Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Prediction Markets and the 2008 Electoral Map

CmdrTaco posted more than 6 years ago | from the let-the-speculation-run-rampant dept.

Politics 813

Electionwatch submitted a predicted electoral map of the 2008 US Presidential election, based on the bets made by the intrade prediction markets. I'm always interested in these markets and how accurate they end up being. This one calls it for Obama, but then again you probably could guess that by just watching 10 minutes of any TV "News" channel.

cancel ×

813 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Obama will win! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23748665)

He can walk on water and make the dead rise.

Re:Obama will win! (1)

illeism (953119) | more than 6 years ago | (#23748875)

I'll vote for him if he can bring my dog back, I miss him, otherwise I'm voting for any other third party candidate.

Re:Obama will win! (1)

zehaeva (1136559) | more than 6 years ago | (#23749351)

I know of an old indian burial ground we can use to bring your dog back.

The Candidate's Paw (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23749457)

"I'll vote for him if he can bring my dog back, I miss him, otherwise I'm voting for any other third party candidate."

"For God's sake don't let it in," cried the old man, trembling.

"You're afraid of your own dog," she cried, struggling. "Let me go. I'm coming, Fido; I'm coming."

There was another bark, and another. The old woman with a sudden wrench broke free and ran from the room. Her husband followed to the landing, and called after her appealingly as she hurried downstairs. He heard the chain rattle back and the bottom bolt drawn slowly and stiffly from the socket. Then the old woman's voice, strained and panting.

"The bolt," she cried loudly. "Come down. I can't reach it."

But her husband was on his hands and knees groping wildly on the floor in search of the paw. If he could only find it before the thing outside got in. . .

Re:Obama will win! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23749299)

He can walk on water...
Can't he swim?

Re:Obama will win! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23749385)

More importantly, he has promised not to veto your beer. John McCain on the other hand... [youtube.com]

Called if for Obama (5, Insightful)

bit trollent (824666) | more than 6 years ago | (#23748681)

I think that the computer really only needs a few numbers to call this election for Obama:
  1. Value of the Dollar
  2. Number of people killed in Iraq
  3. Number of WMDs found in Iraq
  4. Percentage of bankruptcies caused by lack of health care coverage
  5. Number of houses lost to predatory lenders - this is what deregulation is all about

Re:Called if for Obama (5, Insightful)

pubjames (468013) | more than 6 years ago | (#23748947)

Unfortunately, I think there are going to be powerful dark forces at work to try get the Republicans back in again.

People are easily swayed. Another terrorist attack in the USA I think could sway the elections.

Re:Called if for Obama (5, Insightful)

r_jensen11 (598210) | more than 6 years ago | (#23749081)

Unfortunately, I think there are going to be powerful dark forces at work to try get the Republicans back in again.

People are easily swayed. Another terrorist attack in the USA I think could sway the elections.
That after 8 years, Republicans can't protect America?

Re:Called if for Obama (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23749281)

Unfortunately, I think there are going to be powerful dark forces at work to try get the Republicans back in again. People are easily swayed. Another terrorist attack in the USA I think could sway the elections.
That after 8 years, Republicans can't protect America?

Which will be Republican talking points. Having 7 years of "safety", even despite attempts.

Re:Called if for Obama (4, Informative)

jgarra23 (1109651) | more than 6 years ago | (#23749495)

That after 8 years, Republicans can't protect America?
Not to take any of the blame from the Repubs but I think it's safe to include the Dems in there as well. Any ounce of thoughtful prevention from anyone has been quickly buried by both.

Score one for the politicians, I'm surprised that no one has realized that there really is only one party with two different subsets in America.

Re:Called if for Obama (5, Insightful)

tonyreadsnews (1134939) | more than 6 years ago | (#23749043)

Right because so many things like this weren't against Bush when he was elected the 2nd time.

Never underestimate the power of fear, doubt, and money.

Re:Called if for Obama (4, Insightful)

sayfawa (1099071) | more than 6 years ago | (#23749061)

Too bad those numbers didn't call it for Kerry. The only point that wasn't a big issue in '04 is number 5. So who knows what will happen. Also, you forgot one:

6. Teh ghey marriage!

Dolt (4, Insightful)

InvisblePinkUnicorn (1126837) | more than 6 years ago | (#23749085)

"1. Value of the Dollar"

And how exactly is printing more money (in the form of "tax rebate" checks funded through deficit spending) going to increase the value of the dollar? (Source [clarionledger.com] ) Doesn't it do the exact opposite?

"4. Percentage of bankruptcies caused by lack of health care coverage"

And Obama would replace that number with the "percentage of Americans completely losing their property rights to socialism", which of course would be 100%. McCain is of course doing the same thing, though possibly to a lesser degree (or maybe he's just better at hiding it).

