Intrade Odds: Romney vs. Obama, Obama Wins
Current Intrade odds are shown above for: a) Romney to be the Republican nominee for president (72.5%) and b) Obama to be re-elected (59.5%).
CARPE DIEM
Professor Mark J. Perry's Blog for Economics and Finance
Monday, February 20, 2012
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
- What Do AP Subject Exams Tell Us About Differences...
- As China's Wages Continue to Heat Up, Expect More ...
- Donor Compensation, Not Kidney Swaps, is the Only ...
- Markets in Everything: Floating Cities
- Renegade Aspen Cabbie Back in "Business"
- Markets in Everything: Mansion Rental
- Interesting Fact of the Day: Anthem in 4/4 Time
- Quote of the Day on U.S. Manufacturing
- Saturday Energy Links
- U.S. Manufacturing Is Open for Business and Doing ...
18 Comments:
Wait, what?
P(Obama wins) = P(Obama wins|Romney nominated)*P(Romney nominated) + P(Obama wins|Romney not nominated)*P(Romney not nominated)...
How do the two numbers mean Obama wins Obama v Romney??
Looks from the lines that when Romney's nominating # goes up sharply, Obama's election # goes down mildly, and R down sharply means O up mildly.
Well, a long, long way to election day. Anybody would win this one.
But the R-Party is a mess---creationists and gold nuts, homophobes and Red State Socialists, warmongers and gun nuts, anti-abortionists and marijuana-haters and religious fanatics and Chicken Inflation Littles and partisan Grifters On Parade (GOP).
And the D-Party is uglier than pig-poop on a Denny's Grand Slam breakfast.
There must be another party I can vote for.
"But the R-Party is a mess---creationists and gold nuts, homophobes and Red State Socialists, warmongers and gun nuts, anti-abortionists and marijuana-haters and religious fanatics and Chicken Inflation Littles and partisan Grifters On Parade (GOP). "
Unfortunately, you're absolutely right.
Obama is going to win this one for one simple reason, he is far to clever for the GOP candidates. He baits them into social issues which he knows he WILL win against, and the GOP falls for it every time and nominated in part or in full such characters as Sarah Palin and Rick Santorum.
His contraceptive mandate was absolutely BRILLIANT. He never intended to carry it out in full; he just wanted to bring the zealots out of the woodwork and show the American people "look, these guys you want to vote are even against condoms!"
Meanwhile, Gingrich has done more harm to the GOP with his populist attacks on capitalism.
The GOP deserves to die after this, and hopefully it will split into 2 parties; the Party of God (Hezbollah), and the Party of Freedom.
I no longer blame Mitch Daniels or Chris Christie or Paul Ryan for refusing to run; they too understand that it is time for this bipolar contradiction in the Republican Party to end, and it won't end if you're running against someone as cleaver as Obama.
taxamageddon is coming if he wins.
he's not going to win. people are too informed.
taxamageddon is coming if he wins.
he's not going to win. people are too informed.
Social conservatism, Mr. Bell argues in his forthcoming book, "The Case for Polarized Politics," has a winning track record for the GOP. "Social issues were nonexistent in the period 1932 to 1964," he observes. "The Republican Party won two presidential elections out of nine, and they had the Congress for all of four years in that entire period. . . . When social issues came into the mix—I would date it from the 1968 election . . . the Republican Party won seven out of 11 presidential elections."
The Democrats who won, including even Barack Obama in 2008, did not play up social liberalism in their campaigns.
In Mr. Bell's telling, social conservatism is both relatively new and uniquely American, and it is a response to aggression, not an initiation of it. The left has had "its center of gravity in social issues" since the French Revolution, he says. "Yes, the left at that time, with people like Robespierre, was interested in overthrowing the monarchy and the French aristocracy. But they were even more vehemently in favor of bringing down institutions like the family and organized religion.
The roots of social conservatism, he maintains, lie in the American Revolution. "Nature's God is the only authority cited in the Declaration of Independence. . . . The usual [assumption] is, the U.S. has social conservatism because it's more religious. . . . My feeling is that the very founding of the country is the natural law, which is God-given, but it isn't particular to any one religion. . . . If you believe that rights are unalienable and that they come from God, the odds are that you're a social conservative."
"The swing vote in the Midwest is socially conservative and less conservative economically," Mr. Bell says, so that "social conservatism is more likely to be helpful than economic conservatism."
Among states that last voted Republican in 1988 or earlier, he classifies two, Michigan and Pennsylvania, as socially conservative, and two more, Minnesota and Wisconsin, as "mildly" so. That adds up to 35 states, with 348 electoral votes, in which social conservatism is an advantage. A socially liberal Republican nominee might win more votes in California and New York—places where the GOP has declined as the country has become more polarized—but his prospects of carrying either would still be minuscule. -- WSJ
"Obama is going to win this one for one simple reason, he is far to clever for the GOP candidates." -- AIG
That's right, he cleverly inspired the electorate into delivering to the Democrats one of the most crushing congressional midterm defeats in modern political history. But, hey, second times the charm.
