Latest posts for the topic "Thompson is tanking. Why?"

Thompson is tanking. Why?

CaliforniaArchitect — GMT

Could it be this story? Fred T is the only major candidate showing a significant downward drop since this rumor started circulating. How does one verify it? :? Is the LA Times Sitting on a Bombshell Story That Could Devastate a Major Candidate? http://www.blogsforfredthompson.com/la-times-sitting-bombshell-story-could-devastate-major-candidate

Re:Thompson is tanking. Why?

DFCSTech — GMT

The reason Fred is tanking big-time has nothing to do with that, because nobody even knows about that yet. He's tanking because he has attended the debates and everyone saw him act like this... http://www.itsaboutideas.com/

Re:Thompson is tanking. Why?

CaliforniaArchitect — GMT

Interesting website. Who can actually debate Hillary without being mad at her? How important is that? Also, you neglect Duncan Hunter. Delphi notices that he's a conservative's conservative and he pushes the hot button issue of immigration. Huckabee doesn't.

Re:Thompson is tanking. Why?

Tozikio — GMT

Thompson can't live up to the hype that was built up for him. He's the "Segway" candidiate. An underwhelming vehicle when you finally see it. :) I expect his campaign will fare roughly like another Tennesseean - Al Gore - did in 1988. He'll get Tennesee and a few nearby states on Super Tuesday, and then fizzle out on the road afterward.

Re:Thompson is tanking. Why?

DFCSTech — GMT

Hunter is a good candidate with no traction. I saw Huckabee in the rapid-fire session of his interview by Tim Russert quickly say, "Absolutely" when asked if there should not only be a fence on the south US border, but also on the North US border. Trust me, he'll fight to get the fences built! Keep in mind, that as a Governor, he's not just ideological though; he's also pragmatic enough to not punish children who have not broken any laws. Ideological, yet Pragmatic. That's what we want in America!

Re:Thompson is tanking. Why?

CaliforniaArchitect — GMT

Thanks for the response, Tozikio. Where would his support likely land? He seems like the most viable right-leaning conservative. Would it go to Romney? It does look like Romney's been eating some of his lunch lately.

Re:Thompson is tanking. Why?

CaliforniaArchitect — GMT

DFCSTech wrote:

Trust me, he'll fight to get the fences built! Keep in mind, that as a Governor, he's not just ideological though; he's also pragmatic enough to not punish children who have not broken any laws. Ideological, yet Pragmatic. That's what we want in America! />

I don't think he has the same level of commitment on immigration as others do. Example: http://theamericanwriter2007.blogspot.com/2007/10/mike-huckabee-bashes-immigration-bill.html Monday, October 29, 2007 Mike Huckabee Bashes Immigration Bill as Race-baiting Huckabee challenges GOP lawmaker on Christian views for limiting public assistance David Hammer Associated PressArticle January 28, 2005 LITTLE ROCK - Gov. Mike Huckabee heaped criticism Thursday upon immigration legislation in the Arkansas Legislature, describing it as "inflammatory ... race-baiting and demagoguery" and challenging the Christian values of its main sponsor. Huckabee said the bill, which seeks to forbid public assistance and voting rights to illegal immigrants, "enflames those who are racist and bigots and makes them think there's a real problem. But there's not."

Re:Thompson is tanking. Why?

DFCSTech — GMT

Okay, here is where we all have to be very careful of rhetoric. Notice that in the story, the quotation marks of WHAT GOV. HUCKABEE ACTUALLY SAID are NOT including the part about "the bill, which seeks to forbid public assistance and voting rights to illegal immigrants," However, the doofus who wrote the story, unfortunately for Gov. Huckabee, put those words RIGHT AFTER the words, "Huckabee said". You see that? This is from Gov. Huckabee's site: http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Newsroom.Article&ID=82 It has been reported that Mike Huckabee supported benefits for illegals immigrants while he was Governor of Arkansas. Governor Huckabee never supported benefits for illegal immigrants. In Arkansas, illegal immigrants do not receive welfare benefits or food stamps. Governor Huckabee has always, and will always be supportive of the laws and regulations of the country. It has also been said that Mike Huckabee was in favor of providing college scholarships for illegal immigrants while he was Governor. The governor only supported the measure that applied to those who met the academic qualifications and applied for legal citizenship. The measure didn't pass. Governor Huckabee stressed that any student would simply be treated as any other graduate of an Arkansas High School, and not given any special consideration. Thanks for verifying it. Now, support the guy! Also, remember that he's the only one speaking out against LOST (Law Of the Sea Treaty).

Re:Thompson is tanking. Why?

Tozikio — GMT

Thompson's support isnt as ideologicial as for the others, in my view. It's regional, southerners feel comfortable with him.Thompson's speeches are full of conservative generalities and few specifics. People need to feel like they're voting *for* something and I don't see much of that happening with Thompson. They lean towards him because the other guys seem small in stature, or because there is something "odd" about them. My gut says he's an "older voter" candidate and he draws very mainstream middle America support. I think when he drops out, the plurality of his support will wander to Huckabee, and the rest will splinter elsewhere (or just give up and not vote. :roll: ) Seriously. Much of the reason he joined the race, was because of all the polls back in August saying that people were not satisfied with the Republican slate. The Republican base is kind of glum this year.

Re:Thompson is tanking. Why?

CaliforniaArchitect — GMT

DFCSTech wrote:

Okay, here is where we all have to be very careful of rhetoric. Notice that in the story, the quotation marks of WHAT GOV. HUCKABEE ACTUALLY SAID are NOT including the part about "the bill, which seeks to forbid public assistance and voting rights to illegal immigrants," />

Thanks for that correction. I'm not really all that interested in debating Huckabee and his stances. I get it -- you like Huckabee. I'm trying to find out why Thompson is tanking and where his support would land. Huckabee does seem suitable for some of that support to fall in his back yard, and maybe his recent bump upwards is a part of that.

Re:Thompson is tanking. Why?

Tozikio — GMT

Another reason Thompson is tanking, at least on here, is just the massive short interest that has piled up. I mean there are people putting some serious $XXXX figure wagers, and hundreds of lots short on him. :shock: Most contracts just draw 1 to 50 size lot orders. There are some people out there who *really* have no faith in Thompson.

Re:Thompson is tanking. Why?

Delphi — GMT

It's an interesting and relevant question, where his support would go. As a liberal bystander but one who has paid close attention to the (anecdotal) quotes of his supporters when they are interviewed at GOP rallies, he seems to be the candidate for those who are yearning for Ronald Reagan II in some surprisingly general kind of way. Meaning that they don't seem to stereotype well as to a particular issue that burns brightest for them. I think they like(d) him for the sort of Eisenhower-era apple pie American confidence ("make us feel good about being Americans") they hoped he would evoke. There's probably a better metaphor but I am stumbling for it. I agree that he seems to have turned out to be for this crowd roughly equal parts reality and unfulfilled wished-for charisma. (A digression here, but this whole Reagan-longing has hit the level of cliche where I wonder when we're going to see the first candidate start to phrase things like, "I'm not Ronald Reagan but here is what I believe..." or something, to try to establish that they don't NEED to be Reagan. The bizarre thing is that as some pundits have pointed out, Ronald Reagan was not "Ronald Reagan" either. He came into office an arguably pro-choice governor with no foreign policy experience. Maybe these guys should just try being themselves for a week or so and see how it plays...) But back to the question. One simple observation. At the time Thompson had finally made his stage appearance, the dismayed GOP base had already been pretty well-introduced to McCain, Giuliani and Romney (albeit the latter to a lesser extent outside of Iowa/NH) and were non-plussed. Does this mean his supporters will go looking more closely than before at the second-tier crowd? I do note that Huckabee is a conservative, plain-spoken, somewhat self-effacing Governor, like Reagan (contradicting my advice to the candidates now!). I'm just sayin'... Full disclosure, I did buy in on Huck's presidential contract last night.

Re:Thompson is tanking. Why?

CaliforniaArchitect — GMT

Tozikio wrote:

Another reason Thompson is tanking, at least on here, is just the massive short interest that has piled up. .

Wouldn't that mean that someone knows something? Like the original article/rumor that the LA Times is supposedly spiking? :hunf: The fact that people have a short interest doesn't mean that it would push the contracts down in price. Something is up.

Re:Thompson is tanking. Why?

CaliforniaArchitect — GMT

Delphi wrote:

It's an interesting and relevant question, where his support would go. ...Maybe these guys should just try being themselves for a week or so and see how it plays....

