tarpash

Thanks jenni! You're such a supportive hubdubber!

Randburg, I understand your disappointment in the market not being settled your way. All of us hubdubbbers have disagreed with the ways admins settle market at one time or another. Just last week I disagreed with infernal about a world market that I thought he settled prematurely. It happens. But as the creator of this question, I tried very hard to make it as clear-cut as possible. Obama didn't announce any of his cabinet appointments by Friday. I'm sure if you talked to Clinton or Daschle at this very moment, they wouldn't agree with the statement "I'm the next Secretary of X" on the record. It hasn't been made official and things could still change.

Curios, I really resent your implication that I had some kind of fore-knowledge that this market would be settled as NO when I created it. If that were the case and I were a dirty player, I would have bet large amounts on NO. But I didn't. I didn't bet anything on this market. And when this question was created early Monday morning, no one knew that Obama wasn't going to announce anything this week. That's why this market was all over the place. Be careful what accusations you throw around.

The news articles provided by randburg and curios are not sufficient to settle this market. This question asks specifically if "Obama will announce any major cabinet appointments this week". He has not officially announced anything. He hasn't even UNOFFICIALLY announced anything. All the rumors have been supplied by transition officials and unnamed sources. At least this is the situation as of 6:40 pm on Friday.

Randburg's ABC news articles says: "CNN, citing multiple sources familiar with the appointments process, said Mr Obama was likely to name Democratic Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano." LIKELY to name randburg, not has named.

Curios's cited articles says: "Obama has not officially announced any Cabinet appointments."

If nothing official happens tonight, then this market should be settled as NO.

Thanks cheesenips! There are 15 "official" cabinet positions, but over the years, each President has added and abolished certain office or titles to fit his goals. Remember a couple of years ago Bush created the "intelligence czar"? That position is now considered a "cabinent-level" position, but not an official cabinet office. And with Obama proposing an "auto czar" that number could climb even higher.

If Stevens resigns or is forced out, Gov. Palin will appoint someone to fill is spot until a special election can occur 60 to 90 days after the resignation. Is this question asking whether 1) Palin will appoint herself to be interim Senator, or 2) whether Palin will run as a candidate in the special election. It seems to me that Palin can't run unless she appoints herself as interim Senator because if she appoints another Republican (which she will since Stevens is a Republican) then that Republican will represent the GOP on the ticket in the special election. More info here: http://blogs.reuters.com/trail08/2008/11/06/can-ted-stevens-thrust-palin-back-into-the-national-spotlight/

I'm flagging this market for review.

@conspiracy: Missouri was the only state that flipped in terms of governors. NH reelected incumbent Democratic Governor John Lynch. I think you may be confused about NH flipping in the Senate race, as Sununu lost reelection.

Hanna update

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/hurricane-hanna-howls-towards-northern-ireland-13966700.html

@curios Look at the yellow on destry's graph. It indicates when Hanna was a hurricane.

That past advisory was posted on Monday, Sep 1st.

@curios here is fact:

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2008/al08/al082008.public.019.shtml?

This NHC advisory says: "HANNA IS A CATEGORY ONE HURRICANE ON THE SAFFIR-SIMPSON
SCALE."

NBC's football coverage only spilled over into their 10pm convention coverage by 2-4 minutes. According to overnight raings, Obama's speech got a 4.1 on NBC, while McCain got a 5.2. I think we have enough info to settle this question. Thoughts?

According to Zap2it.com:

Obama's speech received a 4.1 rating on NBC on Aug 28.

McCain's speech received a 5.2 rating on NBC on Sep 4.

Surprise! Surprise!

You guys continuing to bet on the "tropical storm" option know that Hanna was already a Cat 1 hurricane earlier this week, right?

Look at the history on the NHC website, or here: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2008/al08/al082008.discus.019.shtml?.

From the NHC:

"MAXIMUM SUSTAINED WINDS HAVE INCREASED TO NEAR 70 MPH...115 KM/HR...
WITH HIGHER GUSTS. ALTHOUGH NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN STRENGTH IS
FORECAST BEFORE LANDFALL...IT WOULD ONLY TAKE A SMALL INCREASE IN
WIND SPEED FOR HANNA TO BECOME A HURRICANE."

Hanna only needs to have sustained winds at 74 mph to become a Cat 1 hurricane. This is going to be close!

