Posted on 07/04/2005 8:10:01 AM PDT by BCrago66
Scroll down a little, then click on "Legal" to the right, to see the odds on various candidates to be nominated to the Supreme Court.
Yesterday, Garza was the clear front-runner. Today, Gonzales has pulled just behind Garza, after a gain of 11 points. The most hopeful development, from my perspective, is that Janice Rodgers Brown is now tied for 3rd place with Luttig, after gaining 10.9 points in the last 24 hours.
Do the TradeSports betters know something that I don't?
If you go down to political, it also shows Hitlery as the favorite to win the 2008 election, too.
Trade sports says that? Well its settled then!
TradeSports does tends to settle matters.
It was certainly more accurate than any of the polls during the last couple election cycles. Read the works of economists on the power of the distributed intelligence contained in markets, then get back to me.
False. She's the favorite to win the Democratic nomination, not the general election. I'd bet the house on that proposition (except I live in an apartment.)
No it wasn't. It taked right before the election and predicted a Kerry win, before flipping to Bush around 11pm when most of the votes were counted and it was becoming inevitable.
taked=tanked
Not TradeSports. It was predicting a Bush win for quite some time prior to the election.
You're talking about the day of the election itself, when TradeSports was not really about prediction, but was in effect reporting the results of returns as they came in, including the false early reports of the Voter News Service (that consortium created by the MSM changed its name for the 2004 cycle, but I forget that name now.)
I stand by my statement. In the days and weeks and months preceding the election, when the major polls were vacilating between Kerry and Bush, TradeSports consistently had President Bush as the favorite.
George W. Bush doesn't really comprise his own market. Ultimately, he will choose whatever nominee appeals most to his own sense of who offers the most bang for the buck. He will listen to the grassroots ("distributed intelligence in the markets"), but in the end who he chooses might not be whom the grassroots most want. He is not always predictable.
Look again.
She's the fave to win the Dem nomination.
The Dems are favored to win the presidential election.
Ergo.
It's President Bush's choice. But people motivated by money are more likely to ferret out information as to what that choice is than those who get paid to write columns, speculate on TV, etc., regardless of the truth of thier utterances. And there is such a thing as objective evidence of a single man's choice, e.g., Bush talks to people, nominees make trips to Washington DC which someone detects, etc.
I never said that the decision itself is market-based or poll-driven. I said that the market is an excellent information gathering tool, more likely to get the right answer than other tools. You're conflating the propositions.
LOL, the day that mattered most, their prediction flipped to wrong, then very wrong.
Your original startment was not an inferential argument, but the assertion that:
"If you go down to political, it also shows Hitlery as the favorite to win the 2008 election, too."
That is flat out false (as Hillary is only listed as the favorite to win the Dem nomination) and you should admit it before you go on to make a second, inferential argument.
As to your inferential argument, it is faulty:
A will likely beat B
+
B will likely beat C
DOES NOT EQUAL
A will likely beat C
ERGO, so far you're 0 for 2.
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.