"5. Number of houses lost to predatory lenders."

I have no sympathy for people who sign contracts without reading them, nor for banks that associate with such shady sources. Companies and individuals that purposely do not investigate the risk of such endeavors will fall. It is not our responsibility to provide a safety net for bad practices - doing so brings the whole system down, because everyone starts thinking they can make mistakes and someone will protect them from the consequences (for free at that!)

As for Iraq, all I see is a lot of empty talk from the candidates. I doubt either has a viable plan that is without dangerous consequences; they will instead elect to do nothing.

Re:Dolt (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23749265)

Socialism? Bought into the right wing bullet points, huh?

Just a matter of values, oh, and McCain is devoid of them.

Re:Dolt (3, Insightful)

InvisblePinkUnicorn (1126837) | more than 6 years ago | (#23749459)

"Socialism? Bought into the right wing bullet points, huh?

What "bullet points" are these. I'm going simply on the definition of socialism. Take a service, prevent private organizations from providing it, and have the government provide it instead, funded through forced taxation. That is what Obama wants to do with healthcare, and I'm sure McCain will support it when it's politically profitable too.

"Just a matter of values, oh, and McCain is devoid of them."

Agreed. Obama's only value is altruism, which he puts higher than all of our rights - to property, to privacy, and so on.

Re:Dolt (3, Insightful)

SBacks (1286786) | more than 6 years ago | (#23749345)

I have no sympathy for people who sign contracts without reading them, nor for banks that associate with such shady sources. Companies and individuals that purposely do not investigate the risk of such endeavors will fall. It is not our responsibility to provide a safety net for bad practices - doing so brings the whole system down, because everyone starts thinking they can make mistakes and someone will protect them from the consequences (for free at that!)
I agree with you in principle. The "predatory" lending was completely laid out in the contracts people signed. However, many people (not the crowd that reads this) don't have even a slight understanding of what any of it means, let alone know how to realistically budget for years in advance or how to prepare for less than status quo times.

Its people like this that lending laws are designed to protect. As uninformed as they may be, most/many of them are productive members of society.

Re:Dolt (2, Insightful)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 6 years ago | (#23749479)

However, many people (not the crowd that reads this) don't have even a slight understanding of what any of it means, let alone know how to realistically budget for years in advance or how to prepare for less than status quo times.
And in the future they'll either learn how to do that or else fail. Unless, that is, we keep them from failing.

Re:Dolt (1)

SQLGuru (980662) | more than 6 years ago | (#23749355)

deficit spending
Is Ross Perot still willing to pony up his own money to help pay down the debt? I'll vote for him if he does.

Layne

No, You. (4, Insightful)

bit trollent (824666) | more than 6 years ago | (#23749437)

1) And how exactly is printing more money (in the form of "tax rebate" checks funded through deficit spending) going to increase the value of the dollar? (Source) Doesn't it do the exact opposite? A tax rebate check is only printed money if you are running deficits like we are under Republican rule, not if you have a surplusses like we had by the time Bill Clinton left office.

Not only that, but consider the difference between a one time stimulous check, and an occupation of a foreign country that costs us $341 Million per day and has left us less safe. That is $341 Million of printed money per day. Convenient you would forget about that

4) And Obama would replace that number with the "percentage of Americans completely losing their property rights to socialism", which of course would be 100%. McCain is of course doing the same thing, though possibly to a lesser degree (or maybe he's just better at hiding it).

The only alternative to letting people bankrupt themselves until they die broke, their illness untreated is to scare people with the idea of socialism. If you want to pay through the nose for health "coverage" that specifically excludes the pre-existing conditions you need it for, I support your right to do that.

It is immoral to bankrupt people for getting sick and any society that has the ability to prevent this has a moral duty to. All other industrialized nations provide a health care system to their citizens that actually treats their conditions rather than just extracting as much money while providing as little healthcare as possible.

5) have no sympathy for people who sign contracts without reading them, nor for banks that associate with such shady sources. Companies and individuals that purposely do not investigate the risk of such endeavors will fall.

Falling home prices hurt everyone, not just people who took out bad loans - often while being tricked in to thinking they were agreeing to different terms. If you need to move for a job and find that your home is now worth significantly less than you paid for it, you are screwed.

At that point do you give thanks to a regulatory system that let some slimey, deceptive, piece of shit make a buck at everyone else's expense?

Re:Called if for Obama (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23749163)

"Number of houses lost to predatory lenders"
Please. Poor innocent borrowers that had loans forced down their throat. Give me a break. The majority of the problem loans are people who took loans that shouldn't have. Nobody wants to take responsibility for their own actions. They'd rather blame some big evil bank.

Re:Called if for Obama (2, Insightful)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 6 years ago | (#23749381)

This falls under the heading "experts really should know better".

