Stereotype posted:

This is a good market to buy YES in right now. It has dropped from 94c before Iowa to like 77c. Apparently everyone forgot he has a 20pt lead in NH.

Stereotype posted:

I just dropped like $40 on YES TRUMP in a bunch of markets. I mean this sort of panic selling doesn't really seem reasonable for someone getting approximately the caucus support that polls predicted.

Flavahbeast posted:

Flavahbeast posted:

railroad terror posted:

Well, I lost big with Trump, but I'm getting back on the train. There was so much fluctuation last night, hope some people made out big. What's everyone looking at now for some potential rebound stocks with the market settling a bit before NH? I'm considering the potentially disastrous strategy of going back in on Trump again depending on what the next 1-2 polls look like. He may have underperformed in a caucus state with little organization, but if he polls show him way outside the margin of error in a primary state like NH, then I think it's a good bet.

Vox Nihili posted:

You ask, I deliver: https://www.predictit.org/Contract/1526/Will-Donald-Trump-win-any-Republican-primaries-or-caucuses#data

a cop posted:

Vox Nihili posted:

At some point in the middle of the chaos my ten Clinton No Iowa shares sold at 70c somehow.

Arkane posted:

10 hours later and i'm almost done

Gibberish posted:

...

You do know he's heavily favored to win NH, yeah?

pathetic little tramp posted:

Ugh guess it's time to sell my Hillary YES. PI isn't going to resolve this thing for a while and the comments are full of Sanders conspiracy mongers saying Hillary used her evil witch powers to flip the coin or whatever the gently caress, keeping the price I can sell at at 95 cents. I really can't wait for Sanders to drop out, his supporters are annoying as hell.

Necc0 posted:

I would sell off your caucus shares. Those last two pennies aren't worth unexpected fuckies

Arkane posted:

dang

I guess it's a bad bet then

Gibberish posted:

I mean I'm just saying there are other markets with similar or lower prices that aren't really really heavily studied and scrutinized and could flip much faster, unlike that one

District Selectman posted:

What I think I learned from Iowa:

1. Trump has the polling but his organization is amateur and it failed in Iowa. You can say, well, maybe Trump didn't do a bad job, maybe Cruz just did an exceptional job. Maybe. But they seem to have been caught flat footed. It's a big job to set this stuff up. Trump may have underestimated that. How unprepared is he for the remaining states?

2. People are turning out to vote against Trump. Watch out for second choices in NH. Cruz, Rubio, Kasich seem to be popular second choices based on the polling I've seen. Somehow Rubio swung people in Iowa in the last week, although I'm not quite sure how.

I can see a lot more paths to a NH loss now for Trump.

Gibberish posted:

Sanders owns but his supporters are basically millions of insufferable goony goons

like look at the people who were all milquetoast gabbas in the "$hillary fraud!!!" video and imagine that multiplied by however many supporters he has

District Selectman posted:

What I think I learned from Iowa:

1. Trump has the polling but his organization is amateur and it failed in Iowa. You can say, well, maybe Trump didn't do a bad job, maybe Cruz just did an exceptional job. Maybe. But they seem to have been caught flat footed. It's a big job to set this stuff up. Trump may have underestimated that. How unprepared is he for the remaining states?

2. People are turning out to vote against Trump. Watch out for second choices in NH. Cruz, Rubio, Kasich seem to be popular second choices based on the polling I've seen. Somehow Rubio swung people in Iowa in the last week, although I'm not quite sure how.

I can see a lot more paths to a NH loss now for Trump.

Omi-Polari posted:

I've put in a little bit of money to sell short, but I'm holding my powder for a day or two on big bets on who will win NH.

Iowa is fairly predictable -- evangelical ground game wins. Cruz had that. (Establishment candidates can also win if they appeal to evangelicals, like George W. Bush did.) NH is weird and I don't understand it, and I think it's possible Trump still prevails there as it's swung toward hard-right populists before; Pat Buchanan in '96. Trump is basically a Jacksonian/Buchananite candidate.

Which reminds me to read up on the 1992 Democratic primaries since it was the last really big wide-open primary scramble.

District Selectman posted:

Other than Buchanan, they've been pretty moderate and in-line:

Romney won by 17+
McCain won by 6
McCain in 2000 won by 18+ over W
Buchanan by 1
HW Bush twice by 10+
Reagan, Ford, Nixon, and in fact, they went against Goldwater in '64

quote:

The more intense, possibly fantastical version of the one-punch theory imagined that an Iowa loss, of any size, could make Trump simply quit the race. If he decided against that, though, there was plenty of precedence for a candidate falling short in Iowa and making a New Hampshire stand. In 1980, Ronald Reagan spent just 36 hours on the ground in Iowa, even skipping a primary debate. He surged back to win New Hampshire. In 1988, the man who had beaten Reagan in Iowa, George H.W. Bush, followed the same plays. In 1996, Pat Buchanan lost Iowa with 23 percent of the vote, just three points behind Robert J. Dole. He moved on to New Hampshire and won. In 2000 and 2008, Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) made early bets to skip Iowa; both years, he won New Hampshire.

[...]

The one-punch theory is just that, a theory. The more worrying Iowa lesson for Trump was that attacks on his record could hold down his vote. Although diehard Trump supporters have written off his old "very pro-choice" views and his musing that Hillary Clinton would be a great secretary of state, the attacks from the new super PAC Our Principles, and the pro-Cruz PAC Keep the Promise — both just rundowns of his liberal answers to questions — seemingly scared off late deciders. In the exit poll, 35 percent of voters who decided before the last month went for Trump. Late deciders broke away from him after that, and voters who decided on the final day put him in a poor third place.

What did that mean for New Hampshire? It wasn't clear. Trump probably suffered from his relative lack of organization, with fewer precinct captains making his case in caucus sites than Cruz or Rubio. Those that did make pro-Trump speeches were amateurs; there was anecdotal evidence that they lost votes.

New Hampshire is nothing like Iowa. Social conservatives matter less, and pulling voters to a traditional vote is easier than getting them to caucus. Although in the final days Iowa had become a three-way race, New Hampshire remained dominated by Trump in the mid-30s, with five Republicans (Rubio, Cruz, former Florida governor Jeb Bush, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Ohio Gov. John Kasich) clustered in the teens behind him.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/02/02/liberated-by-iowa-foes-affix-loser-brand-to-trump/

Arkane posted:

10 hours later and i'm almost done

quote:

"Whatever organization he has in Iowa, it's clearly worse in New Hampshire," Cullen said. "He should be asking his staff what the heck they've been doing for six months. Still, I'd be surprised if Trump were to go from 30 to 15 in a couple of days."