The Institute of 2012 GOP nomination Intrade rankings
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 05:45:21 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2012 Elections
  The Institute of 2012 GOP nomination Intrade rankings
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 49
Author Topic: The Institute of 2012 GOP nomination Intrade rankings  (Read 200137 times)
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #150 on: July 28, 2010, 07:47:10 PM »

Yeah, I disagree.  Palin doesn't really need any boost in publicity or media attention.  She already gets plenty of it.  Way way more than Kemp or Lieberman got after their VP runs.  All she needs is for the media to continue to view her as an important symbolic figure for the GOP.  If she runs and loses the nomination, that is damaged.  It's not about "dirt" coming out about her personal life.  It's about the optics of the GOP rejecting her in the primaries.

What's similar about Giuliani and Palin is that they both started out with very high name recognition and high expectations.  When Giuliani failed to meet those expectations with his campaign, it damaged his brand.  If Palin did the same, it would damage her brand.  This contrasts with, say, Mike Huckabee's 2008 run.  Expectations were low when he launched his campaign, so his brand wasn't hurt by the fact that he lost the nomination.
Logged
Poundingtherock
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 917
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #151 on: July 29, 2010, 03:23:39 AM »

But the benefit from winning outweighs the stigma of a loss.

A win in the GOP primary seems likely according to some polls (less likely according to others) and that alone is probably worth it.

A victory over Barack Obama of course gets her to the White House and that opens up even more possibilities.

The person with the best favorables among Republicans nearly always wins the primaries.  It's no contest with her, Gingrich, and Romney in that arena.
Logged
useful idiot
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,720


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #152 on: July 29, 2010, 03:57:59 AM »

Actually, if Palin wants to make more money quicker, then the best thing for her to do would be to run for President. That way, regardless of whether she wins or loses (and she will probably lose the Presidency, but might win the nomination), her fame and publicity would increase and she would thus be able to sell much more of her books.

I don't think that's right.  There's a certain stigma associate with being a losing presidential candidate, especially if you lose really spectacularly.  Look at what happened with Giuliani.  His failed presidential run hurt his brand and damaged his lucrative consulting business.  As long as Palin doesn't run for prez, she'll continue to be viewed as a leading voice in the party, who speaks for a large segment of the base.  If she runs and disappoints, and loses the nomination, then it would demonstrate that she doesn't speak for as many people in the party as was previously thought, and her brand would be hurt.

This is why Gingrich has teased a possible presidential run for 15 years but never runs.  If he's a potential future candidate, then more people will listen to him.  Whereas if he runs and loses spectacularly, he'd be ignored.  The only reason he might finally run in 2012 is because he's getting so old that he can't plausibly keep playing this game any longer.


Palin is a unique case, though. A lot of previously hidden dirt on Giuliani came up while he was campaigning. Thus, people's opinions changed because they found out bad stuff about him that they didn't know before. In regards to Palin, most of the dirt on her already came out, so I seriously doubt significant dirt about her would come out in the future. Also, Giuliani always had a much shakier chance at the nomination than Palin because Giuliani was pro-abortion, pro-gay rights, and pro-gun control.

That reminds me of one of the primary debates where Fred Thompson just went down the row and pointed out the flaws in the major candidates. He said "Rudy Giuliani supports partial birth abortion", and the collective gasps of horror in the auditorium were louder than a 747.

The amount of stuff Republicans don't know is scary. This is why Gingrich seems ok on paper, but once the massive amount of dirt on him becomes known to the GOP primary voter, he won't have a snowball's chance in hell.
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #153 on: July 29, 2010, 03:58:22 AM »
« Edited: July 29, 2010, 06:06:11 AM by Mr. Morden »

But the benefit from winning outweighs the stigma of a loss.

Well, obviously that depends on what her goals are, and what her respective chances of winning and losing are.  I was simply arguing against Rochambeau's assertion that "if Palin wants to make more money quicker, then the best thing for her to do would be to run for President".

