Remember when Romney used to have a chance at winning?

[DirtyB]

Well that's over. All of the worst things we've suspected of him are pretty much true. If you're not rich, he honestly doesn't give a shit about you.

CNN Link

In the footage, taped with a hidden camera, Romney argued nearly half of Americans will vote for President Barack Obama because they rely on government support, made apparent jokes about wishing he had Latino heritage, and talks about a Chinese factory his former firm purchased.

"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what," Romney says in one clip. "There are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent on government, who believe that, that they are victims, who believe that government has the responsibility to care for them. Who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing."

There was this guy who was big on the notion that people were entitled to health care, food, and housing. I'm pretty sure his name was Jesus.

[PLOL]

God you're a terrible poster.

[DirtyB]

God you're a terrible poster.

You've made so little impact on me that I can't even say if you're a good or bad poster. Thanks for voicing your opinion.

[Dan Druff]

Well that's over. All of the worst things we've suspected of him are pretty much true. If you're not rich, he honestly doesn't give a shit about you.

CNN Link

In the footage, taped with a hidden camera, Romney argued nearly half of Americans will vote for President Barack Obama because they rely on government support, made apparent jokes about wishing he had Latino heritage, and talks about a Chinese factory his former firm purchased.

"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what," Romney says in one clip. "There are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent on government, who believe that, that they are victims, who believe that government has the responsibility to care for them. Who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing."

There was this guy who was big on the notion that people were entitled to health care, food, and housing. I'm pretty sure his name was Jesus.

High chance that Romney loses the election. This definitely won't help.

However, he's pretty much correct with his statements.

He was trying to define his appeal to voters. He was saying that the people already paying no income tax are much more likely to gravitate toward Obama, and that he might as well give up on trying to spend time and money getting those people to vote for him. He was explaining that he's attempting to appeal to the 5-10% of the country who consider themselves independents, because his message about personal responsibility and self sufficiency might resonate with them.

His statement about people believing they are "entitled to health care, food, and housing" might sound callous, but he's also correct there. There are many people in this country who are happy to do nothing and let the government take care of them, if it means being provided with basic necessities. Indeed, if you were faced with the choice of working a crappy, low-paying job, or sitting home and collecting government benefits that buy you nearly the same basic lifestyle, which would you choose? This is the problem with guaranteeing everyone a basic standard of living. The lowest wage-earners will simply choose not to work, and will instead let the government take care of them.

It's really too bad, because I believe Romney would handle the economy a lot better than Obama, but he just doesn't have the charisma or relatability with the common man to win this thing.

[TUFFTURF]

[michael]

I don't know man. Kind of seems like "fake outrage make it a story" kind of thing.

The Republicans agree with those comments and still will after seeing the videos.

The Democrats disagree with those comments and still will after seeing the videos.

He didn't really criticize independents.

On a sidenote it was interesting to hear him talk in what I assume is his normal speaking pattern without the awkward self conscious afraid of the cameras vibe.

[RobbieBensonFan]

I don't know man. Kind of seems like "fake outrage make it a story" kind of thing.

The Republicans agree with those comments and still will after seeing the videos.

The Democrats disagree with those comments and still will after seeing the videos.

He didn't really criticize independents.

On a sidenote it was interesting to hear him talk in what I assume is his normal speaking pattern without the awkward self conscious afraid of the cameras vibe.

spot on. Just like when Obama said "you did not build your business" and guys like Dirty B embraced it, no Republican is going to think twice about Romney saying half of Americans dont pay taxes and like the fact they dont pay taxes.

There is simply a large faction of people that like government paying their way in life and another faction that like paying for those people. Some people are simply predisposed to central planning.

[Steve-O]

Well that's over. All of the worst things we've suspected of him are pretty much true. If you're not rich, he honestly doesn't give a shit about you.

CNN Link

In the footage, taped with a hidden camera, Romney argued nearly half of Americans will vote for President Barack Obama because they rely on government support, made apparent jokes about wishing he had Latino heritage, and talks about a Chinese factory his former firm purchased.

"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what," Romney says in one clip. "There are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent on government, who believe that, that they are victims, who believe that government has the responsibility to care for them. Who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing."

There was this guy who was big on the notion that people were entitled to health care, food, and housing. I'm pretty sure his name was Jesus.

High chance that Romney loses the election. This definitely won't help.

However, he's pretty much correct with his statements.

He was trying to define his appeal to voters. He was saying that the people already paying no income tax are much more likely to gravitate toward Obama, and that he might as well give up on trying to spend time and money getting those people to vote for him. He was explaining that he's attempting to appeal to the 5-10% of the country who consider themselves independents, because his message about personal responsibility and self sufficiency might resonate with them.

His statement about people believing they are "entitled to health care, food, and housing" might sound callous, but he's also correct there. There are many people in this country who are happy to do nothing and let the government take care of them, if it means being provided with basic necessities. Indeed, if you were faced with the choice of working a crappy, low-paying job, or sitting home and collecting government benefits that buy you nearly the same basic lifestyle, which would you choose? This is the problem with guaranteeing everyone a basic standard of living. The lowest wage-earners will simply choose not to work, and will instead let the government take care of them.

