Illegal immigration is a hot button that all the candidates are willing to press, I don't see a lot of leverage there.  

... More specifically, I guess I have assumed that dealing with the ire on this issue coming from the "anglo" working class GOP rank and file dwarfed that concern (of alienating potentially swing-voting hispanics). I take it you think this segment which is up in arms about this is small enough not to be a significant driving factor in policy, or even enduring rhetoric? I confess I'm not familiar enough with the hard numbers (of who cares fervently about this issue, by voting preference). It would be useful to see this kind of info. But at least from anecdotal observance, they seem like a hugely vocal contingent on the internet - and from my personal experience, in public. I agree with the nexus Dessalines points to between the big donors and the tack the party is going to take on this issue. Still I don't see why a Tancredo or a Hunter can't make better hay out of this by talking it up non-stop. Remember that these long-shot candidates (like Dodd and Richardson from the other side) have everything to gain by going for broke and tacking further away from the middle in order to stay in the game longer. I guess they are trying but the money issue means that no one will hear it. Still, if the constituency is large and motivated enough (which I thought it was), why aren't they actively seeking out these second-tier candidates and at least finding them on the internet, if not on their TVs? Nearly everyone has some web access, even if it's the local library. I guess that's the thing I don't get. The Tancredo/Hunter/Paul trio is pretty "pure" on this issue, but their polling total is in single digits. I could swear that even the portion of the GOP primary voters for whom this is a viable "single issue" would be twice that much, easily. Clearly I'm still missing something. 

Nobody thinks Hunter is viable. .... Its possible he could have become a contender with better fundraising, but most of his hope for that was undermined by his announcing he wouldn't run for reelection and thus hampering his ability to squeeze the defense industry for contributions. It's not gonna happen, and it's not a big mystery; Let's move on. 

To me this just underscores how pathetically dependent this country is on their TV sets to tell them what to do, think and want. I keep thinking the advent of the internet would finally be the great "equalizer", where a candidate would no longer need millions to keep his face in front of viewers 24/7, since they can find him on the internet, and then (if his message resonates), word of mouth takes it from there. But I'm wrong. We are still a country of passive, mental-slavery-seeking drones.  

I guess this is the thought process that goes on with these (98% of) people: "Well, I like what this guy Hunter/Huckabee/Nader/Whomever is saying, but he's not on my TV set every night, so he must not be an option for me. I'll stick with this Classic Coke that they're telling me to drink. They say it's the most popular beverage, so it must be the appropriate one." 

I'm not really complaining, I just don't get it - at all. It doesn't come close to adding up. The rank and file is up in arms over illegal immigration, except... that they aren't. I'm just wondering which information I'm getting is faulty. 

He is a congressman from southern California without a high national profile and still has lower name recognition than Dennis Kucinich. There's simply no mystery here, issue positions and ideology alone do not a make presidential candidate an Hunter never had the right assets to compete. 

Voters don't care nearly as much about immigration right now as they do about other issues. Or for that matter - interestingly for our Giuliani debates - "moral/family values". At least, that's what they told the ABC/WaPo poll this past week. It's all about the economy (stupid), health care and Iraq. Immigration might be something they like to grouse about, but they won't vote about it, not this time around. .... "3. Thinking ahead to the November 2008 presidential election, what is the single most important issue in your choice for president? "  

It seems to me, at least this cycle, like issues have not really been important in driving anyone's candidacy 

Actually ko, Hunter's been drawing 3-4% in most polls during the past 2-3 weeks, so there's a measurable support out there for him. How he cuts through the busy but low-key media buzz of other second-tier candidates like Huckabee and Paul (although I note that a week ago Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post put Huckabee at #3 ahead of McCain and Thompson) is a bit questionable right now.  

I also wonder if he hits 5 or 6%, would that be the threshold to see some buy interest? That seems like a wide differential, 0.1 versus 5 or 6%.  

It seems like there is a loadup on the Ask side. The last time I looked at the contract there weren't that many contracts up for the asking.  

The followup question now would be, how long is the Hunter contract a bargain? If you think the target trade price is $4, then it wouldn't be really worth the risk at buying in at $3.50.  

What makes you think the price shoots up to 4 if he gets into this debate? 

That doesn't answer my question. All you say is that 'everyone will know he's at 5% in the polls'. So what?  

I he doesn't have a legitimate chance to win the nominations his numbers won't move much. What evidence is there that there's any plausible scenario under which he wins the nomination.  

McCain is in the high teens in national polls, but trades around 8, do you think that # is wrong as well?  

