New Tradesports rankings

[Verily]

With Giuliani ahead of McCain and Richardson at 1.5, I believe Tradesports has regained some sanity.

Anything that includes Gore in the top tier is insane especially after his recent statements in a Time interview.

Gore almost definitely won't run (and he's overrated on tradesports), but if he DID, you'd see his tradesports rating go way up.

Which is stupid. Even if he ran, I don't think he'd get the nomination at this point, and he certainly shouldn't be above 2.0 right now.

[Verily]

No idea, but he seems to have settled back down:

Giuliani 28.2
McCain 20.1
Thompson 20.1
Romney 20.0
Gingrich 3.3
Hagel 2.3
Huckabee 2.3
Rice 1.0
Paul 0.6
Brownback 0.5
Bloomberg 0.5

-----

Clinton 52.0
Obama 28.6
Gore 9.6
Edwards 7.9
Richardson 2.1
Clark 0.5
Biden 0.5

[Verily]

Romney has also surpassed both Gore and Thompson in the "winning individual" market, and is now at 10.6.

I find it hilarious that there are people who actually think Romney could win a general election in 2008.

More so than Gore (who isn't running) and McCain (who's been a complete disaster).

[Verily]

McCain regains some ground; still in fourth. Edwards has also rebounded. Paul has replaced Hagel as the favorite anti-war Republican.

Giuliani 27.0
Romney 23.0
Thompson 22.1
McCain 19.9
Gingrich 3.0
Huckabee 2.2
Paul 1.3
Rice 1.1
Hagel 1.0
All others <1

Clinton 51.1
Obama 29.9
Gore 9.9
Edwards 7.9
Richardson 3.0
All others <1

By the way, Intrade now has a market in which people can bet on the chances that Michael Bloomberg runs for the White House as an independent.  Current market price is 24.5% chance that he'll do so.  The "winning party" market also gives a 2.6% chance that a third party or independent candidate will win the general election.

At this point, I think the odds of Bloomberg launching an independent bid are inversely related to Giuliani winning the Republican nomination. Bloomberg had said that he wouldn't run if Giuliani were the Republican candidate (though that was a while ago), and talks with Hagel on an independent run look serious. (I wouldn't be surprised, though, if Bloomberg ends up teaming up with Paul, who is ideological much closer to him than Hagel and has more or less the same name recognition these days.)

[Verily]

(I wouldn't be surprised, though, if Bloomberg ends up teaming up with Paul, who is ideological much closer to him than Hagel and has more or less the same name recognition these days.)

Not sure if Paul would go for that.  I don't follow NYC closely enough to have any examples offhand, but I thought Bloomberg was heavily into nanny statism, like smoking bans?  Also, what's Bloomberg's foreign policy ideology?  I would guess it would be more "internationalist" like Hagel, rather than "isolationist" like Paul, even if he agrees more with Paul on Iraq.

Smoking bans are the sort of local issues that Paul or Bloomberg wouldn't have any say in as President, so the issue is kind of irrelevant. Bloomberg is not nearly so supportive of such nanny state laws as Giuliani was (under whom most of New York City's such laws were implemented), but, more importantly, he focuses more on economic issues and social liberalism.

Bloomberg is generally big on education and health care but opposed to most any other sort of government spending and intervention, with the idea that a strong economy is built on educated, healthy workers who are motivated to make money and unfettered by religious and social restrictions, which I think is, broadly speaking, Paul's position but not Hagel's.

The one major national issue I could see Paul and Bloomberg at odds on would be gun control, but I think both can appreciate that gun control is essential in cities and at least not beneficial in rural areas.

[Verily]

Paul eases back out, McCain loses. Giuliani and Thompson are essentially tied.

Giuliani 25.1
Thompson 25.0
Romney 23.0
McCain 17.0
Gingrich 2.1
Paul 2.1
Huckabee 2.0
Others <1.0


Obama and Edwards slide, no one gains.

Clinton 51.2
Obama 27.4
Gore 10.5
Edwards 6.9
Richardson 2.3
Others <1.0


Michael Bloomberg to run as Independent 27.0
(IMO, that should be at 74.9: the inverse of Giuliani's odds.)

[Verily]

Obama rebounds.

