Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

[reallife]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

My prediction: Bachmann flames out early. Palin never enters the race. Perry and Romney split the primaries by pandering to the tea partiers and the religious right, leaving the moderate center to Obama. Romney wins the convention after a vicious floor fight when the tea partiers walk out. Obama wipes the floor with Romney in the general election.

Not much activity on this string for a long time....

I guess I got my first prediction wrong....so far. Bachmann and Perry? Who would have guessed former Sen. Santorum and and former House Speaker Gingrich would be the candidates pulling Romney into the far-right Neverland? Ron Paul is starting to sound like a moderate....

I'm still putting my bet with Romney vs. Obama with Obama winning the general election. Anyone else?

[don]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

Haven’t you figured it out yet… if it wouldn’t be so rude, the GOP convention would be nominating OBAMA in 2012, right?

That’s why they’re running Newt, Santorum, Bachman, the black guy with hundreds of sexual harassment suits filed against him that he supposedly knew nothing about, what was his name? He was awesome. Rick Perry, another Texas Governor who can’t talk? Ron Paul isn’t even a Republican, so don’t even go there.

There was Gary Johnson, or was his name John Garyson? Jon Huntsman was Mormon 1.A. And Tim Pawlenty had a cup of coffee in the race, took one look around and had to get back to running Minnesota.

Oh wait, I forgot about Thaddeus McCotter? But then, so did you.

I think the inside joke was that no one told Mitt Romney that the whole thing was a giant gag… that they actually wanted Obama in 2012. So, Mitt thought the others were actually trying to win. So then, remember when The GOP debates were in Nevada? And they asked Mitt what to do about foreclosures and someone told him to say that he thought they needed to happen faster? In Nevada? Foreclosures need to happen faster? Come on now… I was rolling on the floor.

I just know I’m right about this. What about Newt’s plan for 9 year-old janitors in poor neighborhoods? And you want me to believe that he’s seriously campaigning for president? Come on now… and Newt’s in first or second place? Sure he is. The man asks his wife for an open marriage, consults for Freddie Mac and bounces ten grand worth of checks… and then wins in South Carolina? Look, I was born at night, but it wasn’t last night.

And the Godfather’s Pizza guy… Cain? That was like a Saturday Night Live sketch. Every day two or three more women show up and start yelling about how he sexually harassed them. He had no idea that might happen? Uh huh, sure.

Don’t even get me started on Bachman… I mean, who would have ever thought that Palin’s job could have been at risk. But along came Michelle and she said, among so many other zingers…

“Carbon dioxide is portrayed as harmful. But there isn’t even one study that can be produced that shows that carbon dioxide is a harmful gas.”

Or what about when she was in South Carolina and she said “Happy Birthday” to Elvis on the anniversary of his death? She was like watching Phoebe on the television sitcom, “Friends.”

And wasn’t Donald Trump in the race at the beginning too? People, this is a show for sure. “Candidate Trump, if you were president, what would you say to the leader of Iran.” And Trump responds: “I’d simply tell him… You’re Fired.” (Insert laugh track here.)

I knew something was up for sure when Huntsman started making sense, and they got rid of him immediately.

Golfing with Boehner…

Ask yourself this question: Why would the Republicans want Obama out? He does everything they want and more.

He gave Wall Street untold trillions with no conditions… never closed Guantanamo, is still rearranging rocks in Afghanistan, made Bush look good by winning in Iraq… said he was going to spend $75 billion on helping homeowners but only spent $2.4 billion… let the bankers pay themselves whatever they wanted… threw out health care reform and replaced it with a gift to health insurance insurers…. didn’t regulate derivatives… what more could Republicans ask for?

Obama even alienated enough Democrats and Independents to hand the House back to the GOP in the midterms. Four more years of Obama and the Republicans will have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate too.

I’m sure the GOP wanted to just go ahead and campaign for Obama in 2012, but how rude would that have been. I mean, if Mitt Romney had come out saying what a great job Obama has been doing? That would have been a total ‘no respect.’

So, they had to run someone who they could be sure had no shot whatsoever. They put the word out and so may showed up, that they just said… “Go ahead, you can all go at it. We’ll just book a hundred debates so you can all have a chance to pretend you’re running for president. Just make sure you don’t start making sense out there.”

Mitt’s not sure what’s going on, so he just keeps changing his positions on everything. They must have someone working with him every night so he knows how to cover the issues properly.