Polls are only one factor that go into valuation,  

and the mechanism is not nearly so quantifiable in terms of metrics as you seem to imply.  

What the price is supposed to reflect is the probability of the event occurring.  

Thus even if someone were polling at 20%, but we knew that that was a hard ceiling in terms of support, they should trade at a much lower price.  

So I ask again: What makes you think the price shoots up to 4 if he gets into this debate?  

As an aside, I've always wonder who's shorting these contracts at .1 and .2, what do they expect to gain. Unless that are MMs that pay no fees, they have already lost their entire max gain if they are price-taking, then they have to get out at some point or pay expiry. 

The price moved from .1 to .2, let's not get carried away here. Condoleeza Rice is still trading about 5 times that to win the GOP nomination.  

Anyway, I think Ron Paul's pricing is WAY to high and that is because people are making incorrect assumptions about his viability, namely that being well funded makes him a legitimate contender. I have said on many times on this forum that I think fair value for that contract is around 1 or less.  

You could argue that the same sort of irrationality is possible with Hunter. In a way, that's what I'm asking you to do. If you think there's some compelling reason that getting into this debate with polls numbers at 5% will cause his price to shoot up, please explain. What you've said to so far does not address this basic question. At least Paul is in the news and is building name ID and fundraising well, so it's understandable why people (incorrectly) see his candidacy as viable. I do believe Huckabee is a viable candidates, especially in light of recent Iowa poll that have him within a few points of Romeny, though I do think his contract is currently a little overpriced and have sold most of my substantial long position in recent weeks.  

Duncan Hunter, on the other, shows no real signs of viability other than the polls you mention, so it is difficult to see why you expect such a steep rise. I consider it plausible that his nomination contract could rise as high as 1 or so in a speculative bubble, but consider that to be relatively unlikely as well. That said, he may not be a horrible invest at .1, since you could probably get your money out anyway and it's pretty much all upside.  

Regardless, you have not provided any convincing reasons for why you are so bullish on him, you merely assert that there will be upward pressure from 'bargain hunters'. Doesn't that assume there's a bargain in the first place?  

What does Thompson have to do with this, buying Thompson or Hunter are not the only two options?  

If you don't want to answer my question, that's fine. But don't act you already have and attack me for requesting that you back up your claims with some sort of evidence or analysis. There may be a good argument to be made that Hunter is currently undervalued, I'm just asking you to actually make it instead of just asserting it.  

This is an interesting question. There was a related thread started back in August by politics_liquidity_trader (who seems to have since disappeared from the forum unfortunately). There are arb trades in many of the markets that only make sense if someone is trading commission free. I'll post a reply to that thread in a minute, so that you can take a look. Update: here's the link: https://bb.intrade.com/intradeForum/posts/list/1733.page 

How did you import that old thread? 

ko: This may only be a semantic distinction, but I don't see poll numbers as some sort of baseline around which other variables perturb valuations to arrive at the price/probability. I am also suspicious of the sort of formalism you are trying to apply to valuation. I see polls as one of many sources of information available to market participants that help them make subjective determinations about the underlying value or probability. This is the sense in which the markets are information aggregators. Though some participants have access to more data than others, all have imperfect information or else they would know for sure who the nominees are going to be. That is, these are effective rather than fundamental probabilities (more like rolling dice than quantum mechanics).  

On the Hunter contract in particular, my disagreement is not so much with the pace of the rise you expect as the upper bound. I cannot imagine a credible scenario under which Duncan Hunter wins the nomination, so I would place fair value below 1.  

That means he may be a bargain at .1, (it's hard for an announced candidate not be, but some succeed nonetheless) but I don't see traders lining up to go long at 1 or higher. It seems to me that there's only two ways you can disagree with me that get you to your expectation of a rise to significantly higher than 1: You can either dispute my fair value determination and contend that it should be closer to his poll numbers if he gets into this debate, or you can think that the sort of market irrationality that we have seen in the Paul, Rice and Gore contracts is likely to be exhibited in the Hunter nomination contract.  

Other than the fact that you like him and see him as a solid conservative that is a decent campaigner (these don't seem to be sufficient), why do you think at least one of these things is true / will happen.  

GAW838 wrote:

As an aside, I've always wonder who's shorting these contracts at .1 and .2, what do they expect to gain. Unless that are MMs that pay no fees, they have already lost their entire max gain if they are price-taking, then they have to get out at some point or pay expiry. 