Now that would be interesting. I do get the impression that Duncan Hunter is basically being himself. Maybe that's why he isn't moving. He does seem to fit the Reaganite mold the best. That really has me wondering. I suppose one explanation for his languishing candidacy is that the big money types in the republican party don't support his "fair trade" policies because it inhibits their ability to make money, and he isn't as fiscally conservative as, say, Steve Forbes. But, wouldn't that play well in the rank & file, as well as crossover democrats? Also, the big money is on the side of open borders rather than building a fence, so he's left out on that one. It certainly does appear to be a wide open race on the republican side. Democrats have Hillary as a given. Her machine is likely to rip whatever republican in half -- they all have high negatives, especially Giuliani.

Re:Thompson is tanking. Why?

CaliforniaArchitect — GMT

Tozikio wrote:

Thompson's support isnt as ideologicial as for the others, in my view..... The Republican base is kind of glum this year.

Full disclosure, I'm a republican and I feel glum for our prospects. But I haven't bought into anyone's position because my wife won't agree to it. If I could, I'd buy as much of Hunter at 0.1% as I could afford. He's probably going to pick up 2 or 3 points of the fallout from Thompson's meltdown. Note that Thompson's numbers have dropped more than a full point just within this discussion thread today.

Re:Thompson is tanking. Why?

CaliforniaArchitect — GMT

Note that OHLC and Candlestick show a major inflexion point on October 28th. Someone knows something.

Re:Thompson is tanking. Why?

DFCSTech — GMT

Wow! You may really be onto something there. I wonder if it will ever leak out? IF the situation is as suspected, and IF Thompson backed out earlier than the general public suspected (so as to prevent the need for reporting of the story), and IF Thompson threw his support to one of the other candidates, and IF the story WAS widely reported later DESPITE the fact that he bowed out of the race, THEN that could possibly hurt the candidate which Thompson had endorsed. I think that's a kind of weird thought to throw out to you, but that's just how my brain works sometimes!

Re:Thompson is tanking. Why?

CaliforniaArchitect — GMT

DFCSTech wrote:

... and IF Thompson threw his support to one of the other candidates, and IF the story WAS widely reported later DESPITE the fact that he bowed out of the race, THEN that could possibly hurt the candidate which Thompson had endorsed.

I don't see how. When Gary Hart's campaign imploded, it didn't hurt whoever his support fell to. The only one this can hurt is the one who is the subject of the LATimes spiked story. If it never comes out (doubtful), the rumors alone seem to have made their impact. The last time we saw a major story spiked was Michael Issikopf's story about an intern in the Clinton White House, and look at the conflagration that started. The editors who held that story didn't want to hurt Clinton. But this story seems to be about a republican, so what would hold the liberal editors at LATimes from holding back? Their job is to sell newspapers, so maybe there's a more optimum time to release the story, right before Christmas or something like that.

Re:Thompson is tanking. Why?

CaliforniaArchitect — GMT

Tozikio wrote:

Another reason Thompson is tanking, at least on here, is just the massive short interest that has piled up. I mean there are people putting some serious $XXXX figure wagers, and hundreds of lots short on him. :shock: Most contracts just draw 1 to 50 size lot orders. There are some people out there who *really* have no faith in Thompson.

It would be a good thing if we could see how far down that confidence goes. Right now there is no contract for Thompson.Dropout so I sent in a suggestion that such a contract should be offered. It would make the market more efficient.

Re:Thompson is tanking. Why?

DFCSTech — GMT

Sounds like a good idea to me.

Re:Thompson is tanking. Why?

Delphi — GMT

Well darn you guys. :) You caused me to stay up till 3 AM scouring the internet and reading about this salacious rumor. I concluded four things: 1. It may or not be true that the LAT has something that they are sitting on. An editor denies it, and some columnist who quizzed him believes the denial is honest. 2. If it's true it is either about a Republican or a Democrat. I guess that leaves out Ralph Nader, Mayor Bloomberg and the new Argentinian president. 3. The Times supposedly has "it" well sourced (ie, the rumor is that the holdup is not a matter of it being a reliable story). So if they have something, they are either holding it back because they sincerely don't know whether it is legitimately newsworthy or will make them look like a tabloid for breaking it -- or, they don't give a rat's behind about that and the holdup is for biased political reasons. If it's the latter they are either holding it up because they are flaming liberals and it is about a Democrat and they just don't want to hurt him/her... or because they are flaming liberals and it is about a Republican and they want to hold it for "maximum impact" time. Needless to say very few internet chatters are giving them the benefit of the doubt that maybe they see it as an immature obsession to always be probing candidates' sex lives. 4. Supposedly Larry Flynt has something on "another Senator" (meaning, after Larry Craig). Given that there are six of them (plus two former senators) running for president it seems to me that could be the same story. So it's either another Bill dalliance, a Hillary affair with either a woman or a man (or a horse - but it was late by then and I may have wandered onto a page about Catherine the Great), a revival of a John McCain affair story, or some romp involving Rudy in a leather harness with his gay roommates. Chris Dodd's name was brought up but no one seemed interested in going there (how crushing for him if he runs across that). In other words, I know absolutely nothing. But I've finished liquidating my Hillary just in case (there are faster moving contracts anyhow). Thanks for your attention.

Re:Thompson is tanking. Why?

DFCSTech — GMT

Sorry about the loss of sleep, but WOW; that was one of the most entertaining post I have ever read! I mean, I'm at work right now and had to hit the mute button on my phone so that I could literally LOL! So, about all we know is that it would be about a Senator. That would only narrow it down to all of the major Democrat contenders and Thompson and McCain. This should be rather interesting. (Senator Biden - HA HA HA! :D ) I'm just glad that none of it would hurt my favorite guy. Betcha can't guess who in the world that is. :wink:

Re:Thompson is tanking. Why?

ko — GMT

So the buzz does appear to be about a "senator". But Larry Flynt's story is supposed to be a "sitting senator", and that would leave out Thompson. Either his is not the same story or it is the same story and it's about Hillary. The one about Hillary is that she supposedly is having a lesbian affair with a staffer named Huma Abedin. But Hillary's numbers on Intrade have not been moving down at all. They stay in high volume and they fluctuate the way a norma frontrunner's numbers do. If Intrade is any indication, the numbers show it to be Thompson. He's had a lot of short calls just before this rumor circulated, he has admitted to a cavalier past attitude and even gets coy about what's happened since he's been married. That begs the question: How strong of an indicator are the numbers on Intrade? Hillary knows that sexual politics can bring down a presidency, let alone a candidacy, so it would be odd for her not to be extra careful. Fred's been playing around in Hollywood, where there's a lot of winking & nodding going on with this kind of behavior. He might be an amateur at this compared to Hillary. And LA Times is not known for its investigative excellence -- that would be a huge coup for them to pull in the Hillary story, but probably a drive-by on the Fred story. http://bigheaddc.com/2007/10/31/la-times-sitting-on-an-explosive-prez-candidate-sex-story/ A major sex scandal story involving one of the leading presidential candidates is believed to be soon published by the LA Times, Big Head DC has learned. Details are slowly trickling in through people who’ve heard about the story, and with Larry Flynt saying he’s set to reveal a “huge” sex scandal story involving a sitting senator in the coming days, the rumors seem to be gathering traction.... Several commenters on Rosenbaum’s article strongly believe that Hillary Clinton will ultimately be revealed as a lesbian, and that the recent GQ story her campaign helped kill by threatening to withhold a Bill Clinton interview may have gone into some shocking details into her sex life.Rumors of a close Hillary relationship with one of her top aides Huma Abedin, shown above, have long been swirling. Hillary has long denied being a lesbian.

Re:Thompson is tanking. Why?

Delphi — GMT

By "commenters" on Rosenbaum's column do you mean the anonymous posters following the text? People on the right (and elsewhere) have been speculating on Hillary's sexuality forever; I think it's somewhat of a hobby for them. And to some extent that's a natural consequence of being a strong-willed and outspoken professional woman - it's often a protective reflex for men who are threatened by the emasculating feelings that kind of woman brings up in them. That's not to say it's not possible, but I personally don't think it any more likely for her than the average married woman. And overriding this for this case is that if Hillary is anything at all she is power-driven, and Job 1 right now is getting into the White House. So I agree she'd be extra careful right now. So unless the aide has been with her for many years and this is a new corroboration of an old story, it's not about her. I mainly liquidated because I can make better use of that long money elsewhere. If it's anyone I kind of lean toward Thompson too. That excruciatingly prolonged drumroll on his jumping into the campaign seemed more than just coyness for buildup's sake to my admittedly untrained eye. It seemed like Frist and the Tennessee crowd were truly twisting his arm at times to get him in. And his uninspired performance so far almost indicates someone who has mixed feelings about campaigning. Could be that there was something lurking in the closet that he was weighing against the possible upside of running for office? It might be the kind of thing he wasn't trusting enough to share with his political benefactors (especially since you never know who might jump ship in the chaos of the campaign if the prospects look brighter elsewhere). For all we know it could be something about Jeri too. Wasn't her signoff on the idea of running reputedly the holdup for awhile? But we just don't know. Obama has the Kennedy playboy mystique about him, but something tells me it's not him. I don't know if there's any real data out there about relatively affair likelihood for different demographics, but he's got two very young kids...

