Intrade: Clinton shares collapse – Democrats favored to pick up 5 Rep Senate Seats

[grantcart]

Intrade: Clinton shares collapse – Democrats pick up 5 Rep Senate Seats
http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/contractSearch/#
I) PRESIDENTIAL MARKETS

Using the principle of the “the wisdom of crowds” markets selling shares on political futures have been amongst the most accurate predictors of outcomes of political races. The price for Dems winning the White House 62, while Obama leads McCain 56 to 38.

Clinton’s shares on Intrade fell sharply over the last week. McCain and Obama have virtually the same price (95 versus 90)

Obama’s shares now top 90 while Clinton’s shares fell from 22 on May 6th to 8 on May 12th (At the same time this thread centered on the presumptive nature of the race http://journals.democraticunderground.com/phrigndumass/35)



To give an idea of how the Clinton campaign rates on the market compare it to other long shots that are trading at similar odds:

Bird Flu will be found in the US this year 26.0

Lunar X Prize by 2012 (Private company lands on the moon) 20.2

Spitzer will be indicted 17.5

Hillary Clinton will be nominated for President 8.5

Bin Laden captured by 9/30 8.2

McCain will not be the Republican nominee 5.9

II) VICE PRESIDENTIAL MARKETS

Democrats
Clinton 15
Webb 11.5
Gore 10.7
Richardson 8.0
Warner/Strickland 5.0
Edwards 4.5
Clark 3.5
Biden 3.2
Obama 3.1

Republicans
Pawlenty 18
Romney 16.6
Huckabee 10
Giuliani 8.5
Hutchinson/Rice 4.9

III) Democrats favored to maintain control

House 96
Senate 92

IV) Senate Contests

Most contests were in the 90s but the few exceptions

Dem leads in seats now held by Republicans

Colorado 54

Minnesota 52

New Hampshire 72

New Mexico 80

Virginia 80

Republican lead in seats now held by Democrats

None

Tied

Louisiana 50


So sometimes you wonder if we are just talking to ourselves and have we missed something that the rest of the world sees or are more 'enlightened' views disconnected with reality?

Taking an occasional glimpse at Intrade shows that a lot of people who are actually investing money share our reading of the political realities. This is going to be a helpful reality check when the results of West Virginia comes in and all of those talking heads start babbling away about how Obama has to do this or that. According to all of those capitalists who are risking actual money Obama has the inside track to the White House by quite a bit.

[NeedleCast]

1. So much for the PA bounce

[Mist]

2. Thanks for the site--very interesting. It reminds me that I've heard

that London bookies are also quite accurate when setting the odds.

[pnorman]

3. "The Wisdom Of Crowds"

The concept seems wildly counter-intuitive (ESPECIALLY to us "Elitists"), but it appears to be not only sound but useful. Here's the Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wisdom_of_Crowds

I suggest all here to check that book out. For those interested, it's also available in Audible format.

pnorman

[datopbanana]

4. How is this different from 'group think'

[grantcart]

6. because it is individuals acting to make decisions based on probability.

The people are purchasing based not simply on the liklihood of the outcome but the degree to which the perception of the group is likly to change. It is indivduals betting on what they think the group will think in the future. In the begining of the race for example you had picked Obama and his situation improved you could sell your stock adn make a profit without having to wait for the actual outcome

[pnorman]

8. Please read that Wiki that I had supplied!

"The book relates to diverse collections of independently-deciding individuals, rather than crowd psychology as traditionally understood. Its central thesis, that a diverse collection of independently-deciding individuals is likely to make certain types of decisions and predictions better than individuals or even experts, draws many parallels with statistical sampling, but there is little overt discussion of statistics in the book."

"diverse collections of independently-deciding individuals" is the key concept.

pnorman

[datopbanana]

11. "diverse collections of independently-deciding individuals" is the key concept.

gotcha

[pnorman]

16. Like I said, it's definitely "counter-intuitive"

On my first "listen", i certainly approached it with considerable skepticism. But I now feel that however "magical" it may appear, it seems to "work".

Here it is at Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Wisdom-Crowds-James-Surowiecki/dp/0385721706/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1210686646&sr=1-1 4 out of 5 stars with 149 reviews --- not bad. See if you can find it at your local library.

Here's from one review:

"In 1906, Francis Galton, known for his work on statistics and heredity, came across a weight-judging contest at the West of England Fat Stock and Poultry Exhibition. This encounter was to challenge the foundations of his life's study.

An ox was on display and for six-pence fair-goers could buy a stamped and numbered ticket, fill in their names and their guesses of the animal's weight after it had been slaughtered and dressed. The best guess received a prize.

Eight hundred people tried their luck. They were diverse. Many had no knowledge of livestock; others were butchers and farmers. In Galton's mind this was a perfect analogy for democracy. He wanted to prove the average voter was capable of very little. Yet to his surprise, when he averaged the guesses, the total came to 1197 pounds. After the ox had been slaughtered, it weighted 1198.

James Surowiecki takes Galton's counterintuitive notion and explores its ramification for business, government, science and the economy. It is a book about the world as it is. At the same time, it is a book about the world as it might be. Most of us believe that valuable nuggets of knowledge are concentrated in few minds. We believe the solution to our complex problems lies in finding the right person. When all we have to do, Surowiecki demonstrates over and over, is ask the gathered crowd.