If she actually wants to be president, then sure, she should go ahead and run.  If she just wants to make money, then I don't think it's so obvious she gains from running.
Logged
Bull Moose Base
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,488


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #154 on: July 29, 2010, 03:05:49 PM »

I think it's unclear whether running is good for Palin Inc. or not.  There's a risk of fading in relevance or being eclipsed by new personalities if she doesn't, and there's also one of damaging her brand in a losing primary campaign.  I think what kind of loss would make a big difference: Giuliani-style would be a mess; Hillary-style would be good publicity.  I agree that Giuliani's case is different in that there is more about him voters did not know than Palin and more that did not fit the party line than in Palin's case.  So I think such an embarrassing loss is possible but less likely.  I suspect unlike Giuliani, she could win a chunk of states- especially if no strong Southern candidate runs.  Because she can afford to get in late, I would bet she'll base her decision on how business goes in the next year.  And I am personally betting on it going poorly.  I see low ratings for her Discovery Channel show and other TV appearances and probably even disappointing book sales, since it won't be boosted by the public's appetite for gossip.  If that ends up the case, I'd bet she smells the threat of becoming irrelevant and jumps in.
Logged
milhouse24
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,331
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #155 on: July 30, 2010, 03:29:50 PM »

I don't think she will win the GOP nomination particularly because she will get massacred in the Debates against Romney and Gingrich and Barbour. 

She'll have a lot of verbal slipups and be refudiated and it will further cement her position as a airhead, thus turning off a lot more GOP faithful.  Remember, she never "Earned" her credentials, she was Chosen by McCain as VP.  She never actually won any votes on such a high level.  Do voters want her "controlling the Button"? 

Similar situation for Fred Thompson, Sam Brownback and other so-called Religious Conservatives who faded away badly.  Unless she can get a ton more money than Romney and turn herself into the Female Dubya Bush of the GOP Establishment I'm afraid she is a sure-fire loser, and therefore should not risk losing and ruining her endorsement potential.


But the benefit from winning outweighs the stigma of a loss.

A win in the GOP primary seems likely according to some polls (less likely according to others) and that alone is probably worth it.

A victory over Barack Obama of course gets her to the White House and that opens up even more possibilities.

The person with the best favorables among Republicans nearly always wins the primaries.  It's no contest with her, Gingrich, and Romney in that arena.
Logged
Poundingtherock
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 917
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #156 on: July 30, 2010, 04:43:32 PM »

Look at the Pew poll:

http://people-press.org/reports/questionnaires/459.pdf

66% thought she did an excellent or good job in her debate with Biden.

In fact, her "excellent" rating was higher than Obama's in his debate.

Romney was pretty easily outclassed in the debates in 2008, so I don't see how he would do well in a debate with Palin.

Though Gingrich is clearly a masterful debater.
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #157 on: August 12, 2010, 05:13:02 AM »
« Edited: August 12, 2010, 05:22:59 AM by Mr. Morden »

Romney 28.5
Palin 18.5
Thune 16.1
Pawlenty 10.5
Daniels 8.3
Gingrich 8.0
Huckabee 6.9
Jeb Bush 5.1
Pence 5.0
Paul 4.6
Jindal 3.9
Barbour 2.9
Christie 2.5
Perry 2.0
others under 2.0
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #158 on: August 12, 2010, 05:18:23 AM »

From August 2006:

About a month since we last posted the numbers, net change from 7/25 in ()

Democrats

Clinton 40.5 (-1.9)
Warner 18.5 (-0.5)
Gore 15.0 (+0.2)
Edwards 9.0 (0)
Feingold 3.6 (+1.3)
Kerry 3.3 (0)
Obama 2.2 (+0.2)
Bayh 2.2 (+ ~0.4)
Others under 2.0

Republicans

McCain 38.0 (-0.4)
Giuliani 16.0 (+1.5)
Romney 13.2 (+2.8 )
Allen 13.0 (-3.5)
Rice 5.9 (+0.9)
Gingrich 3.2 (+0.5)
Huckabee 2.2 (-0.4)
Others under 2.0
Logged
Yelnoc
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,149
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #159 on: August 12, 2010, 08:16:08 PM »

Romney 28.5
Palin 18.5
Thune 16.1
Pawlenty 10.5
Daniels 8.3
Gingrich 8.0
Huckabee 6.9
Jeb Bush 5.1
Pence 5.0
Paul 4.6
Jindal 3.9
Barbour 2.9
Christie 2.5
Perry 2.0
others under 2.0
I'm liking the Daniels jump to fifth.  I don't know why anyone would by Jeb Bush but besides that this seems like a pretty good list.

