[PassedOut]

 Winstonm, on 2011-December-31, 12:08, said:

There are 300 million people in Iowa? Who knew?

Might be the marriage thing.

[Winstonm]

Santorum Surge Mystery Revealed
Hey, how about running someone no one knows anything about?

[BunnyGo]

 mike777, on 2011-December-28, 09:54, said:

I agree with your main point about incompetence but I do think a state should be pretty limited in what rules it can demand on how any political party chooses to run its own primary or how any political party wants to choose who to run for the president of the USA on its ticket.

This rule feels like a step too far.

Now if this rule applied to the actual state vote for any party to get on the ballot for election to the Presidency that would be ok but I think the actual political party should be given extreme latitude on who and how it chooses to represent the polical party.

Doesn't matter how you feel (or how I feel). The people (well, their representatives) of Virginia set the law, it's been the law, and these people failed to adhere to it. Tough noogies to them

[Winstonm]

Meanwhile, back at the Republican auditions...

Quote

WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican contender Rick Santorum says that if he's elected president, he would bomb Iran 's nuclear facilities unless they were opened up for international arms inspectors.

Next!

[Winstonm]

Meanwhile, back at the Republican auditions...

Quote

GOP presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich is sinking in the polls but nevertheless said he would consider former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as a potential vice presidential running mate.

Next! Next! Next!

[Winstonm]

Meanwhile, back at the Republican auditions...

Quote

Michelle Bachmann said...

Next! Next! Next! Next! Next! N-e-e-e-h-h-x-x-x-t!

[Winstonm]

Meanwhile, back at the Republican auditions...

Quote

“Corporations are people, my friend,” Romney said.

Some people in the front of the audience shouted, “No, they’re not!”

“Of course they are,” Romney said.

Oh, what the hell. Can he dance?

[JLOGIC]

 jonottawa, on 2011-December-01, 01:36, said:

Romney's dropped below 50% now. Gingrich is soaring (is America ready for a First Homewrecker? I'm still clinging to the hope that somehow Paul or Huntsman will break through.)

In other news, the time may have come to ask Justin for political predictions so you can bet on the opposite happening.

Haters gonna hate, Romney at 78+ % now, my perfect record in tact imo

[kenberg]

That's 78% of what where?
My guess, hardly a wild shot, is that Romney will be the nominee. The result in Iowa, despite being only a day plus away, is less clear to me.


Some family was over yesterday and it seems that my nineteen year old granddaughter has taken an interest (a modest interest that thankfully will not interfere with schoolwork) in politics. She was asking why, since Republicans are searching for almost any alternative to Romney, Huntsman was not getting a closer look. I told her that while I hated to put my cynicism in front of a young person, I really thought it was because he was another Mormon. Of course there can be many reasons for conservatives and others to look harshly at Romney, but all of this wild hopping around for anyone at all (but not Huntsman) is hard to explain without looking at the hush-hush reasons.

A recent experience that struck me, perhaps only me, as relevant: I was at my 55th high school reunion (the first reunion I ever attended). I was chatting with a couple and the woman asked why my wife Becky did not come. I explained that she was at a week long yoga retreat. The woman said a few words about the new Holy Yoga, and I guess I inadvertently insulted her since I mistakenly thought that she was joking. She had practiced yoga for a while but had to give it up since it interfered with her relationship with God. It turns out that this view is not unique to the woman at my reunion. Becky teaches a yoga class at a local senior center and the sister of one of the participants came by to rather thoroughly vet my wife to make sure nothing was being done to offend their religious beliefs.

I am not at all on any campaign to tell people what they must think, but it seems pretty clear to me that people who think as these women do would have a pretty tough time accepting a Mormon candidate. I think it is a serious part of what is going on.


My entire adult life I have been voting for candidates whose religious beliefs do not match mine. My strong preference would be that candidates announce their past achievements and their future intentions, and tell us that their views on God, Jesus, Moses and Tim Tebow are none of our business.

[PassedOut]

 kenberg, on 2012-January-02, 08:47, said:

She was asking why, since Republicans are searching for almost any alternative to Romney, Huntsman was not getting a closer look. I told her that while I hated to put my cynicism in front of a young person, I really thought it was because he was another Mormon.

My take is that Huntsman is excluded because he accepts the science on climate change, because he refuses to sign what he calls the "silly pledge" never to raise taxes, and because he served his country as ambassador to China. The Mormon thing hurts him with some folks, but it hurts Romney also.

[Bbradley62]

 Winstonm, on 2012-January-01, 15:24, said:

Santorum Surge Mystery Revealed
Hey, how about running someone no one knows anything about?

There's plenty of information available on Santorum. Just google him...

[Phil]

 Winstonm, on 2012-January-01, 15:24, said:

Santorum Surge Mystery Revealed
Hey, how about running someone no one knows anything about?

I am always amused at the poll choices:

Obama vs 'unknown' republican>

Obama vs Newt >

Obama vs Romney, etc...

