Intrade Odds 79.0 Obama 20.6 Romney

Intrade ^ | Current | Intrade

[stocksthatgoup]

Obama 79 Romney 21

[Mr. Silverback]

The racetrack.

No, seriously, at least on a comparative basis. The few guys who make good money betting on the ponies do so by evaluating a number of factors and defining a calculated risk using specialized knowledge. The guys on Intrade are just trying to grab some some easy scratch by betting on a “sure thing.” That’s why they heard about the Kerry landslide exit polls on election day and went to 90 Kerry-10 Bush. The AP wire said it, so it was a sure thing.

That said, I’m keeping one eye on the stock market and figuring that the height it’s at may be an indication that the investment crowd expects a Romney win. Interestingly, I’ve seen one article saying that some of the deeper data matches up with previous crashes...an October crash would indicate that I’m wrong about investors, but it would prove me right in the end because it would seal Obama’s electoral doom.

Lastly, consider this: It’s likely those 80% of Intrade guys who think Obama is going to win are looking at stuff like the Quinnipiac poll showing Romney down 10% in Ohio. That poll was oversampled by 9%. Yet the absentee and early voting from there is almost too good to be true. In 2008, those of us saying the polls were flawed ignored the early voting data that pointed to a huge Dem advantage. this year, people who think the polls and Intrade are right are ignoring the data showing a huge GOP advantage.

[Mr. Silverback]

Ignore him and others like him. They are no better than the establishment. Just like the GOPe, they see a win for themselves and their philosophy as more important than what happens to the country. SCOTUS nominations alone are enough to vote for Romney, but they won’t.

[Mr. Silverback]

See what I mean?

Out of 7 billion people on planet Earth, there are only two—TWO—that have any chance to take the oath of office on Jan 20. Anyone who doesn’t vote for one of them is living in a dream world, and it’s not less of a dream world because you think you’re pleasing Jesus with your pure, pure voting record.

[OneWingedShark]

Ignore him and others like him. They are no better than the establishment. Just like the GOPe, they see a win for themselves and their philosophy as more important than what happens to the country.

Er, so then you're a-ok with someone saying that they'll do something (with no such intention) and then turning around and shafting you?
You must really like the fact that any lie, or statement that could be considered misleading, told to a federal agent is a crime... and that federal agents have no such restriction placed on themselves, they can lie to your face with no consequence.

SCOTUS nominations alone are enough to vote for Romney, but they won’t.

Er, you do realize that Romney has a terrible record for appointing judges. (Admittedly this is second-hand, from Freepers in Romney's state, so I have little reason to doubt.)

[OneWingedShark]

Out of 7 billion people on planet Earth, there are only two—TWO—that have any chance to take the oath of office on Jan 20.

Irrelevant. I refuse to play the "the other guy's worse" game any more, I'll vote how I wish and that is it. It isn't my fault that the two main parties selected slimeballs for their candidates, is it?

Anyone who doesn’t vote for one of them is living in a dream world, and it’s not less of a dream world because you think you’re pleasing Jesus with your pure, pure voting record.

I held my nose and voted for McCain; that was enough. I no longer wish to have to "hold my nose" so I simply won't vote for someone that I don't [at least a little] believe in. As it is, Romney stands for nothing, take a look at his speech and compare it to his actions: the two do not line up -- but that's not hard to do when you contradict yourself all the time.

[JerseyDvl]

It’s information like this that makes me think we are whistling past the graveyard. I used to be a betting man and any team given an 80 percent chance of winning is damn near a sure thing.
If all the Romney supporters really thought he had a chance to win they would be making money in the process. After all, it is a known fact that his supporters have more money than Obama supporters and yet all the money is on Omuslim.
I’m no chicken Little and do believe theres something fishy about the polling but this definitely scares me.
Unless any smart FReepers can explain why this isn’t the case.

