Of interest at present, the Republicans retaking the House is priced at about 93.5, and the Democrats keeping control of the Senate has slipped to 43.5
A Look at Intrade on Tomorrow's Elections
10 comments on “A Look at Intrade on Tomorrow's Elections”
T19 Access
Search
Categories Main
Categories Exhaustive
T19 Resources
T19 Access
Search
Categories Main
Categories Exhaustive
T19 Resources
Unless I’m misreading things, I think the Democrats are in complete denial about the woodshed whuppin’ that’s coming.
Intrade’s great, but the Senate contract has tricky rules:
A party will be considered in control of the Senate if they:
1. Hold 51 (or more) Senate seats
2. Hold 50 Senate seats and has the Senate vote of the Vice President of the United States in his or her role as President of the Senate.
For expiry purposes any Senate seat held by an Independent who caucuses or votes with the Democrats will be considered Independent and NOT a Democratic seat. The same rule applies to any Independent who caucuses or votes with the Republicans.
That’s exactly why I don’t bet real money on intrade.com. They have all sorts of cutesy fine print that I have not the patience for.
It’s bizarre that anyone would think the Senate is in play — practically every single one of the “up for grabs” elections would have to fall into Republican hands — things just don’t work that way in real life.
Sarah, it’s only in play in the intrade universe with the detailed contract rules noted in #2. Also, the Republican side is a LOT less than 50% – This says a lot of people are betting the Democrats will only have a majority counting the independents.
This is about as good for the Republicans as you could expect.
FWIW, fivethirtyeight.com — which had a very good track record in the last presidential election — is, as of the moment I type this, predicting that the Democrats come out with about 52-to-48 in the Senate, and about 203-to-232 in the House.
I live in Washington State, where the Senate race is very close and is being, let us say, vigorously contested. Of course I have a preferred outcome in that race, but at this point I’ll be glad to see them both just shut up about each other. Tuesday can’t come fast enough.
I think its possible the Republicans could take the Senate, but I think a 50-50 split is about the most realistic best case scenario for Republicans at this point. That’s assuming they win all the Southern and Midwestern states and win the likely toss up states of Nevada, Colorado, and Illinois, and also win at least one of the possible but not completely realistic (usually Democratic) states of Washington or West Virginia. And then they also need to win Alaska, or at least have the winner caucus with them, although the Alaska race is bizarre because a write-in (the loser of the primary) may win because it appears the Republican establishment has given up on the Tea Party nominee. I’m predicting 51-48 with the Alaskan being technically an independent.
Of course, I predicted the Republicans wouldn’t lose the Senate in 2008 either, so be that as it may.
I think the real litmus test of how well or badly the Democrats do is the Nevada seat. They have poured huge money, lobbyists, DC campaign wonks, and spin doctors into helping Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader and one of the architects of the Healthcare bill and the TARP II bill. He’s currently losing in the polls I’ve read by at least 3 to 5 percentage points. One recent poll actually has him down by 7 percentage points.
If Harry Reid of all people goes down in flames, considering both his prestige as the Obama agenda poster boy and his opponent being a Tea Party candidate, a political novice, and a relatively dreadful campaigner (a series of several gaffs and bizarre statements), I think that will be the gauge of how far the Democratic Party has fallen. If the Democrats lose that seat, it will be a very bad night and have a massive chilling effect on any Obama agenda item for the next year at least.
It would be far better for the Reps if they didn’t get the Senate. Americans like divided govt. If both houses are already Rep after 2010, then the likelihood of Obama keeping office will be much greater.
Repubs may have a hard time winning in IL. I read that DNC, on BHO’s orders, sent $1,000,000 into IL for the Senate campaigin this past Sat. Since there would be no time left on TV to buy and no time left for pamphlet purchase and distribution, I read that as only one thing to do with distribution (or re-distribution, if you will) of all of that money – buying … er, sorry, getting the vote out. And similar to MN in 2008, we can expect a number of “found” ballots in NV, I would suspect, which will just happen to be all Dem. But I agree with Fr. J, it would be better that Dems retain control of Senate, so a totally Repub Congress can’t be used as a foil in the 2012 election by BHO. The Repub House can makes it points for 2012 with conservative bills being passed, that either BHO will veto or the Senate will refuse to pass.