Intrade on the Special Massachusetts Election for Senate: Will the Democrat Win?

Price for Winner of Massachusetts Special Election (to replace Ted Kennedy) at intrade.com

The last price (at present) is 47, -14 on the day.

print

Posted in * Economics, Politics, Politics in General, Senate

13 comments on “Intrade on the Special Massachusetts Election for Senate: Will the Democrat Win?

  1. Archer_of_the_Forest says:

    It’s hard to say. Special elections like this are notoriously hard to predict because voter turnout is usually abysmally low (lower than even what is normative for the United States in non-Presidential election years.)

    Polls, likewise, are not a very good sampling in a special election because of this reason. Two-thirds of the voters are registered Democrats, but whether two-thirds of the voters who get out and actually vote will be registered Democrats is anyone’s guess. Usually the party that currently holds the seat always runs the risk of voter apathy, with too many people thinking that the seat is safe so I don’t need to go vote.

    On the one hand, Republicans seemed to be more energized, which sometimes but not always translates to a higher voter turnout for that demographic. On the other hand, Democrats seemed to have hit the panic button, trotting in all sort of money and big whigs. They’ve even resorted to calling the Republican candidate an extremist and radical amongst other names, which I find ironic as Kennedy reveled in being seen as a Liberal radical for most of his career.

    Thus, I believe it is impossible to predict whether that will have a positive or negative impact on their campaign. The Democrats may energize more of their base to get out and vote with the money blitz, or it may further fan the flames of discontent.

    I would predict that if the Democrat loses by a razor thin margin, expect this election to be in the courts for weeks, if not months.

  2. Todd Granger says:

    A (libertarian) friend told me today that his father, a life-long Democrat in Massachusetts, intends to vote for Brown, the Republican candidate. I’m not sure how many others may be tired of this Massachusetts senate seat’s being considered a sort of Kennedy patrimony or Democrat possession, and so will vote for the (R) candidate.

  3. Henry Greville says:

    Excuse me, but the Republican in this Masachusetts Senate race is so disrespectable that he posed naked in Playgirl magazine a few years ago. He is as bad a joke as Levi Johnston.

  4. Kendall Harmon says:

    Intrade isn’t a poll, it is a market. There is no flawless indicator, but it has one of the best records out there.

    I think the Tip O’Neill principle applies above all, all politics is local. That gives the Democrats the edge in my view since this is Massachusetts, but anything is still possible. It remains fasincating to watch.

  5. Kendall Harmon says:

    I should also note that Intrade will change constantly and what matters is the very late readings into the election itself. I see this morning Brown is up to a 55 price, and Coakley is down to 46.

  6. AnglicanFirst says:

    “Excuse me, but the Republican in this Masachusetts Senate race is so disrespectable that he posed naked in Playgirl magazine a few years ago.”

    While this fact, if Brown were still unrepentantly proud of his behavior, would cause me to not vote for him (as an Independent), it does represent the kind of behavior that would be shrugged off by most Massachussets Democrats. As a matter of fact, many of those voters would think that he was ‘avant garde’ and ‘kind of cool’ for posing for Play Girl magazine.

  7. Steven in Falls Church says:

    No. 3 — The “nude” pic (the privates are covered) was in Cosmopolitan magazine, it was almost 30 years ago, when the guy was in college, and has been circulating out there for years. The pic will probably gain him more votes.

    http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2009/09/15/gop-senator-s-racy-pics-don-t-matter-because-he-s-a-dude.aspx

  8. elanor says:

    His opponent seems to think that Curt Schilling is a Yankee fan — that will probably make more of a difference in this race than some old beefcake pix.

  9. RandomJoe says:

    Kendal wrote:

    “I think the Tip O’Neill principle applies above all, all politics is local. That gives the Democrats the edge in my view since this is Massachusetts, but anything is still possible. It remains fasincating to watch.”

    This is most certainly true and does give the Dems the ‘home field’ advantage, however, there are strange local issues going on here. Coakley is viewed as the machine politician here in Mass – and the machine isn’t popular this year…

  10. APB says:

    The Dem’s have been pretty candid about their plans to slow roll Brown’s certification and seating in the Senate to preserve their 60 seat majority for the healthcare bill. To give him some credit Barney Frank expressed outrage at the very suggestion this would happen, considering how fast others have been approved in the past in similar elections. Should there be a Brown win, imagine him going to Frank for help. Whether Frank walks back his previous view, or continues with it in a meaningful way, the picture is worth considering for the humor value at least.

  11. libraryjim says:

    There have also been rumors that SIEU and ACORN will be out in force to try to ‘influence’ Democratic votes in the election. Chicago Politics comes to Massachusetts.

  12. Katherine says:

    I’m used to seeing personal charges flying in politics, but really, I don’t know of anything in Scott Brown’s past to compare to a young man who fathered an illegitimate child, declined to marry the mother, and has trashed his child’s mother’s family in the national media, perhaps for money or spite.

    We’ll know by Wednesday how this Mass. election turns out, I hope.

  13. Archer_of_the_Forest says:

    One “wild card” thing to factor in, however, if that the last time Ted Kennedy ran, he almost lost. It was a pretty close election until the end. With his death, a lot of commentators have chosen to conveniently forget that.