Re:Thompson is tanking. Why?

ko — GMT

Delphi wrote:

By "commenters" on Rosenbaum's column do you mean the anonymous posters following the text? ....

Well, no. I'm a newbie and I don't know how to put a box around the relevant excerpt and URL that I was using as an example.

Delphi wrote:

If it's anyone I kind of lean toward Thompson too. ... Could be that there was something lurking in the closet that he was weighing against the possible upside of running for office? It might be the kind of thing he wasn't trusting enough to share with his political benefactors (especially since you never know who might jump ship in the chaos of the campaign if the prospects look brighter elsewhere).

That is an astute observation that I had not thought of. Another thing I was thinking about was that Thompson did not get any endorsement from the evangelical leaders like James Dobson -- just one from Bauer who is more of a political operative than spiritual leader. There was some kind of brouhaha about an internal email from Dobson discussing Thompson as a candidate that was unflattering. Since the article says that "everyone" in DC knows about it, someone as well-connected as Dobson would have an inside track to that level of information and his actions with respect to Thompson seem... telling.

Re:Thompson is tanking. Why?

ko — GMT

By the way, Thompson is currently at 7.7 and continuing to free fall. So, again I wonder, how strong of an indicator are the numbers on Intrade? Here's where I put the current probabilities. Hillary: 25% Thompson: 60% Someone Else: 10% Story is Bogus: 5% The rumor-before-the-story runup is classic because the LA Times is chumming the waters, pre-selling the story. They know what business they are in.

Re:Thompson is tanking. Why?

Tozikio — GMT

If there is anything to this, they can't wait too long. If the source wants to talk, this will be leaked (or sold) to the tabloids.

Re:Thompson is tanking. Why?

Delphi — GMT

I'm now leaning toward this being a "secondary" story. I.e., about one of the candidates' spouses or something way in the past. The rumor goes that it is a well-sourced story, so the holdup isn't validation. I think someone is probably still trying to weigh the relevance and if they will look too tabloid-ish by breaking it as a "story". I also tend to doubt the "everyone knows" angle, since if that were the case it would have been out already on a drudge-like site, even if it were about the Obama's family dog preferring to hump others of its same sex. Something like a female friend of Hillary's from college coming out about a tryst they once had at Wellsley (story being negotiated with tabloids as we speak - the mainstream papers and even Fox won't touch it because it will make them look too sleazy). Or Jeri Thompson used to be a swinger with her old beau/common-law husband. Or... Obama had an affair early in his marriage, before he entered politics. Something along those lines of relevance/severity.

Re:Thompson is tanking. Why?

Delphi — GMT

This just broke. Hard to imagine it's what the fuss is all about though. Thompson's donor and sort-of adviser has a drug arrest record. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/03/AR2007110301153.html?hpid=topnews

Re:Thompson is tanking. Why?

CaliforniaArchitect — GMT

CaliforniaArchitect: It would be a good thing if we could see how far down that confidence goes. Right now there is no contract for Thompson.Dropout so I sent in a suggestion that such a contract should be offered. It would make the market more efficient.

DFCSTech wrote:

Sounds like a good idea to me.

There still is no such contract. I don't know how long it usually takes for that kind of contract to show up. Since I'm new here, it is likely that there would probably need to be more participants sending in echoes of the same suggestion before it hits Intrade's radar.

Re:Thompson is tanking. Why?

CaliforniaArchitect — GMT

Delphi wrote:

This just broke. Hard to imagine it's what the fuss is all about though. Thompson's donor and sort-of adviser has a drug arrest record.

Thompson is still at 7.7, no change since this drug-dealer story broke. And, to point out the obvious, that isn't a sex scandal. That could be a sign that Thompson's stock already has bad news built into it. Maybe it's time to BUY, hah! :lol:

Re:Thompson is tanking. Why?

andywend — GMT

If the LA Times and Larry Flynt are sitting on some scandal that they have uncovered, the chances are 99.9% that its about a republican. If the LA Times or Larry Flynt found out about a scandal concerning a democrat, they simply would NOT release it.

Re:Thompson is tanking. Why?

ko — GMT

Tozikio wrote:

Another reason Thompson is tanking, at least on here, is just the massive short interest that has piled up. I mean there are people putting some serious $XXXX figure wagers, and hundreds of lots short on him. :shock: Most contracts just draw 1 to 50 size lot orders. There are some people out there who *really* have no faith in Thompson.

Tozikio, I'm new here and I was wondering if I could ask you a dumb newbie question? I'm sure there are others who are new and have the same question... How do you check to see that there are short-sells "piled up" ??? And how do you go about shorting a candidate. I think Ron Paul is ripe for shorting, as well as McCain. :wink:

Re:Thompson is tanking. Why?

Tozikio — GMT

Just click on the Trade icon. You will see the depth of both bid and asked in the order book, (kind of like NASDAQ Level II access.)

Re:Thompson is tanking. Why?

ko — GMT

Tozikio wrote:

Just click on the Trade icon. You will see the depth of both bid and asked in the order book, (kind of like NASDAQ Level II access.)

I can see that for current positions, but how can I tell that someone was shorting Thompson in the past? Sorry I wasn't more explicit.

Re:Thompson is tanking. Why?

ko — GMT

CaliforniaArchitect wrote:

It would be a good thing if we could see how far down that confidence goes. Right now there is no contract for Thompson.Dropout so I sent in a suggestion that such a contract should be offered. It would make the market more efficient.

Note that DROPOUT.DEC07.(F)THOMPSON is a new issue. Now we can see how far down this goes... :shock: Dropouts from 2008 Presidential Race DROPOUT.DEC07.(F)THOMPSON Fred Thompson to drop out of 2008 Presidential race on/before 31 Dec 2007 M - - - 0 new That's some pretty good responsiveness on the part of Intrade! 8)

Re:Thompson is tanking. Why?

CaliforniaArchitect — GMT

ko wrote:

Note that DROPOUT.DEC07.(F)THOMPSON is a new issue. Now we can see how far down this goes... :shock: That's some pretty good responsiveness on the part of Intrade! 8)

That is pretty responsive. Now if I could pull some cash together and buy some at 0.1 I'm pretty sure this will go to 10-15 within a week or so, just on rumors alone.

Re:Thompson is tanking. Why?

CaliforniaArchitect — GMT

CaliforniaArchitect wrote:

That could be a sign that Thompson's stock already has bad news built into it. Maybe it's time to BUY, hah! :lol:

Here's another case in point. His base is supposedly the conservative wing of the party, and he basically flipflopped a nuanced position on Pro-life in an interview with Tim Russert on NBC’s Meet the Press Sunday . Fred Thompson says "No" to Human Life Amendment November 4, 2007 http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/263508.aspx And he's still trading at 8.1, so maybe bad news is built into this position, and maybe DROPOUT.DEC07.(F)THOMPSON is riskier than I first thought.

Re:Thompson is tanking. Why?

Tozikio — GMT

LOL :lol: Does this sound like someone passionate about winning the Presidency? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/06/wuspols106.xml

Re:Thompson is tanking. Why?

CaliforniaArchitect — GMT

Even the website GOPUSA is starting to rip on him. :thumbdown: For Thompson And McCain, It's Too Little Too Late GOPUSA ^ | November 6, 2007 | By Doug Patton http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/dpatton/2007/dp_11061.shtml

Re:Thompson is tanking. Why?

CaliforniaArchitect — GMT

The technical indicators I find interesting are Fast stochastic, momentum, RSI, and Bollinger Width and if I were trying to see where the dip ends, I would say when Bollinger Width gets below 5, which should be pretty soon. Of course, I'm a total newbie and don't know what I'm talking about. If this whole slide really was due to the rumor pointing to Fred, there would be no real turning around, most likely. Between the FredFall and the RonPaulMoneyMachine, this has become a fascinating race.

Re:Thompson is tanking. Why?

