Posted on 11/07/2007 12:58:23 PM PST by jaybeegee
Fred Thompson stops by Steve Gill’s radio show and reacts to the Pat Robertson endorsement of Rudy Giuliani, talks immigration reform and shares his impression of Governor Mike Huckabee as a “pro-life liberal.”
“When you’re very, very low and you come in for a while just very low then that’s considered to be a surge in politics. He’s doing better.
He’s a good man but he’s a pro-life liberal. He’s right on the pro-life part, but he’s a liberal. You look at his taxes in the state you look at what he said about immigration. You know he worked against any attempt to control immigration coming in through his home state…”
~ Fred Thompson on Mike Huckabee on the Steve Gill Show
----end excerpt----
Fred also lets Rudy (yes, he calls him Rudy) have it on gun licensing. Audio here.
(Excerpt) Read more at news2wkrn.com ...
Look, for the 43rd time, we all understand that Mike and his band played at the FR ball. He’s a nice guy. I’m sure that if I met him over a game of racquetball and a sushi lunch we would hit it off splendidly. It’s nothing personal, 98% of FReepers just disagree with his policies and actions while in office.
Nobody here is interested in you reminding people that he played guitar at the feast where Jesus performed the miracle of the loaves and fishes in 0031.
The difference is this: at the time of the civil war, the abomination of slavery was already with the states. With abortion, we're one step behind -- it's as if slavery were being mandated in every state. That means that returning it to the states is a positive step forward.
The Founding Fathers were no lovers of slavery (even most of those who had slaves detested it as an institution). Yet, they permitted slavery to be a states' issue to get the Constitution through. Abortion is going to be decided in the states one way or another -- the states have to approve a Constitutional amendment. Overturning Roe is a good first step.
Thanks for the articles. I note that even in 2004, Intrade had $2M being bet back & forth on GWB. There was an attempt to manipulate it per Wikipedia, but it failed. These markets are not perfectly efficient (no market is) but they are better predictors than anything else, including pundits and especially MSM Polls more than a year out. These markets are here to stay, and their presence is growing, especially in corporate america as internal vehicles to help get a handle on aggregated conventional wisdom.
From the article you pointed to:
Those Spurious Presidential Futures:
http://www.thestreet.com/p/_rms/rmoney/barryritholtz/10185976.html
Intrade.com claims to be the largest futures exchange in the world, and its biggest contract — the George W. Bush futures — has about $2 million invested currently.
.
.
.
Excerpt from
A little before 1 a.m. — with the Intrade odds at 37 percent — CNN broadcast a live interview with John Aravosis, a liberal activist. “We pretty much know where we are,” Mr. Aravosis said. “The Dems have the House. Republicans have the Senate. And, you know, I don’t think that’s going to change by morning.”
It did change, of course. Mr. Allen soon conceded, and the Democrats began planning their majority. Mr. Wolfers, an economist at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, sitting in the comfort of his living room, had been a better pundit than most of the professionals on television, thanks to a Web site that is based in Ireland.
Over the last few years, Intrade — with headquarters in Dublin, where the gambling laws are loose — has become the biggest success story among a new crop of prediction markets.
.
.
.
.
Excerpt from
Were the InTrade prediction markets on the November 2006’s Senate elections accurate?
Chris. F. Masse August 2nd, 2007
Revisiting the issue, almost one year later.
Lance Fortnow (University of Chicago) wrote:
So how did those predictions go? In short you can say the markets predicted every individual race correctly but got the senate wrong, but let us look a little more carefully.
At about 9 AM CST on the morning of election day I made a snap shot of the map for a Discovery Channel Website article.
Every state colored blue was won by a democrat and every state colored red went to a republican. But also note the 69% given to GOP (Republican) Senate control although this election will give control to the democrats. No outcome would have made all the states and senate control agree with the 9 AM map.
Were the markets inconsistent? No, because the markets predict not absolutely but probabilistically. For example, the markets gave a probability of winning 60% for each of Virginia and Missouri and the democrats needed both to take the senate. If these races were independent events, the probability that the democrats take both is 36% or a 64% chance of GOP senate control assuming no other surprises.
Of course the races were not independent events and there are other states involved making it more difficult to compare the probabilities of the individual races with that of senate control.
So how did the markets do as predictors? Quite well as the outcome seems quite reasonable given the markets. Other outcomes would have also been reasonable such as the Democrats losing Virginia and the senate remaining in republican hands, a possibility that came very close to happening.
.
.
.
Excerpt from
New York Times on prediction markets — REDUX
Chris. F. Masse February 14th, 2007
- New York Times.
- Justin Wolfers Interview - by New York Times - (MP3) - 2007-02-14
http://www.midasoracle.org/2007/02/14/new-york-times-on-prediction-markets-redux/
- Justin Wolfers‘ comment on my “08 is two years away [*]” comment:
Your concern about the accuracy of markets two years out seems entirely well placed. But again - and I think it is worth saying this over and over - the relevant question is whether the markets do a better job than alternative information aggregation devices. My own analysis (with Andrew Leigh) of Australian polling data suggests that any polling done more than a year before an election is essentially useless. That is, you are better off simply guessing that the previous election results will repeat themselves, than you are using early polls.
