So I had a look at Huckabee. I like that he seems more realistic on immigration that some of the candidates. What do you other republicans think? Is there anything about him that would kill the deal? Besides that guy he paroled who killed someone?
[ December 05, 2007, 03:21 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"A poll of LIKELY Iowa caucus voters is showing a new leader on the Republican side."
This should tell you why the story is not mainstream- it's a push poll by the Des Moines Register, not a legitimate or widely accepted statistic.
Honestly, you were reading it on fox news... what exactly were you expecting.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I heard the story on the radio and went looking for an online source, and Fox News was probably the 4th place I checked. What are the alternate sources of polls out of Iowa? (Honestly doesn't know.)
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
For any Iowa poll to be accurate regarding the caucus results they have to have some way of evaluating how likely the person is to attend the caucus. A poll of "average Iowans" is meaningless in terms of predicting who will actually win.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:it's a push poll by the Des Moines Register
Could you cite some evidence for this fairly startling claim? The Register is the source of almost every poll I've seen on the Iowa race. MSM citations to its polls:
In short, the Register is most likely the best (although, because of the caucus structure, less accurate than similar polls in other states) source of public opinion data about the Iowa caucuses.
quote:"A poll of LIKELY Iowa caucus voters is showing a new leader on the Republican side."
This should tell you why the story is not mainstream
The phrase "likely voters" is not indicative of that a poll is a push poll. It is extremely common in pre-election polling. It does introduce a certain amount of inaccuracy, but it is a well-accepted practice in the field. If the inclusion of "LIKELY" is a disqualifying element for a poll, then most such polls are so disqualified.
For the record, the story is mainstream and has been covered in a variety of online mainstream pages.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Just not AOL, MSN or wikipedia. To be fair, it was probably on wikipedia but I caught it after Giuliani's folks.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Dag, I realize you're probably right.
I just reacted to a) the poll representing a clear leader who is, according to the cited poll, 5% ahead of the closest competitor. I doubt the poll has a margin of error less than 5%.
b) it's being reported, according to Pooka, only by the Fox website, run by people I deeply distrust.
c) my extreme annoyance at these meaningless polls that claim to represent, well, anything close to reality.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Could you cite some evidence for this fairly startling claim?
No.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
The DesMoinesRegister poll is just as valid as any other. All polls are massaged to reflect the leanings of those whom their head pollsters feel will be the most LIKELY voters. Since the Register poll is the most recent, it's also probably the most valid.
1) Republican operatives (eg RobertNovak, RushLimbaugh, PatRobertson, etc) have consistently hammered governors and ex-governors for mistakes made by their state parole boards. 2) Huckabee approved several luxury taxes, eg on gasoline and dog groomers, to raise money for Iowa's (share of) funding of eg school lunches and SCHIP. Raising taxes and saving children are two more big NO-NOs that Republican operatives whale upon. They're already attacking Huckabee for "raising taxes" and "not supporting the President"s veto of child health care.
[ January 01, 2008, 10:26 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It's not just the Des Moines Register, Rasmussen has Huckabee up 3 points, 28/25 over Romney, with everyone else way back in the pack. But in both polls I believe the plus minus is 4 points, which makes both polls basically a dead heat. The American Research Group has Romney up by one point in this week's poll, also with a plus minus of four points.
Also keep in mind that polling for Iowa is historically rather unreliable. In the last presidential election, 40% or so of Iowa Caucus voters made up their minds in the last week before the vote, which means a large percentage of people are still undecided, possibly. Also, the numbers change depending on who you ask. When you ask people that participated in the last caucus, Huckabee wins, when you ask people who didn't but plan to this time, Romney wins. But in every poll I've read for the last week they are statistically tied, which I think is a miracle for Huckabee in itself. It's critical for him to win Iowa. Giuliani may be way behind there, but that's also because he's comparatively spent little time and money there, instead focusing on other states, where he is nationally dominant.
And remember what the Iowa caucus is. It's hundreds of small groups of people gathering together to argue with each other for hours on who should be voted for, and a lot of people tend to change their mind on the day of voting. Polls are all about smaller candidates making surprising jumps, which they hope to snowball into momentum (like Huckabee and Obama) and polling leaders trying to cement their leads (like Giuliani and Clinton). It's all about who can distort the numbers the best for the media.
Now when we get out of the primaries into the presidential race, you'll start to see the numbers as being far, far more accurate, though right now most of the leading candidates facing off against each other are statistical ties, that will change in six months.
But what will be really interesting it watch the polls implode after Iowa. Depending on who wins, if say it's Huckabee (maybe Giuliani) or Obama (or Edwards), they'll get a huge bump in the polls in New Hampshire (we'll have to wait and see how Wyoming's convention matters), if it's Clinton, she'll solidify her hold on the frontrunner's position and be a LOT harder to dislodge. If it's Romney, he'll see a bump in national polls, but he already leads in most of the early voting states. He needs to use them to parlay that into a better position on Super Tuesday, where Giuliani has a massive lead.
Ah polling numbers fun.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
The unusual thing is (IMHO) that when I listen to talk radio (Limbaugh, O'Reilly and Hannity), they constantly down-play or outright ignore Huckabee. Every time a caller calls in to say "how come you're not talking about Huckabee?" they will respond with something that indicates they don't think he has a snowball's chance.