In the last twenty consecutive Battleground Poll reports over the last ten years, the overwhelming majority of Americans have described themselves as "very conservative" or "somewhat conservative," although the poll provides six other possible responses: "moderate," "somewhat liberal," "very liberal," or "don't know/unsure." On average, about 60% of Americans in the Battleground Poll call themselves conservative.
I have also noted that in the Gallup Poll, one of the oldest and most respected (although hardly a friend to conservatives), when respondents in each of the fifty states are asked to define themselves ideologically, conservatives overwhelmingly outnumber liberals. In August 2009, Gallup released the first of these polls, conducted in July 2009. The results were stunning: in every one of the fifty states, more people called themselves "conservative" than "liberal" -- even in Vermont, even in Massachusetts, even in Hawaii. -- American Thinker
he's not going to win. people are too informed.
I disagree, and I say this as someone who detests Obama and other such socialists.
The left has successfully changed the demographics of America so that a Democrat just cannot lose very often.
Blacks already vote 90-95% Democrat, no matter what.
Hispanics vote 60% Democrat, and their population has increased 40% since 2004.
Single mothers vote 90% Democrat, and the Dems have created millions more of those by subsidizing them.
As a result, many states that Bush won in 2004, like CO, NV, NM, and IA are now blue. Solid Bush states in 2004 like NC and VA are now actually swing states.
At the same time, no state has moved rightwards. Not one.
The Dems have changed the electorate into one that works for them. The GOP was too stupid to stop it.
Even *California* was a red state as recently as 1988. Now, even NV and CO are blue.
And yes, I agree that most 'Social Conservatives' are just feminists/socialists with a thin veneer of Christianity over them. They don't have the balls to do what would bring about *real* social conservatism, which is to end the welfare state, feminist pork, and entitlements.
Ah well, countries come and go. We had a good run, we Americans.
Obama is not clever. He is one of the most politically inept fools around.
The reason the Dems are still strong is i) that the media is heavily biased in their favor, swinging the vote about 10 points their way, and ii) the demographics of America have shifted more in favor of a Democrat welfare state (see my earlier comment).
"The reason the Dems are still strong is i) that the media is heavily biased in their favor..."
Yep. The coordinationbetween the White House and their boot lickers in the media is unbelievable.
"Obama is not clever. He is one of the most politically inept fools around."
But as noted above, the media is there to catch him when he falls.
"On average, about 60% of Americans in the Battleground Poll call themselves conservative."
A lot of people call themselves "conservative" and don't believe that gay is a disease, or that abortion should be outlawed, or that condoms are the devil. This is the sort of ideas we don't need in America right now, and the sort of ideas that you WILL lose on.
And most importantly, the demographics are not the same as they were since 1968. They're not the same as they were even 20 years ago. You can win elections on those platforms only in certain geographic regions and certain demographics (the same demographics that think that subsidies for corn and manufacturing is a good idea, and that Rick Santorum is a 'conservative"). But preferences are moving in the opposite direction.
And most importantly, you alienate and make enemies of people who otherwise may well have voted for fiscally conservative candidates, to achieve not only none of your socially conservative agenda, but in the meanwhile you only increase the size and scope of government...ie George W Bush.
We don't need any more "conservatives" like that.
Can someone please tell me what the Intrade number was in early June 2010 for the R's taking the House?
It was 44%. 6 months out. Anyone remember how the mid-terms turned out for the D's/Obama?
Everyone is simply focused on the gong show that is the R primary. Once everyone figures out that now they have to decide between Obama or not-Obama I would expect a pretty easy win for the R candidate. As brutal as they may be the non-Obama vote is going to be very very strong.
Don't listen to the noise of the manipulated polls, watch the deeds of the pols. And, those D pols are running for the exits at every opportunity. Obama has lost almost every meaningful election he or his party has been associated with since 2009. Why would the most important vote change now?
Obama's Still Unpopular in the States That Will Matter
Rasmussen tracking poll shows Romney and Santorum within 2 points of Obama
Obama super-PAC Priorities USA raises only $59K in January
"Once everyone figures out that now they have to decide between Obama or not-Obama I would expect a pretty easy win for the R candidate. As brutal as they may be the non-Obama vote is going to be very very strong. "
The GOP can always find a way to lose an election. Wait till Rick Santorum tries to sell himself to independents. I can think of a worst disaster than Sarah Palin.
"This is the sort of ideas we don't need in America right now ..." -- AIG
We'll be sure to clear all of our ideas with you, Commissar.
The GOP can always find a way to lose an election. Wait till Rick Santorum tries to sell himself to independents ..." -- AIG
I think that you should stick with Obama. That way, even though the country will be accelerating its spiral into the fiscal abyss, you and your boyfriend will still get your condoms and your idiot sister will be able to get that abortion, all at government expense.
I'm actually starting to favor abortion, at least when it comes to your family. What was it that Oliver Wendell Holmes said about three generations of imbeciles being enough?
"I think that you should stick with Obama. That way, even though the country will be accelerating its spiral into the fiscal abyss"
Yes, I'm sure that Mr Sweater Vest with his pro-union votes, his pork votes, his subsidies votes, his spending increases votes...is going to solve that problem. But at least, he will make sure that...hmm...condoms, satan and gays will not take over our children's minds.
Post a Comment
<< Home