When Intrade is trying to project a future event such as a candidate dropping out, it has no more reliability than drawing straws. Polls aren’t predictors of events, they’re snapshots in time of popular opinion.
***When all is said and done, and the poll results are compared to futures market results, futures markets are more reliable.
On the other hand, Intrade, and Rasmussen’s trading thingy are trying to be inherently predictors of future events. That’s what it means when Rasmussen posts “Rasmussen Markets Show 29.0% Chance of Clinton as Democratic Nominee.”
And in that just a short while ago, that percentage was in the upper-60+% range, that means one of those PREDICTIONS is wrong.
***It’s exactly the same as the poll thing, where at that snapshot in time, those were the chances. The trick is to look at the events where the polls predicted one thing and the futures market predicted another, and the futures markets are correct more often than the polls.
I understand what you’re saying, and actually, I agree with you. It’s just that I don’t view Mr. Thompson as a centrist. I view him as a moderate CONSERVATIVE, not a moderate. Mr. Bush is a right-leaning moderate, a centrist just to the right of center. Mr. Thompson is a conservative, albeit not a far-right conservative.
***OK, then which candidate is more likely to lean left to attract middle america, Hunter or Thompson? It should be obvious to you. But when has leaning left ever worked for republicans on the presidential ticket? Hint: Dole, Bush Sr. vs. Clinton, Ford. When has standing your ground worked? Hint: Reagan. Using the above strategy, which candidate is better? Hunter.
I’m going to break up the rest of the post into smaller sections because I lost a bunch of typing when FR went off line.
I don’t think that Mr. Thompson is anymore likely to waver from his views and positions than Ronald Reagan... who was a gentleman who knew when to take a half-loaf when a full loaf wasn’t forthcoming.
sitetest