Reps Will Take House


Updated: Republicans need to gain 39 seats to control the House of Representatives after the midterm elections.  The chart above shows the current Intrade odds for the Republicans gaining different numbers of seats from "35 or more" to "60 or more." The chances of a 40-seat Republican gain are now 93.9%, meaning Intrade odds are 15:1 in favor of the Republicans controlling the House after the November elections. The chances of a 50-seat gain are now 80%, and a gain of 55 seats is now above 50%.

28 Comments:

At 10/17/2010 9:59 AM, Blogger jcarroll1948 said...

Hope the odds are accurate. Also, hope the GOP has seen the error of its and the totally out of control Dems' ways. Biggest hope; acknowledging that Obama and Bush have permanently and irreparably lowered the standard of living of our children and grand-children, hope the politicians elected this November can do something real about the mess the US gov't and economy is in.

 
At 10/17/2010 10:45 AM, Blogger juandos said...

"acknowledging that Obama and Bush have permanently and irreparably lowered the standard of living of our children and grand-children"...

Hmmm, just curious but what in your opinion did Bush do to 'lower the standard of living' for your children and grandchildren?

I have a couple of ideas myself:

From the CBO: Cost of Medicare Part D

From the CBO: THE NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT OF 2001

 
At 10/17/2010 2:41 PM, Blogger jcarroll1948 said...

juandos. Trying to be non-partisan, the increases in entitlements (prescription drugs under Bush and health care under Obama) and excessive deficit spending (Bush and Obama, even in economic good times under Bush) produce a legacy of excessive gov't/less self-reliance and future increased taxes to pay for all of it. To paraphrase Walter Williams, gov't produces nothing and can only give to one American after taking from another.

 
At 10/17/2010 4:15 PM, Blogger PeakTrader said...

Election day is a little more than two weeks away. If a stock market correction begins next week, and it's over 5% lower before election day, the GOP may pick-up more than the 54 House seats it gained in 1994.

 
At 10/17/2010 4:35 PM, Blogger juandos said...

"To paraphrase Walter Williams, gov't produces nothing and can only give to one American after taking from another"...

No doubt about it jcarroll1948, no argument from me...

None the less you might find the following interesting though its NOT any sort of excuse for George W's apparent allergy to the use of the 'veto pen'...

Bush vs. Obama Spending the Truth

 
At 10/17/2010 5:02 PM, Blogger Jason said...

Juandos, thanks for the info!

jcarroll, I'm a conservative, but not a fan of the GWB presidency. Nonetheless, I think GWB has gotten a bit of bad press for being the cause for what's happening. I believe he was an president of average capability in an extraordinary time, saddled with a confluence of bad legislation and bad policy as the post cold war economy became global.

I think the real failing of his presidency will be judged to be the Iraq War, which would put him somewhere in the LBJ range of presidents.

But to say he irreparably lowered living standards overstates the reach of his presidency. Our living standards were going down, regardless of who we elected.

 
At 10/17/2010 5:51 PM, Blogger PeakTrader said...

It's easy to underestimate Bush like it's easy to underestimate Wall Street.

The 2002-07 asset-equity bubble helped raised U.S. living standards at a steeper rate than the 1995-00 tech bubble.

In the 2000s, the U.S. became more efficient by increasing output faster than increasing inputs.

For example, the U.S. created 17.6 million jobs between 1993-98, and created only 3.7 million jobs between 2001-06. Yet, U.S. real GDP growth was only slightly higher from 1993-98 than from 2001-06.

Over a five-year period in the 2000s, U.S. corporations had a record 20 consecutive quarters of double-digit earnings growth, two million houses a year were built, 16 million autos per year were sold, U.S. real GDP expanded 3% annually, in spite of 6% annual current account deficits (which subtract from GDP).

When the gains-in-trade are included, U.S. living standards rose up to 9% annually from 2002-07. It was one of the greatest eras of prosperity, and in a structural bear market that began in 2000.

Also, Bush won two of the most decisive wars in history. Of course, U.S. troops will stay in the Middle East, like they did in Europe after WWII. Iraq's people and oil are now free.

 
At 10/17/2010 6:38 PM, Blogger PeakTrader said...

Bush was Reagan without the teflon. Being able to put together a sentence would've helped.

 
At 10/17/2010 7:01 PM, Blogger Jason said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 10/17/2010 7:04 PM, Blogger Jason said...

