The Institute of 2012 GOP nomination Intrade rankings

[Brittain33]

Daniels goes up?

[Yelnoc]

Daniels goes up?

Is that shocking news?

[Bull Moose Base]

Daniels goes up?

Is that shocking news?

I'd argue it makes little sense for him to go up in the past week.  In fact the only Daniels activity in the past week has been bucking the party and killing Indiana's new anti-union bills.  He could get past that in a primary but why would it boost his price?  Seems wrong.  He also hasn't made any new moves toward running.  His price is comparable to Pawlenty who is basically already running and comparably strong on paper if not stronger.

I also don't see why Palin's loss (whatever drove it in past week I'm not clear on) should be Daniels's gain.  Don't see her supporters going to him if she doesn't run or flops but to someone who'd be tougher for him to beat than Palin.  I actually think Daniels and Palin's chances are correlated.  I think his best path is if he clears out the grown-up wing while she does the Tea Party side.  And her best path might be the same thing.  So one's momentum should help the other.

[Yelnoc]

Daniels goes up?

Is that shocking news?

I'd argue it makes little sense for him to go up in the past week.  In fact the only Daniels activity in the past week has been bucking the party and killing Indiana's new anti-union bills.  He could get past that in a primary but why would it boost his price?  Seems wrong.  He also hasn't made any new moves toward running.  His price is comparable to Pawlenty who is basically already running and comparably strong on paper if not stronger.

I also don't see why Palin's loss (whatever drove it in past week I'm not clear on) should be Daniels's gain.  Don't see her supporters going to him if she doesn't run or flops but to someone who'd be tougher for him to beat than Palin.  I actually think Daniels and Palin's chances are correlated.  I think his best path is if he clears out the grown-up wing while she does the Tea Party side.  And her best path might be the same thing.  So one's momentum should help the other.

Daniels only went up 1.3, within the realm of statistical noise.  That said, Pawlenty is a much weaker potential candidate than Daniels; the fact that their share prices are almost the same despite Pawlenty clearly in the running and Daniels on the fence is indicative of that.  As to Palin, I highly doubt her fall and Daniels gain are in any way related.

[Mr. Morden]

Palin's share price has really taken a pounding in recent months (especially post-Tucson).  As recently as Christmas Day, she was at 19.1, so we have about a 2/3rds drop since then.  Over the same timeframe, Pawlenty's price has more than doubled.

Anyway, following Gingrich's less than smooth announcement:

Up: Gingrich, Barbour
Down: Daniels, Palin

Romney 25.3
Pawlenty 12.2
Daniels 9.8
Huckabee 8.9
Palin 6.5
Gingrich 6.3
Barbour 4.3
Huntsman 4.3
Bachmann 4.2
Christie 2.9
Trump 2.4
Paul 1.9
J. Bush 1.3

On the other end of the spectrum, Buddy Roemer's announcement doubled his share price from 0.1 to 0.2.  Herman Cain is at 0.3.

Four years ago today:

Democrats
Clinton 46.0
Obama 24.5
Gore 12.9
Edwards 9.3
Richardson 3.2
Biden 1.6
Clark 0.5
Warner 0.5
Dodd 0.4

Republicans
Giuliani 34.9
McCain 30.0
Romney 19.7
Gingrich 4.9
Huckabee 4.7
Hagel 4.3
Brownback 3.2
Rice 1.6
Hunter 0.7
Cheney 0.5
Bloomberg 0.5
Bush 0.4
Powell 0.4

[RogueBeaver]

In retrospect, the fact that Giuliani was a media candidate with no base ("roof without a foundation") and that the Dems were desperate to toss their polarizing dynast under the bus, plus their history of bucking the frontrunner in favor of a promising dark horse, were ignored. Given that Romney isn't splitting his base with anyone like Hillary did with WWC voters in Iowa, like Barbour/Gingrich could well in the South, and Pawlenty/Gingrich/Barbour split the SoCon vote, I see no reason to doubt the heavy odds favouring a Romney nomination.

[Mr. Morden]

Pawlenty has been surging like mad this week.  Anyone who bought his shares about three months ago has now tripled their money:

GOP nominee

Romney 25.4
Pawlenty 19.2
Daniels 10.7
Huckabee 8.6
Palin 6.2
Gingrich 5.7
Bachmann 4.2
Barbour 4.2
Huntsman 4.2
Christie 2.9
Trump 2.0
Paul 1.9
J. Bush 1.1
Johnson 1.0
Rubio 0.9

Dem. nominee

Obama 90.0
Clinton 5.1
Biden 3.2

[The Mikado]

Trump's overpriced even at 2.  Bachmann's way overpriced at 4.2.  Gingrich might be a bit underpriced.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Pawlenty has been surging like mad this week.  Anyone who bought his shares about three months ago has now tripled their money:

Pawlenty has shown strength till now only among the Beltway insiders. His performance in the last Iowa poll was pitiful and I highly doubt that if Huckabee and Palin don't run he will be the beneficiary.

