Oh Boy....
 

http://www.lewrockwell.com/murphy/murphy123.html

Now let's see people (read: MSM) start putting their mouths where the money is.

I've loved Ron Paul since I knew who he was. But I've been on the pessimistic end of his actual chances. This, however, quickly changes everything in my mind.

I just keep coming back to how far-fetched it would be to think of the Republican Party, with all its far right interests and the strength of Fox News, etc., nominating a staunch anti-war libertarian. It just seems like something that can't possibly be any better than 0%.

But the ace in the hole, I think, is Hilary. She becomes more inevitable every day. The further she can distance herself from Giuliani and the other mainstream hopefuls, the more the base will panic. As ludicrous as it might seem, in this twisted era, to see the Republicans nominate a candidate who can be described as anti-war, pro drugs, pro gay rights, it would be more ludicrous to think they would ignore ANY option that might stop Hilary Clinton from being President.

I think aside from the fact that Paul would just tear her to shreds in a one-on-one debate, Hilary's campaign just wouldn't know what to do. They've been positioning for the general election from the start, and suddenly waking up against a candidate like Paul who can steal a lot of *her* base and who will force her off her "wave hands/scream and cheer about being Hilary Clinton" strategy could be disastrous. Really, nominating an ANTI-IRAQ candidate would be a brilliant twist, and maybe the only chance the Reps have of winning this election. And stopping Hilary.

Re: Oh Boy....
 

I too have been following the betting markets related to ron paul and they have been moving up rather quickly. He is at a similar place odds wise to John McCain. While his chances are slim, they are now probably somewhat significantly different than 0, i would say about 3-4% of getting the republican nomination. He has the most exciting campaign and even living here in Kansas there seems to really only be two types of people. People who dont know about Ron and his platform, and excited supporters. He is the only candidate worth getting excited about and if he can get the word out to enough people (which will be the problem imo) he can really make some noise in this election.

His recent funding boost included puts him as the fourth favorite in the republican race behind Guliani, Thompson, and Romney. Which is a huge jump from where he started

Re: Oh Boy....
 

The main Republican base is both socially conservative and moderately in favour of big federal government, health care, protectionism, and so on. Those people disagree with Paul on almost every issue and would either stay at home (most probably) or bite the bullet and vote Hillary. Without them a Republican candidate has near-zero chance of winning the election.

But don't get me wrong, I'd love to see Paul get the nomination too. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: Oh Boy....
 

[ QUOTE ]
Those people disagree with Paul on almost every issue and would either stay at home (most probably) or bite the bullet and vote Hillary.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with this pretty strongly. Keep in mind, Paul is a pro-life, anti-tax, anti-welfare, pro-gun (male) Texan who talks about the Constitution a lot. It also helps that he is the epitome of 'principled'. There's a lot the base can get behind (if they pinch their nose to some of the other stuff). Hilary, in the eyes of a Republican, is the scariest thing that ever existed.

And the top Republicans, Giuliani and Romney, aren't exactly what the base wants anyways.

I think if you asked a Republican "Would you prefer 80% Hilary and 20% Giuliani, or 80% Paul and 20% Hilary" he would definitely choose the latter (or at least, he definitely should). The key, though, is convincing people that Paul would indeed be the best matchup.

Re: Oh Boy....
 

Law,

the thing is that, from my observations, there are two wings to the GOP now. There are the Goldwater conservatives, who would probably side with Paul, and the Christian Right. The Christian Right is neither socially liberal nor economically conservative. They're also the largest voting block, certainly on the right. True very few would vote for Hillary but equally, very few would vote for Paul. In theory perhaps they could be persuaded to but Paul is honest enough not to compromise and dissemble to win their vote. (I don't like RP but I'll give him that much.) Ultimately if those people stay at home then the GOP loses.

(I'm sure he would do well in Texas, of course.)

Re: Oh Boy....
 

