by Chris Bowers, Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 04:42:29 PM EDT
This is an open thread. Tell the world what is on your mind.
by Chris Bowers, Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 04:42:29 PM EDT
You guys have a good team over there in Philly. The NFL is just a tough business.
These small markets are NOT predictive....the last few days proves that they are reactive.
The contracts of Republicans Lose House have moved from 34 cents to 53 cents in just three days (one contract pays one dollar) and even the Republicans Lose Senate has moved from 17 cents to 22 cents.
These markets are reacting to what is going on in the world, not predicting what will happen November 7. They are just another small sample of voter sentiment, but all the trends are in the same direction.
You know, the one that says that the market reflects the information known at the time... Always a personal favorite bamboozle offered by economists.
"We're always smart, we just need better info." Yup. Worked for HP I hear.
I liked the predictive markets discussion. Thought it was one of the more interesting ones had on here in a while.
I found the open market thread interesting, too, with lots of food for thought. I was thinking of doing some research and writing up a diary based on the thread in the next couple of days.
On an unrelated note, it sure is nice not to be despairing about the state of the world, with Republicans finally reaping what they've sown. Makes it much easier to get up in the morning and get to work on the "harvest".
Not even a snowball's chance in hell of a sigh of relief from me until Nov. 8.
I'm still betting that Diebold delivers at least the Senate for the GOP.
Who is the mfr on the machine in TN? I should check, because I'm willing to bet if the GOP can rescue Corker through malfeasance, he's their best bet.
Him and maybe DeWine, since they have the infrastructure in OH to do it.
Like I posted in teh other thread, but no one seemed to care, there's already good academic research on political markets. Peoiple should read it before making sweeping statements about their predictive value, especially when citing exceptional annecdotes as evidence of market failure.
Hey Dan, I read the links you posted, and even commented on them at the time. The research I want to do is find more already-published research, and summarize them, a day-long research project I'll do just as soon as I have a free day...
Of course they are reactive. I don't see why that's such a revelation around here, or anywhere. It's just like the sports odds I've dealt with here in Las Vegas dating to the '80s.
Newsflash: the oddsmakers changed the numbers on the Eagles last year when McNabb was out and the team was crumbling. Should they be condemned as reactive? Or should they have known that before the season started, and put up 7 as an over/under on the Eagles season wins and drawn millions on the over 7, laughing all the way?
Let's say a number goes up, USC -7 vs Texas, to use the Rose Bowl example from last year. Some people will have a definite opinion on the game, the way the teams match up against each other, and will be intent to wager on Texas, just to pick one or the other, no matter what the number is. In the long run that's the type who will inevitably lose, but in a one game situation they can be pure genius. It's the same as the people who are sure one way or the other regarding the House result this year.
The other strategy, employed by professional speculators, is to look at every game or number in terms of the correct odds and only pounce if they are confident they have value, an advantage if the situation were played out dozens or hundreds of times. That type is more than content to lose an individual wager since he's confident his strategy was correct and eventually will pay off.
I moved from type A to type B and have never regretted it.
If the markets didn't exist, what do you think the conventional wisdom would be in regard to House or Senate takeover? I guarantee much different than it is now. You have have assertions Democrats were massive favorites in the House and probably 50/50 in the senate. IMO that would be clearly wrong but minus the high number of speculators that's what we would be hearing, especially on progressive sites.
And that's not guesswork. I mentioned in the thread last week I was wagering on politics before the markets were around or prominent. The conventional wisdom at that time was markedly inferior to what it is now. I was in a 16-man betting pool and you literally would often have a dozen or more picking the candidate who was the rightful underdog, and sometimes by bizarre percentage. That was based on what the media was reporting and poor knowledge of the dynamics of the race. It changed dramatically between '96 and '00, and especially between '96 and '04.
Please eliminate the markets and maybe I can wager under 20 or 25 in terms of how many net House seats change hands.
And another thing on the markets, something that may not have been properly emphasized last week. A 70 is nothing, slightly more than a 2/1 favorite. That's literally the equivalent of a 4 or 4.5 point sports favorite losing. It you had tons of 90s losing, that's one thing, but to point out a 52 or a 70 going down is meaningless. If people thought they were cinches you wouldn't have 30% willing to purchase the other side.
The Foley scandal isn't the kind of thing that markets are supposed to be good at predicing. With the exception of a few people at ABC, no one knew the Foley scandal was going to break at the time that it broke. Everyone who knew about Foleys transgressions thought they had it covered up pretty well, and reasonably expected that it would not come out until after the election, if at all.
