Wednesday, February 6, 2008

Gamepaign 2008: Primary Vote

Well, it's Super Tuesday. According to the rules of Gamepaign, I needed to vote for the current leader (Obama, 288 Points). Unfortunately for both Arizona and Barack Obama, it is not only illegal for me to vote in Arizona's Democratic primary (as I'm registered Independent), I'm also 2,300 miles away and I'm not anywhere near a piece of paper that says "absentee" on it.

More importantly, though, is the fact that Arizona doesn't want Independents to vote for Republican or Democratic candidates in its primary. Strange, isn't it? If I had to guess, I'd say it's an attempt by the main parties to encourage voters to identify with one of 'em. ...Or maybe there's some sort of voter fraud (voting twice...?) issue... I have no idea, nor am I going to take the time to look it up and ponder it. Anybody have any clue?

I've been sittin' here watching Super Tuesday coverage all day, and I just saw that Hillary Clinton is projected to win Arizona by a large margin... You can't blame me, Obama, I don't live there. Nobody Set Up Them you.



Here is some political interestingness and relevantism:

-- Apparently, people in my current state are so antsy from the all the "Super" things in one week that they came to the polls a week too early. This seems like it should be especially embarrassing, because really - if you're not informed enough to know when to vote, how are you informed on who to vote for?


--
The NY Times has a good election guide for following the vote tallying and delegate counting for the primaries. Check it.


--
Intrade prediction markets are very interesting to watch when people have no idea what is going on. If prediction markets are our best method of getting information from the people, I'm not very optimistic for the future of people. (Just kiddin', I love 'em)


--
Mike Huckabee looks exactly like Kevin Spacey. While doing a Google image search for Mike Huckabee and Kevin Spacey photos, I came across exactly what I originally had in mind for a blog post.


-- I never figured that John McCain would be the Republican nominee - like a lot of other people, I figured he was overflowing with the old juices, and he'd give up running before he had a viable chance at winning. For those of you who don't know him too well (I don't, really, either), here's a list of policy stances and/or statements by John McCain that you might like. Or maybe you'll hate 'em, I don't know:

1. "Every time US went protectionist, we paid a heavy price." (Oct 2007)
Damn straight.
2. Free trade with any country except security risks. (May 1999)
Damn straighter.
3. "In 24 years as a member of Congress, I have never asked for nor received a single earmark or pork barrel project for my state."
That's awesome, even if it's a teensy bit false.
4. "Republicans have forgotten how to control spending."
Agreed. Actually, I'd argue they honesty never knew. I was about to do a post on this.
5. "Ban on same-sex marriage is unRepublican; leave it to states."
Hey, that's a good point!
6. Affirmative action OK for specific programs, but no quotas.
That's a good stance, I'd say.
7. Close Guantanamo Bay prison; announce no-torture policy.
Rock on.
8. We need a simpler, fairer tax code, but not FairTax.
That is absolutely, absolutely correct.

There are a ton of reasons to like John McCain, especially when compared to other members of his party. There are also plenty of reasons to completely dislike John McCain. I figured I'd spread the [carefully selected] info.



-- Last, not least:
Barack Obama is a fantastic speaker. He's got great "economic logic," he's proved it during both the debates and during his speeches - he's by far the candidate with the best and most applicable knowledge of economics (Much more than Clinton, McCain and even Mitt Romney).

The idea of change is often a selling point among out-of-power party candidates that never comes to fruition, but I think this time - if we elect Barack Obama - we're going to get the most "experimental" president we could possibly imagine. I'm not positive this is a good thing for the country, but I'm also not really that concerned about screwin' things up in the interest of exploration. Exploration is good.

I'm glad that, since the Democrats are probably going to win the 2008 election, Obama has such a good chance of being the nominee.





I just saw that California is predicted to go to Clinton. Not sure how many of California's 400 or so delegates are going to each candidate.

If I had to guess right now, at 12:18 AM on UltraWednesday, I'd say we're going to see Clinton vs. McCain for the general election. Then again, maybe California is less important than I think.
Intrade contracts (higher means more likely) for Clinton and Obama at 12:17 AM.

Like I said, though, people don't have any clue what's going on - but they're our best hope for predicting the future.



UPDATE: Here's what the Intrade contracts look like at 11:30 AM on Wednesday, Feb. 6th:
Just about even, meaning that not only do people not have any clue what's going on, but they also now know that they have no clue what's going on. It took a while for the prediction market to reflect the real confusion (instead of the fake confusion from last night)...

I was trying to figure out why there was such a disparity between last night's predictions (63% likelihood that Clinton would be nominated) and today's (50/50). I figured that maybe people don't buy/sell Intrade contracts when they're asleep, but they was just silly.

I think the real reason Obama is given even chances now is that a theory from last night - that he'll get around half of the delegates - is now more of a fact:

"With most of the votes counted in an inconclusive contest, Clinton is projected to win only eight more Super Tuesday delegates than Obama, but will lead the overall race by more than 60 delegates."

This will [probably] leave the overall delegate count, if you're curious, at:

Clinton: 499 Super Tuesday delegates, 872 overall delegates
Obama: 491 Super Tuesday delegates, 793 overall

For a total difference of 79. That's about two smaller states worth of delegates. Whoever gets 2025 first wins... I presume...

No comments: