Talk Elections

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

Rubio gave a more definitive sounding denial of interest yesterday:

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


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:


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:

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

Huckabee should be higher up...

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. 

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.

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

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. 

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.

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

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

And Portman and Rubio switch places yet again, with both of them losing ground to the rest of the field:

Portman 16.5
Rubio 16.0
Christie 9.5
Daniels 8.5
McDonnell 6.3
Pawlenty 5.0
Ryan 4.5
Ayotte 3.8
Thune 3.5
Rice 3.0
Jindal 2.5
Toomey 1.9
J. Bush 1.6
Rand Paul 1.5
Santorum 1.5

Rubio back in first place yet again.

Up: Rubio, Christie, Rice
Down: Daniels, Ayotte

Rubio 18.5
Portman 16.7
Christie 10.9
Daniels 7.3
McDonnell 6.6
Pawlenty 5.3
Rice 5.0
Ryan 4.5
Thune 3.0
Ayotte 2.5
Toomey 2.1
Jindal 2.0
Santorum 2.0
McMorris-Rodgers 1.5
Rand Paul 1.5

Up: Portman, Jindal, Huckabee
Down: Rubio, Christie, Daniels, McDonnell

GOP VP

Portman 18.0
Rubio 17.4
Christie 8.5
Daniels 6.3
McDonnell 5.5
Rice 5.2
Jindal 4.9
Pawlenty 4.9
Ryan 4.6
Thune 3.2
Huckabee 3.0
Toomey 2.5
Ayotte 2.0
Rand Paul 1.7
Santorum 1.6

Dem. VP

Biden 93.8
Clinton 7.3

Christie made it clear that he's more intrested in being Governor again than being a Vp

Up: Rubio, Portman
Down: Christie, McDonnell, Daniels, Rice, Ryan, Huckabee

GOP VP

Rubio 23.2
Portman 19.0
Christie 7.4
Pawlenty 5.6
McDonnell 4.4
Daniels 4.0
Jindal 4.0
Rice 3.5
Ryan 3.5
Toomey 3.3
Ayotte 2.9
Thune 2.4
Huckabee 1.8
McMorris Rodgers 1.8
Rand Paul 1.7

Winning party:

Dems 58.8
GOP 40.1
other 0.8

Winning individual

Obama 57.3
Romney 38.8
Clinton 1.9
Paul 1.5

Winning party

Dems 57.6
GOP 41.5
other 0.6

GOP presidential nominee

Romney 96.7
Paul 1.8
J. Bush 0.3
Huckabee 0.3

GOP VP nominee

Portman 23.0
Rubio 22.3
Christie 8.0
Pawlenty 6.0
Daniels 3.9
Jindal 3.8
Ryan 3.4
McDonnell 2.9
Rice 2.7
Ayotte 2.5
Toomey 2.2
Thune 1.9
Rand Paul 1.6
McMorris Rodgers 1.6
Huckabee 1.4

Dem. presidential nominee

Obama 97.3
Clinton 2.0
Biden 0.3

Dem. VP nominee

Biden 93.0
Clinton 5.6

Winning individual

Obama 53.7
Romney 42.5
Clinton 2.3
Paul 1.8

Winning party

Dems 54.2
GOP 45.1
other 0.6

GOP presidential nominee

Romney 96.0
Paul 2.2
Santorum 0.6
J. Bush 0.3

GOP VP nominee

Portman 28.6
Rubio 20.0
Daniels 6.9
Pawlenty 6.4
Christie 5.9
Jindal 4.0
Rice 4.0
Thune 3.1
McDonnell 2.7
Ayotte 2.5
Ryan 2.4
McMorris Rodgers 2.3
Huckabee 1.5
Rand Paul 1.5
Toomey 1.5

I'm surprised that Portman is still way up.  I just think Thune is a more likely VP in many ways.  It might be GOP PR pushing for Portman so the Ohio voters get excited for Romney.  Portman just doesn't have much credibility with voters outside Ohio, and it could be a problem with Southern evangelicals. 

Winning Party

Dems 54.1
GOP 45.4
other 0.5

GOP VP nominee

Portman 26.6
Rubio 19.0
Daniels 7.1
Pawlenty 7.1
Christie 6.5
Jindal 6.5
McMorris Rodgers 3.5
Ryan 3.2
Thune 3.0
McDonnell 2.9
Rice 2.8
Rand Paul 2.5
Ayotte 2.4
Huckabee 1.4
J. Bush 1.1

The diehard Clintonistas aren't quite ready to give up….

Winning Individual

Obama 53.4
Romney 42.6
Clinton 2.7
Paul 1.2

GOP VP nominee

Portman 22.6
Rubio 19.0
Pawlenty 8.5
Daniels 7.1
Christie 7.0
Jindal 5.8
Thune 4.1
Ryan 4.0
McMorris-Rodgers 3.2
Rice 2.5
Ayotte 1.9
Rand Paul 1.9
J. Bush 1.5
Huckabee 1.0
Martinez 1.0

Democratic VP nominee

Biden 93.0
H. Clinton 3.6
B. Clinton 2.5

A very volatile day in the VP market.  News of Rubio not being vetted causes his price to drop sharply, but then it partially recovers when Romney says that he is being vetted.  Daniels drops hard when it's revealed that he's likely to be named Purdue University president.  And Pawlenty is surging like mad, now up to second place.