DFCSTech — GMT

CaliforniaArchitect wrote:

FredFall

AHA!! :lol:

Re:Thompson is tanking. Why?

ko — GMT

DROPOUT.DEC07.(F)THOMPSON is trading today at 5%, with an ask of 40%. Soon we should be able to see how far down this confidence goes. Volume is not high. Contract Bid Ask Last Vol Chge Dropouts from 2008 Presidential Race DROPOUT.DEC07.(F)THOMPSON Fred Thompson to drop out of 2008 Presidential race on/before 31 Dec 2007 M 1.0 40.0 5.0 0 0 Thompson GOP Nomination is trading at 5.5%, continuing the FredFall. Volume is still kind of high. 2008.GOP.NOM.THOMPSON(F) Fred Thompson to be the Republican Presidential Nominee in 2008 M 5.7 6.4 5.5 91924 -1.9

Thompson is tanking. Why?

GAW838 — GMT

Is it time to cash in my Thompson shorts, or ride it out to the bottom? I would definitely be 'cashing in' in doing so actually freed up cash rather than locking more in (I'm short more on Paul and Giuliani). Do I need to get out before he rebounds, or is it safe to sit on it for a while?

Re:Thompson is tanking. Why?

Tozikio — GMT

I'm new at Intrade so my advice is just conjecture. But I joined to trade the fundamentals and the oddsworthy outcomes. I think some others here are more "swing traders". I've got Thompson shorts and will probably just ride them close to zero, like my Gore shorts. There could be faster money making opportunities, but I like keeping the contracts that are working for me and thinning out the losers. That is easier to do with Intrade futures, since they will expire in 3-6 months anyhow. I have trouble in the stock market holding positions much longer than that so I wasn't a good buy-and-holder there.

Thompson is tanking. Why?

GAW838 — GMT

I guess that begs the question, is Thompson still overpriced on the fundamentals? I think it was hype that had in propped up in the 20s, but his candidacy may actually warrant a price of 5 on the merits. Anybody have thoughts on this? I think I've said this before, but I really never knew what to make of the Thompson candidacy except that is was overhyped at the outset. The calender doesn't look great for him, but I'm still not totally ready to write him off. That said, I'm still to strapped for free funds to lock up what I do have by covering some of my shorts, so my words here are kind of hollow.

Re:Thompson is tanking. Why?

Delphi — GMT

Everything I'm seeing screams a candidate who would really rather be fishing. I suspect if I see that his possible donors have to be well tuned into it. Still, we're close enough to primary time that I don't see him dropping out of his own doing till he at least gets to his most likely heydey in SC (after a chance at surprising in NV). And I don't see what any of the other candidates could pull to entice him to formally bail sooner. Unless Romney - in an effort to gain some of his supporters in SC say - offers some folks high up in the Thompson campaign some post-election fruits if they can talk him out of continuing his run. That's just idle imagination at work here, as Fred's voters might not flow to Mitt in numbers disproportionate enough to make the move worthwhile. It seems they'd be more likely Mitt's inheritance than Rudy's, but McCain would get a hefty share too. Hard to call, sorry. I have no positions on him currently.

Thompson is tanking. Why?

GAW838 — GMT

Did you ever take a position of him, or did you just watch the summer buying frenzy? The whole phenomenon is very interesting to me, because all the problems his candidacy now faces were raised in the heady days before he announced (and even before he indicated he was going to announce) when he was trading in the high teens and the 20s. Are the markets really so short-sighted and sensitive to the way the media is currently covering particular candidates. Doesn't really seem to be the case in the McCain case, as all the comeback stories failed to really move his numbers (there's been some delayed movement as the stories petered out) or Clinton, whose numbers have risen (admittedly at the expense of Gore) in the aftermath of unfavorable coverage of the debate and driver's license fallout.

Thompson is tanking. Why?

ko — GMT

GAW838 wrote:

I guess that begs the question, is Thompson still overpriced on the fundamentals? .....

I think he's priced appropriately now, not over nor under priced. He had no idea what he was getting into. He probably thought to himself, "Well, Reagan did it, and he was no Mensa candidate. I've been a lawyer, a politician, and an actor, I was better at all of it than he was, so if he did it, so can I." But Reagan went from acting into politics, as governor of California, honed his political skills and then had a hiatus. Like Dick Nixon, he was "tanned, rested, and ready". He was also vigorously healthy, not fighting cancer. He had also been on several country-wide speaking engagements where he knew the grueling schedule, the heckling, and thinking on your feet. Fred has had none of that, has been thrown directly into a sink-or-swim situation and will need to rely upon his learning curve to survive against veteran politicos. Of course, all of that is on the basis that this original posted rumor does not apply to him. If that is the case, he's toast. Since there's usually no way of knowing and you have to go with the fundamentals, it might make sense to think of him with just a little bit more of a downside probability than currently shows on the face.

Re:Thompson is tanking. Why?

CaliforniaArchitect — GMT

It looks like Thompson has finally hit bottom at 5.5, rebounding to 6.0 today. Rate of Change, Bollinger Bandwidth, Fast Stochastic all show an inflection point, but Candlestick suggests more downward pressure if On Balance Volume means anything. Of course, these technical indicators are usually only useful after the fact...

Thompson is tanking. Why?

GAW838 — GMT

California: You seem to know what you're talking about with the technical indicators, care to enlighten the rest of us?

Thompson is tanking. Why?

CaliforniaArchitect — GMT

GAW838 wrote:

California: You seem to know what you're talking about with the technical indicators, care to enlighten the rest of us?

Danger Will Robinson! I'm a straight newbie who does not know what I'm talking about. I'm comparing past recoveries and steep slope dives, trying to come up with a strategy that says something like, "Well, if Bollinger Bandwidth is above 4, RSI is heavily positive, it's a buy, and if RSI is heavily negative it's a Sell." But I'm just beginning. I find this stuff utterly fascinating, and I would hope that a seasoned stock player could point us where to learn. I gather Tozikio came from that background. My rolling hypothesis at this point is that with Technical Indicators + good common sense + ear-to-the-ground political sniffing, I could make money. But I'm kind of a cheapskate. I'm doing pretty well on the play market, especially if Hunter starts to follow the recent upsurge to 4% in the polls...

Re:Thompson is tanking. Why?

Delphi — GMT

Did I hear someone say Duncan Hunter? (I too am waiting for even a blip to 0.2 to reward his emergence from Asteriskville.) Seriously CA, if you're a "newbie" yet rattling off those terms like you know how to use them, I'm shuddering to think what term should describe me! I take it they are some sorts of adaptations of derivative calculus for finding local minima/maxima (with some curve fitting thrown in to idealize the traces?). I don't come from a financials background myself, but rather statistical modelling for medical research. Wouldn't hurt me to learn the basics of the stats you are name-dropping. I do wonder though whether the liquidity and volume here would be suitable for exploiting those indicators as theoretically conceived, as full of discontinuities as the price traces are.

Re:Thompson is tanking. Why?

CaliforniaArchitect — GMT

Hah Hah, Delphi :lol: Not one of these technical indicators would pull Duncan Hunter's needle out of the statistical haystack. He's showing flat line, but recently he polled at 4%, so that could be a 40X return on investment if he starts tracking here on Intrade to poll numbers. I think you nailed it when you posted the article about what voters are concerned about, and it's the economy, stupid and the War in Iraq. Hunter is the only candidate with a son who is serving in Iraq, and also he's got a military background, he's a hawk. It's actually a mystery to Hunter supporters why he doesn't catch on. Part of it is a fixation on some things like immigration, that the rest of America tends to yawn at. But that doesn't stop them from voting in things like Proposition 187 in California.

Re:Thompson is tanking. Why?

CaliforniaArchitect — GMT

Delphi wrote:

I don't come from a financials background myself, but rather statistical modelling for medical research.

If we could graph this stuff the way I would like, I'd be following it from a similar perspective. The graph that comes to my mind is the predator vs. prey dynamic modelling like was first introduced in Grass/Rabbits/Hawks. It was fascinating how they interplayed with each other and how when one did well, the other didn't. The grass grew high because it rained a lot; then there were a lot of rabbits because they ate a lot of grass, but the grass sufered. Eventually, though, the rabbits get overpopulated, lots of hawks come in and eat them and soon the rabbits are underpopulated, hawks are overpopulated and the grass starts growing again. When one segment is doing well, it's at the expense of another segment, but it's always in a sort of balance. It's the same in politics. So with Thompson tanking, (let's call him the rabbits), that means that the grass should do better soon. I'm thinking Hunter is the grass -- even though he's actually a hawk, to mix metaphors... :)

Thompson is tanking. Why?

