Bad news for you McCain supporters (including those of you who took me rather forcefully to task for having the temerity, in earlier posts, to suggest that Sarah Palin is grossly and perhaps even grotesquely under-qualified to be President of the United States): The Iowa Electronic Market, which is a real-money futures market allowing individuals to trade in "future contracts" based upon the occurrence or non-occurrence of real-world events, has McCain futures for sale at a deep discount compared to Obama futures. It'll cost you $0.59 to get a contract paying you $1 in the event of an Obama victory, but only $0.41 for a $1` payoff if McCain wins. The IEM's track record at getting its predictions of future events correct (discussed in James Surowiecki's book on "The Wisdom of Crowds") is very good, incidentally.
Features
Stuff from us
Academic Legal Writing: personalized bookplates
Sources on the Second Amendment
Conincidentally, I made about $50 on Intrade this week because I snapped up contracts on "Palin will withdraw as VP nominee" when they IPO'ed at .03 and quickly bubbled to .13 (they are back down to .06 now).
This is all good news for McCain, David.
Gore did.
This is still showing 40% chance of McCain making it. (Not bad given the war and the econonomy).
This is old news.
I expect better from Volokh.com. I've been running all over the internet telling people how good you are...better than the typical nitwits at echo chamber righty sites or lefty sites. Just smarter and all.
At least on Intrade, which is, ahem, real money.
Funny, I feel the same way about Obama.
Too funny.
Kerry was the favorite on election day in 2004.
As to Palin's qualifications to be president, she's not running for president. If McCain lives a year she will be well-qualified. I don't know what the futures market is on that, but I'd call it a fairly good bet.
Qualifications in an election-system are not based on an abstract idea of what people might like, but on who the other candidates are.
Today the price is about $106. Boy those futures markets are never wrong are they (or is just that they react to whatever information is currently availble but can fluctuate wildly over time.) I really expect more from contributors to the Conspiracy.
I think Sarah Palin is a really nifty person and I sure wish I lived down the street from her. As a potential president, I can only hope she'll grow into the job. But she actually has some executive experience, as do none of the other three. And her actual experiential qualification isn't all that much different from Obama's, except, as I say, that she's actually run things.
So I'm not thrilled with the pick but it's not going to make a difference in how I vote.
voila.
Assistant Village Idiot:
As to Palin's qualifications to be president, she's not running for president. If McCain lives a year she will be well-qualified.
So, if you boiled it down, what are the qualifications to be President (in the abstract) to you? Is the bare minimum "whatever Palin has" plus one year as VP? Let's quantify this.
And yes she most certainly is going to be running for President. McCain's health requires it.
I think that Obama has shown that he runs things well enough, raising over $200 million dollars and unseating the establishment candidiate of the democratic party. Please by all means feel free to disagree though..
If, for example, there's a popular/EC vote mismatch, this minor difference will be quite significant. Perhaps another interesting market would be "Is the POTUS victor also the popular vote winner?"
Good news or bad, time will tell. What is certain is many who had little or no need to reassure themselves a month ago, even a week or two ago, are now much exercised in doing precisely that.
- They *trail* the polls, reacting to newly released polling data, rather than leading them.
The most solid polls (especially for capturing trends) are the Gallup and Rasmussen 3-day tracking polls. In order to judge the full effects of the two GOP acceptance speeches we need to wait until the data that will be released on Sunday or Monday. Then the Intrade/Iowa/etc prediction markets will sift over the new data and arrive at a new prediction.
If the numbers haven't changed substantially by the middle of next week, then you're right. McCain-Palin will be in trouble.
I know this is insulting to just about everyone who blogs here, but I've always experienced the general rule to be that if someone is on Law Review you should run as quickly and as soon as possible. I will support people from Law Review for president over people from Law Revue, but that's about it.
The Internets are full of people who say silly things endlessly.
I'm willing to bet you couldn't even tell us what the President of Harvard Law Review does.
Second, the latest Gallup and Rasmussen tracking polls indicate a big Palin bump in the polls. Gallup has been running at a steady Obama +6 to +8 for three days, and Rasmussen was a steady +4 to +5 for Obama for the same period. Both polls are 3 day moving averages. Thus, today's polls are 1/3 in the 24 hours after Palin's speech, and 2/3 pre-speech. The fact that they moved as much as they did indicates that Palin's speech (or, more generally, the entire day) had a big effect on the polling numbers. Gallup is now Obama +4 (moving -3 relative to Obama since yesterday) and Rasmussen is now Obama +2 (moving -2/3 relative to Obama since yesterday). Simple math suggests that the latest day thus had a big effect: Gallup +2 McCain on Thursday (7+7+(-2)=12; 12/3 = +4 Obama); Rasmussen, +3 McCain (4+5+(-3)=6; 6/3 = +2 Obama). In short, Thursday's tracking polls suggests an 8-9 point swing toward McCain, and you can bet that a lot of it had to do with 40 million people watching Palin's well-received speech. We'll see by Sunday if McCain's own speech has as much positive effect.
