Selling Dean as the Dem. nominee

[bazanster2]

Ok, so it was last month's Pew Poll, I forgot it was February.
Still the numbers posted were correct for that Poll.
You offer a recent CNN/Gallup poll with Bush having a 49% approval rating.
All these polls are rather suspect IMO since they use such a small
statistically sampling of the actual number of voters(Over 100 million)
The CNN/Gallup used 1001 and the Pew around 1500.
Am somewhat skeptical about the Polls claims of being 95% accurate within
3%.
The point I was making was that Bush is a relatively popular President.
From the New York Times Jan.18th 2004

"All the Presidents' Numbers

By most measures prospects for George W. Bush's re-election look very good.
No single indicator guarantees a second term, of course, but on balance the president's
numbers are as good if not better than those of the three presidents who won second
terms in recent times.
From a political standpoint, Mr. Bush is strong. His approval ratings are relatively
high, as is the percentage of Americans who think the country is on the right track,
and alone among recent presidents he saw his party gain seats in the midterm elections.


"As far as Baronne, he is spinning, not objectively telling you what the odds are."

Again, the points he made were more statement's of fact rather than bias opinions.

(1) Last month's Pew Poll(1-6-2004) showed 65% of those polled supporting the war.
(2) That the theme of "fighting special interests, the powerful and privileged"
hasn't done well in recent Presidential Elections. (Which is true)
When was the last Presidential Candidate that won on that kind of platform?
(3) The popular vote for the House in 2002 was 51% Republican to 46% Democrat.(a Fact)
It may be an opinion, but the total popular vote in the House Elections is probably
a good approximate proxy for each political parties national standing.

I'll concede that Bush's popularity has been waning (at least according to CNN/Gallup),
but would prefer confirmation from future polls. Right now, that 49% is just a one
time spike. Although the numbers are definitely converging. Quite a few months to go.


As far as the 2002 Congressional Elections, while I agree that it was a referendum
for a popular President during a war, as a Democrat it would be of concern that many more
were willing to vote Republican. Also, Bush's clout will increase because he doesn't
have to worry about answering to the electorate during a 2nd term.


"If this administration which has more conflicts of interests than any in recent memory
can emerge largely unscathed, this blip on Kerry is nada."

It's an area that the Republican should stay away from.
However, it does make Kerry look like a hypocrite which may turn off some voters.
Even 1% or 2% would make a difference. Also, the fact that the Republicans can get
away with such conflicts without voters reprisals is a point in their favor.

Mud slinging works.

As for your "flippant observation", it may be that the Democrats lacking a
strong Candidate that it was a wide open race up for graps.

You've made some very good points, but still believe that Bush will win.

baz

[Iowa Child]

Gee, I wonder why the independent voters are backing Kerry right now, Mo. Wonder if just maybe, just maybe, it's because all we've been hearing about in the past 3 months lately is news about the democratic primaries. You say this thread is about numbers, demographics and voting patterns, which you can talk about all day and night, but what this election will come down to, how much you like it or not, is if people trust Bush to handle the war on terror, in the midst of a booming economy. They do, and they most likely will in November. Look at the odds at tradesports, look at odds everywhere on the straight up election. Numbers, demographics and voting patterns aren't going to mean jack sh*t. I didn't scream at anyone, Mo, you screamed at Superfly for coming on here and giving his opinion. If somebody doesn't come on here and come up with a new theory of relativity, they're automatically an idiot. Post on.

[Iowa Child]

Chilly, I would submit that economic stimulus creates more and bigger taxpayers, reducing and eliminating the deficit in time. See Reagan's tax cuts, see the 90's economic boom. You see, I might take an economic risk for myself , and even hire people and create new jobs to create the risk, if I know that I'm not going to be punished for succeeding in my risk taking venture with confiscatory income and capital gain tax rates. It's human nature.

[Iowa Child]

I should clarify; economic stimulus in the form of tax cuts, i.e. rebate checks which has happened 2 times in the past 3 years.

[BigMo]

Yawn.

The cliff notes version of discredited pseudo-economist Arthur Laffler.

And I submit the work of John Maynard Keynes, who hasn't been discredited, the father of modern economics. The blowout record deficit spending resulting from Reagan/Bush tax cuts acted as fiscal stimulus. C+I+G=GNP. In this case G.

But Wtf does any of that have to do with gambling!!

some guys just don't get it.