@ destry and newswrangler
Sorry about not flagging. I will do so next time.

What if the convention is delayed, to say, the second week of September, but Bush still speaks? I ask this because the background says:

"Will President George W. Bush speak live and in-person at the Republican National Convention during the first week of September?"

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-gopstorm29-2008aug29,0,1057901.story

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080827/ap_on_el_ge/primary_elections

I say we should leave this market open at least through 6-7 weeks of play. Not very much money has been wagered so far either. If we keep it open we can see those spikes and dips in the Hubdub graph we love so much. Plus it's not even September yet, people aren't thinking about NCAA football, much less who will win conference championships. The people who want to wager during the season couldn't if we suspended this market, either.

Plus market suspension dates should be selected as a date when an outcome could occur. No conference champions will be crowned any time soon.

Good idea Jenni! I'll work on it.

http://boxofficemojo.com/daily/chart/?sortdate=2008-08-09&p=.htm

Pineapple Express gave it a good shot, but it looks like DK was strong enough to retain #1.

Wouldn't the Spitzer Clause (aka the 99% rule) apply in this situation? Within the last hour, dozens of media outlets reported that Novak is retiring immediately. His home newspaper has even posted his retirement as breaking news at the top of their website. What more do you need? It is 99% likely that he will not resume his work by Aug 31. He announced retirement, much like Spitzer announced his resignation before he actually stepped down.

This market should be settled and all predictions after Novak's announcement should be voided. It is ridiculous to have this market open until Aug 31, allowing opportunists to throw money at the NO option in the mean time.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/businessIndustry/idUKL145396220080801

This article makes it seem like levels are still 15-20% below what they normally would be, even though they have inceased to contracted levels. I would say the market should be settled as "NO" but then again, I have a lot of $H riding on it.

This is going to be close!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080617/ap_en_tv/tv_nbc_after_russert

I have a lot of money riding on the "Yes" outcome too. But unfortunately for me, as of right now, Clinton has not conceded, suspended or quit her bid. This CNN article says it all: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/04/democrats.wednesday/index.html

On Tuesday night she said she was "waiting" to make her next move. As of now, she has not made it. On Saturday it sounds like she will. She's Hillary, though, and everything has to be about her. Including giving a lavish speech in DC she could have given Tuesday night.

I mean voided

If Clinton does not drop out before the convention, then the market will be suspended.

Yeah I thought about this when I created the question. That's why I put the part about the "primary" means of dropping out of the race. In other words, what will CNN be showing the next day: clips of her speech (possible made after her website posting) or excerpts from her website posting.

For instance when Ron Paul made the announcement he was scaling back his campaign after McCain achieved the majority of the delegates, he made it via his website and then did the press rounds to clarify his posting. And CNN and MSNBC showed his website announcement all day the next day.

Here is Huckabee dropping out: http://youtube.com/watch?v=2en7F-4Xoxk

Here is Edwards dropping out: http://youtube.com/watch?v=DdUCJsh6zvE


These are not news conferences. They are speeches. Whether they are "concession speeches" or not is up for interpretation. Both Huchabee and Edwards know they have been beaten. To me they are "conceding" because after the results of the primaries held up to that point are known, they know they can't win the nomination. They've lost.

Here is Wikipedia's article on concessions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concession_%28politics%29

Right, a news conference would fall under the "other" category. But we must distingush between a news conference and a concession speech.

A news conference is an event where the subject answers questions from reporters. A concession speech is an event where a candidate makes a speech to supporters ending her campaign. I think the main difference is the "answering questions from reporters" part.

What is the definition of "decided" in this question? Technically the Republicans haven't "decided" to nominate McCain until the convention, but yet for all intents and purposes he is the presumptive nominee. There should be some clarification in the wake of the Spitzer market scandals.

If the court's ruling allows individuals (with the reasonable exception of ex-convicts) to own handguns legally in DC, then the market will be settled as Yes, even if the case is remanded. I don't see where the the court can partially rule on the ban without either overturing it fully, or letting it stand fully.
In any case, if there is a legitimate dispute, the question will be voided.

If the US Supreme Court remands the case back to the Court of Appeals (which is not likely, but possible I suppose) then the market will be settled as "No" since the decision to strike down the DC ban will rest with the Court of Appeals and not the Supreme Court like the question stipulates.

Yes, the Parliment can impeach the President if two-thirds supports the measure.