|
|
Intrade Betting Odds Now Say Ron Paul is Most Electable RepublicanThe gamblers of the world are putting their money where their mouths are, and their money is saying that Ron Paul is the most electable of the Republican field. Dividing the Intrade odds of being elected President by the odds of getting the nomination for the Republican Party, Randall Burns at VDARE blogs that the most electable Republican candidate is Ron Paul. The rank order of electability is as follows:
For those who don’t understand how this “conditional probability” calculation of “electability” works, just think of it like this: Imagine we can run elections with a set of candidates the way we roll dice. Electability is the number of times a candidate gets elected to be President per the number of times the candidate is nominated by his party to run for President. Posted by James Bowery on Thursday, November 15, 2007 at 03:17 PM in Comments:2
Posted by Markus on November 15, 2007, 07:48 PM | # Flawed methodology. Electability would be the number from the second field only (Paul at 3.5%) as nomination there is a given, thus the strange outcome that Al Gore is 100% electable according to this “index.” There is no reason to divide two probabilities. My chances of wearing a particular black shirt of all black shirts is 2%. Out of all my white shirts and black shirts, my chances of wearing the same black are 2%. My black wearibility index is therefore 100%. 3
Posted by Tommy G on November 15, 2007, 08:02 PM | # Ron Paul has about as much chance of acually getting elected President as Pat Paulson did when he ran. When it comes to election time…you can bet your sweet bippy our choice will be between the vituperative termagant - Hillary “Rodhamus K. Bottomus” Clinton, or the Shabbos Goy - Rudolf Ghouliani. I hope I’m wrong; I’d rather see Thompson or Romney gets elected even though my first choice would be Duncan Hunter. If the Great Red Bolshevik, Hillary, gets elected, we can look forward to more Ruth “Buzzie” Ginsberg types becoming appointed to the Supreme Court. 4
Posted by nomoreh1b on November 15, 2007, 09:01 PM | # Markus: learn some math/Statistics. There is nothing wrong with the article’s methodology. Talk to any statistician about it. 5
Posted by James Bowery on November 15, 2007, 09:50 PM | # You know is it hard to over-state the implications of this finding. If there is any political pragmatism left in the Republican Party—let alone any rationality—they should be all over these numbers trying to figure out either why they are wrong or trying to figure out whether they should be calling all the donors who have defected to the Dems and asking them to please come back because Ron Paul can provide the coat-tails needed to salvage at least some of their bacon. These numbers are the real measure of the outcome of this November 5th and all the hard work by Ron Paul supporters nation-wide. 6
Posted by nomoreh1b on November 16, 2007, 03:01 PM | # Tommy G: Frankly, I don’t think you believe what you say enough to put your money where your mouth is. 7
Posted by Tommy G on November 16, 2007, 06:14 PM | # “Frankly, I don’t think you believe what you say enough to put your money where your mouth is.”—nomoreh1b Hah! Excluding any major unforeseen catastrophe, Hillary is going to be the next President. Most inside the Beltway career bureaucrats and politicians fear earning the reputation as being antagonists of the Clintons—and for good reason. Due to fear of retribution, just about everyone is already lining up to kiss her giant-jumbo-rodhambottom because they all know she’s the prohibitive favorite to win. 8
Posted by Markus on November 16, 2007, 06:58 PM | # “Markus: learn some math/Statistics. There is nothing wrong with the article’s methodology. Talk to any statistician about it.” I misunderstood the discussion on “electability” to be commentary on odds of winning in the election, and not relative ability of a particular party’s candidate to obtain votes across party lines as it were. I would still maintain that it is an unimportant index given the absolute probabilities and slim margins used - if Thompson’s odds in the general election increase 0.1%, or even less if masked by rounding, he is suddenly the Electability front-runner - same with a number of others. 9
Posted by Riley DeWiley on November 19, 2007, 05:47 AM | # So it sounds like they think *all* the Republicans are underdogs, or the top numbers would be over 50%, right? Riley 12