From August 2006:

About a month since we last posted the numbers, net change from 7/25 in ()

Democrats

Clinton 40.5 (-1.9)
Warner 18.5 (-0.5)
Gore 15.0 (+0.2)
Edwards 9.0 (0)
Feingold 3.6 (+1.3)
Kerry 3.3 (0)
Obama 2.2 (+0.2)
Bayh 2.2 (+ ~0.4)
Others under 2.0

Republicans

McCain 38.0 (-0.4)
Giuliani 16.0 (+1.5)
Romney 13.2 (+2.8 )
Allen 13.0 (-3.5)
Rice 5.9 (+0.9)
Gingrich 3.2 (+0.5)
Huckabee 2.2 (-0.4)
Others under 2.0

Well, they called the Republican last time 'round, though Obama below Kerry is kind of surprising.  Good reminder that we usually screw up when trying to see the future.
Logged
Bull Moose Base
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,488


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #160 on: August 12, 2010, 09:39:58 PM »

Romney 28.5
Palin 18.5
Thune 16.1
Pawlenty 10.5
Daniels 8.3
Gingrich 8.0
Huckabee 6.9
Jeb Bush 5.1
Pence 5.0
Paul 4.6
Jindal 3.9
Barbour 2.9
Christie 2.5
Perry 2.0
others under 2.0
I'm liking the Daniels jump to fifth.  I don't know why anyone would by Jeb Bush but besides that this seems like a pretty good list.

From August 2006:

About a month since we last posted the numbers, net change from 7/25 in ()

Democrats

Clinton 40.5 (-1.9)
Warner 18.5 (-0.5)
Gore 15.0 (+0.2)
Edwards 9.0 (0)
Feingold 3.6 (+1.3)
Kerry 3.3 (0)
Obama 2.2 (+0.2)
Bayh 2.2 (+ ~0.4)
Others under 2.0

Republicans

McCain 38.0 (-0.4)
Giuliani 16.0 (+1.5)
Romney 13.2 (+2.8 )
Allen 13.0 (-3.5)
Rice 5.9 (+0.9)
Gingrich 3.2 (+0.5)
Huckabee 2.2 (-0.4)
Others under 2.0

Well, they called the Republican last time 'round, though Obama below Kerry is kind of surprising.  Good reminder that we usually screw up when trying to see the future.

More than half the Dems on that 2006 list didn't run and the eventual president was way back at 2.2 (as was the GOP winner of Iowa).  Overall, the GOP predictions were closer which fits the trend that historically, their primary has been more predictable, less dark horses succeeding than the Democrats.

Daniels's recent call for a truce on "social issues" and his recent co-signing a letter asking for the extension of stimulus funds could potentially deflate support in a Republican primary.

Jeb and Jindal have ruled themselves out.

Huckabee, once again, too low for a guy who until further notice is the favorite in both Iowa and South Carolina contests.
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #161 on: August 12, 2010, 10:11:54 PM »

Jeb and Jindal have ruled themselves out.

Has Jindal ruled himself out?  I know he's not doing any obvious organizing for 2012 and I don't expect him to run, but I don't remember hearing any definitive statements from him ruling out a presidential campaign.
Logged
ej2mm15
electoraljew2
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 986
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #162 on: August 12, 2010, 10:18:16 PM »

Jeb and Jindal have ruled themselves out.

Has Jindal ruled himself out?  I know he's not doing any obvious organizing for 2012 and I don't expect him to run, but I don't remember hearing any definitive statements from him ruling out a presidential campaign.


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/35621_Page3.html

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #163 on: August 14, 2010, 11:53:24 PM »

Well, they called the Republican last time 'round, though Obama below Kerry is kind of surprising.  Good reminder that we usually screw up when trying to see the future.

"Screw up" is kind of a loaded way of putting it.  Improbable events do sometimes happen.  In August 2006, everyone assumed that Obama was not going to run in 2008, though his name was still thrown out there as a dark horse.  He was at least on the list of top 10 prospects to be the Dems' presidential nominee.  The eventual nominee wasn't someone like Ed Rendell or Jeff Bingaman or some out of left field name like that.  The people who eventually became the top 3 finishers for the Dem. nomination (Obama, Clinton, Edwards) and the top three for the GOP nomination (McCain, Romney, and Huckabee) were all getting at least 2% on Intrade in August 2006.

That may or may not be the case this time around, but if it is, it would suggest that it won't be someone completely out of left field like Mike Rounds or Bob Corker.
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #164 on: August 27, 2010, 08:38:36 AM »

Big gains for Barbour:

Romney 27.9
Palin 18.8
Thune 18.0
Pawlenty 12.5
Gingrich 10.4
Barbour 7.9
Huckabee 6.1
Daniels 5.7
Paul 5.5

Also, while Intrade doesn't offer "winning individual" contracts yet, they are offered at Betfair:

http://www.betfair.com/

Current Betfair probabilities for the following people being elected president in 2012:

Obama 48
Romney 10
Palin 6
Thune 5
Pawlenty 4
Hillary Clinton 3
Daniels 3
Gingrich 3
Huckabee 3
Logged
exopolitician
MATCHU[D]
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,892
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.03, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #165 on: August 27, 2010, 08:40:16 AM »


Also, while Intrade doesn't offer "winning individual" contracts yet, they are offered at Betfair:

http://www.betfair.com/

Current Betfair probabilities for the following people being elected president in 2012:

Obama 48
Romney 10
Palin 6
Thune 5
Pawlenty 4
Hillary Clinton 3
Daniels 3
Gingrich 3
Huckabee 3


That's funny.
Logged
Yelnoc
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,149
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #166 on: August 27, 2010, 03:39:07 PM »


Also, while Intrade doesn't offer "winning individual" contracts yet, they are offered at Betfair:

http://www.betfair.com/

Current Betfair probabilities for the following people being elected president in 2012:

Obama 48
Romney 10
Palin 6
Thune 5
Pawlenty 4
Hillary Clinton 3
Daniels 3
Gingrich 3
Huckabee 3


That's funny.
I guess someone thinks she'll challenge and beat Obama in the Democratic primary.

Thune is doing very well, Gingrich not so much.

Maybe Thune/Barbour 2012?
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #167 on: August 27, 2010, 05:53:53 PM »


Also, while Intrade doesn't offer "winning individual" contracts yet, they are offered at Betfair:

http://www.betfair.com/

Current Betfair probabilities for the following people being elected president in 2012:

Obama 48
Romney 10
Palin 6
Thune 5
Pawlenty 4
Hillary Clinton 3
Daniels 3
Gingrich 3
Huckabee 3


That's funny.
I guess someone thinks she'll challenge and beat Obama in the Democratic primary.

Or else there's a huge scandal that causes him to not resign or not run again, or he's impeached, or he dies.  Keep in mind, between 1960 and 1975, you had a president assassinated, another president (Johnson) drop out of his reelection race when he was eligible for another term in 1968, and another president resign.  It's been a while since any of that happened, but the probability of it happening again isn't zero.
Logged
Psychic Octopus
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,948
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #168 on: August 28, 2010, 03:21:26 PM »

The high Warner numbers are quite astounding.
Logged
Dan the Roman
liberalrepublican
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,458
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #169 on: August 29, 2010, 03:02:35 AM »


Also, while Intrade doesn't offer "winning individual" contracts yet, they are offered at Betfair:

http://www.betfair.com/

Current Betfair probabilities for the following people being elected president in 2012:

Obama 48
Romney 10
Palin 6
Thune 5
Pawlenty 4
Hillary Clinton 3
Daniels 3
Gingrich 3
Huckabee 3


That's funny.
I guess someone thinks she'll challenge and beat Obama in the Democratic primary.