Up: Portman, Pawlenty, Ryan
Down: Rubio, McMorris-Rodgers, Rice, Daniels

Winning party

Dems 53.6
GOP 45.2
other 0.5

GOP VP nominee

Portman 25.0
Pawlenty 17.5
Rubio 15.1
Christie 7.4
Jindal 5.9
Ryan 5.5
Thune 4.3
McDonnell 3.0
McMorris-Rodgers 2.0
Rand Paul 2.0
Rice 1.5
J. Bush 1.4
Ayotte 1.3
Daniels 1.2
Huckabee 1.0
Martinez 1.0

2 months later:


But I haven't found a way to play having only American credit cards.

Wire money. I know Beet is on there.

Pawlenty now only .2% behind Portman at 23.8%

The market has been extremely volatile for the second day in a row.  Pawlenty led Portman briefly earlier today, but now is back to second place.  But he's made more big gains today, as Rubio has crashed further.

Up: Pawlenty, Jindal
Down: Rubio, Christie

Portman 24.7
Pawlenty 24.0
Rubio 7.7
Jindal 7.0
Ryan 5.5
Christie 5.0
Thune 5.0
McDonnell 3.0
McMorris-Rodgers 2.0
Rand Paul 2.0
Rice 1.3
J. Bush 1.1
Daniels 1.1
Ayotte 1.0
Martinez 1.0

Big gains by Ryan, who's now up to fourth place.

Up: Rubio, Ryan
Down: Portman, Pawlenty

Portman 23.4
Pawlenty 20.8
Rubio 11.5
Ryan 11.0
Jindal 7.2
Thune 5.0
Christie 4.5
McDonnell 2.3
Rand Paul 1.9
Rice 1.9
Ayotte 1.4
J. Bush 1.1
McMorris-Rodgers 1.1
Daniels 0.9
Martinez 0.9

Thune now up to fourth place in the GOP VP market.

Up: Rubio, Thune, Christie, McDonnell, Rice
Down: Pawlenty, Ryan, Jindal

Winning Individual

Obama 54.2
Romney 42.6
Paul 1.8
Clinton 0.8
Santorum 0.3
Johnson 0.2

Winning Party

Dems 55.9
GOP 43.5
other 0.6

GOP VP nominee

Portman 24.0
Pawlenty 17.9
Rubio 13.5
Thune 7.0
Ryan 6.5
Christie 5.7
Jindal 5.0
McDonnell 4.0
Rice 3.0
Rand Paul 2.0
Ayotte 1.7
Heineman 1.5
Ron Paul 1.5
McMorris-Rodgers 1.4
J. Bush 1.1

Dem VP nominee

Biden 93.0
H. Clinton 6.0
B. Clinton 1.1

It should be pointed out in this thread that Intrade gave a 70% chance that the individual mandate would be ruled unconstitutional.

It probably was a 70% chance.

Yes, and I've seen some folks on the interwebs try to use that to argue that Intrade was "wrong".  Which completely misunderstands probability.  Events with 70% probability don't happen 100% of the time.  We shouldn't be surprised when they don't happen.  If an event with 70% doesn't end up happening, does that mean that your estimate of its probability was wrong?  Of course not!

The real test of Intrade's accuracy is whether events it gives a 70% chance of happening happen 70% of the time, if events that it gives a 25% chance of happening happen 25% of the time, etc.

I've been saying that Romney should pick a Western VP.  Amazingly, there's only one on the list that's even in the Mountain timezone (Martinez of New Mexico), and none from the Pacific!  Only Martinez, Thune, Pawlenty, and Paul are from states even west of the Mississippi (I'll count Jindal's Louisiana as east of the river, because the capital is).

If he'd pick a real Westerner (and I wouldn't pick Martinez after seeing what the MSM did in 2008 to the most politically-accomplished woman of her age in American history, a governor with 93% approval rating in her state) Romney could gain a lot of credibility -- with non-Mormons -- from Denver west.

Edit, because I forgot to comment on the Democrats:  Obama has to keep Biden because he's about the only one available in comparison with whom Obama looks intelligent.  Well, or Hillary, but nearly all voters feel that Bill will do her thinking for her.

Most people here are missing out on some great laughs by putting you on ignore.

Martinez is no Sarah Palin. This woman isn't a phony. She'd connect with voters without having to get gimmicky.

Candidate                      Timezone

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

Total
64.6% from Eastern Timezone
18.4% from Central
4.5% from Mountain
0.0% from Pacific

It won't be Rubio, that's for sure.

As for Martinez she's said that she can't leave NM because she's guardian to a developmentally handicapped family member. Not the sort of thing where one says "On second thought..."

First, the truth of the statement is proved by your refusal to even try to refute it.

Second, while every GOP candidate would give his left arm for her endorsement, your presidential nominee sits by the phone ... waiting ... for someone to call to ask for his.

It's a lonely vigil.  

(There are a few calls, but only from more white Democrats telling him they'll be washing their hair while he's being renominated in Charlotte.)

Are you kidding?  After the power we've seen the MSM display in recent years -- forget what they did to Palin for a minute:  Look what they did to the Clinton Machine in 2008 and to the Tea Party in 2012.  In a race of "Hillary and the Seven Dwarfs", the MSM got the Democrats to nominate the littlest dwarf, Dopey.  And now, just two years after the Tea Party, motivated by ObamaCare, gave the GOP the biggest midterm election victory in generations, the MSM foisted on the GOP the most anti-Tea Party candidate, the unapologetic architect of the prototype for ObamaCare.

Think about that kind of power for a minute before you try to say that the MSM can't do to Martinez what they did to Palin.

Palin did it to herself when she showed up to those Katie Couric interviews unprepared. The mainstream media goes for what's most popular. Hating on Palin was most popular because she made herself look stupid.