The problem isn't so much that these greedy wankers decided to
ingore old and well established rules just to make a little more
money. The implications of their avarice don't just stop at the
people who were given a false impression of their means.

When magnified across the whole population, this had a whole
range of consequences including accelerating urban sprawl,
escalating the size of cars, increasing energy usage, escalating
home size, escalating home prices, causing a real estate
speculation bubble, causing a mortgate resale bubble and
ultimately trashing the entire economy.

Nevermind the poor schmucks in Oakland that never should have
ever gotten a home loan, this is effecting how companies do
business on a global scale. The entire credit system has been
fouled up. ...all because someone let Mr. Crabs manage mortage lending.

Re:Called if for Obama (1)

Sobrique (543255) | more than 6 years ago | (#23749193)

Let's not forget:
Price tag of war in Iraq ($2 trillion)
Guantanamo Bay

But at the end of the day, I don't think it'll matter. The average voter will be choosing the middle class white guy.

Re:Called if for Obama (1)

butterwise (862336) | more than 6 years ago | (#23749321)

...and Cheney, can't forget Cheney. I can't help but think it is intentional we haven't been seeing a lot of that guy for the last year or two...

Re:Called if for Obama (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 6 years ago | (#23749439)

The average voter will be choosing the middle class white guy.

And who would that be? McCain married into quite a bit of money as I recall.

Depends on where you work. (0)

tjstork (137384) | more than 6 years ago | (#23749263)

Value of the Dollar

As the value of the dollar falls, it makes it better for those Americans who work in fields that export to other countries. So, as Ford retools its truck lines to make cars for export to Europe, would you tell them that Obama will raise the dollar so that that enterprise is unaffordable?

Similarly, you can complain about the high price of commodities, but what do you offer someone that works IN commodities. If you are a miner, an oilman, a farmer, you are making out pretty darned good in the Bush economy and you made out pretty poorly in the Dem economy under Clinton. So, what do you tell someone that works for Exxon?

# umber of people killed in Iraq
# Number of WMDs found in Iraq


All will be trumped by, number of barrels of oil pumped from Iraq.

Number of houses lost to predatory lenders - this is what deregulation is all about

Versus, how many people had their homes double in value and sold at the right time?

Re:Called if for Obama (2, Interesting)

PeeAitchPee (712652) | more than 6 years ago | (#23749301)

Number of houses lost to predatory lenders - this is what deregulation is all about

Please provide some concrete numbers differentiating the people who are the victim of "predatory lending" from those who were greedy and signed up for too large a house (along with the two SUVs and the new 52" flat screen they couldn't afford either -- all while saving nothing) -- I'm sure we'd all really like to see those.

When people with no / bad credit can't get mortgages, they sue the government. When the government allows / cajoles / forces banks to give the these subprime borrowers loans they can't pay anyway and they inevitably default, guess what? They sue the government. Those of us who are responsible borrowers are sick of this crap, and sure as hell don't want our tax dollars paying for it. Let the banks and borrowers work it out amongst themselves. Bailing out mortgage defaulters is wrong, just like bailing out Bear Stearns was wrong. Let the market forces work, and the financial and housing industries will be much better off. This is a prime example of how government meddling with markets makes things worse for everyone.

Unfortunately, on this issue the choice is between how many billions of dollars will be spent on this by each candidate (at least a few billion from McCain versus ten billion from Obama so far). I'd love a third option which is, "none -- go back to renting for a few years and maybe next time you'll make smarter decisions with your money."

Re:Called if for Obama (1)

Facetious (710885) | more than 6 years ago | (#23749325)

I think one metric alone could call this election:

1. If |age of candidate1 - age of candidate2| > 20, younger candidate gets elected (yes, yes, Reagan was an old codger).

"Predatory" lending??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23749365)

Please - if you're too dumb to understand the terms of your mortgage, then you are too dumb to own a house. I don't feel sorry for people who got a mortgage for 50%+ of their monthly income, then had their rate blow up. Let's remember that is was the Republicans AND the Democrats working together telling us that everyone is entitled to home ownership and that lenders needed to ease restrictions. I also don't feel sorry for someone who bought a house for $600k that is now worth a measly $400k. Cry me a freaking river...

Re:Called if for Obama (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 6 years ago | (#23749485)

Let's be blunt here, few people vote with their head. It's become a popularity contest, basically.

And as much as I'd love to see Obama as president, somehow I fear he's not "white" enough for many voters. I really hope I'm wrong and I see the US voters as more bigoted than they are, but that's what I expect to happen.

Pretty close to CNN (5, Interesting)

jeiler (1106393) | more than 6 years ago | (#23748697)

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/10/electoral.map/index.html

Re:Pretty close to CNN (5, Insightful)

mh1997 (1065630) | more than 6 years ago | (#23748819)

Was there ever a time that the political "news" centered on the candidates and not polls and predictions?

Re:Pretty close to CNN (1)

jeiler (1106393) | more than 6 years ago | (#23749205)

Sure, and candidates talk about it all the time. It's called "muckraking" if it's about that candidate, and "the vital exercise of journalistic integrity" if it's about the opposition.

Re:Pretty close to CNN (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 6 years ago | (#23749251)

Yes, like now for example. Most political news remains about who said what.

Re:Pretty close to CNN (1)

Deanalator (806515) | more than 6 years ago | (#23749119)

Strange that intrading and electoral-vote.com are pretty similar (exactly the same electoral count), but CNN seems pretty far off. I think we in Oregon have the blue state thing pretty locked down, and CNN seems to have an awful lot of "toss up" states. Also it is predicting new mexico for McCain, which goes against polling data that I have seen.

Re:Pretty close to CNN (2, Interesting)

jeiler (1106393) | more than 6 years ago | (#23749283)

It seems to me that CNN's a lot more likely to take the middle ground of "We don't know" rather than make a hard and fast decision. Not only does it cover their butts if they get it wrong, but they can heighten the dramatic tension by saying "And now we're watching this very close race in Possum Kingdom, New Mexico" or some such.

Race not a factor ? (2, Interesting)

adisakp (705706) | more than 6 years ago | (#23749187)

Although it's not politically correct to say so, anyone who doesn't think Race is a factor need only look at this map. It looks like the North vs the South (with the West Coast siding with the North and all the plain states siding with the South)

Re:Race not a factor ? (1)

jeiler (1106393) | more than 6 years ago | (#23749303)

I would say that race was a factor if Obama were a conservative republican and the map looked the same. The democrats could run anyone (white or black), and as of right now the map would probably look pretty much like this.

Re:Race not a factor ? (1)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 6 years ago | (#23749359)

Although it's not politically correct to say so, anyone who doesn't think Race is a factor need only look at this map. It looks like the North vs the South (with the West Coast siding with the North and all the plain states siding with the South)
How can you claim race is a factor when the map looks extremely similar to the electoral results of 2000 and 2004?

Re:Race not a factor ? (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 6 years ago | (#23749511)

While I think race is a factor, I doubt you can tell from the map. Keep in mind that highly urbanized states tend to have more racial problems per capita (eg, people getting killed because they have the wrong look) than states that are rural. IMHO, the republican/democrat vote tends to be more based on the rural/urban division. That does partly coincide with ethnicity since some ethnic groups favor rural or urban areas. And as far as the idea of "North versus South" goes, I find it extremely ironic given that historically, the Democrats were the party of the South while the Republicans were of the North. The situation has reversed itself.

A Modest Prediction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23748745)

No matter who the people elect, the government wins.

Jesusland (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23748759)

Looks like Jesusland [univie.ac.at] might get a bit smaller...

Re:Jesusland (1)

butterwise (862336) | more than 6 years ago | (#23749429)

Copy link into address bar if you want to see the image:
http://homepage.univie.ac.at/horst.prillinger/blog/p3/jesusland.jpg

Go Obama!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23748761)

Go Obama!!

Re:Go Obama!! (0, Troll)

stormguard2099 (1177733) | more than 6 years ago | (#23748827)

Go Obama!!
Don't you mean Ron Paul?

Re:Go Obama!! (1)

lilomar (1072448) | more than 6 years ago | (#23748959)

Yeah! Obama/Paul '08!

Re:Go Obama!! (5, Insightful)

Frequency Domain (601421) | more than 6 years ago | (#23748989)

Go Obama!!
Don't you mean Ron Paul?
No, because I've actually studied economics (as opposed to reading a few Ayn Rand novels).

Re:Go Obama!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23749417)

No, because I've actually studied economics (as opposed to reading a few Ayn Rand novels).
Such a shame that you let all that fine economic education go to waste!

Re:Go Obama!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23749023)

OMG teh Ron Paul just ate a sandwich. Digg it! (3339232338 Diggs)

Some of those predictions seem overly confident (4, Interesting)

SputnikPanic (927985) | more than 6 years ago | (#23748791)

McCain 70-80% likely to pick up Florida? Obama 70-80% likely to grab Pennsylvania? Everyone is expecting those two to be big battleground states. Those probabilities seem pretty lofty to me.

Re:Some of those predictions seem overly confident (1)

shma (863063) | more than 6 years ago | (#23749089)

McCain 70-80% likely to pick up Florida? Obama 70-80% likely to grab Pennsylvania? Everyone is expecting those two to be big battleground states. Those probabilities seem pretty lofty to me.
FL polls [electoral-vote.com] have shown a consistent lead for McCain since polling began in February. In PA [electoral-vote.com] , Obama's lead is smaller but steady. Neither of these is likely to be as big a battleground state as in 00 and 04. Ohio is the big toss-up for this election.