So it is surprising that he is gaining in popularity (if he is) without this very vocal right-wing media side.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
The Republican Caucus in Iowa has a tendency to come in to the right of the party nationally. Pat Buchannan and Pat Robertson both had respectable showings in the Iowa Caucuses. Buchannan actually beat Bush in Iowa in '88. So it's possible for Huckabee to be gaining in the polls related to the caucus and national commentators still not think he's a viable candidate.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I only read it, but my impression was that Romney and Giuliani were both very defensive in the You Tube debate last week. I think that may have hurt Romney in Iowa. I guess we'll see how Huckabee takes the heat of the spotlight.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Huckabee doing well in Iowa can only hurt Romney's chance of getting the nomination. Romney is basically banking on Super Tuesday, and if he fails to get much momentum I see him getting the vice presidential nomination at best.
Huckabee is doing remarkably well in the last two-three weeks, definately better than most anticipated. He fits very well into what Iowan Republicans would want in a president, but they may not vote for him because IMHO he does not have a chance. Alot may vote for him anyway, and that's bad news for Romney.
At this point I wish some of the unlikely candidates would pick a front runner and throw their support behind him. The Republicans need a strong showing in the primaries if they are going to put up a solid ticket.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
I just hope Ron Paul runs as a third party candidate in the main election next year.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert: I just hope Ron Paul runs as a third party candidate in the main election next year.
Are you hoping this, as it will further ensure a Democratic victory?
In the Republican debate Ron Paul said that he will NOT run as a third party candidate as he still closely identifies with classic Republican ideals.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Javert: I just hope Ron Paul runs as a third party candidate in the main election next year.
Are you hoping this, as it will further ensure a Democratic victory?
In the Republican debate Ron Paul said that he will NOT run as a third party candidate as he still closely identifies with classic Republican ideals.
You caught me.
Not that I would be terribly upset if Ron Paul were to pull off a surprising win. Of the Republicans, he's my favorite.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The Republican Caucus in Iowa has a tendency to come in to the right of the party nationally. Pat Buchannan and Pat Robertson both had respectable showings in the Iowa Caucuses. Buchannan actually beat Bush in Iowa in '88.
This is true.
quote: So it's possible for Huckabee to be gaining in the polls related to the caucus and national commentators still not think he's a viable candidate.
Is Huckabee considered right of the party frontrunners? Most of the criticism I've seen about him from primary opponents has been related to raising taxes and going easy on illegal immigrants.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote: Of the Republicans, he's my favorite.
I I'll grant you may find him interesting, but I doubt you'd actually like to see him in the White house.
Oh, Buchanan. I'd forgotten about him. :shudder:
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Huckabee is fiscally moderate, and in some strange places socially moderate, but is Evangelically inclined and very conservative on some core issues such as Abortion.
Hence he is the choice of many Evangelicals, especially when compared to the "Mormon Romney" or the "Adulterous" Guiliani
I believe that he may be Young Earth Christian, or goes to great lengths not to make statements supporting Evolution or similar Old Earth sciences.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:At this point I wish some of the unlikely candidates would pick a front runner and throw their support behind him. The Republicans need a strong showing in the primaries if they are going to put up a solid ticket.
After Iowa. The second tier candidates won't drop out (unless they run out of money) before they at least see how they do in Iowa, but I'd say you'll see Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter drop out and support a candidate, and their two or three combined percentage points will go to whoever. It's hard to say when the others will drop out, it really depends on how everyone does in the early voting states, but I'd bet at least Giuliani, Huckabee, Romney and Paul make it to SuperTuesday without dropping. I leave McCain off that list because of his sagging numbers and the fact that his warchest has cobwebs in it, whereas the others are spending money like it's coming from a magic ATM. If he doesn't win Nevada, I think he'll be gone by Feb. 5th.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Hence he is the choice of many Evangelicals, especially when compared to the "Mormon Romney" or the "Adulterous" Guiliani
Over the Thanksgiving holiday my very, very Christian cousins informed me that Huckabee was the only candidate they would vote for. If he doesn't win the nomination, they said they couldn't morally vote for ANY other candidate, and just wouldn't vote in the General next year.
They aren't necessary one issue voters, but Abortion is a litmus test for them, and if the candidate doesn't support anti-abortion, they won't get the vote. I'd say Huckabee is the shining hope for that crowd, and not having him in the race will leave a lot of those guys out in the cold.
(I think it's less Mormon Romney and Adulterous Giuliani (they ARE factors mind you) and more "Changes his mind on abortion" Romney and "Wants to murder babies" Giuliani, for a lot of evangelicals).
Also, you have to watch a different poll, and that one is asking voters what issues are most important to them. Obama's surge in Iowa and New Hampshire is interesting, because when you ask voters what they care about the most, more and more are choosing honesty, integrity and change, and Obama is railroading Hillary on those categories in the polls. She beats him in security and experience, but he's done a good job proving to them that those things aren't the most important. It's also why Democrats poll higher nationally, because people tend to trust Republicans more with national defense, but the economy is now the highest rated threat, and the people trust the Democrats more on that. Ironically, Giuliani polls highest on one thing, the War on Terror, and Romney has him beat on pretty much every other category, even Iraq. But Republicans have chosen that as their most important issue...for the moment. Incidentally I think that's his biggest weakness. He's going to get HAMMERED in the general on WOT issues, and I think Hillary would come out way ahead.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Javert: I just hope Ron Paul runs as a third party candidate in the main election next year.
