It would be an act of terminal insanity for Barack Obama to name Hillary Clinton as his vice presidential candidate. [...] Finally, having Hillary in the West Wing would be a nightmare.

-

Dick Morris:

Instead of conceding defeat and campaigning for Obama, auditioning for the spot of loyal teammate, Hillary insists on keeping her options open and vies for the spotlight with Obama, exactly what you do not want a vice president to do. [...]

But the more serious problem is the public record that Todd Purdum, an excellent journalist, laid out in his Vanity Fair piece. Bill’s relationships with billionaires, his pursuit of financial gain, his alliance with the emir of Dubai, and his acceptance of speaking fees and income from some of the least savory of types is not what you need to carry around with you in a presidential race. [...]

-

More Info: See Andrew Sullivan… who views Hillary Clinton as a detestable lady…

-

So, stay away from the “Hillary Clinton As VP” prediction markets…

-

Previous: Under this hypothetical scenario, the money would support a targeted advertising campaign to sell an Electoral College strategy to voters.

—

The McLaughlin Group (MP4 file):

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Issue Four: Back to Bloomberg.

Mayor of New York Mike Bloomberg may run for U.S. president as an independent. The political consequences of that option are more in focus this week. Mayor Bloomberg, by his social policy, is clearly seen to be that of a Democratic liberal. Bloomberg is pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-gay rights, anti-Iraq and pro-immigration.

That being the case, Bloomberg will draw from the same well as Hillary. So if Hillary gains the Democratic nomination, she would find it very hard to win the general election. Bloomberg will be in the race, and Bloomberg will do to her what independent Ralph Nader in 2000 did to Al Gore; namely, take a decisive chunk from the Democratic candidate.

Lawrence O’Donnell, a committed champion of Hillary, what can Hillary do now to shield herself from the fatal damage that Mike Bloomberg could inflict on her?

MR. O’DONNELL: I’m a friend of all Democrats, not just Hillary. Listen –

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Are you trying to ease out of the Hillary commitment?

MR. O’DONNELL: Hillary is not the one who has a problem with Bloomberg. Rudy Giuliani’s candidacy, if he’s the nominee, would be destroyed by Bloomberg. Bloomberg’s done a better job as mayor. And Giuliani also would lose support on the right, and then he’d have nothing left. And Bloomberg, by the way, could win the thing if he gets in there in a three-way race. He’s no Nader.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Republicans could vote for Giuliani and take the wind out of Bloomberg’s sails.

MR. BUCHANAN: John, Bloomberg will not win a single state. He does put New York State –

MR. O’DONNELL: Bloomberg can win New York. Bloomberg can win California.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: We’re not talking about that.

MR. BUCHANAN: You think he’s going to beat Hillary in New York State? Are you kidding? He’ll draw off a million or 2 million votes. He’ll cede the state to the Republicans.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: I want to know — but my question is, what is the story on Hillary in this? How does she evolve if Bloomberg gets in the race in July of next year?

MR. BUCHANAN: She can’t debate. She cannot have him in the debate with her and with the Republican because Bloomberg will kill her. She will not debate if he’s in the debate.

MS. CLIFT: I have enough confidence in Michael Bloomberg that if he thinks he’s going to be a spoiler and a Ralph Nader, he will not get into the race. That is not his purpose.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: I know it’s not his purpose.

MS. CLIFT: Well, and it’s –

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: But it’s a de facto occurrence.

MS. CLIFT: No, it’s not, because –

MR. O’DONNELL: No, he can win.

MR. BUCHANAN: (Laughs.)

MS. CLIFT: — the party that’s cracking up is the Republican Party.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Where are you hearing that?

MR. O’DONNELL: Bloomberg can win.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: He can enter the race and win the election?

MR. O’DONNELL: Look at the electoral map. Bloomberg can win California.

MR. BUCHANAN: He’s hearing it up in New York, John.

MR. O’DONNELL: He can win New Jersey. He can win New York. He can win all sorts of states –

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Against the Democratic candidate?

MR. O’DONNELL: — that these other third-party candidates never could.

