Election 2008: Get your bets in because McCain has no chance

[babbittd]

This came up as I'm going back and forth with a 'conservative' friend about the election. He, like others is convinced that the fresh round of anti-Obama books coming out is going to swing the election away from Obama.

I dispute the myth of the 'independent voter' and the myth of 'national' opinion polls.

What I see is that Americans generally fall into four political groups. Hardline, D and R party voters, Radical / third party types / people that don’t care and don’t vote.

<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p
There are no droves of “independent voters” that in August of 2008 don’t already have an opinion about current political issues. The independents are the people that investigate all angles from varying sources and don’t simply rely on books written by the Jerome Corsi as primary sources for information.

And let’s talk about these polls.

<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p
In 2004, in <ST1:p<?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comhttp://itulip.com/forums/ /><st1:State alt=</st1:State>Ohio</ST1:p, the biggest battleground state that year – roughly 1.2 million votes were cast in the Democrat primary. <O:p</O:p<O:p</O:p
In 2008, in <st1:State w:st="on"><ST1:pOhio</ST1:p</st1:State>, roughly 2.2 millon votes were cast in the Democrat primary.

<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p
In 2004, in <st1:State w:st="on"><ST1:pPennsylvania</ST1:p</st1:State> – 750,000 votes cast in the Democrat primary
<O:p</O:p
In 2008, In PA – 2.25 million votes cast in the Democrat primary

<O:p</O:p<O:p</O:p
In 2004, in <st1:State w:st="on"><ST1:pMichigan</ST1:p</st1:State> – 140k votes cast Dem primary
In 2008, in <st1:State w:st="on"><ST1:pMichigan </ST1:p</st1:State>– 580k votes cast without Obama’s name on the ballot

<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p
In 2004, in <st1:State w:st="on"><ST1:pIndiana</ST1:p </st1:State>– 320k<O:p</O:p
In 2008, in Indiana – 1.2 million
<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p

30,000 more books connecting Obama to Wright and Farrakhan could be published and airdropped over the entire country between now and November and McCain is still going to be trounced.<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p


Every available betting market agrees that Obama is going to win:

Intrade has Obama as a 60.3 buy and McCain as a 36.9 buy
Bookmaker.com has the Democrats at -250 and the GOP at +185
Bodog has Obama at -230 and McCain at +170
Diamond Sportsbook has the Democrats at -250 and the GOP at +185
BetOnline.com has has Obama at -250 and McCain at +175
WorldSportsExchange has Democrat nominee as a 67 buy and the Republican nominee as a 39 buy

[ASH]

iTulip's last foray into political prognostication (Mark Warner) was not as successful as its economic predictions.

Pity whoever is elected, as they will likely be unequal to the looming fiscal challenges.

[Jim Nickerson]

iTulip's last foray into political prognostication (Mark Warner) was not as successful as its economic predictions.

Pity whoever is elected, as they will likely be unequal to the looming fiscal challenges.

ASH, don't worry about the travails of who is elected, he will be fixed for life financially, and he will be an indelible mark in history--I expect if you could get into either candidate's mind, you would see that that is all that counts.

[babbittd]

iTulip's last foray into political prognostication (Mark Warner) was not as successful as its economic predictions.

I may be a paying member, but my views don't speak for Itulip, Inc.

**********

The theatre this time around has been enjoyable.

The shrieking, angry Hilary fans that are going to riot in Denver, sit out of the election, etc.

The dissapearance of the Resko affair.

For months the Republicans made a big deal about Obama not having recently been to Iraq. And when he went to Iraq, they screamed for days about the attention the trip received.

This is good stuff, entertaining.

[c1ue]

If McCain will pull his head out of his rump, and start focusing on the generation and trust issue, he'll have a much better chance.

Obama sounds nice but ultimately has no defense to the accusation that he doesn't understand and won't protect the baby boomers' interests.

All the flip flopping he is doing is likely also hurting his initial youth eco-nut support.

[Jim Nickerson]

I may be a paying member, but my views don't speak for Itulip, Inc.

**********

The theatre this time around has been enjoyable.

The shrieking, angry Hilary fans that are going to riot in Denver, sit out of the election, etc.

The dissapearance of the Resko affair.

For months the Republicans made a big deal about Obama not having recently been to Iraq. And when he went to Iraq, they screamed for days about the attention the trip received.

This is good stuff, entertaining.

With due respect, babbitt, it's really all bullshit. If you want entertainment, try renting a video.:)

[babbittd]

With due respect, babbitt, it's really all bullshit.

Political theatre - bullshit - same thing. And who says that bullshit can't be entertaining? I can stand it in small doses every four years.

[ASH]

I may be a paying member, but my views don't speak for Itulip, Inc.

Quite so. Forgive my imprecision. I didn't mean to dismiss your assessment. I suppose I was trying to say that the economy appears to be easier to predict than the outcome of (some) elections. The implication was "if EJ got it wrong, and came to regret speculating on politics, then..."

For my part, I was quite surprised by the outcome of the primaries. Before the campaigning began, I had thought this would be a Giuliani vs. Clinton contest (a rather conventional view). Now, it's true that I have invested rather little time and attention studying politics, but this is the one area in which my expectations have routinely been proven wrong. Being vain, I had supposed this to be an indication that politics is less predictable than other topics, but it is more likely an indication that I just don't understand the political world very well.

For the record, I expect Senator Obama to win... but I have very little confidence in my expectation, based upon my past track record.

[babbittd]

If McCain will pull his head out of his rump, and start focusing on the generation and trust issue, he'll have a much better chance.

Obama sounds nice but ultimately has no defense to the accusation that he doesn't understand and won't protect the baby boomers' interests.

I agree, but the chances of that are low though. What the heck is he waiting for? After initially admitting that he is clueless about the economy, followed later by the Phil Gramm episode, I think that would be the greatest turnaround in recent history as far as election gaffes.

[babbittd]

I didn't mean to dismiss your assessment.
Didn't take it that way, but wanted to make sure you didn't think I was repeating something written by E.J.