The guy who was too chicken to be in the Republican debate gains the most. McCain might as well get in a tank, because there's a lot of tank in his campaign. Paul isn't quite as overrated any more.

Many agree that McCain actually won last night's debate.

You only count as one person.

[Verily]

Obama is surging because of the Gallup Poll that came out showing him leading Hillary by a point for the first time and more importantly because of the fundraising buzz (which indicates that he will beat Clinton by a wide margin this quater).

It will be interesting to see, then, if Obama can turn cash into votes the way Romney has.

[Verily]

Obama is surging because of the Gallup Poll that came out showing him leading Hillary by a point for the first time and more importantly because of the fundraising buzz (which indicates that he will beat Clinton by a wide margin this quater).

It will be interesting to see, then, if Obama can turn cash into votes the way Romney has.

Not sure what you mean by that. Obama is doing much better than Romney nationally. Romney is doing better in New Hamphire and Iowa I suppose, if thats what mean...

Romney had a huge first quarter cash advantage over his Republican rivals. Obama had only a small advantage over Clinton. Romney was very effective in the first quarter at using his money advantage to gain ground in Iowa and New Hampshire as well as nationwide.

[Verily]

We must preserve this moment in McCain's collapse:

F. Thompson 34.0
Giuliani 31.5
Romney 22.0
McCain 4.0
Paul 2.5
Gingrich 2.0
Others <1

Clinton's at the lowest she's been in a while, too, and Obama the highest (impending fundraising numbers?):

Clinton 47.6
Obama 33.3
Gore 8.6
Edwards 5.1
Richardson 2.7
Others <1

[Verily]

McCain has rebounded somewhat to 6.8.

Right now, McCain and Edwards are both very close to their all-time campaign lows. Obama and Thompson are both near their all-time campaign highs. Romney is also near his all-time high. Of the major candidates, only Giuliani and Clinton are not near records (although Clinton is near her lowest in 2007).

[Verily]

Paul was briefly ahead of McCain. Obama has reached a new record high, Romney is declining and Paul has reached a new peak, presumably all on fundraising numbers.

Clinton 45.0
Obama 34.3
Gore 8.8
Edwards 5.4
Richardson 2.3
Others <1

Thompson 34.6
Giuliani 34.3
Romney 19.2
McCain 4.0
Paul 3.3
Gingrich 2.1
Others <1

[Verily]

Perhaps the market is assuming Obama will be as effective as Romney was with his money. Obama is at an all-time high and Clinton at a 2007 low. Romney continues to drop slightly; Giuliani has regained the lead. McCain has doubled the gap between himself and Paul, who has subsided somewhat.

Clinton 42.1
Obama 35.8
Gore 9.0
Edwards 5.1
Richardson 2.0
Others <1

Giuliani 35.5
Thompson 34.1
Romney 18.4
McCain 4.6
Paul 2.8
Gingrich 2.2
Others <1

[Verily]

Why is Bloomberg still included in the GOP nominee market?

[Verily]

I'm a bit suprised that Richardson is not a little closer to Edwards, due to the how close they both were in fundrasing. I mean, he may not be up there in the polls yet, but if you look at the Republican side, Paul's pretty high, assumingly based at least somewhat on his fundraising.

Edwards is polling much better, and Richardson's poor debate performances give him little room for improvement. If he were better on television, I'd put his odds as much higher, but I think Intrade has it about right.

[Verily]

How the hell is Missouri more likely than Iowa and Ohio?

Very few transactions.

[Verily]

Selling Paul is also always a good idea. He might be able to do reasonably well in the primaries, but there's absolutely no way he can win the nomination itself.

[Verily]

I really don't understand all this Romney hype.  Inspite of the fact that he has attracted so much press, he hasn't seen much of a bump in the polls.  I don't even really understand why he is in the top tier, other than the press says he is.

he's leading in most polls out of Iowa and NH...

With all the primaries moved up, they will mean far far less than in years past, plus, he has been pratically living there, unlike the other candidates.

The 2004 Democratic primaries were slightly tainted by the media frenzy over the "Dean scream", but they provide a good illustratin of how much sheer momentum the winner of the Iowa primary builds up. If Romney wins Iowa, Nevada should be a breeze for him (Mormon population turns out substantially, plus the usual momentum and supporters), and then he comes into New Hampshire ahead in the polls and having both previous states. First place in all three of the first states and Romney is clearly going to be one of the top two, if not the winner, even though he's unlikely to do well in South Carolina.