I agree that the Christian Righters would be more likely to stay home if it was Paul vs. Hilary. Actually a lot of them would probably find a 3rd Party goon to rally behind (and hopefully he'd be so nutty that the wing would lose a lot of its influence in the party). But you seem to be overlooking the number of traditional Democratic interests that (reciprocally) Paul would take (with the big difference being that he could actually GET the votes whereas the religious right would not vote FOR Hilary), as well as the enthusiasm he would tend to draw from otherwise politically disinterested types. The tricky part is getting to that point. I'm pretty convinced, if nominated, Paul would be a huge favorite over her.

I think the stronger Hilary gets, the more true it becomes to say Paul is the only one who can beat her. Presently there's no strong Republican candidate anyways, and you have the one guy who might be able to beat Hilary throwing knuckleballs in your bullpen. Put him in, coach. Let's see what this kid can do.

Re: Oh Boy....
 

Ron Paul is anathema to everything the mainstream voter wants. Mainly because he respects their freedoms. He'll never get elected.

natedogg

Re: Oh Boy....
 

[ QUOTE ]
Ron Paul is anathema to everything the mainstream voter wants. Mainly because he respects their freedoms. He'll never get elected.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then I guess you see a golden opportunity to make a buck or two?

I don't really understand replies like this. Of course he is everything the mainstream voter doesn't want. That's nothing new. But now it appears the market believes he has about a 6% chance. You're smarter than the market, nate?

Re: Oh Boy....
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ron Paul is anathema to everything the mainstream voter wants. Mainly because he respects their freedoms. He'll never get elected.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then I guess you see a golden opportunity to make a buck or two?

I don't really understand replies like this. Of course he is everything the mainstream voter doesn't want. That's nothing new. But now it appears the market believes he has about a 6% chance. You're smarter than the market, nate?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're acting as if a 6% chance means something significant and if the betting lines are scientifically accurate measures of his success. I think Paul could carry about as many states as Walter Mondale (give or take 1) against either Hillary or Obama [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

Re: Oh Boy....
 

[ QUOTE ]
You're acting as if a 6% chance means something significant

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm acting as if it means he has a 6% chance. And as someone who really supports Ron Paul, that's a hell of a lot better than a 0% chance.

[ QUOTE ]
and if the betting lines are scientifically accurate measures of his success.

[/ QUOTE ]

What better indication is there? If you think the betting lines are flawed, like I said to Nate, use your divine insight to go make a buck or two.

Re: Oh Boy....
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you think the betting lines are flawed, like I said to Nate, use your divine insight to go make a buck or two.

[/ QUOTE ]

You make a pretty big assumption that I haven't put money up...

[ QUOTE ]
I'm acting as if it means he has a 6% chance...What better indication is there?

[/ QUOTE ]

Things that take into account the electoral college, polls that place Paul against any of the top tier Republicans, common sense. Betting lines on political events are kind of funny...particular for third-party candidates (which is really what Paul is.) People who agree with the candidate overvalue him WAY more than supporters of a top tier candidate.

Re: Oh Boy....
 

Law,

some of the core democratic voters would support Paul's position on drugs and same-sex marriage sure, but those are not hot-button issues for all but a tiny minority. I don't think that many Dems would be willing to exchange those for a gutting of the social programmes. And he's pro-life.

The independents OTOH are likely to be turned off on the drug issue quite a lot.

Re: Oh Boy....
 

[ QUOTE ]
[url=http
I think aside from the fact that Paul would just tear her to shreds in a one-on-one debate,

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Stop it. He may have facts on his side and he may have theoretical underpinnings on his side but he comes across as a clown. He would have no chance of changing anyones mind in a one on one debate with Shrillary, and in fact his style is likely to shift people away, not attract them.

Re: Oh Boy....
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[url=http
I think aside from the fact that Paul would just tear her to shreds in a one-on-one debate,

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Stop it. He may have facts on his side and he may have theoretical underpinnings on his side but he comes across as a clown. He would have no chance of changing anyones mind in a one on one debate with Shrillary, and in fact his style is likely to shift people away, not attract them.

[/ QUOTE ]

That line struck me as ridiculous too. Hillary's policies may be repugnant, but she's also a brilliant, experienced politician totally familiar with the national spotlight and with positions that sound vastly more familiar and reasonable to the average person. It would be like the Kennedy-Nixon debate, but worse.

