Holy Disney World! Polls show Romney surging

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Is it possible intrade is not leading but following? Intrade seemed to take a long time to react to the Rasmussen poll the other day showing Romney five over McCain, and also didn't seem to react to Thompson announcement. Maybe due to low trading volumes, intrade is not as efficient as we think?

Good question Jay. But I don't see why it would put Romney is such a good position this morning given that the most recent polls had favored McCain. New polls have come in showing it pretty much a dead heat.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...imary-260.html

Once that 1/20 Survey USA poll falls off, Romney will take the RCP Average lead. His trends are better than McCain's.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Intrade is best described as "prevailing conventional wisdom". Which of course doesn't always match reality.

MW in some sense that's true. By reality, I think you mean ex post outcomes or you might mean the true ex ante probabilities based on the correct assessment of all information relevant for determining who will win the election. In either case, there is not much to disagree with. However, intrade, by far, is going to be your best predictor unless you have a serious private information advantage (and then you should trading off of it which would make the prices more efficient.) It is going to be the best ex ante signal. Jay, is certainly correct that the market doesn't have great "depth" and that certainly limits the efficiency of the market. However, there is empirical evidence from the 2004 presidential election that it responds quickly to new information and gives a better assessment of the importance of new information than other sources.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Is it possible intrade is not leading but following? Intrade seemed to take a long time to react to the Rasmussen poll the other day showing Romney five over McCain, and also didn't seem to react to Thompson announcement. Maybe due to low trading volumes, intrade is not as efficient as we think?

I looked at the Intrade site and it appears that it follows polling almost simultaneously. Romney's trend started upward with the polls earlier this week, and continued upward. At the same time, McCain has come back to even with (as the polls) and even dipping below Romney. It's at 52-40 asking (47-39 bidding) right now. I doubt this is all just wishful thinking.

[woot]

Originally Posted by Tex

It's as I thought. He said the same thing (roughly) that Santorum said, and it's being misunderstood.

He did not "equate" those different types of sexual deviancy. He said if we recognize one, we have to recognize them all. Or in other words, that the argument made for one to be legitimized is the same as the argument made for another.

That's different than saying the acts themselves are the same thing.

But the arguments made for gay marriage are not remotely similar to the arguments that would be necessary to advocate "man on dog." That's the point.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by woot

But the arguments made for gay marriage are not remotely similar to the arguments that would be necessary to advocate "man on dog." That's the point.

Sure they are, loosely speaking. There is no way in my mind that we could legitmize homosexual marriage and still hold the dike for polygamy. Ditto prostitution. Beastiality is a longer stretch, but it still falls under that same heading: "as long as I'm not hurting anyone, let me love and have sex the way I want."

That's not to say beastiality = homosexuality anymore than polygamy = homosexuality.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by pelagius

MW in some sense that's true. By reality, I think you mean ex post outcomes or you might mean the true ex ante probabilities based on the correct assessment of all information relevant for determining who will win the election. In either case, there is not much to disagree with. However, intrade, by far, is going to be your best predictor unless you have a serious private information advantage (and then you should trading off of it which would make the prices more efficient.) It is going to be the best ex ante signal. Jay, is certainly correct that the market doesn't have great "depth" and that certainly limits the efficiency of the market. However, there is empirical evidence from the 2004 presidential election that it responds quickly to new information and gives a better assessment of the importance of new information than other sources.

I trust you but by my observation it just seems a little sluggish to react. For example, Florida is finally turning Romney's way today, but in the overall race, nothing's changed with McCain almost double Romney's chances. And the California race which has some trading volume also, hasn't reacted. Certainly a Florida loss for McCain would affect his overall chances.

[woot]

Originally Posted by Tex

Sure they are, loosely speaking. There is no way in my mind that we could legitmize homosexual marriage and still hold the dike for polygamy. Ditto prostitution. Beastiality is a longer stretch, but it still falls under that same heading: "as long as I'm not hurting anyone, let me love and have sex the way I want."

That's not to say beastiality = homosexuality anymore than polygamy = homosexuality.

Marriage should be between two consenting adults. That's all anyone is arguing. Good luck trying to argue that such a definition would allow man on dog or man on 3 women. Not sure what prostitution has to do with any of this.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by YOhio

Huck's quote:

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/228/story_22873_2.html

Aha... Your basic religious right fear-mongering.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by woot

Marriage should be between two consenting adults. That's all anyone is arguing. Good luck trying to argue that such a definition would allow man on dog or man on 3 women. Not sure what prostitution has to do with any of this.

(Playing Devil's Advocate here) How come we can expand the definition to 2 consenting adults, and not 3?

[woot]

Originally Posted by Tex

(Playing Devil's Advocate here) How come we can expand the definition to 2 consenting adults, and not 3?

Marriage is a cultural creation. If the masses want to expand it to 3, they will. I don't see it happening. Most of the enlightened populace has realized that discriminating against those who want to marry an individual of the same sex should be able to. Those who don't want them to be able to have yet to provide any intelligent argument. They appeal to tradition, or they appeal to nonsense like yours where once you change something once, the floodgates are open and it's bound to be changed repeatedly and before long all the liberals will be marrying their turtles. This is not sound logic.