OT: McCain Victory No Longer Unikely

[partypup]

[quote=arraya]also did you know that NAZI= National Socialist Workers Party??

Nazis were fascists and there is a distinct difference between socialism and fascism

Fascism is inverted socialism with a cast system. Actually, the parallels between Germany in the 30s and the last 8 years are astounding.

Also, Roman “Fasces” is on the wall behind the Speaker’s Podium
US House of Representatives chamber, United States Capitol

The “Fasces” was a symbol of imperial power in ancient Rome.
A bundle of sticks bound together, it represented the “many bound together as one.”

“Fasces” is the root where the term “fascism” comes from

Or the best description is:

“Fascism should more properly be called corporatism,
since it is the merger of state and corporate power.”
– Benito Mussolini

[/quote]

This is “fasc”inating, Arraya 😉

I actually was not aware of the Roman roots of the term. Thanks for sharing.

[cooperthedog]

[quote=jficquette]I may do it. That sounds like easy money since once the majority considers that they are on the on the wrong side they are sure to come down.

Its like when the majority was on the side of housing, or when every one was buying fertilzer stocks or when every one was buying dot.coms. They all got screwed.

They all got screwed because they were going with the crowd and overlooked fundementals.

In this case the fundementals are that Obama is a Racist, and a Marxist. Where is the value in that in a free society? No where, just like fertilizer stocks never should have gotten 30 times earnings etc but did because people saw them going up and jumped in. Same with housing. No reason for stuff to get as high as it did but it did.

John[/quote]

John, as for markets, they tend to be very accurate in the long run (e.g. the old adage: the market is a voting machine in the short run and a weighing machine in the long run, bears alot of truth). As for intrade, you could make the argument that the odds early on are skewed, but at T-1 to election, intrade appears to be very accurate. I’ve included an excerpt below from an interesting article regarding intrade’s strengths and flaws:

“Intrade has done an excellent job of predicting election results over the last few years. In 2004, President Bush won every state in which Intrade’s contracts — as of the night before Election Day — gave him a better than 50 percent chance of winning. He lost every state where the traders thought Mr. Kerry was the favorite. Late on election night in 2006, while the talking heads on CNN and MSNBC were still saying that the Republicans would hold onto the Senate, Intrade knew better.”

src: http://www.cnbc.com/id/23143684

Intrade has Obama at >50% in all the battleground states. We’ll see if it holds true tomorrow.

[cooperthedog]

[quote=jficquette]I may do it. That sounds like easy money since once the majority considers that they are on the on the wrong side they are sure to come down.

Its like when the majority was on the side of housing, or when every one was buying fertilzer stocks or when every one was buying dot.coms. They all got screwed.

They all got screwed because they were going with the crowd and overlooked fundementals.

In this case the fundementals are that Obama is a Racist, and a Marxist. Where is the value in that in a free society? No where, just like fertilizer stocks never should have gotten 30 times earnings etc but did because people saw them going up and jumped in. Same with housing. No reason for stuff to get as high as it did but it did.

John[/quote]

John, as for markets, they tend to be very accurate in the long run (e.g. the old adage: the market is a voting machine in the short run and a weighing machine in the long run, bears alot of truth). As for intrade, you could make the argument that the odds early on are skewed, but at T-1 to election, intrade appears to be very accurate. I’ve included an excerpt below from an interesting article regarding intrade’s strengths and flaws:

“Intrade has done an excellent job of predicting election results over the last few years. In 2004, President Bush won every state in which Intrade’s contracts — as of the night before Election Day — gave him a better than 50 percent chance of winning. He lost every state where the traders thought Mr. Kerry was the favorite. Late on election night in 2006, while the talking heads on CNN and MSNBC were still saying that the Republicans would hold onto the Senate, Intrade knew better.”

src: http://www.cnbc.com/id/23143684

Intrade has Obama at >50% in all the battleground states. We’ll see if it holds true tomorrow.

[cooperthedog]

[quote=jficquette]I may do it. That sounds like easy money since once the majority considers that they are on the on the wrong side they are sure to come down.

Its like when the majority was on the side of housing, or when every one was buying fertilzer stocks or when every one was buying dot.coms. They all got screwed.

They all got screwed because they were going with the crowd and overlooked fundementals.

In this case the fundementals are that Obama is a Racist, and a Marxist. Where is the value in that in a free society? No where, just like fertilizer stocks never should have gotten 30 times earnings etc but did because people saw them going up and jumped in. Same with housing. No reason for stuff to get as high as it did but it did.