Are you hoping this, as it will further ensure a Democratic victory?
In the Republican debate Ron Paul said that he will NOT run as a third party candidate as he still closely identifies with classic Republican ideals.
You caught me.
Not that I would be terribly upset if Ron Paul were to pull off a surprising win. Of the Republicans, he's my favorite.
Well Perot got Clinton elected, and Nadar got Bush elected so I guess it's the Democrat's turn to get an election handed to them because of a third party.
I think a McCain/Romney ticket could do REALLY well. Both candidates are Republican, but both appeal to alot of moderates. I really don't agree with Giulliani's whole, "I'm the only one who can beat Hillary" schtick.
Huckabee right now does a very good job appearing conservative, and stating his views without sounding like an idiot. In the last debate I hope Romney picked up some tips on how to discuss his faith without assuming it has to be a liability.
Posted by Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged (Member # 7476) on :
quote:I really don't agree with Giulliani's whole, "I'm the only one who can beat Hillary" schtick.
I don't agree with it either. But it also heartens me, as it seems to suggest that the republicans aren't even considering Obama, which could lead to their downfall if he gets the nomination.
Posted by Saephon (Member # 9623) on :
For the sake of a truly better America, I hope the electoral process/two party system/quality of candidates change drastically.
For the sake of a realistically good outcome of next year's election, I hope Obama pulls it off. I'm so terribly tired of voting against someone rather than for someone Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: [QB] They aren't necessary one issue voters, but Abortion is a litmus test for them, and if the candidate doesn't support anti-abortion, they won't get the vote.
Doesn't that by definition make them one issue voters?
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: [QB] They aren't necessary one issue voters, but Abortion is a litmus test for them, and if the candidate doesn't support anti-abortion, they won't get the vote.
Doesn't that by definition make them one issue voters?
Not necessarily. As long as two candidates share the same opinion on the abortion issue, then I'm assuming that Lyrhawn's relatives would consider other issues when determining who is worthy of their vote. For example, Romney's and Huckabee's stated positions on abortion are nearly identical. So the deal-breaker for them isn't really the issue of abortion, but whether or not they believe Romney is trustworthy. Romney's opponents have successfully been able to paint his change of positions as politically motivated and insincere (which is very unfortunate for Romney--I personally support him and hope he can win the nomination.)
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Here's an important factor we need to take into consideration.
Will there be a terror alert conveniently placed around the election?
And if there is, will America buy into it?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
If there is a terror alert near the election, will people baselessly speculate that it was "convenient"? If they do, will America buy into it?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
If I'm a terrorist and I want the most media coverage in exchange for my life, when will I plan an attack?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
If I'm in a position to set off a terror alert and I want to help a Republican get into the White House, when do I plan to make that alert?
edit: And I'm not saying it will happen. But if it does, I know that I will find it suspicious.
Posted by Fusiachi (Member # 7376) on :
Prepare the tin-foil hats.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
If there were that degree of machination going on, I would have thought they'd bag Osama bin-Laden right before the 04 election. But maybe they are playing a deeper game than I imagine.
Getting back to Ron Paul, and I mistaken in thinking you [Javert] are not pro-life? Because he's for the whole overturning of Roe v. Wade.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Huckabee will definitely take the Bible belt over Romney. A Mormon vs. an ordained Baptist preacher? No contest.
(Please note I do not endorse this attitude - personally I am much more concerned with things like, you know, their public record and what type of leader they would be than what house of worship they attend, I'm just pointing out what will happen in the deep south if the nomination comes down between Huckabee and Romney.)
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Well, I guess the Bible belt isn't going to go Giuliani, so you're probably right.
Besides, the "Huckabee/Obama race" sounds awesome.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: If there were that degree of machination going on, I would have thought they'd bag Osama bin-Laden right before the 04 election. But maybe they are playing a deeper game than I imagine.
Getting back to Ron Paul, and I mistaken in thinking you [Javert] are not pro-life? Because he's for the whole overturning of Roe v. Wade.
Just to be clear, I'm not a conspiracy theorist who thinks all terror warnings are just there to control Americans. I do, however, recognize the possibility of such a thing happening.
As for Ron Paul, yes I am pro-choice. But I also don't vote on one issue. Overturning Roe v. Wade in itself wouldn't bother me too much. It would in the fact that I think those are decisions that the people involved should make for themselves. But I don't like abortion.
Now, if he (or anyone) overturned Roe v. Wade and then did absolutely nothing to actually address the problems that lead to the need for abortion, then I would be upset.
And this is really all besides the point, as I'm a registered Democrat and I don't see Paul getting into the general election as the GOP candidate against Clinton, which is the only situation I can really see where I would vote for him.
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle: Huckabee will definitely take the Bible belt over Romney. A Mormon vs. an ordained Baptist preacher? No contest.
(Please note I do not endorse this attitude - personally I am much more concerned with things like, you know, their public record and what type of leader they would be than what house of worship they attend, I'm just pointing out what will happen in the deep south if the nomination comes down between Huckabee and Romney.)
The question is, how much of the South qualifies as "bible belt" and "deep south" nowadays. It seems to me that ultra-fundamental evangelicism is on the decline, even in the South (where I'm from,) as evidenced by the decline in televangelism and diminishing influence of the Southern Baptist Convention. This is coupled with the increasing urbanization of the South, and since urban areas, even in the South, tend to be less conservative, I'm wondering whether the "Bible-thumpers" influence is being overestimated. Just throwing it out there.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Oh, okay. Well that helps a bit. Kind of like how I would vote for Obama against Giuliani.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I was under the impression that the SBC was losing it's influence not due to lessening of evangelicalism, but to the non-demonimationals and other sects of evangelical Christianity. However, I really can't think of where I got that impression from.
