Lol. Intrade is one of the very best indicators out there of what will happen and has the record to back it up. This isn’t based on poll data it is based on actual money used by actual people and what they chose to do with it.
Like any indicator, it is not flawless, but it needs to be seen for what it is.
Have these numbers been normalized so that they no longer reflect the actions of a single institutional trader who seems to have been pumping money into McCain’s futures?
The New York Times has the story [url=http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/20/a-new-kind-of-campaign-advertising/]here.[/url]
The same Intrade that had 60% odds for Romney being picked just before Palin was selected, the same InTrade that predicted Palin would be replaced, the same Irish based site that predicted President Kerry. Most of the betting comes from Europe where they still don’t understand how Bush won in ’04.
“I’m curious: if McCain had chosen Romney, would his prospects for winning be stronger or weaker than they are now? ”
I was having that conversation today with my boss, also considering Giuliani (who’d been his favorite in the primary). Very good question, and difficult to answer. Palin was better for energizing & locking the base, Romney may have been a better choice for independents.
“Palin was better for energizing & locking the base, Romney may have been a better choice for independents” —Andrew717 [#9]
Agreed. Romney is more polished and, religion aside, more conventional. Palin is evangelical and has a spunky humanity not evident in Romney. Under the circumstances (e.g., evangelicals’ misgivings about giving Mormonism such a visibility coup), the goals of mobilizing evangelicals and wooing independent voters were in greater tension than usual.
What determined the ‘actual’ money that ‘actual’ people are willing to commit? I’m assuming it’s mostly the current polling data – what else could it be? So I’m arguing that while the prices are not directly from polling data, they are determined (secondarily) – derivatives! – from polling data that these people assume to be accurate.
Does intrade have a record on predicting elections where the Bradley Effect could possibly be in play?
“While the prices are not directly from polling data, they are determined (secondarily) … from polling data that these people assume to be accurate” —Sidney [#12]
True, but Intrade also provides an opportunity to bet against the accuracy of the polling data.
In this respect, Intrade parallels the stock market. Conventional wisdom and conventional accounting numbers strongly influence the stock market. But the stock market also presents opportunities to bet against conventional wisdom and against the picture painted by current accounting numbers. Those (potentially lucrative) contrarian opportunities are part of what makes the stock market “wiser” and more prescient than mere conventional wisdom.
Intrade is about odds. It doesn’t guarantee the victor. Going back in time, I would have still thought that lots of other candidates would have been chosen over Palin. Intrade does not say Obama will win. It says the odds are in his favor. Lots can happen (say, Jeremiah Wright, for example; Obama supporters get so cocky they don’t go out and vote.)
What is true is that we don’t like to believe bad news. I can totally understand why conservatives would hate to think that the odds are truly in Obama’s favor. And I’ve been there – thinking my candidate will win, when the odds are against him, hoping that the polls are just polls and don’t mean what they say they do.
#15 the 1.5% for Clinton may work like this….
Obama/Biden get the most ELECTORS on election day (we don’t vote for president, we vote for electors). A non-US birth certificate for Obama surfaces, he’s out…for whom will the Obama ELECTORS vote? Clinton perhaps?
McCain just has run an abyssmal campaign. I think he’s come off condescending, doesn’t look good on camera, and picked a running mate that has largely flopped. I like McCain personally, but I don’t see how he can possibly pull this off, short of a complete Obama meltdown at the last minute.
Too much questionable information (i.e. poll data) went into these prices to take them seriously.
Lol. Intrade is one of the very best indicators out there of what will happen and has the record to back it up. This isn’t based on poll data it is based on actual money used by actual people and what they chose to do with it.
Like any indicator, it is not flawless, but it needs to be seen for what it is.
Deleted–off topic.
Isn’t Intrade essentialy a way to aggregate the opinons of political junkies?
Have these numbers been normalized so that they no longer reflect the actions of a single institutional trader who seems to have been pumping money into McCain’s futures?
The New York Times has the story [url=http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/20/a-new-kind-of-campaign-advertising/]here.[/url]
All part of the Evil MSM Conspiracy.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
“Isn’t Intrade essentially a way to aggregate the opinons of political junkies?”
In a way: it aggregates the opinions of people who, for whatever reason, are willing to bet good money on particular political outcomes.
The same Intrade that had 60% odds for Romney being picked just before Palin was selected, the same InTrade that predicted Palin would be replaced, the same Irish based site that predicted President Kerry. Most of the betting comes from Europe where they still don’t understand how Bush won in ’04.
Sure.
“The same Intrade that had 60% odds for Romney being picked just before Palin was selected” —GDB [#7]
I’m curious: if McCain had chosen Romney, would his prospects for winning be stronger or weaker than they are now?
“I’m curious: if McCain had chosen Romney, would his prospects for winning be stronger or weaker than they are now? ”
I was having that conversation today with my boss, also considering Giuliani (who’d been his favorite in the primary). Very good question, and difficult to answer. Palin was better for energizing & locking the base, Romney may have been a better choice for independents.
On another part of Intrade . . .
here’s the California marriage amendment:
http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/contractSearch/
Close as can be.
“Palin was better for energizing & locking the base, Romney may have been a better choice for independents” —Andrew717 [#9]
Agreed. Romney is more polished and, religion aside, more conventional. Palin is evangelical and has a spunky humanity not evident in Romney. Under the circumstances (e.g., evangelicals’ misgivings about giving Mormonism such a visibility coup), the goals of mobilizing evangelicals and wooing independent voters were in greater tension than usual.
Kendall,
Maybe I didn’t make my point clearly enough.
What determined the ‘actual’ money that ‘actual’ people are willing to commit? I’m assuming it’s mostly the current polling data – what else could it be? So I’m arguing that while the prices are not directly from polling data, they are determined (secondarily) – derivatives! – from polling data that these people assume to be accurate.
Does intrade have a record on predicting elections where the Bradley Effect could possibly be in play?
“While the prices are not directly from polling data, they are determined (secondarily) … from polling data that these people assume to be accurate” —Sidney [#12]
True, but Intrade also provides an opportunity to bet against the accuracy of the polling data.
In this respect, Intrade parallels the stock market. Conventional wisdom and conventional accounting numbers strongly influence the stock market. But the stock market also presents opportunities to bet against conventional wisdom and against the picture painted by current accounting numbers. Those (potentially lucrative) contrarian opportunities are part of what makes the stock market “wiser” and more prescient than mere conventional wisdom.
Intrade is about odds. It doesn’t guarantee the victor. Going back in time, I would have still thought that lots of other candidates would have been chosen over Palin. Intrade does not say Obama will win. It says the odds are in his favor. Lots can happen (say, Jeremiah Wright, for example; Obama supporters get so cocky they don’t go out and vote.)
What is true is that we don’t like to believe bad news. I can totally understand why conservatives would hate to think that the odds are truly in Obama’s favor. And I’ve been there – thinking my candidate will win, when the odds are against him, hoping that the polls are just polls and don’t mean what they say they do.
I’d like to understand the 1.5% for Clinton. How does that work, exactly?
Bruce Robison
#15 the 1.5% for Clinton may work like this….
Obama/Biden get the most ELECTORS on election day (we don’t vote for president, we vote for electors). A non-US birth certificate for Obama surfaces, he’s out…for whom will the Obama ELECTORS vote? Clinton perhaps?
It’s not been a good last 8 years. Period. End of story. Obama wins.
McCain just has run an abyssmal campaign. I think he’s come off condescending, doesn’t look good on camera, and picked a running mate that has largely flopped. I like McCain personally, but I don’t see how he can possibly pull this off, short of a complete Obama meltdown at the last minute.