fireworks_god said:

He needs my money now, to make it happen. My money is much more crucial to his success right now than after the Republican nomination.

---

wilshire said:

i don't know why it's most likely to happen. i don't follow basketball, but i can tell by looking at the odds bookmakers are posting who will likely win a game, without having a clue as to why. same thing.

prediction markets are widely acknowledged to be arguably the most accurate way to predict future events. i'm surprised that you are unaware of this, and i'm more surprised that you would go so far as to call me a moron because i am aware of it.

---

Exactly, and, no doubt, the national polls are the most determinate factor that they consider, evidenced by their top three picks. If they are basing their odds on the consensus of the mainstream media, with the polls driving the majority of their consensus, then they are observing reality through a limited lens that is not registering what is actually occuring.

I realize that I'm placing myself out on a limb by claiming to be more capable of predicting the nature of how reality will unfold regarding this than the established "most accurate way to predict future events". Of course, prediction markets are very capable of predicting future events that unfold in formulaic manners, such as football games. There is an established order in the process of the event, and all they have to do is gauge the unknown variables, like the nature of each player, the team's performance this year, etc. etc. etc., and find a comfortable assumption.

I'm sure it works much more effectively with football, considering how many football games have been played in the last fifty years. Clearly, as well, some manner of order has manifested in presidental elections since the television has come into being, and clearly the corporate, mainstream media has exerted its fair share of effort into maintaining this.

However, this election is an entirely different story, thanks to the Internet and the prevalence of the generation that was raised with it into politics. It is a chaos factor in regards to the established sense of order, and the mainstream media and those that rely on it to formulate odds won't realize the full extent of its crucial role in transforming the race until the votes are cast. They already realize the role it has played in Ron Paul's fund-raising, of course, because that is the first means they have had of quantifying it.

The proliferation of information that a centralized media could never even dream of replicating creates a lot more understanding of what is actually occuring, and who the candidates actually are. The money Ron Paul has raised through the Internet is testament enough that those who are the most informed as to who the candidates are support Ron Paul exponentially more than anyone else.

The only question here is the effectiveness that those who are connected have in reaching those who are not and bringing them to vote for Ron Paul as well. I think that Iowa is the true test of this, considering the nature of the state. I'm not saying that Iowa isn't connected through the internet, but Iowa is one of the more traditional states, in my personal experience. The fact that, at the very least, we can expect third place is a great sign of what is set to come, and positions him quite well to build up momentum going forward.

Also, the grass-roots organization is much stronger than anyone else's. We can raise more money for Ron Paul than any other candidate can receive, but we can also put a blimp in the air, send 600,000 hand-written letters into Iowa, run full-page ads in major newspapers repeatedly, our own television ads, etc. etc. etc.... all of this money raised by individuals. Its unprecedented and unexpected.... all thanks to the amazing power of the Internet.

I could go on like this but I'd rather enjoy the moment and anticipate tomorrow night's results.

I didn't call you a moron. I proposed an if/then statement, so perhaps you identified yourself as a moron as a result. I wouldn't call you a moron on reflection, just existing with a lack of information and an appeal to authority, a logical fallacy.

Quote:

i'll give you 10 to 1 odds that he loses. if he loses the republican primary, you pay me $500. if he wins, i will pay you $5000.

you don't have to put any money up. you think he's got a 1 in 3 chance. i'm giving you 1 in 10 to bet on. you don't have to put anything up, and when you win, that $5000 should really put a boost on your 'get out of the country' thing.

do we have a deal?

---

Did you not read my previous posts in this thread, or did you neglect your reading-comprehension skills?

Living with the woman that I love with all of my being transcends my enthusiasm and perspective on Ron Paul and what is occuring regarding him, and any money that I can spare I put into Ron Paul's campaign to make it happen. I would never bet money I do not presently have to back it up, even if I do not to put it up front, especially with that much money. The fact that I'm a sane individual and would not feel absolutely certain I would win compounds it. Let's not pretend that my inability to wager equates with my take on the matter not being sound.

zappaisgod said:

When you send in your Unicef type box with the coins in it do you have to file with the government?

---

I believe the official campaign reports to the government information regarding the usage of my debit card to donate to them a couple hundred dollars, if that is what you mean.

Quote:

  And when he flames out and you leave the country do us all a favor.  Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.  That's all.

---

He isn't going to flame out. Only the ignorant hold such a viewpoint. I'll likely be gone before his campaign is.

Madtowntripper said:

I like how "Ignorant" to you means anyone with a different opinion.

You're a very enlightened being.

---

No, ignorant to me means falling for the appeal to authority while dismissing information of what is actually occuring. Even the authority, the mainstream media, is acknowledging that his chances are very good at building momentum, coming out of Iowa and even better odds in New Hampshire. They acknowledge the signifigance of his warchest that he has spontaneously raised, the signifigance of the likelihood that he will beat Giuliani in Iowa, the signifigance that he is positioned to ride through February 5th while candidates like Fred Thompson, Huckabee, and McCain might not make it. They have all felt the power of the grass-roots support, the revolution that is occuring, and only question its ability to reach traditional voters, stating that, if the younger vote comes out, he has great chances of winning.

They, of course, are pulling the foot out of their mouths the day before his suprising results come in, since they know they can't stop him now, and the media that has tried in an obvious way, Fox, is looking really bad right now for it.

Differing opinions are differing opinions, and ignorance of something that is occuring is ignorance. Most differing opinions result from a lack of information. If I've used the term ignorance, it isn't in a condescending way, simply implying the definition of the word for what it means - lack of knowledge or information.