MR. BLANKLEY: Look, the thing you want to pay attention to in a third-party race is not necessarily the votes they get, but how they change the dynamic of a campaign. Perot didn’t take enough votes away to make a difference, but he changed the dynamic to the benefit of Clinton.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Do you think –

MR. BLANKLEY: And let me just finish the thought. Bloomberg spending a $1 billion could change the dynamic in ways we can’t imagine.

MR. O’DONNELL: Right.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Do you think it’s incumbent upon Hillary to do something to shield herself from Bloomberg? And, if so, what is it? Or do you need help? Lawrence O’Donnell?

MR. O’DONNELL: She doesn’t have to do anything now. Bloomberg has to make his decision. What she needs to do now is run the best possible campaign she can run so that her numbers –

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: But she must be distracted by Bloomberg.

MR. O’DONNELL: She just needs to keep her numbers up so that they intimidate Bloomberg.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: But she knows that he could inflict fatal damage on her if he enters the race, the same way that Nader did.

MS. CLIFT: Hillary Clinton is a pro.

MR. O’DONNELL: Giuliani is in a panic over Bloomberg.

MS. CLIFT: Hillary –

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Who?

MR. O’DONNELL: Giuliani is in a panic over Bloomberg.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Forget Giuliani. Let’s think about Hillary.

MR. BUCHANAN: Giuliani isn’t going to be the nominee.

MS. CLIFT: Hillary Clinton is a pro, and she knows there are a lot more twists and turns before Michael Bloomberg raises his hand.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Why can’t Hillary preempt Bloomberg?

MR. BUCHANAN: Romney or –

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Why couldn’t [Hillary Clinton] put Bloomberg on her ticket?

MR. BUCHANAN: Another guy from New York? You’d lose the electoral votes of New York.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Would Bloomberg run as vice president?

MR. BUCHANAN: You’d lose the electoral votes of New York if you got two from the same state, John. This would elect Romney or it would elect Fred Thompson.

I think, with regard to Rudy, I think that would be a mess, because I don’t think Rudy –

MS. CLIFT: I love the way –

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: The fog is not clearing here. The fog is not clearing. What does Hillary do?

MS. CLIFT: She pays no attention to Pat Buchanan, for starters. And second, I love the way everybody has a scenario that works out so that their side wins. And now there’s a fly on Lawrence’s head — (laughs) — to complete the picture.

MR. BLANKLEY: It’s Bloomberg, the fly in the ointment (Laughs).

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Exit question: Will Bloomberg, in 2008, be the political equivalent of Ralph Nader in ’00, a spoiler for the Democrats? Pat Buchanan.

MR. BUCHANAN: If he runs, he could finish off the Democrats.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Eleanor.

MS. CLIFT: He doesn’t get into the race if that’s what it looks like. And he’s too smart. He’ll make the right assessment.

MR. BLANKLEY: He has an extraordinarily high regard for himself. He might get in thinking he can win, and it could adversely affect the Democrats.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: You sound as though you don’t care for his candidacy.

MR. BLANKLEY: No, I would never vote for him.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: No conservative would vote for him.

MR. BLANKLEY: He’s a nanny stater. I don’t like nanny staters.

MR. BUCHANAN: No conservative would vote for him.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Are you sure of that?

MR. BUCHANAN: Yeah.

MR. BLANKLEY: He’s against trans fats, smoking.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: He’s an extremely good and successful administrator. He has this program for New York that he brought forth a few months ago.

MR. BUCHANAN: Look, he’s against the burger Whopper, he’s against Winchester rifles and he’s against Winston cigarettes.

MR. O’DONNELL: Bloomberg is no Ross Perot.

MS. CLIFT: My kind of guy. (Laughs.)

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Do you think –

MR. O’DONNELL: Bloomberg is no Ross Perot. He’s much better than Perot. Perot got 19 percent. Bill Clinton won the presidency in a three-way race at 43 percent. Bloomberg doesn’t have to get 50 –

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Do you think –

MR. O’DONNELL: — he can win with 40 percent.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Do you think the Democrats are figuring out how to destroy Bloomberg?