InTraders seem to be basing their predictions on demographics and economics more than historical results, which is why they strongly favour economically stagnant Michigan for the democrats even though polls show it as a dead heat. In fact, MI might be a good way to make a fast buck if the numbers stay this way into the fall.

Re:Some of those predictions seem overly confident (1)

smooth wombat (796938) | more than 6 years ago | (#23749317)

No, those figures are correct. Pennsylvania has gone Democratic the last four presidential elections and there is no reason to suspect it won't be the same this time around. When you consider that large portions of Pennsylvania's population are located in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, both Democratic strongholds, they can easily sway the vote to a Democratic candidate. Throw in the two upper corners of the state, both pro-union areas, and a Republican president has an uphill battle.

As far as Florida is concerned, I can only surmise that because of its population configuration, it leans more towards the Republican spectrum though that is not a foregone conclusion. Obviously it is somewhat of a swing state but with McCain's proposals to continue to prop up Israel at the expense of the American taxpayer, he gets the vote of those who adhere to the jewish faith. Throw in his continuation of the Cuban embargo and he gets the cuban vote. Right there are two large voting blocks in that state.

Unless something significant happens between now and November, I can't see those percentages changing.

Best election site (2, Interesting)

flerchin (179012) | more than 6 years ago | (#23748813)

My favorite political predictor site is electoral-vote.com [electoral-vote.com]
They use an amalgamation of national and statewide polls to show the current feeling of Americans on a wide variety of races. Including a national map with a current tally of the electoral votes right at the top.

Obama Underestimated (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23748815)

At this point, the map might be accurate. However, I think it underestimates the appeal of Obama, and the ick factor of McCain. In a few months, this map will be mostly blue.

Re:Obama Underestimated (-1, Flamebait)

the computer guy nex (916959) | more than 6 years ago | (#23749147)

Or the complete opposite.

Obama's comments about small town folk sticking to guns and religion and his affiliation with domestic terrorists and racist preachers hasn't hurt him much in the democratic race.

Didn't hurt or help him much with the conservative base. Obama is a typical left winger who wants to raise taxes across the board and put more government control into the economy.

These affiliations and comments have hurt him permanently with independants. Hillary dominated him with average American citizens: working class Americans who love the country, lean slightly right, but have no affiliation whatsoever with either party. McCain can easily dominate this same demographic since he wants to LOWER taxes and is a war hero. If he convinces the conservatives out there (me) that he isn't as liberal as I think he is, he will pull in the conservative base and a majority of these independants.

Why McCain? (1)

goltzc (1284524) | more than 6 years ago | (#23748833)

I have a real hard time understanding what policies McCain is offering that are appealing to the voting public. I would like to hear a McCain supporter explain his appeal just to understand the other side of this election.

Does anyone have any insight here?

Re:Why McCain? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23748867)

He ain't no damned librul.

Re:Why McCain? (1)

Atriqus (826899) | more than 6 years ago | (#23748983)

He is if normalized to the average republican.

Re:Why McCain? (1)

keithltaylor (966667) | more than 6 years ago | (#23749455)

Even then he's not.

Re:Why McCain? (1)

internetcommie (945194) | more than 6 years ago | (#23748887)

Most Likely To Die While In Office?

Re:Why McCain? (1)

LoganDzwon (1170459) | more than 6 years ago | (#23748899)

Sure, the answer there is easy. Look at the democrats. The man could simply run his campaign on the slogan, "think of the alternative" and he would probably win.

Re:Why McCain? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23749057)

yeah, the democrats have really fucked up the country over the last 8 years...

Re:Why McCain? (4, Insightful)

mikeee (137160) | more than 6 years ago | (#23749307)

Apparently we're going to have to do the 60's-70's again to reintroduce people who weren't paying attention at the time to what it looks like when the country actually gets messed up. OMG, the economy is only growing at a 2.5% annualized rate and unemployment is over 5%!!!@!!!@!!

Hopefully we can avoid disco this time.

Re:Why McCain? (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 6 years ago | (#23749017)

Does anyone have any insight here?

[WARNING! Punchline overload. Too many possibilities. ABORT! ABORT!]

Re:Why McCain? (0)

metamechanical (545566) | more than 6 years ago | (#23749135)

The same question could be asked about Obama. Every time he opens his mouth, I cringe. His only appeal from my vantage point comes not from his logic or aparent ability to govern, but from his charisma.

Disclaimer: This is an honest question, I'm not trying to be snarky, just state the fact that I think that question applies equally to both of the people that our masters permit us to cast a ballot for.

