Today’s Gallup hasn’t updated yet, but I expect it will be rolling away from that little anomaly caused by the oversampling of southern states. The spike will probably take a couple days to roll away completely, but we should also start seeing Obama’s debate bounce today which might even it out some.
Yes. But we can still discuss what we think will happen. 'Cause it’s fun.
I think we decided that on page one or two. 
A few questions about Intrade:
Do I have it right that it’s basically like talking sports and saying, “Vegas has the Tigers at 60% for the World Series right now” (if those were the odds for the Tigers)? It’s simply a tool to track the betting, which itself is a measure of both people’s confidence in a result, and more so people’s confidence to make money off that result. Intrade isn’t measuring any polls like 538 does, right?
Also, is Intrade legal for anyone, anywhere? If so, why is Intrade legal but betting on sports isn’t in all but 48 states? I don’t have a problem with gambling. I just think it’s curious that one can bet on the presidency or the Oscars or whathaveyou at Intrade, but I can’t go to a shop to put $20 on the 49ers to win the Super Bowl.
Looking at this I’ll concede that it was briefly at 65 right after the latest debate, but other than that it’s been between about 60 and 63 for at least a week.
I’m pretty sure the answer to your first question is “yes”. It just tracks the bets.
As to the second, anyone can bet with Intrade (which is based in Ireland), but they have to send Intrade the money (no credit cards). This makes it a bit harder to “casually” bet, and perhaps favors more “serious” bettors.
I like it.
Thanks, iiandyiiii.
IIRC it was around 66 in the middle of the day. I remember noticing it because 538 was also at 66 that day and it was rare for the two to be so close. Since then 538 has roughly climbed 4 points and Intrade roughly fallen 4 points which is a very striking divergence.
Gallup is at R 51 O 45 today. I don’t think Obama is going to get a debate bounce at all. It seems the wind is at Romney’s back right now and Romney won big in the debate flash poll on the question of the economy.
Obama leads among likely voters in Iowa and Wisconsin:
Right now the Gallup LV poll is an outlier. It’s far more likely that Gallup is wrong and all the other national polls (which show a very tight race) are right, then Gallup is right and all the other polls are wrong. The state polls give a much more accurate snapshot of how the electoral college will turn out.
Yes, that’s how it works. InTrade is a poll in itself, in a sense.
Sports betting has a long and mostly unsalubrious history in this country. The problem is that betting on sports creates an incentive for bettors to alter the outcome (by paying off players and officials and the like).
Betting on elections has the same incentive, but there is already a much bigger incentive to fuck with election results so nobody cares. If you had a reliable method of altering the outcome of an election, you’d either use it or not regardless of whether you were betting.
Absolutely. But I think I can safely say that if current trends continue, he will.
Both he and Ryan now say that the bottom line is that they will not cut taxes in a way that reduces revenue.
You can only have one bottom line. Either the bottom line is that they will cut 20% and hope to make up the difference, or the bottom line is that they will close as many loopholes as they can and hope to get to 20%. His position in the first debate was that he chose the first of those two (“no economist can say my plan costs $5 trillion if I say I won’t do anything that reduces revenue”, etc.).
No, you’re saying his logic doesn’t hold up, and deciding what his conclusion really is. Whether you’re right or not doesn’t support what you asserted.
I’m not debating how likely his proposal is to hold up. I’m saying your assertion that he made some significant shift is wrong, unless I missed something. He has not acknowledged any disconnect and has steadfastly held that he can cut taxes by 20% and offset that by eliminating loopholes. He has not conceded any need for a plan B. I see no change in his position, however likely or logical it is. We were discussing the “Romney can’t stick to a position” meme in that exchange, right?
I’m not sure what you’re not understanding here. His prior position seemed to be that he would cut 20% and attempt to make up the difference with cutting loopholes (which he believes he will be successful at). In the face of criticism that the math might not add up, he changed positions to say that the bottom line is the revenue and not the cut. If the revenue doesn’t remain neutral, he won’t make the cut.
ETA: Also note that he went from saying it would be a tax cut for the rich to saying the rich will not pay less.
I guess I missed that. Can you provide a cite? I have never heard him concede the possibility of a need for plan B if the loopholes don’t add up. He wouldn’t even bite when Crowley offered it up on a silver platter.
How is that a change in position (as opposed to semantics)? What detail in his position changed?
It’s akin to saying I’m going to drive from New York to San Francisco in 12 hours, but I won’t break the speed limit. Anyone who uses math to show that I will need to break the speed limit is incorrect, because I’m pre-emptively stating that I won’t be breaking the speed limit.