GAW838 — GMT

I must admit that I'm a little skeptical that these statistical and market trend analysis techniques are all applicable to political markets. Since we're all being so modest here, I'm an undergrad at Northwestern in political science in physics and the only econ I've had was intro to micro, so I'm totally lost on these indicators. My background there probably indicates my biases, but I'll go forward with the argument anyway. It seems to me that financial markets are more driven by psychology and other factors internal to the market than political futures are. That is because a stock is worth what the market says it's worth and there's no ultimate authority to say that anyone's wrong. Sure, speculative bubbles often burst, but that's because there's no more new buyers and the whole thing runs out of steam and comes crashing back to reality. In political futures, however, the event ultimately occurs or doesn't and the irrationality is decisively punished where it exists. I know that doesn't totally rule out the value of these indicators and I would certainly like to learn more about them, I've just been trading on my instincts and trying to catch the occasional high or low based on rudimentary market patterns (for a long time before she announced Clinton oscillated predictably between 40 and 45). That sort of behavior tells me there's something to treating these markets with mathematical rigor, especially when the outcome is far away and 'market' dynamics dominate. So, that was somewhat incoherent, but I hope we can keep this conversation going.

Thompson is tanking. Why?

ko — GMT

GAW838 wrote:

I must admit that I'm a little skeptical that these statistical and market trend analysis techniques are all applicable to political markets. .... I know that doesn't totally rule out the value of these indicators and I would certainly like to learn more about them, I've just been trading on my instincts and trying to catch the occasional high or low based on rudimentary market patterns (for a long time before she announced Clinton oscillated predictably between 40 and 45). That sort of behavior tells me there's something to treating these markets with mathematical rigor, especially when the outcome is far away and 'market' dynamics dominate. So, that was somewhat incoherent, but I hope we can keep this conversation going.

If I follow your argument, you think there would be more mathematical rigor applicable the further out the event? That is the opposite of conventional wisdom, so I would hope you could elaborate. Maybe you would take a "market dynamic" approach early in the game and then a more instinctual approach as the event comes close (or just stay out). You kind of went full circle in your message, starting with saying how skeptical you were that these indicators were applicable, and then ending up saying that you "there's something to treating these markets with mathematical rigor". Basically, you kind of lost me. Here is the key to the whole game:

GAW838 wrote:

In political futures, however, the event ultimately occurs or doesn't and the irrationality is decisively punished where it exists.

It's a zero sum game. You figure out who is most likely to win and how the win takes place, and you lay your money down. Some people can make a living betting on horses, and some may be making a living here betting on political horses. If you can find a statistical edge, it's like getting house odds in your favor. I don't know if there is such an edge, because I'm sure it would have been tried by now. Like an amateur card-counter, some are hoping to find a system that will keep them in the game longer, and the house usually chuckles at such quaint hicks, tolerating them with an eye roll. :roll: Of course there are going to be irrationalities, otherwise you wouldn't see some of these sharpshooters pulling down their bits of arbitrage. One thing for sure is: It's fascinating.

Thompson is tanking. Why?

GAW838 — GMT

OK, let me see if I can clear things up a bit. My broad point was that I think political markets differ from financial markets on the important fact that they end decisively. So, as that end gets closer, the facts on the ground are more likely to dominate over 'market dynamics'. My intuition is that mathematical analysis of past trading behavior would be most useful when market dynamics dominate, rather than when the imminent decisive end probably prevents the formation of speculative bubbles. I have certainly gone long on contracts that I thought either had no chance of expiring at 100 (like Duncan Hunter at .1) or thought were overpriced if the fair value is supposed to reflect true probability (like Russ Feingold and Bill Frist at various times in 2006) because I expected their prices to go up before they went down. This strikes me as similar to speculative behavior in stock and real estate markets (tech bubble is a good example), except it is what I'm calling market dynamics that burst those and I think there is something stronger that can prevent such speculation in political futures as the end date approaches. Regardless, I think it would be interesting to apply mathematically rigorous analysis to these market throughout their lifetimes to see what valuable conclusions can be gleaned. I'm just wondering if there's some limit to the applicability of certain techniques because of the differences between political futures and conventional securities markets. In terms of my trading strategy, I always prefer trading on the long-term fundamentals, but am willing to act against my fair value instincts if I am relatively certain that there is a short term profit to be made. The way I feel most comfortable is trading around a core position that reflects my long-term expectation, selling at local maxima and buying at local minima to take advantage of fluctuations. I don't know enough about the technical indicators to speculate on whether they could be helpful in identifying these tops and bottoms. I hope that helps. Cali and Delphi - definitely interested in your thoughts on this.

Thompson is tanking. Why?

CaliforniaArchitect — GMT

GAW838 wrote:

Regardless, I think it would be interesting to apply mathematically rigorous analysis to these market throughout their lifetimes to see what valuable conclusions can be gleaned. I'm just wondering if there's some limit to the applicability of certain techniques because of the differences between political futures and conventional securities markets.

This is a lot like a Wednesday night Poker Game. Some guys take it real serious, some guys just have a natural knack, some guys are in it for the beer & pretzels. A mathematically rigorous analysis is too much effort for me, which is why I appreciate that there are these technical indicators in the first place. The way I look at it is that it is mathematically relaxed analysis, and that works for me. :wink:

Re:Thompson is tanking. Why?

ranthambhore — GMT

Political markets involve the trading of futures contracts, and the appropriate comparison with financial markets is not with stocks and bonds but with derivatives such as options and futures. Like political markets, options and futures have fixed expiration dates. For instance, exchange traded index futures (which pay an amount that depends on the future value of the DJIA or S&P500) expire four times a year, on the third Friday of March, June, September and December. There is an elaborate mathematical theory of derivatives pricing, which is based on the principle of arbitrage: the prices of derivatives must be related to the prices of the underlying assets in a manner that precludes arbitrage. With political markets, there is no underlying asset, so arbitrage considerations don't tell you what the prices should be. But arbitrage does restrict what relative prices should be: for instance the price of DEM08 in the political party market cannot be much above or below the sum of the prices of all individual Dems. Otherwise one could combine long positions in one market with short positions in another to make a sure profit without taking any risk. Hope this makes some sense... By the way, GAW, I'd never have guessed that you're an undergrad with no background in Econ or Finance. Your understanding of these markets is pretty sophisticated.

Re:Thompson is tanking. Why?

ko — GMT

Good stuff, Ran. Are there any of those technical indicators available on Intrade that you find most useful?

Re:Thompson is tanking. Why?

Tozikio — GMT

Well I just broke my own plans, and covered my Thompson shorts at 6. I decided, "Would I really short this contract today at 6?" Probably not. There is after all some possibility he could rally and improve. Sold him at 16.3 so I can't complain too much about making over ten points on these.

Re:Thompson is tanking. Why?

ranthambhore — GMT

ko wrote:

Good stuff, Ran. Are there any of those technical indicators available on Intrade that you find most useful?

ko, I don't find technical indicators very useful. I think fundamentals are a pretty good guide to prices in the medium run, although substantial mispricing can arise in the short run. This is where the real money is made: jumping on an opportunity before others do. The problem is in spotting the opportunity. If something looks over or undervalued, is it because of some information that I haven't yet seen? If I usually spot some recent news or analysis that I find particularly persuasive, the first thing I look at is whether the price has jumped recently. If it has, the information is already in the price, possibly with an overreaction built in. But if the price hasn't moved much in a day or two, it's likely that the new information has not yet been absorbed into the price. That's usually a good time to trade. Long answer to a short question, sorry about that...

Thompson is tanking. Why?

GAW838 — GMT

Yeah, I definitely agree that the no arbitrage principle should work so long as the market is working efficiently / has high enough volume. That's fairly intuitive anyway, so understanding that formally doesn't really give anyone an edge in the market. I don't really know anything about what goes in to calculating these technical indicators, but to the extent that they are valuable for predicting future prices, my sense is that they would probably be more useful when trading is dominated by what I'm calling market dynamics. Political futures are much more like derivatives than stock, which is why I expressed skepticism over the value of analyzing past price/volume trends in predicting future prices. I'm still curious however, if they might have some value for predicting cyclical behavior and fluctuations that occur a long time before the contract expires, when no new information is really being added. If you look at the movement of nomination contracts in prior to 2006 midterms, most of the shifts are hard to explain in terms of the fundamentals. Sure there was the occasional relevant news event like Bill Frist winning the SRLC straw poll (didn't really change the fundamentals but legitimately moved the price) or George Allen's Macaca moment (clearly did change the fundamentals), but many fluctuations seemed to just be the market moving absent any justification based on the facts on the ground. Now, this may just be noise and thus impossible to predict, but I wonder if technical indicators might be useful for understanding how best to take advantage of these market movements. Again, I'm really speculating here because I don't have any expertise in this area, but I'd really like to hear if anyone has further thoughts on this.

