Handicapping Iowa...
 

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
Here's what I'm thinking just based on reading things here and there.

Democrats favor Obama, then Edwards, then Clinton, then everybody
else.

I'm thinking Obama gets out with a lead of three or four points over
Edwards in second and Clinton a very close third to Edwards - say
within a point or two. Everybody else, Dodd, Biden, Krazyinich will
all slide to less than 4% of the vote in total.

Republicans - I'm thnking Romney with an insigificant lead over
Huckabee and Thompson a strong third. Ron Paultard will show a
surprising 13% of the vote from all the Paulbots that show up from
other states.

Now I need to call my bookie. :)


Meanwhile, McCain's the only Republican candidate with a spine.

Why McCain? I view him as having too many back room allegiances and special
interests to be any good. But then again, I can't vote -- just curious on
US politics. Kind of like Ron Paul myself.

Handicapping Iowa...
 

Handicapping Iowa...
 

On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 08:41:29 -0500, DownTime
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
Here's what I'm thinking just based on reading things here and there.

Democrats favor Obama, then Edwards, then Clinton, then everybody
else.

I'm thinking Obama gets out with a lead of three or four points over
Edwards in second and Clinton a very close third to Edwards - say
within a point or two. Everybody else, Dodd, Biden, Krazyinich will
all slide to less than 4% of the vote in total.

Republicans - I'm thnking Romney with an insigificant lead over
Huckabee and Thompson a strong third. Ron Paultard will show a
surprising 13% of the vote from all the Paulbots that show up from
other states.

Now I need to call my bookie. :)

Your bookie is taking action on the primaries? That is sad. I'm assuming
even the bookies are also it hard by the current real estate slump.

You do realize that gambling on political elections is a time honored
sport in Europe right?

The right bookie will be able to place the bet somewhere.

However, it was a rhetorical statement - I'm not much of a gambler.

Until the NCAA basketball tournament comes around that is. :)

Handicapping Iowa...
 

"HK" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
Here's what I'm thinking just based on reading things here and there.

Democrats favor Obama, then Edwards, then Clinton, then everybody
else.

I'm thinking Obama gets out with a lead of three or four points over
Edwards in second and Clinton a very close third to Edwards - say
within a point or two. Everybody else, Dodd, Biden, Krazyinich will
all slide to less than 4% of the vote in total.

Republicans - I'm thnking Romney with an insigificant lead over
Huckabee and Thompson a strong third. Ron Paultard will show a
surprising 13% of the vote from all the Paulbots that show up from
other states.

Now I need to call my bookie. :)


Meanwhile, McCain's the only Republican candidate with a spine.

I agree that McCain is the only GOP candidate with any class, and I agree
he has a spine, but...

I was less than impressed when he caved earlier this year on the torture
issue.


Everyone caved on the torture issue to some extent. It was unavoidable. And,
to be perfectly honest, I played a New Year's Eve gig that made
waterboarding look like a wine tasting tour in France.

McCain was interviewed a couple of weeks ago and he made a comment about
using the bully pulpit to ask Americans to consider certain sacrifices, the
details of which are not important here. FDR did exactly the same thing, and
Americans accepted his suggestions. Nowadays, mention this to certain
lizards in newsgroups and they say "guvmint control! guvmint control!"

If McCain actually does it, I'd be impressed.

Handicapping Iowa...
 

"HK" wrote in message
. ..



Who are you hoping to vote for? Mike Huckleberry?



Hey, he plays a mean bass.

Eisboch

Handicapping Iowa...
 

On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 14:55:51 +0000, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:


Until the NCAA basketball tournament comes around that is. :)

I'm not much of a basketball fan, but I think the NCAA tournament is the
most exciting sports event around.

Handicapping Iowa...
 

Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..

Who are you hoping to vote for? Mike Huckleberry?



Hey, he plays a mean bass.

Eisboch



Well, gee, what else does the guy need?
As I have stated, I think he's an ok guy, but not for president. We're
in the last full year of President Numnutz, and I have seen nothing to
indicate Huck is any brighter about the world than Bush was and is. And
then there is Huck's "connection" to evangelicals. *That* is an
automatic disqualifier for me. No Jesus Freaks in the White House, please.

--
George W. Bush - the 43rd Best President Ever!

Handicapping Iowa...
 

Handicapping Iowa...
 

On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 05:47:17 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

On Jan 2, 8:41*am, DownTime wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
Here's what I'm thinking just based on reading things here and there.

Democrats favor Obama, then Edwards, then Clinton, then everybody
else.

I'm thinking Obama gets out with a lead of three or four points over
Edwards in second and Clinton a very close third to Edwards - say
within a point or two. *Everybody else, Dodd, Biden, Krazyinich will
all slide to less than 4% of the vote in total.

Republicans - I'm thnking Romney with an insigificant lead over
Huckabee and Thompson a strong third. *Ron Paultard will show a
surprising 13% of the vote from all the Paulbots that show up from
other states.

Now I need to call my bookie. *:)

Your bookie is taking action on the primaries? That is sad. I'm assuming
even the bookies are also it hard by the current real estate slump.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So, what is the difference between a slump and a logical correction?
Does it depend on who is in the Whitehouse??

They are both at the same time - it's a definition thing.

Having said that, a slump is defined as a 20% long term drop in market
prices - long term being more than two quarters. A correction is
defined as 10% at any one given time, but considered as proper when it
lasts a quarter.

There is also a hindsight factor in determining a correction - a
day/week drop isn't a correction - month drop of 10% of market prices
is a correction when viewed from the future.

Market psychology is an odd and fascinating subject.

Does it matter who is in the White House? Not really - markets seek
stability - that can be either higher or lower and the net result
generally has nothing to do with politics no matter how many people
try to take credit for a rising economy or assign blame for a
declining economy. When you compare the eight years of the Clinton
Presidency and the upcoming eight years of the Bush Presidency, the
economy acted about the same over time.

The caveat is when political policy affects markets in ways not
foreseen - unintended consequences if you will. During the Clinton
years it was the advent of EBITA depreciation/amortization of the
perceived value of a company's name and trademarks which caused the
tech bubble. For Bush, it will be the appointment of Bernacke to head
the Fed during a time when the Fed needed a seat-of-the-pants
financial operator like Yellen rather than an academic theorist like
Bernacke.

Handicapping Iowa...
 

On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 14:46:32 +0000, Canuck57 wrote:


Why McCain? I view him as having too many back room allegiances and
special interests to be any good. But then again, I can't vote -- just
curious on US politics. Kind of like Ron Paul myself.

True, McCain was one of the Keating Five. He admits to "poor judgement",
which it was, but it also seemed to be a wake-up call. Since that time,
he has been a lead voice in campaign finance reform, and from my vantage
point, a straight shooter. While I don't agree with many of his stands,
I think he is one of the few honorable men in Washington.

A refresher in McCain's involvement in the Keating scandal:


http://www.slate.com/id/1004633/