Intrade, a prediction market, is currently predicting Obama’s odds of re-election at only 60%. It is really an amazing opportunity. 67% return, for a sure thing. Obama is a 60 cent dollar.
I think the vast majority of people use this criteria when voting: From most important to least.
1) Charisma
2) Age
3) Race
4)Physical attractiveness
5)Who you would rather spend time with
6) What type of cologne they wear
7) Their policies
The order of the first few factors are debatable but the last factor that the masses will take into consideration are the policies of the candidates. Actually this is an oversimplification. It is the marginal factors that determine the outcome of the vote because competition between the candidates forces identical structural policies. Both candidates promise an ideal product, i.e. lots of wealth redistribution. In other words, when voting, people are choosing between a bottle of pepsi, or a bottle of coca cola. The product is virtually identical. So it's all up to marketing to determine the choice. The analogy is actually not that accurate. Let's change it to a bottle of coca cola(Obama) and a bottle of rancid sewage water.
Now let us compare and contrast the two great men(sarcasm) based on my perfectly accurate voting criteria:
Obama is extremely charismatic and he is a great orator. Obama is very sexy. He is young. He has a smile that will blow you away. Everyone loves him. Seemingly every celebrity supports and endorses him. Why? Because he is a celebrity himself. Is there a talk show he has not been on? His relative youth is clearly a benefit since it represents change, makes him relatable to the younger generations, conveys an ambitious attitude and it strengthens his general appeal. Obama is black. This may sound like a racist feature to point out but it is a reality that cannot be ignored. Ironically, with so much talk about racism this feature is actually a huge benefit to him. I remember, back in 2008, when people were saying things like "no one will ever vote for a black person", "America isn't ready for a black President", etc. Of course it was sheer ignorance. It was obvious to me, at the time, that people preferred voting for someone who is black. As ridiculous as it sounds, it was clear that everyone was excited to help elect the first black president. It was portrayed as a struggle for a monumental achievement. Supporting anyone but Obama made it seem like you were a racist. Can you imagine McCain or Romney, white men, claiming that they are superior(Presidents) to Obama, a black man?
Mitt Romney is wealthy. If the economy weakens there will be resentment towards the well-to-do people. The anti-capitalistic mentality is so widespread that his income status alone could be a fatal weakness. Mitt Romney definitely looks presidential, but maybe too much like a plastic man. Regardless, he is at best like a nice-looking uncle. He is nothing compared to the dashing, seductive allure of Obama. Mitt Romney is old. His age symbolizes rigidity. It makes him seem senile, decrepit and plain-old boring. No one wants to think that their president needs to take a nap before addressing foreign policy.
People often mention the state of the economy being a determining factor of who gets elected. I think this factor is highly overrated. Franklin D. Roosevelt was re-elected during the Great Depression. If anything a weak economy could work in Obama's favor, as people fearfully cling to the status quo.
Perhaps, the most crucial factor determining the outcome of the election is the fact that society is mostly comprised of democratic-minded progressive liberals, or whatever you want to call them. The Republican party is seen as an anti-abortion, anti-gay rights, anti-drug, pro-religion, pro-war and anti-progress party. These policies are merely superificial of course, and don't mean anything significant in terms of actual policy. Regardless, it is this image that makes their loss inevitable.
What if Romney wins? What if pigs fly? What if Krugman becomes a libertarian? Claiming that it is a risky investment because Romney could possibly win is like stating that oil is a bad investment because turmoil in the Middle East could resolve itself. It’s never going to happen. What if Obama gets re-elected? What if the sun rises tomorrow? What if the force of gravity continues to operate? What if the sum of a triangle's angles adds up to 180?
Think my analysis sounds childish, immature, and down right stupid? I don't blame you. I agree. But of course, the analysis is a reflection of the views, emotions and behaviour of the vast majority of U.S. voters.
Warning: Our wise overlords in the government restrict the use of credit cards with Intrade, for our own safety of course. So I used a wire transfer, which is a hassle and incurs a transaction cost. Intrade has its own transaction costs. There is currency risk because the bet is held in U.S. dollars. There is inflation risk because you have to wait 6 months before the election. Intrade is only a clearing house so the counter-party risk exists only with Intrade itself and the Irish banks, but not with the trader. Intrade markets, even the most popular, are fairly thinly traded.
*shrug - I'm not betting on a process which is rigged from top to bottom.
The only candidate that has a prayer at defeating Obama is Ron Paul. All the other clowns - especially Mitt Romney - couldn't muster even 40% opposition to Obama. Ron Paul, on the other hand, can not only attract a significant portion of the Republican party, he would lock down much of the independent vote that is tradtiionally hostile to Republicans... pro-gay, anti-war, pro-choice. He has broad appeal to independents - except hardcore greens, Marxists and other dyed-in-the-wool leftists. He would even attract a small number of Democrat defectors disaffected by Obama's lies about troop drawdowns.
Your reasoning assumes that Mitt Romney's chances against RP are 100% and that Obama's chances against RP are 100%, both false.
Clayton -
Well he can't run again in 2016 so let's just hope neither Scalia Thomas or Kennedy choose to retire within the next four years.
Sorry Clayton, but Ron Paul's chance of winning the 2012 presidential election are zero. Don't get me wrong, I love Ron Paul. He is the only politician on the planet that I support. But realistically speaking... no one knows who he is.
Mitt Romney is obviously not going to win. There is a 100% certainty that we're getting another 4 years of Obama. It is an open and shut case as I have shown in my article.
Ron Paul's chance of winning the 2012 presidential election are zero
This is simply false - feel free to bet otherwise. As for myself, I don't bet my money on questions which turn on the machinations of a few people in smoke-filled back rooms. As Gordon Gekko says: sheep get slaughtered.
Let me clarify. Ron Paul could win... just like I could win the lottery, or a meteorite could wipe out the human race. Yes, it is physically possible for him to win. But it's not going to happen.
This is the problem with the Austrian school. People can understand austrian principles but not know where to apply them. Is there a bubble in gold or the bond market, or the education system? A praxeologist cannot know. The answer is the latter two. I know because I have what Mises referred to as "Understanding".
It is staring at you right in the face! Obama will win. Not betting on him is like throwing money down the toilet.
Lawrence:[...]Ron Paul's chance of winning the 2012 presidential election are zero. [...] realistically speaking... no one knows who [Ron Paul] is. [...] There is a 100% certainty that we're getting another 4 years of Obama. It is an open and shut case as I have shown in my article.
[...] There is a 100% certainty that we're getting another 4 years of Obama. It is an open and shut case as I have shown in my article.
Lawrence:Let me clarify. Ron Paul could win... just like I could win the lottery, or a meteorite could wipe out the human race. Yes, it is physically possible for him to win. But it's not going to happen.
This is the problem with the Ignoramus school. People can understand logic but never apply it. Is what they're saying making any sense or not? An ignoramus cannot know. The answer is the latter. I know because I have what Jacques Cousteau called "eyes and ears".
It is staring you right in the face! Not being silent is like "removing all doubt that you are a fool."