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
I agree, the rise of other brands of evangelicism is part of the decline of the SBC, but in my experience, the most popular newer evangelical movements don't focus nearly as much on the evils of Mormonism as does the SBC. Thus, in respect to the issue that Belle raised, the hold that anti-Mormon evangelicals have on the "deep South" and "Bible Belt" appears to me to be waning.
This is not to say that the local Assemblies of God megachurch is suddenly going to join hands with the Mormons singing Kumbaya, but they aren't necessarily going to rule out voting for a Mormon based on religion alone. If anything will doom Romney, it's the constant flip-flop label given to him by his enemies. It worked very well for Kerry, and Republican voters seem to think that changing your position to one that you actually agree with is a much greater sin than simply disagreeing.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
I am loving this election, however, as a republican, I am sad to see us loose. I think we will loose.
Huckabee will probably be a one state man. His fund raising is increasing--he's adopted Paul's tactic of showing donors and amount raised in real time. However, he won't raise enough money for a strong showing in super Tuesday.
He is relying on media hype, and his charm and evangelical appeal will only last so long. Plus he has real problems with his tax record. Mccain is dropping fast. I don't think his attack on Paul in the debate will give him much of a boost, and he is out of money.
Fred is not gaining any traction. That leaves Gulianni and Romney with commanding leads, a lot of cash, but not much enthusiasm. One of them will probably get the "anti-democrat/Hillary" vote and win the primaries. Paul will be in the long haul just because he is so fiscally responsible, is raising wads of cash (between 12-16 million this quarter), and has dedicated supporters. However, he probably won't break 10% of the votes.
He will be set up for a strong third party run--stealing both democratic and republican votes.
Paul throws in a true unknown into this election. No candidate, except Paul and Huckabee, really has enthusiastic supporters. We will once again have an election where people are voting against Hillary or Obama, and that won't turn out the votes needed to win. Not this time.
Plus, even if Paul does not go third party, his supporters will not vote for another Republican. We (I include myself) think the republican party has lost the way. So you will either get a massive write in for Paul (my plan), or the supporters will vote for the libertarian, constitutionalist, or green party.
That small percentage (2%-7%)will break the republican candidate--if he is not already broken. Romney, Guilianni, McCain, Huckabee, and Thompson are wasted votes. They've already lost.
***
My dream scenario is that Paul's strength on illegal immigration will become a huge support for him after the univision debate. He will be the only candidate that talks about ending birthright citizenship, brining troops home from Iraq and North Korea for our borders, and not accepting any type of amnesty. Strangely he is not for a wall or deportation. He just wants to end incentives for illegal immigration.
He could get a lot of boos from that debate and hostility from democrats. Ironically that is one area where I disagree with Paul, but illegal immigration is a sleeper issue for lots of republicans. If he comes out strong and receives bad press from pro undocumented worker groups, more republicans might look at him.
Then if he get 5-6 million on Dec 16th (bringing his total to 16 million the quarter), the Ron Paul blimp takes off, he does 4th place in Iowa and 3rd place in New Hampshire, he could hit Super Tuesday with enough momentum and money to really shake things up.
That is my best case scenario. But even that won't propel him as THE FRONTRUNNER, but weirder things have happened. Maybe Republicans will realize he is the only candidate that can win and will start supporting him.
If it is not Paul, the republicans will for sure loose. And it is looking like it won't be Paul.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I agree with the wane of the power of the SBC and other organizations but Squicky is right - that's because of so many non-denominational Christian churches that are so popular now. Not because the people living here are likely to vote less conservative.
Yes, there are larger urban areas in the south that will trend toward the liberal side of the spectrum, but I would still be shocked to see Alabama and Mississippi vote Romney over Huckabee. As for what would happen in the general election, I have no idea. That's where the urbanization of the Southern states could make a bigger impact, but if we're strictly talking Republican primaries, I do not see Deep South Republicans voting for a Mormon candidate, in my opinion. Things haven't changed all that much.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I hope I can trust Ron Paul at his word that he is not going to break off a third party. If you want to see someone clubbed with "flip flop", go ahead and keep talking about it.
Hey, maybe Al Gore will jump back in the race, as long as we're dreaming. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
What do you consider the Bible Belt these days? Alabama, South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi? Midwest? Plains States?
I'll go looking for some opinion polls if you guys tell me what states you want looked up.
Interestingly, the most recent polls I've seen show that Barack Obama beats every Republican candidate, and Hillary loses to every Republican candidate. It's two weeks old, and I don' know what the +/- is, but I'm surprised it isn't being talked about more.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I find an interesting place to watch as the campaign unfolds is the prediction markets. The basic idea is that people buy shares on the probability of certain events occurring and essentially make money if they sell their shares as the probability of that event occurring. Since actual money is on the line, sometimes the predictions can be quite different from polls.
One example is http://www.intrade.com and they seem to paint a rather different picture about Hilary Clinton's chances.
(I wouldn't suggest participating though...)