What’s wrong with business in America, Mitt? “Too much regulation.” What do we do about immigration? “Build a fence.” What’s your number one priority? “Repeal ObamaCare.” And, Iran? “Nuke ‘em.” Abortion? “Only in certain cases.” Noooooo. “Oh yeah, I’ve got this one… “ Okay, let’s try again… Abortion? “Over my dead body.” Good, very good.

Of course, every time Obama goes on television they have to send Newt back out there to make sure he doesn’t actually win.

Hey, you can believe what you want. I’m just saying…

http://mandelman.ml-implode.com/2012...in-2012-right/

Obama has proven too damn useful and there's more work to be done. He is the man to front austerity from above and when he's hated by everyone in the lower 90 percentile, he can be impeached. That will buy at least another year of distractions . . .

[ST]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

this from Bloomberg on Santorum, is interesting:

Santorum Becomes Millionaire After U.S. Senate Loss

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...nate-seat.html

[c1ue]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

Not only does it not make me sad, it makes me very glad. I would consider any candidate who would be "a proponent of his own ethnicity", to be extremely dangerous and shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a position of power. IMO a leader in the U.S. needs to lead ALL ethnicities and not be "a proponent of his own ethnicity."

I'm glad to see that you, as a representative of the liberal political spectrum, have such equanimity that you applaud Obama's failure to even benefit his own ethnicity much less all of America's ethnicities, at the price of his bankster sponsors.

That not letting 'them' win is a well worth the price of giving up even the historical platform of liberalism: progressive economic policies, civil rights, and so forth.

But then again, the dynamic of combative small minded prerogatives is exactly what has led us to this point.

[we_are_toast]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

I think that this should actually make you sad.

...

Obama is neither liberal, nor progressive, nor even a proponent of his own ethnicity .

Not only does it not make me sad, it makes me very glad. I would consider any candidate who would be "a proponent of his own ethnicity", to be extremely dangerous and shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a position of power. IMO a leader in the U.S. needs to lead ALL ethnicities and not be "a proponent of his own ethnicity."


Back to the subject at hand, Rick Perry is tweating that he will NOT withdraw from the race, which will help Romney. We'll see if he lasts after South Carolina.

[c1ue]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

This continues to be the weirdest and most entertaining nomination process I've ever seen. Obama has to be loving it.

I think that this should actually make you sad.

Chris Hedges, in the video LargoWinch put up, described Obama as a media brand put out by the banksters.

I personally can see little to dispute this view.

Obama is neither liberal, nor progressive, nor even a proponent of his own ethnicity.

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

GOP elites to huddle to stop Mitt By: Jonathan Martin January 4, 2012 11:12 AM EST

A group of movement conservatives has called an emergency meeting in Texas next weekend to find a “consensus” Republican presidential hopeful, POLITICO has learned. “You and your spouse are cordially invited to a private meeting with national conservative leaders of faith at the ranch of Paul and Nancy Pressler near Brenham, Texas, with the purpose of attempting to unite and to come to a consensus on which Republican presidential candidate or candidates to support, or which not to support,” read an invitation that is making its way into in-boxes Wednesday morning. The meeting is being hosted by such prominent conservative figures as James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family; Don Wildmon, onetime chairman of the American Family Association; and Gary Bauer, himself a former presidential candidate. Many of the individuals on the host list attended a previous closed-door session with Rick Perry this summer, but Perry’s candidacy stalled out, and he returned to Texas after a disappointing fifth-place finish in Iowa. Movement conservatives are concerned that a vote split between Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum among base voters could enable Mitt Romney to grab the GOP nomination. A source who shared the invitation said the meeting was about how to avoid such a possibility. Yet time is short, with New Hampshire Tuesday and both South Carolina and Florida contests in January. In many ways, the Texas meeting is an 11th-hour version of the conversation that many conservative activists have been having for more than a year, how to find a down-the-line conservative to stop Romney — and until now, they’ve come up short. Romney edged out Santorum by eight votes in the Iowa caucuses, and Gingrich placed a distant fourth, behind Ron Paul. Santorum seems best positioned to take on the mantle of Romney-stopper, particularly given his own appeal to evangelical voters in Iowa, but his sudden surge has left him heading into future contests short of cash and on-the-ground organizations in upcoming states. Gingrich praised Santorum in his concession speech Tuesday in Iowa, but showed no sign of dropping out of the race — pledging to assail Romney as a “Massachusetts moderate” while campaigning in New Hampshire and South Carolina. Michele Bachmann, who never caught fire with conservative elites, ended her campaign Wednesday. On Tuesday night, a prominent Iowa conservative, Bob Vander Platts, called on Republicans to unite behind Santorum in hopes of stopping Romney. Vander Platts, who has backed Santorum, suggested Gingrich should reassess his candidacy. If Republicans are going to put up a “pro-family conservative against Mitt Romney, some decisions need to be made,” the former gubernatorial candidate told reporters at a Santorum rally.