John[/quote]

John, as for markets, they tend to be very accurate in the long run (e.g. the old adage: the market is a voting machine in the short run and a weighing machine in the long run, bears alot of truth). As for intrade, you could make the argument that the odds early on are skewed, but at T-1 to election, intrade appears to be very accurate. I’ve included an excerpt below from an interesting article regarding intrade’s strengths and flaws:

“Intrade has done an excellent job of predicting election results over the last few years. In 2004, President Bush won every state in which Intrade’s contracts — as of the night before Election Day — gave him a better than 50 percent chance of winning. He lost every state where the traders thought Mr. Kerry was the favorite. Late on election night in 2006, while the talking heads on CNN and MSNBC were still saying that the Republicans would hold onto the Senate, Intrade knew better.”

src: http://www.cnbc.com/id/23143684

Intrade has Obama at >50% in all the battleground states. We’ll see if it holds true tomorrow.

[cooperthedog]

[quote=jficquette]I may do it. That sounds like easy money since once the majority considers that they are on the on the wrong side they are sure to come down.

Its like when the majority was on the side of housing, or when every one was buying fertilzer stocks or when every one was buying dot.coms. They all got screwed.

They all got screwed because they were going with the crowd and overlooked fundementals.

In this case the fundementals are that Obama is a Racist, and a Marxist. Where is the value in that in a free society? No where, just like fertilizer stocks never should have gotten 30 times earnings etc but did because people saw them going up and jumped in. Same with housing. No reason for stuff to get as high as it did but it did.

John[/quote]

John, as for markets, they tend to be very accurate in the long run (e.g. the old adage: the market is a voting machine in the short run and a weighing machine in the long run, bears alot of truth). As for intrade, you could make the argument that the odds early on are skewed, but at T-1 to election, intrade appears to be very accurate. I’ve included an excerpt below from an interesting article regarding intrade’s strengths and flaws:

“Intrade has done an excellent job of predicting election results over the last few years. In 2004, President Bush won every state in which Intrade’s contracts — as of the night before Election Day — gave him a better than 50 percent chance of winning. He lost every state where the traders thought Mr. Kerry was the favorite. Late on election night in 2006, while the talking heads on CNN and MSNBC were still saying that the Republicans would hold onto the Senate, Intrade knew better.”

src: http://www.cnbc.com/id/23143684

Intrade has Obama at >50% in all the battleground states. We’ll see if it holds true tomorrow.

[cooperthedog]

[quote=jficquette]I may do it. That sounds like easy money since once the majority considers that they are on the on the wrong side they are sure to come down.

Its like when the majority was on the side of housing, or when every one was buying fertilzer stocks or when every one was buying dot.coms. They all got screwed.

They all got screwed because they were going with the crowd and overlooked fundementals.

In this case the fundementals are that Obama is a Racist, and a Marxist. Where is the value in that in a free society? No where, just like fertilizer stocks never should have gotten 30 times earnings etc but did because people saw them going up and jumped in. Same with housing. No reason for stuff to get as high as it did but it did.

John[/quote]

John, as for markets, they tend to be very accurate in the long run (e.g. the old adage: the market is a voting machine in the short run and a weighing machine in the long run, bears alot of truth). As for intrade, you could make the argument that the odds early on are skewed, but at T-1 to election, intrade appears to be very accurate. I’ve included an excerpt below from an interesting article regarding intrade’s strengths and flaws:

“Intrade has done an excellent job of predicting election results over the last few years. In 2004, President Bush won every state in which Intrade’s contracts — as of the night before Election Day — gave him a better than 50 percent chance of winning. He lost every state where the traders thought Mr. Kerry was the favorite. Late on election night in 2006, while the talking heads on CNN and MSNBC were still saying that the Republicans would hold onto the Senate, Intrade knew better.”

src: http://www.cnbc.com/id/23143684

Intrade has Obama at >50% in all the battleground states. We’ll see if it holds true tomorrow.

[cooperthedog]

[quote=jficquette]

Social Democrat? I never heard that term before. Did you mean Socialist Democrat?? Socialism is Marxist.

Also did you know that NAZI= National Socialist Workers Party??

