« Voting paradox | Main | Please, No Politicians In My Family» Don Boudreaux
January 03, 2008
Just for fun
Russell Roberts
Let's see who gets the closest (from Real Clear Politics):
Posted by Russell Roberts in Politics | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/23120/24772422
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Just for fun:
Comments
Don't forget to compare the results to the futures markets to see if the free market is a better indicator of actual results:
http://www.intrade.com//?request_operation=main&request_type=action&checkHomePage=true
and
http://specials.slate.com/futures/2008/republican-presidential-nominee/ddd
Posted by: Ed | Jan 3, 2008 6:40:59 PM
I think oil futures won today….
Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Jan 3, 2008 9:48:31 PM
Also, I’m fairly certain that Iowa Caucasers (Caucasians? Caucasors? Caucologists?) never huddled beneath the buttonwood tree…
Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Jan 3, 2008 9:54:00 PM
Obama and Huckabee have won Iowa.
Here's a(nother) prediction:
Huckabee will win the Arkansas primary. Then he will lose to Missouri, 38-7 in a rushing-dominated game.
And he will not win one single other state primary.
Not so sure about Oprah....
Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Jan 3, 2008 10:12:32 PM
Russ, from your posting it looks like the Des Moines Register "won" the competition, right? Logically, that makes sense as they should be able to poll their own residents in the most effective manner, espeically given the quirky nature of how people vote in a caucus.
Posted by: tw | Jan 3, 2008 10:15:45 PM
Some interesting CNN entrance poll results for Ron Paul:
Among self-labelled "moderates" who voted Republican, Paul led in a tie with Romney (26% each).
Among voters 17-29 Paul got 21% of the vote, versus McCain with 7% and Thompson with just 4%.
Dr. Paul got 54% of the vote among voters for Republicans who said they are "angry" with President Bush, versus only 13% for McCain and even less for the other Republican candidates.
Paul scored higher among voters whose top issue was "Economy" than among voters whose top issue was "War in Iraq"
Paul at 29% led all the Republicans among voters who labeled themselves as "Independent" (vs. 19% for Romney and 17% for Huckabee).
Compared to other Republicans Paul had a higher percentage of low-income than high-income voters (interesting in light of Paul's fundraising prowess).
0% of Paul voters labeled themselves as "liberal" (contrary to theory that much of Paul's support comes from anti-war liberals crossing over from the Democrats).
More at
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#val=IAREP
Posted by: legaleagle | Jan 3, 2008 11:43:13 PM
Huckabee is not electable.
Posted by: Russ Nelson | Jan 4, 2008 3:15:47 AM
interesting facts about Ron Paul, legaleagle.
a factoid I found interesting is that a full 1/3 of Iowans are registered independents and can't vote in the primary at all.
Posted by: Methinks | Jan 4, 2008 9:11:29 AM
Ron Paul Hit double digits ...
I'll take that as a victory... of sorts.
Posted by: Jon | Jan 4, 2008 9:15:04 AM
As a Pauli, I don't know whether my guy beat expectations, but I'd have been happier if he had placed third, because he'd then have earned lots of free air time.
Morally obliged to vote for the candidate of my choice? No. I'm not morally obliged to vote for anyone. My vote is largely inconsequential. If I wrote in the name of Jesus or Hitler, my vote would be precisely as consequential, and if I voted for the candidate of my choice, I might choose Russ Roberts over Ron Paul. I don't much like Paul's talk on immigration, and I think a gold standard is folly, and I don't want to repeal the income tax, only to reform it into a progressive consumption tax. To vote for my sincerest choice for Supreme Leader of the New American Century, I'd write in my own name ... but then I'd have to shoot myself.
Posted by: Martin Brock | Jan 4, 2008 3:52:34 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
