Posted on 10/31/2007 1:17:10 PM PDT by Plutarch
Thompson might still be hanging in there in national polls , but those trading money on the probability of Thompson becoming the nominee are increasingly bearish on his chances.
At one point, the probability of Thompson winning the GOP nomination was trading at 35% at Intrade . Over the last month his position has deteriorated, and in the last several days crumbled.
At Intrade Thompson is trading at 8.4%. At Iowa Electronic Markets 7.1%,
The validity of future’s markets is sometimes questioned. No one was questioning them, however, when Fred was trading at 35% .
With all due respect...I don’t know how much credit to give to a Freeper who has “The Tennessee Dud” on your homepage.
As there were numerous votes on some bills, kindly denote the bill numbers for us.
I'd say the candidates with the highest numbers in the "Last" column are those considered likeliest to drop out early...Dodd and Richardson.
Had "Fred Thompson" not been split out as a separate selection, anyone who had bought a $1 share of "Republican Rest of Field" would have won $1 had Fred Thompson been nominated, and also would have won $1 if the nomination had gone to someone else not listed. When the "Fred Thompson" option was added, every share of "Republican Rest Of Field" was replaced by two shares: one of "Fred Thompson", and one of "Republican Rest Of Field (other than Fred Thompson)". Under any circumstances where an earlier "Rest of Field" share would pay $1, one of the latter shares would pay $1 (and the other would be worthless).
Markets may provide insight, but their predictions are often sufficiently vague that it's hard to tell whether they were "right" or not. For example, a 5% showing by Fred may mean that a lot of people think he's not going to win the nomination unless some other candidates blow things worse than expected. Well, suppose the other candidates blow things badly and Fred gets the nomination. Does that mean the markets were right or wrong?
The real funny thing is, none bounced. But shhhhh, that would ruin a good story....
How about in the 2000 election? I’m just curious about how accurate they think they are.
OK so what’s the deal with that? That rumor/fact has been floated around here a lot.
Momaw,
Do you have the accuracy of the market traders in re. to the 2004 Democratic field?
JJ
If I recall, they did not have trades set up for the 2000 election.
But they had two major markets in 2004 that bought and sold for the dems primary and the general. I do not recall their accuracy though.
Momaw Nadon did post weekly threads. If you have the time or interest, you can peruse his posts from 2003.
JJ
I don't think any extramarital shenanigans would adversely affect a candidate who is criticized mainly for being too old, lacking energy, and lacking initiative.
That’s because the presidency has been dishonored by a scumbag in the whitehouse who showed disrespect for the institution by sexually harrassing women, even paying at least one $500k to go away. And that’s just the one where we had evidence. No, we don’t need another president like that, from either party.
Haven't seen any leadership either.
Although fun, these things are useless. I remember about 5:30 or so, just before going home the night of the Kerry-Bush election I took a look at TradeSports.com. Bush was tanking and the money was going to Kerry fast. At the time I thought that it meant something, late that night I found out it didn’t mean a thing.
You read it wrong. The percentage likelihood of Romney dropping out was last sold at 2.5%, currently asking 5% with no takers.
Maybe you want to retract what you said about this crap? Or should we ask for an over/under on the likelihood of a mumbly justification that allows you to save face?
And that's the problem. Hunter is the most conservative of all the GOP field, but is not electable in the primaries because very few people outside CA know anything about him. That's why conservatives MUST face reality and unite behind the most conservative of the leading candidates, i.e., Thompson in order to stop one or the other of the RINO twins, Rudy and Mitt, from being nominated and throwing the nation into at least 4 years of Hillary's despotic collectivism.
Fred isn't as conservative as I would like him to be and I don't agree with all of his positions, especially the marriage amendment, but he's light years better than Rudy and almost that much better than Mitt. Hunter would be my first choice, and was early in the race, but I soon realized that he has no chance of winning nomination so I will get behind Fred as the next best thing.
If the GOP conservatives remain split by hanging in there with conservative candidates who can't win we will get Rudy or Mitt as GOP nominee in 08 and then Hillary as president in 09. But if we unite behind the only acceptably conservative candidate who has a chance to win I believe we can win the whole kit and kaboodle.
It does show that Fred’s numbers were what was driving the rest of the field prior to that. And notice that the rest of the field has now surpassed Fred.
This is a wide open race.
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.