John

[/quote]

“Socialism is Marxist”

John – Do you grasp the fact that nationalizing companies (e.g. AIG), bailing out banks, automakers, etc. and the general working of the Federal Reserve (central quasi-state planning of the US economy) is socialist? You understand that both candidates encouraged and voted for your marxist bailout, and in addition McCain wants to socialize additional losses with his home rescue plan. Don’t you find it the least bit hypocritical that Bush and Co. have architected this massive wave of socialism/marxism, expanded the federal gov’t (and debt) to its largest ever, and restricted your liberties. The so-called founders of the “ownership society” and free-market solutions now has the gov’t running the show, and your worried about Obama vs. McCain.

“Also did you know that NAZI= National Socialist Workers Party??”

The NAZI’s were about as socialist as the DDR was “democratic”…

[cooperthedog]

[quote=jficquette]

Social Democrat? I never heard that term before. Did you mean Socialist Democrat?? Socialism is Marxist.

Also did you know that NAZI= National Socialist Workers Party??

John

[/quote]

“Socialism is Marxist”

John – Do you grasp the fact that nationalizing companies (e.g. AIG), bailing out banks, automakers, etc. and the general working of the Federal Reserve (central quasi-state planning of the US economy) is socialist? You understand that both candidates encouraged and voted for your marxist bailout, and in addition McCain wants to socialize additional losses with his home rescue plan. Don’t you find it the least bit hypocritical that Bush and Co. have architected this massive wave of socialism/marxism, expanded the federal gov’t (and debt) to its largest ever, and restricted your liberties. The so-called founders of the “ownership society” and free-market solutions now has the gov’t running the show, and your worried about Obama vs. McCain.

“Also did you know that NAZI= National Socialist Workers Party??”

The NAZI’s were about as socialist as the DDR was “democratic”…

[cooperthedog]

[quote=jficquette]

Social Democrat? I never heard that term before. Did you mean Socialist Democrat?? Socialism is Marxist.

Also did you know that NAZI= National Socialist Workers Party??

John

[/quote]

“Socialism is Marxist”

John – Do you grasp the fact that nationalizing companies (e.g. AIG), bailing out banks, automakers, etc. and the general working of the Federal Reserve (central quasi-state planning of the US economy) is socialist? You understand that both candidates encouraged and voted for your marxist bailout, and in addition McCain wants to socialize additional losses with his home rescue plan. Don’t you find it the least bit hypocritical that Bush and Co. have architected this massive wave of socialism/marxism, expanded the federal gov’t (and debt) to its largest ever, and restricted your liberties. The so-called founders of the “ownership society” and free-market solutions now has the gov’t running the show, and your worried about Obama vs. McCain.

“Also did you know that NAZI= National Socialist Workers Party??”

The NAZI’s were about as socialist as the DDR was “democratic”…

[cooperthedog]

[quote=jficquette]

Social Democrat? I never heard that term before. Did you mean Socialist Democrat?? Socialism is Marxist.

Also did you know that NAZI= National Socialist Workers Party??

John

[/quote]

“Socialism is Marxist”

John – Do you grasp the fact that nationalizing companies (e.g. AIG), bailing out banks, automakers, etc. and the general working of the Federal Reserve (central quasi-state planning of the US economy) is socialist? You understand that both candidates encouraged and voted for your marxist bailout, and in addition McCain wants to socialize additional losses with his home rescue plan. Don’t you find it the least bit hypocritical that Bush and Co. have architected this massive wave of socialism/marxism, expanded the federal gov’t (and debt) to its largest ever, and restricted your liberties. The so-called founders of the “ownership society” and free-market solutions now has the gov’t running the show, and your worried about Obama vs. McCain.

“Also did you know that NAZI= National Socialist Workers Party??”

The NAZI’s were about as socialist as the DDR was “democratic”…

[cooperthedog]

[quote=jficquette]

Social Democrat? I never heard that term before. Did you mean Socialist Democrat?? Socialism is Marxist.

Also did you know that NAZI= National Socialist Workers Party??

John

[/quote]

“Socialism is Marxist”

John – Do you grasp the fact that nationalizing companies (e.g. AIG), bailing out banks, automakers, etc. and the general working of the Federal Reserve (central quasi-state planning of the US economy) is socialist? You understand that both candidates encouraged and voted for your marxist bailout, and in addition McCain wants to socialize additional losses with his home rescue plan. Don’t you find it the least bit hypocritical that Bush and Co. have architected this massive wave of socialism/marxism, expanded the federal gov’t (and debt) to its largest ever, and restricted your liberties. The so-called founders of the “ownership society” and free-market solutions now has the gov’t running the show, and your worried about Obama vs. McCain.