No she didn't.  You were among the fooled.

Oh hey, I know!  Let's have some fun:  I'll name something that Obama -- who you would say "made himself look smart" -- has said that is really idiotic, and then you follow by naming something idiotic said by Palin.  Only rule:  It has to be verifiable -- not "someone said that Palin said such-and-such". 

Ready?

"Corpse-man."

Your turn.  We'll keep going till one of us runs out and we can see who got fooled by the MSM.

I agree with most of what you say, but you are dead wrong on this one.

Aren't you the guy who often accuses people of "admitting you were right" when they divert from your points? This little game is a pretty solid example of a diversion. I will not participate. Obama has said many stupid things before, but they were small and mundane enough not to catch fire. He is able to make himself look smart in the way that he talks. It's unfortunate, but Palin and Perry and Bush (all of whom made themselves look stupid) use a folksy accent that doesn't always work.

So when someone who talks funny gets up there in front of a national audience and answers a question with a dumb run-on sentence, it looks stupid. Hell, it is stupid. I know Palin never said "I can see Russia from my house." That doesn't mean her answer to Couric's question was articulate or made sense. Palin, who should have known the MSM was ready to jump onthe tiniest of missteps, showed up unprepared for an interview. Those tapings are what ruined her.

I don't believe it is in Martinez's character to show up unprepared. I don't believe she would bait the MSM like Palin did.

Hagrid, I had a neat point-by-point reply, but the computer ate it.  :-(

Anyway, the gist was that, no, Palin did NOT "make herself look stupid" and Obama did NOT "make himself look smart".

It was the MSM that made Palin look stupid and it was the MSM that made Obama look smart.  That you, an intelligent guy who probably even sympathizes with Palin's politics, did not notice it is a real tribute to the skill employed.

(Sometime, go back and count the number of dumb things Palin said, and then multiply them by the number of times they were repeated and amplied in the MSM echo chamber.  Then do the same for Obama.  Did you know, btw, that he recently mistook the state flag of Wisconsin and thought it was a labor union flag -- "Local 1848"!  Or that he called the Miami Heat basketball team the Miami Heats.  That was just this month alone.

Heck, last Summer he (1) couldn't get right the date of his own birthday, (2) couldn't get right the age of his oldest child, and (3) couldn't get right that the year was "2011" and not "2008".

(If you think Palin or Perry or Bush -- or any of those people who didn't have a polished, elite accent -- did that it might be on continuous rewind for weeks on nearly every channel?)

You know, I worked as a newspaper reporter for eight years -- including 1.5 in D.C.  If you never believe anything else I say, then believe this one thing:  You will come nearer the truth by believing the opposite of everything the MSM tells you.  Or to quote Thomas Jefferson, "The truest things in the newspapers are the advertisements."

()

I have not been fooled--I like Palin. She still made herself look stupid by giving the MSM a big blunder to chew on. Obama does not give run-on, unintelligible responses to new reporters. Sure, he rarely gives anything of substance and sometimes says the odd dumb thing, but even you should be able to see that Palin's Couric interviews were huge bombs (and they were fair interviews, too).

Big mess-ups and small mess-ups are not on par. Big blunders can sink a candidate. Many, many, many small ones cannot.

Oh, so now it's not the NUMBER of blunders but the SIZE?

We could have the same contest and I'd be still here, typing Obama's BIG blunders long after you finished with Palin's.

Dependent as you are on the cultural elite to tell you what to think about Palin, you probably think that she "made a BIG blunder" when she answered "all of them" to Couric's "Do you read newspapers?" set-up question, right?  That was a set-up for a "gotcha question".  It would have trapped a lesser politician.  Apparently, only journalism grads like Palin (and me) could see what Couric was doing and what her next question would have been if, as she demanded, Palin named a "specific" publication.

Go review the tape of that question.  Watch Couric's body language.  As she forms the question, she's not making eye-contact, she's looking at the ground, but she's speaking very carefully, making sure to ask the set-up question exactly the right way.  She was furious when Palin side-stepped the trap by saying "all of them"!  You can see as she keeps demanding that Palin for the NAME of a SPECIFIC newspaper.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9go38MgZ4w8

(Actually, I notice that she didn't say "all of them".  She said, "Most of them" and then when Couric demanded specificity, Palin said "all of them -- any of them that have been placed in front of me".)

Palin's mistake was that she was too polite.  She knew what Couric was doing and she should've called her on it:  "Why would you ask me that question, Katie?  Have you ever asked any other politician that question in your whole life?"

[modify]  Of course, the MSM gave Katie a big award for that botched "gotcha" moment -- but not for her interview of Biden in which he said, insanely, that FDR gave a televised address to the nation in the wake of the 1929 stock market crash!  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Jf17Yo7hBM  

LOL-- did you even see that?  Or did you just hear the "all of them" answer repeated 500 times in the media with claims that it proved Palin was "stupid"?

WhyteRain, how is it you can alienate conservatives as well as liberals?

I would add though that the media coverage of the Obama campaign was shameful. He was effectively eelcted on the back of glowing praise from the media. When he let slip uber-gaffes like "people out here cling to guns and religion", silence.

I don't toe the "conservative" or the "liberal" lines because both zigzag too much for me. 

LOL -- you made me recall a friend in college telling me that I was "more conservative than the conservatives and more liberal than the liberals".

Basically, I'm just a history buff who sees echos of the past in the present (and the future).