MR. O’DONNELL: They will do that if it comes to it.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: How will they do that? How will they do that –

MR. O’DONNELL: Well, they’ll try, but it will not work.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: — when he’s got $5 billion?

MR. O’DONNELL: It won’t work. He’ll be impervious.

MR. BLANKLEY: He’s got more than $5 billion.

MR. O’DONNELL: He’s impervious to attack.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: He’s impervious. You mean they can’t reach him?

MR. O’DONNELL: He’s not going to duck. He’s not going to hide on the issues. And there’s no horrible background story to try to tell about him.

—

NEXT: Is it time to buy some Michael Bloomberg event derivatives?

In fact, isn’t it a good pairs trade? Sell the overvalued asset and buy the undervalued assets?

UPDATE: Steve Conover has another excellent graph and analysis on the strength of the dollar. To me, it says some additional things:

1-the limits of a gold-backed dollar, the loss over which the austrian school is always crying

2-how good a democrat president Bill Clinton and treasury secretary Robert Rubin were, and

3-how Jimmy Carter comes in dead last, yet again (Nixon was the one who pulled the trigger on Bretton Woods in the first place, and USD power has been unleashed, helping rich and poor households alike, especially in America and Mexico).

UPDATE II: Dani Rodrik is more sanguine about Bretton Woods. I don’t always see eye to eye with him, but his Trilemma Model does seem to hold up well to my skeptical scrutiny.

Cross posted from Caveat Bettor.

[...] [Haim] Saban wasn’t even interested in politics until he met Bill Clinton during his first term as President. The meeting was brief, but the friendship grew as Clinton made dozens of trips to California during his presidency. Clinton, Saban says, ignited his interest in using his resources to find solutions to strife in the Middle East. He soon became the Democratic Party’s largest single donor. “I don’t say this lightly,” says Terry McAuliffe, head of the Democratic National Committee at the time. “Haim Saban saved the Democratic Party.” Now Saban is turning his energies to Hillary Clinton. “I think he likes her better than he likes me,” jokes Bill Clinton. But as he talks about Saban’s support of Senator Clinton, the former President turns serious. “It is something that” – he pauses – “I can hardly talk about it because it really makes me emotional, ’cause he has genuinely come to love and respect her.” Under current campaign-finance laws, donors can give only $2,300 to a candidate’s primary run and another $2,300 for the presidential run. That means that to raise the big money, fundraisers like Saban have to knock on a lot of doors. “He makes all those miserable calls you have to make to get your friends to contribute,” says Steven Rattner, managing principal of New York-based investment firm Quadrangle and an active Democrat. “He’s quite relentless.” For Senator Clinton’s run, he has hosted events at his office and at his Beverly Park estate, a sprawling mansion in a gated community that is also home to Reba McEntire, Rod Stewart, Sylvester Stallone, Denzel Washington, and Viacom chairman Sumner Redstone. Saban, Steven Spielberg, and News Corp. (Charts, Fortune 500) executive Peter Chernin are hosting another fundraiser for Clinton in late May. He tells of traveling with her on his jet (she paid her way, he insists) when the pilot informed him an engine had gone out. Saban says he excitedly conveyed this information to Clinton, who thanked him and went back to her reading. He later asked her how she managed to stay so calm. According to Saban, Clinton explained that she was in the middle of a good paragraph in her book and that there was little she could do about the situation, so why freak out? “This is magnificent!” Saban practically shouts. “This is what you want in a leader. Nobody touches her. She’s really the most qualified candidate.” [...]

Haim Saban (who brought the Power Rangers to the U.S.) is a candidate… among plenty.

Previous: The Hillary Clinton manipulation stories

—

Betting on a Bestseller: Media Predict responds to questions about the stock market approach to publishing

Yesterday we learned Simon & Schuster was (again) setting the publishing world abuzz [see the New York Times on Media Predict] with a strategy to involve the public in the publishing process. Brent Stinski, from Media Predict – the company overseeing the stock market game for S&S and the person who came up with the concept – takes some time to answer a few questions and explain how this process works.

