Replies

so in other words, insider trading is essential for an efficient market...and the insiders were not for Dean.

how did Dole win the nomination in 96? couldn’t we compare phil graham to fred?

gramm

No, insider trading isn’t required for an efficient market, efficiency is. To have an efficient market you need rational buyers and my point is that the buyers aren’t rational at all. It isn’t that the information isn’t generally available to make rational choices, it is just that most people can’t process it. The history of the Democrat race in 2003-04 should be enough to prove my point.

Dole won the nomination in 1996 much as Fred is likely to win it this year. He was the last man standing when all the implausibles (Steve Forbes, Lamar!, Pat Buchanan)were eliminated. Dole had the added advantage of being the early favorite and therefore the default nominee absent the rise of a strong challenger. This year there really is no early favorite because the only legacy candidate, John McCain is a nonstarter.

Poor Phil Gramm was just the best-heeled implausible in 1996. He ran a dismal campaign which focused on his principal area of expertise and interest — economics, and failed to stake out any clear ground in other areas of importance to voters. He and Steve Forbes duked it out to see who would be Mr. Fiscal Conservative in the race. Forbes won. Gramm was gone after his fifth place finish in Iowa.

Fred’s hard-hitting clarity (consider his remarks yesterday about Hillary’s driver’s licenses for illegals gaff) makes him something of an Anti-Gramm. Unlike Gramm he is staking out clear, compelling positions on all the questions likely to drive voting behavior next year. More importantly, unlike Gramm he has no plausible competition.

Put your money on Fred. The long odds are gravy.