2012 Intrade rankings

[Mr. Morden]

No point tracking the presidential nomination share prices anymore.  So I'm retiring the old thread, and moving on to tracking VP nomination share prices.

GOP VP nomination

Rubio 24.7
Portman 11.9
Christie 10.5
McDonnell 8.5
Ryan 6.5
Martinez 4.5
Ron Paul 3.9
Daniels 3.7
Thune 2.8
Ayotte 2.7
Pawlenty 2.7
Santorum 2.6
Jindal 2.5

Dem. VP nomination

Biden 95.0
Clinton 4.0
Cuomo 0.2

[A dog on every car, a car in every elevator]

I don't what's more insulting to Gingrich, retiring the president thread or him not being on this list.

Ron Paul only 3.9?  What a bargain.

[© Tweed the Younger]

can we make this into the General Election edition of the thread?  post and discuss PRES.OBAMA and all the rest too.

[True Federalist]

Since I don't frequent Intrade, do they not have a Burr contract or is it lower than the ones listed in the OP?  I think not only that Burr has a good chance at the nomination, but a better shot than most of the people listed.

[Governor NVGonzalez]

Is Huckabee on the list with 0.1%? If so buy.

[RJ]

Why don't I see Bachman on this list? Is she persona-non-grata in camp Romney? Santorum at only 2.6? I thought the two (Romney and Santorum) actually had a mutual respect before this campaign.

When Obama chose Biden I think he did so because he was comfortable working with him. Same goes for Gore/Leiberman and Bush/Cheyney. I don't know the ins and outs of Mitt's political life well enough to know who(of status) he interacts or has worked with.

[Mr. Morden]

To answer the questions so far...

Yes, this thread can also be used to track the general election odds.  I won't be posting them as often as the VP odds, but you're welcome to do so yourself.

There is no VP contract for Burr.

There is a contract for Bachmann, but she's only at 0.1

There is a contract for Huckabee, and he's at 1.2.  I just didn't bother listing anyone below 2.5 in this update.

[Mr. Morden]

Up: Portman
Down: Rubio, McDonnell, Martinez

Rubio 22.0
Portman 13.0
Christie 11.0
McDonnell 7.5
Ryan 6.3
Daniels 3.8
Martinez 3.1
Ayotte 3.0
Thune 3.0
Santorum 2.8
Jindal 2.4
Ron Paul 2.4
Pawlenty 2.4
J. Bush 1.9
Rand Paul 1.9

[Mr. Morden]

Rubio gave a more definitive sounding denial of interest yesterday:

http://www.kansascity.com/2012/04/19/3565104/marco-rubio-shuns-vice-president.html

Saying again that he would turn down the vice presidency even if Mitt Romney begged him to be his running mate....

I'm still of the opinion that denials by any potential candidate mean nothing until it's time to be vetted.  But potentially more problematic for Rubio is that he's now proposing a Republican version of the DREAM Act:

In high-profile events in Washington, the Florida Republican outlined an immigration proposal aimed at keeping young people in the United States if they came illegally as children. He's been talking about the idea for weeks, partly to counter the GOP's reputation for tough talk on immigration, and also because it's a problem that thousands of children in Florida could face.

The idea - not yet a congressional bill - is a Republican alternative to the Democratic DREAM Act, which would provide a path toward citizenship for young people who came to the U.S. as children illegally, and join the military or go to college. Rubio and others were newly inspired this spring by the story of Daniela Pelaez, the valedictorian at North Miami Senior High School, who was threatened with deportation before congressional intervention.

This may be dicey territory for Romney to get into if he were to pick Rubio as his running mate.  In any case, most likely as a consequence of this, Rubio's share price has crumbled, and he's now in 2nd place, with Portman in 1st....

Up: Portman, Daniels, Rice
Down: Rubio

Portman 20.0
Rubio 12.9
Christie 11.0
McDonnell 7.2
Ryan 5.5
Daniels 5.2
Rice 3.5
Thune 3.4
Martinez 2.9
Ayotte 2.8
Jindal 2.8
Bush 2.7
Pawlenty 2.5
Rand Paul 2.0
Santorum 1.9

Rubio did make one interesting Freudian slip though:

"If in four, five, six, seven years from now, if I do a good job as vice president-I'm sorry, as senator-I'll have the chance to do all sorts of things," he said, in a slip that met with laughter from the audience.

[A dog on every car, a car in every elevator]

I don't think the GOP Dream Act hurts since Romney is pretty obviously looking for a way to walk back the immigration red meat he threw out during the primary.  Price fall probably driven by Rubio's more convincing denial (unless he's ineptly overdoing the traditional feigning disinterest) and (or itself driven by) new PPP polling showing he doesn't help with Latinos and hurts in Florida.

McDonnell and Ryan... Romney's far too cautious to ever do that and if his polling dropped and he needed a game change, he'd go with one with more potential upside. I do enjoy McDonnell's tossing aside tradition and running ads for himself for VP.

I used to think Christie was too high because Romney can't possibly trust him but have to take that back after PPP showed him helping Romney most.  That will probably the biggest factor in the selection. Christie, is slightly more subtle than McDonnell, but pretty transparently fishing for an offer.

Pawlenty should be tied with Portman.

[Mr. Morden]

Btw, here is the video of Rubio's Freudian slip:

http://www.politico.com/multimedia/video/2012/04/rubios-vp-freudian-slip.html

[milhouse24]

These stock rankings are pretty unreliable.  Its 99% based on gossipy media reports and media sentiment.  I just think its mostly unrealistic especially when Rubio was ranked so high. 

Romney's a pragmatic person, so he won't pick a VP way out of the box that has never been nationally polled before.  He's not going to pick someone not known like Palin, Cheney, or Lieberman. 