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Well, that's like Ron Paul's crushing pre-eminence on Facebook. According to Facebook, Premonition got 3 stars.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote:I hope I can trust Ron Paul at his word that he is not going to break off a third party. If you want to see someone clubbed with "flip flop", go ahead and keep talking about it.
I think the best thing for the republicans is if he goes third. The way I see it is Ron Paul's supporters have already left the other republican candidates. There are enough republicans who support Paul that if he doesn't run third, they will boycott the other republican candidates. They will write in Paul or vote a third party--either way, the republicans will loose.
HOWEVER, if he goes third, there is a possibility that a third party Paul would attract more democrats then republicans. There are a LOT of dems who are angry that they voted to end the war and ended up with a surge.
If Paul goes third, there is a possibility, however slight, he could win OR there is a possibility that he would draw enough dem votes to offset the loss of republicans.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: What do you consider the Bible Belt these days? Alabama, South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi? Midwest? Plains States?
I'll go looking for some opinion polls if you guys tell me what states you want looked up.
While I haven't read the whole article, just on skimming this wikipedia entry I agree with it for the most part.
quote:In presidential elections, the Bible Belt states of Alabama, Kansas, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia have voted for the Republican candidate in all elections since 1980.[6] Prior to the 1960s the majority of these states generally voted for the Democratic candidate after the formation of the modern Democratic party.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
It's not the same at all, pooka - it's free to show your support on Facebook, but prediction markets are all about putting your money where your mouth is. They're typically quite accurate, which is why corporations are starting to incorporate them into their business planning.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:HOWEVER, if he goes third, there is a possibility that a third party Paul would attract more democrats then republicans. There are a LOT of dems who are angry that they voted to end the war and ended up with a surge.
Are you saying he will draw votes by affiliated Democrates away from the Democratic candidate or that he will draw alot of undecided voters away from the Democratic candidate?
Personally I am unconvinced Democrats will vote for Ron Paul. His platform is classic Republicanism and that includes getting out of Iraq. That is the only thing he has in common with Democrats IMO. There is far too much he would clash with Democrats over for liberals or people leaning alittle to the left to vote for him. He could get alot of Libertarian votes, but I think he would get FAR more votes that WOULD have gone to the Republican candidate over a Democrat.
Ron Paul + third party candidacy = Democratic Victory.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: What do you consider the Bible Belt these days? Alabama, South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi? Midwest? Plains States?
I'll go looking for some opinion polls if you guys tell me what states you want looked up.
While I haven't read the whole article, just on skimming this wikipedia entry I agree with it for the most part.
quote:In presidential elections, the Bible Belt states of Alabama, Kansas, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia have voted for the Republican candidate in all elections since 1980.[6] Prior to the 1960s the majority of these states generally voted for the Democratic candidate after the formation of the modern Democratic party.
Give me 20-30 minutes, I'll get you some primary polling data on those states.
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
I guess my main point of contention is that I'm beginning to think the "Bible Belt" no longer accurately describes a discrete geographic area, e.g. the so-called "deep south." I think the term is better applied to a mindset rather than a group of specific states. While I think there is merit to Belle's claim that Mississippi and Alabama are more likely to vote for Huckabee than Romney based on their religious affiliations, I'm not so sure that there are many other states that vote in a bloc.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Yeah, Mormons used the be democrats too. Though it was longer ago than 1960... more like pre FDR.
If you think about a lot of the things that happened in the 60's, well, it's surprising the "solid south" meant democrat for as long as it did.
I'm not saying all southerners are bigots, of course.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Alabama - Capital Survey Research Center, November 1st: Fred Thompson 26%, Rudy Giuliani 24%, John McCain 12%, Mitt Romney 9%, Newt Gingrich 7%, Undecided 18%
Some of these results are going to be almost useless. The non-early voting states only get polls taken once a month or so, they don't really care about week to week numbers. But I'm not sure about the details of this poll, in that, I don't know which Republicans were in the poll (if Huckabee was even in it, I mean), and with 18% undecided, it's anyone's race.
Kansas - Research 2000, May 21st: Sam Brownback 18%, Mitt Romney 17%, Rudy Giuliani 13%, John McCain 13%, Fred Thompson 7%, Newt Gingrich 6%, Tom Tancredo 2%, All Others >1%
Hard to give this one much credence when it was taken so long ago, but you have to expect that Brownback would still have quite a bit of support. Their primary isn't until April 1st. Expect those numbers to be wildly different.
North Carolina - Public Policy Polling, November 5th: Fred Thompson 24%, Rudy Giuliani 19%, Mitt Romney 10%, John McCain 8%, Other 14%, Undecided 25%
Okalahoma - Tulsa World, May 16th: Rudy Giuliani 32%, John McCain 23%, Fred Thompson 15%, Mitt Romney 6%, Sam Brownback 5%, Mike Huckabee 2%, Chuck Hagel 2%, Tommy Thompson 2%, Undecided 13%
South Carolina - American Research Group, November 26th: Rudy Giuliani 23%, Mitt Romney 21%, Mike Huckabee 18%, Fred Thompson 13%, John McCain 10%, Ron Paul 3%, Duncan Hunter 2%, Tom Tancredo -%, Alan Keyes -%, Undecided 10%
Look for this to be one of the more telling numbers. It's a much more up to date poll than any of the others, and while you can bet that any further polls will certainly include Huckabee in them, you aren't likely to see some of those other states polled again for another month.
