Intrade Odds Quickly Turn Against Newt
What a difference 4-5 days make....
CARPE DIEM
Professor Mark J. Perry's Blog for Economics and Finance
Saturday, December 17, 2011
About Me
- Name: Mark J. Perry
- Location: Washington, D.C., United States
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.
Previous Posts
- Holiday Shopping? Consider the Most Economically E...
- Markets in Everything: Mobile Cigar Lounge
- Heavy Metal, Made in the USA Is Coming Back
- Nat Gas Drops in Price, Thanks to Abundant Supply
- Amid the Gloom, U.S. Economy Quietly Improves
- Cheap Abundant Shale Gas Could Help Spark a U.S. M...
- November Exports from L.A. Port Set New Record
- Thursday's Economic Data
- Weekly Jobless Claims Fall to 3.5 Year Low
- Japanese Automakers Employ 407,000 Americans at 63...
22 Comments:
The GOP Gong Show---the comedic gift that never stops giving. Newt was last week's R-Party heart-throb. Soon we will join Cain, Trump, Bachmann, Palin, Perry et al in the eject-o-seat.
Romney, every week snubbed in favor of a new hot beau, just keep courting GOP voters.
Can an avowed Mormon rally the evangelicals? One who supports national health insurance?
Stay tuned.
I bet $10,000, or maybe $100,000 that Romney wins it.
In the end, Mr. "O" will probably win re-election.
But he'll be "defanged", since the R's will control the House and Senate.
Now, if S.C. Justice Anthony Kennedy could just see his way clear to declaring the individual mandate (Obamacare) unconstitutional...
Let us hope that the Democrats are stupid enough to run Obama.
The media slings mud at the Republicans repeatedly (often in a nice way), while ignoring the free market almost as much as the Frank-Pelosi-Obama-Reid-Dodd disaster, who managed to get almost every moderate Democrat kicked-out in 2010.
At least Jimmy Carter was a fiscal conservative.
Private sector experience thankfully triumphs over a thinktank politician.
At least with Romney, you are getting someone that makes business decisions, as opposed to his opponents' emotional or political ones. Should he last long enough to remain on the primary ballot in Ohio, I will have no shame in voting for him for that reason.
Wow, that's a pretty dramatic fall, but I never understood his rise in the first place. Intrade now has him just ahead of Paul and Huntsman, which sounds about right. Since the Republicans changed their primary system to proportional representation up till April, unlike last time when McCain got only 36% of the vote in Florida yet got 100% of the delegates, it's going to be a war this time, until April when the winner-take-all states will decide it. Quite a nice system if you ask me, almost perfect, looking forward to seeing who's the last man or woman standing in this contest. :) I think it's between Mitt, Jon, Ron, and Michele, most likely one of the Mormons, as I don't see Newt or the other three being able to pull away.
That's too bad. Newt certainly has the highest potential to make the needed changes. But I'll happily take Mitt as well.
What I'd like to see is the Republicans taking on more that loony-toon Ron Paul, and stop pretending like he isn't a psychotic mental case that is simply giving conservatives and libertarians a bad name. Why does no one ask the psycho about his racial slurs, his conspiracy theories with Alex Jones and all the rest:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/company-ron-paul-keeps_613474.html?nopager=1
"But I'll happily take Mitt as well"...
You can't mean this Mitt Romney?!?!
"You can't mean this Mitt Romney?!?!"
So run someone better then!! The Tea Party was supposed to change the discourse in the nation and focus on cutting government. Instead, all the candidates it has produced for president so far are loony-toon social conservatives who talk about gays and immigrants all day instead of the one thing they are supposed to care about...cutting government.
The only 2 candidates up there who talk about that, so far have been Mitt and Newt (I'm not counting psycho Ron Paul, because, well, he's a psycho).
Give us some better candidates. Stop talking about social issues...no one cares. Stop talking about Iran...no one cares. Stop talking about immigrants...we don't care. By God stop talking about Israel. You're not running for PM of Israel.
Talk about cutting government.
But, if I've got to make a choice, than either of those 2 would be better then Obama by a huge margin. So I'll have no hesitation voting for either of them.
"The Tea Party was supposed to change the discourse in the nation and focus on cutting government"...
aig what the heck does the TEA party have to do with either Romney or Gingrich?
There is someone better running, Santorum...
AIG: "What I'd like to see is the Republicans taking on more that loony-toon Ron Paul, and stop pretending like he isn't a psychotic mental case that is simply giving conservatives and libertarians a bad name. Why does no one ask the psycho about his racial slurs, his conspiracy theories with Alex Jones and all the rest:
[link]"
Hmm. Not much new here. It's interesting timing, that almost exactly 4 years ago, as campaigns were heating up, Kirchik published an almost identical article in The New Republic. In fact, it's obvious that parts of the recent article were copied and pasted from the older one. Why is just now the right time for this to resurface?
Just for a little balance, here's a perspective from a professional ghost writer on the Ron Paul newsletters, and an actual archived copy of one of the terrible, racist newsletter items Kirchik is so horrified about.
While it certainly isn't politically correct, I don't find it to be "racist". apparently Kirchik & I use different definitions of the word.
What's really puzzling, is why this 30 year old item was dragged out again during a Presidential campaign. Any thoughts?