“Also did you know that NAZI= National Socialist Workers Party??”

The NAZI’s were about as socialist as the DDR was “democratic”…

[poorgradstudent]

I agree with your central thesis, that in recent days McCain has moved from being “highly unlikely” to win the electoral and popular vote, to merely “unlikely”.

However, looking at electoral math, Obama doesn’t need to do much better than John Kerry did to win. If he holds all the Kerry states (likely – even PA is polling closer to +7/8% Obama), he only needs to win NM, IA and CO, all states he’s polling extremely well in. If he wins either Ohio OR Florida Obama wins (both possible, as both are statistical ties). Oh, and he’s leading in Virginia (although not by much over the margin of error).

The polls could be wrong. The election isn’t over until it is over. “Likely voters” is always a dicey subject. There’s always a chance of complacency. But there’s also the chance of people wanting to vote for a winner, or not bothering to vote for someone who is percieved as having little chance of victory.

Undecided voters do seem to be breaking slightly in favor of McCain, cutting some of Obama’s leads. But I’ll be SHOCKED if Obama doesn’t end up winning Tuesday night, and possibly having it wrapped up before polls close here in California.

[poorgradstudent]

I agree with your central thesis, that in recent days McCain has moved from being “highly unlikely” to win the electoral and popular vote, to merely “unlikely”.

However, looking at electoral math, Obama doesn’t need to do much better than John Kerry did to win. If he holds all the Kerry states (likely – even PA is polling closer to +7/8% Obama), he only needs to win NM, IA and CO, all states he’s polling extremely well in. If he wins either Ohio OR Florida Obama wins (both possible, as both are statistical ties). Oh, and he’s leading in Virginia (although not by much over the margin of error).

The polls could be wrong. The election isn’t over until it is over. “Likely voters” is always a dicey subject. There’s always a chance of complacency. But there’s also the chance of people wanting to vote for a winner, or not bothering to vote for someone who is percieved as having little chance of victory.

Undecided voters do seem to be breaking slightly in favor of McCain, cutting some of Obama’s leads. But I’ll be SHOCKED if Obama doesn’t end up winning Tuesday night, and possibly having it wrapped up before polls close here in California.

[poorgradstudent]

I agree with your central thesis, that in recent days McCain has moved from being “highly unlikely” to win the electoral and popular vote, to merely “unlikely”.

However, looking at electoral math, Obama doesn’t need to do much better than John Kerry did to win. If he holds all the Kerry states (likely – even PA is polling closer to +7/8% Obama), he only needs to win NM, IA and CO, all states he’s polling extremely well in. If he wins either Ohio OR Florida Obama wins (both possible, as both are statistical ties). Oh, and he’s leading in Virginia (although not by much over the margin of error).

The polls could be wrong. The election isn’t over until it is over. “Likely voters” is always a dicey subject. There’s always a chance of complacency. But there’s also the chance of people wanting to vote for a winner, or not bothering to vote for someone who is percieved as having little chance of victory.

Undecided voters do seem to be breaking slightly in favor of McCain, cutting some of Obama’s leads. But I’ll be SHOCKED if Obama doesn’t end up winning Tuesday night, and possibly having it wrapped up before polls close here in California.

[poorgradstudent]

I agree with your central thesis, that in recent days McCain has moved from being “highly unlikely” to win the electoral and popular vote, to merely “unlikely”.

However, looking at electoral math, Obama doesn’t need to do much better than John Kerry did to win. If he holds all the Kerry states (likely – even PA is polling closer to +7/8% Obama), he only needs to win NM, IA and CO, all states he’s polling extremely well in. If he wins either Ohio OR Florida Obama wins (both possible, as both are statistical ties). Oh, and he’s leading in Virginia (although not by much over the margin of error).

The polls could be wrong. The election isn’t over until it is over. “Likely voters” is always a dicey subject. There’s always a chance of complacency. But there’s also the chance of people wanting to vote for a winner, or not bothering to vote for someone who is percieved as having little chance of victory.

Undecided voters do seem to be breaking slightly in favor of McCain, cutting some of Obama’s leads. But I’ll be SHOCKED if Obama doesn’t end up winning Tuesday night, and possibly having it wrapped up before polls close here in California.

[Author]

Posts