Re:Why McCain? (1)

the computer guy nex (916959) | more than 6 years ago | (#23749313)

Lower taxes.

Re:Why McCain? (2, Insightful)

goltzc (1284524) | more than 6 years ago | (#23749451)

But that is a pretty weak argument when he supports staying in a costly war. Lowering taxes and spending huge amounts of money on war will be terrible for the US economy.

Then again I spose a lot of people don't have the ability to do what I like to call take two facts and create a third fact.

Fact 1: War is costly
Fact 2: Taxes pay for war
Fact 3 (created from the first two facts): If we decrease taxes and still spend on a war we won't have money to pay for anything but the war without borrowing more money.

Re:Why McCain? (-1, Flamebait)

RecessionCone (1062552) | more than 6 years ago | (#23749401)

Obama offers the American public the policy of surrender and blame America first. He has no plan for Iraq other than surrender, despite the success we've been having recently.

Obama is a conventional Chicago politician, despite all the hype about change, and people are starting to realize that he's essentially empty. Obama hasn't accomplished anything substantial. Rhetoric (including memoirs) is no accomplishment, and Obama has nothing else significant to point to. Name one important piece of legislation Obama has contributed to. Name a significant accomplishment Obama has had in the business world. Name any significant bipartisan work he has performed. Name a significant project he's headed.

Obama is a blank screen, an empty slate for people to project their "hope for change".

He's not suited for leading a government - he doesn't have the spine to stand up for himself and pursue what he thinks is right. Obama doesn't take responsibility - he's always blaming his staff for his mistakes, or blaming the media for asking tough questions, or blaming Bush.

I am no McCain fan. But Obama is a very unattractive presidential candidate. If you can't see these weaknesses, perhaps you should try to escape your bubble periodically. I think it's actually rather ironic that in this year of years, the Democrats have nominated a candidate who could actually lose.

Re:Why McCain? (1)

goltzc (1284524) | more than 6 years ago | (#23749505)

Why is it that every rationale to vote for McCain revolves around the "because I don't like the other guy argument". As an Obama supporter that isn't a compelling reason to vote for McCain.

Re:Why McCain? (1)

torchdragon (816357) | more than 6 years ago | (#23749527)

You still haven't answered the question the person was asking.

He didn't ask why he shouldn't vote for Obama. He asked why he should vote for McCain. Those are two different questions regardless of what the "we only have 2 parties" camp says. I for one, as an Obama supporter, would love to hear some concrete arguments for McCain as well as I don't actually know any. My time has been spent reading up on Obama since in the primaries I got to choose between him and Clinton.

Anyone?

Re:Why McCain? (1)

puff3456 (898964) | more than 6 years ago | (#23749431)

McCain has his strongest appeal to those who fear Obama's sweeping change rhetoric. While McCain is hardly a conservative, his policies (short of his support of cap and trade) represent a much safer ground for a large portion of the conservative minded voting population, both republican and democrat.

Obama's tax increases on the wealthy (those making over 200-250,000), his removal of the cap on social security, his tax increases on businesses, his taking over of the private health care system (beyond its already heavy regulation today), his decreases in military spending, among many other things, will have a strong negative effect on the economy, on quality of life, military preparedness, and job growth. Corporate tax increases alone will cause decreased job growth and higher consumer prices as the increases are always passed to the consumer, rather causing a reduction in profit.

McCain is a relatively weak candidate from the conservative perspective however he is the only choice when considering the big government collectivist policy changes that would be implemented by an Obama presidency. This notwithstanding the fact that Obama with his scant resume would not even be considered to run any top company in the US, yet he thinks he has a chance at the highest level of government. He has strong appeal, however those who listen to his words will out number those who are wooed by his Clinton-like speaking abilities and their dis-taste for Pres. Bush.

Re:Why McCain? (1)

porcupine8 (816071) | more than 6 years ago | (#23749463)

Right now, as a social liberal but moderate in most other things, there are two things that make me not want to vote for Obama: Total immediate withdrawal from Iraq and universal health care.

The first one, I'm not too worried about. It's SO impractical and likely to be SO dangerous that I don't think he'd actually follow through on it. Though he could wind up withdrawing JUST enough to make things get drawn out even longer than they need to be, yay. I'm not terribly happy with the war, but I think that now that we've gone in and messed with things it's our responsibility to stick around until the mess is cleaned up.

The second I think is slapping a huge band-aid on a complex and multifaceted problem instead of actually dealing with it. I'd much rather see creative solutions that are targeted at specific pieces of the problem, like malpractice suit reform, helping with catastrophic claims, and encouraging preventative care - and I'd rather see it at the state level, where different states can experiment with different solutions on a smaller scale and then we can see what works and what doesn't and expand the ones that work. Instead we get a nice-sounding buzzword that will just trade our current set of problems for a whole different set of problems.