[cash]

If you want to simply trade, remember that dem's convention goes first. Kerry will be leading in the polls afterwards. He will gain anywhere from 6-15 points, depending on where he stands going into it--if leading, gain is smaller. Sell after convention, buy George. George will then get a boost at his convention. Sell george after convention and re-evaluate.

This sounds like solid strategy!

Mo ,anything here that would derail Chili's projection?

[BigMo]

Chilly's right on, and a boatload of history to back him up.

Good to see you flying around in here cash. Not sure prices will move enough to compensate all the juice if wsex puts up a number, but maybe something. or try elsewhere.

[HedgeKing]

[The Actuary]

Put your money where your mouth, brain and inane and ludicrous conspiracies are,

I would equate Bush is in trouble as at least an even money prop,
and I promise i will not lay it off anywhere.

[Chilly]

Look guys, I'm only going to say this one more time. The situation is fluid. Percentages will change. BUT the changes are often predictable based on how systematic events have always played out in the past (economy, standing PID, war, etc). Stop arguing what your heart tells you, or what you want (or what you like or think about tax cuts working), and pay attention to the advice that is being given. Even when elections WIND UP a landslide (which Bush could do), they are always close at some point, largely thanks to a media that is very interested in keeping it close and therefore more exciting. Conventions give candidates a bump--every time (the question is really how much of a bump). Thus, there are times where you can buy or sell based onanticipating them and make money when the percentages reverse. You are simply banking against others expectations which tend to be off and short-sided.

And I'll say this one last time: I get paid to explain these things to others. I don't make facts up. I know how to interpret events. Yes, I have prior preferences too, but I can largely separate them quite well and objectively analyze the political situation. Although there are no guarantees in life, if you find Kerry at anything close to +200, take him, because you will get Bush at -150 minumum later, likely -135, right after or during the Dem's convention.

But like I also said, this year could be less predicitble than years past because a couple wild cards are in play: finding Osama, massive job creation, major US casualties, Iraq goes for Islamic rule....so don't go nuts.

peace!

[Chilly]

BTW: so far, I think I explained this situation quite well, despite the doubters. So too did MO and some others.

At the risk of starting a nightmare thread, I tell you, Kerry remains undervalued.....he can be had as high as +140.....not a bargain, but a profitable position given the climate and the convention order. I think he could win 52-60 out of 100 times given the situation.

Things are still fluid and Kerry is still unknown to many--which means Bush can define him for voters. Bush can pull this out. But....Bush is in serious trouble given the history of a sitting president with his polling numbers. I am not going to get into the details, but they aren't pretty for Bush. The whole wedge issue on gays should tell you something.

BTW: the actuary posted some pretty "bad" lines on Kerry/bush in many states---florida for example leans kerry right now. In my opinion, one or two states that you should bet if you get plus money on kerry are oregon and michigan. A bit more risky, take penn and fla. Kerry will one of the latter two. Plus money means bacon.

BTW: Nader is polling as high right now as he ever will and he is almost exlusively taking away from kerry, making his strength a little more stealth-like.

[The Actuary]

Either post a line on every state,

bet me on florida,

or STFU and stop red boarding.

florida for example leans kerry right now

Hopefully you believe your own bullshit and will actually step up to the plate with a bet.

[Chilly]

OOOOHHHH! A schoolyard challenge!!!

Uh, Actuary, why are you so angry? You are the most hot-headed person on the board. Any post is met with a steady stream of obscenities and/or personal insults. Take a step back and chill out. You are going to give yourself a heart attack.

When you are wrong, you seem incable of admitting it. I'm tired of your posts professing to know all when from what I can tell you are likely a crappy actuary since you have trouble with math.

Worse, you are simply unwilling to look at objective data. Kerry leads Bush IN FLORIDA right now; get over it.

As with most of my points, I make balanced arguments. I have noted the election situation is fluid. And that the early polls are less predictive than the later polls. I might be rooting for Bush for all you know, but that is besides the point. I am discussing events here on earth. Please join me.

Can you tell me how your odds on states like FLA are accurate (you have FLA as about a 75% chance for Bush) when he currently trails Kerry in the state? Of course Bush can win. IN fact, I'd say he would win FLA 50-53 out of 100 times. But that is nowwhere near the 75% chance you cite. I see value in that.

I should have just bet you based on your ridiculous lines rather than explaining myself. If I find the time, I will post odds on any state you want. Or, you post the lines and I'll gladly bet into your pathetic partisan delusions.