Go to Intrade's market here and set the time to Custom. Request data for the last 14 days. He's ahead of where he was before the Democratic Convention (and before Palin's selection) by five points.
The market may be right about the outcome of the election if it were held today. But today's price is not much of a prediction of what will happen two months from now. The quotes in the last few days before the election will be the ones to watch for that.
I bet we could go back and do a correlation and see that a 60 cent contract price corresponds generally to a very slight (and/or statistically unreliable) lead in contemporaneous polling numbers.
After the law review came the Chicago Annenberg Challenge thing.
Got some input for us?
2) history of being wrong (both Kerry and Gore)
3) it has to do with politics, the only area of human experience I know of that competes with sex for "brings out the stupid in people".
Color me unimpressed.
And I feel drawn to the comment by RFS677 - to echo The Ace a bit, what DOES the "president of Harvard Law Review" actually do? It sure sounds impressive... and if I had to guess, that's really its only purpose (but I don't know).
Thanks you so much for pointing out what the future values for McCain are going for. This information was so very useful because I now no longer think you are a something of a putz. I now know you are a complete and utter putz.
May I suggest that you take a step back, ask you yourself if relying on the "Iowa Electronic Market" is the best argument you can offer for your hypocritical positions, and if it is, strongly consider giving up your posting rights on the Conspiracy.
Actually, it's just plain weird.
Why don't you change your first name to "Washington"?
It would fit, and you could claim a famous John Philip Sousa composition named in your honor... :)
Now of this is meant to denigrate academics because I are one. Recall also that Woodrow Wilson had a PhD and was President of Princeton--how did that work out?
Voters vote based on perceptions,, atmospherics, and empathy with the candidates--Frankly its hard for many people to empathize with people with advanced degrees--Hell, I cant even get a date!
Call me elitist, but what does "... is probably as important if maybe not marginally as important as ..." mean?
Hmmm. I'd rather vote for someone who actually does something useful for society, like a janitor or car repair man, than someone who was the President of Harvard Law Review.
There are so many improbable assumptions necessary to get from the one end to the other of that to constitute diagnostic proof that you're not thinking rationally, Mr. Post.
Wait, is this still a free-market promoting, squishy libertarian blog?
My old man was smarter than anyone I've ever met (literally) and he didn't get his BS until age 42 and he attended 10 schools to do it. Seems WW2 got in the way, then Korea. Too much partying in between. Trying to start a manufacturing business and failing. You know...life.
Anyhow, Palin's not my old man. But she's just fine. Saw her answering the points of questions on that AK debate video better than Knowles did (not as sharp as the statistician fellow though). I mean Carter was brighter than Reagan. But Reagan had the smarter policies. So...that can work.
What do you know about what else she was doing while trying to put herself through school? Did she have fulltime work? Other responsibilities that very many people have that make impossible the luxury of going straight through one school?
You must have personal knowledge of her life to have made such a condescending remark.
2. Law Review is extremely competetive at any law school.
3. To my knowledge, President of the Harvard Law Review is reserved for the best student. I am assuming it is equivalent to Chief Editor, The President of the Harvard Law Review is virtually guaranteed a very high-paying job, and/or probably even a US Supreme Court clerkship. In other words, even among an extremely bright and driven group of students, Obama stood out.
Very smart and hard working would seem to be good attributes for a President. I want the President to be the smartest, or at least one of the smartest people in the room. It's not a guarantee of a successful tenure, but it doesn't hurt. And the opposite doesn't work too well, as the current occupant has demonstrated. It is perfectly reasonable to view Editor of the Harvard Law Review as more significant than small town mayor.
Please remember that buying futures is buying 'insurance' or hedging your position. All you are saying is that people negatively affected by an Obama victory are trying to minimize their risk, by buying Obama futures.
To my is completely amazing how, McCain being an old, unispiring, terrible speaker with acknowledged lack of experience in the economic area, he is still in the running. That is just incredible! and deserving admiration. The race was tied before the Democratic convention and tied again after the Republican one... so I dont think that other than generating excitement Palin's nomination affected it one way or the other.
