The Institute of 2012 GOP nomination Intrade rankings

[Mr. Morden]

Cain was at 0.3 two weeks ago (before the debate), and is now all the way up to 5.  Palin's back in 5th place now that Huckabee's out.

Up: Romney, Pawlenty, Cain
Down: Huckabee (drops to 0.2)

Romney 26.5
Pawlenty 16.8
Huntsman 12.0
Daniels 11.9
Palin 5.4
Cain 5.0
Gingrich 4.6
Bachmann 4.0
Trump 3.6
Paul 3.1
Christie 2.5
Ryan 1.1
Perry 0.7
Santorum 0.7
Giuliani 0.5

[Landslide Lyndon]

If two black men are the candidates for president then I will be very curious to see how will all these Appalachian whites vote.

[Yelnoc]

If two black men are the candidates for president then I will be very curious to see how will all these Appalachian whites vote.

For the Republican Party.  Believe it or not, the south is not as racist as it was a decade ago.  Not to mention that rednecks tend not to vote.

[Bull Moose Base]

If two black men are the candidates for president then I will be very curious to see how will all these Appalachian whites vote.

Probably go to the tie-breaker and vote for the American-born Cain.  (Not sure about the minority of GOP voters that accept Obama was born in the US though.)

[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!

[The Mikado]

Well, yeah, by the start of the primary, there should only be ~2 people left with a serious shot.  My argument is that it will be Romney and anti-Romney, and that this primary season between now and December will be a decision on who gets to be the non-Romney finalist.

[The Mikado]

Trump down to .1%?  Even Huckabee only dropped to .2% on leaving.  Maybe Trump's supporters were faster to sell off.

Candidates over 1%:

Romney: 25.1
Pawlenty: 18.4
Huntsman: 11.8
Daniels: 11.0
Cain: 6.5
Palin: 6.0
Bachmann: 5.2
Gingrich: 4.5
Dr. Congressman Ron Paul, Champion of Liberty: 3.1
Christie: 2.8
Ryan: 1.0


Gingrich seems undervalued and Huntsman, Palin, and Cain seem overvalued to me.

[Mr. Morden]

Intaders have gone "insane for Cain".  (That should be his campaign slogan.)

[The Mikado]

Intaders have gone "insane for Cain".  (That should be his campaign slogan.)

He should fear that they've been raising Cain stock to unsustainable levels.  It'll have to crash eventually: this stock has the mark of Cain on it.

[King]

I'm definitely hoping on the Cain bandwagon.  If I had money, I would invest.

[Mr. Morden]

Some more-than-likely unfounded rumors that Perry may run after all are enough to boost him to 3.7 and 8th place.  Gingrich continues to drop, now actually behind Perry and Christie, who are very unlikely to run.

Up: Perry
Down: Gingrich

Romney 26.0
Pawlenty 18.4
Huntsman 12.0
Daniels 10.7
Cain 6.0
Palin 5.8
Bachmann 5.7
Perry 3.7
Christie 3.1
Gingrich 2.9
Paul 2.7
Johnson 1.0
Ryan 1.0
Giuliani 0.7
Santorum 0.7

Which of these markets has seen the most activity over the last 2+ years?  Palin and Trump are way out in front on that score.  People love to trade futures on Palin and Trump (though I imagine there won't be much trading on Trump anymore.)  Total # of shares traded to date (top five):

Palin 56,365
Trump 51,913
Huckabee 27,515
Gingrich 21,503
Paul 20,990

[Bacon King]

If I had money to play with on Intrade, I'd buy Cain shares at that price.

[The Mikado]

Huntsman is way overpriced. 

[Dan the Roman]

Daniels is way undervalued.
He is probably the best placed person right now among the people who matter.

He has the Bush machine more or less coalescing behind him.
He will start with the support of Christie, McDonnell, Walker
He is offensive to no one in the party
He looks like someone who can win
He fulfills the desire for something different without being insane or unelectable
The media loves him

With Gringrich all but through, and Huckabee, Trump, and Palin out, there is a large collection of anti-Romney voters looking for a home and for someone to beat Obama. Huntsman is too clearly moderate, but Daniels is not.

[Likely Voter]

Daniels is not undervalued because he is still 50/50 on getting in. If he announces he is in, expect to see his value jump to 2nd in the low 20s, which is just about right.

[Mr. Morden]

With Daniels out, Palin's now back up to 4th place.

GOP presidential nominee

Up: Palin
Down: Daniels (drops to 0.2)

Romney 25.9
Pawlenty 19.0
Huntsman 11.1
Palin 6.9
Cain 6.5
Bachmann 5.8
Gingrich 3.0
Perry 3.0
Christie 2.7
Paul 2.7
Ryan 1.1
Giuliani 0.9
Santorum 0.7
Johnson 0.6

GOP VP nominee (only counting those with at least 20 shares traded)

Rubio 17.0
Thune 8.9
Christie 8.4
Daniels 5.9
McDonnell 5.7
Huckabee 5.0
Ryan 5.0
Huntsman 4.5
Cain 3.0
Jindal 3.0

[King]

If Huckabee, Rubio, Christie, Daniels, and Thune don't have any interest in cruising to nomination in a wide open field, why would they show any enthusiasm in playing second fiddle to one of these guys?