Re: Oh Boy....
 

lol at anyone even discussing a Hillary-Ron debate at this point. I love the guy, but he has basically no chance to win the nomination.

Re: Oh Boy....
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What better indication is there?

[/ QUOTE ]Things that take into account the electoral college, polls that place Paul against any of the top tier Republicans, common sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, betting lines ignore all those things.... [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
People who agree with the candidate overvalue him WAY more than supporters of a top tier candidate.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to be unfamiliar with what begs the efficiency of a betting market. While it's true that some people will always bet inefficiently, the mistake has negligible impact because the field of bettors is so limitless. The smart bettors will always, by betting more money until the inefficiency is gone, correct the errors of irrational bets.

Re: Oh Boy....
 

[ QUOTE ]
That line struck me as ridiculous too. Hillary's policies may be repugnant, but she's also a brilliant, experienced politician totally familiar with the national spotlight and with positions that sound vastly more familiar and reasonable to the average person. It would be like the Kennedy-Nixon debate, but worse.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not denying that Hilary will be hard to beat in the eyes of generic perception. When I said he would tear her apart, I meant by objective standards. Anyone arguing a consistent ideology would rip apart a mainstream politician, in my eyes. I don't know how anyone here would really disagree with that. Whether her strategy would win more votes is a different issue. Clearly that is the problem.

Re: Oh Boy....
 

[ QUOTE ]

You seem to be unfamiliar with what begs the efficiency of a betting market. While it's true that some people will always bet inefficiently, the mistake has negligible impact because the field of bettors is so limitless. The smart bettors will always, by betting more money until the inefficiency is gone, correct the errors of irrational bets.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, right now on WSEX, Paul is 3 6. So I can short him now for 100, and wait 3-4 months for him to lose, so I can collect my 3 dollars. Or I can just go buy a CD or whatever. Betting markets factor in the opportunity cost of the money you'll have to tie up shorting a long shot like paul, which cause him to be quite overvalued.

Re: Oh Boy....
 

You can say the same about anyone if you want to assume every potential bettor thinks on those terms. "Rather than bet on Romney where I figure I have a 99-98 edge over the line, I could just put that money in a CD and expect more."

Who said you have to short Paul anyways? When one person artificially goes up, others artificially go down. So you could also capitalize by just betting on Giuliani if that seemed better to you. Whatever edge you can find in an efficient betting market will always tend to be negligible and thus one that you'd have done better to put in a different investment. Thinking this only applies to Ron Paul is very myopic. Every bet is one with such a small edge that it would always be +EV to put the money somewhere else instead.

"Betting markets are not efficient because the edge is so small that people will do better to put their money in other places." You need to realize that the betting market is comprised of individuals who, for whatever reasons, apparently prefer their money be live than in CDs. Since it exists, it is efficient.

Re: Oh Boy....
 

[ QUOTE ]
Things that take into account the electoral college, polls that place Paul against any of the top tier Republicans, common sense. Betting lines on political events are kind of funny...particular for third-party candidates (which is really what Paul is.) People who agree with the candidate overvalue him WAY more than supporters of a top tier candidate.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I go do my PhD I am going to write about this. I think, but do not know, that betting markets are the best determinant of a winner. I also you suspect you might be right about third party supporters overvaluing their candidates chances.

Re: Oh Boy....
 

[ QUOTE ]
If I go do my PhD I am going to write about this. I think, but do not know, that betting markets are the best determinant of a winner.

[/ QUOTE ]
I seem to recall that Intrade had an excellent record in predicting winners in 2006. Also, if you didn't know, the University of Iowa has a long running project to study the kind of thing you're talking about.

Re: Oh Boy....
 

Intrade was very good in the recent midterm elections.

Re: Oh Boy....
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If I go do my PhD I am going to write about this. I think, but do not know, that betting markets are the best determinant of a winner.

[/ QUOTE ]
I seem to recall that Intrade had an excellent record in predicting winners in 2006. Also, if you didn't know, the University of Iowa has a long running project to study the kind of thing you're talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I am aware of that project.