The problem with this attitude is that it fails to take into account the fundamental disagreements about what the President is supposed to be trying to do. If a very smart and hard working President also happens to want to do things you really, really do NOT want done, the fact that he's smart and hard working only makes him more likely to achieve them, and so becomes a bad point, not a good point.
Competence is only an uncontested asset where goals are uncontested.
David Post:You're so thrilled that Odumbo is slightly ahead. In your heavily leftoid view, should we just appoint 0 the messiah right now and be done with it? Or do we need to have that pesky election first?
Martha:That's a lot more college experience than 0 has... right? I mean, where's the diversity in attending only one college?
wayne:Yes, it's very difficult... if you're one of the many Asians and others with a 4.25 GPA and top SAT scores, who were bypassed by Mr. Affirmative Action. Of course, I could be wrong about this. If 0 simply releases his high school transcripts and SAT scores, then we'll know. Right? After all, he's brilliant. Oprah said so herself. Let's see those 'brilliant' scores.
This thread is funner than I expected! Funnier, too.
A politician is born! (No, not Sasha. RSF677.)
You'd think this would make Sasha possibly the only person RSF677 would support less than Barack Obama. But RSF677 knows a winner when he sees one, so he shrewdly blurs the principle and changes the subject:
That out to settle it, but RSF677 is back peddling too furiously to notice the game changer:
... but like a true thoroughbred, undeterred he pivots one more time, recites a new (conveniently friendly) test, and pretends this was an exercise in principles all along:
If I ever see RSF677 listed on Intrade I'll be a "Buy." If elective office doesn't appeal to him, I'd encourage him to set his sights on "White House Press Secretary."
I would also like to point out "the best student" is pretty subjective, as grading is pretty subjective. I've no doubt Obama is pretty intelligent, but you don't get to be the governor of a state without being pretty intelligent as well.
Go take a look, if you can, at how the numbers moved over the course of the 2004 election (start w/ shortly after the Dem Convention).
"The Wisdom of the Crowds" is useful (look at how Palin did in those right-wing blogger polls of who should be McCain's VP). But when you have more money than wisdom, you end up with high volatility, and not much "wisdom".
If it's still 60 - 40 a week out, then you'll have a useful case to make. Two months out? No.
Had the hosts of this site not asked us to refrain from such, I would call you something very different.
As someone who was fortunate to finish law school with a spiffy 5-syllable Latin phrase attached to my degree, I have to say that unless you're speaking to a prospective mother-in-law, any query as to your accomplishments which results in a citation to your law school performance is a testament to the fact that you haven't done much of anything.
A) The headline says 5 colleges in 6 years. Odd that you'd screw up that simple fact.
B) Actually reading the article shows there are 4 schools listed, not five.
C) The article also shows attendence was for 5 years, not six as stated.
#1 Hawaii Pacific University - fall 82
#2 North Idaho College - spring 83 &fall 83
#3 University of Idaho - fall 84 , spring 85
#4 Matanuska-Susitna College - fall 85
#3 University of Idaho - spring &fall 86, spring 87
4 schools, 5 years. What is telling is not what Sara Palin did 20+ years ago, but what people are doing with the information now.
In a warped version of Grapevine, Martha adds one school to a MSM 'report' so that she can snear 'not impressive', when the article in turn double-counts a school and inflates one year to what is known.
But what I'll say is that if you're going to make a smart ass post, you better be pretty sure of your data. McCain has jumped several points on Intrade since announcing Palin as his running mate.
"She attended Idaho, whose mascot is the Vandals,"
1) How on earth does a mascot matter in this instance? I guess Palin should be disqualified because she was a "vandal"?
2) Why aren't other mascots from the other schools mentioned?
3) How ignorant or naive does anyone have to be to not see how the mainstream press is so far in the tank for Obama that its BEYOND parody?
4) Is David Post the Conspiracy's version of ATL's Hope Winters?
Unfortunately, that's not how it works. The President of Harvard Law Review is voted into the position by the other editors. So how exactly does winning a vote by an electorate of 80 to run a student run academic journal for nine months as a part time job qualify you to be president?
Of course, if it *WAS* really bad news, you wouldn't keep talking about it. You'd sit there smiling silently. What's the phrase.. "Methinks the lady doth protesteth too much"
I really don't understand the idea that voters would rather vote for someone who uses his/her hands than someone w/an Ivy League education because they can't relate to the Ivy Leaguer. Is being President something ordinary folks like us can relate to? I don't think so. The President will be using his/her brain, not his/her hands. I'd rather not be able to relate to the President (which I'm not going to anyways) and have him/her do a good job, than be able to relate to him/her and have him do a horrible job (as was the case in George Bush).
