(Vanity) According to Intrade, the winner of today's GOP debate was... Duncan Hunter.

Vanity ^ | 12/12/07 | Kevmo

[Kevmo]

Here are the new Intrade results after the debate, as posted on the official discussion thread.

For the first time there has been a measurable change for DUNCAN HUNTER, doubling in price and showing a major jump embedded in Iowa.Field with a 3.3 point jump.

Duncan Hunter Won the debate. Huckabee Lost.

And, since this is going to be controversial, I will point out that I’ve been logging onto several prior debate threads where I analyzed the changes in Intrade results from the debates -- and usually the analysis showed was Huckabee who won. This time it's Hunter.

Naturally, those with an axe to grind will go out of their way to belittle this analysis. Out of all the candidates, Hunter seems to have his own version of a peanut gallery. Notably, when I had pointed out in earlier debates that Huckabee had won, no one could fault the analysis -- they merely felt that Intrade was not a reliable source of information. The reason why I proceed from Intrade is that it is an aggregated form of information, its only bias is from whether or not someone can make money from the contracts, and predictive markets have proven to be more reliable than poll results. As an example, refer to this article on Free Republic:

The Efficacy Of Prediction Markets The Liberty Papers ^ | November 8, 2007 | Brad Warbiany http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1922961/posts

2008 Republican Presidential Nominee Old Price … New Price… Change

2008.GOP.NOM.GIULIANI 41.1 41.1 No chg 2008.GOP.NOM.ROMNEY 20.2 21.4 +1.2 2008.GOP.NOM.HUCKABEE 17.8 18.0 +0.2 2008.GOP.NOM.MCCAIN 9.2 9.2 No chg 2008.GOP.NOM.PAUL 5.0 6.0 +1.0 2008.GOP.NOM.THOMPSON(F) 5.1 5.0 -0.1 2008.GOP.NOM.HUNTER 0.1 0.2 +0.1

Ron Paul's contracts saw a 20% rise, Thompson's saw a 2% fall, Huckabee's saw a 1% rise, Romney's saw a 6% rise and Hunter's saw a 100% rise in price.

Winner of 2008 Republican Iowa Caucus

Old Price … New Price … Price Change REP.IOWA.HUCKABEE Mike Huckabee to Win 72.5 70.8 -1.7 REP.IOWA.ROMNEY Mitt Romney to Win 25.1 25.1 No chg REP.IOWA.THOMPSON(F) Fred Thompson to Win 1.5 1.5 No chg REP.IOWA.GIULIANI Rudy Giuliani to Win 0.4 2.5 +2.1 REP.IOWA.MCCAIN John McCain to Win 0.5 1.7 +1.2 REP.IOWA.FIELD Field (any other individual) to Win 1.1 4.4 +3.3

The biggest changes were Giuliani and the Field. Hunter, Tancredo and Ron Paul are all embedded in the field. Interpolating from the fact that Tancredo's NOM contract saw no change and no volume, the two biggest elements would be Ron Paul's and Hunter's contracts. It's a real safe bet at this stage -- later on an Intrader would need to decide if he wanted to stick with Hunter or Paul when the contracts split out from the field. Further interpolating From Ron Paul's 20% rise and Hunter's 100% rise, that would leave about a half point rise due to Ron Paul's performance and maybe 2 & a half point rise for Hunter for Iowa.Win.

Rudy also seems to have done well in this debate for the Iowa results. Thompson and Huckabee lost ground.

The smart money really IS on Duncan Hunter.

.

.

.

Why the smart money is on Duncan Hunter http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1926032/posts

[Momaw Nadon]

Thanks for the ping!

I’m happy to see that Duncan Hunter is going up on Intrade, at least in Iowa! It’s about time.

Duncan Hunter is far and away the most qualified person to be the next President of the United States. It just baffles me that he is not the frontrunner for the 2008 GOP nomination.

[deport]

So was the volume of trades large, normal, mediocre in relation to other times, debates, etc?

20 Days............. Get ‘R Done, send them wannbes back to the wood pile......

[Kevmo]

Wow, you really are the laziness king. See post #92 for your answer.

.

.

.

Why the smart money is on Duncan Hunter
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1926032/posts

[Kevmo]

If anyone has it wrong, it’s Free Republic. In 2006 we showed 8% who believed we’d lose the house & senate, while the prediction markets had the reverse at 80%.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1922961/posts?page=22#22

Everyone gets it wrong at times. The aggregate data shows that prediction markets get it right more than poll data.

[ejonesie22]

That’s because it’s atyoo. It should have been “can’t”...

[ejonesie22]

A typo...

Damn Treo...

[Kevmo]

Wow, a typo within a typo.

OK, now your comment makes sense.

Prior performance is not indicative of future results.
***No one can predict the future, but for those who use the data to generate analyses, the Intrade and other prediction market results are better than poll results. If you ever proceed from poll results, then by implication the prediction market is just as worthwhile, actually more worthwhile.

[Kevmo]

Update:
2008.GOP.NOM.HUNTER last trade price was 0.3, slowly rising.

Pres.field continues to move

2008.PRES.FIELD
Field (any other candidate) to win 2008 US Presidential Election M 0.1 0.2 0.1 9896 +0.0

Rep.Iowa shows some more action, probably in favor of Ron Paul + Hunter, since they’re still tied, making it an even more attractive bet from a liquidity standpoint.