Texas - IVR Polls, November 15th: Rudy Giuliani 23%, Mike Huckabee 16%, Fred Thompson 16%, Mitt Romney 12%, John McCain 9%, Ron Paul 5%, Tom Tancredo 3%, Duncan Hunter 3%, Alan Keyes 1%, Undecided 11%
From a poll of previous GOP Primary voters. Their primary is in March.
I couldn't find anything on Virginia either, but elsewhere I saw that Giuliani was leading both Oklahoma and Virginia, with McCain behind in both in second place. But those were taken pre-Fred Thompson.
I know all of that wasn't helpful, but it's hard when they don't take polls every month for what are considered to be the less important states.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Just thought I'd point out that it's an AP story carried on the Fox News website, not a Fox story...
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I think what happened was that Romney and Giuliani both came across as defensive in the YouTube debate. Huckabee will have to get defensive too. But I think the three of them will settle in as the serious contenders. (Unfortunately... I still prefer McCain.)
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Interesting numbers. He's in the hunt, certainly. I'd say that his being in the lead doesn't matter, but it'll be great press for him.
Other than that, the Republican nom is a crapshoot, and I don't see that changing in the next four weeks.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Anyone remember the numbers Howard Dean was getting when the first primaries went off 4 years ago? He was dead in the water in a matter of weeks after supposedly being the runaway favorite.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Yeah, but you DO remember the surrounding circumstances don't you?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I was just trying to refresh my memory. I do remember that I thought Dean was better favored to run against Bush based on his leadership temperment (which basically boiled down to him serving as a state executive rather than a legislator).
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Interestingly, although there has been a corresponding shift, there is a still a disconnect between the InTrade prediction market and that latest poll. For contracts on the probability of the next republican presidential nominee Guiliani is still rating 41.7% (down 0.9%), Romney at 19.8% (down 3.9%) and Huckabee is at 18.0% (up 3.9%)
There is money to be made for some brave soul, much braver than I, if someone thinks that the market is wrong and that Huckabee is really in the lead and not Guiliani...
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Dean was leading in national polls, including Iowa, and had a huge double digit lead in New Hampshire. He was also a national fundraising leader, which makes his situation different from anyone's in this year's primary. But Edwards and Kerry surged at the last moment and handed Dean a pretty bad third place defeat. Even then he still had a massive lead in New Hampshire until the infamous "Dean scream," which audience members to this day insist wasn't a big deal because of the noise of the crowd, which the mic didn't pick up.
But the news ran with it, and 700 scream repeats later, Dean lost a 30 point edge in New Hampshire to Kerry and Edwards, which effectively ended his campaign, but vaulted him to DNC chairman.
I'd say the situations aren't really analagous, as Dean was a frontrunner for weeks by huge margins in NH, and was also a serious fundraising titan. His loss I think can mainly be attributed to the scream, and a poor showing in Iowa, but a poor showing in Iowa alone doesn't kill a 30 point lead. That's catastrophic, and none of the Republican candidates have nearly that kind of lead now.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
Huckabee is a bigot. He's against gay marriage and gay civil unions.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Thanks for the tip, mucus, I probably am that brave but I just bought a car this week so we're strapped.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Seriously, unless you really have money that you can afford to lose, I wouldn't play in these markets. As I understand it, the whole thing is a zero-sum game so unless you have insider knowledge or you have some above-average ability to judge how likely events are beyond the ability of everyone else with limited information, you will lose over the long term if only due to frictional costs.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
It isn't a zero sum game, but it is a game where prices converge to expected payoffs (indeed, that's the point).
Treat it like day trading. Only play with money you're ready and willing to lose.
Now, sometimes you can make guaranteed money, by finding arbitrage opportunities (such as when two exactly complementary combinations of contracts have non-complementary prices, meaning by buying at the right differential you can guarantee you'll make money, no matter which set comes true).
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Threads: Huckabee is a bigot. He's against gay marriage and gay civil unions.
Then aren't all the republican candidates technically bigots? And at least one of the dems, if I remember correctly.
Not saying I don't agree with you.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I think InTrade is probably a bit like gambling, in my view, since I wouldn't actually be buying a stock in anything, but in the likelihood of something happening.
Is there any way to short sell Hillary? I actually asked that when you first linked to it yesterday.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by Threads: Huckabee is a bigot. He's against gay marriage and gay civil unions.
Then aren't all the republican candidates technically bigots? And at least one of the dems, if I remember correctly.
Not saying I don't agree with you.
If they aren't for at least equal rights civil unions then yes. I personally don't believe in "separate but equal" either but it's a lot better than nothing.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: I think InTrade is probably a bit like gambling, in my view, since I wouldn't actually be buying a stock in anything, but in the likelihood of something happening.
Is there any way to short sell Hillary? I actually asked that when you first linked to it yesterday.
Sorry, I must have missed it. Yeah, all you need to do is sell a contract based on the probability of Hilary winning the Presidency rather than buying one. It is very much like gambling in fact.
fugu: I could be wrong, but you're going to have to explain why it isn't a zero sum game. As far as money is concerned, it seems very much like a casino, a futures exchange on which inTrade is based on, or any other zero-sum game. For every dollar someone wins, another person needs to lose a dollar. In fact, its a little worse than a zero-sum game because of the trading commissions.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Ah, you meant from that perspective. In the narrow, they're a zero sum game. However, people buying futures are frequently impacted, at least a little, by the futures. This makes it very much not a zero sum game.