Posted by James Bowery on October 19, 2008, 02:14 PM | # Actually, the poll was dead-on the money. Note the polls didn’t show he was the most likely to be nominated—they said that IF he were nominated he would be more likely to become President than any other GOP candidate. Ron Paul was the only Republican who was predicting the current economic crisis and he is the most-interviewed of the former GOP candidates during the coverage of the crisis and he opposed the wildly-unpopular bail-out consistently—a position that could have won McCain the election if he had taken it. Next entry: Anti-Intellectual Headline Misrepresents Physicist’s Breakthrough Previous entry: Libertarian Government Finance: Economic Rent Citizens’ Dividend |
|||||||||||||||
Existential IssuesWhite Genocide ProjectOf note
Recent CommentsAlso see trash folder. Graham_Lister commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 12:16 PM. (go) (view) Guessedworker commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 12:04 PM. (go) (view) Dan Dare commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 11:54 AM. (go) (view) Thorn commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 11:45 AM. (go) (view) Guessedworker commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 11:19 AM. (go) (view) Guessedworker commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 11:18 AM. (go) (view) Michael commented in entry 'Aquilon Speaks: Moscow 2010' on 02/09/12, 11:11 AM. (go) (view) Ron Trisner commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 11:10 AM. (go) (view) Jimmy Marr commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 10:51 AM. (go) (view) Michael commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 10:46 AM. (go) (view) Bill commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 10:05 AM. (go) (view) Graham_Lister commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 09:00 AM. (go) (view) Dan Dare commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 08:37 AM. (go) (view) Graham_Lister commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 08:10 AM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 08:05 AM. (go) (view) Helvena commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 08:04 AM. (go) (view) The Socal group scam commented in entry 'Yo! Cop = Scum Cow!' on 02/09/12, 07:16 AM. (go) (view) The Socal group scam commented in entry 'The Moral high ground?' on 02/09/12, 06:50 AM. (go) (view) Hyman commented in entry 'Aquilon Speaks: Moscow 2010' on 02/09/12, 05:47 AM. (go) (view) RES commented in entry 'Who caused the 2008 housing bubble to burst in the U.S.?' on 02/09/12, 05:44 AM. (go) (view) Robert Reis commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 04:07 AM. (go) (view) Jimmy Marr commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/09/12, 12:27 AM. (go) (view) anon commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 11:18 PM. (go) (view) Ivan commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 10:51 PM. (go) (view) Ivan commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 10:28 PM. (go) (view) Silver commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 09:48 PM. (go) (view) J Richards commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 09:48 PM. (go) (view) Mary commented in entry 'Anti-white ideology is like anti-biotic overuse' on 02/08/12, 09:24 PM. (go) (view) J Richards commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 09:04 PM. (go) (view) Ivan commented in entry 'Aquilon Speaks: Moscow 2010' on 02/08/12, 08:15 PM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 08:09 PM. (go) (view) Guessedworker commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 07:52 PM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 07:48 PM. (go) (view) jamesUK commented in entry 'Aquilon Speaks: Moscow 2010' on 02/08/12, 07:36 PM. (go) (view) Jimmy Marr commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 07:10 PM. (go) (view) Recent Posts
General NewsScience NewsScience CategoriesAll CategoriesThe WritersEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages. LinksEndorsement not implied. Controlled Opposition Crime General
Immigration
Islam Jews
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Whites in Africa |
Posted by captainchaos on November 15, 2007, 06:50 PM | #
Thanks for droppin’ some knowledge on us James. This is the best WN site on the web. Just like a non-establishment race-conscious think tank it is. Anybody who gives a shit about the future of this country better vote for Ron Paul in the up coming primaries. So what if he doesn’t win, it’ll make a nice statement. Besides, its fun to watch Ron fuck with all the neocon pawns in the debates.