For my part, I was quite surprised by the outcome of the primaries. Before the campaigning began, I had thought this would be a Giuliani vs. Clinton contest ....For the record, I expect Senator Obama to win... but I have very little confidence in my expectation, based upon my past track record.

I've thought since '06 that the Dem nominee would win this election, no matter who they were. But, how did Romney not win the GOP nomination? He is better than McCain on economic matters. They are about even on conservative social issees. Romney isn't a "Washington Insider". Did Republicans vote for McCain because of war issues over everything else? It appears so.

[Jim Nickerson]

I didn't take it that way. Just wanted to make sure you didn't think I was repeating something from them.



I've thought since '06 that the Dem nominee would win this election, no matter who they were. How did Romney not win the GOP nomination? He is far better than McCain on economic matters. They are about even on conservative social isses. Did Republicans vote for McCain because of war issues over everything else? It appears so.

There are more Baptists than Mormans, and Baptists don't cotton to Mormons.

[babbittd]

There are more Baptists than Mormans, and Baptists don't cotton to Mormons.

The religious background is huge.....ok that puts into perspective a little more why the focus on Obama's secret Muslim youth and background. I figured that was mostly political, i.e. the WoT.

[ASH]

ASH, don't worry about the travails of who is elected, he will be fixed for life financially, and he will be an indelible mark in history--I expect if you could get into either candidate's mind, you would see that that is all that counts.

What? Surely these are selfless public servants -- the best and brightest that our society can call forth, devoted to the common good, towering in their wisdom yet beatific in their humility, practically exuding candor and integrity from every pore? :D

Actually, I find less to object to about these choices than many elections past.

[Jeff]

In addressing the issues and insanities of the America political (and economic) sytems(s) it is important to remember that the current American is the absolute worst ever in history EXCEPT for every other one.

When people say how much our system sucks or how taxes are too high or whatever other excuse for being politically apothetic, all I can ask is, "Compared to what?" and "How do you plan to help fix it?"

[tree]

Heard George McGovern today on the car radio today. In '72, he lost in large part because the kids who were all for him couldn't bother to vote.

I have "pulled" votes on Election Night (you drive 'em to the polls). Lots of folks are tired after a long day of work and just can't see it by 7 p.m. (Nah, can't have election day over a weekend, now can we.)

Older white folks are uncomfortable with Obama. Lotsa folks just don't want a black man. And the kids? Will they vote?

I think McCain will win, by a little. A doctor friend of mine insists he won't live out his term. Why anyone sitting pretty wants that job now I just can't understand.

BTW, if you want to pull votes, etc. for Obama, you might find the local union labor council (AFL-CIO) where you live and give a call. They have very efficient election operations, honed over the years, and can always use help.

[don]

What we are seeing is the Politics of Distraction in full drag. People will be curious/enraged with an African-American presidente. That's the goal, me buckos. Obama is the Jimmy Carter of '08, McCain the Bob Dole who ran against an unbeatable Clinton. Dole took a bullet for the Party, so is McCain, not in anyway ruling out their burning desire to sit in Macy's window as the newest Santa. Much like Carter, Obama will be swept away as an incompetent within 2 years. By then, the Central Banks and Wall Street will have enjoyed 24 months of domestic obfuscation on the Grandest Heist of all time.

[blazespinnaker]

I won't point any fingers expect to say that the idea this is a conspiracy is absurd.

Bush did what he believed to be right. History will either prove him to be the ultimate idiot or a principled risk taker. Sometimes I swear I think both on the same day.

If you really want to exercise your tin foil, feel free to follow the news on bear sterns. That's interesting stuff.

However, as for politics, people only call it a conspiracy because it helps them feel better about not understanding it.

Do people in politics lie and manipulate? Of course. Everyone does in every single social situation of their lives. Partly it's because we want to control, but also because we simply don't know the real truth and it's easier to pretend we do.

Does anyone in politics conspire? Rarely. The few times they do, they're taking huge huge chances, and it frequently blows up in their faces .. even more so these a days.

Hell, people are getting screwed over / prosecuted simply because they aren't telling the truth *well enough*, nevermind lying.

But the idea that someone controls what's going on.. hah hah. Are those black helicopters I see? whirr whirr whirr...

[blazespinnaker]

Though, I have to say, I do sympathize a little with those who call out zionism. I have to say, if you look at the history of israel, it's not pretty.

[Jay]

This is anecdotal so please take it for what it is worth, but it was interesting to me so here it is:

A well connected close family member of mine in his 80's who was the VP of a large blue chip American company and who has certain conservative old school views, is convinced that Obama is going to win, and he is voting for him. He usually votes Democratic, but this surprised me because I wasn't sure someone of his generation would vote for a black man when it came down to it.

[Jim Nickerson]

I won't point any fingers expect to say that the idea this is a conspiracy is absurd.

Bush did what he believed to be right. History will either prove him to be the ultimate idiot or a principled risk taker. Sometimes I swear I think both on the same day.

If you really want to exercise your tin foil, feel free to follow the news on bear sterns. That's interesting stuff.

However, as for politics, people only call it a conspiracy because it helps them feel better about not understanding it.

Do people in politics lie and manipulate? Of course. Everyone does in every single social situation of their lives. Partly it's because we want to control, but also because we simply don't know the real truth and it's easier to pretend we do.

Does anyone in politics conspire? Rarely. The few times they do, they're taking huge huge chances, and it frequently blows up in their faces .. even more so these a days.

Hell, people are getting screwed over / prosecuted simply because they aren't telling the truth *well enough*, nevermind lying.

But the idea that someone controls what's going on.. hah hah. Are those black helicopters I see? whirr whirr whirr...

I don't, so speak for yourself, Canucko.

[FRED]

I don't, so speak for yourself, Canucko.

We don't do conspiracy theories over here at iTulip but acknowledge there is plenty of lying going on. Two recent articles from the MSM: note that saying that the government is lying about inflation or reacting too slowly to it is no longer tin foil hat.
Lies, Damned Lies and Inflation Statistics (http://www.newsweek.com/id/150767)
August 4, 2008 (Newsweek)

Developing countries like China are infamous for fudging economic stats, but in reality, lying about inflation is as American as baseball.