This is an interesting question. There was a related thread started back in August by politics_liquidity_trader (who seems to have since disappeared from the forum unfortunately). There are arb trades in many of the markets that only make sense if someone is trading commission free. I'll post a reply to that thread in a minute, so that you can take a look. Update: here's the link: https://bb.intrade.com/intradeForum/posts/list/1733.page 

I don't know who this guy is named Field, but judging by the increases he's been seeing on Intrade, he must be gaining a lot of support out there. The funny thing about it though, is that he only seems to be catching on really strong in the states that don't show a listing for Huckabee! That's strange.  

GAW838 wrote:

As an aside, I've always wonder who's shorting these contracts at .1 and .2, what do they expect to gain. Unless that are MMs that pay no fees, they have already lost their entire max gain if they are price-taking, then they have to get out at some point or pay expiry. 

This is an interesting question. There was a related thread started back in August by politics_liquidity_trader (who seems to have since disappeared from the forum unfortunately). There are arb trades in many of the markets that only make sense if someone is trading commission free. I'll post a reply to that thread in a minute, so that you can take a look. Update: here's the link: https://bb.intrade.com/intradeForum/posts/list/1733.page 

Your post might have some value if you offered something like a ... reason.  

<<The smart money really IS on Duncan Hunter. >> I like Hunter. He has some interesting things to say. But he has NO chance. None. You might want to gauge voter sentiment on sites other than FreeRepublic! lol. Good luck. 

<<The smart money really IS on Duncan Hunter. >> LMFAO!  

<<The smart money really IS on Duncan Hunter. >> It takes a special kind of delusion to think that Duncan Hunter has a chance in any of this.  

It's one thing to fantasize about Ron Paul, who also has just about no chance of winning any caucus or primary, but Duncan Hunter? OMFG!!!  

You're confusing the way YOU think with the way OTHER people will vote. There is absolutely NOTHING to suggest that this will happen. He isn't even a 2nd tier candidate - he's completely off the radar. Moderates in Iowa? WHAT?!? "Party activists will gravitate towards Hunter?" WTF???  

Reason? This has nothing to do with reason. You should be handicapping how OTHER people will vote. Period. You are pushing a fantasy scenario, one in which you will profit, but there is no basis for your hopeful outcome. 

Hunter has no money, a weak/small organization, and there are no more debates left. He's polling 1% for God's sake! He is OFF THE RADAR! Traction??? What traction???He has about as much traction as summer performance tires on ice! Really, amigo. You're so far off base here, it's just hard to fathom why you would think something so bizarre. The best you can hope for is a tiny bump to close out your position for a small loss or breakeven. But I doubt that even that will happen. Sorry. I know since you're long you don't want to hear what I'm saying, but there it is. Good luck.  

Hunter has no money, a weak/small organization, and there are no more debates left. He's polling 1% for God's sake! He is OFF THE RADAR! Traction??? What traction???He has about as much traction as summer performance tires on ice!  

Really, amigo. You're so far off base here, it's just hard to fathom why you would think something so bizarre. The best you can hope for is a tiny bump to close out your position for a small loss or breakeven. But I doubt that even that will happen. Sorry. I know since you're long you don't want to hear what I'm saying, but there it is. Good luck.  

No... I am putting to use many years of political experience AND trading experience. I have traded futures and swaps for a living. You can follow the herd if you like. Thank you in advance for your money. My political sense is that the activists will be looking for another candidate to pop up once Huckabee has run his course. While he is fine on social issues, his spending and clemency record will (have) kill(ed) him. He is in severe decline even now. My trading sense tells me that the odds are too long on Hunter. More below.  

1> My point about moderates was clear enough. I can't help it if you don't read closely. Moderates matter insofar as activists believe that a candidate can appeal to them. Directly, they don't decide anything, especially in a caucus state. Nevertheless, they do matter indirectly. 2> Who do you think the 'field' represents? In IA, the field is 6. SC=50. NH=20. Florida=18. Nevada=26. Do you 'get it' yet? Have you even looked at the GOP primaries quotations for today? Apparently not. Or, maybe you don't know how to interpret the information. 3> The InTrade odds on Hunter today are 333:1, yesterday 1000:1. That is asinine. At the very worst, they are 50:1. Hell, Rice and Gingrich have shorter odds quoted than Hunter and they aren't even running.  

<< Hunter has no money, a weak/small organization... >> Neither did Clinton in 1992. He had enough organization to show up in MN last weekend at the GOP state central meeting. Their caucuses aren't until Feb 5th. I know for a fact that his organization has been working in IA. How effectively? We will see. << The best you can hope for is a tiny bump to close out your position for a small loss or breakeven. But I doubt that even that will happen. >> Perhaps you are right. In that case, my small bet will lose. If I am right, however, I will score pretty big. If Hunter merely reaches 10.0, I will multiply my bet by 100 since I bought at 0.1. I will take those odds.  