Thune is doing very well, Gingrich not so much.

Maybe Thune/Barbour 2012?

Or more likely that he will not run. I think there is a chance, not a large one, but probably around 15% that he won't. In that case, Hillary would probably have a 70% or so chance of winning the nomination, and probably a better than 50-50 shot in the general, so if anything she may be undervalued.
Logged
Bull Moose Base
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,488


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #170 on: August 29, 2010, 04:09:17 AM »

The high Warner numbers are quite astounding.

His and Obama's numbers should have been switched.  I realize that's easy to say in hindsight.  But I was speculating Obama as 2008 nominee as early as late 2004.  He'd hit his convention speech out of the park and was a best-selling author by 2006, was a TV regular and in high demand for campaign appearances.  The previous cycle had seen an anti-Iraq war candidate, less known than Obama was in 2006, emerge as a frontrunner and raise a lot of money.  It was obvious Obama was as decent a bet for 2004 as anyone save Hillary.

Whereas Warner?  That makes no sense to me.  I also think his chances at being the Democratic nominee in 2016 are overblown.
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #171 on: August 29, 2010, 04:20:11 AM »

His and Obama's numbers should have been switched.  I realize that's easy to say in hindsight.  But I was speculating Obama as 2008 nominee as early as late 2004.  He'd hit his convention speech out of the park and was a best-selling author by 2006, was a TV regular and in high demand for campaign appearances.  The previous cycle had seen an anti-Iraq war candidate, less known than Obama was in 2006, emerge as a frontrunner and raise a lot of money.  It was obvious Obama was as decent a bet for 2004 as anyone save Hillary.

Well, you may have seen it coming, but almost no one else did.  Go back to the threads here from 2005 and 2006, and there was no real discussion of Obama.  Discussion of him as a presidential candidate was mostly confined to discussion of him running in 2012 or 2016.  It was widely accepted that he was never going to run as early as 2008.  And it's not just Atlas.  It was pretty much the same throughout the entire blogosphere and the MSM.
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #172 on: August 29, 2010, 04:43:06 AM »

These threads are fun to read in retrospect:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=39456.0

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=43962.0
Logged
Bull Moose Base
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,488


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #173 on: August 29, 2010, 11:51:42 AM »

Wow.  I'm surprised Obama got no attention given how quickly people make that jump now on someone like Scott Brown.  I guess that's a reaction to Obama's fast rise then. 

I don't think Obama was looking at as good chances if he waited to run.  If his next opportunity would have been 2016, there could have been an incumbent Democratic VP (or even president) running for the nomination or maybe a tough-to-beat Republican president running for re-election.  Not that running against was Hillary a great scenario either but it was better.  I also think Obama's campaign rhetoric wouldn't have been as intoxicating if he had been older and in Washington for longer.
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #174 on: August 29, 2010, 04:04:06 PM »
« Edited: August 29, 2010, 04:10:40 PM by Mr. Morden »

Well, think of it this way.  When was the last time someone ran for president just four years into his first Senate term, with no prior experience with statewide or national office?  (Not counting joke 3rd tier candidates.)  I can't think of any examples for decades going back before Obama.  Even Edwards was running at the end of his six year term.  If something hasn't happened for decades, people tend to not expect it to happen again soon.

Also note that Obama himself ruled out a run:

link

and was making no moves for towards a campaign until October 2006.  Predicting that he would run would've been at least as much of a longshot as predicting that Bobby Jindal will run in 2012.  Jindal of course was getting some buzz last year, but none now, as he's ruled it out as much as Obama did in 2004/5, and he's making no moves towards building a campaign.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 49  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.058 seconds with 10 queries.