Sandra Ruttan: Thank you for agreeing to answer a few questions about this new project with Simon & Schuster. First, can you explain a little about how it works? Can any writer (unpublished or published, agented or unagented) participate? What about those involved in the stock side of the equation? Can anyone participate or are there guidelines?

Brent Stinski: Hi Sandra. Thanks for writing. Let me start out with a few big picture comments – and then we’ll get into details.

Media Predict will help media companies do what they’ve never done very well: make good forecasts. Traditionally in media, around 10 percent of the product line generates about 90 percent of revenue. So – whatever method they’re using – media companies most often aren’t honing in on what people want. It’s a very inefficient process, and we’ve all come to accept it because, I think, we assume there’s no better way.

Media Predict uses prediction markets to address this problem. Prediction markets have built an astonishing record in forecasting election results, box office revenue, sporting events, and more. And this is true even when it’s a prediction market game like Media Predict.

So in a nutshell Media Predict uses markets to make sure good stuff gets through the system. That’s the goal.

Now to answer your question: yes, any writer can submit to the site, agented or otherwise. And anyone over 18 can register on the site and trade. We need avid readers (like Spinetingler readers) to look over the book proposals and trade shares of the book proposals according to their careful deliberation.

Sandra Ruttan: What would you say is the primary purpose behind this plan?

Brent Stinski: The primary purpose behind Project Publish is to ensure writers and users that at least someone will get published off of Media Predict. If you’re a trader, your predictions will have a huge impact. And if you’re an unknown writer then you can come to our site have a chance at getting published. All you have to do is impress the traders who evaluate your work at Media Predict.

Sandra Ruttan: How did this originate?

Brent Stinski: The idea started about two years go. I was in Iowa City (my hometown) and I had a cup of coffee with one of the people at the Iowa Electronic Markets at the University of Iowa. He encouraged us to forge on, and we did.

Sandra Ruttan: Is there any guarantee that a participating writer will get a publishing deal? Or is it possible several will, or nobody will?

Brent Stinski: I assume you’re referring to the setup of the contest. Some attention has been paid to this, but I think it’s a storm in a teacup. Basically Simon & Schuster wanted the right to opt out if we simply couldn’t provide them with any good, publishable books. Looking at what we launched with, we’ve already surpassed that goal. There’s some great stuff on the site. So yeah: there will be a winner.

Now, remember that anything that appears on Media Predict is eligible for publication at any time. Simon & Schuster will choose from the top-50 scoring works at a future date. But if a publisher wants to buy a book tomorrow, then they can. Given the quality of material we have, I expect that to start happening soon.

Sandra Ruttan: Author Barbara Fister has commented on this plan, saying, “On the other hand, I’d much rather be asked which book I’d like to read, not which book is likely to sell the most copies. This approach just seems to keep pushing away the question of what readers – real readers – actually like and gets the public involved in the same guesswork now done by publishers.”

Brent Stinski: I can sympathize with this view. The thing to bear in mind is that – one way or another – we’re all dependent on the internal mechanics of publishing houses to deliver our books to us. If we improve that, we all win.

I think the key is confidence. It’s hard to have a lot of confidence when less than 10 percent of books are supporting the production costs of almost 90 percent of what publishers put out. As it is there’s an overwhelming temptation for publishing houses to go for blockbusters, or cookie-cutter stuff that they think people will like.

But what if media companies had more confidence? At the moment, they often see unusual or innovative material as too much of a risk, but they’ll put out these kinds of works if they had good predictions to back them up.

So this author may chafe at having to make predictions about books he or she might never read. Then again, there are lots of different kinds of books on the site, and there’s no requirement to trade in them all. In the end, the method does its work – and the more it’s applied, the more we’ll raise the level of content that publishers put out for everyone.

