If Hillary did sob deliberately, how well did it work? We'll know tonight, of course. But while the latest polls show a widening gap between her and Obama, the price of a Hillary contract rose slightly on the Iowa markets this morning.
Very slightly, though; she's still trading at only around 20 cents to get the nomination. Obama is the overwhelming favorite.
I think it's far more likely to be part of a general strategy to lower expectations, so a 2nd or 3rd place finish doesn't seem like defeat, and a 1st place finish seems like a tide-changing victory.
I don't understand the betting markets' shift on Hillary and Obama. It can't simply be that he won Iowa; he had high odds of winning Iowa and even if you assume that all other candidates would've dropped out if she had won, you can't explain much more than 10 or 15 points of his jump from that victory. So what is the new information they are trading on?
"So what is the new information they are trading on?"--ryan
we should wonder what information:
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5513
We're trading on...these electronic machines /would you use an ATM if it didn't give a receipt?/ leave much to be desired in the way of audit trails..
"So what is the new information they are trading on?"
Polls in New Hampshire?
ad,
is that new information? and is the part of that information that is new so powerful and important that it explains how rational agents go from putting Obama's odds of getting the nomination at 3 to 1 against to 3 to 1 in favor? Note that it's not enough to say that the new price is rational; it also has to be explained why the old price was too.
It almost seemed genuine, up to the point where she said something like "bbbut America needs a President who will be ready on day one."
btw, The Anchoress predicted it last week:
"What I dread most in this political season is the “genuine” moment - and it is coming, soon, sometime between today and tomorrow, or tomorrow and New Hampshire - when Mrs. Clinton, in her ongoing effort to turn herself into whatever the polls says she must be, cries in public. It’s going to be genuinely ghastly."
http://theanchoressonline.com/2008/01/02/shameless-hill-shill-on-nbc/
When I first read about this moment, I enjoyed a nice long feeling of schadenfreude. Then, I allowed myself a moment of pity...like her or not, one shouldn't enjoy too much watching the collapse of another's dreams.
But when I actually saw the video, I wondered what most of the fuss was about. If it was faked, the HRC is a vastly better performer than I'd given her credit for...mostly she just sets of my BS detector when she tries to be genuine. In fact, this might be the first time she's ever seemed to me to be entirely like a normal human being. To me, she came across as heartfelt and, above all, dignified.
It actually annoys me that MM has repeatedly used the word "sob" to describe this moment. Shouldn't "sobbing" be used to describe a fairly intense sort of crying? HRC's eyes had tears, and her voice quavered a bit and caught a few times, but I don't believe she even had to wipe her eyes. If that was "sobbing", what words are left for those moments when tears fall, when the nose runs, and when speech becomes difficult?
I thought it was genuine and not "sobbing", but it certainly didn't endear me to her. Basically it still seemed to me like she was being arrogant. She wasn't moved by someone else's suffering or a feeling of humility or a desire to do better. Going by what she said it struck me that she either got a bit dewey-eyed because of self-pity or because of an almost megalomanical belief that the country will fall apart (not simply be worse off) without her as President. Although to be more charitable it could've just been fatigue.
Still the voters apparently saw it different. I guess maybe they related to someone losing their dream and her finally having genuine emotions. Although if I was her I think I'd hope it's not a factor as this seems perilously close to winning by pity.