Posted on 01/21/2008 9:03:54 AM PST by Momaw Nadon
According to the current trading prices of the futures contracts, an estimate can be found of what traders are betting will be the outcome of 2008 Presidential Election.
If the traders are correct, the Republican Presidential candidate would receive 234 Electoral Votes and the Democratic Presidential candidate would receive 304 Electoral Votes.
If the weighted probabilities of the Republican Presidential candidate winning in the states are added up, and then divided by 538, and multiplied by 100, then the Republican Presidential candidate should get 235.08 Electoral Votes.
270 Electoral Votes are needed to win the Presidency.
Opinions and commentary are welcome.
2008 Projected Presidential Electoral Votes as of 1/14/2008
2008 Projected Presidential Electoral Votes as of 1/7/2008
The bid price is 45.0 and the ask price is 55.0. These average to 50.0.
Thus, the tie goes to the Democratic Presidential candidate due to voter fraud.
Let's see what the numbers start to say once we actually know for sure who the real candidates turn out to be.
President Bush better put a bunch of stuff in place now.
Ohio, Colorado, New Mexico, Missouri, and Iowa all trending blue. It doesn’t look good for the GOP this November, no matter who the nominee is.
1. The trend is in our favor.
2. This is a bit ridiculous at this stage since we don’t have nominations.
That’s a swing of 35 EV. That’s not too bad.
The last few polls have shown one of two Republicans winning OH. But it’s been mixed. Still, it’s way too early to put OH in the Dem column, esp. if the candidate is Clinton.
Fuggettaboudit.
Romney brings the north (MI, IA, MO)
Game over.
Romney might have a good chance in Ohio as well, if hecontinues to talk about economic issues.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html
Romney can’t win squat in the general election.
Romney is a machine, and after tomorrow, nobody will care about anything but the economy.
What's so special about tomorrow?
Pre-mature speculation. I hear they have drugs for this now.
Nope. It's "Electile Disfunction" - mostly affects RuPaul.
Once Hillary is declared the Dem nominee I bet a number of those states turn red.
Or Obama for that matter in fact he might have a harder time given the racial preferences of the swing voters of this state.
Stock markets are plunging worldwide. Luckily, our stock exchanges aren't open today. Tomorrow's open should be a real bear.
Yeah. If you think they don’t like a mormon here, well . . . .
IMHO, Missouri and Ohio are not as solid ‘rat’ as the Intrade folks think. Still, that just gets the Republican to 268 EVs.
I am surprised they have Nevada remaining red, or at least pink. Many other analysts seem to think they will flip over this year since the state is trending Demo. Pretty sad. Of course Presidents Reagan and GHW Bush won it by large margins from ‘80-88 but the current President Bush barely took the state.
I would not write off MO or OH so fast. I think also if Tim Pawlenty is the nominee for VP the Repubs could take MN, and maybe WI. That is if millions of us do not stay home or vote third party. With the line up of choices now looking pretty poor, I can easily envision that scenario happening though, sad to say.
Yup.
LOL.
After spending a mountain of money and practically living in Iowa, Mitt only got 25% of the Republican vote after leading with large margins up until the last few weeks. It seemed that the more the Hawkeye voters saw of Mitt Romney, the less they liked him which doesn't bode well in the general election if Romney is the nominee.
The Missourians that I know would punch you in the nose if you told them Missouri is in the north. Missouri is a possible win for any of the Republican candidates but it is very much a purple state and go easily go blue this fall. Romney won't carry Michigan in the general election, whether it is his home state or not.
Do we have to look forward to 52 posts of this per year?
Except I don’t see how voting for the democrat party who doesn’t even think we should be sovereign in the first place improves things! (Voting for democrats = not voting ..is a “de facto” vote for democrats!)
The inability to become aroused over any of the choices for president put forth by either party in the 2008 election year.
Well, not 52.
The last weekly projection will be on Monday, November 3, 2008.
Worst day on the stock market since 2001, maybe ever (in point terms).
My mistake - I meant MN. Dont hurt me :) Also forgot WI.
Don't worry, I'm not a Missourian. I don't see Romney having any realistic chance in the northern tier states.
Michigan: This might be Romney's home state but I strongly doubt he would carry it in the general election. Getting less than 40% of the vote in your own party in your own state is not impressive for three reasons. First, almost all that margin came in the last few days. Electors shouldn't be making last-minute decisions if the candidate were a very popular home-grown candidate. Second, since the Democrat race was basically a walk-over, lots of Democrats were crossing over playing games in the Republican primary. Many of them probably heeded the advice to vote against the general election candidate the Democrats most fear: John McCain. Third, Romney greatly out-spent his rivals. None of this bodes well for Romney's general election chances.
Minnesota and Wisconsin: What does Romney provide to make you think that he could win these states? Minnesota hasn't voted Republican since 1972. Wisconsin has become less and less blue over the years but the Republicans have yet to break through since Reagan. Romney hasn't shown in the primaries the ability to rally the Republican base or to draw large numbers of independents, both of which are probably necessary to capture these states.
You make good points, but I really think the economy is going to be shouting loud enough here to make the difference. Also, I honestly don’t see blue collar states pulling the lever for Hillary - it’s a sexist thing. Those two factors alone I believe will be enough to push them over. Finally, if Romney is smart, and I truly believe that he is, he’ll coordinate with every local republican candidate to energize turnout. In the end, that’s all that matters is turnout anyway - whoever gets it, wins it.
As to MN, maybe that IS is bit of wishful thinking on my part. I lived three years in Rochester and the folks down in that corner of the state aren’t nearly as touched as the Twin Cities nuts.
No way Romney wins Iowa.
Once the evangelicals don’t have Huckabee to pay attention to, do you really expect them to vote for Hillary? No way. Any halfway decent outreach effort is going to get them, unless Romney comes out strong against farm subsidies, in which case you are right.
Tanks for the ping.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.