[Mr. Silverback]

The thing is that I was here in 2000 and had people telling me the same stuff about Bush. Guys like you always have a half-mast reason the guy who was nominated is a liar, a lib, the lesser of two evils, not worthy of your vote, blah, blah, blah.

On election day, I will take actions that will help Paul Ryan become the Vice President. You will take actions that help Joe Biden remain the Vice President. And you’ll ludicrously tell yourself you’re doing something to help the country, that you’re refusing to play a game. How absurd.

Like I said, the other side of the GOPe coin. No more a friend to conservatism than they are.

[Conservative12345]

Those gamblers at Intrade do not have any information beside media polls to place their bets... absolutely nothing else... So they follow the polls and make their bets... If they are too stupid to bet based on super biased polls I hope that many of them lose a lot of money...

[onthelookout777]

Agreed, Mr. Silverback. Thanks.

[Mr. Silverback]

You’re welcome, of course.

[Conservative12345]

It seems there is some very naive folks who simply cannot grasp that Intrade betting is based on MEDIA POLLS and nothing else what so ever... These fools who are betting at INTRADE have no special information and they only base their bets on MEDIA POLLS... If they are too stupid to make bets on BIASED MEDIA POLLS as it is happening in 2012 so let them and I want these morons to lose a lot of money...

[Conservative12345]

Intrade idiots have nothing else to base their bets on beside MEDIA POLLS... Do you really believe that these morons have some inside information besides MEDIA POLLS? Absolutely not... So since these fools are placing their bets on the very biased media polls of 2012 then I want them to lose a lot of money...

[OneWingedShark]

The thing is that I was here in 2000 and had people telling me the same stuff about Bush. Guys like you always have a half-mast reason the guy who was nominated is a liar, a lib, the lesser of two evils, not worthy of your vote, blah, blah, blah.

I had no problem voting for bush in 2000 or 2004, though I was extraordinarily disappointed with him when he left office (TARP), that disappointment has actually grown due to my realization that he did virtually nothing to secure America's borders, despite his "hawkish nature" regarding national security.

That, in turn, led me to really look at what the parties do, instead of what they're saying. The more I look, the more disappointment and, I'm honest, betrayal I feel towards the Republican party. [Go back and look at what I said in post 35, is there anything in there that is untrue?]

Because of this betrayal I'm not going to give the Republican-party any more passes; IOW I'm not looking at its popular reputation, but what it actually does, and of that most of the good points are [in recent years, at least] are undeserved.

On election day, I will take actions that will help Paul Ryan become the Vice President.

And I honestly fail to see how he is more influential in the roll of Vice President than as a congressman. (This may be due to the recent tradition of the VP neglecting his roll as President of the Senate.)

You will take actions that help Joe Biden remain the Vice President.

Ah, so in your world any non-Romney vote is one for Obama; one cannot be allowed to differ in opinion? I actually view Romney as worse for the country than Obama -- for the simple reason that people, who have started to become sensitive to the extent of government overreach, will roll-over and go back to sleep because they changed the 'D' next to the President to an 'R'.

That is to say: I consider a people who are aware to be better for America, than those who are willfully ignorant.

And you’ll ludicrously tell yourself you’re doing something to help the country, that you’re refusing to play a game. How absurd.

Really, and how will wishy-washy Romney help?
What we need, as a people, is something very near utterly independent from "who is President" -- what we need is a heart for Justice. {Indeed, see my tagline, it is Justice that we are commanded to do; and any love of Justice requires a love of Truth.} In short, even Madison asserted that the Constitution was utterly inadequate for an immoral people; and we are an immoral people. (Would a moral people kill millions of babies, before birth, and call it a good thing? An expression of choice? No.)

Like I said, the other side of the GOPe coin. No more a friend to conservatism than they are.

Really, and what is your "Conservatism"? Just keeping everything the way it is? Romney is not going to reduce Government size, scope, or overreach; I believe him to be a Statist who will only make things worse. (It may be true that 'worse' is "not as bad as Obama" but that entirely misses the point that it is worse and not better.)

