Are Immigration Reformers gambling men?
February 20, 2007, 02:28 AM
Print Friendly and PDF
Now that the establishments of both parties have so front- end loaded the primary system, the electorate arguably has never had less input into selection of Presidential candidates. Even in the old days of open conventions, some influence could be achieved by such mechanism as the Favorite son.

This has greatly strengthened to power of the MSM (a rare event these days) because of their opportunity to not name alternatives. Faced with the choice between, say, McCain, Giuliani and Romney, most voters feel obliged to pick one. So establishment preferences are entrenched.

There is a branch of business statistical theory which holds that the consensus of professional opinion is likely to be a good guess. This has been used in some surprising situations, for instance recovering sunken submarines.

The Irish firm Intrade is applying this concept to politics. Real money is involved, so the system is not easily rigged. The Intrade data is increasingly being cited in American political journalism

Unfortunately, the candidates possibly congenial to readers, such as Hunter, Paul, and Tancredo currently score extremely low – the voting pattern reflects MSM preferences. At present McCain has 33.5%, Giuliani 27.2% and Romney 18%. (Curious that two of three of the “Republican” leaders come from such Democratic states.)

But, unlike the MSM, if this situation changes, Intrade is likely to report it.

Do Immigration Reformers gamble?