Academic economists have long grumbled about the unreliability of official inflation data, but the belief that things are worse than governments are willing to admit is trickling down from the ivory tower. Even Charles Bean (http://www.newsweek.com/related.aspx?subject=Charles+Bean), the new deputy governor of the Bank of England (http://www.newsweek.com/related.aspx?subject=Bank+of+England), has publicly criticized central bankers' use of "core inflation" data, which disregards food and energy prices, in setting policy. When "non-core" items like gas and cereal rise so much that consumers have little cash to spend on anything but those essentials, it's hard to ignore.

The temptation to fudge numbers is one that bureaucrats worldwide find hard to resist. In Argentina, where government reassurances about single-digit inflation have long seemed unconnected to consumer reality, revamping the government statistics office became an issue in the last national election. In China, where data based on the prices for state-provided goods and services are increasingly irrelevant in a privatizing economy, the stats are so out of whack that Goldman Sachs has resorted to a movie-review-style system to rank the quality of official data on a scale from one to five. But the habit of playing fast and loose with numbers isn't native to the developing countries where high inflation reigns. Indeed, the popular "core inflation" method for measuring changes in consumer prices is actually as all-American as Enron (http://www.newsweek.com/related.aspx?subject=Enron+Corporation)'s accounting practices.

In the early 1970s, the United States found itself vexed by a newly powerful cartel of foreign oil producers, a 300 percent rise in crude prices and a new and unpleasant realization that Americans were no longer the sole masters of their own economic house. Rather than reining in its own politically driven monetary policies to slow the surge in consumer prices accompanying the oil shock, the Nixon-era Federal Reserve (http://www.newsweek.com/related.aspx?subject=U.S.+Federal+Reserve) hit on the novel strategy of trying to cover it up instead. The traditional "headline" inflation rate (http://www.newsweek.com/related.aspx?subject=Inflation+Rate), measuring the rise or fall of an average of all prices for a broad basket of goods and services, was nudged aside in favor of an index that stripped out the supposedly more volatile categories of food (subject to price spikes due to weather or plague) and energy (subject to price spikes due to unfriendly foreigners). Consumers may still have felt pain at the gas station and grocery store, but the government would no longer officially confirm their discomfort.

Manipulated numbers notwithstanding, high inflation would outlast the Nixon years, and by the end of the 1970s, futzing with the figures that measure it had become common. Prices of everything from used cars to children's clothing were given the heave in order to make the numbers look better. As control of the White House shifted from Republicans to Democrats and back, both parties needed to avoid giving the impression that inflation was actually worse than it had been when the other guys were in power.

By the mid-1990s, while stodgier central bankers in Europe and Britain (http://www.newsweek.com/related.aspx?subject=United+Kingdom) still clung to old-fashioned headline inflation to guide policy, the United States was rolling out "hedonic adjustments" that used technological breakthroughs to justify adjusting inflation estimates downward, even when advances like faster computer processors didn't touch most people's lives, let alone boost their spending power. And just in case technology didn't bring prices down fast enough, the United States enthusiastically embraced "substitution effects," opting to measure hamburger prices instead of steak if steak prices rose unpalatably. Even a boom in house prices could be negated simply by choosing to count slow-rising apartment rents instead of soaring home values.

So what to do if governments can't be trusted to get the data right? Try doing it yourself. To this end, the United Kingdom's national statistics office offers a personal inflation calculator on its Web site that lets consumers create their own index based on personal observations. As Groucho Marx might have said, "Who are you going to believe—the Fed or your own eyes?"
<!--AD BEGIN--> <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript"> placeAd2(commercialNode,'bigbox',false,'')</script> <!--AD END--> The second article is a letter from ex FOMC member Edwin M. Truman stating that the government's tardy response to inflation is disingenuous.
Learn the right inflation lessons from the 1970s (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/80fde78a-5f62-11dd-91c0-000077b07658.html)
August 1, 2008 (Financial Times)

From Mr Edwin M. Truman:

Sir, Mark Gertler (“America must not act rashly over inflation” (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/621640be-5cb6-11dd-8d38-000077b07658.html), July 29) correctly reminds the Federal Reserve not to overreact to rising headline inflation in the US as necessarily presaging a return to the 1970s. However, as someone who lived through that period on the staff of the Federal Open Markets Committee, I believe it is important to learn the right lessons and not to underreact either.

First, Prof Gertler knows but did not state that inflation expectations are endogenous. As long as market participants believe that the Fed will do the right thing, inflation expectations will remain well anchored, as they appear to be at present. However, they remained anchored well into the late 1970s, as demonstrated by a negative inflation premium in 10-year interest rates. It was replaced by a substantial positive inflation premium that persisted into the late 1980s.

Second, contrary to Prof Gertler's argument, in the 1970s core inflation (excluding food and energy) did not initially rise. For six quarters from mid-1972 to late 1973 core personal consumption expenditures (PCE) inflation remained firmly below 4 per cent as headline PCE inflation rose to 6 per cent and beyond. The Fed ignored this signal, and the result was a sorry history.

Third, the argument at the time was that inflation was caused by rising energy and later food prices that the Fed could not influence. That argument was wrong then and is wrong now. Inflation is not caused by rising prices; it is caused by demand outstripping supply. US and global monetary policy have a good deal to do with creating the conditions under which that occurs, whether in oil markets, commodity markets more generally, or in other markets for goods and services.

Edwin M. Truman,
Senior Fellow,
Peterson Institute for International Economics,
Washington, DC 20036, US

Who could have known?

[don]

"Bush did what he believed to be right. History will either prove him to be the ultimate idiot or a principled risk taker."

If you actually believe George Bush directed, or was capable of directing American domestic and foreign policy over the last 7+ years, more power to you and your bubble.

[BrianL]

Obama sounds nice but ultimately has no defense to the accusation that he doesn't understand and won't protect the baby boomers' interests.

Realistically though, who can deliver on this sort of promise? We all know the gov already over promised between social security and medicare; there is no way they'll be able to fund everything.

That said, if the argument is about perception, you could be very right. Given the voting demographics, this could be a big win for McCain depending on how much he is willing to stretch the truth/run up debt.