The well-written book is divided into two parts. The first deals with theory; the second offers case studies. Believe it or not, I found it to be a page-turner. The author has that precious ability to render the complex in simple, understandable and interesting prose.

I have long been an admirer of H. L. Mencken who once wrote, "No one is this world, so far as I know, has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people."

By the time I finished this book, I believed Mencken was wrong."

pnorman

[grantcart]

20. thats a very interesting review thanks

[pnorman]

25. Here's a Chomsky quote which seems to tie into this very important concept:

CHOMSKY: Well, let me give an example. When I'm driving, I sometimes turn on the radio and I find very often that what I'm listening to is a discussion of sports. These are telephone conversations. People call in and have long and intricate discussions, and it's plain that quite a high degree of thought and analysis is going into that. People know a tremendous amount. They know all sorts of complicated details and enter into far-reaching discussion about whether the coach made the right decision yesterday and so on. These are ordinary people, not professionals, who are applying their intelligence and analytic skills in these areas and accumulating quite a lot of knowledge and, for all I know, understanding. On the other hand, when I hear people talk about, say, international affairs or domestic problems, it's at a level of superficiality that's beyond belief.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky

pnorman
On edit: I cited the wrong URL for the above quote. Try this one instead: http://www.chomsky.info/books/reader02.htm

[RichardRay]

19. A big no-no in 'Wisdom of Crowds' is something like Digg

where each decision changes the decision space for the next decision maker. The decision space needs to remain open even if knowledge of other decsiom maker's choices is available.

[TexasObserver]

5. Hillary is the Bear Stearns of political investments.

[grantcart]

15. LOL

[grantcart]

7. BREAKING BREAKING BREAKING

IN A RELATED SUBJECT HILLARY CLINTON HAS LOST HER FIRST PLEDGED DELEGATE


AS SHE HAS ALREADY LOST SOME OF HER SUPER DELEGATES NOW FOR THE FIRST TIME ONE OF HER PLEDGED DELEGATES HAS SWITCHED TO OBAMA

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/12/AR2008051202554.html?referrer=digg

Prince George's County Executive Jack B. Johnson, a Democratic convention delegate pledged to support Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, said yesterday that he thinks Sen. Barack Obama has "in a real sense" won the Democratic nomination and that he now plans to support Obama at the August convention.

Johnson, who endorsed Clinton nine days before Maryland's February primary, said he will urge Gov. Martin O'Malley and Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski, who co-chair Clinton's Maryland campaign, to bring all of her delegates to Obama's camp for the sake of party unity.

"I cannot in good conscience go to the convention and not support Barack," Johnson said in an interview. "She ran a great campaign, but she fell short of the line


Some Clinton delegates were chosen by voters at the ballot. Others, such as Johnson, were selected in consultation with the Clinton campaign by the Maryland Democratic State Central Committee, party spokesman David Paulson said.

But Paulson said that pledged delegates are under no obligation to stick by their candidate and that Johnson is free to defect if he chooses.

"The freedom to change your mind or change your vote does exist," Paulson said. "They're not like superdelegates, but they do have this flexibility."

[davidpdx]

9. I wonder who laid the groundwork for that

Could it be the Clinton campaign themselves?

[grantcart]

10. I doubt it but it will be big news - no one could see that one coming

[davidpdx]

12. Grant, I was kind of being sarcastic

Remember back when Clinton said that pledged delegates could change their minds? That's what I was referring to.

[grantcart]

13. here is the citation - wasn't sure because a lot of people have conspiracy theories around here

but you make a good point


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/10/hillary-clinto...

"It doesn't look bleak at all. I have a very close race with Senator Obama. There are elected delegates, caucus delegates and superdelegates, all for different reasons, and they're all equal in their ability to cast their vote for whomever they choose. Even elected and caucus delegates are not required to stay with whomever they are pledged to. This is a very carefully constructed process that goes back years, and we're going to follow the process."

She shouldn't have opened her mouth about poaching pledged delegates.





BTW do you have a thread?

[davidpdx]

27. Confused?

Grantcart,

What do you mean? Do you mean a thread about her saying pledged delegates can be poached?

[phrigndumass]

14. where'd my jaw go? oh yeah, it's over there on the ground.

:wow:

[grantcart]

21. what surprised me is that it falls way below a lot of other events like

the indictment of Elliot Spitzer and the landing of a lunar vehicle on the moon by a private company.

[Major Hogwash]

17. I want a Democratic Senator from Idaho to represent us next year.

We need more than just 5 to suit me.

I'm sick of being represented by the likes of Craig and Crapo.

[grantcart]

18. agree but it is a good early sign

[Major Hogwash]

23. I agree, and we may be able to start talking about picking up as many as 8 by August.

Things are going downhill for the GOP faster than the odds of Ozzie Osbourne ever writing his own autobiography.

[grantcart]

26. if I had spare money I would be buying right now

in some of those states with big Rep leads it will tighten and then you could sell

[goclark]

28. K

[grantcart]

30. thanks

[featherman]

22. Webb, Clark, and Strickland have all gained +2.5 recently

[Scurrilous]

24. K & R

:thumbsup:

[grantcart]

29. After WV Obama's share goes up 1 point to 91