Winner of 2008 Republican Iowa Caucus
REP.IOWA.HUCKABEE
Mike Huckabee to Win M 66.5 69.9 66.5 874 -6.0
REP.IOWA.ROMNEY
Mitt Romney to Win M 25.0 32.8 25.0 767 -0.1
REP.IOWA.THOMPSON(F)
Fred Thompson to Win M 1.6 4.3 1.6 230 +0.1
REP.IOWA.GIULIANI
Rudy Giuliani to Win M 0.7 2.4 0.7 415 +0.3
REP.IOWA.MCCAIN
John McCain to Win M 0.3 2.0 0.3 150 -0.2
REP.IOWA.GINGRICH
Newt Gingrich to Win M - 0.1 0.1 0 0
REP.IOWA.HAGEL
Chuck Hagel to Win M - 0.1 0.1 0 0
REP.IOWA.FIELD
Field (any other individual) to Win M 6.0 7.0 6.0 384 +4.9

.

.

.

Why the smart money is on Duncan Hunter
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1926032/posts

[ejonesie22]

While I would tend to agree that prediction markets could be a better indicator given the fact that people with a better knowledge of the issue/object of investment tend to be involved, they are susceptible to the same dynamics that can sway polls.

Give the volatility of politics in this day and age and the amount of information and the speed of it’s acquisition via the Internet etc., I would not put too much stock in either markets or polls past their current value as a window on where things are, not where they will be.

[wolfcreek]

http://www.firesociety.com/article/20083/National-Poll-Confirms—quot-Hucka-Surge-quot—Among-Grassroots-Conservatives/;jsessionid=2766EF3AD3D50C88E36A98EACB0D3624

This is a fairly sizable poll (67000 Conservative respondents)

Although I can’t see these people going for the Huckster.

[Kevmo]

as a window on where things are,
***Hence, the before & after snapshot of the debate, showing Hunter to be the winner. Just like the before & after showed Huckabee to the winner on previous debates.

.

.

.

Why the smart money is on Duncan Hunter
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1926032/posts

[ejonesie22]

For those investing via In Trade, yes.

There are always a dozen opinions. look at the number of Pundits that said Fred won. Look at the panel that said Mitt won...

All arbitrary, but if it makes you feel better, then by all means use the data in support of your guy, it is what everyone else does.

[Lexinom]

Here's a nice tribute to soldiers past and present, featuring something that may be like what Duncan Hunter did in Vietnam. Gotta love the sounds of freedom. God bless our troops!

[Kevmo]

All arbitrary, but if it makes you feel better, then by all means use the data in support of your guy, it is what everyone else does.
***You’re not getting it. When I was posting the same level of analysis and it showed that Huckster won, I went ahead with the analysis. It didn’t make me feel better. There was nothing arbitrary about the analysis when I was posting that Huckster won the debates, so why is it arbitrary now that my guy wins?

I see this a lot, the fred supporters like to go round & round, but in the end the real critique is that they just don’t like that it isn’t their guy and it is our guy.

If it’s sauce for the goose, it’s sauce for the gander. I’ve been posting that Huckster the goose has won a debate or two, and now using the same analysis I post that Hunter the gander wins a debate. In order to critique the analysis you would need to go back to when I posted that Huckster won and take issue at that time. But you didn’t.

Note that this was supposed to be the big breakout party for Thompson because he’s “all in” for Iowa, but this debate in Iowa showed him losing ground on Intrade. And Hunter is gaining ground. Today we get LOLs when he bumps up at 0.1 at a time, why was it that the Huckster didn’t get any LOLs? Is it because he’s a pro-life liberal, and the severest criticism in the republican party is reserved for the pro-life conservaties?

[ejonesie22]

Actually if you had posed the same question to me when Huck “won” I would have said the same thing...

[Man50D]

Yeah, but what about his youthful drug use?

I didn't know Hunter played in the Majors! ;O)

[ansel12]

“Since you are a guy that supports senator Feinstein and is still glad that she narrowly held on to her seat against the republican challenger in the 1994 revolution,”

“No, it does not stand. It is a lie.”

---

We have had this conversation before and I was shocked that I could not shake you from having supported Feinstein over Huffington.

[ansel12]

“Not exactly. He still has zero combat experience and has less clout than either Hunter or McCain when he asks military members and their families to “be strong” as we stay the course.”

---

Combat vets, Kennedy, Johnson, Herbert W. Bush.

Non combat, Nixon, Reagan, George W.

I served under Nixon and Reagan, and I prefer them over the others, and I would prefer to serve under George W. instead of his father.

[Man50D]

How anyone could have thought Thompson LOST ground during that debate is beyond me.

Hunter did fine but I really don’t think he did anything to increase his support beyond where it is.

IMHO Hunter is the only viable candidate but no one won or lost that debate because it was so poorly conducted by the moderator. How she could omit what most Americans consider the most important issue, illegal immigration, is beyond me.

[lakey]

I received another letter from Hunter a couple of days ago and he states that a 30-second t.v. ad on Fox is $100 - radio ads are even less.

Of course, I don't know what time of day, or night, it would be played. And I don't know if that is the charge for only one channel, but my check is in the mail.