<< He has about as much traction as summer performance tires on ice! >> You don't drive on ice much, do you.... 'Summer performance tires' are ideal on ice, other than tires with (illegal) studs of course. Snow tires suck on ice. Twit.  

If anything - *FRED* is the dark horse in this race. He is the Reagan conservative. Charismatic. Smart. Tough. And conservative up and down the line.  

I agree with you re: Huck. He'll crash very soon. I saw the video tonight of the mother of the murder victim of the parole. Tragic. I think Huck is lousy on MANY levels. Beware teh man who thinks he knows what's right for you - and is willing to use the govt to impose it! The field in NH is all Paul - not Duncan! I have shorted it.  

Maybe people like the Hunter contract because it is so cheap, lol!! Ko, you're an ok guy and because of that I'm inviting you to jump on the RP bandwagon. That +3.3 you quote for the Iowa field is surely RP support, not Hunter support. But nice try.  

Cybear... who are you and where did you come from? What on earth do you base your predictions about Hunter on and your assumptions about RP supporters? From redstate and freerepublic? While I argue that the polls of "likely republican voters" are not very accurate ....  

On what real basis can you really conclude that Hunter is "gaining traction"? If anything, he's at the bottom end of an icy hill with his wheels spinning in frustration. Why are we wasting time talking about this? If you want a pro-war, big government republican there are already 7 other choices - Huckabee, Romney, Thompson, McCain, Giuliani, Tancredo, and Brownback... oh wait, Brownback already left the race, maybe it is time for Hunter to follow? If you aren't, at this point in the race, even getting more poll support than Paul it probably is a pretty good time to pack it in. Just my thoughts. 

.... It is pretty obvious I am playing a long odds strategy. All he needs to do is get to second tier for me to win.  

I'll just point out that although the price listed (the last price an contract moved at) is 0.2, you can't actually sell at that price because there are 681 orders in line in front of you. I actually own 10 contracts at 0.1 that I would list to sell if there was unreasonable prospect that they would be filled any time soon absent some big event that changes the fundamentals.  

BTW, .1 to .3 is a 200% gain, not 300% and percentage changes are very misleading at such extremes.  

As I've said, I don't think that is warranted for Paul either, but it's pretty clear that that accounts for the price there. 

Do you really have to accuse everyone who disagrees with you about Hunter of having some sort of agenda. Can't people just think you're wrong. You accused me of being a peanut gallery nay-sayer who is just out to keep the price down when I am actually long (albeit only 10 contracts) and would love to see it go high enough to be worth shorting. Both of you are clearly Hunter supporters and Ko, you have so much as stated you have agenda to drive the price up.  

ko - do you get paid per post? lol (j/k) There are far too many things you said which range from somewhat intelligent to ridiculous to paranoid. ("holding water for Fred" - lmao). Keep in mind I'm Canadian - I'm not "holding water" for anyone. I'm not even long Fred. My only position currently is short the Field for NH. I follow US politics much more closely than most Americans (let alone Canadians). I've lived and worked in a few different states, and travelled throughout the USA.  

... implies that he will make a LARGE move up in the polls ("next up"), just as Huckabee did. "next up" implies more than just a tradeable bump. It means he will become the next one in the spotlight, etc. I disagree strongly. I think the odds of that happening are ZERO. In fact, I still think that Romney could win Iowa. Huckabee is horrible. If the GOP is stupid enough to nominate him, they'll deserve what they'll get (i.e. big losses).  

It's one thing to think the contract is undervalued, and play it for a bounce/trade. In that case, it may or may not be a good trade, but it's certainly within the range of possibilities. However, that is not what you guys meant. You both wrote about Hunter in terms of him being a viable candidate, which IMHO he is absolutely not. A minor bounce from being oversold, while potentially quite profitable, is not what one thinks of when you say he is "gaining traction".  

Further, while it's completely subjective, cy you are the first person I've read to suggest that Hunter won the last debate. I"m sure it has nothing to do with your position/bias. lol. Similarly, the RP gang thinks RP won. Well, nearly every analysis of the hundreds I've read were of the opinion that Fred did very well, Romney excelled, and Huckabee held his own. I can't remember one that even mentioned Hunter, let alone thought he won.  