Thompson is tanking. Why?

ranthambhore — GMT

GAW838 wrote:

many fluctuations seemed to just be the market moving absent any justification based on the facts on the ground. Now, this may just be noise and thus impossible to predict, but I wonder if technical indicators might be useful for understanding how best to take advantage of these market movements

When I see market moves that I can't associate with changes in fundamentals, I think that either (i) there's some news out there that I haven't heard yet, or (ii) someone is profit-taking, or (iii) someone wants liquidity and is converting to cash, possibly at a loss. So for example, when Tozikio covered his Thompson shorts earlier, it was not based on any news about fundamentals. But it would have shown up as a buy order which put upward pressure on the price. I'm not sure if any technical indicators can really help predict such moves. They certainly can't predict unexpected events (by definition). But maybe measures of short-sales, open interest, etc could help. I'm skeptical.

Thompson is tanking. Why?

GAW838 — GMT

I would argue that his buy order was based on the fundamentals, if not the 'news'. There was a large selloff on Thompson (which I assume was mostly longs bailing rather than new shorts) and that drove price down a lot, so far that it was no longer a good short in the eyes of many, on the merits. So, the market had to correct for a overreaction to earlier bad news. Once we're in campaign season, it's really hard to say what counts as news. What I'm really curious about it is when there are long periods where nothing happens, but prices still fluctuate significantly.

Re:Thompson is tanking. Why?

ranthambhore — GMT

GAW, maybe this is just semantics, but I see the initial drop in Thompson price as being in response to information, and the small bump up when people cover shorts as being noise. After all, the timing of the cover and even the price is somehwat arbitrary. I think Tozikio just decided that the contract was roughly at fair value and decided to bail out. Remember that the absence of news is also information. Take Hagel for example. His price fell over time because he didn't announce. Same goes for Gore. After all (as you yourself pointed out), prices must eventually converge to 0 or 1 as the expiration date draws near. They do so more or less continuously in the absence of major surprises.

Re:Thompson is tanking. Why?

Tozikio — GMT

You're pretty much right. I still think Thompson won't win the nomination (fundamentals.) But why hold a short at 6 that won't mature until well into 2008, when there are still other plausible contracts available that expire Dec 31 with better payoffs. The "time value of money" and "better returns elsewhere" can be factors to consider. If I thought there was nothing else that interested me, then I might have just left the short in. Risk matters too. My Gore shorts are under 6. But I'll keep those because they are "almost guaranteed" to pay off. I also agree with the analogy that Intrade contracts are better compared to options than to stocks. They aren't even really comparable to futures. If a future is expiring, but you still believe in it, you can just roll your money into the next future. (IE, price of corn, oil, etc.) Options must expire in the money, or out of the money.

Re:Thompson is tanking. Why?

CaliforniaArchitect — GMT

Tozikio wrote:

But why hold a short at 6 that won't mature until well into 2008, when there are still other plausible contracts available that expire Dec 31 with better payoffs. The "time value of money" and "better returns elsewhere" can be factors to consider.

That's a very good point. There's a certain point where the market itself has more weight than just what is going on with that contract. It makes me wonder how much liquidity comes into play at that point in the decision cycle as well. Once the contract drops below a certain point, it is not really all that liquid and there's not much volume. There can't be that many folks going in short with the hope to cash in at the bottom, right? If that is the case, wouldn't the primary volume be the bargain hunters at that point?

Re:Thompson is tanking. Why?

Tozikio — GMT

Fred Thompson 6th place in Marist College poll, down from 10% to 5% in New Hampshire. http://www.maristpoll.marist.edu/NH/NHPZ0711.htm Now, I know polls can be distorted, but it's hard for me to see anything other than a stalled/sinking campaign. At least Paul and Huckabee, while single digits, improved their numbers since October and are leading Thompson. It may not be long before we read about Thompson pulling out of the granite state. And I think his campaign will implode if he does not win or come a close 2nd in South Carolina.

Re:Thompson is tanking. Why?

CaliforniaArchitect — GMT

Tozikio wrote:

It may not be long before we read about Thompson pulling out of the granite state. And I think his campaign will implode if he does not win or come a close 2nd in South Carolina.

There's no change on the Fred.Dropout contract today. Maybe it's a bargain at the offering price of 9.2. Looks like the Prediction Market numbers are starting to have their impact in the blogosphere. Is it polite to call us "bookies"? :shock: http://www.thestreet.com/s/bookies-thompson-out-rudy-and-mitt-tops/newsanalysis/investing/10389193.html?puc=_googlen?cm_ven=GOOGLEN&cm_cat=FREE&cm_ite=NA Bookies: Thompson Out, Rudy and Mitt Tops By Brett Arends Mutual Funds Columnist 11/9/2007 10:21 AM EST ......Excerpt..... Fred Thompson's campaign for president has collapsed. Fidelity Investments Charles Schwab Global Forex Zecco.com TD AMERITRADE E*TRADE FINANCIAL Well, at least, among the bookies. I've been giving readers regular updates on the betting in the presidential election, but absolutely nothing has been more dramatic this fall than Thompson's market meltdown. According to the betting at the Iowa Electronic Markets, the TV actor's chances of winning the GOP nomination have slumped in just six weeks from nearly 30% to less than 10%. As recently as June, just after the former Senator announced he was running, he was the favorite in the betting, at nearly 40%. The numbers are similar over at Dublin-based betting exchange InTrade. Thompson was at 35% in July. Today? 6%. ----Excerpt----

Re:Thompson is tanking. Why?

Tozikio — GMT

Well his dropout contract is trading higher than the other dropouts, which is a hint that Intraders have less faith in him. But considering that he did have several million to campaign on, I think it's reasonable to assume that he'll at least make it to the balloting in the lead states. I also think the press gives as a little too much credit. There are so many contracts on here, and not that many people dealing in size. It's more like they're reporting the opinions of a group of fishing buddies in a boat. 8)

Re:Thompson is tanking. Why?

Tozikio — GMT

Boston Globe this morning: http://tinyurl.com/24enzs Yes, I *am* out of my Thompson presidential short, but I can't resist a little gloating. :twisted: I thought all along this guy was a paper tiger. His Hamlet-like brooding for weeks before joining the race convinced me from the start he was not serious. The Reaganesque aura that was built up for him has evaporated. Now the press is starting to doubt him, even snicker to some extent... the longer this goes on, the harder it will be to overcome.

Re:Thompson is tanking. Why?

Tozikio — GMT

Well I was trying to get some new Thompson shorts for NH only, and nobody was taking my offers in the 7's because somebody is offering to sell at 2.9 :lol: OK, I will move along. Man, you guys are cruel. :wink:

Re:Thompson is tanking. Why?

CaliforniaArchitect — GMT

Tozikio wrote:

Well I just broke my own plans, and covered my Thompson shorts at 6. I decided, "Would I really short this contract today at 6?" Probably not. There is after all some possibility he could rally and improve. Sold him at 16.3 so I can't complain too much about making over ten points on these.

GAW838 wrote:

I would argue that his buy order was based on the fundamentals, if not the 'news'. There was a large selloff on Thompson (which I assume was mostly longs bailing rather than new shorts) and that drove price down a lot, so far that it was no longer a good short in the eyes of many, on the merits. So, the market had to correct for a overreaction to earlier bad news. Once we're in campaign season, it's really hard to say what counts as news. What I'm really curious about it is when there are long periods where nothing happens, but prices still fluctuate significantly.

So, Tozikio, I would like to ask if you changed your plans on the basis of the news you heard here? What is news and what is 'news'? How much did rumor have a play in it? I think we're going to see a lot of shorting opportunities, especially after Iowa, so I wonder what triggers the decision to cover the short.

Re:Thompson is tanking. Why?

Tozikio — GMT

It's basically as I described. It will take a while for Thompson to sink from six to zero as a presidential winner. There are other shorts around that have more potential. Admittedly, I'm taking risker positions now, but as we move into the state-by-state contests there will be more opportunities. Why lock up money in a presidential short that had already dropped by 2/3 and has at least some minor risk of rising back?

Thompson is tanking. Why?