Go with the money (1)

Silver Sloth (770927) | more than 6 years ago | (#23748851)

For any popularity type contest from American Idol to Big Brother to the election I always look where the money's going. Usually I go to the bookies although I can't at the moment because I'm at work so let's look at who's raised more funding - that makes it look like Obama. Unscientific, but it's how I make my prediction.

Thank you Captain Obvious (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 6 years ago | (#23748921)

Wow! So it's the money, is it? That's so wise. Why, I can't imagine more than five or six billion people in this world share that knowledge. You rock!

This map isn't as interesting as... (2, Insightful)

RogueWarrior65 (678876) | more than 6 years ago | (#23748889)

The voting results maps by COUNTY of past elections. The pattern that clearly becomes visible is that the division in the US isn't so much right versus left or conservative versus liberal but RURAL-dweller versus URBAN-dweller. Taking that a step further, have you noticed that the urbanites are usually the ones on the environmental-protection bandwagon or the consumer-protection bandwagon (read: you can't have a trike ATV). The urbanites are the ones saying that we can't drill in Alaska. I'll bet that 99.99% of them have never been to Alaska and have no clue as to how enormous the place is. "Yeah, we're going to retire all that great farm land so we can build another cloned shopping mall with the same cookie-cutter stores." "But where will your endive and cilantro salad come from?" "Don't bother me with facts, dammit!"

Re:This map isn't as interesting as... (2, Insightful)

morari (1080535) | more than 6 years ago | (#23749053)

Conversely, most rural voters don't know how to help themselves and ultimately vote for the candidate that will keep them in poverty. It's always a sad scene around here.

Re:This map isn't as interesting as... (1)

glgraca (105308) | more than 6 years ago | (#23749461)

Do the American parties differ so much? I am from Brazil and I can't see that much difference between democrats and republicans; not enough to take make or break someone's life anyway. In Brazil we can see more differences between any parties' inner factions, and between parties they go all the way from communist to fascist.

Re:This map isn't as interesting as... (1)

Dyne09 (1305257) | more than 6 years ago | (#23749211)

Logical Fallacy. You can't possibly know how to treat cancer unless you've had it.

Re:This map isn't as interesting as... (0)

the computer guy nex (916959) | more than 6 years ago | (#23749393)

Middle class vs Lower&Upper classes.

I'm from a small town, and our county has been Republican for many years. Why? Full of middle class families with a normal 9-5 job who love this country and want lower taxes. We are the people that Obama refer to as "sticking to guns and religion."

Larger cities have the elitist upper class (who are on the Environmental Protection bandwagon) and the Lower class that have been in the Democraticy party pocket for years.

Pennsylvania and Ohio solid blue for Obama? (0)

PeeAitchPee (712652) | more than 6 years ago | (#23748893)

I guess no one told all those bitter folks clinging to their guns that Obama wants a national ban on Concealed Carry Weapons [cnn.com] . I don't think either of those states are even close to being blue this year. Didn't the Democrats learn anything from Gore's defeat in his own home state in 2000?

Re:Pennsylvania and Ohio solid blue for Obama? (1)

jgarra23 (1109651) | more than 6 years ago | (#23749041)


Didn't the Democrats learn anything from Gore's defeat in his own home state in 2000?

Just like the Repubs didn't learn a thing from Dole's defeat or Bush's, the Dems didn't learn a thing from Gore or Kerry's defeats. They're still whining like it's some playground rule or something.

Either way, America hasn't figured out that both parties are screwing them.

Re:Pennsylvania and Ohio solid blue for Obama? (1)

CSharp_Progammer (1305779) | more than 6 years ago | (#23749067)

But we didn't have $4 and above gas and tons of people losing jobs at that time. They'll be "bitter" about voting for Obama, but they'll vote for the Democratic party in the end. That's why he'll win those states. Gas will probably be $5 in November anyway.

Don't read too much into this (1)

VdG (633317) | more than 6 years ago | (#23748895)

Bear in mind this isn't some objective prediction, but what people think is going to happen. A lot of those people betting probably have a personal emotional investment in the outcome and are betting with their hearts, not their minds.

Just like sports betting, where folk put money on their local team regardless of whether they're any good, or back a horse because they like the name.

Re:Don't read too much into this (1)

quintessentialk (926161) | more than 6 years ago | (#23749231)

.. Just like sports betting, where folk put money on their local team regardless of whether they're any good, or back a horse because they like the name.
Well... I don't have data to prove this, but I would guess it isn't just like betting. The inherent dorkiness of paying attention to politics (as doing so is perceived in the US) probably limits participation to people who are going to take it seriously. I bet most of the participants are making objective predictions. Whether they are right or not, or based on appropriate data...