[metalman]

Realistically though, who can deliver on this sort of promise? We all know the gov already over promised between social security and medicare; there is no way they'll be able to fund everything.

That said, if the argument is about perception, you could be very right. Given the voting demographics, this could be a big win for McCain depending on how much he is willing to stretch the truth/run up debt.

shitstorm will cover several admins. republicans dump mess on obama ala mess dropped on clinton by bush one. but much bigger mess, tho. if obama fails them reps again in 2012.

republican party gotta be throwing everything at it now to use up bullets to crush the next admin. why else run a geezer like mccain? he's supposed to lose.

[KGW]

Realistically though, who can deliver on this sort of promise? We all know the gov already over promised between social security and medicare; there is no way they'll be able to fund everything.



The budget of the Pentagon could cover most everything, and still provide for the common DEFENSE. Of course, by the time that type of sense appears in the United States, pigs may well be flying about:D

[babbittd]

Does anyone in politics conspire?

Did you follow closely the Republican primaries while still an actual contest?

Call this opinion what you will, but it seemed to me that Fred Thompson's role was to serve as McCain's surrogate attack dog.

[babbittd]

We don't do conspiracy theories over here at iTulip but acknowledge there is plenty of lying going on.

It is a thin line. For instance, I might opine that there is a conspiracy to cover up what really happened behind the 'anthrax attacks', especially in light of this report that was published by New Scientist Magazine: Anthrax attack bug "identical" to army strain (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2265-anthrax-attack-bug-identical-to-army-strain.html) "The DNA sequence of the anthrax sent through the US mail in 2001 has been revealed and confirms suspicions that the bacteria originally came from a US military laboratory" and Itulip would officially say what, that the the FedGov lied about Hatfill and now the lone dead guy being responsible for everything, what is the difference? Or have I not gone far enough with this example (i.e. and directly implicated the FedGov in carrying out the anthrax mailings) for there to be a difference?

[Judas]

However, as for politics, people only call it a conspiracy because it helps them feel better about not understanding it.

Do people in politics lie and manipulate? Of course.


People call it them conspiracies because they are usually conspiracies. When political groups "lie and manipulate" it is a conspiracy- multiple individuals are coordinating deceptive/secret information and actions toward some goal. For example (as per FRED's post) when the government releases BS inflation numbers it isn't an "oops" or some "bad apple", it's groups of people willfully torturing numbers for political purposes.

Politics is primarily multiple, overlapping, competing conspiracies.

Of course many folks believe that political parties, government bureacracies, etc. are just universally and horrifically stupid. Don't contribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity and all that jazz.

[we_are_toast]

McBush will continue to lie;
The conservative 501's will create more outrageous lies;
The news media will repeat the lies;
The 60% of the people who believe off shore drilling will solve our energy problems will buy the lies;
McBush wins, We Are Toast!

[mikedev10]

i was amazed mccain pulled it out from where he started. i expected romney to win the nom. NH seemed to be the major turning point for mccain, they love him there. i was hoping that libertarian leaning NH would be the turning point for my boy ron paul. RP actually did extremely well in NH exit polls - but they thought mccain was more electable. i expect obama to have little trouble defeating mccain.

fwiw i'm 29 and the only time i've ever voted was in the last primary. i never paid much attention to economics or politics before that. my dad voted for mccain but i got the rest of my family to vote for RP. i donated a little over $1000 to him and if he's feeling good in 4 years i will be doing much more. odds of this place being a mess are still pretty good. just hope he's not feeling too old then. he would not start out as the unknown he was this time.

mccain has been noted as having trouble reaching the youth. i think i last read their solution was to try and update his myspace page. i still think it is hilarious that so much of RP popularity was attributed to things like having a myspace. within the RP community it is fairly well known that obama supporters were the easiest to convert - especially young ones when you started challenging them on economic issues.

[c1ue]

Realistically though, who can deliver on this sort of promise? We all know the gov already over promised between social security and medicare; there is no way they'll be able to fund everything.

Absolutely true, but equally true is that the SS and Medicare issue won't be critical in the next 4 years.

To expect that Obama will fail in delivering is to assume SS and Medicare income stops much sooner than expected - that just isn't very likely.

The problem will be in 7 years, give or take 2 years, as the bulge boomer bracket starts their draw.

Were I Republican, I'd go win a 1 term presidency now and THEN leave it to the Demos.

After all, once you're out - so long as blame can't be directly attached to you, it ain't your problem. Just look at Lyndon Johnson/Vietnam and JFK. Or Nixon/Gold standard and Lyndon Johnson. Or Bush I/economy and Reagan. The list goes on and on.

[Scott4139]

my first post!!!

Lots of theories, issues, polls and data out there....

But if I was to bet, I'd go with simple demographics. Based on my personal assessment the 60+ crowd is going to go McCain all the way. Even if everyone under 30 went Obama it wouldn't matter.

Everyone will answer the phone for a poll, but at the end of the day we know who will show on Tuesday.

I think Clinton would have split the 60+ vote and had a high probability of winning.

[ASH]

It is a thin line. For instance, I might opine that there is a conspiracy to cover up what really happened behind the 'anthrax attacks', especially in light of this report that was published by New Scientist Magazine: Anthrax attack bug "identical" to army strain (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2265-anthrax-attack-bug-identical-to-army-strain.html) "The DNA sequence of the anthrax sent through the US mail in 2001 has been revealed and confirms suspicions that the bacteria originally came from a US military laboratory" and Itulip would officially say what, that the the FedGov lied about Hatfill and now the lone dead guy being responsible for everything, what is the difference? Or have I not gone far enough with this example (i.e. and directly implicated the FedGov in carrying out the anthrax mailings) for there to be a difference?

Your position doesn't make any sense to me at all.

For what purpose would the government carry out the anthrax mailings? To scare people into supporting the government? Why would that have been necessary so soon after 9/11?

For that matter, how come do you imagine that the government's security services are staffed by the type of psychopaths who would consider attacking their own countrymen with biological weapons?