GAW838 — GMT

Tozikio: I totally agree with you on this point (except that it's actually fallen by closer to 4/5 from the peak). I would be covering my substantial short position for basically the same reasons if it didn't actually lock up more money for me to do so. (bc of previously mentioned larger short positions on Paul and Giuliani)

Re:Thompson is tanking. Why?

ko — GMT

Thanks, Tozikio and GAW838. I've been keeping an eye on the Thompson.Dropout contract, and for several days there was no activity, with the ask price going from 15 to 10 to 9.4 then 9.2, and the bid price has always been 0.1 and 1. This morning someone bought it at 4.0. Someone manages to keep an even closer eye on this contract than I do. Ask & Bid prices have gone right back to what they were before. Dropouts from 2008 Presidential Race DROPOUT.DEC07.(F)THOMPSON Fred Thompson to drop out of 2008 Presidential race on/before 31 Dec 2007 M 1.0 9.2 4.0 0 0

Re:Thompson is tanking. Why?

Tozikio — GMT

I wouldn't read too much into that. When a contract trades, then naturally a bid/ask was paired, so the spread widens again. Contracts with less than 200 traded, are very thin and the market functions at the whim of a few people. I have a position in something thin, where I accidentally took the wrong side of it... and it is a major pain to move the price far enough to get any takers on the other side. :oops: Thinly traded contracts are very dicey.

Re:Thompson is tanking. Why?

ko — GMT

Here's a significant endorsement. Fred's contract is already up 0.6. That is probably the end of his Fredfall. He'll need to rebuild from this point. http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/1107/Natl_Right_to_Life_to_endorse_Thompson.html November 12, 2007 Nat'l Right to Life to endorse Thompson Fred Thompson will pick up the support of the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) tomorrow, according to two Republicans familar with the decision. ....

Re:Thompson is tanking. Why?

ko — GMT

Also, there's a big bid for over 800 shares at 6.0, so it looks like the bargain hunters are here. BID Qty Price 810 6. 0

Re:Thompson is tanking. Why?

Delphi — GMT

Can you say "utterly fractured Evangelical Right" kids? I knew you could... I hear Mitt Romney is claiming the posthumous endorsement of Joseph Smith, in a hastily-announced response to the Pat Robertson news. There's room for a great Saturday Night Live skit in here somewhere, I'm sure. 8)

Re:Thompson is tanking. Why?

DFCSTech — GMT

http://bp2.blogger.com/_4YYk-vG7Ax8/RzpDggvMzbI/AAAAAAAAAEI/OszQmMEzB5c/s320/drudgereport3.jpg Why use a Thommy Gun when an H-Bomb is so much more devastating! NRLC endorsement or not, Thompson=9%, The Huckster=21%! Game, Set, Match. Fred's out! Stick a fork in the Fred-falling Thompson campaign - it's done. Oh, curious about the national numbers? Here ya go! http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2127/2003339210_27277beedd_o.jpg

Re:Thompson is tanking. Why?

CaliforniaArchitect — GMT

According to Polls, Fred Thompson Foundering http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/11/thompsons_troubles.html Excerpt... The American electorate is a fickle mistress. Just ask former Sen. Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.). Polling numbers are stacking up against former Sen. Fred Thompson.When Thompson announced his candidacy for president just after Labor Day most national polls showed him running a close second behind former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and the majority of state polls had him in the top three. No longer. Thompson's campaign has yet to take off as expected and voters -- especially in crucial early states like Iowa, New Hampshire and Florida. The most recent data comes from New Hampshire where two surveys were released over the weekend. The first, conducted by theUniversity of New Hampshire for the Boston Globe, put Thompson in sixth (yes, SIXTH) place with just three percent of the vote. .... Excerpt

Re:Thompson is tanking. Why?

Tozikio — GMT

Thompson has a sick looking trend on Pollster for New Hampshire. It's as if all the public only needed a short look, and they gave up on him. I think Huckabee and Paul are taking support from Fred. These are the people who are looking for "something or someone else" -- they thought they'd find it in Thompson, and didn't.

Re:Thompson is tanking. Why?

ko — GMT

Tozikio wrote:

I think Huckabee and Paul are taking support from Fred. These are the people who are looking for "something or someone else" -- they thought they'd find it in Thompson, and didn't.

On the ideology scale, Hunter is closer than Huckabee or Paul. That is only New Hampshire polling data, and that state has its own strange political mixture. There's a thread right here at Intrade discussing Hunter and the possibility of gaining traction. https://bb.intrade.com/intradeForum/posts/list/1797.page He's polling at 3-4%, which is a bump up from what Delphi called Asteriskville. I would expect to see some liquidity in the Hunter contracts coming up pretty soon.

Re:Thompson is tanking. Why?

Tozikio — GMT

You're right in an objective sense. But I think in the early stages of the primary, the voters themselves don't know what they want. Thompson had created a chameleon-like reputation before entering the race. He could be anything to anybody since it wasn't clear how he would campaign. Independent leaning Republicans had already decided against the early announced and best funded candidates. The fall of McCain was known even before Thompson entered. It was assumed that Thompson could vacuum up all the dissatisfied voters. In a nutshell, Thompson had the "support" of the soft, window shopping voters back in early September. People are making up their minds now and drifting elsewhere. I also agree that New Hampshire is a quirky place. But Thompson needs to show some reasonable mass appeal. If he gets single digits there, it could affect his results in South Carolina.

Re:Thompson is tanking. Why?

