Allen '08 futures: Largely unaffected by TNR

Weirdly enough, the release of The New Republic's profile on George Allen had little effect on the prices of futures shares that pay off if he wins the 2008 GOP presidential nomination (though trading volume increased substantially):

So why did his share prices not move very much? Here are some possibilities:

1. Allen's share prices already reflect the damage he will suffer as a result of his history on race - the article didn't change anything fundamental;
2. Investors don't believe Allen's racial problems will prevent him from winning the GOP nomination;
3. The political futures markets lack sufficient depth to respond systematically to new information on a day-by-day basis.

Any ideas? I'm leaning toward #3 given that (a) I think the article will hurt Allen with non-Southern Republican elites who want to modernize the party and (b) the profile included a lot of new information about Allen's high school past that was previously known only to a handful of people.

(PS I'm also shocked by the lack of attention to the article by major bloggers other than Ezra Klein and Kevin Drum. So why are so many liberals and/or conservatives failing to respond? Allen is the great conservative hope of '08. Sure, it's early, but this is the kind of stuff that can kill a candidacy.)

Comments

[SomeCallMeTim]

I think the article will hurt Allen with non-Southern Republican elites who want to modernize the party

You are, by profession, much better situated to make judgements about political processes than I am, but I think you are vastly underrating the power of Southern Republicans in the Republican Party. It's not like the South for the Dems, where people (and only some people) believe that the South is a necessary part of any winning coalition. The South drives the modern Republican Party. And the Southerners know that; I'm not sure why they would give that up.

If there's no other candidate in the field that the South will feel comfortable with, then Allen will become the nominee. Maybe the lack of change in share price mean there is no other such candidate. I guess I'm voting for #2.

[Sean]

I disagree that there's been no blog coverage: Crooks and Liars is all over it, and there's several diaries on Daily Kos.

But you have to understand in the South, the flag is not a symbol of racism to everybody. This creates a problem because every racist can hide behind the "heritage" of the flag. For instance, Georgia's flag was changed in 1956, which some say was a memorial to the Confederacy. But when John Walker Davis investigated this claim, he found that there was no other motive except in defiance of the SCOTUS Brown ruling. But no one will ever admit it.

Governor Sonny Perdue of Georgia famously ran on a platform to reinstall the flag, then backed down on his promise after election. I truly believe that his promise drove people to vote in Georgia on 2002, especially when they could openly claim heritage is their reason for flying the flag. It's perpetuated ever since.

[Seth Kramer]

I'm not surprised to see an absense of coverage.

A modern republican subtlely race-baiting? Why that's almost as shocking as a 60s era Dixiecrat overtly race-baiting.