Sandra Ruttan: Two questions came to mind when I read Barbara’s comment. One was, what’s to stop the people from putting stocks on the books they do want to read, rather than what sells? Is there some incentive to “win” the game with the stocks by “investing” in a way that means you become the virtual Donald Trump of the game? If not, how do you gauge the intent behind any of the participation?

Brent Stinski: You become the virtual Donald Trump merely by predicting well what will happen. Will a book get a deal? Will a band get a deal? Will a television pilot win its timeslot? These are the questions.

What’s nice about markets is that I don’t have to know the individual psychology or motivation behind someone’s predictions. As long as they’re right, they’ll prosper. So one person might just bet on what they like as an individual consumer. Another person might make complex calculations in making a prediction. It doesn’t matter – in the end the market brings together everyone’s best ideas. And the end prediction is usually very, very strong.

Sandra Ruttan: And part of the article in the NY Times referred to this being used as a variation on a focus group. The commenter above clearly distinguishes between the question of what a person is interested in reading and what a person thinks will sell. For example, I read a variety of lesser-known authors – Steve Mosby, Carol Anne Davis, Allan Guthrie, John McFetridge – that I will happily buy future books by, but I know that an autobiography of Bill Clinton is going to sell more copies than any of their works. What would you say to those who wonder if this plan only gives ammunition to support projects that would be an easy sell anyway?

Brent Stinski: Going back to my comments above, the goal is to improve confidence. A guy like Steve Mosby (we can ask him) probably had a tough time getting people to pay attention to him at one point. But he’s good. He fought through, he got into print, and now he has his audience.

With greater confidence everything about media improves. Niche-specializing publishers put out and profit from niche books. Mainstream publishers put out and profit from high-volume books. The real problem is the risk and uncertainty – that’s what makes record companies crank out synthetic bands and movie studios put out something like Big Momma’s House 3. This kind of decision-making is based on a rational desire to recoup investment, since to executives these things seem like safe bets. Ironically in the end they’re not – since all kinds of derivative stuff fails too. But that’s the vicious cycle we’re in.

We say: if you have an audience, you have a deal. That’s the way it should be. Or at least that’s a future we’d like to see. And that goes for niche products as well as mainstream ones.

Sandra Ruttan: I recently discussed focus groups and having more reader feedback in the publishing process, which is something I believe in to a point. With this approach, what ensures that actual avid readers will participate, as opposed to those who enjoy playing with stocks?

Brent Stinski: We have no assurance. Media Predict makes some people very excited. Others don’t have the same reaction. So we’ll just work with the users who believe in us.

What’s nice about prediction markets is that you can generate very accurate predictions with only a few people – with only a few dozen, some researchers say. We may need higher numbers in the case of Media Predict. But we’re confident there are enough avid readers out there who will get hooked on this. (The site is supposed to be fun, you know.) We invite avid readers to join in and trade at Media Predict. It is their participation that will propel good stuff through the system. Their participation will be enough for us to generate good results.

Sandra Ruttan: Will there be status reports or updates through this process to try to drum up interest?

Brent Stinski: I’m not sure – we have a blog, and I’ll post there when I have time. As with any internet company, we’ll have to see how things go.

Sandra Ruttan: Now, how can writers participate? And how can readers get involved in playing the stocks?

Brent Stinski: Anyone can submit to Media Predict without any commitment whatsoever. Our current books were referred to us by agents, but we’ll include user submissions as well. Unfortunately we’re limited in the amount of material we can put up, but we’ll include as many books as we can on the site. After that, it’s up to the users to call the shots.

Sandra Ruttan: Anything else you’d like to add?

Brent Stinski: Not really . . . I guess we realize it’s a lot to take in, and that all of this can be confusing. I think some of the press coverage in the publishing community reflects that confusion. But we’re not trying to please everyone, and this isn’t for everyone. We’re really looking for the people out there who believe in this method – they’re more than enough to help us achieve our goals.

So if anyone out there has read this far, I’d encourage them to get involved. It’s your site. You can make it work.

Thanks for your interest Sandra. And thanks to your readers.