ko — GMT

Here's an article I wrote on Free Republic, got quite a bit of play. (vanity) Why the smart money is on Duncan Hunter Self ^ | 11/11/07 | Kevmo http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1926032/posts?page=1,250 Posted on 11/15/2007 3:43:17 AM PST by Kevmo OK, so you’ve got a thousand dollars burning a hole in your pocket and you want to make a statement with it at the same time as getting 40X return on your “investment”, you want $40,000 for that $1000 bet, like Hillary did in her Pig Belly futures or whatever it was. You’re going to decide between putting it down on Hunter or Thompson over at Intrade because these are the 2 most conservative candidates in the race. https://www.intrade.com/ Which one do you choose? Let’s start with the guy who has 3 balls. He’s got courage in spades. He’s engaged enemy soldiers in Viet Nam when he was a LRRP ranger and he got a Bronze Star for his real bravery. His friend and supporter also has 3 balls, the guy who we all know as “the man who broke the sound barrier”, Chuck Yeager. While they’re campaigning in Iowa, all you have to do is ask Chuck to tell the story about how he and Bob Hoover were in Russia and got that chance to fly a YAK and Bob took it up gently and respectfully and flew it straight & level into the horizon… and then returned over the viewing stand flying upside down and basically causing the Russians to pee in their pants. After hearing this story or one of a million others, Hunter will take the podium and leverage that emotional courage language that Americans love, and they’ll all look at each other & nod, saying, “this is the guy who should be my president”. Now let’s cover the guy who played a soldier in the movies. He was quite convincing when he was telling Jack Ryan of the CIA that he wouldn’t be able to get to the submarine because it involved flying in a helicopter, and the last time Jack was in a helicopter he spent 3 months recovering from the accident. It’s interesting and fun entertainment, but it is not real. While he and his friend are campaigning in Iowa, he will need to build his own emotional leverage with the audience, and this is not a Hollywood script. Right now over at Intrade, Thompson futures contracts are trading at about 6%. There was a time when he had the lead and was trading at 35%, but over the last few weeks he has lost about 30 points. He had the spotlight shining on him as the most conservative guy with the best name recognition, while thousands of his supporters were crossing their fingers during the debates hoping he wouldn’t screw up. https://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/contractSearch/ Hunter futures contracts are at 0.1%. Over the last few weeks they have remained at 0.1%, with the volume staying put at 27778. That is the number to watch. All it takes is for that number to start moving. It means someone is buying Hunter’s contract at a very low price. Within a few weeks, that number will be history. Hunter has been campaigning on a shoestring budget and slowly gaining recognition in the polls, recently just coming in at 4%. http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/28889/republicans_2008_giuliani_28_thompson_19 All he needs is one more percent. Hunter needs to get to 5% in the coming weeks in order to be invited to the Iowa debate by our friends at the Iowa GOP. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1922644/posts At that point, everyone will know he’s at 5% in the polls. His futures contracts at Intrade, if they’re still at 0.1, will have relentless upward pressure from bargain hunters, but by then it will be too late to buy in at that price. Here’s where the decision gets made, why the smart money is on Duncan Hunter rather than Thompson. In order to get 40X return by investing in Thompson, you would have to buy his contract to win the whole kit & caboodle, the presidency, which is now trading at 2.5. 2008.PRES.THOMPSON(F) Fred Thompson to win 2008 US Presidential Election At $6, you could not get 40X return on the Fred.Nominee contract. If you bought it at $5, the best you could get is 20X return. 2008.GOP.NOM.THOMPSON(F) Fred Thompson to be the Republican Presidential Nominee in 2008 The forum at Intrade seems to waver between those who think Fred’s campaign is imploding and those who think it will rebound. But they have freewheeling discussions about the why and how that we have been missing here on Free Republic. https://bb.intrade.com/intradeForum/posts/list/1805.page So your decision comes down to this: Is it more likely that Hunter will get 1% more exposure in national polls, and move up to 4 or 5% at Intrade or is it more likely that Thompson will win the presidency outright? Remember, this is the guy who had the spotlight shined on him as the conservative golden boy and lost 30 points at Intrade, and has been losing ground in the polls lately. While his supporters are crossing their fingers hoping he doesn’t screw up, Hunter’s supporters are folding their hands in prayer hoping that he’ll just be himself. Over the last few days, I’ve seen a couple of posts like this http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1925179/posts?page=284#284 According to Polls, Fred Thompson Foundering Posted by Kevmo to SergeiRachmaninov On News/Activism 11/13/2007 1:51:29 PM PST · 284 of 536 It is a bitter time for those who have invested all their hopes with Fred and repressed all doubts. ...Still it is not much fun when you have chosen your candidate, put him on a pedestal, and gone to war for him, and then reality starts to batter you. I’ve already trod the path from hopeful about Fred, to disappointed, to angry in my disappointment. I really should do better at being gentle to those who are somewhere else along on that path. ***That is some amazing candor. I honestly do think that Hunter will not disappoint you in that way. He may not win the nomination due to lack of name recognition, but he is doing what he can about that. His character stands head & shoulders above the others in the race. That is the emotional language of someone who has felt betrayed by his candidate. But the Hunter followers do not feel betrayed, they have circled the wagons and they are coming out fighting. That’s where you put your money down, where there is fight to the inner core, and the guy they’re fighting for is genuine. All it takes is that one or two Freepers will copy this article and send it to their wealthy friend who did so well in the stock market during the dotcom boom, or won a thousand bucks at a beer drinking tournament or whatever. Then we’ll start to see that 27778 number trickle, then it will flood through relentlessly. And that will serve as a metaphor for the entire republican campaign, what has been a trickle of support will soon break through the floodgates in myriads of ways, whether it’s our grandmother sending in the $25 check to Hunter’s campaign http://www.gohunter08.com or Iowans asking if they could put up a sign on their front lawn or our grandchild folding her hands in prayer for this courageous man. And then we’ll see Hunter smile. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOPICS: Politics/Elections; Your Opinion/Questions; Click to Add Topic KEYWORDS: duncanhunter; intrade; Click to Add Keyword -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [ Report Abuse | Bookmark ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Navigation: use the links below to view more comments. first 1-250, 251-281 next last -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It’s a wide open race, might as well back the most conservative man. According to Polls, Fred Thompson Foundering http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1925179/posts Here’s what I’ve been posting lately. Here’s a recent poll showing Hunter at 4%. http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/28889/republicans_2008_giuliani_28_thompson_19 Here’s an intrade link to the forum site discussing how Hunter might be gaining traction. http://bb.intrade.com/intradeForum/posts/list/1797.page Here’s an intrade link to the forum site discussing how Fred is at $6, which corresponds to the traders believing he has a 6% chance of winning the nomination, and discussing why. http://bb.intrade.com/intradeForum/posts/list/1805.page One thing prediction markets are better at — their only bias is whether someone can make money trading the futures contracts. The Efficacy Of Prediction Markets The Liberty Papers ^ | November 8, 2007 | Brad Warbiany http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1922961/posts Posted on 11/08/2007 12:21:43 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum Fred has lost ~30 points at Intrade over the last few weeks, looks like it’s stabilizing at ~6%. Thompson Tanking in Futures Markets (Intrade, IEM) Intrade; Iowa Electronic Markets ^ | October 31, 2008 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1919127/posts The Dropout contract for Thompson has an ask price 2 points higher than last trade. There is no Dropout contract for Hunter. http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/contractSearch/ DROPOUT.DEC07.(F)THOMPSON Fred Thompson to drop out of 2008 Presidential race on/before 31 Dec 2007 M 6.0 9.2 4.0 0 0 1 posted on 11/15/2007 3:43:18 AM PST by Kevmo

Re:Thompson is tanking. Why?

ko — GMT

Hunter's contracts have started to move, now the ask price is doubled. 2008.GOP.NOM.HUNTER Duncan Hunter to be the Republican Presidential Nominee in 2008 M 0.1 0.2 0.1 28778 0

Re:Thompson is tanking. Why?

ko — GMT

This exchange was posted on the Duncan Hunter thread. ko Intrade Joined: 03/11/2007 19:01:54 Messages: 36 Online CaliforniaArchitect wrote: 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. I agree, but I don't know what it means. The last time I checked, there was only ONE ask price, of 0.1 and NO bid prices. As a Hunter supporter, I consider this to be significant! But someone will probably be along shortly to straighten us out. :wink: CaliforniaArchitect wrote: 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. That's a good question. Of course, for me, I would consider it a bargain at $50, but everyone knows that there's an exaggerated emotional component to that suggestion, and there are traders here who would LOVE to deal with me, hah hah. :mrgreen: Here's how I would look at it. The price someone is willing to pay for a futures contract would have maybe 5 elements: Current Poll Support + Financial Support + Followers' Energeticism + Media Buzz + Campaign Ability. Let's use the respective Acronyms CPS + FS +FE + MB +CA. I'm sure there are more. When you look at Ron Paul, his CFS was ~3%(???notsure); FS was low then in one day, high -- and notably here on Intrade that was treated with a yawn; FE is very high; MB was kind of high for such a low polling candidate; CA was probably high, though I was not following his campaign. All that translated into a trading price in the 9's, and Delphi felt compelled to ask why. Huckabee's CPS was kind of low; his FS was medium; FE was medium; MB was Medium; CA was pretty high, he's an engaging speaker and campaigner. That translated into an Intrade value that was higher than the poll numbers at the time, if I recall correctly. Here's where I see Hunter: CPS low; FS low; FE very high; MB very low; CA about medium. It all translates into a completely stagnant Inprice value, which looks like it is in the midst of changing upward. Going on poll results is not based upon a presumption any more than one would presume that 5 cards dealt in a poker game have the same odds as 5 cards dealt to someone else. Hunter would need to go from 4% to 5%. What are those chances? I would put them at about 2 to 1. So I would be taking a 2-to-1 bet to gain a 40-to-1 contract. That’s a great bargain. It’s like poker, when the pot odds are way above your hand odds. When Hunter gets to 0.2, the pot odds go to 20-to-1 payout, and at 0.4 it's 10-to-1, at $3 it's 3-to-4 payout. The RATIONAL approach is to gauge what you think are his chances of Intrade meeting the poll support against the current "pot odds". But the irrational approach is when I'm a Hunter supporter, I see his chances of getting to 5% in the polls and being invited to the Iowa debate as less than 1-to-1, maybe 1-to-1.5. That means I consider a $4 price to still be a bargain, and there are plenty of Intraders out there who probably think it would be a good time to sell. That's the beauty of the market. Eventually the folks who think a $10 price for Hunter when he's polling 5% ( basically 1-to-2 emotional hand odds) are very few, and they buy only a few contracts and the price tends to stabilize around an agreed median between the two camps. For me personally, I think Hunter's chances of getting to 5% in the polls are about 1-to-1.2 (20% likelihood of not happening) and that gets weighed against the current price and what I'm willing to pay, which unfortunately is not that much because I am losing my job :cry:and money is extremely tight in our household as Christmas approaches and I have to find ways to make the kids happy. The interesting thing about the elements CPS + FS +FE + MB +CA is that they are constantly dynamic. When we see someone trading above their polling numbers like Ron Paul was, it's an indicator that the other elements are high, and when we see them trading below the polling numbers the reverse is true. In Thompson's case it is a blinking red light because he has plenty of money, media buzz (he's a hollywood pro), FE seems about medium or high. That means his CA score is Very Low, or there is some other element in my goofy equation that is bringing down his score here at Intrade.

Re:Thompson is tanking. Why?

Tozikio — GMT

Thompson falls to sixth place in NH with high "negatives". CNN Political Ticker Sounds to me like people just aren't taking him seriously anymore.