[Verily]

Edwards won South Carolina..... it proved to be inconsequential... granted more importance seems placed on it this year.

It was inconsequential because it was held the same day as 6 other primaries, of which Kerry won 5!

And because Kerry still came in second. It's entirely possible for Romney to win the first three contests and then come in fourth in South Carolina. I don't think he can win any of the Deep South primaries no matter how hard he campaigns.

[Verily]

Edwards won South Carolina..... it proved to be inconsequential... granted more importance seems placed on it this year.

It was inconsequential because it was held the same day as 6 other primaries, of which Kerry won 5!

And because Kerry still came in second. It's entirely possible for Romney to win the first three contests and then come in fourth in South Carolina. I don't think he can win any of the Deep South primaries no matter how hard he campaigns.

Maybe, though of course it's still possible to win the nomination without winning in the Deep South.  If he were to win IA, NV, and NH, then lose SC, there's nothing that says he couldn't still come back and win FL, CA, IL, etc.

Of course, that's my argument, too.

[Verily]

The share price for Huckabee dropping out of the race by the end of 2007 has just dropped all the way from 67.5 to 50.0.

50.0 is waaaay too high.  His solid showing in Ames gives him reason to stay in until the Iowa caucuses, which, last I checked, is post-2007.

If things continue as they are, it might not be for long.

[Verily]

Huckabee would be a terrific candidate if not for the evolution flub.  There's no way in hell I could support a candidate like that.

I wouldn't go as far as to call him a terrific candidate but I also would have been a bit more open to the idea of him becoming President if it wasn't for his stand against science.

On choice or stem cell? Or is it the evolution? Cause the first two ARE national issues, but the last is a state and county issue.

It's the principle of the matter. If he's willfully ignorant on one issue, he's probably willfully ignorant on lots of other issues, too, and I definitely don't trust him to be President.

[Verily]

shucks i could have made a killing buy Romney....

He's only trading at 26–27.  I think there's still room to make money there.

I know there is... Smart people would trade for him, Huckabee, Richardson, and Biden... And its getting a little crazy with Hillary, so Obama as well.

Why Biden? The rest I can see, but Biden hasn't managed to make an impact anywhere with anyone, and there's no indication that he will (and thus make his price go up). Richardson polls poorly nationwide but reasonably well in Iowa, Nevada and New Hampshire. Biden can't even say that.

[Verily]

Probability that they win if they get the nomination
Winning individual / Nomination Odds

Gore 97
Clinton 66.6
Edwards 63
Obama 58.9
Paul 45
Thompson 40.6
Giuliani 38.7
McCain 37
Romney 30.0

Tradesports just gets crazier and crazier every time I look at numbers like this.

Very helpful in terms of knowing where to bet, though. Paul would get crushed in the general election; selling him for the nomination is value, but selling him for winning the whole thing is even more value. Similar applies to Thompson and Gore, who should not be nearly so high on winning individual. Even if Gore does jump in and win the Democratic nomination, his odds to win the general election would not be 97% (so you can cover your bet against him to win the general by buying him to win the nomination).

[Verily]

Shorting is just selling shares of a contract without owning them, and thus "owning" negative numbers of that contract. In fact InTrade is zerosum, for every share owned someone must own a negative share, because what a share really is is a bet between two people on whether or not that happens.

So for example if I sold Paul shares at 8.0 without owning anything, what  I've really done is made a bet with some Paul fanboy, where I bet $9.20 times X amount of shares traded that Paul will not win, while he's bet $.80 times the amount of shares that he would. We'd both have the amount bed in our accounts frozen. Once the GOP nominee was chosen, I'd then have all my money unfrozen and earn an extra $.80 for every share I was betting against (minus a small handling fee InTrade takes on every transaction) while the Paul fanboy's account would lose all his money bet on it. Meanwhile if hell froze over and Paul somehow won the nomination, I'd lose all the frozen money in my account, while the Paul fanboy would have his money unfrozen plus gain $9.20 for every share he owned.

So, you short if you're certain (or nearly so) that an event won't happen?

You can also short if you expect a price to fall; you short, then you buy at a lower price later to cover your costs (and make money no matter what the result).