[we_are_toast]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

Well, the Iowa circus, I mean caucus, is over. The winners: Santorum and Obama. The losers: everybody else. Perry's history, Bachmann will be gone after South Carolina, Romney still can't do any better than 2008, Paul can't increase the Libertarian wing of the party, and Romney awoke a monster in Newt Gingrich.

Romney and Paul demonstrated the power of money in campaigns. Repeat a lie often enough and you can fool most of the people most of the time. A torrent of negative ads played to an uninformed public is very effective. Since the public won't take it's responsibility to become informed citizens seriously, campaign finance reform to prevent the torrent of misleading information is the only hope to preserve the democracy.

Newt, who I think started this campaign as a book tour to promote his future lobbying ventures, is now really mad at how he was treated in Iowa and will be in for some vengeance against Romney, and will stick it out longer than he planned. If Newt can keep from collapsing in NH, he may do very well in South Carolina and Florida. If Perry's votes split for Newt and Santorum it hurts Romney in the south and helps him in the west and Northeast. Newt and Santorum have to fight it out for the not Romney vote. The sooner one collapses, the worse it'll be for Romney.

This continues to be the weirdest and most entertaining nomination process I've ever seen. Obama has to be loving it.

Update: About 5 minutes after I posted this, I heard on the radio that Bachmann has cancelled a trip to South Carolina and has called a news conference. It will be very, very interesting to see how the 15% support for Perry/Bachmann will break. Most of this is religious support, so most of it will probably go to Santorum with Newt picking up some, but I really can't see Romney getting much.

[don]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxtRD...layer_embedded

[astonas]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

And this will add liquidity to the process?

Yep, now the politicians will run sozzled!

[cjppjc]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

for the cynics among us, something perhaps of interest . . .

Wager on elections? You bet

By: Josh Boak
December 19, 2011 06:00 AM EST

More Americans may soon be able to openly wager in the markets about whether President Barack Obama wins re-election or Republicans gain control of the Senate.

Political junkies have previously placed “bets” on the presidential race through the Iowa Electronic Markets and the Irish exchange Intrade. But the federally regulated market being set up by Chicago-based Nadex has a major difference – they could cash in.

Nadex said it plans to file a request Monday with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to list contracts on the victor of the 2012 presidential race and the majority parties in the House and Senate.

If the federal regulator has no objections, trading could start as early as January 4, the day after the Iowa caucuses, Nadex executives said. The CFTC — which could hold up the listing for further analysis — declined comment on its procedures.

Introducing these so-called “prediction markets” to the broader public could end up giving a better read of the horse race than traditional polls.

“We believe when someone puts his money where his mouth is, it will be more accurate,” said Nadex chief executive Yossi Beinart. “It’s not just a game necessarily.”

Similar prediction markets are already valued tools for political observers.

Forecasts from the Iowa Electronic Markets in the last week of four presidential elections have proven to be more accurate than the final Gallup polls.

Intrade volume on the Republican presidential nominee has already topped 3.2 million shares this cycle, compared to just 1.9 million in 2008, according to Carl Wolfenden, the exchange’s operations manager.

The Nadex contracts would be valued on a scale of 0 to 100, which lets the market determine the percentage likelihood of, say, Obama winning.

If the contract on Obama costs $51—meaning a 51 percent chance of a November 6 triumph for the president—and he cruises to victory, the owner would earn a $49 profit, minus a transaction fee. The person betting against Obama would be out $49.

Or, if a fan of the new Newt Gingrich Civil War novel “The Battle of the Crater” buys shares in the former House speaker at $10 and sells him for $40, he pockets a $30 profit—and covers the sticker price of the book.

But just because a new market exists to speculate on the future of the U.S. government doesn’t mean that Americans will automatically flock to it.

“There’s always a puzzle when new financial markets begin as to whether people will want to trade in them,” said Justin Wolfers, a University of Pennsylvania economics professor. “Whenever economists think up new ideas of things people want to trade, often we’re wrong.”