Heck, that "gaffe" was covered.  Look at the ones that weren't.  How often was this tape played? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=of61E1FesPU&feature=related

It's no accident that while former U.S. presidents used teleprompters for speeches to the nation -- where every word was crucial -- the White House handlers don't trust Obama to make even routine announcements without TOTUS.

Poor people do cling to guns in religion. It's not a gaffe to say something true.

It is when you are pitching to these people for votes. Anyway I thought the Democrats liked the poor.

Up: Portman, Jindal, Ayotte
Down: Rubio, Thune, Ryan, Christie, McDonnell

Winning party

Dems 56.1
GOP 42.2
other 0.5

GOP VP nominee

Portman 31.0
Pawlenty 18.4
Rubio 9.9
Jindal 6.3
Thune 5.2
Ryan 4.5
Rice 3.5
Ayotte 3.0
Christie 2.5
McMorris-Rodgers 2.3
McDonnell 2.1
Martinez 1.0
Ron Paul 0.6
DeMint 0.5
Haley 0.5
Huckabee 0.5
Kyl 0.5
Rand Paul 0.5

Also, futures on the 2016 Democratic nomination for president are trading at Ladbrokes.com.  With the odds converted into Intrade-like probabilities, the prices are:

H. Clinton 20.0
Biden 8.3
Cuomo 7.1
O'Malley 7.1
Warren 4.5
Hickenlooper 3.7
Kaine 3.7
Patrick 3.7
Schweitzer 3.7
Warner 3.7
Bayh 2.9
Emmanual 2.9
Napolitano 2.9
Webb 2.9
Booker 2.3
S. Brown 1.9
Gillibrand 1.9
Gore 1.5

I'm thinking more along the lines that it is when you're speaking to an oversensitive, ignorant populace that cares less about actual political issues than they do about hashtags and knee-jerk reactions.

GOP VP nominee

Portman 30.9
Pawlenty 17.6
Rubio 9.2
Jindal 6.7
Thune 5.9
Ryan 4.1
Rice 4.0
Ayotte 3.4
Christie 2.8
McDonnell 2.7
McMorris-Rodgers 1.9
Martinez 1.0
J. Bush 0.6
Rand Paul 0.6
Ron Paul 0.6

Four years ago at this time:

Huge gains for Rice because of the Drudge story.  Drudge should have an Intrade account (if he doesn't already).

Up: Rice, Ryan
Down: Pawlenty, Rubio, Thune, Ayotte

Portman 30.4
Pawlenty 15.2
Rice 9.5
Rubio 8.0
Jindal 6.5
Ryan 5.5
Thune 4.0
Christie 2.4
Ayotte 2.1
McDonnell 2.0
McMorris-Rodgers 1.1
Martinez 1.0
Ron Paul 0.7

Pawlenty is now ahead.

He led briefly, earlier today, just after the Drudge story, but Portman is back in the lead.  But it's a much closer race for 1st place than it was yesterday.

Up: Pawlenty, Thune
Down: Portman, Rice, Jindal

Portman 28.9
Pawlenty 22.5
Rubio 8.0
Rice 6.5
Thune 6.5
Jindal 5.4
Ryan 5.0
Ayotte 2.5
McDonnell 1.7
Christie 1.5
McMorris-Rodgers 1.2
Martinez 0.8

I can't believe Ryan is so low.

Stating people "cling" to guns or religion are such ambiguous claims as to be neither provable, or disprovable. One could say that there are a large number of poor people whom "cling" to the Democratic party. Or, you could say that there are a large number of poor people whom prefer the Democratic party. Of course, you could say that there are a large number of poor people whom prefer to go to church on Sunday. Neither preferring to own a gun, or believing in the resurrection of Jesus Christ is inherently sinister, which is what your formulation suggests.

And, yes, it is an major error for a politician wooing the votes of religious people to gratuitously insult their faith.

Pawlenty takes the lead (barely) in the VP market.

Up: Pawlenty, Jindal, Ayotte
Down: Portman, Rice, Thune

Winning Party
Dems 56.9
GOP 43.0
other 0.4

GOP presidential nominee

Romney 95.9
Paul 1.7
Huckabee 0.7
J. Bush 0.5

GOP VP nominee

Pawlenty 28.0
Portman 27.7
Rubio 8.5
Jindal 7.6
Ryan 5.3
Rice 5.0
Thune 5.0
Ayotte 4.5
McDonnell 2.0
Christie 1.0
McMorris-Rodgers 0.8
Daniels 0.7
Martinez 0.7

I can't seriously believe that Romney would be dumb enough to pick Portman. I just can't. Sorry but no.

Apparently it was not, unless you think Obama would have won by an even larger margin without the comment.

Of course, Obama was hurt politically by making that remark. I did in all probablity cost him votes.

Portman back in the lead.

Winning party

Dems 59.6
GOP 40.1
other 0.4

GOP VP nominee

Portman 28.0
Pawlenty 25.7
Rubio 8.2
Jindal 6.0
Rice 5.4
Thune 5.4
Ryan 4.5
Ayotte 2.4
McDonnell 1.9
McMorris-Rodgers 1.3
Christie 1.1
Daniels 0.9

Winning individual

Obama 56.9
Romney 40.6
Paul 1.3
Clinton 0.5
Huckabee 0.5
Santorum 0.3
Johnson 0.2

GOP presidential nominee

Romney 96.4
Paul 1.2
Huckabee 0.7
Santorum 0.7
J. Bush 0.4

GOP VP nominee

Portman 29.5
Pawlenty 24.6
Rubio 9.1
Thune 7.1
Rice 5.5
Jindal 5.2
McDonnell 5.0
Ryan 3.4
Ayotte 2.2
Christie 1.4
Martinez 0.7
McMorris-Rodgers 0.7

Dem. presidential nominee

Obama 98.0
H. Clinton 1.5
Biden 0.3

Dem. VP nominee

Biden 94.1
H. Clinton 3.4
B. Clinton 2.0

Up: Portman, Rubio, Thune, Ryan
Down: Jindal, Rice

Portman 30.5
Pawlenty 24.2
Rubio 10.9
Thune 8.9
Ryan 4.6
McDonnell 4.5
Jindal 4.1
Rice 3.5
Ayotte 2.0
Hutchison 1.2

Four years ago at about this time, these were the top tens for each party:

So it'll be Thune then? ;)

Ryan back up to 4th place in the veep rankings.

