Professor Mark J. Perry's Blog for Economics and Finance
Posted 9:05 PM Post Link
Links to this post
Looks like more and more people plan to vote for "change".
The GOP still needs someone better to run.
Well, these numbers are obviously rigged because there's no regulation on this exchange :^).
Intrade may be good at calling many things, but their speculators' presidential calls are pretty suspect. As late as 10 months before the last presidential election, they had Obama and McCain's odds at only 20% each in Dec. 2007. You could argue that political bets are inherently more speculative, as you can't really research it like you can something more objective, but I find that their political odds are a bit worse than even what you'd expect.
Benji, The GOP is filled with politicians, so you're pretty well guaranteed that it will produce nothing good. Marginally better than the ass in office is all you can really hope for. Oh, and hey, thanks for saddling us with Hopey Changey in the last election.Don,It's not properly rigged because there's no regulation, you mean :)I mean, where are the shorting restrictions and price tests to properly control prices?
Sprewell,There's nothing suspect about those predictions.As in any market, the longer the time horizon, the higher the probability that something will happen to change the price and the more things can happen. This is the case for anything from financial securities to housing prices.As new information is revealed it will be factored into the price (probability, in this case) and it will change. All that any market can do is assess the price today based on information available at that today.I find intrade a good barometer. If nothing changes for the better for The One, I don't expect him to be elected. I understand that may change.
sprewell,The 2008 campaign did not include an incumbent. Both Obama and McCain faced considerable opposition and a series of trials in getting the nomination. Further, the records of each were not well-known by the entire nation.For 2012, Obama faces no party opponent, and his record as president is known by everyone. So the Intrade odds should be much more reliable, as they are the odds on a single event involving a known candidate.
My dog's nutless sack would make a better president than Obama.
Paul, I would vote for your dog's nutless sack over Obama. Actually, I'm pretty sure I would vote for it over any candidate the two parties can produce.
Methinks-I agree with your sentiments, but remember McCain might have been worse than Obama. I had a short list of countries--those were the nations he had not threatened to invade or attack. The Reagan, Bush Sr, Bush jr. administrations do not suggest that we would have had a balanced budget under a GOP White House either. When we say red ink or Red States it means the same thing--federal deficits. Actually, I somewhat like Ron Paul, and I did not mean to clump him in with the other sordid cast of Republican candidates.
"I had a short list of countries--those were the nations he had not threatened to invade or attack." -- "Benji"Was Libya on that list? Remind us all again, when did Obama get Congressional approval for that action?
The Reagan, Bush Sr, Bush jr. administrations do not suggest that we would have had a balanced budget under a GOP White House either.Maybe not, but that's different from saying they weren't much better than your boyfriend. All of the above were big fans of private enterprise. None of the above were socialist community organizers. They spent too much but none of them would have run up staggering 1.6 trillion annual deficits.
eh, Benji, I've already said that I'd rather have Paul's dog's nutsack in the oval office, so you can imagine how much I love all the alternatives.I find McCain super icky, but he would have been better because there would not be Obamacare and other assorted Demonrat legislation. Businesses would not be subject to a regime out to crush them (maybe). I generally don't like all the power in Washington in the clutches of a single party. They tend to "accomplish" too many of their goals.I hear you on the invasions, but Obama dragged us into Libya. 'Member? And after campaigning on his outrage over the Patriot Act, his first act as president elect was to accept it without change (any halfwit could have predicted that). It's a matter of degrees - how fast the feces throwing chimps in congress destroy the country.
"For 2012, Obama faces no party opponent, and his record as president is known by everyone. So the Intrade odds should be much more reliable,"jet-i'm not sure that's cut and dried. there are significant factions in the dem party that are looking at primary challenges to obama (though i doubt that is priced in as it is not getting much press, but DC is abuzz with the possibility)the dems are looking to cut losses. i would not be surprised to see hil-dog emerge as a potential challenger.i think these odds for obama are likely much too high.
"I'm pretty sure I would vote for it over any candidate the two parties can produce."Gasp!! Even the Savior himself, Rev. Ron Paul?"It's a matter of degrees"Isn't everything in life a matter of degrees?
"My dog's nutless sack would make a better president than Obama"...Yeah Paul, the nutless sack wouldn't come up with a collection of stupid ideas and call it a jobs bill...
I think Obama's chances are much higher than 47%; Mitt is a bumbling push-over and Rick is too religious.
Thanks for pointing this out Mark. You made my day. The trend is our friend, come November 2012.
I'd feel a lot better if you dropped the "47" part.
"I think Obama's chances are much higher than 47%; Mitt is a bumbling push-over and Rick is too religious."If you feel strongly about that, you might make some easy money at Intrade.
Ron, I agree.
No congressional, maybe presidential? :-)Gov. Beverly Perdue jokes:"I think we ought to suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two years and just tell them we won't hold it against them - whatever decisions they make - to just let them help this country recover."http://www.wcti12.com/news/29322166/detail.html
I think Obama's chances are much higher than 47%; Mitt is a bumbling push-over and Rick is too religious.Then buy at 47%! Are you sure enough to put money behind it?
Sprewell,I think your original comment is a pretty fair assessment of the Intrade trends on personal/political performance.If you'd like to scroll through the archives on this site and look at the odds after Bin Laden's demise, they looked very good for Obama...I do believe I posted a comment stating that was a foolish bet as the economy would have us all forgetting Bin Laden in 6 months. I shoulda put my money down...but who knows? Maybe something crazy happens tomorrow that shoots his odds back up. As opposed to other futures, political/personal may be the only one that can change based on something as silly as an unrelated lack of judgment by a family member of the individual. If Exxon's CEO has a prostitute found dead in his son's apartment, that won't change oil or Exxon futures...if it happens to Rick Perry....well, you get the idea.
Stone,Then bid here! Look, if he gets elected, you have the satisfaction of the hedge against the disaster of his presidency (albeit a small one...still, at least you'll make a little money). If he loses, you win anyway. I almost bought him in the last election for the same reason. I just couldn't bring myself to do it in the end.
Lol methinks. Obama is just as bad as the others. They are all the same with different rhetoric.
By the way, Paul, does it possibly go by a shorter name? I'm not sure there's room on my ballot to write in "Paul's dog's nutless sack".
Post a Comment
Create a Link
Dr. Mark J. Perry is a professor of economics and finance in the School of Management at the Flint campus of the University of Michigan.
Perry holds two graduate degrees in economics (M.A. and Ph.D.) from George Mason University near Washington, D.C. In addition, he holds an MBA degree in finance from the Curtis L. Carlson School of Management at the University of Minnesota. In addition to a faculty appointment at the University of Michigan-Flint, Perry is also a visiting scholar at The American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C.
View my complete profile