If the government was behind the anthrax mailings, why did the investigation focus so rapidly upon a domestic source? If the fix was in, why give up the opportunity to pin this on Iraq (which is what everyone first thought, and would have been politically useful), or other external enemies?

"Lied" about Steven Hatfill? This is the standard "omniscient/omnipotent government" fallacy of conspiracy theories. How about "was wrong" about Steven Hatfill. Read up on the circumstantial case against him, and you'll see what roused their suspicion and why their case fell apart.

For that matter, if the fix was in as far as identifying a scapegoat, why the hell did it take 7 years of investigation? In the first place, wouldn't they have made it stick to Steven Hatfill? In the second place, what is the point of stretching out the investigation for 7 years, only to point the finger at a trusted scientist from a government lab? If you're covering up a government conspiracy, doesn't it seem odd to go out of your way to identify the government as the source of the anthrax -- I mean, that was the basis of their entire public case against Ivins.

If this was a conspiracy, then either (1) the investigation would have identified a politically helpful perpetrator, or (2) it would have silently gone away without being resolved. It most definitely would not have featured Ft. Detrick as the source of the anthrax.

[ASH]

For example (as per FRED's post) when the government releases BS inflation numbers it isn't an "oops" or some "bad apple", it's groups of people willfully torturing numbers for political purposes.


But is it still a conspiracy if the manipulation is not hidden? I mean, according to John Williams, the BLS very dutifully records changes made to their methodology for calculating CPI. These changes are openly debated before being implemented. It's just that the public isn't really following along when this happens, doesn't understand the implications, and is content to uncritically trust that their public servants are acting in their best interest.

In my view, politicians and the bureaucrats who work for them willfully torture numbers for political purposes in broad daylight. It is the apathy and ignorance of the voter -- the voter's complicity with their own deception -- which is to blame for the outcome. I suppose it's semantics, but if the public allows itself to be misled through laziness, then I don't think the manipulations are secret enough to be thought a true "conspiracy".

=============

The following is not directed to Judas, but rather is a general comment about conspiracies.

You will see me arguing elsewhere in this thread against the domestic anthrax mailings having been a government conspiracy. I am often accused (especially in internet circles) of being hopelessly naive. I don't have blind faith in the government -- far from it. Rather, where others see a sinister and secret plan, I see incompetence, laziness, and the average failings of human nature. Where others imagine villains of inhuman malice and tortured motivations with legions of accomplices who follow orders blindly with absolute and unquestioning loyalty, I substitute knowledge of actual humans with common morals, motivations, and their own thoughts.

Fundamentally, I agree with the viewpoint that conspiracy is attractive to those who don't understand how things actually work. It's not that conspiracies never occur -- it's just that they are invoked far too often to explain things that have other obvious, and less sexy, explanations. Alternatively, when faced with a phenomenon that is essentially capricious, people invoke conspiracy to explain something that would otherwise be simply random. (This, by the way, is something conspiracy has in common with superstition. The human brain is trained to look for connections, and in a world that includes some random phenomena, it will occasionally see connections where there aren't any.) In that capacity, conspiracy is to the workings of the human world as religion is to the physical sciences. The moment you invoke a conspiracy, you create a black box and absolve yourself of explaining motives, the logistics of execution, and the reasoning in any detail. After all, parts of the conspiracy are hidden, and its perpetrators are so evil as to defy an attempt to fully understand their motivations or reasoning.

Again, my position is not that there are no conspiracies. In fact, 9/11 was a conspiracy (but, you know, the boring type -- a conspiracy of Islamic fundamentalists, orchestrated from overseas; not an inside job). My position is that if your explanation for most things is a conspiracy, then you are habitually taking an intellectual position that is equivalent to attributing cell phones, weather, and the blue color of the sky to "God", when you should be trying to understand physics.

[Lukester]

The point that conspiracy theorists don't seem to get is the phenomenal compounding which occurs over time of potential leaks, and the supposition of a magical, apparently supernatural ability of conspiratorial groups to steer real-time events consistently down through the years past all the pitfalls of unfolding reality. This is attempting a task where "unforseens" make any sort of "pre-planning" of a compounding complexity that would probably overload a Cray Supercomputer, merely trying to extrapolate plan contingencies out past six months.

A plan set in motion across time, not just weeks, but years, decades and centuries, gets so hopelessly bogged down in the cumulative entropy of "unforseens" that whatever emerges at the other end has only the vaguest resemblance to the original plan. The notion is naive. The compounding of follow-on ramifications, of "unforseens" is exponential, probably running off the charts in short order.

Take for example Sapien's Bilderberger / Freemason / Pilgrim Society / Elders of Zion theses. The premise there is that with each successive generation you are breezily conscripting new members with "solemn oaths of silence" and that over DECADES and CENTURIES no-one ever leaks anything anywhere. The conception of a hermetic secrecy impervious to leakage down through the centuries relies heavily on the predisposition to believe.

The entropy of random events upon a multi decade "plan" renders it's execution with any resemblance to the original intent a supreme conceit, at least for us humans. Yes, old money congregates into interest groups and can arrogate tremendous power, but it cannot "plan" a future with any any better assurance than even the smartest stock speculator can plan his next day's market. If he thought that, he would be a stupid speculator, not a smart one.

The notion that secret societies can "plan" events spanning secular durations requires very uncritical allegiance to the conspiracy idea as a viable method for groups to plan and obtain their wishes by elaborate subterfuge in the world.

Yes, there are probably a few colllusions and conspiracies at the core of the current administration, one look at Cheney might cure a lot of doubters. But this cookie cutter needs to be employed exceedingly sparingly otherwise. If it's got conspiracy stamped on it, I would redouble my scrutiny because nine tenths of the conspiracy theories are baseless, precisely because of the "entropy of secrecy" point made above. Conspiracies are very, very difficult to carry through, and to keep airtight for long periods of time - I think there is supposed to be an exponential progression of "leakiness" dependent on very small increments in the number of people tied into the conspiracy loop. Large groups or societies therefore exasperate that problem a lot further than the number of their group would suggest.

