How do we know this is a tie? Check the election markets....

[scheming daemons]

Rasmussen (as of right now):

Clinton 51.1
Obama 48.8


This was 61-39 for Hillary on February 3rd.


When people are forced to put their money where their mouth is, they indicate Hillary's 22-point lead has fallen to less than 3 in the past 3 days.


Spin (including spin by Obama supporters by me) is just spin.


The election markets tell you what people REALLY think about last night's results. Obama went from a 39% chance of getting the nomination to a 49% chance in 72 hours.


That's the most OBJECTIVE analysis there is.


http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/latest_results_from_rasmussen_markets

[JorgeTheGood]

1. a 22 point lead was never realistic

it was intentionally skewed that way to lower the bar for Obama.

I seriously doubt anyone ever really believed the 22 point lead.

[Teaser]

3. It was not intentionally skewed

You think Obama fans were intentionally selling Obama contracts to lower his price?

[JorgeTheGood]

9. Let me get this straight ...

All the professional pollsters can't get it right but I'm supposed to believe a bunch of amateurs playing fantasy politics ?

[Teaser]

10. uh, read for content

where did I say you should believe them?

I said it was not intentionally skewed.

Don't waste my time by replying to posts I didn't make.

[JorgeTheGood]

12. Yer losing me ...

how can I reply to a post that you didn't make ???

And what is the purpose of your post(s) if you don't care if people believe you?

[Teaser]

13. words made simple

you say:
"it was intentionally skewed that way to lower the bar for Obama.

I seriously doubt anyone ever really believed the 22 point lead."

I say:

"It was not intentionally skewed. You think Obama fans were intentionally selling Obama contracts to lower his price?"

You reply:

"All the professional pollsters can't get it right but I'm supposed to believe a bunch of amateurs playing fantasy politics ?"


And my last reply was one of confusion. Your reply has nothing to do with my previous post. I said nothing about whether you should believe them or not. In fact, elsewhere I dismissed the markets as a predictive tool. I *did* say that the price was not "intentionally" manipulated. You never responded to that statement.

[scheming daemons]

11. How is people making bets with their money "Intentionally skewed"?

The is a reflection of what people believe is going on.

My original post was simply stating: The American people decided that Obama was the winner last night. They put their hard-earned money on the line based on their perception of the race.

The perception of the race on Feb 3 was that Clinton had a 61% chance of getting the nomination. The perception now is that she has a 51% chance.


Clinton and Obama are stocks. Obama's stock went up after yesterday, Clinton's went down. That's the perception the American people have of what happened on Super Tuesday.

She went from "prohibitive favorite" to the race being a "pick em".

That's a win for Obama.

[Teaser]

2. I don't believe these markets have any predictive value

They fluctuate, and only close on a value days before an election. Usually this is when conventional wisdom has settled as well, and most of us know who is going to win or lose in that period.

All they are, as far as I am concerned, is a barometer of conventional wisdom. Which is fine, but there are others.

[calmblueocean]

4. You are so right. I don't know why people put stock in those sites.

They don't show any predictive power at all. If they did, they wouldn't change after every primary and caucus.

[alcibiades_mystery]

7. People read "The Wisdom of Crowds" and think these markets are the end all and be all

The OP even suggests that a market price is somehow an "objective analysis," which is, of course, an absurdity on its face. By that reckoning, pre-Copernican astronomy was an "objective analysis" of the solar system. It's nonsense.

[reality based]

5. How did Rasmussen's own polls do last night? n/t

[alcibiades_mystery]

6. What people really think is suddenly an objective analysis?

Like the price of a stock is an "objective" analysis of the company's "true" value, yeah?

Objective. I don't think that word means what you think it means. :rofl:

[cloudythescribbler]

8. For an analysis of WHY Obama is now the candidate to beat, see:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4429972