The Institute of 2012 GOP nomination Intrade rankings

[Sam Spade]

Palin is now up to 23.9. I guess someone else is buying other than myself.

I'd certainly be buying, fwiw...

[Sam Spade]

One of the reasons why this board has almost zero interest to me at this point in the game is because open party nominations are rather predictable.  Typically, only two candidates ever stand reasonable odds (<5%) to win the nomination, and maybe one or two other candidates have any other chance (>5%) whatsoever.  I think only one or two open party nominations in the modern era (post-1968) fall outside this paradigm.

Once we reach December or so, this will all become painfully clear at some "moment of clarity" if you keep your ear to the ground.  I will post then here with my call.  Until then, have fun folks.

Just as a final FYI, I already have a sneaking suspicion who the two possibilities are.  But I'm far from certain.

</classic Sam Spade-style post>

[Sam Spade]

Primaries are very unpredictable - that's not really news.

Hell, we have enough trouble predicting these races 3 days out, much less three months out.

One of the reasons why this board has almost zero interest to me at this point in the game is because open party nominations are rather predictable.

Well, at least I didn't spend the whole of 2007 trying to tell other people how Romney stood a chance or was the favorite.  I was too busy touting Giuliani...

Hey wait!! 

That being said, I did catch the McCain rally long before anyone else.  And it should have been rather apparent in December 2007-January 2008 that only McCain and Huckabee could win, and that Huckabee could only win with Romney as an opponent.  I believe that I posted that here somewhere - come on Morden, you seem to know where every one of my posts lie, please help!

[Sam Spade]

One of the reasons why this board has almost zero interest to me at this point in the game is because open party nominations are rather predictable.  Typically, only two candidates ever stand reasonable odds (<5%) to win the nomination, and maybe one or two other candidates have any other chance (>5%) whatsoever.  I think only one or two open party nominations in the modern era (post-1968) fall outside this paradigm.

Once we reach December or so, this will all become painfully clear at some "moment of clarity" if you keep your ear to the ground.  I will post then here with my call.  Until then, have fun folks.

Just as a final FYI, I already have a sneaking suspicion who the two possibilities are.  But I'm far from certain.

</classic Sam Spade-style post>

Becoming clearer by the day - the polls are giving you the answer, folks.

Anyway, I'll post this for when I return more seriously in 3-4 months time, probably...

Some observations, as of today, for the betting crowd.  I would not short anything below 10 to any point below 5, as it is a waste of time.

Romney 32.1 - I think you have to short Romney above 40 (target 30) and go long below 20 (target 30).  You can't bet with him otherwise until we know what Palin is doing.  If Palin does not run, you go long because if Perry does not run, he'll shoot the moon; otherwise, he'll stay the same.  If Palin runs, you reevaluate.
Perry 19.9 - Right now, you go short Perry, even if there's pain.  And there are many reasons why - first and foremost remember that Perry and Palin are long-time allies.  I can't see Perry running if he has any doubt that Palin will, as her candidacy inevitably damages his chances by a lot (and vice versa) in favor of the Mormon.  That means Palin's announcement almost assuredly occurs before Perry  (watch I'll be wrong, but if he announces, Palin will not run - therefore short to zero, but right now not worth shorting).  That means, for now, you short Perry and wait.  If Palin says no, then you reevaluate, and probably put longs on Perry and Romney (as a pair trade).  You see, Perry is probably the smartest political operator out there in the Republican party, bar none.  He's placing people in Iowa and poaching people to be prepared should Palin not run, so that he can play anti-Romney.  But he's not going to run unless that weight is lifted.  And even then he might not run.
Huntsman 10.6 - No longs ever.  Short above 10 to 5.
Pawlenty 10.0 - Short above 10 to 5.  Spec long would be advisable at 5.
Bachmann 7.0 - See Pawlenty.
Palin 4.5 - At this point, you have to go long and hold, because the potential gain (quite large - moreso than any other candidate in the short term) is getting pretty good at these prices.  Pair trade with Perry (short).  But it might hurt for a while, and you might get even better prices.
Paul 2.7 - No longs ever.
Cain 2.4 - Ditto
Christie 1.6 - Ditto
Giuliani 1.6 - Ditto
Gingrich 1.3 - Might be worth a spec long.  But only to 3-5 as target.
Ryan 1.2 - No longs ever.
Santorum 0.7 - See Gingrich, except to 2-3.
Pataki 0.6 - No longs ever.
Johnson 0.5 - Ditto.

[Sam Spade]

Romney 32.1 - I think you have to short Romney above 40 (target 30) and go long below 20 (target 30).  You can't bet with him otherwise until we know what Palin is doing.  If Palin does not run, you go long because if Perry does not run, he'll shoot the moon; otherwise, he'll stay the same.  If Palin runs, you reevaluate.

Dangerous advice. Never short a stock at 40 when it's heading to 100 long term.

Well, first, just because something is heading to 100 long-term, doesn't mean you can't short at 40 and make good bank, depending on the technicals.  Basic investing there.

Second, if you actually read my post above, you'll note that its time value is limited (i.e. is not long-term).  So the idea that he may go to 100 long-term is not really within my scope.

Third, as to the inevitability of Romney, I cannot agree.  The Iowa poll today gives me a lot of reasons to conclude he is probably doomed there, which means he has to win NH and strongly, and then probably take SC to avoid a long primary process and possible defeat.

I do think that he is one of the few (3-4) candidates who can win the nomination, and is probably one of the "big two" I talk about in a earlier post describing the "candidates who can win" phenomenon.  But there is a lot of time left.

[Sam Spade]

I have to agree that Newt is going to get some play again.  I don't think he has it either, of course, but don't be surprised to see him start to seriously move up in the polls to a competitive position.  Especially when the Cain boomlet fades.

Just as an FYI - if I thought that any of the candidates in the Republican primary could be taken seriously by the Republican base as a Presidential candidate after the usual scrutiny, Romney would be dead meat.  Otherwise, in the end, he'll be turned to out of desperation.  Which should say something, both short-term and long-term about things.