Peak, I think it's hard to argue we won anything, Did we defeat the Saddam Hussein Iraq, yes. But, given the missing yet to be found WMD and that we took nothing else from the conflict, this was really a war of attrition. A bad war, in retrospect. The positive was we rid the world of an epic scumbag.

Understand, I supported the Iraq war, but I think it's a period most Americans, including myself, would like to undo. Thus my assertion that the GWB presidency will be defined by the Iraq war.

I understand your comparison of GWB to Reagan, but don't agree. Reagan was far more dynamic and uncompromising and unflinching. Perhaps GWB could have been that guy, but his average communication skills, (which you eluded to) limited him from that achievement. I've read he may have suffered from learning disabilities. Regardless, I think he was a very good man, probably too good for the position in a lot of ways, stuck in a meat grinder of a decade. Some issues his administration created, most they did not.

 
At 10/17/2010 7:20 PM, Blogger juandos said...

Good comments jason and PT...

There's at least one thing Bush did that I know I was directly affected by and so was the area I live in...

The tax cuts of '01 and '03 opened up employment for those without and kept others like myself employed...

Why?

People had more disposable cash on hand regardless of what income quintile they were in...

Richer people invested more and not quite as rich people spent more on all those mundane items like autos, laundry machines, airline tickets, ets...

 
At 10/17/2010 8:06 PM, Blogger PeakTrader said...

Jason: "The positive was we rid the world of an epic scumbag."

There may be more positives. Iraq either has the largest or second largest oil reserves and the world needs that oil. More democracies in the region may lead to more peace, prosperity, human rights, etc.. Saddam and his sons, with trillions of dollars of oil, are no longer a threat to the region or the world.

 
At 10/17/2010 10:03 PM, Blogger Jason said...

Juandos, the tax cuts were successes. I wish we had done more with them, in retrospect.

 
At 10/17/2010 11:31 PM, Blogger Dr William J McKibbin said...

The odds you are citing are likely accurate. My concerns are about what direction the nation will go under the new Republican leadership. My specific concern is that the Republicans will suddenly table domestic economic concerns, and refocus the nation's attention on somehow expanding America's involvement in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and other places in the Middle East, none of which would be good for the Main Street economy in the US. I guess time will tell. No doubt, the Democrats will have to adjust accordingly. Thank you for the opportunity to comment...

 
At 10/18/2010 1:43 AM, Blogger Muhammad Azeem said...

Hmmm, just curious but what in your opinion did Bush do to 'lower the standard of living' for your children and grandchildren?

http://karachi-webs-maker.blogspot.com/

 
At 10/18/2010 9:26 AM, Blogger juandos said...

"I wish we had done more with them, in retrospect"...

Well jason for the life of me I can't figure out why the Repubs put sunset provisions in them...

Was it a way to buy Dem votes?

"There may be more positives. Iraq either has the largest or second largest oil reserves and the world needs that oil"...

Consider the following posted in 2005: Iraq Oil: Reserves, Production, and
Potential Revenues


"Saddam and his sons, with trillions of dollars of oil, are no longer a threat to the region or the world"...

Amen!

How quickly we forget!

 
At 10/18/2010 9:31 AM, Blogger juandos said...

"My specific concern is that the Republicans will suddenly table domestic economic concerns, and refocus the nation's attention on somehow expanding America's involvement in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and other places in the Middle East, none of which would be good for the Main Street economy in the US"...

Well Dr. Bill there's a couple of guys you may have heard of that might think differently about that...

From the National Journal: Feldstein, Krugman Agree: Another War Would Help

 
At 10/18/2010 9:45 AM, Blogger jcarroll1948 said...

What a great thread of comments; makes me more optimistic about the future. Muhammad Azeem, response to your question, "what in your opinion did Bush do to 'lower the standard of living' for your children and grandchildren?" My concern is directed at both Bush and Obama; the concern is the future taxes to pay for all of the deficit spending of today that must, of necessity, be higher than they otherwise would be. Again, thanks everyone, for the great comments.

 
At 10/18/2010 10:23 AM, Blogger juandos said...

Hey jcarroll1948 the 'Muhammad Azeem' is a link to sell shoes...

"My concern is directed at both Bush and Obama; the concern is the future taxes to pay for all of the deficit spending of today that must, of necessity, be higher than they otherwise would be"...