Maybe this guy is a registered Republican?

[BunnyGo]

 Bbradley62, on 2012-January-02, 10:58, said:

There's plenty of information available on Santorum. Just google him...

Talking about "Santorum surging from behind" has got to be the media purposefully making a double entendre.

[hrothgar]

 Winstonm, on 2012-January-01, 15:24, said:

Santorum Surge Mystery Revealed
Hey, how about running someone no one knows anything about?

I saw an interview with Santorum yesterday on "Meet the Press".
The guy is stark raving mad...

Gregory challenged Santorum by stating that the Obama policy towards Iran was essentially the same as Bush's and asked Santorum what he'd do differently.
Santorum answered that he'd bomb Iran...

Its hard to imagine a worse foreign policy decision

[JLOGIC]

 kenberg, on 2012-January-02, 08:47, said:

That's 78% of what where?

A betting site called intrade. Basically works like a stock market, people can buy and sell shares etc. Eventually when the outcome is decided your share will basically be worth 10 or 0, so a price of 7.88 correlates to 78.8 % chance to win. Needless to say futures markets are by far more accurate than polls, similar to how vegas lines for football are very good indicators of the actual win probabilities between 2 teams.

BTW, the market agrees with you about Iowa. Romney is the most likely to win it, but he's only 43 % to do so. Santorum and Paul are both given significant chances to win also in the mid to high 20 percents. FWIW I am hoping Romney loses Iowa causing his stock to fall for GOP nominee, in which case I will buy more.

[hrothgar]

 JLOGIC, on 2012-January-02, 13:21, said:

Needless to say futures markets are by far more accurate than polls, similar to how vegas lines for football are very good indicators of the actual win probabilities between 2 teams.

Hi Justin

I definitely agree that futures markets (potentially) can provide more accurate information that polls.
However, I'm not sure whether I trust "intrade" in practice.

I have a lot of concerns regarding the size of the intrade market as well as opportunities for deliberate manipulation.

Case in point: A few month's back, it was revealed that Newt Gingrich was using a commercial service to artificially inflate his Twitter numbers.
I'm curious how much it would cost to start deliberately skewing the intrade polls and inflating ones position.

Any idea how large/deep the market is for calling the Republican nominee?

[Winstonm]

 PassedOut, on 2012-January-02, 09:35, said:

My take is that Huntsman is excluded because he accepts the science on climate change, because he refuses to sign what he calls the "silly pledge" never to raise taxes, and because he served his country as ambassador to China. The Mormon thing hurts him with some folks, but it hurts Romney also.

So, you're saying because he is sane, Republicans rule him out. Sounds about right to me.

[JLOGIC]

 hrothgar, on 2012-January-02, 14:00, said:

Any idea how large/deep the market is for calling the Republican nominee?

Presidential nominations are their biggest/most actively traded markets every time I think (maybe academy awards but I doubt it). Per intrade there are 164,200 shares on "romney to be GOP nominee." There are 25k shares for Santorum. (Shares pay out $10 to win, $0 to lose, so romney shares are now $8.00). You can see how deep the market is from intrade.

Most of their other markets are way too shallow to be interested in, because if you want to put a significant amount of money down you will move the line too much, and obviously the few people in it tht you are effectively trading against might have inside info.

[Mbodell]

 Winstonm, on 2012-January-02, 15:50, said:

PassedOut said:

My take is that Huntsman is excluded because he accepts the science on climate change, because he refuses to sign what he calls the "silly pledge" never to raise taxes, and because he served his country as ambassador to China. The Mormon thing hurts him with some folks, but it hurts Romney also.

So, you're saying because he is sane, Republicans rule him out. Sounds about right to me.

Huntsman is pretty much dominated by Romney.

They are both Mormon's.
They are both not trusted by the conservatives (Huntsman because he's a moderate, Romney because he was a moderate when Governor and people fear he's only pretending to be a conservative to pander to the primary field).
They both worked with Democrats (Huntsman as an Ambassador under Obama, Romney in MA).
They both claim "electability" with appeals to being able to win independent voters.

Huntsman's pretty much only chance to win is if some disqualifying scandal comes out about Romney and the race turns into some conservative candidate (looks like Santorum) versus Huntsman getting the moderate/middle/electability angle. Especially if Santorum stumbles under negative ads and/or the economy picks up and Obama looks more secure (in which case electability may matter).

But given Romney is a odds on favorite to win now, and even if he doesn't win, barring the dead girl or live boy scandal he'll be in it for the long term which leaves Huntsman no credible path to any sort of vote (although he could be putting in his needed time for a 2016 run or as someone's VP, although he's not a good VP choice since Utah is reliably Republican, and he doesn't bring anything to the ticket that Romney wouldn't).

[mike777]

Looks like Intrade has Iowa at:

Romney 52%
Paul 25%
Santorum 21%

to win.