Imagine the Bilderbergers today - I've read endless tracts going over their doings in Heironymus Bosch like detail - like a medieval shop of horrors. Then you start to notice that new Bilderberger conscriptees are making their way into the inductee rolls with bewildering rapidity as people rise and fall from the pinnacles of power in the world with great frequency also! You've got a whole slew of who's who contemporary names, for instance any recent US President, who gets himself elected and suddenly by virtue of his new post he's a must-have conscriptee to the Bilderbergers.

Now stop and think - how are they keeping a muzzle on all the ex-Presidents, or ex-heads of the World Bank, or ex-EU Premiers, or ex-whatever the hell else, when they leave office and move on from the active Bilderberger ranks? Or when they draft a new one, how can they be assured that a "mole for free societies" does not eventually infiltrate to the highest levels and blow the whistle?

To imagine none would after centuries implies a childish credulity. Here you've got a freaking REVOLVING DOOR of Bilfderberger conscriptees all sworn to blood oaths or whatever the heck it is they swear to, and not a single one of those getting spit out after their term of Bilderberger service ever utter a peep about the tiniest scrap of intel on the nefarious Bilderberger anti-republic manipulations?

It boggles the mind. The allied invasion of Normandy was one of the greatest feats in history of keeping a massive plan's final destination and timing under wraps for just a few months. Here we have Bilderbergers manipulating the WORLD, with a who's who of incoming new members as people achieve the highest ranks of power, and concomitantly a flood of outgoing members as they are retired from those ranks, and not a single one of these in a hundred years has provided any juicy interviews or tidbits exposing their inner dealings?
The people that buy into this stuff wholesale seem to get almost detached from the ground - floating up a few inches heavenwards in the rapture that comes from peeling back imaginary layers of the grand and secretive plans being hatched all around us.

A wonderful example of it's going mainstream is hearing someone like Nancy Pelosi swearing solemnly in senate hearings with "Big Oil" executives that they are collluding Enron style to fleece the nation. "Big oil conspiracy". I cringed, watching an hour long debate a year ago of her embarassing the entire Senate by getting so strident she was shrilly cross examining the Exxon CEO as though he were a common, already perjured criminal. The readiness to see conspiracy among your adversaries encroaches upon the intellect like an illness, once it is officialized and believed by it's unwitting host to be a form of "truth-digging".

There is a lot of conspiracy theorizing about the present governent from the party in opposition but after two consecutive democrat administrations I'll wager we find it every bit as much among the Republicans. The sitting government is a ripe target for conspiracy theorizing about everything but the kitchen sink as the opposition rank and file employ imaginative ways to vent their frustration after years out of power.

[Judas]

I suppose it's semantics, but if the public allows itself to be misled through laziness, then I don't think the manipulations are secret enough to be thought a true "conspiracy".

I guess we do differ slightly in definitions, and can see why you would bristle at the term.

As an aside, I'm not some paranoid, but I also get annoyed that any time someone mentions an untoward act by government it is immediately called a "conspiracy theory" and dismissed (especially by those of the same political party/movement/etc. of course). Our history is replete with government conspiracies: feeding LSD to civilians, radiation tests, black service members purposely left to suffer from syphilis, the Gulf of Tonkin... I (or you) could likely list a thousand underhanded plots within the hour. So when someone mentions some possible plot I don't immediately believe it- but don't dismiss it out of hand either. As you mention, regular humans with their regular foibles. But those foibles include serious evil when vast amounts of wealth or power are in play.

[Judas]

The point that conspiracy theorists don't seem to get is the phenomenal compounding which occurs over time of potential leaks...

The whole "too many leaks" thing isn't really a valid criticism. For every willful deception there are always people screaming bloody murder. The problem is that someone says "that's just a conspiracy theory!" and people shuffle by, or it just doesn't grab enough attention, or goes against preconceptions, or whatever.

Hell, look at David Walker. He is on a national tour trying to wake people up, has the most bulletproof credentials in the world, and nobody will listen or care. Politicians know the nation's broke, but will keep on proposing massive expenditures/promises as long as possible and the people will follow along until it all comes down. Or look at gun control advocates; they have for years openly called for banning guns. But each incremental proposal is "limited" and you are paranoid if you worry about things like registration. In California SKS rifles were registered with the promise that they wouldn't be confiscated. A few years later they were confiscated. All of the crazy conspiracy theorists maybe had a point...

[ASH]

I guess we do differ slightly in definitions, and can see why you would bristle at the term.

As an aside, I'm not some paranoid, but I also get annoyed that any time someone mentions an untoward act by government it is immediately called a "conspiracy theory" and dismissed (especially by those of the same political party/movement/etc. of course). Our history is replete with government conspiracies: feeding LSD to civilians, radiation tests, black service members purposely left to suffer from syphilis, the Gulf of Tonkin... I (or you) could likely list a thousand underhanded plots within the hour. So when someone mentions some possible plot I don't immediately believe it- but don't dismiss it out of hand either. As you mention, regular humans with their regular foibles. But those foibles include serious evil when vast amounts of wealth or power are in play.

You don't seem paranoid to me. The stuff you have been complaining about is all real, and your grasp on reality solid. It is just semantics, I guess: categorically different from the brand of conspiracy theory that I object to.

Heck -- I'm the one in my circle of friends who is forever railing about manipulated economic statistics and impending fiscal "doom". My friends typically experience cognitive dissonance, because they can't reconcile my usual credibility in other areas with their reflexive belief in government competence. For instance, when I try to explain how the money supply has been mismanaged -- or the nature of the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds -- I'm met with uneasy skepticism. Most folks simply can't get their minds around the possibility that public affairs have been so poorly managed. They assume that since the flaws are so blindingly obvious as I describe them, it cannot possibly be the case that things are set up this way, because any fool would see the folly.

It is precisely because people have a knee-jerk tendency to dismiss tales of government cooking the books as "conspiracy theory" that I try to resist describing it in those terms. The thing is, I HAVE to blame the public rather than a conspiracy, because the ignorance is willful to the point of perversion. Every year I show people the part of the Summary of the Annual Reports of the Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees which says that "neither the redemption of trust fund bonds, nor interest paid on those bonds, provides any new net income to the Treasury" -- yet they persist in believing in the trust funds. Who is to blame here? The (largely Democratic) politicians who say the entitlement crisis is a tempest in a teapot, and that it concerns projected shortfalls that are decades away? Is that really a conspiracy? What of the citizens who don't trouble themselves to get the public data straight from the horse's mouth (in this case the Trustees)?