It's really too bad, because I believe Romney would handle the economy a lot better than Obama, but he just doesn't have the charisma or relatability with the common man to win this thing.

InTrade had Obama as a 66/34 favorite and Nate Silver's 538 has him 75/25. Pretty much all you need to know until the debates

[DirtyB]

I don't know man. Kind of seems like "fake outrage make it a story" kind of thing.

The Republicans agree with those comments and still will after seeing the videos.

The Democrats disagree with those comments and still will after seeing the videos.

He didn't really criticize independents.

On a sidenote it was interesting to hear him talk in what I assume is his normal speaking pattern without the awkward self conscious afraid of the cameras vibe.

I disagree. I think tons of people anywhere close to the political center will be disgusted that someone who wants to be President would ever say ""My job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

[HEX]

God you're a terrible poster.

The irony

[SixToedPete]

Intrade has often been wrong with a variety of predictions. Nate Silver of 538 has had success in sports but just starting predicting political stuff right before the 2008 Presidential election.

University of Colorado prediction model points to big Romney win

Here's the news release of the study that has correctly predicted the winner of every presidential election since 1980.

I like Nate Silver (he's a successful poker player btw), but the guy does work for the radical left-wing NYT. I'm wary of anything I read in that liberal propaganda rag. Nate also has a huge ego so it was no surprise he slammed the University of Colorado prediction model.

Most of Nate's criticisms were complete bullshit. He thinks he's the top dog political prognosticator. He's good but he makes many mistakes.

One huge factor in Obama's favor is that the liberal MSM will not report his many failures (dismal economic policies, lack of leadership, abysmal foreign policy, high unemployment, destruction of online poker, the list is endless) but will instead misdirect viewers and readers with faux stories about Romney's tax returns, his dog, his wife's horses or anything they can twist and spin.

Recent polls reveal this is still a close race.

[PLOL]

I love when people say InTrade is "wrong". If InTrade shows something as a 70% chance of happening and then it doesn't happen, it doesn't mean they were wrong. That's like if somebody has a flush draw against your set and they hit and you say "Well, I guess the percentages were wrong".

[SixToedPete]

I don't know man. Kind of seems like "fake outrage make it a story" kind of thing.

The Republicans agree with those comments and still will after seeing the videos.

The Democrats disagree with those comments and still will after seeing the videos.

He didn't really criticize independents.

On a sidenote it was interesting to hear him talk in what I assume is his normal speaking pattern without the awkward self conscious afraid of the cameras vibe.

I disagree. I think tons of people anywhere close to the political center will be disgusted that someone who wants to be President would ever say ""My job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

Perfect example of what I posted earlier. Obama supporters including most of the main stream media will jump all over Romney and say he's heartless when it comes to poor people but they completely ignore how Obama actually did treat a very poor person...his own brother.



Is Ideology Thicker Than Blood?

A question for the house: What kind of person refuses to contribute so much as a penny to help a blood relative in need? Who among you would let a parent, a sibling, or one of your children become destitute and not at least try to contribute some measure of help? What dulled morals and abortive humanity must invade people before they lose that protective nature that even a dumb beast in the wild musters when its young are threatened. I know for a fact that such people exist. I just read about one, and he resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Read more...

[Steve-O]

Intrade has often been wrong with a variety of predictions. Nate Silver of 538 has had success in sports but just starting predicting political stuff right before the 2008 Presidential election.

University of Colorado prediction model points to big Romney win

Here's the news release of the study that has correctly predicted the winner of every presidential election since 1980.

I like Nate Silver (he's a successful poker player btw), but the guy does work for the radical left-wing NYT. I'm wary of anything I read in that liberal propaganda rag. Nate also has a huge ego so it was no surprise he slammed the University of Colorado prediction model.

Most of Nate's criticisms were complete bullshit. He thinks he's the top dog political prognosticator. He's good but he makes many mistakes.

One huge factor in Obama's favor is that the liberal MSM will not report his many failures (dismal economic policies, lack of leadership, abysmal foreign policy, high unemployment, destruction of online poker, the list is endless) but will instead misdirect viewers and readers with faux stories about Romney's tax returns, his dog, his wife's horses or anything they can twist and spin.

Recent polls reveal this is still a close race.

Please show me these "often wrong" examples at intrade when the predictive market is 66/34? Maybe on things that are virtual tossups they can be wrong (which is expected), but I doubt you'll find many examples of intrade being wrong on 66/34 shots, most will be 54/46 type numbers.

Nate Silver may not have a long track record BUT, when you predict this amount of outcomes he has a pretty good sample size: something like 34 out of 36 senate races in 2010 (the super close Buck/Bennett was one and Harry Reid was the other); 49 out of 50 states correct in 2008 presidential election; 36 out of 37 Gubernatorial races in 2010.

The Colorado study is 8-for-8, a nice record but considering only 2000 and 2004 were overly close it's not all that impressive.

[Texter]

Romney is a total stiff, the fact that polls are even close is a testament to what a shitty job the current commander in chief is doing on the economy...businesses know the fed can't prop up the economy forever...