As I suggested previously, you might want to stay away from extremely ideologically slanted sites like freerepublic. It reads like YouTube comments. You must bear in mind that those posters do not represent the majority of voters. They are a small minority on the fringe. The beauty of Tradesports is that you get to put your money where your mouth is. It's ok tot alk about things, it passes the time, and makes one think (hopefully). But talk is cheap.  

ko, I don't know how old you are, but you really need to learn to accept opinions that are different from yours without making all sorts of baseless and unfounded accusations. It's a very good thing when people disagree with you. It is a potential learning opportunity. I always listen very closely to those who take the other side of any of my trades - much mroe so than those who take the same side - be it in the securities markets (serious money) or Tradesports (entertainment/play money). p.s. I have no idea who put that spam up, but obviously there are many "Anonymous" posters. It certainly was not me. Duh. I don't know why my username appears as Anonymous. It should read SLICKVGUY. I'm logged in correctly, so I'm not sure what the problem is.  

slickvguy wrote:

... implies that he will make a LARGE move up in the polls ("next up"), just as Huckabee did. "next up" implies more than just a tradeable bump. It means he will become the next one in the spotlight, etc. I disagree strongly. I think the odds of that happening are ZERO. In fact, I still think that Romney could win Iowa. Huckabee is horrible. If the GOP is stupid enough to nominate him, they'll deserve what they'll get (i.e. big losses).  

Cybear may have "implied" a large move but I never have. My whole analysis has been based on Hunter moving up to $4 on Intrade, matching his polling status. I agree that if the GOP nominates huckster, they'll lose big.  

It's too bad I lost my previous post, because I felt it was eloquent in accepting your feedback. I agree with you about listening to those who don't see things like I do, it is always a great learning opportunity. I apologize for my tone, I'm working on bringing it down. I'm learning to shift gears from the political sites where it's a bit more rough & tumble. I suppose if I have some return feedback for you, it's that you shouldn't find yourself discouraging "irrational exuberance" such as what we see in Ron Paul supporters because it's a chance to make money, and that's what this forum is about. I posted my answer to the Anonymous thing on a housekeeping thread... https://bb.intrade.com/intradeForum/posts/list/1881.page 

All this back and forth about who is driving the Field price changes in these different primary markets has me deeply amused. It brings to mind the Indian parable of the blind men and the elephant - each seeing in the same object the projection of their biases and hopes. Going on that theme, I'd like to throw out that if you go to the California primary, you can buy Field and get Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul and homeboy Duncan Hunter as a 3-for-1 package. I bought it at 15.0 on the assumption that even if it's all Mike Huckabee, he'll be challenging Rudy for the state soon enough. Enjoy. :) 

This is my first time around at Intrade for a presidential election. But I'm pretty certain they will not be breaking out the Field contracts.  

How's that Hunter traction doing? lol. 

Hunter should be so lucky to have a peanut gallery. That would be a step up. 

Going on that theme, I'd like to throw out that if you go to the California primary, you can buy Field and get Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul and homeboy Duncan Hunter as a 3-for-1 package. I bought it at 15.0 on the assumption that even if it's all Mike Huckabee, he'll be challenging Rudy for the state soon enough. Enjoy. :)  

slickvguy wrote:

Hunter should be so lucky to have a peanut gallery. That would be a step up. 

Then why go to the trouble? It seems like it would be a waste of your time. That is pretty much the definition of a peanut gallery of naysayers. :roll: 

There is a 'good chance' that Hunter will pop into the top three. He is the most 'Republican' of the entire field in that his positions more closely reflect the party rank and file than any other candidate. Iowa, being a caucus state, can produce surprises and can cause an election to re-align. It all depends on who shows up.  

<< There is evidence that Hunter is gaining ground in Iowa. >> There is a 'good chance' that Hunter will pop into the top three. He is the most 'Republican' of the entire field in that his positions more closely reflect the party rank and file than any other candidate. Iowa, being a caucus state, can produce surprises and can cause an election to re-align. It all depends on who shows up. 

I think it's the kind of traction you get as you're rolled off in a gurney to the hospital 8) 

How's that Hunter traction doin'?  

Hunter is the only candidate that is pure conservative. All the others have serious flaws. I would expect more than 1% of the GOP would vote for him.. even with his tiny campaign and resources. Are so few Republicans idealists?  

Are so few Republicans idealists?  

Honestly, if Hunter gets 6th or worse in NH, MI, and SC, can we please agree to stop talking about him, it's just getting old and tired. 

Honestly, if Hunter gets 6th or worse in NH, MI, and SC, can we please agree to stop talking about him, it's just getting old and tired.