[Judas]

For instance, when I try to explain how the money supply has been mismanaged... They assume that since the flaws are so blindingly obvious as I describe them, it cannot possibly be the case that things are set up this way, because any fool would see the folly.

It is precisely because people have a knee-jerk tendency to dismiss tales of government cooking the books as "conspiracy theory" that I try to resist describing it in those terms... Every year I show people the part of the Summary of the Annual Reports of the Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees which says that "neither the redemption of trust fund bonds, nor interest paid on those bonds, provides any new net income to the Treasury"... Is that really a conspiracy? What of the citizens who don't trouble themselves to get the public data straight from the horse's mouth (in this case the Trustees)?

True enough. Like the recent dollar bounce. It stinks to high heaven, but people I talk to think that since the market is reacting that way the value must be real. No, it couldn't be something like this (http://siliconinvestor.advfn.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=24833658). ;)

[babbittd]

Your position doesn't make any sense to me at all.

I think you misunderstood a little bit.

I'm looking for a hard line, the difference, the definition that seperates a pack of a willingly told lies from a conspiracy.

"Lied" about Steven Hatfill? This is the standard "omniscient/omnipotent government" fallacy of conspiracy theories. How about "was wrong" about Steven Hatfill. Read up on the circumstantial case against him, and you'll see what roused their suspicion and why their case fell apart.

For that matter, if the fix was in as far as identifying a scapegoat, why the hell did it take 7 years of investigation? In the first place, wouldn't they have made it stick to Steven Hatfill? In the second place, what is the point of stretching out the investigation for 7 years, only to point the finger at a trusted scientist from a government lab? If you're covering up a government conspiracy, doesn't it seem odd to go out of your way to identify the government as the source of the anthrax -- I mean, that was the basis of their entire public case against Ivins.

If this was a conspiracy, then either (1) the investigation would have identified a politically helpful perpetrator, or (2) it would have silently gone away without being resolved. It most definitely would not have featured Ft. Detrick as the source of the anthrax.

Chill Ash, it was an example pulled from the news of the day in regards to the question posed above. I am not here to debate the finer points of the anthrax mess.

[babbittd]

Heck -- I'm the one in my circle of friends who is forever railing about manipulated economic statistics and impending fiscal "doom".


there are probably quite a few of us here.

[ASH]

I think you misunderstood a little bit.

...


Chill Ash...

Duly noted. Chillin' ;)

[phirang]

there are probably quite a few of us here.

EJ should change the name of the site to, "i-cassandra".

[vdhulla]

Most folks simply can't get their minds around the possibility that public affairs have been so poorly managed. They assume that since the flaws are so blindingly obvious as I describe them, it cannot possibly be the case that things are set up this way, because any fool would see the folly.

Exactly ! Moreover, it surprises me that it is not only the not-so-well-informed crowd that does not want to even consider for a moment that such things could happen, but, also the well-informed crowd !

[flintlock]

I think it will be very close, but in the end the blue hairs will pull McCain along. Could go either way though, based on what happens between now and the election. I think if things get worse with Russia, it will give people something to think about regarding Obama. McCain's VP selection will be critical. Good chance he won't make it 4 years.:D

[babbittd]

iTulip's last foray into political prognostication (Mark Warner) was not as successful as its economic predictions.

Warner has been selected by Team Obama to be the keynote speaker at the Democratic National Convention.

[babbittd]

The model explains about 90% of the variation in the share of the vote. Over the previous seven elections, the model has correctly predicted the state winner 86% of the time. The model has successfully called the winner of the Electoral College in every election from 1980 on.

Inflation + recession =change

The prediction for 2008 is based on Moody’s Economy.com’s forecasts for inflation and state unemployment rates for the fall. In the third quarter of 2008, top-line inflation, measured by the Consumer Price Index, is expected to be 3.6% on a six-quarter annualized basis. The forecast for the change in the unemployment rate over the previous two years ranges from -0.4 of a percentage point, in Oklahoma, to +2.1 percentage points in Nevada. Overall, rising inflation, recession, and a worsening labor market will make it very difficult for Senator McCain to win the election, especially on top of the incumbent fatigue problem.

Overall, the model predicts the Democratic nominee will win 30 states plus the District of Columbia, for a total of 380 Electoral College votes, far more than the 270 required to win (see Table 2). Eleven states are projected to switch from Republican in 2004 to Democratic in 2008. No states are expected to switch from Democratic to Republican.

source (http://www.economy.com/dismal/article_free.asp?cid=106524#topofpage)


Moody's electoral college model apparently vastly outperforms their credit risk models.

(moved from another thread)

[metalman]

this may not play well in california, new york, etc.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/QG1vPYbRB7k&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/QG1vPYbRB7k&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[babbittd]

Inflation + recession =change

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll)

Monday, October 06, 2008

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows Barack Obama attracting 52% of the vote while John McCain earns 44%. This is the highest level of support ever recorded for Obama and is his largest lead of the year. It also continues a remarkable twenty-five days in a row where the Democrat’s support has never declined by even a single point. The Democratic candidate has gained six full percentage points of support since Lehman Brothers collapsed to start the Wall Street mess (see trends).

[reallife]

I won't point any fingers expect to say that the idea this is a conspiracy is absurd.

Bush did what he believed to be right. History will either prove him to be the ultimate idiot or a principled risk taker. Sometimes I swear I think both on the same day.

If you really want to exercise your tin foil, feel free to follow the news on bear sterns. That's interesting stuff.

However, as for politics, people only call it a conspiracy because it helps them feel better about not understanding it.

Do people in politics lie and manipulate? Of course. Everyone does in every single social situation of their lives. Partly it's because we want to control, but also because we simply don't know the real truth and it's easier to pretend we do.