For what its worth to you jcarroll1948 you might want to peruse this 3 year old Heritage Foundation posting: Ten Myths About the Bush Tax Cuts

 
At 10/18/2010 10:24 AM, Blogger morganovich said...

peak-

i hear your point about the GOp picking up seats if the market tanks, but i think that the causality is currently running the other way.

part of the reason that the market is rallying is that the GOP will take the house. this at least gives it the ability to block more disruptive governmental intervention in the economy and all the uncertainty it creates.

 
At 10/18/2010 10:40 AM, Blogger Dr William J McKibbin said...

Hi Juandos, I hope and pray that a "high-impact 'exogenous' shock like a major war" involving the US never happens -- to reason that the economic impact of a war on the US would be like World War II is without merit -- by the way, I read the article you linked and I do not see any of the economist cited declaring that the US should go to war, today...

 
At 10/18/2010 3:26 PM, Blogger juandos said...

"I read the article you linked and I do not see any of the economist cited declaring that the US should go to war, today"...

You're absolutely right Dr. Bill, but its the idea that 'that idea' is actually being bounced around that's a bit on 'uncomfortable' side for me at least...

"to reason that the economic impact of a war on the US would be like World War II is without merit"...

Well Dr. Bill there's only one real merit in war and that's winning it, 'if' war is the only solution left...

Somehow I don't think at the age of 59 any of the last half dozen Presidents I've seen in action would have the moxie to 'carpet bomb' the enemy (whoever that might be) in order to bring the war to an abrupt and winning halt...

These so called, 'low intensity conflicts' just won't get it and are at the very least as expensive as outright war is...

 
At 10/18/2010 3:35 PM, Blogger Jet Beagle said...

juandos,

I have also faulted W for not using the veto power he possessed. But I also wonder if that's what we really want our president to do. As I see it, the legislative branch - in particular, the House of Representatives which is chosen completely every two years - should be responsbile for determining how much we are taxed and how much our government spends. If the voters - through their frequently elected representatives - choose a certain level of spending, perhaps we should not expect the president to veto the wishes of those voters.

Perhaps W was more accurately fulfilling the job of the executive branch in carrying out the legislation enacted by the Congress.

Misleading Congress about the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction is another issue, of course.

 
At 10/18/2010 3:49 PM, Blogger juandos said...

"But I also wonder if that's what we really want our president to do"....

Well Jet I guess that depends on who's ox is being gored when the President does wield the veto pen...

I don't see your reasoning as problematic per se but isn't the Prez there to occassionally apply the brakes to legislative largesse?

"Misleading Congress about the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction is another issue, of course"...

Hmmm, misleading?

Didn't Bush 'inherit' the intelligence from the eight years of the previous administration?

Should he have thrown it out and started from scratch?

Let's take a walk down memory lane and then see if it was all a lie like the 'lamestream media' and the Dems claimed...

 
At 10/18/2010 4:46 PM, Blogger Jet Beagle said...

"isn't the Prez there to occassionally apply the brakes to legislative largesse?"

I'm not sure. I'm still trying to form my opinion about this. I believe in majority rule, which I believe the House of Representatives more likely to enact than is the president. But I also want to see minority rights protected. I think the graduated income tax made a shambles of the principles we were founded on. So perhaps I'm dreaming of an ideal world which has long past.

 
At 10/19/2010 5:40 AM, Blogger juandos said...

Hey jet, interesting quandry you're posing there...

One majority winner vs another majority winner...

"I believe in majority rule, which I believe the House of Representatives more likely to enact than is the president"...

Well we've had two different Presidents both with same party majorities in the House and as far as I can tell all that its done for us is make life more expensive and complicated...

"I think the graduated income tax made a shambles of the principles we were founded on"...

Well then that's at least two of us with that attitude...

Then again how will the progressives (regardless of which side of the political aisle) finanace their nanny state?

 
At 10/19/2010 11:24 AM, Blogger Jason said...

"Then again how will the progressives (regardless of which side of the political aisle) finanace their nanny state?"

With the money of the ignorant and committed...

 
At 10/19/2010 6:51 PM, Blogger juandos said...

"With the money of the ignorant and committed..."....

Well jason, the McClatchy Company is already pandering to those two groups: Women, Children, and Minorities Hardest Hit

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home