For instance, someone whose business is heavily dependent on the price of a certain thing staying low might bet quite a bit that the price of it will become high. This makes him better off no matter what happens (well, assuming he chose the right amount). Similarly, the person who was betting 'against' him might well become better off by their transaction, meaning both people have gained by being on the futures market.
I wonder how common arbitrage opportunities are on intrade.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
The other candidates might as well call it a day: the moving finger has written, and Huckabee got the nod. Or so he says.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Oh, in the non-financial sense.
Alright, of course that means that you're implying that given Pooka's obvious dislike of Hilary Clinton, she should actually bet that Clinton will win. That way if Clinton loses, Pooka will still feel happy despite losing some money and if Clinton wins, she'll have some extra spending money Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yep. That's a very rational thing to do.
The trick, of course, is figuring out how much you value hilary clinton not winning in dollar terms.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Another point here is that this kind of prediction is sometimes self-fulfilling. People will throw their weight behind a candidate who looks likely to win. So in principle, by betting that, say, Obama will win and thus making InTrade report better odds for him, you are slightly increasing his chance of victory. That could be worth a bit of money, too. And what's more, it's an option open even to non-citizens.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
What a dumb system. That means money is power and voice. Since when was money the official language of the United States?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
KoM: the markets aren't watched that much. By far more of the effect is people who bet too heavily out of line with the odds lose money.
edit: this has been observed, when people try to manipulate the markets in that way. The change in price has rarely lasted more than a short time (hours to a day, depending on market size), as intelligent traders arbitrage the difference in odds away.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
And for C3PO: Elections anywhere can be influenced in the same way. Talking about someone being a winner (which is essentially what futures markets are, a bunch of people talking by using money) influences their chances of winning. If it makes you feel any better, the election is probably more influenced by which side of the head the candidates part their hair on (or whether or not they part it at all) than by futures markets
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Since when was money the official language of the United States?
1782.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Since when was money the official language of the United States?
1782.
Tom wins the thread.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
KoM: If we take the Ron Paul example, imagine if some Ron Paul supporter really wanted to make Ron Paul look like he's doing better than he really is and suddenly starting buying up contracts for his victory. There would be a spike in his "chance of victory."
However, people would start to notice that there would be a strange deviance in the probability of Ron Paul winning and the probability that everyone else loses (which would be represented by the sum of the probabilities of everyone else losing). As fugu said, they could buy one and sell the other, effectively making money from just the difference and forcing the probability down again.
The other problem is that as the probability goes up, it actually starts to become more expensive to buy up Ron Paul contracts making the supporter lose money faster and it actually encourages people to bet against him, to take the bet against him, simply because its such a "good deal."
C3PO: *shrug* Money is the power and voice, but more importantly for the accuracy of the prediction market, it is also the motivation to get accurate results. For example, if someone knew that Obama had a deep dark secret and he was actually a scientologist, then they could sell contracts on his chances and make a bundle of money when the truth eventually comes out. This would not be reflected in the polls, they would not be motivated to reveal this for free.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I just don't think Hillary will stay as high as $64 on an ongoing basis. It would not at all be my intention to buy and hold through the election, but to buy and then sell when there has been an acceptable gain, however I would define that.
Seems like some system my in-laws bought into that was supposed to help them not trade emotionally (yeah, right) reccommended 20%, but if I look at it that way, I don't think Hillary is guaranteed 20% over value. There's just going to be a point, when the Republicans have a clear leader, that it's going to come back to about 50 in my opinion. Okay, I guess that is 20%. But anyway, I would still have to say it's basically gambling, particularly when they dice up into specifice events like "wins the nomination". If we just bought stock in the actual candidate, that would be closer to a legit market (from the "is it gambling" standpoint.)
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
It isn't possible to 'buy stock in the actual candidate'. There is no way that the candidate can be translated, even theoretically, into value for shareholders, like companies can.
And it isn't a stock market, its a futures market. It is exactly like a futures market in that respect.
It is and it isn't gambling. If you're just out to make money, and you just buy things without arbitraging, then it is gambling. If you're buying it to offset your losses if things go the other direction, then its not gambling (quite the opposite; it reduces your risk). If you're buying arbitrage positions, you're just making money on inconsistencies.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I guess I don't know what a futures market is, then -- probably because most people I talk to money about would not be comfortable with that (i.e. my parents or various books on how to be fiscally responsible).
I mean, I only recently decided I was fed up with not really understanding the Dow. What I learned kind of blew me away (which is that the divisor of the "average" is now less than one.)
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
quote:Yeah, Mormons used the be democrats too. Though it was longer ago than 1960... more like pre FDR.
Actually it was pri Utah statehood. A close to 50-50 split was in place when the state was admitted to the Union. My family was "called" to be Democrats. We are still Democrats, but now because they are the party that currently represents our family's values.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The divisor is just a way of normalizing based on when a stock does a split or a reverse split, so that the value of the DJIA stays the same before or after.
The DJIA isn't complicated, its just a way of calculating an average 'value' for a set of stocks that people for some reason has decided is a good indicator of the performance people are interested in (it certainly isn't a good indicator of a lot of things, so the popularity is probably mostly a historical artifact).
A futures market is a risky business (excepting arbitrage opportunities, of course, and even those require you to do some calculation to make sure you don't lose money, and people mess them up all the time), so yes, it isn't something to invest in, unless you are doing it for fun, or are willing to accept the risk, or have other financial considerations with risk that you are using futures to offset, or are taking the time to identify arbitrage opportunities. In those cases, it is
Btw, there are futures markets you can play without money. You might check out the Hollywood Stock Exchange. Those you can treat as games.