You can't mean this Mitt Romney?!?!
The GOP wants a businessman, they get one with Mitt Romney. Or do you want another political ideologue from a state that outdoes Bain? Then again, I'd think you'd not mind for your home state does similar things.
As for Gingrich, I cant support a politician from the same state with a government that lured a 125-year pillar of my own hometown to move to Duluth, Georgia. Tell me when Bain has done that and outdone the damage that AT&T did to a certain cash-register company.
That, and I'm not one for having a Southerner that wants to bring back the days of Bakker and Falwell.
"There is someone better running, Santorum..."
What does Santorum have that is better? The guy is on stage talking about subsidizing manufacturing. He's a non-starter.
That's what I'm talking about when I mention the Tea Party; their candidates are Santorum and Bachman. I had some slight hope for Bachman in the beginning, but she started focusing on social issues and lost me.
You guys aren't bringing anyone worthwhile to the table, which is why our choice is between Mitt and Newt.
"What's really puzzling, is why this 30 year old item was dragged out again during a Presidential campaign. Any thoughts?"
Maybe because a 30 year old relic was dragged out once again during a Presidential campaign. And I do mean Ron Paul.
You don't think its worthwhile to talk about a presidential "candidate" who goes on Alex Jones' radio show to talk about loony-toon theories? You don't think its worthwhile that a presidential "candidate" was out there supporting fringe militias? You don't think its worthwhile talking about a guy who has said some pretty ridiculous racial comments (whether they are racist or not, is not important. They are ridiculous and outright stupid)
So Paul Pot's zombies can hurl all sort of accusations at whomever they want, but when points are brought up about their idol, that't not fair play?
Is this the person we want to have conservatism and libertarianism associated with? This sort of fringe lunacy financed by an army of drones who see no contradiction between them squatting at an Occupy rally, and proclaiming to represent the one and only true path to freedom?
I'm sorry. I come from an ex-communist country. I don't consider mindless zealots or their mindless leaders as healthy for my freedom.
"The GOP wants a businessman, they get one with Mitt Romney. Or do you want another political ideologue from a state that outdoes Bain"
I don't understand the last sentence there about Bain. Nothing wrong with Bain. I worked for a company owned by Bain.
On the first sentence, I personally don't prefer a businessman over an politician, at least not necessarily and at least not for that position in government. The gov. role isn't to get into business, so I don't see why we need a businessman. We do need someone who understands that the govt's role is not to get into business, and a political ideologue can be capable of understanding this point.
AIG, I actually agree with everything you said in your second comment, except for your irrational hatred of Ron Paul. The truth is there is no tea party candidate, only people like Cain or Bachmann or Perry who want to claim that mantle but aren't really of it. I too find it amazing that there's so much talk of Iran and Israel or that there was so much time spent on that stupid discussion about whether Palestinians are an invented people, which nobody other than the small, fervently pro-Israel crowd cares about. As for immigration, I too don't care about that, but you have to admit that a recession fans those xenophobic flames and there is a constituency for that rhetoric, the Trump fans.
Unfortunately, this is the way a primary works, every crazy Republican constituency gets its due, until the general election when the candidate can move to the center. Then if Romney gets into office, I'm guessing he will gladly go back on all the anti-immigration rhetoric, just like Obama talked tough on NAFTA during the primary last time, all while his main economic adviser secretly told the Canadians it was just talk, which was borne out later on. :)
AIG: "Maybe because a 30 year old relic was dragged out once again during a Presidential campaign. And I do mean Ron Paul.
You don't think its worthwhile to talk about a presidential "candidate" who goes on Alex Jones' radio show to talk about loony-toon theories? You don't think its worthwhile that a presidential "candidate" was out there supporting fringe militias? You don't think its worthwhile talking about a guy who has said some pretty ridiculous racial comments (whether they are racist or not, is not important. They are ridiculous and outright stupid)
So Paul Pot's zombies can hurl all sort of accusations at whomever they want, but when points are brought up about their idol, that't not fair play?
Is this the person we want to have conservatism and libertarianism associated with? This sort of fringe lunacy financed by an army of drones who see no contradiction between them squatting at an Occupy rally, and proclaiming to represent the one and only true path to freedom?
I'm sorry. I come from an ex-communist country. I don't consider mindless zealots or their mindless leaders as healthy for my freedom."
Sorry, I didn't detect a rational argument to respond to.
AIG,
"The guy is on stage talking about subsidizing manufacturing. He's a non-starter."
And Romney is the godfather of Obamacare. Santorum is a far more consistent conservative, but Romney is more electable. Every candidate on the GOP presidential stage is heavily flawed. It's aggravating we can't field a decent candidate to run against the worst President in history.
"The guy is on stage talking about subsidizing manufacturing. He's a non-starter"...
What aig?!?!
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I don't understand the last sentence there about Bain.
Bain hasn't uprooted an entire Fortune 500 company that had a 125-year presence in one city from one part of the US to the other. Georgia's government has done so, causing more damage in more places than Bain Capital.
The only way I can support any Georgia politician is if their government comes clean, discloses all the actions they've ever taken in private (towards bringing companies from other states) to the public at large, and passes an amendment to their state's constitution that halts such hostile activity. Even if it means going back a few decades for the records.
Post a Comment
<< Home