Up: Ryan, McDonnell
Down: Pawlenty, Rubio, Thune

Portman 31.3
Pawlenty 23.1
Rubio 9.5
Ryan 7.8
Thune 7.1
McDonnell 6.2
Jindal 3.5
Rice 3.0
Christie 2.0
Ayotte 1.8

Christie getting new buzz at national review.

You mean The Weekly Standard. Kristol's a huge Christie fan.

What were the rankings at this time in 08?

Petraeus rises from the dead due to a Drudge rumor.  Ryan's share price has tripled in the last two weeks.  Pawlenty sinks below 20 for the first time in quite a while.  Portman holding steady at about 30.

Up: Rubio, Ryan, Petraeus
Down: Pawlenty, Thune, McDonnell, Rice

Portman 30.5
Pawlenty 18.0
Rubio 10.9
Ryan 10.0
Thune 6.0
McDonnell 4.0
Jindal 3.8
Christie 2.6
Petraeus 2.0
Rice 2.0

Four years ago today, this was the top 10 for each party:

Right on target.

lol It would be hilarious if 3/3 it were the 4th person

Big surge for Paul Ryan, who's now up to second place in the veepstakes.  Also, there are still a few diehards who have doubts about whether Obama and Romney will win their respective parties' presidential nominations.

Winning party

Dems 58.7
GOP 41.0
other 0.3

GOP presidential nominee

Romney 96.8
Paul 1.4
Huckabee 1.0

GOP VP nominee

Portman 29.4
Ryan 23.0
Pawlenty 18.0
Rubio 9.7
McDonnell 3.5
Thune 3.1
Christie 2.9
Jindal 2.8
Rice 1.7
Ayotte 1.1

Dem. presidential nominee

Obama 98.2
H. Clinton 1.1
BIden 0.3

Ryan now the heavy favorite, with Portman second, and everyone else way behind:

Ryan 75.0
Portman 27.0
Pawlenty 5.0
McDonnell 4.3
Rubio 3.9
Jindal 1.9
Christie 1.1
Rice 0.7

In the final ~24 hours before the Dem. VP pick in 2008, we had:


And just before the GOP VP pick in 2008:

Update:

Ryan 90.0
Rubio 1.3
Pawlenty 1.0
McDonnell 0.9
Portman 0.5

No meaningful change on "winning party".  The betting markets don't think the choice of Ryan actually changes Romney's odds of winning one way or the other.

Winning party
Dems 59.0
GOP 41.4
other 0.4

GOP presidential nominee
Romney 95.5

GOP VP nominee
Ryan 95.0

Dem. presidential nominee
Obama 97.8

Dem. VP nominee
Biden 94.5

Yes, Ryan's now given a better chance of being on his party's ticket than Biden.

Ryan's in better health and the GOP convention is sooner, so there's less chance of something going wrong.

I just thought it was amusing because while the pick had been leaked to the press, Romney still hadn't made the announcement officially at the time I posted that, and there were still people here on Atlas who didn't believe it.

Anyway, update:

winning party
Dems 56.8
GOP 42.9
other 0.2

GOP presidential nominee
Romney 98.0
Ron Paul 1.0

GOP VP nominee
Ryan 97.2
Rand Paul 2.0

Dem. presidential nominee
Obama 98.0
Clinton 0.8

Dem. VP nominee
Biden 94.0
Clinton 6.5

Obama now over 60%.

Winning Individual

Obama 61.3%
Romney 38.7%

Romney's Libya gaffe seems to have cost him about 6 points on intrade.

Obama is approaching his all-time high (a one day jump the day after bin Laden). Romney has hit his lowest point since March (before he secured nomination).

Obama 67.3
Romney 33.3

Winning Individual

Obama 71.8%
Romney 28.2%

Buy Romney. 

I would agree. I'm sure it'll get closer before election day.

Obama  75.2%
Romney 24.5%


Obama up to another lifetime high. Romney is at his lowest point of 2012, down to where he was back in November 2011 when Gingrich was surging (for the first time).

For comparison, Todd Akin is priced at 40%

Lol when you are below Todd Akin your introuble.

NOW buy Romney (but sell before election day).

Do you think Romney has a bounce coming up? Maybe the polls will tighten and he can see 35% again?

sad that this thread never took off like its predecessors did.

President:
Obama 74.6%
Romney 25.4%

Missouri Senate:
McCaskill 67.8%
Akin 40.0%

Massachusetts Senate:
Warren 60.0%
Brown 39.9%

Wisconsin Senate:
Baldwin 74.0%
Thompson 30.0%

Virginia Senate:
Kaine 65.0%
Allen 31.5%

North Dakota Senate:
Berg 65.0%
Heitkamp 39.9%

Arizona Senate:
Flake 70.0%
Carmona 30.0%

Montana Senate:
Tester 68.4%
Rehberg 39.0%

Connecticut Senate:
Murphy: 72.0%
McMahon: 29.3%

Their debacle with the Iowa primary probably hurt interest as well as the fact that it isn't the new shiny toy it once was.