BTW: Here is a cut from a story in the Miami Herald less than a week ago that is the source of my "FLA leans kerry" post:

"The Herald/St. Petersburg Times survey reveals striking vulnerabilities for Bush among key independent voters in the state that narrowly put him into the White House four years ago.

More Florida voters disapprove of his job performance than approve, another sign of the president's lagging popularity since the 2001 terrorist attacks transformed Bush from a polarizing figure into a popular wartime president.

A majority of voters believe that the United States is ''moving in the wrong direction'' under Bush -- a marked reversal from two years ago, when 7 in 10 voters, including half of Democrats, approved of Bush's job performance.

MAJOR TURNAROUND

While Kerry secured the nomination only days ago, he holds a 49 to 43 percent lead over a president who just four months ago led every potential Democratic challenger by as many as 18 percentage points.

Still, the results could merely reflect a high point for Kerry, coming after weeks of positive publicity associated with his string of primary victories and just as Bush begins a massive TV ad campaign in Florida and other battleground states specifically aimed at bolstering his image on the economy and security.

In a worrisome sign for Democrats, consumer advocate Ralph Nader continues to win enough support -- 3 percent -- to swing the election, as many believe he did in 2000 by winning 90,000 votes in Florida.

''This poll clearly demonstrates that the state which gave us drama and nail-biting in 2000 may prove no different in 2004,'' said Republican pollster Kellyanne Conway, who conducted the survey for the two newspapers with Democratic pollster Rob Schroth.

PROPITIOUS TIMING

The survey of 800 registered voters was conducted March 3-4, beginning the day Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina dropped out of the race and just after Kerry sealed his party's nomination early enough to avoid a bloody primary battle.

The poll's margin of error is 3.5 percentage points.

Most alarming to the White House is likely to be the president's eroding approval ratings on the very issues that he plans to make hallmarks of his reelection and that typically favor Republicans.

More than half of Florida voters disapprove of his handling of the economy, while only 46 percent approve of his leadership on Iraq.

Despite the GOP's attempt to woo seniors by pushing legislation to curb the rising cost of prescription drugs, voters overwhelmingly trust Kerry more than Bush to protect Social Security and Medicare benefits.

The Florida results reflect national polls that have shown Kerry leading Bush by as many as 10 percentage points, a striking contrast to Bush's rising numbers after the United States captured former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein in December."

[Mjulian]

Chilly is a very reasonable fellow who adds a lot to these discussions.

[The Actuary]

Chilly why did you waste all that time to just say no,

florida for example leans kerry right now

I do not believe my own bullshit and am not interested in betting.

Still waiting on odds on 52 states, or will you wait for more movement to proclaim how bad the lines were several weeks back.

I posted an estimate on every state to further discussion,

not to take shots from guys that won't even back someone else's opinion they have adopted as their own.

[Mjulian]

"Still waiting on odds on 52 states"

TA, you've been playing too much Poker.

Unless you are factoring in Bagdad and Tel Aviv!

[Chilly]

you are an ass. and a stupid one at that. Up is down; right is left.

TELL ME WHERE I AM WRONG ASSHOLE. I gave you the evidence. You prefer to ignore it. I can't help you. But I will take your money.


What is your line of fla? While you are at it, give me lines on OREGON, PENN, and, I dunno, pick ANY ONE or all. PLease tell me how much I can wager on your lines. I will gladly bet you. Make arrangements with someone here to hold the money and if your lines are inviting, I am going to whack you around.

check.

[Chilly]

I look forward to your revised "faith-based" election odds.

and BTW: you are also apparently illiterate as well as math-impaired since you can't tell the difference between reporting polling results and an opinion.

And, for the record, I have repeatedly stated that the polling results this far out are far less accurate/predicitve than later polls, that Bush is more likely than not, though not by much, going to win florida, that Kerry and Bush will get a sizeable and preditable bounce around their conventions, etc. I have simply provided factual analysis for both sides that some don't LIKE and prefer to pretend is an "opinion".

[The Actuary]

Whatever,

I posted lines a while ago,

for some reason you chose to take a shot at them yesterday.

Although you called many of them bad, you seem fixated on three out of 52,(including both jokers[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img])

you have yet to offer any other lines for criticism.

when called on it, you revert back to "I am merely reflecting poll results"

You posted Fla is leaning Kerry, now you post Bush will likely win florida, COME ON MAN PICK A SIDE you name your price, if it is leaning it sure should'nt be far away from pick, and you can bet at will and can name the trustee.