Posted on 07/11/2008 6:56:06 PM PDT by FocusNexus
Wow, I’ve seen that graphic several times and I just now noticed Hussein on the ground.
Obama was projected to raise 100 MILLION in May, he raised 23 million, he was projected to raise a ton more in June and he hasn’t. His trend re fundraising is decidedly DOWN while McCains is decidedly UP. Obamas lead in all the polls (for what they are worth at this time) id DOWN, while McCains is UP. Obama’s negatives are UP since he garnered the nomination in early June.
In politics it is well known that “The trend is your friend”
Off the top of my head, Obama’s peak month so far was $45 million - and you say someone was projecting him to raise $100 million five months before the election?
That number is not serious, lex.
As for McCain's trend, May was his all time record month at $21.5 million.
Yes, his trend is up, but by an almost invisible 2.3%, even though he is facing the most Hard Left Democrat nominee since George McGovern.
As to polls, I only watch the “money” polls, like InTrade, where people gamble real cash on the election.
The money polls gave Obama a 2-1 edge a month ago, and they have not been under 2-1 since.
He should be carrying a Mexican flag in that pic.
I believed I read the expected 100 million for may but perhaps that was June. While it may be unreasonable to expect that, it is nonetheless the projection. google ‘Obama expected to raise 100 million’ and see for yourself
As I said, the trend is your friend and since each month for McCain has been better then the previous, while the exact opposite is true for Hussein, well, draw your own conclusions. And if Husseins will jump before and after the Convention then so to will McCain’s.
I would say the money polls are no better then the regular polls, in fact they are worse since they are getting the info they use to determine the odds from those polls we all disparage so much. There is no special line to info the traders have that the pollsters don’t have.
“I haven’t forgotten that. But I’m not giving McCain a free pass on GW and illegals. He still needs his feet kept in the fire. And the thing is, he will get more votes, not fewer by wising up on those two issues.”
Let’s elect him FIRST, then work with him on the various issues.
What good is it going to do for the issues you hold dear, if, by “holding his feet to the fire” now, will result in him losing the election, and we’ll end up with President Obama. How well do you think he will listen to your issues?
I don't understand why you think that questioning him on amnesty and making it clear we don't want amnesty is going to lose him the election.
It's going to help him if we just sit back and let him say whatever stupid crap about illegals and GW that happens to pop into his head? He needs to know that a majority of us don't want amnesty and loony GW legislation.
That's what I mean by holding his feet to the fire. He needs to be told what is expected of him [as President] BEFORE the election, not afterward. He needs to have at least some sense that he should earn our votes.
I basically agree that political bettors get their info from the same sources, and no doubt some bets are made impulsively or emotionally depending on the latest headlines.
I do, however, see a substantive difference between being a pollster and betting on a pollster.
Pollsters don't lose their jobs - or companies - unless they are seriously wrong over an extended period.
A bettor can lose a huge amount of money being just slightly wrong on one wager.
The “Iowa Electronic Market” has correctly picked the popular vote winner in five straight elections.
Compared to election eve polls, the IEM has been the closest in predicting the margin of victory in four of the last five elections.
From 1884 to 1940 there was an organized presidential betting pool on Wall Street.
It picked the popular vote winner 13 out of 14 times, including all three of the closest elections.
Current InTrade odds: Obama 65 - McCain 31
When I mix those numbers in with the political despair felt by most Movement Conservatives, I come back to my original thesis:
John McCain is an absolute catastrophe for the Republican Party.
The following is from the I.E.M of 1/30/2008 and concerns the Democratic primary race between Clinton and Obama:
The Democratic side, as most of us know, is more uncertain, and the nominee may not be decided before this summer's Democratic National Convention in Denver. An ABC News/Washington Post Poll from 1/9-1/12 had Hillary Clinton leading Barack Obama 42% to 37%. Clinton's lead is slightly smaller according to the 1/30-2/1 poll, 47% to 43%, virtually within the 3.9% margin of error. For these numbers the pollsters asked: "If the Democratic presidential primary or caucus in your state were being held today and the candidates were Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, for whom would you vote?"
The IEM political market for the Democratic nomination currently prices Clinton at about 60 cents. Obama is at 37 cents. So it would seem the market is leaning strongly in favor of a Clinton nomination. The polls, as shown above, give the impression of a still tight race.
See what I mean? I'm not saying these traders aren't right about this election. What I am saying they know nothing more then anyone else and in the case above apparently knew a lot less. All they are doing is looking around and making a judgement call based on their feelings TODAY and they can be based on only what they see in the polls. We are WAYYY to far out for these prognostications to have any meaning other then their being a snapshot of this moment and more importantly an indicator of TREND, which is more important now. I.E.M. Traders offer an opinion, one from individuals no more prescient then you or I.
I agree, betting on Iowa is, and always will be, a coin toss.
But, using IEM data for the Iowa Caucus is not fair play.
For many reasons the Iowa Caucus is the most unpredictable “major” election in the Primaries.
Nationally, however, IEM is five for five on winners, and four of five for best margin of victory.
Quoting lexus, “In politics, the trend is your friend.”
To my eye, that's an impressive trend.
I also agree that this far out from from the election polling and betting can often be meaningless.
However, something is different in 2008.
McCain is the first Republican nominee in my lifetime who won the Primaries as a Centrist.
That has completely demoralized Conservatives.
That's critically bad news, since Movement Conservatives are the most important source of funding, energy, and creativity in the Republican Party.
Rasmussen, who I rank close to number one, has a poll out today that highlights my point.
55% of Dems give Obama a “Very Favorable” rating.
33% of Republicans give McCain a “Very Favorable.”
That's a shocking number.
It explains why McCain has no effective message to Conservatives except, “Vote for me, because the other guy is even worse.”
Obama’s recent difficulties with the Hard Left are minor by comparison.
The Hard Left knows that Obama is a fellow traveler, no matter what he says in public.
Conservatives know that McCain is center-left, and they know his antipathy for Conservatives is always just below the surface.
Thus far, every time Obama has tried to hand the election to McCain, McCain has handed it right back.
Win or lose, McCain will be a catastrophe for Conservatives and the GOP.
The trend I was referring to his McCains upward and Husseins downward ones.
McCain is running as a centrist, I don't know about left but maybe moderate. Despite the unhappiness of many conservatives (as opposed to those designated as Republicans only)many are beginning to and will continue to come back to McCain as they learn more about Hussein and come to understand the damage he will do. The important numbers in the Rasmussen Polling are IMO who will you vote for. If the choice for McCain is made because he is the lesser of evils then fine, the country is most probably secure for at least 4 more years. During that time we work to find the best candidate with the right persona. A man like Gen Petraeus, if he is a Conservative, which I assume he is, would be ideal since he would bring status and a sense of security to the voters as well as a knowledge of the bad guys and how they operate. he would also serve to give great pause to the enemy who would be hesitant to attack a Nation led by the man who so badly kicked their asses all over the Middle east. But the election is not in 4 years it is NOW and my belief is that the right will grumble and in the end do what is best now for America with the understanding that changes can be made later. Perhaps the IEM data will, like polls, be more accurate the closer we get to the election but really, there is simply no reason to believe a bunch of Wall Street types know anything more about what will happen in 4 months then you or I do. What DO they use to draw their conclusions anyway? Do they sit around a table and drink beer and eat pretzels while chatting about what one or the other has heard and finally look at each other and say "My gut says Obama 2-1, whaddaya say guy's?"
Unless you can show a longer trend with projections all at the same time of the election cycle then I'm marking this up to a statistical anomaly.
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.