Companies that might want to hedge political risk can already do so through proxy investments, he said, noting that oil industry stocks might in theory increase after a Republican victory.

Wolfers added that even prediction markets with thin trading volumes can still generate meaningful information about an election.

The rebirth of political markets was made possible, in part, by the Dodd-Frank financial reform passed last year.
By specifically banning contracts tied to terrorism, assassination, war, or any illegal activities, the law provided guidance indicating that speculation on elections was again acceptable.

“We think it’s not just consistent with the letter of the law,” said Nadex general counsel Tim McDermott, “but the spirit.”

Starting in 2001, the Defense Department took steps to sponsor a market where traders could forecast military activity, political instability, economic growth and Western terrorist casualties, among other geopolitical risks.

The project was canned in 2003 after rebukes by senators Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), who said at the time that “the idea of a federal betting parlor on atrocities and terrorism is ridiculous and it’s grotesque.”

Financial speculation about government policy has generated a fair amount of controversy in the past.

The markets were once a staple of American politicking before World War II, according to a paper by University of North Carolina economists Paul Rhode and Koleman Strumpf.

Wall Street brokers drove the wagering—which in the 1916 presidential election exceeded more than $200 million in today’s dollars. The sum was roughly twice the total spending on election campaigns that year.

Complaints that “election betting was immoral and contrary to republican values,” Rhode and Strumpf wrote, led to a New York state crackdown, but the death knell might have been the 1939 legalization of pari-mutuel betting on horse races that gave eager gamblers a better fix than a drawn-out campaign.

But Nadex hopes the grueling pace of modern-day campaigning — with the GOP presidential candidates already holding 13 debates — will help their contracts capture the turbulence, swinging in response to every triumph and each gaffe.

“They will move,” Beinart said, “when there are political events.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70624.html

And this will add liquidity to the process?

[don]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

for the cynics among us, something perhaps of interest . . .

Wager on elections? You bet

By: Josh Boak
December 19, 2011 06:00 AM EST

More Americans may soon be able to openly wager in the markets about whether President Barack Obama wins re-election or Republicans gain control of the Senate.

Political junkies have previously placed “bets” on the presidential race through the Iowa Electronic Markets and the Irish exchange Intrade. But the federally regulated market being set up by Chicago-based Nadex has a major difference – they could cash in.

Nadex said it plans to file a request Monday with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to list contracts on the victor of the 2012 presidential race and the majority parties in the House and Senate.

If the federal regulator has no objections, trading could start as early as January 4, the day after the Iowa caucuses, Nadex executives said. The CFTC — which could hold up the listing for further analysis — declined comment on its procedures.

Introducing these so-called “prediction markets” to the broader public could end up giving a better read of the horse race than traditional polls.

“We believe when someone puts his money where his mouth is, it will be more accurate,” said Nadex chief executive Yossi Beinart. “It’s not just a game necessarily.”

Similar prediction markets are already valued tools for political observers.

Forecasts from the Iowa Electronic Markets in the last week of four presidential elections have proven to be more accurate than the final Gallup polls.

Intrade volume on the Republican presidential nominee has already topped 3.2 million shares this cycle, compared to just 1.9 million in 2008, according to Carl Wolfenden, the exchange’s operations manager.

The Nadex contracts would be valued on a scale of 0 to 100, which lets the market determine the percentage likelihood of, say, Obama winning.

If the contract on Obama costs $51—meaning a 51 percent chance of a November 6 triumph for the president—and he cruises to victory, the owner would earn a $49 profit, minus a transaction fee. The person betting against Obama would be out $49.

Or, if a fan of the new Newt Gingrich Civil War novel “The Battle of the Crater” buys shares in the former House speaker at $10 and sells him for $40, he pockets a $30 profit—and covers the sticker price of the book.

But just because a new market exists to speculate on the future of the U.S. government doesn’t mean that Americans will automatically flock to it.

“There’s always a puzzle when new financial markets begin as to whether people will want to trade in them,” said Justin Wolfers, a University of Pennsylvania economics professor. “Whenever economists think up new ideas of things people want to trade, often we’re wrong.”

Companies that might want to hedge political risk can already do so through proxy investments, he said, noting that oil industry stocks might in theory increase after a Republican victory.

Wolfers added that even prediction markets with thin trading volumes can still generate meaningful information about an election.

The rebirth of political markets was made possible, in part, by the Dodd-Frank financial reform passed last year.
By specifically banning contracts tied to terrorism, assassination, war, or any illegal activities, the law provided guidance indicating that speculation on elections was again acceptable.