Cool Wired Article on the Problems w/ Predictions (3, Insightful)

absent_speaker (905145) | more than 6 years ago | (#23748923)

If you interested in prediction markets, check out this wired article:

http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/16-06/st_essay [wired.com]

It's a good piece on some of the challenges prediction markets have: small trading populations, mostly community insiders trading on things they care/know a lot about, small stakes. It's an interesting read!

My predictions (3, Funny)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 6 years ago | (#23748961)

After only a string of 43 previous presidents, the country will finally rejoice when we elect a Christian male to the highest office in the land. It's about time! :P

Re:My predictions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23749063)

He will no longer necessarily be white (and, according to some who just don't believe that he is Christian, HES A MUSLIM OMG !!!!!KILL THE TERRORIST!!!!!!1HES HIJACKING THE WHITE HOUSE AND FLYING IT INTO THE CAPITOL1!), so there's some change.

Wait... (5, Funny)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 6 years ago | (#23748963)

Should this map be on the Diebold site?

Re:Wait... (1)

oahazmatt (868057) | more than 6 years ago | (#23749167)

Should this map be on the Diebold site?
No, they haven't decided who's winning yet.

You can play too (1)

wcrowe (94389) | more than 6 years ago | (#23748991)

NPR gives you a map [npr.org] you can play with yourself.

The one I did a while back matches pretty close to the one in TFA. One of the main differences is that I predict Missouri will go to Obama, and New Mexico will go to McCain.

I think the race is Obama's to lose.

Re:You can play too (1)

butterwise (862336) | more than 6 years ago | (#23749531)

NPR gives you a map [npr.org] you can play with yourself.
Must be a map to the Homes of Hollywood Porn Stars

Predictions (1)

ucblockhead (63650) | more than 6 years ago | (#23748997)

"Prediction" markets are very good at putting numbers on the conventional wisdom of who is going to win, but not that good at predicting who is actually going to win. All you have to do is look at the Obama graph on the second link. Just look at the graphs for the Democratic nomination [intrade.com] . It 2007, intrade predicted that Clinton would be the winner.

This is not to say that they aren't valuable. They are really good at codifying who people *think* will win at any particular time, and the closer you get to the actual event, the more accurate they tend to be. I've no doubt that the night before the election, the intrade prediction will pan out, but right now, its "predictions" are fairly meaningless.

Iowa State has a good election market too (2, Informative)

alexc (37361) | more than 6 years ago | (#23749113)

Iowa state university has a really good prediction market also.
You can see it here. [uiowa.edu] . they have 2 differenent election markets.. one is winer take all and the other is vote percentage..

Too early to tell, wait for VP selections (0)

r_jensen11 (598210) | more than 6 years ago | (#23749123)

These numbers don't mean squat until they both select their VP's. Choosing the right, or wrong, VP can make all the difference in the world.

Remember 2000? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23749149)

I remember the other predictions from 2000 and 2004, both had Bush on the losing end. I'll take these and any other predictions with a large block of salt.

past performance? (1)

Bob-taro (996889) | more than 6 years ago | (#23749203)

I wonder how close such predictions have been to the actual results in past elections? I saw "past elections" on the site, but they only had past results, not past predictions.

Re:past performance? (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 6 years ago | (#23749273)

I wonder how close such predictions have been to the actual results in past elections?


As with polls, the state of the markets immediately before the election tends to be a pretty good predictor of who will win the election.

Technology-based prediction markets (1)

Ian Lamont (1116549) | more than 6 years ago | (#23749297)

At the Industry Standard, we have a very active prediction market based on technology predictions (Examples include Nintendo announces new DS at E3 [thestandard.com] [current community consensus 25%] and Firefox 3 out of beta by summer [thestandard.com] [current community consensus 69%]). In observing the results of the prediction markets, it is very striking how accurate they are -- of the dozens which have generated significant participation, the community has been extremely accurate in terms of picking the correct outcome. This is true even well before the predictions close and the publicly reported news/facts are more definite. I was very surprised by this. I have always been skeptical of the supposed "wisdom of the crowd" but people have proven to be accurate predictors when their opinions are taken in aggregate.

"New" poll analysis technique (1)

swb (14022) | more than 6 years ago | (#23749465)

There was a bit in the NY Times within the last week (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/06/opinion/06tyson.html), written by an astrophysicist, who used a new statistical technique (published in a real journal) that combines poll numbers. The point of the article was largely to chide the Dems for favoring Obama over Clinton, as based on this poll analysis technique, Clinton could beat McCain but Obama couldn't.

I'm neither a mathematician or much of a fan of any of the candidates, but it certainly sounds like they might be onto something.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?