[SixToedPete]

I love when people say InTrade is "wrong". If InTrade shows something as a 70% chance of happening and then it doesn't happen, it doesn't mean they were wrong. That's like if somebody has a flush draw against your set and they hit and you say "Well, I guess the percentages were wrong".

While I understand your point and agree you are technically correct, it's also acceptable to say Intrade sometimes gets it wrong. By that I mean their prediction statistics (especially when heavily favoring one outcome over another) are often used by media pundits as a solid prediction. There is an implied pick for the favorite. So when a 30% outcome beats a 70% chance, it's not a stretch to say Intrade was wrong. But again, you are technically correct because Intrade's model just gives their best percentages for each possible result.

Staying with your poker analogy, on a poker TV broadcast, if a 30% hand beats the guy who shoved with a 70% chance even announcer Mike Sexton will say 'so and so' was wrong that time.

There are a finite number of possibilities in poker. In the long run, that guy will be right 7 out of 10 times. He was wrong that time but he made a correct bet.

Elections are a little different because so many factors change since the last race. The poker comparison still works though.

[PLOL]

You also have to keep in mind that InTrade is not some "supreme deity", it's simply a collection of it's users who are setting the percentages. And if you believe the percentages are incorrect, then you can go on InTrade and make some money.

Staying with your poker analogy, on a poker TV broadcast, if a 30% hand beats the guy who shoved with a 70% chance even announcer Mike Sexton will say 'so and so' was wrong that time.

I don't watch poker on TV, but if he says the guy with 70% was wrong that time, then Mike Sexton is an idiot.

[Steve-O]

You also have to keep in mind that InTrade is not some "supreme deity", it's simply a collection of it's users who are setting the percentages. And if you believe the percentages are incorrect, then you can go on InTrade and make some money.

Staying with your poker analogy, on a poker TV broadcast, if a 30% hand beats the guy who shoved with a 70% chance even announcer Mike Sexton will say 'so and so' was wrong that time.

I don't watch poker on TV, but if he says the guy with 70% was wrong that time, then Mike Sexton is an idiot.

I actually said yesterday that if gets near 70/30 before the debates I think Romney is a good bet --which I then clarified that this doesn't mean I think Romney will win. Earlier it was 68/32ish and I'm thinking of buying some Romney

[manowar]

I don't know man. Kind of seems like "fake outrage make it a story" kind of thing.

The Republicans agree with those comments and still will after seeing the videos.

The Democrats disagree with those comments and still will after seeing the videos.

He didn't really criticize independents.

On a sidenote it was interesting to hear him talk in what I assume is his normal speaking pattern without the awkward self conscious afraid of the cameras vibe.

Spot on analysis. This is exactly like Obama's you didn't build your business comment.

[SixToedPete]

Intrade has often been wrong with a variety of predictions. Nate Silver of 538 has had success in sports but just starting predicting political stuff right before the 2008 Presidential election.

University of Colorado prediction model points to big Romney win

Here's the news release of the study that has correctly predicted the winner of every presidential election since 1980.

I like Nate Silver (he's a successful poker player btw), but the guy does work for the radical left-wing NYT. I'm wary of anything I read in that liberal propaganda rag. Nate also has a huge ego so it was no surprise he slammed the University of Colorado prediction model.

Most of Nate's criticisms were complete bullshit. He thinks he's the top dog political prognosticator. He's good but he makes many mistakes.

One huge factor in Obama's favor is that the liberal MSM will not report his many failures (dismal economic policies, lack of leadership, abysmal foreign policy, high unemployment, destruction of online poker, the list is endless) but will instead misdirect viewers and readers with faux stories about Romney's tax returns, his dog, his wife's horses or anything they can twist and spin.

Recent polls reveal this is still a close race.

Please show me these "often wrong" examples at intrade when the predictive market is 66/34? Maybe on things that are virtual tossups they can be wrong (which is expected), but I doubt you'll find many examples of intrade being wrong on 66/34 shots, most will be 54/46 type numbers.

Nate Silver may not have a long track record BUT, when you predict this amount of outcomes he has a pretty good sample size: something like 34 out of 36 senate races in 2010 (the super close Buck/Bennett was one and Harry Reid was the other); 49 out of 50 states correct in 2008 presidential election; 36 out of 37 Gubernatorial races in 2010.

The Colorado study is 8-for-8, a nice record but considering only 2000 and 2004 were overly close it's not all that impressive.

Sure, I'll be happy to but first let me point out that in your question you edited what I said. I said "Intrade has often been wrong with a variety of predictions". You added the "66/34" part.

Intrade was wrong (or in deference to PLOL, the underdog won) when they predicted the Obamacare individual mandate would be struck down. In that example Intrade predicted a 77/23 in favor of the Supreme Court striking it down. Not even close.

Want more? OK.

GOP Retention of Senate (2006)

Michael Jackson Trial Results

Morgan Stanley CEO Purcell resignation

Howard Dean’s Iowa Primary

pre-Election 2004

Election day trading frenzy