“We think it’s not just consistent with the letter of the law,” said Nadex general counsel Tim McDermott, “but the spirit.”

Starting in 2001, the Defense Department took steps to sponsor a market where traders could forecast military activity, political instability, economic growth and Western terrorist casualties, among other geopolitical risks.

The project was canned in 2003 after rebukes by senators Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), who said at the time that “the idea of a federal betting parlor on atrocities and terrorism is ridiculous and it’s grotesque.”

Financial speculation about government policy has generated a fair amount of controversy in the past.

The markets were once a staple of American politicking before World War II, according to a paper by University of North Carolina economists Paul Rhode and Koleman Strumpf.

Wall Street brokers drove the wagering—which in the 1916 presidential election exceeded more than $200 million in today’s dollars. The sum was roughly twice the total spending on election campaigns that year.

Complaints that “election betting was immoral and contrary to republican values,” Rhode and Strumpf wrote, led to a New York state crackdown, but the death knell might have been the 1939 legalization of pari-mutuel betting on horse races that gave eager gamblers a better fix than a drawn-out campaign.

But Nadex hopes the grueling pace of modern-day campaigning — with the GOP presidential candidates already holding 13 debates — will help their contracts capture the turbulence, swinging in response to every triumph and each gaffe.

“They will move,” Beinart said, “when there are political events.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70624.html

[c1ue]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

This was in the USA Today for Monday, 12/19/11

2012 vs past elections.png

(Excel wouldn't paste without losing formatting - vBulletin is highly schizophrenic in this regard)

[jiimbergin]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/...ontrunner.html

Ron Paul Is Now the Republican Frontrunner

Posted on December 19, 2011 by WashingtonsBlog

Ron Paul Pulls Into the Lead


The Atlantic notes:

A new poll from Public Policy Polling shows that Ron Paul has taken the lead in the Iowa caucus race, while Newt Gingrich’s support is fading fast. A different Gallup poll shows Gringrich still holding the lead, but slipping, while The New York Times has Paul in the lead as well.
Gingrich has seen his numbers in the PPP poll drop from 27 percent to 14 percent in just three weeks, while his favorability rating is now split at 46 percent for to 47 percent against, the worst of any candidate not named Jon Huntsman.
***
Perhaps the most telling secondary question was, “Do you think Newt Gingrich has strong principles?” Only 36 percent say that he does, but for Paul that number was 73 percent.

Why is Mr. Paul so popular?
As I pointed out in September, Americans overwhelmingly want:

• The Federal Reserve to be reined in if not abolished

• The never-ending, open-ended, goalpost-moving wars to stop and the troops to be brought home

• Our liberties to be restored, and the martial law indefinite detention idiocy to be reversed

Paul has consistently championed these three American wishes for three decades. None of the other Republican (or Democratic) candidates are on the right side of history on any of these issues.

[don]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

Newt gone already? We hardly knew ya . . . again

Newt Gingrich: end of the surge

GOP grandees have come to the conclusion that Newt Gingrich cannot win the presidency

We've officially reached the end of the Newt Surge and – whether the data support the thesis or not – moved on to the Establishment Counter-attack. After a week or so of stunned silence, the Republican establishment, under the very uneasy leadership of Mitt Romney, has roused to the unavoidable truth (now backed up by hard data) that nominating Newt Gingrich means all but giving up any chance of taking the presidency in 2012.

Romney's campaign is making an all out push to convince voters that Newt is, in a word, nuts. The Washington Examiner is out with an endorsement of Mitt Romney. The National Review is out with an anti-endorsement of Newt Gingrich. Paul Ryan's surprise announcement of a new Medicare plan also aims to support Romney's positioning in the primary battle.

Backing this mounting effort, there's a raft of new polls showing Newt slowing down if not yet slipping in Iowa after an onslaught of harsh attack ads from Romney, Paul and Perry. A new poll came out of New Hampshire overnight showing that Romney still remains firmly in the lead there. And Politico was out with a story on Wednesday night questioning whether Newt's blowing it in Iowa and possibly blowing the nomination with an indifferent campaigning style.

Critical to pulling all this information together is to see that not that much objectively has changed in the polling data since a few days ago — Mitt's always been in the lead in New Hampshire. But there's enough in the numbers for the press narrative to start to change. And that's the prism through which to see almost everything that comes down the pike today.

And remember, there's a big debate tonight.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...h-end-of-surge