Door Number Three

If I were to be given the choice of Lieberman for President, or let the election take its course, it'd be tempting to take Lieberman (such a choice has actually not been offered to me, nor cleared by the Independent Senator, but I like to be prepared). He'd be solid on terror, and when it comes down to it, isn't that the most important thing? Would it be worth gambling and winding up with a cutter and runner for the chance at someone better on domestic issues?

I guess it depends on what the GOP's chances are, and frankly, I like them. I think all the top-tier R's are electable, all have more experience than the Dems, and they all bring "gravitas" to the ticket. Further, the top Dems lack experience, with the most experienced (Billary) carrying a truckload of negatives.

Interestingly though, Intrade says the betting money is on the Dems. Quick primer on Intrade: basically you buy a contract that pays off if a certain event happens. Like a Democrat winning the White House. The contract has a fixed yield of $100, and you can buy as many as you'd like. How much it costs you is a measure of how certain the event is of occurring (if it does not occur, your contract is worthless). Today it will cost you $55 to buy that $100 Dem contract, and only $39 to buy one saying the Republicans will win.

I think the GOP is undervalued here. I'd tell Monty I'll take my chances with what's behind the curtain (and maybe reconsider my investment portfolio).

Comments

Dan Zorn said…
H:

Many believe voting for a candidate on one single issue is a lousy way to be represented in government, but I agree with your assertion when the levee breaks, the fact you never unclogged that stubborn sink drain is moot - a house obliterated by raging floodwaters is still worthless. The sink can wait, pull that kid's finger out of the dike and fix the leak permanently before it becomes catastrophic.

Popular posts from this blog

Predictions (Part II)

Hanson on the "nuisance"

"Their success is our failure."