Sandra Ruttan: Thanks for taking the time to answer these questions Brent. This is one of the more original things I’ve seen lately, along with the author bus tours in Scotland. Very creative, and more than anything, it will be interesting to assess the entire process and see what happens.

Brent Stinski: Well, we never said we could compete with the bus tours in Scotland . . .

Sandra Ruttan: There has already been discussion about this on Crimespace, and undoubtedly as the industry takes note there will be more discussion. I guess you could say the jury is out – on the authors under submission and the process. The one thing I feel confident about is that a lot of people will be watching.

—

Originally posted by Sandra Ruttan on the “In For Questioning” blog – Also posted on Sandra Ruttan’s personal blog -

Reproduced on Midas Oracle with Sandra Ruttan’s permission –>

Joe Klein is just the latest of the so-called “MSN” pundits caught red-handed by the political bloggers. Scientist (and leftist blogger) Sean Caroll gives you all the details of the spat between Joe Klein and the bloggers.

Joe Klein is also the author of Primary Colors, the book and the movie (with John Travolta as Bill Clinton). I watched the movie many times. Great stuff.

After the publication of the book (Primary Colors), Joe Klein was fired from NewsWeek and CBS News Sunday (as a political editorialist) for lying to other journalists (in particular to Dan Rather) about being the author of the book —which was first published under the “Anonymous” label.

A pity we can’t turn this Klein-vs-bloggers spat into an event derivative (for lack of clearly defined observables used for contract expiry). It would be fun!

While data are now easier to obtain, there remains disagreement about how to calculate accuracy. Is picking the winner enough? Most experts agree it isn’t, and focus instead on measuring how close the predictions were to the actual spread — the difference in percentage points between the two candidates. But what if a poll accurately predicts an election will be decided within a one-percentage-point margin, but incorrectly identified the victor? Today’s preferred methods haven’t changed much since political polling’s nadir, in 1948, when erroneous pre-election surveys were relied on by the credulous press to predict a victory for Republican Thomas Dewey over Harry Truman. In one of its editions printed on election night, the Chicago Daily Tribune ran the infamous headline, “Dewey Defeats Truman.” To assess what went wrong and to regain credibility, the nonprofit Social Science Research Council outlined ways to measure poll accuracy. Among eight methods the researchers considered, they chose to measure the difference between the predicted percentage vote for the leading candidate, and the actual share for that candidate. However, this method doesn’t spot big errors in predicted victory margins, and can be skewed by independent candidates. As it happens, in 1948, Strom Thurmond and Henry Wallace influenced both the polls and President Truman’s victory. More recently, a study of 2002 polls by Prof. Franklin showed that the holder of a five-point lead in a poll won only 60% to 65% of the time, and polls showing the leader ahead by 10 points or more were dead wrong 10% of the time. Pollsters expected a rout by incumbent Bill Clinton in the 1996 presidential election, but he beat Republican Bob Dole by just 8.5 percentage points in the popular vote. Political scientist Everett Carll Ladd Jr. criticized the polls in the press, calling them worse than the 1948 fiasco, and prompting veteran pollster Warren Mitofsky to analyze the results. Mr. Mitofsky found that “no standard metric for gauging poll accuracy had been adopted by the polling community.” So he went back to the SSRC’s work after the 1948 election, and found another method he preferred: comparing the predicted victory margin to the actual margin, or the error on the margin. If a poll finds Candidate A ahead by three points and he wins by 10 points, that’s an error on the margin of seven points. If Candidate B wins by five points, that’s an error of eight points. There’s no penalty for picking the wrong winner; pollsters are graded only on their error margin. (Mr. Mitofsky, a pioneer of exit polling and a helpful source for my Numbers Guy columns, died Sept. 1 at age 71. He was remembered online by several polling organizations.)

Pollster Scorecards:

- US Governor races – US Senate races – US House races – by news site Pollster.com -

- Survey USA -

- Zogby -

- Rasmussen – US Senate races – Rasmussen – US Governor races -

- Nothing for Mason-Dixon -

Previous Blog Post:

- Prediction Markets: How to measure predictiveness? – Accuracy & Precision – The Google case