The election will partly, perhaps largely hinge on how many people feel this way.
Along those lines, Bill Bennett (not someone to whom I usually pay much attention) had some useful words this morning:
Whatever it was the Republicans and so many independents did not like about the Clintons, we've learned the Democrats have had enough as well.
And thus the Democratic party is about to nominate a far left candidate in the tradition of George McGovern, albeit without McGovern's military and political record. The Democratic party is about to nominate a far-left candidate in the tradition of Michael Dukakis, albeit without Dukakis's executive experience as governor. The Democratic party is about to nominate a far left candidate in the tradition of John Kerry, albeit without Kerry's record of years of service in the Senate. The Democratic party is about to nominate an unvetted candidate in the tradition of Jimmy Carter, albeit without Jimmy Carter's religious integrity as he spoke about it in 1976. Questions about all these attributes (from foreign policy expertise to executive experience to senatorial experience to judgment about foreign leaders to the instructors he has had in his cultural values) surround Barack Obama. And the Democratic party has chosen him.
I think he's all of them rolled into one, but admittedly, he has a lot more charisma than any of them, if not combined. But I don't think it will be enough. Generally, the more people learn about him, the less they support him. Now that the campaign has been unofficially joined, they're likely to learn a lot more.
Obama is far left compared to Hillary Clinton?
What an absolute load of rubbish.
Mr. Simberg has a new love in Hillary! I guess the popcorn is running out, eh, Simby?
Intrade is now trading Obama wins the US Presidency at just over 58%. That means the take for a sure fire Obama loss has improved to over 100% return on investment. Not bad for five months.
Sarcasm aside, I'm going to have to go with the markets over you, Rand. They aren't automatically right. But I consider them the best guess out there right now.
Funny thing. Here's Rich Lowry on NRO, saying the obvious in spite of his prejudices:
"Even if we're going to hear it over and over, it's true�this is a historic moment. That an African-American has a better than even chance to be the next president of the United States is an amazing thing�and heartening about this country's capacity for progress. Also, on a more mundane level, Obama out-campaigned, out-fundraised, out-strategized, out-classed, and�yes�out-spun the Clintons. What a campaign. He and his team should be very proud," - Rich Lowry, NRO.
And then we have Rand Simberg who simply can never see anything good on the other side, just as long as it is on the despicable other side . All he can do is whine and obfuscate. Grace and Class continue to remain out of Mr. Simberg's reach.
"Sarcasm aside, I'm going to have to go with the markets over you, Rand. They aren't automatically right. But I consider them the best guess out there right now."
Those same markets had Hillary picking furniture in the Oval office last December and McCain at like 2-3 percent to capture the Republican nomination a couple of months before that.
They also said the Republicans would hold the Senate on 06.
They are at best a lagging indicator. When they are right, people praise them. When they are wrong, people ignore them.
"saying the obvious in spite of his prejudices:
"
Postjudices. Get it right for once.
I agree with Rich Lowry, latest anonymous moron. Congratulations for seemingly knocking off the Clinton machine (but he hasn't put a stake through its heart).
That doesn't mean he's going to, or should win the general election, and I doubt that Rich would think so either.
Those same markets had Hillary picking furniture in the Oval office last December and McCain at like 2-3 percent to capture the Republican nomination a couple of months before that.
Who consistently does better than Intrade? And if the Intrade market is a "lagging indicator", then there should considerable profit from using more timely indicators. Unless of course, there aren't more timely indicators.
"Who consistently does better than Intrade? "
Scott Rasmussen for one.
You mean this? I can't help but notice that Ramussen Markets almost exactly agrees with Intrade. That's probably because Intrade is the backend for Ramussen Markets. And to continue my mighty internet warrior schtick, in this June 3 report by Rasmussen Reports, they state:
Well, looks like Scott Ramussen mostly agrees with me on the usefulness of these markets.
Having said all of that, I must admit that markets do at best a mediocre job of predicting the future and a far better job of reacting to releases of new information. Mike, you're absolutely right about how far off the markets were on Clinton and particularly McCain whom they had at somewhere around 5-10% chance of winning the Republican nomination back in the latter part of 2007. It's not unreasonable to expect that the markets are off now too. However to claim that Obama doesn't stand a chance in the face of a global market (with access to the best information out there I might add) giving him better than 50% chance? I think that's a mistake. The markets may be wrong again, but they are probably among the best guesses out there. It's better to accept that Obama has a very good chance of becoming the next president of the US, and working from there rather than continuing to insist on his inelectability.
To know Obama is not to love him. Unless you belong to the far-left activist Chicago political circle from whence he sprang. That's why even Democrats did not bow to the inevitable nomination of Obama and gave him fairly lopsided drubbings late into the primary season.
Still, Obama's charisma combined with feckless reporting by fellow-travelers in the news media give Obama a good chance of slipping into the Oval Office before the public get's wise to Obama's true nature. But the disappointment in Obama should be epic when the truth sinks in.
Karl, I dunno. Markets are great at sifting through huge amounts of noise and messy data and integrating it into one figure of merit -- the price. If what influences the price six months down the line is something that someone somewhere already knows, then there's a good chance that tidbit will get incorporated into the futures price.
So far, so good. The problem is that there is good evidence that this far out, the major factors that will influence November's result are not only not yet known, they haven't even happened yet. Will Iraq continue to improve all summer? Will the traditional autumn price drop of gasoline turn into a steep plunge as the summertime oil futures bulls get gored? Will foreclosures skyrocket or not? Will McCain lose it on national TV when voters finally start tuning in? Will Sunshine Boy?