Does anyone in politics conspire? Rarely. The few times they do, they're taking huge huge chances, and it frequently blows up in their faces .. even more so these a days.

Hell, people are getting screwed over / prosecuted simply because they aren't telling the truth *well enough*, nevermind lying.

But the idea that someone controls what's going on.. hah hah. Are those black helicopters I see? whirr whirr whirr...

I agree with you 100%, but there really are black helicopters you know. When I was in the Army, stationed at Ft. Bliss, Texas I saw them occasionally at night on the highway up into New Mexico. Once, three or four of them zoomed across the highway right in front of my SUV at road level, maybe 4-6 feet above the ground, underneath the power lines, and a hundred yards ahead of me. My wife and I both saw them. They are very fast and very lethal. They are flown by Special Ops guys all over Iraq and Afganistan, and who knows, maybe in Pakistan too. I had several patients over the years who piloted them using night vision equipment Hollywood hasn't even dreamed of yet.

BTW, Obama is the first candidate in many years who really does place our country first.

By comparison, McCain remains a spoiled brat, raised by Admirals to carry on their legacy, who has a serious 'daddy' complex that he will inflict on all of us if he is elected. His behavior isn't erratic at all if you understand that he will do anything to get elected. Becoming president is his way of 'besting' his heavy-handed, largely absent father. He was a total fu*k-up in the Naval Academy but was 'selected' to fly fighters?? Yes, thanks to his daddy(s). When he crashed his toys, daddy was there to get him a new one. True enough he was a POW but their are many un-asked and un-answered questions about his Honor, Courage and Committment when he was in captivity. After his release he demonstrated his commitment by running around on his wife. BTW, adultery is still a punishable offense in the Uniform Code of Military Justice but it was never applied to John McCain, the Admiral's son. Ronald Reagan was correct in his personal assesment of McCain's ambition and ability to put himself above duty and country. Too bad RR isn't here now to straighten out the record. He would too, out of principal.

My predictions: Senator McCain will lose by a landslide in November, have a relapse of his metastatic malignant melanoma and die within six months in early 2010. He really should get more rest and eat better you know. The GOP will continue to flounder in their right wing "conservative" ideology. The Democratic Party will become the party of business. FWIW, Gov. Palin has been exposed for what she is: an airhead, one term governor of Alaska. President Obama will handily win re-election in 2012. :D

[BK]

Real life,

Where do I get what ever you are smoking or drinking - Obama Koolaid - it must be great stuff.

You forgot to mention that McCain probably beats his children, steals money from his church collection plate, and he has been caught Jaywalking in Washington-DC.

I've heard that Obama plans to reduce the Salary for the Office of the President when he takes Office. Obama has no interest in money or power - he simply does it because he cares about the People.
If he does get elected perhaps we pass a constitutional amendment and make him Dictator for Life because we will be so blessed for a such a great man offer to be our President.

So much for Itulip being a venue for critical thinkers!

[we_are_toast]

It aint over till it's over.

If Obama doesn't win decisively, look for the McCain camp to start challenging recounts in court. The challenges will go all the way to the supreme court and we know what will happen there, another appointed president.

[WDCRob]

Obama in a landslide.

[reallife]

Real life,

Where do I get what ever you are smoking or drinking - Obama Koolaid - it must be great stuff.

You forgot to mention that McCain probably beats his children, steals money from his church collection plate, and he has been caught Jaywalking in Washington-DC.

I've heard that Obama plans to reduce the Salary for the Office of the President when he takes Office. Obama has no interest in money or power - he simply does it because he cares about the People.
If he does get elected perhaps we pass a constitutional amendment and make him Dictator for Life because we will be so blessed for a such a great man offer to be our President.

So much for Itulip being a venue for critical thinkers!

BK, try to keep your comments from becoming personal attacks on other forum members. We are all welcome to our opinions and interpretations of the facts. Not that you mentioned any facts. Here's a few facts for you: I forgot to mention that I have 27 years of military service under my belt. I am an anesthesiologist and have many years of training and experience in critical thinking. I may not be an economist but I have years of personal investment experience, largely successful. I will not be getting any tax breaks under Obama. I am an INDEPENDENT VOTER. I am voting for OBAMA. People like me can see through McCain like an open window. :D

[BK]

Real life,

My reaction was a to the combination of Politician and Country First.

Sorry - I believe these to be mutually exclusive. How many Politicians are in office - whom have massive personal wealth and say No to the Checks from the Treasury - is there one? Senators vote them selves a cost of living increase without fail. The job is all about MONEY, POWER, PRESTIGE, AND MONEY.

I believe Senator Obama has the same intense self interest as any Politician.

Sorry - lots of very bright people on the iTulip forums and I'm struck by people who see any Politician as THE ANSWER.

Again - I'm not a Big Fan of McCain - I'll admit I have more mis-givings against voting for Senator Obama.

I'm floored by the Intensity of the devotion to Senator OBama. I think intense devotion to any Politician puts our personal liberties at risk.

[babbittd]

The Markets know who is going to win.

Bodog.com:

Bet On: Who will be the next president of the United States? Vote on who will win the 2008 Presidential election. Any wagers placed after outcome becomes public knowledge will be no action. Singles Only. Max. $300.

John McCain +260

Barack Obama -340

[hellstan]

ASH, don't worry about the travails of who is elected, he will be fixed for life financially, and he will be an indelible mark in history--I expect if you could get into either candidate's mind, you would see that that is all that counts.

Jim, regarding McSneer, he's already fixed — thanks to madam.:cool:

Obama 290 at least.

[Lukester]

Wow that's an eye opener. Am I reading this right? I thought Obama was the odds favorite here?

The Markets know who is going to win.

Bodog.com:

Bet On: Who will be the next president of the United States? Vote on who will win the 2008 Presidential election. Any wagers placed after outcome becomes public knowledge will be no action. Singles Only. Max. $300.

John McCain +260

Barack Obama -340

[babbittd]

Wow that's an eye opener. Am I reading this right? I thought Obama was the odds favorite here?

Risk $340 to win $100 on a Obama victory.

Risk $100 to win $260 on a McCain victory.

Aha! I do have something to teach to some members of Itulip.