We can see that the knowledge that the Foley scandal was going to break when it did spent no time as private information is the reaction of the House Republicans. If they'd had time to take advantage of this information on the markets, they would have also had time to formulate a better response. The fact that they didn't have a better response indicates that they didn't expect it to be a factor in the election.
Again, the important piece of information here is not the fact that Foley was a pervert, but the fact that the Foley scandal would break before the election. That information went from "nobody knows it" to totaly public way to fast for the market to have any advantage over pundits in general.
Saying the markets are wrong for reacting to the Foley scandal instead of predicting it is like saying the Dow was wrong for reacting to the Sep 11th attacks instead of predicting them. In both cases game changing information became massivley public very quickly, and teh markets reacted accordingly.
Interesting that the nytimes has confirmed that the CIA DID INDEED talk to Rice on July 10th and the 9/11 commission DID INDEED know about it. Why it wasn't in the report I suspect was for political reasons.
Ben Veniste said on CNN that there were "things" that were not in the 9/11 commission because they were out voted. I wonder if this was one of those things.
No wonder Rice did nothing...
well u democrats are amazing u will lose again. as a independent i see the republicans caring for our security and im sad to say i see alot of democrats doing things to hurt it,ill tell you when you stop all the crying and finger pointing and come up with good ideas to run the country maybe you will win again.americans are getting more conservative, why? 9/11 thats why,i see good in both parties but really the constant badgering of the president will hurt your party come election day.
We are continuing to update coverage of Dewine/Brown at DebateScoop, and I'll be writing a little on tonight's Iowa Governor debate between Nussle and Culver.
Check it out, comment on threads, diary on a debate if you are watching one --
10 pm EST on CSPAN tonight is Michigan governor debate, a close race.
America Blog has it: Reynolds tried to broker a deal with ABC to not go public with Foley IMs. Reynolds needs to go.
Just to be clear, it was his chief of staff, not Reynolds himself.
Mark Kennedy: Great Candidate OR Greatest Candidate?
So yeah, how many fake IM conversations do you think Karl Rove concocted over the past 48 hours?
Donovan has been a fantasy stud for me. He is close to 300 yards passing, 2 TDs, 2 rushing TDs and 47 yards on the ground. Yeah baby. The Philly D has been putting up a good effort w/3 take-aways.
P.S. Debra Bowen rocks.
I can't belive that the Minnesota Twins have not been mentioned in this thread.
As a curiosity, I went and checked my own database for DCCC expenditure figures on the six blue districts, between September 21st and October 1st (+/- $1000)
CO-7: $216,000 almost triples total
IA-1: $163,000 almost 50%+
NM-1: $208,000 almost doubles total
WA-8: $54,000 almost triples total
A concern:, in the same period (9/21 - 10/1), the disparity between NRCC spending and DCCC spending has shot up to 14.2 million to 6.6 million.
(my database is publicly accessible at expendtrak.ballotvox.org)
Thanks for taking up the Yom Kippur slack! Man what a news day! And I imagine that being in Philadelphia the local stations have been all over the tragic shooting near Lancaster, which must have only added to the "excitement".
Rest up, do that beer & football thing, and hope to be hearing from you real soon.
Now I need to get some food into me as fasting is NOT good for the system!
(Although, there are a whole lot of Repubs who are going to need to do a lot of atonement soon--as in the local federal penal colony.)
The House is on fire.
Read tomorrow's lead editorial here.
If Ford can keep his lead until election day in the TN Senate race, one thing going for him is we have a strong Democratic Governor in Brandesen & his field people to watch the vote.
Unlike the past diebold "anomalies" in states with Republican Governors like Ohio & Florida.
Having an established Governor in place with his state organization helps Ford protect the votes especially in a tight race.
That's why winning the statewide election in Ohio is so important for the 2008 Presidential.
As for Florida, unfortunately, unless something drastic happens. Republican Crist is leading big right now in the Governorship race.
Man, these last days, I've loved being a Democrat. Sorry, I just had to vent my smugness. :-P
g1 g2 g3 g4 g5 g6 g7 g8 g9 g10 g11 g12 g13 g14 g15 g16 g17 g18 g19 g20 g21 g22 g23 g24 g25 g26 g27 g28 g29 g30 g31 g32 g33 g34 g35 g36 g37 g38 g39 g40 g41 g42 g43 g44 g45 g46 g47 g48 g49 g50 g51 g52 g53 g54 g55 g56 g57 g58 g59 g60 g61 g62 g63 g64 g65 g66 g67 g68 g69 g70 g71 g72 g73 g74 g75 g76 g77 g78 g79 g80 g81 g82 g83