Romney's going to pick someone with some experience, more than 2 years at least, and someone with some national media exposure who would be capable of handling difficult media questions.  Also being from a swing state/region would be a bonus. 

Portman, Thune, DeMint would all be decent choices. 

Daniels should be a zero if everyone were aware of his wife's marital problems.

[Mr. Morden]

These stock rankings are pretty unreliable.  Its 99% based on gossipy media reports and media sentiment.

Of course it's "unreliable", as we have very little to go on yet.  It's possible to handicap the probabilities of future events happening, even when those probabilities are highly uncertain.

[RodPresident]

I think that Huckabee should be put as an alternative too.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Btw, here is the video of Rubio's Freudian slip:

http://www.politico.com/multimedia/video/2012/04/rubios-vp-freudian-slip.html

Well, he's certainly not as robotic as Romney.

[Mr. Morden]

Rubio rebounds a bit while Portman remains in first.  Daniels makes big gains.

Up: Rubio, Daniels
Down: Portman, McDonnell

Portman 18.5
Rubio 15.0
Christie 11.0
Daniels 10.0
Ryan 6.0
McDonnell 4.5
J. Bush 3.2
Ayotte 3.1
Thune 3.1
Rice 3.0
Martinez 2.8
Jindal 2.6
Pawlenty 2.0
McMorris-Rodgers 1.6
Santorum 1.5

[Senator Clarence]

Huckabee should be higher up...

[milhouse24]

I think the best model for VP selection is someone like Biden/Gore/Bush Sr
Basically someone with political experience and has perhaps even run for president, and has been vetted by the national press.  Because, the vetting committee is human and lazy, and if the VP has already been investigated by the national press during their own presidential run, and no scandal has surfaced, then he could be easily picked as VP over an unknown person who has not been vetted and could have a lot of skeletons. 

Portman 18.5 - nationally unknown and never vetted
Rubio 15.0 - never vetted
Christie 11.0 - never nationally vetted
Daniels 10.0 - almost ran for president, a solid experience choice, but his wife will likely make him decline the VP.
Ryan 6.0 - never nationally vetted
McDonnell 4.5 - never nationally vetted
J. Bush 3.2 - somewhat nationally vetted based on family media presence
Ayotte 3.1 - nationally unknown
Thune 3.1 - somewhat nationally known and somewhat vetted
Rice 3.0
Martinez 2.8 - unknown
Jindal 2.6 - somewhat unknown on national issues
Pawlenty 2.0 - has been nationally vetted, could help in midwest, not a great campaigner
McMorris-Rodgers 1.6
Santorum 1.5

These rankings also seem to discount the effect that "Gravitas" plays in percetion, which means a candidate appears wise and experienced, and is presidentially capable and well-respected, and somewhat popular. 

[Chareth Cutestory]

The press couldn't "vet" if their lives depended on it. They barely even report, they just yell a lot about the same things over and over.

[rbt48]

I gather that the press didn't do a very good job vetting John Edwards (with benefit of hindsight).

[milhouse24]

The press couldn't "vet" if their lives depended on it. They barely even report, they just yell a lot about the same things over and over.

It is also about controlling the media with scandals.  When Biden ran for president for one year, the media covered him and his history, so by the time he became VP, any scandals were "old news" and not worth reporting. 

But when Palin became VP, anything controversial from her past was released on a daily basis in the news, creating this mountain of scandal, that may have been contained if she were in front of the national press for 12 months.  Even the smallest scandal would be blown up in that 2 month time frame. 

So the vetting is part of the media game - do you pick someone completely new like Rubio or Portman and throw to the wolves for 3 months and have his life dissected?  Or do you pick someone who has been in the national spotlight for a decade and has built relationships with the media?

I just think Romney will pick a well-known name and not a fresh face. 

[Mr. Morden]

The expectation is that Romney isn't going to try to pull a surprise like McCain did last time.  He'll leak the names of the top two or three finalists well in advance of making any decision, so that they can be scrutinized in the media before he locks himself into any particular nominee.

That's what it seemed like McCain was doing last time around, when the leaks suggested that it was either Pawlenty or Romney, but then he turned around and picked a name for which the campaign had given no previous indication that they were considering.

[Torie]

The expectation is that Romney isn't going to try to pull a surprise like McCain did last time.  He'll leak the names of the top two or three finalists well in advance of making any decision, so that they can be scrutinized in the media before he locks himself into any particular nominee.

That's what it seemed like McCain was doing last time around, when the leaks suggested that it was either Pawlenty or Romney, but then he turned around and picked a name for which the campaign had given no previous indication that they were considering.

That is because McCain panicked, and likes the rush of living on the edge to boot. Mittens is the opposite of that wiring. He never panics, and living on the edge is a poor cost/benefit decision when you get no rush from it.  Mittens is facile with penciling stuff.

[Mr. Morden]

Rubio back in first place, albeit just barely.

Up: Rubio, McDonnell, Pawlenty
Down: Portman, Christie, Daniels, Ryan, Bush

Rubio 18.1
Portman 17.5
Christie 9.5
Daniels 8.1
McDonnell 5.6
Pawlenty 4.1
Ryan 4.1
Thune 4.0
Ayotte 3.6
Jindal 2.6
Rice 2.6
J. Bush 2.0
Martinez 1.9
Toomey 1.5
Rand Paul 1.4

[Mr. Morden]

Rubio 17.9
Portman 17.5
Christie 9.0
Daniels 7.9
McDonnell 6.0
Pawlenty 4.5
Ryan 4.5
Ayotte 4.4
Thune 3.4
Rice 2.9
Jindal 2.6
J. Bush 2.3
Rand Paul 1.5
Santorum 1.5
Martinez 1.4
McMorris-Rodgers 1.4