It is very much like gambling. A bet on a roulette wheel can be thought of as buying a future on the ball landing on that number.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Since when was money the official language of the United States?
1782.
I'd have said 1776. What happened in 1782 that I'm forgetting?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
quote:'d have said 1776. What happened in 1782 that I'm forgetting?
The cost of corn liquor stabilized, allowing more easily transportable coinage to replace it in most business trades.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
According to the google ad at the bottom I can vote for Hillary for president RIGHT NOW! Or else it says that Hillary is FOR the year 2008, at least that is something we both agree on. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Huckabee is a bigot. He's against gay marriage and gay civil unions.
So to oppose legalization of SSM or some civil equivalent is to be bigoted?
So does that mean to oppose SSM but not some civil equivalent is, what, the 2% milk of bigotry?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Hillary Clinton, on Issues dictionary, is reported to say she does not support SSM and knows hardly anyone who does. So, yeah. 2%.
The crazy thing about the DJIA is that a change in the index means something very different than what most people think it means. I had always wondered how it got to be such a staggering number (it was in the 2k range when I first started paying attention -- the Black Tuesday of 1987). I supposed a percentage change is still somewhat accurate.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Huckabee is a bigot. He's against gay marriage and gay civil unions.
So to oppose legalization of SSM or some civil equivalent is to be bigoted?
So does that mean to oppose SSM but not some civil equivalent is, what, the 2% milk of bigotry?
Eh, I'd say it's more Half-and-Half.
Mmmm, half-and-half...
-Bok
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yeah, I don't even know what most people think the DJIA is, exactly. There's not much point to it, beyond being available for journalists (and historians, maybe?) to talk about and people who aren't much interested in stock markets to notice.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven:
quote:'d have said 1776. What happened in 1782 that I'm forgetting?
The cost of corn liquor stabilized, allowing more easily transportable coinage to replace it in most business trades.
Still seems an odd date. Before the Constitution was ratified, the central government didn't have the power to create a national currency, thus there were 13 separate ones. I said 1776 because that's when Wealth of Nations was published, in concert with the Declaration of Independence and what not. Other than that I'd say 1789 when the Constitution was ratified and we unified under a single currency.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
When one says "average", one generally thinks of a set of data, the sum of which is divided by the number of items. That's why I'm astonished that the DJIA is a sum of 30 stocks divided not by 30, but by >1. I understand why they do it, so that the DJIA is the same after any split or similar event as before it. It just blew me away.
I was also blown away that no one had ever been able to describe it to me before. I asked various people during the buildup in the 90's and no one seemed to have a good answer. I guess my dad might have told me right when I was very young and I didn't understand the answer.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I think you may have been going for this. (your link links back to this hatrack page.)
I think with Intrade, though, there's no reason anyone has to trade in a way that reflects reality. Once the price gets too high, won't people stop buying even if the event is happening? Is that how other futures markets work?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
If people don't try to trade in a way that reflects reality, they are either unable to make trades or they lose money. That's a pretty good reason.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I caught about 20 minutes of the republican debate on the radio this morning and much to my shock, I was impressed with Huckabee.
As I'm sure most of you Hatrackers are aware, my politics are typically a bit to the left of Karl Marx. I am usually disgusted or even outraged by most of what republican politicians have to say. I haven't really paid much attention to Huckabee. What I knew about him was that he was once a baptist minister, a former govenor of Arkansas, a supporter of the Iraq war and that he was really popular with Christian Conservatives. I'd lumped him in the same category with Jerry Fallwell and Pat Roberson whose politics I generally find deplorable. I figured he might be popular with the religious right but would never be appeal to appeal to moderates and swing voters.
Well I was wrong about Huckabee. The rest of the republican candidates more or less lived up to what I expected and as usual I was disgusted and a bit outraged at much of what they had to say. But Huckabee actually said a number of things that made sense and appealed to me. His comments on climate change, education, the economy and such I found very reasonable.
I still wouldn't say he is my favorite candidate. I do have some serious policy differences with the man. But he is my favorite republican candidate right now. He would still have to do alot to pursuade me to vote republican but I can imagine voting for him under certain circumstances which is more than I can say for any other republican candidate.
My conclusion. I'm not a Huckabee fan but I've changed my mind about whether he is a viable candidate that could win in the general election and not just a darling of the Christian Right.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
His stance on immigration seemed the most Christian to me as well.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I was starting to like Huckabee until I read a Post editorial that quoted the head of the Minutemen project stating that he could have written Huckabee's immigration plan.
Now, I'll definitely read the plan for myself, but I can't imagine liking it with that kind of endorsement. Moreover, the faults I imagine will be significant faults and the plan is likely to be very uncompassionate.
And I had been encouraged by his record on the subject from his time as governor.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Since my previous posts, I've looked at a number of Huckabee websites and I'm a lot less positive now. What's published on his sites just sounds so different from what he was saying in the debate.
The immigration debate Dag mentioned is a good example. From what was said during the debate (much of it in reference to his record as Governor) I was very optomistic. When you look at the details, its alot worse.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
What's he want to do?
McCain seemed more in touch with reality on immigration. Everyone else seems to think they can wave a magic wand and make all the immigrants disappear somehow.
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)