I don't think he can fall lower. He has to have an OK week somtime, right?

Tester is overvalued to say the least.

President:
Obama 77.4%
Romney 22.5%

Romney's share price has been cut in half in the last 3 weeks.

President:
Obama 75.0%
Romney 24.9%

It was around 80/20 a couple days ago so Romney is having a sort of pre-debate rally. But he is still trading well below Todd Akin (34.7%)

Romney's rally continues....

President:
Obama 70.3%
Romney 29.8%

Romney is back to where he was a couple of weeks ago, but still well below his summer pre-DNC levels (ranging from 40-45)

The debate gives a 3% bump for Romney

Obama 67.2%
Romney 32.6%

Romney actually was doing better during the debate up to 36. I suspect some Romney buyers are waiting for the polls before they wade back in.

See, I told you all to buy.

Well, it was undervalued.  It might still be, bit I'd wait for tomorrow morning to determine that.

President:

Obama - 59.0
Romney - 40.1

I tried to set up my Intrade account today to reap the benefits of a Romney surge, but unfortunately you can't use US-issued credit/debit cards, due to federal law. I'm doing a "practice" account though, and have made over 500 dollars.

This is why Intrade doesn't have the value it used to for political analysis. In its early days, and more importantly during its forerunner the IEM, there was more evidence that the investors were using other signals and had the effect of leading the polls. Now the investors seem to be more poll-driven, so the market follows rather than leads the polls.

For some reason, Romney is now at 40.6 on Intrade.

Surprised Romney isnt higher. He was in the 40s all summer when he was down 2.

Yeah, Romney's the very slight favorite at the moment, IMO. Should be something like Romney 55-45.

Romney isnt favorite until he is leading in OH polling, but he should be trading at around 45

Who says he isn't leading in Ohio?

Polls.

There are certain loopholes, it's not too hard. Just Google it.

Might be time to buy Obama soon.

No one will be buying Obama after next Tuesday.

And I mean that in almost every sense, except for the one opebo is thinking.

Proving my point on OH, Romney dropped 2 points this afternoon after the PPP OH poll came out, even though his RCP national avg actually ticked up a bit.  

If Romney has a big win on Tuesday we may see Romney finally break 45 with investors anticipating him moving into a big lead, but I think that until polls show him winning OH consistently, he wont be a favorite on inTrade.

()
                    Today's Change
Obama 61.1%     (+2.3%)         281 EV
Romney 38.8%    (-2.4%)          257 EV

()
                    Today's Change
Obama 62.5%     (+0.8%)         281 EV
Romney 37.5%    (-1.0%)          235 EV
Tossup  (Colorado, Virginia )       22 EV

()
                    Today's Change
Obama 62.2%     (-0.1%)         281 EV
Romney 37.9%    (+0.3%)          235 EV
Tossup  (Colorado, Virginia )       22 EV

Interesting to see what changes tomorrow

Intrade has this up now:

Barack Obama to win the second Presidential debate (according to CNN poll) 61.1%

Mitt Romney to win the second Presidential debate (according to CNN poll) 41.0%

WTF? Buy Romney! Considering the CNN/ORC Poll has been picking up extremely R-friendly audiences for these debates and was basically the only real poll that showed Ryan edging out Biden, I think it's safe to say that Obama has almost no chance at all of winning the debate according to this poll.

()
                    Today's Change
Obama 63.2%     (+0.8%)         281 EV
Romney 36.5%    (-1.3%)          235 EV
Tossup  (Colorado, Virginia )       22 EV

Obama was leading Colorado and Virginia right after the debate. We will have to see some polls and I expect some states to flip.

()
                    Today's Change
Obama 65.0%     (+1.5%)         281 EV
Romney 34.9%    (-1.6%)          235 EV
Tossup  (Colorado, Virginia )       22 EV

Obama was leading Colorado once again today but is very slightly to Romney but it and Virginia are slipping.

Good to see that the intraders think Obama is rebounding too.

Intrade tends to be retrospective.  It is probably another "buy Romney" time, simply because his numbers will close there. 

I just dropped $2K on Romney.  This is easy money now.

after having a yawning gap for a long while Intrade and 538 are closely tracking each other.

Others will be happy to get your money.

Actually being that Romney has dropped since the debate, the market appears to be anticipating a drop in the polls. How else to explain Romney going from +4 to +6 on Gallup while dropping on intrade

That is why I said that it was a buy opportunity. 

Sure but it clearly isn't being retrospective

()
                    Today's Change
Obama 62.2%     (-2.8%)         281 EV
Romney 37.7%    (+2.8%)          235 EV
Tossup  (Colorado, Virginia )       22 EV

I have no idea where the Romney bounce is from. Colorado and Virginia are barley changed. D.C. still at...65%...

It's lack of Obama's bounce in national polls, Obama will bounce back those 3% if there's a change in national polls tomorrow.

it also should be noted that the volume is low enough that the national and state contracts don't necessarily have to move in unison.

()
                    Today's Change
Obama 61.1%     (-0.8%)         281 EV
Romney 39.0%    (+0.8%)        248 EV
Tossup  (Colorado)                       9 EV

Romney gaining in national numbers but not state in numbers. Also D.C. is Finally not 65% chance for Obama :P

Romney is still undervalued.

He's probably still a "buy" but it might be tempted to sell short tomorrow and then get back in after the debate.

