(As always, I am not endorsing this activity. Please don't gamble, in the end the house is the only winner.)
Posted on 07/24/2004 12:42:03 PM PDT by Grover_Cleveland
As of the time of posting, the electronic market of tradesports.com predicts for the first time that President Bush will NOT be re-elected.
See the following links:
Here -- click on the "politics" link on the left
Disclaimer: this is a live market and prices may have changed by the time you look at these links.
Yeah, I know you're already banned, but this is too rich. Contributions to Presidential campaigns are limited to $1,000 per individual. Since you're obviously making illegal campaign contributions, I suspect you're making them to Kerry.
Awwwww maybe they can go whine with their Freepers for Kerry brigade over there.
I fail to see how my comments concerning your initial post to Hermann erred for reasons contained within your discussions about markets.
Further, my comments that indicated Hermann's error in thinking were an abbreviated version of your expanded repetition of those comments. Thus, they did not "err" there.
What you failed to discuss however was your inital analysis, which boilded down to "market is wrong b/c the market maker opened in 2002" and then proceeded to accuse Hermann of being on drugs.
Perhaps you should have posted your write-up on how markets are meaningless in advance, rather than having to do so after others (myself included) already pointed out the problems with assuming that the market predicts the future.
I should concede your point that this "market" is limited in size, which renders the items being traded rather illiquid. We all have access to the election and nobody has access to this "market" by virtue of it not being well-known. Participants are not known either (sports fans rather than political analysts?). In such a situation, the actual prices can get rather disconnected from reality.
Perhaps your initial comment that this Sportsbook has only been open since 2002 was meant to reflect this reality.
I read your initial comments as an incorrect assumption that the sports book was not market, but rather an opinion of a web site. If I mis-read that, then my efforts to educate were not needed. However, I suspect I was reacting to what I believed to be an emotional reaction on your part. Often, when presented with something that conflicts with a person's wishes (regardless of reality), they lash out. If that was not your intent, I apologize.
G.W. is a gambler. The stakes are always high. Sometimes he loses, more often he wins. "Rope a Dope" is simply another phrase for this trait in him.
It isn't easy being a Dubya supporter. You can age 20 years waiting for him to reveal that last card. LOL
It is a mistake to assume our President's strategy doesn't incorporate high stakes gambling into the mix. It's a part of his character, of who he is as a human being. He's going to play this game till the early hours of the morning.
He may well lose. He may win. Not a single poll, favorability ranking or stock bet can decide this election.
The people will choose their President and my guess is that Dubya's final card is an enduring faith in the people of this republic. Reagan shared that faith. It is a wonder so many that admired Reagan seem incapable of that same faith.
"You're right I forgot about the inevitable Bicycle bounce!"
He wore a helmet so it might hurt him much.
Now the motorcycle bounce.
No helmet.
I've become less worried about Kerry and terror though, because I think he'll have to do what is necessary to keep the Country safe, he'll do what's necessary to make sure we don't suffer another attack. That doesn't mean I don't think we can't suffer another attack, we obviously can, but President Bush can't guarantee that we won't either.
Kerry may be a lot of things, but he's not daft, he'll have to take care of business, simply because he'll want his Presidency to survive. I'll vote for President Bush, but if Kerry is elected he'll be my President too, and I better start getting used to that idea.
(As always, I am not endorsing this activity. Please don't gamble, in the end the house is the only winner.)
President Bush will put his entire life on the line to protect this country, even risking election to do what he believes will ultimately secure our safety. Kerry will no more risk rocking the board than Clinton did. In retrospect it is frightening to note the level of danger that accumulated because Clinton didn't possess the moral courage to LEAD when threats were identified.
I will NOT get used to the idea of a Kerry Presidency anymore than I ever adjusted to Clinton in office. If Kerry wins, so be it. He'd be the President but it would not feel me with any degree of complacency about this nation's safety. Our threat level would rachet up as people assumed the "quiet" was reflective of calm, as they wrongly assumed in the '90's. We saw the result of that error, the next time will be worse.
"G.W. is a gambler."
That he is, in the best sense. He takes risks, but not foolishly. He minimizes the downside when he can.
He also has the capacity (much like Reagan) to get his opponents to underestimate him. I share your confidence that he will play his hand well, even if his style of play makes us nervous until the last minute.
I agree with you MUD. Buy your straw hats in the winter to sell in the summer.
The polls show an electorate extremely polarized very early in this campaign. I am worried that there frankly will not be very many undecideds to swing our way.
The picture will be pretty clear after the Dem convention. If there is not a big jump in Kerry's numbers....we will actually have reason to be concerned.
It will show that the electorate has largely made up its mind and this will be a very close race....hopefully close on our side like 2000. If there is a bigger jump (more than 5-7 points), it shows that there is enough play for us to take a decent lead after the RNC convention and keep the lead.
That character, my friend, is what strengthens Dubya and is what is needed in our country in these dire times to survive.
Nice try anyway.
Indeed. Consider, to flip roles, the George W Bush "DUI" story; had it come out a month before the election, it wouldn't have affect his standings one iota. Coming out when it did, though, it may have cost him a percentage point or so (which, in that election, was Hugh's amount).
If the Republicans slaughter Kerry before the convention and the Democrats appoint someone better, what will the Republicans have gained? Even if they have good dirt on Kerry, far better to save it until later.
The people buying Kerry shares believe one of two things:
The fallback position is to be prepared as you said to aggressively defend our way of life. The way and choices are clear
"Nice try anyway."
Not sure what you are implying here. No where did I state I find this to be a flaw in his character. I admire the "gambler streak". It's better than playing it safe, yielding little reward in the end.
"That he is, in the best sense. He takes risks, but not foolishly. He minimizes the downside when he can."
Absolutely. We saw evidence of this quality in the 2002 elections as well as in the run up to the Iraq war.
At both times he was questioned, discounted, and assumed to be of little threat. At the right moment he turned momentum his way to the point far more than 60% of the electorate supported his decisions. To do that he had to sipher off this supposedly hard as rock partisan electorate.
I'm convinced G.W. is in the midst of a similiar strategy. Time will tell if it's successful but I'm not going to "mis-underestimate" him based on the appearance of the moment.
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.