You sell yourself short with your philosophy: you accept evil-by-the-glass, justifying yourself saying that it's better than by-the-swimming-pool, and thereby setting yourself up to never taste good. It is the sort of mindset that sets oneself up for failure and then tries for pity when one is losing.

[onthelookout777]

Romney at least would not be as bad as Obama-Biden-Hillary. At least Romney is much more pro-Israel.

It’s imperative to support our ally Israel. As, for example, Dr. Andy Woods has put it:

“... God has promised to bless the world through national Israel (Gen. 12:3b; Isa. 42:6; 49:6). Consequently, He promises to bless those who bless Israel and conversely vows to curse those who curse her (Gen. 12:3a; Joel 3:2b)...”

Romney is not totally divorced from economic realities, business realities, and debt realities - like Obama is.

And with Romney, at least we’d be rid of Hillary as Secretary of State.

It’s hard to fathom how conservatives can dump their votes down the proverbial commode by voting for 3rd party candidates, or not voting at all.

That just enables Obama.

You have the opportunity to vote for a ticket that includes PAUL RYAN.

[Tau Food]

On the radio today, Hugh Hewitt said that Romney is a lock and that he will win in a landslide like Reagan’s.

If Hugh Hewitt knows what he’s talking about, Intrade is offering free money.

If Hugh Hewitt knows what he’s talking about . . .

[Zajko]

At these odds with Intrade, $4,860 return for $1,000 stake. At best odds currently available with bookmakers, $5,500 return for $1,000 stake.

That’s on a simple bet for Romney to beat Obama. The corresponding return for a bet on Obama to win would be around $1,150 for a $1,000 stake (these figures include your stake money, thus a profit of only $150).

I know which looks like better value to me right now...

[Hot Tabasco]

Is than an actual money betting site?

[Zajko]

Very much so - and all other actual money betting sites (see helpful link in post 13) have similar odds.

This should be of concern: it’s nonsense to suggest that every betting site, both in the US and abroad, is somehow being manipulated. Money talks, and unlike polls, it doesn’t usually lie.

[OneWingedShark]

“... God has promised to bless the world through national Israel (Gen. 12:3b; Isa. 42:6; 49:6). Consequently, He promises to bless those who bless Israel and conversely vows to curse those who curse her (Gen. 12:3a; Joel 3:2b)...”

Ah, but is our foreign-aid really helping? Or could it actually become the equivalent of Affirmative Action or Food-stamps?

That is of course ignoring the point that I made earlier about the government having responsibility, first and foremost, to its own citizens. (Now I realize this is a radical thought, considering how our government penalizes its citizens and favors illegal aliens.) But if a government were to cease to exist because of some arguably good action, then that means that action entails with it the cessation of the government: the government that does not exist cannot do its job, therefore that action is counterproductive and, strictly in the terms of government, the wrong thing to do.

Romney is not totally divorced from economic realities, business realities, and debt realities - like Obama is.

So? He doesn't need to be in order to do damage. As I believe him a statist, it follows I believe he will do nothing to reduce government size, scope, or influence (read regulation)... and that, my friend, is all that is needed to do harm to the country.

It’s hard to fathom how conservatives can dump their votes down the proverbial commode by voting for 3rd party candidates, or not voting at all.
That just enables Obama.

No. You are wrong. What enables Obama is that people do nothing to oppose him. {Evil flourishes when good men do nothing, no?} Most damning is congress's lack of any sort of action, even something as incredibly offensive as Fast and Furious, they are complicit in their "don't rock the boat"/"go along to get along" attitude.

You have the opportunity to vote for a ticket that includes PAUL RYAN.

As I asked before: how would a VP Paul Ryan have more impact/influence than a congressman Paul Ryan?

[tatown]

Amen, I believe R&R win as well. I just wish I had a crystal wall to lock down my certainty. Lol