Did you miss this?
Or does it not count for some reason?

lol

Someone should post the post count thingy for this thread again. Max is on a roll, and beginning to approach Phil like levels of being unabashedly wrong.

I've just never even see progressives use the terms regularly as something they really want. When you want more entitlements and regulation, I have a hard time seeing that going with the words liberty and freedom.

The Typical Republicans do use the words liberty and freedom a lot. Of course, their definitions are probably even worse than the progressives who at least like civil liberties.

Ron was on Your World with Cavuto tonight. Neil ran off the number of times he's had Ron on his show, by year, going all the way back to when Ron announced he was running for the 2008 election.

Ron was impressed & thanked him.

Neil said he has a standing invitation to come on the show anytime......even be his co-host, should he not win, since he plans on retiring.

My statement still seems obviously correct. You can make some sort of often must be greater than X% argument... but that isn't how people use the word. Your statement after the != sign contradicts your own previous post... so i am not sure if you are understanding the conversation.

Sorry, can't make the same claim about you.

I don't think I have ever seen that chart. "# of campaign stories as lead newsmaker" sounds like a terrible metric. And it is certainly reasonable Trump is higher than paul given "will he run or not" was a huge story for multiple weeks involving a candidate polling at the top who happens to be on a hit tv show. It is hard to declare that you should be the lead newsmaker more when you have never lead in the polls or been projected to win a state etc.

don't worry, he'll win a state. odds are hugely in favor of that.

Why?

Ron Paul's best states in 2008 were:

Idaho 23% (primary)
Montana 21% (primary), 24% (caucus part)
North Dakota 21% (caucus)
Washington 21% (caucus part, 7% primary part)
Alaska 17% (caucus)

Part of the reason he did well was that he didn't drop out of the race until June. That is likely to be his same plan. He's also going to do well in Kentucky because of his son.

He's at least 5% (on avg) to win in each state.
1 - (0.95)^50 = 0.92 = 92% chance that he wins at least one state.

The 5% is a lowball estimate imo, but I'll give you the benefit. Even if you think he's only 2% to win each state (on avg) then he's still got a 63% chance to win a state.

^^^^^Errrrrr.... independence is an AWFUL approximation there. DUCY?

But if you don't I'll gladly take 5:1 on RP not winning a state for any amount you want.

That's true, but it's an easy way to approach it. Not exactly sure why you think it's awful.

I don't know how to factor in non-independent events. Perhaps you could show a rough calculation.

I think he has a better chance than 8.1% to win Iowa.

It gives a really bad answer in this case because given your 5% number is ok on a per state basis, they will often happen together. An example where independence is even worse would be trying to figure out the odds that RP carries a given state in the general election. You can't just do the type of calculation you just did because his chances in all states are dependent on the same factor, him getting the nomination. If he doesn't get the nomination, his chances in all states go to 0 simultaneously and independence is the exact opposite model. His chances of winning a state in the general are probably the same as his chances of winning alabama in the general.

It is not straightforward to do at all. You have to make alot of assumptions about degrees of correlation etc which perhaps you can get some estimate on based on historical data.... but it's alot of work and probably not THAT much better than a made up number. Which I'd be willing to do and perhaps bet on

(But I agree with you in the sense that we should be looking for an easy calculation....it just isn't the one you did, even if I can't motivate an easy better one)

I don't know what date those are from (possibly today?) but Perry in the race has to really hurt him in Iowa right? If Romney is not really trying there and it's just him vs Bachmann he would have had a much >8% chance imo

Max is right, there is a huge correlation. Anything that makes RP win NH would make him win other states. And if he can't win there, he would be just as unlikely to win other states. There is also momentum, where if he wins one, people will view him as a viable candidate, and if he doesn't, they won't. And a huge portion of people will only vote between what they consider to be viable candidates.

Just to clarify, are you offering odds or asking for them?

So you gave an explanation of why my calculation completely fails to explain his chances of winning a state in the general. I completely agree.

But why is it an "awful approximation" to explain his chances of winning a state in the republican primaries?

which number was made up? 5%?

Debating with you is impossible. You take the conversation somewhere else and try to argue on a technicality, when you are clearly wrong.

I was asking for them... at the time it was claimed that RP was >90% to win atleast 1 state. I actually don't know who has the best of the bet the other way....I actually think it could be close and was partly why I chose that number.

they were from 4-5 days ago and they take into account Perry. Shows Perry as 51% to win Iowa, Bachmann 20%, then Paul 8%.

So then you agree RP has a >50% chance to win a state?

If you don't think it is an awful approximation, given me 5:1 on Paul not winning a state. Even if your approximation is very rough, if it is worth anything at all 5:1 should be +EV

No I was saying that I could just make up a number that would probably be just as good as me spending a few hours and doing some calculation.

This is the opposite of a technicality. While the math error itself may sound semi technical, I only pointed it out because it gives a grossly inaccurate answer, one much much worse than what I or TomCollins or Spladle could give you without even doing any math or looking at any poll numbers.

No...not sure how you got that from my post.

Those probably aren't that terrible.... I think Bachmann could be a bit overvalued and Paul under....but that isn't anything but a wild guess

You seem to have misunderstood. The calculation completely fails to explain his chances of winning a state in the R primaries as well.

5% is indeed a made up number, but he was not referring to any specific made up number.

The thing is that broadly speaking I might agree with this conclusion. I recall a mildly annoying exchange with him wherein he roundaboutly insisted that the belief in a right to health care did not imply a belief in the right to health care. But his dealing with you on this topic has in no way mirrored that one. Kindly confine the MR-bashing to those instances wherein he actually makes a mistake. Here he has not.