Romney is hovering around 40.  Sell short.  Either way, you've made a profit. 

The weird thing is that Romney was in the 40s for most of the summer when he was trailing by a couple of points nationally and not doing that great on the map. When he brought the race to a tie at the RNC he hit 45. He is certainly doing better now than he was in the summer and arguably better than he was at the end of the RNC (being that Obama was bound to get some kind of bump out of the DNC). So Romney still feels undervalued by around 5.  Like I said in another thread, if the RCP avg for OH flips Romney's way he will shoot up to 55 or 60.

I think, in terms of the market, the time to take a profit.  You can jump back in after the debate, if conditions warrant. 

()
                    Today's Change
Obama 61.1%     (-0.4%)           277 EV
Romney 39.3%    (+0.5%)          257 EV
Tossup  (New Hampshire)              4 EV

Lets see how this debate changes things. Things very active now.

If you jumped out of Romney, jump back in.

Why have Obama's Intrade numbers gone down by 5 points today? That doesn't make a bit of sense.

Because it's been a pretty good day for Romney in the trackers, I guess.

People are waking up to the fact that d+9 turnout in Ohio or any of the other swing states is a fantasy pure and simple. Reality is starting to set in and intrade reflects that.

Wtf? He's dropping way too much.

As I noted Romney's polling is better now than back when he hit 45 in August. I think Romney was undervalued, now the market is correcting, especially as Romney is doing well in national polling.

Well, now we've got our answer as to what happened:

http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2012/10/intrade-manipulation-fail.html

It is more of a market reaction to the polling and that Romney/Ryan won the debate series.  It is a retrospective market reaction.

Some financial sites have found pretty high correlation between changes in the stock market and changes in Intrade for Obama.

When there are periods of high sell off's in the market Obama's numbers tend to fall simultaneously on Intrade. Today was a large sell off in the markets.

Updated map?

Later tonight. Looks the same.

Romney's at 44.6 currently.  He's up about 5-7 points.

This piece describes in detail what happened:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/10/23/how-to-manipulate-prediction-markets-and-boost-mitt-romneys-fortunes

As noted, an ephemeral effect.  This has building most of the afternoon. 

Intrade had Romney in the mid-60s in Ohio a few minutes ago.  Definitely something weird going on.

Obama - 52.7
Romney - 47.1

This is rather intriguing. Perhaps someone has inside information on Trump's upcoming revelation and it's worse than most of us are fearing?

It just could be market reaction to the end of the debates, plus the close polls.  There has been a 4 point shift in D wins OH numbers. 

Ah, here's an explanation among the comments....

D win in OH is now 48%. 

I think we have some Republicans manipulating it a bit. Obama is down to 52 and it has Romney favored in Ohio based on no evidence whatsoever.

Polls.

Ya....how is there a 14 point net jump for Romney after Obama winning the debate? It's never been this active before while not having a debate.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/10/23/how-to-manipulate-prediction-markets-and-boost-mitt-romneys-fortunes/

This wasn't it.  Obama's numbers were falling faster than Romney was gaining.  Also OH has been moving dramatically. 

It's a conspiracy.............:o

What's going on? Mittens up to 45 and Obama down to 53?

Oh yay! cliffy is here....anyways Ohio had Obama winning it by 5% now it's romney by 2% very strange...it's not like a poll just came out with Romney up by 7.

Now Obama is up again lol

Libya.

Romney was creeping up all day, but then he started moving in the early evening.

OH has really moved, and at some points, is below 50 for a D win.  

I don't know when to post the map it's always changing lol.

I don't know where you're looking but Intrade has shown Mittens +6 to +6.5 and Obama -5.5 to -6.5 for most of the night.

I don't know where the map is though.

The aggregate wisdom of markets predicts much more than it reacts.  You don't need to look for the news moving this market right now, it probably doesn't exist right now.  The news will come later if the market's prediction is correct.

I actually go with this being reflective, at least short term.

Crazy night on Intrade

()
                    Today's Change
Obama 54.7%     (-6.1%)                243 EV
Romney 45.4%    (+5.7%)               261 EV
Tossup  (Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa)       36 EV

Wisconsin, Iowa last trade numbers are very stale.  They should still be lean Obama.  The bid/ask midpoints (roughly) put those at:

IA: O-59, R-40
WI: O-61, R-38

That's because the Republican Party is very stale.

Did you even notice that what I said was a nod towards Obama's EC numbers - i.e., they should be higher than LJ's map indicates?  Or did you just see the blue state avatar and fire off a snarky response without comprehending?

I'm just telling it like it is.

The markets seems to have no liquidity whatsoever.  I don't have any money on intrade, but from the volume of shares on offer, it looks like I could boost Obama's chances by 1% for less than $5,000.  This seems to be a ridiculous bargain for a presidential campaign spending millions of dollars everyday, considering how much attention this market gets.  And this is by far the highest volume political market from what I can tell!

Weird bubbles are not uncommon on InTrade at all, anyone recall Ron Paul at 7% to win the GOP nomination in 2008 and Al Gore pulling similar numbers on the Dem side?

OH is light blue again...

The state markets are so small that a few hundred dollars can make a big difference. The Romney v Obama market is the only one that is substantial but even that one can see swings if a single big buyer comes in with a five digit buy. That being said I think yesterday there was some possible over enthusiasm from Romney buyers possibly from a good polling day for Romney and maybe some anticipation of Trump or even the Bengazi emails. Things have settled down again to what is probably a fair price for Romney around 43. I thought Romney was worth maybe 44-45 yesterday but Obama's good polling day today brings that down a bit.

