Strong Evidence Paul is Most Electable of GOP Field

[jabowery]

Gamblers are saying that if Ron Paul is the GOP nominee, then he stands the best chance of winning the general election of any candidate in the GOP field.

Note, these are guys who are putting their money on the line right now.

This conclusion is reached by applying Bayes Theorem (calculating conditional -- if/then -- probability) to the current betting odds at Intrade.com. See the derivation by Randall Burns at VDARE in this blog entry:

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2007/11/15/immigration-restrictionists-lead-electability-of-both-parties/

Simply advertising this fact can better the odds of Ron Paul being nominated.

[Primbs]

We need to make that understandable to the average Republican voter who is worried about Ron Paul's electability.

[jabowery]

We need to make that understandable to the average Republican voter who is worried about Ron Paul's electability.

I'm hoping ronpaulgraphs.com will provide a graph that does the math so Ron Paul's electability market score is presented graphically along with the other candidates.

A click through can be provided to explain the derivation.

Perhaps better yet would be to get intrade.com to provide such graphs as a matter of course because such Bayesian derivations are so commonly used in market systems for purposes of arbitrage.

Ultimately, though, it is not the average Republican we need to convince but the Republican party strategists. They have to come to understand that the best prediction tool available to them -- prediction markets like Intrade -- are telling them their best chance to retain control of the Presidency and regain control of the Congress, is nominating Ron Paul.

[noztnac]

80%+ Americans oppose the war in Iraq.

I'd say any pro war candidate will find getting elected virtually impossible.

[jabowery]

80%+ Americans oppose the war in Iraq.

I'd say any pro war candidate will find getting elected virtually impossible.

Can't nail the jellyfish to the wall so simply.

When looking at a vote for a candidate you have to weight, then aggregate, the issues. A broadly supported issue might not be a "meat and potatoes" issue to any but a minority.

Prediction markets deal with all such nuances or they lose money.

They are exactly the kind of thing serious strategists must look at.

[jabowery]

Ron Paul's electability quotient (Election Odds / Nomination Odds) just increased to over 10% above the rest of the GOP candidates:

Here are the current data sorted by Electability (Election Price/Nomination Price):

Nomination Election Candidate Electability
6.9 3.6 Paul 52.2
6.0 2.5 Thompson 41.7
40.5 16.6 Giuliani 41.0
30.1 11.0 Romney 36.5
8.7 3.0 Huckabee 34.5
7.9 2.3 McCain 29.1

[noztnac]

You convince the voters who understand "Nomination Election Candidate Electibility" charts and I will keep plugging away with my caveman logic tactic of "80%+ Americans oppose the war in Iraq.

I'd say any pro war candidate will find getting elected virtually impossible."

In other words- You convince the smart people. I'll go after the dumb ones.

My general theory is that smart people are already going to vote for Ron Paul anyway and that there are a lot of dumb people out there who need to be convinced.

Together we can round them all up. :)

[Indy Vidual]

You convince the voters who understand "Nomination Election Candidate Electibility" charts and I will keep plugging away with my caveman logic tactic of "80%+ Americans oppose the war in Iraq.

I'd say any pro war candidate will find getting elected virtually impossible."

In other words- You convince the smart people. I'll go after the dumb ones.

My general theory is that smart people are already going to vote for Ron Paul anyway and that there are a lot of dumb people out there who need to be convinced.

Together we can round them all up. :)

Good point, we need the Homer, Bart and Marge Simpson vote.
Lisa will be with us only if you reminder her that abortion is not a federal issue. :)

[jabowery]

My general theory is that smart people are already going to vote for Ron Paul anyway and that there are a lot of dumb people out there who need to be convinced.


There are a lot of smart people working as political strategists who know they are between a rock and a hard place in this election because they are serving special interests that are bailing out of the Republican party and contributing to Democrats because those special interests can see the Republicans aren't serious about winning. But they know their new task masters are hostile to them and it is _very_ painful for them to suck up to the likes of Hillary.

A Republican win can offer them hope of a Republican Congress which would not be nearly as hostile to them. However, it is becoming clear that the pro-war special interests are stuck with Hillary because none of the pro-war Republicans are remotely viable as presidential candidates according to the prediction markets.

[kylejack]

Let's not link to sites like VDARE, please. Or in Hot Topics, if you must.