Since none of these things is even in principle knowable, the market just records everyone's best guess about them. That is, it's just the conventional wisdom, the kind of stuff market analysts put out: well, the price of oil rose yesterday and the day before, so I guess it will also rise tomorrow. Safe enough, extrapolating in a straight line. Until, of course, it's not.
By the way, I'm not saying there's a better way to prognosticate. I think the result of the November election is fundamentally impossible to predict right now.
What Rand is saying, I suppose, is that the result clearly depends on how self-identified Democrats view the O-man. That's clearly true, since self-identified Democrats make up the majority of the electorate. It's also worth stating -- forcefully. I mean, you go over to "The Corner" at NRO and you get folks frowning at the "mistake" John McCain makes in not shoring up his conservative base with red-meat speeches on gay-marriage constitutional amendments or drilling in ANWR or setting up special gulags for global warming apostles. Some of these folks are as delusional as the Kossacks, imagining that if only it's really properly and completely explained, most folks will actually gladly embrace church every Sunday, no sex before marriage, statues of Reagan in every town square, and regular Bible study on alternate Thursdays. Uh, no.
Think about McCain's speech yesterday.
The content of McCain's speech is basically what you'd expect, but the delivery is really peculiar. His voice is artificially high, he's grinning more frequently then usual, his tone is jumping octaves to soften the end of his sentences. It's a cuddly, almost delicate delivery, as if he were reading a storybook to really young children. It's extremely disconcerting.
McCain should give more speeches. Especially more speeches on how being more conservative will solve every problem, basically hew to the NRO line that Carl Pham snickers about. Heh. McCain is STUCK. He is in basic philosophical agreement with the Democrats and yet he is the nominee of the Republicans! Watch out for more very bad speeches and trips to Iraq.
Here's what I'm worried about. To add to Bill Bennett's list:
The Democratic party is about to nominate their version Dan Quayle, but without most of his years of experience in Congress.
Actually Karl,
I ment his polling track record.
Karl, I dunno. Markets are great at sifting through huge amounts of noise and messy data and integrating it into one figure of merit -- the price. If what influences the price six months down the line is something that someone somewhere already knows, then there's a good chance that tidbit will get incorporated into the futures price.
And markets are also subject to manipulation (oil futures, anyone?). Are there any safeguards to prevent political manipulation? For example, what's to prevent political operatives from buying a lot of options to drive up the rating for their candidate artifically? If nothing is there to prevent it, then these futures markets on politics can become just as distorted as many other types of polls.
markets are also subject to manipulation
No, they're not. That's just Orwellian collectivist doubletalk bullshit. What you view as "manipulation" is just one more economic force that the market takes into account and to which it gives due weight.
And no doubt what you mean by "safeguards" are arbitrary constraining government interferences far more inimical to personal liberty than any conceivable "manipulation."
The content of McCain's speech is basically what you'd expect, but the delivery is really peculiar.
How revealing that style matters more to you than substance.
That means Obama's your man, Valley girl.
Hmmmm.
1. Being elected doesn't mean being qualified to do the job. And that's how Obama is going to be judged if he is elected. And no amount of positive press is going to change that.
2. Being elected President in 2009-2012 cycle is probably the worst, most impossible situation: ever. What makes it interesting is that most of the problems facing the next President were deliberately created by Democrats.
The primary issue facing the country is the instability and economic problems associated with energy. It was the Democrats who blocked drilling, mining and every useful form of energy for decades. Now we'll be in a situation where the lead time for new energy sources will be anywhere from 5-10 years.
Which means that Obama will not be able to do anything about high energy prices at all during his Presidency.
3. Obama is a Marxist and it'll shine on through. The programs and decisions he makes will be from the Marxist pov. Marxism simply does not work.
4. The coalition supporting Obama do not have a unifying ideology or principle other than Obama. Each has a long list of their own specific desires and wants. Many of these are mutually exclusive of one another. Obama cannot reward his supporters as they desire, mostly because other Democrats would see this as suicidal, and so his supporters will feel betrayed.
Obama can go from newly elected to lame duck in a heartbeat.
5. Because of intemperate remarks during his campaign Obama will not be able to effectively use many of the techniques that work in foreign policy. Instead any attempt by Obama to take a hard line will result in unfavorable comparisons to Bush.
Almost from the outset Obama will have to allow allies, supposed allies and outright enemies to walk all over him. Anything less and he'll be proven to simply be another Bush. And to avoid that, Obama will have leave his spine at home.
Manipulation is not a dirty word. Instead of double-speak it's calling a spade a spade. Manipulation is at the very core of the purpose of having all kinds and variations of bourses and exchanges in the first place. There's absolutely nothing one can do there that doesn't manipulate (and yes I know the word is half-way hijacked by the economically illiterate anti-capitalists).
And some here seem to think that such structures are meant to function as prophecies and they're absolutely not, they're simply a current synopsis of what those involved do and one can only guess at their intentions (end here enters the next not-a-dirty-word: speculation). it's more of a game than anything else except that it serves a crucial purpose in making capital available (in short don't spend money you can't afford to lose).
Carl Pham wrote:
markets are also subject to manipulation
No, they're not. That's just Orwellian collectivist doubletalk bullshit. What you view as "manipulation" is just one more economic force that the market takes into account and to which it gives due weight.
Sorry to break it to you Carl but you're flat out wrong. Markets can be manipulated by a variety of means. For example, people can buy "Obama options" simply to drive up the price without regard to future profits. To them, these options become just another form of advertising to those who take political markets seriously.
Likewise, oil futures may be manipulated not only for profit but for political gains.
A free market is the best solution but it can (and has) been distorted by people who are motivated by more than simple profit.