The VP choice will likely be similar to Jack Kemp or Dick Cheney: an old guy at the end of his career who plans on acting more as an advisor to the nominee than any sort of charismatic future candidate for the party.  That's the only kind of person who would ever say yes to any of these people.  On the list, McDonnell might be dumb enough to as well.

Newt Gingrich would actually be a good VP candidate for any of the Romneys or anti-Romneys if he doesn't continue to slide out of favor of the GOP.

[Mr. Morden]

If Huckabee, Rubio, Christie, Daniels, and Thune don't have any interest in cruising to nomination in a wide open field, why would they show any enthusiasm in playing second fiddle to one of these guys?

Because they don't want to put themselves through a 2 year presidential campaign, but would be OK with a 2 month vice presidential campaign?

Because there's far less risk with losing as the VP nominee than with losing as the presidential nominee?  And in fact, losing as VP could help set you up for the presidential nomination in '16?

Because (in the case of Rubio) it would look bad to launch a presidential campaign two seconds after taking office as senator, but accepting a VP slot more than 1.5 years into your term doesn't look so bad?

The VP choice will likely be similar to Jack Kemp or Dick Cheney: an old guy at the end of his career who plans on acting more as an advisor to the nominee than any sort of charismatic future candidate for the party.

The party isn't exactly overflowing with strong prospects who fit that description.  Who would it be?  Gingrich would be a terrible VP choice, for reasons that I shouldn't need to enumerate.

[King]

Maybe, but it would be the first time it has ever happened.  Losing VP candidates, especially those tied to loser Prez candidates, just don't go anywhere in the end.  

They get name recognition and frontrunner status next election, sure, but being the early frontrunner in a Presidential primary is more of a curse than a blessing.  They get attacked on all sides in debates immediately.  Plus, I've always believed a lot of voters subconsciously like arch structure with their candidates in these things.  Having the guy who was the favorite to be the nominee four years ago be the nominee is boring as hell.  No buildup there.  There has to be fight.  A known like McCain wasn't a serious contender for the nomination until it looked like he was done.  The obvious choices like Giuliani, Clinton or Edwards were hesitated on once people got into the voting booths.

[Mr. Morden]

Maybe, but it would be the first time it has ever happened.  Losing VP candidates, especially those tied to loser Prez candidates, just don't go anywhere in the end.

In recent history, I think that's just because the candidates were going to make poor presidential candidates regardless.  Lieberman was never going to win the 2004 Democratic nomination, nor was Edwards ever going to win the 2008 nomination.  The fact that they had been the party's VP nominee four years earlier more than likely enhanced their chances rather than detracted from them.

If Pawlenty had been McCain's VP nominee in 2008, I think he'd be in stronger shape now.  (That is, assuming he had performed at a minimally competent level on the trail.)  He'd certainly be in better fundraising shape.

[Mr. Morden]

It took a couple of hours for the Daniels news to fully ripple through Intrade.  Romney, Pawlenty, and Huntsman have all gained in the last few hours:

Romney 27.3
Pawlenty 20.0
Huntsman 12.1
Palin 6.7
Cain 6.5
Bachmann 5.8
Perry 3.4
Christie 3.2
Gingrich 3.2
Paul 2.7

[The Mikado]

Maybe, but it would be the first time it has ever happened.  Losing VP candidates, especially those tied to loser Prez candidates, just don't go anywhere in the end.

FDR?

[Mr. Morden]

Pawlenty and Huntsman surge some more.  Which I think makes this the first time since forever that the top two actually combine for more than 50%:

Romney 28.0
Pawlenty 23.7
Huntsman 15.1
Cain 6.3
Palin 6.2
Bachmann 5.3
Christie 3.0
Gingrich 2.8
Perry 2.8
Paul 2.6
Giuliani 1.1
Ryan 1.0
Johnson 0.7
Santorum 0.7
J. Bush 0.3

Will the following people run?

Bachmann 89.0
Huntsman 82.8
Palin 39.7
Bolton 25.0
Giuliani 20.0
Christie 14.9
Rand Paul 8.0
Bloomberg 5.0
J. Bush 5.0

[Yelnoc]

Can we get a comparison to about this time in 2007?

[Mr. Morden]

Four years ago today:

Democrats
Clinton 49.6
Obama 29.4
Gore 9.9
Edwards 7.4
Richardson 3.4
Clark 0.5
Biden 0.5
Dodd 0.2

Republicans
Giuliani 27.4
Romney 22.2
Thompson 20.1
McCain 18.0
Gingrich 2.7
Huckabee 2.3
Hagel 1.5
Rice 1.0
Paul 0.8
Bloomberg 0.5
Brownback 0.5
Cheney 0.4
J. Bush 0.4
T. Thompson 0.2
Tancredo 0.2
Hunter 0.2