I yield to no one in my affection for the use of markets, but if you are going to be a user of market information you need to understand what it means. Market prices impound the information that is available to market participants, but they are not a crystal ball. They have no more foresight than the market participants have. The price of Fannie Mae stock a year ago was $60/share Monday, it will be wallpaper.
Perhaps market participants should have been more prescient. Certainly the shorts have made a lot of money. But the market as a forecaster. No better than average.
Uhhh. I guess you haven't meet many law school grads. Further, I don't mean to be churlish, but HLS like many other such institutions selects its applicants on a basis that is, shall we say, not objective. Here is what they say:
Neither you nor I know why Mr. Obama was admitted to HLS. HLS is not talking, and he has not released his undergraduate transcripts or test scores.
My high school's mascot was the Villain. I wonder what that makes me?
If one of the candidates breaks clearly away from another, you will see a much wider split than this. The split today suggests a very close race.
Ummm, no. Remember that the Miami Herald and a couple of other newspapers (WaPo? NYTimes?) paid to continue the recount after the US Supreme Court told the FL Supreme Court to follow FL's own laws? And they admitted (to their credit) that Bush won?
But thanks for playing....
I think it's much like being a community organizer, but with actual responsibilities...
Ah, but there were a couple of studies that said the opposite (or can be selectively read to do so).
And as we all know, as long as one MSM outlet has a standing claim that Gore won, then he did.
What part of government of the people, by the people, and for the people do you not understand. Is Lincoln so little noted nor long remembered?
The whole heartbeat argument seems irrationally risk-averse. Surely there's a greater than 12%* chance, given what Palin has actually accomplished, and not**, as Governor of Alaska that she would make an outstanding President. Conversely, the chance of Obama being a disastrous one is greater (though I would argue, not much) than 12%. Do the expected value analysis - it's breakeven if not better, unless your concerns are ideological, in which case the argument is a red herring.
* - the actuarial chance of McCain dying within four years.
** - no socially conservative legislation
William F Buckley once said that he would trust the first 2000 names in the Boston phonebook to run the country more then the 2000 members of the Harvard faculty. Buckley was a wise and brilliant man.
I can't wait to hear what other student activities prepared him for the Oval Office. Did he do Model UN too?
On 9/8/08 at 6:15 PDT, the markets were trading at 49.5 for McCain and 50.5 for Obama.
[Important Note to Helpful Readers: If we have confusing typos and especially ugly formatting errors, such as an unclosed underline or bold tag, we'd love to hear from you about them -- but please e-mail the author about this, rather than leaving a comment. We often won't read the comments for a while after the post, and if there's a glaring formatting error, we'd see it quickly when we revisit the post, even without the comment; and in any event the comment likely isn't going to be that helpful to your fellow comment readers. So please e-mail us directly about glitches like this. Thanks!]
Comment Policy: We'd like the posts to be civil, of course (no profanity, personal insults, and the like), but we're also hoping that people try to be as calm, reasoned, and substantive as possible. So please, also avoid rants, invective, substantial and repeated exaggeration, and radical departures from the topic of the thread. Sticking with substance -- and staying on-topic -- will make the comments more helpful to other readers, and more pleasant.
As editors, we reserve the right to delete posts, and even to kick out posters, though we hope that both of these will be exceptional events. (We also reserve the right to be busy with other things, and therefore (1) not remove all the posts that might merit removal, and (2) ignore demands such as "You should remove A's posts, because they're just as bad as B's!")
Here's a tip: Reread your post, and think of what people would think if you said this over dinner. If you think people would view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who vastly overdoes it on the hyperbole, rewrite your post before hitting enter.
And if you think this is the other people's fault -- you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, but fools wrongly view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who overdoes it on the hyperbole -- then you should still rewrite your post before hitting enter. After all, if you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, then surely it's especially important that you frame your arguments in a way that is persuasive and as unalienating as possible, even to fools.
Our goal is to provide an interesting and pleasant environment that can help inform readers. To do that, we'll occasionally have to exercise our editorial discretion. Think of this as an in-person discussion group, where having different voices is critical to a great conversation -- but where sometimes the leader has to deal with cranks who sour the conversation more than they enliven it.
Naturally, there's always a risk that this discretion will be used erroneously, no matter how well-intentioned the editor. But discussion groups (especially on the Internet, but also off it) generally need an editor who'll occasionally make such judgments.
And, remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.