The numbers don't seem to be manipulated; investors were selling Obama, and a D win in OH. 

Even on the market on who wins the presidency, we're talking somewhere in the neighborhood of $18 000 swinging the market yesterday. Which would be a staggering amount of money for me to bet, but is obviously not that much in the grand scheme of things. And, as Nate Silver points out, all the other betting markets have Obama significantly higher (and more stable) than Intrade did yesterday, which should be an opportunity for arbitraging if the markets are at all liquid.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/24/oct-23-the-virtues-and-vices-of-election-prediction-markets/?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-thecaucus

Obama is climbing back up to 60%. He should be well over that number considering Ohio is absolutely in love with him.

There was also the belief that Romney was undervalued on Intrade.  He was around 37% prior to the third debate. 

I hope more Republicans waste their money on attempting to drive up Romney's odds to make themselves feel better about the state of the race. The lengths these people will go to delude themselves is hilarious at this point, yet also still scary. They're going to explode when Obama is declared the winner of Ohio relatively early in the night :D

Few if any are.  It was natural for someone undervalued to increase in value.  No delusion nor manipulation. 

If so, he remains significantly more undervalued on all the other betting markets out there, many of which are larger and more sophisticated than Intrade. Why, then, has Romney's price not risen so much on those other markets? If the markets are operating efficiently, then Romney's price should be basically the same on each market.

Obama is now hovering around 60, but OH is back up 60 as well.

Wisconisn and Iowa no longer Tossups, big bump for Obama today.

()
                    Today's Change
Obama 59.1%     (+4.0%)              277 EV
Romney 40.9%    (-4.5%)               257 EV
Tossup  (New Hampshire)                  4 EV

Obama surging on Intrade.

Looks like  some sharps have wired money in and are pounding Obama.

IMO Obama should be at 70 before Monday. Time is running out.

Every day that Romney doesn't cut into Obama's leads in Ohio, Wisconsin and Nevada is another day that the chances of Obama winning the election increase.

()
                    Today's Change
Obama 62.2%     (+2.5%)                                              277 EV
Romney 37.9%    (-2.5%)                                               235 EV
Tossup  (New Hampshire, Virginia, Colorado)                  26 EV

Virginia and Colorado now very close.

Romney is tanking on intrade.

I think Romney is undervalued. He is worth at least 40 if not more.

()
                    Today's Change
Obama 63.8%     (+1.7%)                                 277 EV
Romney 37.9%    (-1.8%)                                 248 EV
Tossup  (New Hampshire, Colorado)                  26 EV

Wisconsin, Iowa and Ohio slipping away.

Intrade now stabilizing.

()
                    Today's Change
Obama 63.1%     (-0.6%)                     281 EV
Romney 36.9%    (+0.3%)                   235 EV
Tossup  (Colorado, Virginia)                  22 EV

Colorado going back and forth and Virginia getting close as New Hampshire is now over 60% and Nevada is over 80% for Obama.

()
                    Today's Change
Obama 61.9%     (-0.3%)                     281 EV
Romney 38.1%    (+0.4%)                   235 EV
Tossup  (Colorado, Virginia)                  22 EV

Obama slightly up as Obama gains Virginia.

()
                    Today's Change
Obama 63.9%     (+1.8%)                     281 EV
Romney 36.1%    (-1.8%)                   235 EV
Tossup  (Colorado, Virginia)                  22 EV

Obama gains big today as Colorado is now in the Obama column.

()
                    Today's Change
Obama 68.6%     (+4.5%)    290 EV
Romney 31.2%    (-4.9%)    235 EV
Tossup  (Virginia)                  13 EV

Ohio at 69.9% for Obama now.

()
                    Today's Change
Obama 65.9%     (-2.7%)                    281 EV
Romney 33.7%    (+2.3%)                   235 EV
Tossup  (Colorado, Virginia)                  22 EV

BREAKING NEWS:

Nate Silver ‏@fivethirtyeight

SELL OBAMA ON INTRADE / MT @politicalwire: Dick Morris, who just days ago predicted landslide for Romney, sees danger signs for Republicans.

()
                    Today's Change
Obama 67.1%     (+0.8%)                    281 EV
Romney 33.7%    (-0.5%)                   235 EV
Tossup  (Colorado, Virginia)                  22 EV

Obama's been hanging out between 65 and 67.5 today. He's at 66 right now.

()
                    Today's Change
Obama 66.0%     (-0.5%)      290 EV
Romney 34.1%    (+0.6%)    235 EV
Tossup  (Virginia)                  13 EV

Crazy bounces on Intrade today. Obama shot down to 55% in Ohio a few hours ago but is now back up in the sixties (EDIT: He's down at 55% again and it's still bouncing like crazy. The odds for him and Romney add up to way more than 100%). I looked on their forums and there was wide speculation that some rich folks might have chosen today to short-sell or otherwise find openings to manipulate the market before Election Day. There were also a few people who might very well have been heatmaster and Cliffy with rhapsodes about Romney crowd sizes and taking one's country back.

Illinois finally over 90% after a crazy day on Intrade that ended up not moving much in the end.

()
                    Today's Change
Obama 65.4%     (-0.7%)      294 EV
Romney 34.6%    (+0.4%)    235 EV
Tossup  (Colorado)                  9 EV

Obama up the night before Election night.

()
                    Today's Change
Obama 67.5%     (+1.7%)      294 EV
Romney 31.9%    (-2.5%)    235 EV
Tossup  (Colorado)                  9 EV

Obama has hit 70.