.
.
.
Excerpt from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prediction_market
In the Tradesports 2004 presidential markets there was an apparent manipulation effort. An anonymous trader sold short so many Bush 2004 presidential futures contracts that the price was driven to zero, implying a zero percent chance that Bush would win. The only rational purpose of such a trade would be an attempt to manipulate the market in a strategy called a “bear raid”. If this was a deliberate manipulation effort it failed, however, as the price of the contract rebounded rapidly to its previous level. As more press attention is paid to prediction markets, it is likely that more groups will be motivated to manipulate them. However, in practice, such attempts at manipulation have always proven to be very short lived. In their paper entitled “Information Aggregation and Manipulation in an Experimental Market” (2005),[11] Hanson, Oprea and Porter (George Mason U), show how attempts at market manipulation in fact end up increasing the accuracy of the market because they provide that much more profit incentive to bet against the manipulator.
Interesting post, also the next one.
Thanks muchly — it’s a very interesting topic. As I said, I’m going to do some more digging on this; I appreciate the article links.
I do wonder as Intrade is used more and more as a barometer of a politician’s success, whether it becomes more and more likely that it will be massively manipulated by the most well-funded campaigns. For the record, I don’t believe the polls are good predictors either (especially so far out)...and as we know, the polls are also subject to manipulation. The only safe bet right now is that it’s too soon to know anything (although that doesn’t make for good discussion fodder).
Whatever happens, let’s remember to do a post-primary and post-election analysis to bring the conversation full-circle (that is, if we’re not all too busy tearing our hair and rending our garments).
Well, that manipulation thing already was tried, and I get the impression that the guy betting against GWB lost a ton of money.
If you had a $Million and you wanted to be effective in getting your message out, would you spend it trying to manipulate the $2M on Intrade for that contract? You could lose ALL of it, and have nothing to show for it. At least if you spent it on advertising, TV, bumperstickers, or free bubble gum, you’d have something to show for it. There are possibilities for manipulating the markets, but it’s basically not worth it. In a way, that aspect of it is self-correcting.
Well, this has kind of been Huckabee week for some reason....
But look at a campaign like Romney's. He's spending massive money and effort on non-binding, non-statistically-significant straw polls just to get a headline (not just in Iowa, but all over the place -- even states like Wyoming). It's a classic strategy that aims to promote the appearance of inevitability (which then leads to additional support from folks who see you as electable). I can easily envision it being a smart investment (if you have a ton of cash) to include Intrade and other electronic markets as part of this strategy. I'm not slamming Romney here, nor am I accusing his campaign of manipulating Intrade. But I could see how it would be a smart move for someone who is well-funded enough that he doesn't have to worry too much about opportunity cost.
Isn’t that kind of the point? Someone tried to manipulate Intrade 3 years ago and couldn’t. That was when Intrade was smaller, and it was probably the biggest contract. A manipulation of a lesser contract like Romney would show up like a hippo trying to hide behind a Stop Sign.
Romney is doing what wealthy candidates have always done — paying for name recognition. Someone that astute about money would realize it’s a bottomless hole to pour money down futures markets. It’s like raising and calling on every hand in poker. You’re bound to win some, but in the end almost all of your money ends up in the other players’ hands.
Earlier this month I was suspicious that the Paulestinians were invading InTrade because he was trading in the 9’s when his poll numbers were below 4%. But it turned out that, with his record-breaking $4M one day fundraiser and all that entails, his support was real, and now he’s trading in the 8’s, a classic case of buy-on-the-rumor-and-sell-on-the-news.
Of course these markets are not immune to manipulation, but I see on the forum that it’s common for them to compare their own results to other markets and then other poll results numbers and it keeps cycling through.
Good grief, it seems like a giant hall of mirrors.
Step right up, here, place your bets, watch the little birdie go round & round...
What’s it like working for NARAL?
Ask Fred, I believe he did dome pro-abort lobbying work.
Thanks, for the links!
Pants on fire!!!
I guess it really isn’t possible to teach an old dog new tricks.
As Fred says:
"I’ve experienced another gambit of those schooled in the creative uses of law and politics: dredging up clients – or another lawyer’s clients – that I may have represented or consulted with, and then using the media to get me into a public debate as to what I may have done for them or said to them 15 or 20 years ago. ...This situation does however bring to mind my many years in the law, and the nature of law practice in a country such as ours that prizes independence and individual rights. Of course, these values could not be protected without lawyer-client confidentiality or if lawyers were identified with the positions of their clients. ...The practice of law is a business as well as a profession. It’s the way you support your family. And if a client has a legal and ethical right to take a position, then you may appropriately represent him as long as he does not lie or otherwise conduct himself improperly while you are representing him. In almost 30 years of practicing law I must have had hundreds of clients and thousands of conversations about legal matters. Like any good lawyer, I would always try to give my best, objective, and professional opinion on any legal question presented to me."Right from the Horse's mouth.
Lawyers are evil? How about doctors? Or scientists? Envy is not attractive, and it’s unhealthy as well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.