[RogueBeaver]

Then the obvious beneficiaries would be Gingrich or Barbour. Though IMO anyone who thinks Bachmann and Barbour have equal shots at the nomination, or that Pawlenty has a better chance than Gingrich, is either a) deluded b) forgot GOP primary dynamics c) both.

[Bull Moose Base]

I had thought Palin would try to get in before Bachmann but Palin's latest Hannity interview suggests she won't get in first.  I have to think if Bachmann gets in, Palin has little rationale for a run herself and may just endorse her, which would bring MB a big boost.  Huckabee supporters, in the event he passes, would Id bet fragment between Palwenty, Santorum, Bachmann, and even Romney against Huckabee's wishes and in South Carolin, Barbour and Gingrich as well.  Huckabee endorsing someone could help that person but Palin's supporters seem more inclined to follow orders.  

I think it would make Iowa unpredictable.  And if Pawlenty didn't surge in Iowa he'd be almost done.  So he could win but I agree with Lyndon that its only the intelligentsia that is wild about him and they seem to think everyone shares their lack of enthusiasm for populists.

[Mr. Morden]

Pawlenty and Huckabee both drop, though they remain firmly in 2nd and 4th place respectively.  Palin to run for president has dropped all the way to 38.1:

Romney 24.6
Pawlenty 18.1
Daniels 10.2
Huckabee 7.2
Palin 6.2
Gingrich 5.7
Bachmann 4.2
Barbour 4.2
Huntsman 4.0
Christie 2.8
Trump 2.5
Paul 1.4
J. Bush 1.0
Giuliani 1.0
Rubio 0.9

Party to win the White House:
Dems 62.1
GOP 35.3
3rd party 2.4

Senate control:
GOP 66.0
Dems 28.6
"neither" 3.0

[Mr. Morden]

First update post-Pawlenty exploratory announcement.

GOP nominee
Up: Pawlenty, Barbour
Down: Daniels

Romney 24.1
Pawlenty 19.3
Daniels 8.9
Huckabee 6.8
Palin 6.4
Barbour 5.2
Gingrich 5.0
Bachmann 4.8
Huntsman 3.9
Christie 3.0
Trump 2.6
Paul 1.7
Giuliani 1.0
J. Bush 0.9

Winning individual

Obama 60.8
Romney 11.6
Pawlenty 9.0
Huckabee 4.9
Daniels 4.7
Gingrich 2.9
Paul 2.0
Biden 1.6
Palin 0.5

Yes, Paul's odds on winning the presidency are trading higher than his odds on winning the GOP nomination.  I suppose the idea is that he could run as an Indy.

[Yelnoc]

Wow Pawlenty jumped.  I wonder how long that will last.

[milhouse24]

Wow Pawlenty jumped.  I wonder how long that will last.

T-Paw jumped because he is the only one that announced.

When everyone else announces, it will even out.

[Likely Voter]

Wow Pawlenty jumped.  I wonder how long that will last.

T-Paw jumped because he is the only one that announced.

When everyone else announces, it will even out.

Not really. The 'likely to run' prices show that for most of the candidates, they are more likely than not to run - so that is priced into their win nomination price as well. Most would see a modest bump if they announced. The only candidates that would see a significant jump if they announced would be Palin or Huckabee (Daniels to a lesser extent), and of course some of the 'I'm not running' candidates like Rubio and Christie.

[Phony Moderate]

[Mr. Morden]

A big surge in Huntsmentum, as Hunstman shoots all the way up to 4th place.    It's probably just a blip though, as both the bid and ask are still below 5.  There's also been a huge selloff on Palin, with "Palin to run for president" now down to an all time low of 17.0.  Palin to win the nomination is now down to 7th place, behind both Bachmann and Huntsman.  Palin has really had an epic collapse (in slow motion) since Tucson, in large part driven by increasing confidence that she isn't going to run.  On the flip side, anyone who bet on Bachmann, Huntsman, and Pawlenty a few months ago has made a lot of $.

Up: Huntsman, Bachmann
Down: Pawlenty, Gingrich

Romney 25.0
Pawlenty 17.7
Daniels 8.6
Huntsman 6.7
Bachmann 6.6
Huckabee 6.6
Palin 5.7
Barbour 5.0
Gingrich 4.0
Trump 3.2
Christie 2.5
Paul 1.7
J. Bush 1.2
Johnson 1.2
Giuliani 1.1

Four years ago at this time:

Romney recovers.
Down: Gore, Hagel
Up: Edwards, Giuliani

Democrats
Clinton 49.3
Obama 29.0
Gore 9.3
Edwards 8.0
Richardson 3.9
Biden 0.6
Clark 0.5
Dodd 0.2
Warner 0.2
Kerry 0.2
Vilsack 0.2
Bayh 0.1

Republicans
Giuliani 34.2
McCain 21.0
Thompson 16.8
Romney 15.0
Gingrich 3.4
Hagel 1.7
Rice 1.7
Bloomberg 1.1
Huckabee 1.0
Brownback 1.0
T. Thompson 1.0
Cheney 0.5
J. Bush 0.5
Tancredo 0.4

[Bull Moose Base]

How is Huntsman's last trade higher than his ask?

[Mr. Morden]

How is Huntsman's last trade higher than his ask?

Someone gets a little Huntsman-happy, and buys a share at 6.7, and let's say he then goes offline.  Then subsequently you have two different people, one with a bid at, say, 4.3 and another with an ask at, say, 5.  Since those people two people haven't agreed on a price yet, 6.7 is still the "last", while both the bid and ask are lower than that.

[Yelnoc]

If you buy the shares of the winning candidate and never sell them, do you lose money or does the system some how reward you for being correct? 

[King]

If you buy the shares of the winning candidate and never sell them, do you lose money or does the system some how reward you for being correct? 

I think you have to cash out once a 2012 GOP nominee is selected.  There's no other reason to hold them because they will no longer be bought or sold.

[Mr. Morden]

If you buy the shares of the winning candidate and never sell them, do you lose money or does the system some how reward you for being correct? 

Of course you get money if you have shares of the winning candidate.  That's the whole point.  People use the site to gamble on who will win the nomination with real money.  Those who are correct win money and those who are incorrect lose money.

People buying a share of, say, Pawlenty at 17.7 are making a contract with someone else who's betting against him at the same price.  So the person betting on him will put up $1.77, while the person betting against him will put up $8.23, for a total of $10.00 between you.  If you hold onto that contract all the way until the 2012 RNC, then if Pawlenty wins the nomination, you get all $10.00, and the person who bet against you gets zero.  While if Pawlenty doesn't win the nomination, then the person who bet against him gets the $10.00, while you get zero.  All the contracts "cash out" at the time of the RNC, when the nominee is officially decided.

Of course, your goal may not necessarily be to hold onto the contract all the way until the convention.  If, for example, the price on the Pawlenty contracts rises to 25.0, and you think that's too high, then you can sell it off to someone else, and make a profit.  Or conversely, if something happens that makes you think it's a lot less likely that he's going to win, you might sell off your contract for a loss, because at least you'll get something.

[Yelnoc]

If you buy the shares of the winning candidate and never sell them, do you lose money or does the system some how reward you for being correct? 

Of course you get money if you have shares of the winning candidate.  That's the whole point.  People use the site to gamble on who will win the nomination with real money.  Those who are correct win money and those who are incorrect lose money.

People buying a share of, say, Pawlenty at 17.7 are making a contract with someone else who's betting against him at the same price.  So the person betting on him will put up $1.77, while the person betting against him will put up $8.23, for a total of $10.00 between you.  If you hold onto that contract all the way until the 2012 RNC, then if Pawlenty wins the nomination, you get all $10.00, and the person who bet against you gets zero.  While if Pawlenty doesn't win the nomination, then the person who bet against him gets the $10.00, while you get zero.  All the contracts "cash out" at the time of the RNC, when the nominee is officially decided.

Of course, your goal may not necessarily be to hold onto the contract all the way until the convention.  If, for example, the price on the Pawlenty contracts rises to 25.0, and you think that's too high, then you can sell it off to someone else, and make a profit.  Or conversely, if something happens that makes you think it's a lot less likely that he's going to win, you might sell off your contract for a loss, because at least you'll get something.

Ah, thanks for clearing that up.  With that in mind, Romney, Daniels, and Huckabee seem to have the most loyal buyers, considering their lack of fluctuation.  I wonder if Huckabee's price will bottom out soon, though?

[Bull Moose Base]

If you buy the shares of the winning candidate and never sell them, do you lose money or does the system some how reward you for being correct? 

Of course you get money if you have shares of the winning candidate.  That's the whole point.  People use the site to gamble on who will win the nomination with real money.  Those who are correct win money and those who are incorrect lose money.

People buying a share of, say, Pawlenty at 17.7 are making a contract with someone else who's betting against him at the same price.  So the person betting on him will put up $1.77, while the person betting against him will put up $8.23, for a total of $10.00 between you.  If you hold onto that contract all the way until the 2012 RNC, then if Pawlenty wins the nomination, you get all $10.00, and the person who bet against you gets zero.  While if Pawlenty doesn't win the nomination, then the person who bet against him gets the $10.00, while you get zero.  All the contracts "cash out" at the time of the RNC, when the nominee is officially decided.

Of course, your goal may not necessarily be to hold onto the contract all the way until the convention.  If, for example, the price on the Pawlenty contracts rises to 25.0, and you think that's too high, then you can sell it off to someone else, and make a profit.  Or conversely, if something happens that makes you think it's a lot less likely that he's going to win, you might sell off your contract for a loss, because at least you'll get something.

Ah, thanks for clearing that up.  With that in mind, Romney, Daniels, and Huckabee seem to have the most loyal buyers, considering their lack of fluctuation.  I wonder if Huckabee's price will bottom out soon, though?

Anyone who buys Huckabee now, if he runs, they'll rake it in whether he wins or not.  But you can't specifically bet against a primary candidate as far as I know.  So, if you had insider info that Huckabee wasn't running, you couldn't bet "Huck does not win in 2012".  As far as I know.

Look at Gingrich.  And he's basically in.

Intrade captures the GOP race nicely somehow.  Romney is a dismally weak frontrunner who still might win easily because the others are even weaker.