Electability of 2016 Presidential Candidates as Implied by Betting Markets
toddwschneider.com
toddwschneider.com
Hillary Clinton - 1.3 million
Jeb Bush - .26 million
Donald Trump - 3.7 million
Joe Biden - .85 million
Bernie Sanders - 1.4 million
Marco Rubio - .99 million
John Kasich - .14 million
Scott Walker - .36 million
Ben Carson - 2.88 million
No, I don't think that Donald Trump is the runaway favorite for president. On the other hand, a look at these would make Walker's collapse and Bush's struggles (despite a goliath $100 million warchest) less of a surprise than the political press has portrayed. Likewise, Sanders' challenge to Clinton would be less surprising.
Bush is the real surprise to me. Endorsements and dollars show that he's the establishment's pick, but people just aren't interested in the guy. It would be kind of amazing if someone went from having a D-list celebrity following to sitting in the oval office in a little over a year.
Interestingly, Hillary actually towers over Sanders in terms of authentic Twitter follows.
Also, with the increasing rise of sock puppetry, I would not be surprised to see these sort of artificially inflated numbers are not just organic, but a planned/hired out part of a public relations campaign.
How many Trumps with that hair are going to be running around at the end of October?
They're already breaking rules of past elections where a "gaffe" would be endlessly regurgitated by news anchors until the candidate agreed to a heartfelt exclusive sit-down apology with some network. Trump (perhaps unwittingly) has figured out that the direct relationship of social media makes that irrelevant, and is taking full advantage by belittling his social media inferiors.
The candidates with good followings are basically getting free focus group testing - I wouldn't be surprised if Trump ran with immigration after floating dozens of wild causes and noticing that immigration had a particular resonance.
Paul was polling quite high at one point in 2014, but things changed since then (which is no surprise, 2014 is super early).
;_;
No really, why is it right to not give people like me much credence? Ron Paul made a lot of ground there.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/05/08/six-take-awa...
But I think it's fair to characterize Jeb's numbers as indicative of low interest. There are a ton of people on Facebook in demographics that Jeb needs to do well in to win. To stereotype (using known statistics), white males in their 30's tend to vote Republican - there are plenty of those on Facebook and I see them "sharing" conservative links every day (and I can see that many have followed guys like Carson and Paul). In our increasingly "filter bubbled" world, I think we're seeing people aggressively tune out milquetoast establishment types (on the right at least).
His strategy was to use his Wall St connections (he was working for Lehman Brothers when it went bankrupt) to build a war chest capable of permanently damaging any other candidate in the race with negative ads. Essentially forcing Republican voters to make an early choice between accepting candidate Jeb Bush and getting president Hillary Clinton.
That drove most other candidates from the race, but Trump's entry has completely destroyed that strategy.
Given the unusually crowded Republican field, that's hard to defend as consistent with reality. "Resulted in most of the other candidates that were seen as likely and viable by the mainstream establishment staying out of the race" is, perhaps, not as obviously contrary to reality.
(Maybe that is why there are so many Republican candidates. If you can pass all the litmus tests, you can get millions of dollars to pay your friends to do things for you -- between the Koch brothers and the rest of them you can get a lot of free money if you are a Republican. I think Trump thinks he can make money off the publicity, which is a different business model.)
If you campaign with free money you are basically marketing your book with free money.
It was a very flawed company (and CEO) but it's a pity it's not around during this election. US Presidential elections were one of the few things were it had enough data and people putting money on it's markets that it's predictions were excellent. (Though I think in hindsight I got the job by telling John Delaney the immediate market highs for the Republican's post-Palin entry was a temporary bounce and Obama would win because the economy was the main issue, the Democrats were polling far far higher on it - guess a political degree can sometimes trump market sentiment :)
In fact, I think it's a pity (with the exception of how badly the company was run) in general that something like Intrade is not around. If I am legally allowed to speculate/gamble on oil futures, I really don't understand why I can't be allowed to speculate/gamble/hedge on geopolitical events.
They seem to be offering to customers in the USA which is interesting. It was the regulatory issues in the US which was one of the biggest problems with Intrade's business.
That would get people interested in geopolitical events. At least, more interested than the establishment would like them to be.
There'd be books on geopolitical spread betting, how to become informed, how reading unpopular economics blogs can actually help your understanding, and so on.
Lots of truth would come out if this were allowed. I'm just hypothesizing, feel free to disagree!
http://tippie.uiowa.edu/iem/markets/pres16.html
...and their "U.S. Presidential Election Market"?
There was an interesting Planet Money episode lately about the history of betting on US presidential elections - http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/08/21/433557935/episo....
It hadn't occurred to me before how much participation in the public sphere gambling could (and previously did) generate.
... um....
https://www.quora.com/Are-all-the-U-S-Presidents-related-to-...
Which in practical terms translates to "no", they are not related.
It kills me when I hear, "Obama hasn't done anything?". Yea, the legislature put on the brakes on everything? (Sorry about the mechanical metaphors--spent the weekend under a truck.)
A few years ago someone/group did a study, and concluded most voters literally don't know who's the best candidate? (Basically saying, the average voter is to--simple--to vote for the best person.) I think about that study often?
I'll admit, I don't know who's the best candidate for this country. It's basically a craps shoot? What I really take seriously is, "What kind of judges will this presidential candidate put in office, if elected?" And I know, history has shown that liberal/conservative candidates can go in opposite directions once they get into office. I just hope for the best?
The problem is politics is a lot like religion where logic leaves the room in favor of polarizing opinions. You mention that Obama does not have all the power so it is not his fault that some things were not done, yet there are people still blaming Bush for everything under the sun 7-8 years later.
The difference I have from who you replied to is that I think yes people are smarter and tired of career politicians. They know DC is screwed up and that no side is any better than the other (anyone who thinks Bush/Cheney had all sorts of back door dealings for their friends can in no way support Hillary). They all just want to consolidate power and help our their friends. That is where someone like Trump comes in. He's out there, but he's not them.
I guess this is why many (even intelligent) people think that their favorite candidate is honest.
The entire Bush family (and it's rather big) is in politics, except the women.
How many Clintons are in politics?
I think it would highly diversify the elections and give the people more of a sense of power. A local election is a lot easier to run than a national one.
1) leaving a girl to suffocate in a car underwater didn't end his political career but probably cost him the Presidency - that is what's sad in American politics
http://i.imgur.com/naxgnhi.png
http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/national/rise-of-the-a...
(yesterday's numbers)
As the election approaches, the influence of insiders rises and Republicans especially are very obedient to authority figures. Historically, the candidate next in line according to Republican insiders always and without exception wins the nomination, even when he's very unpopular with the base. Therefore, analysts find Trump a very long shot.
7.7% / 13.5% = 57%
8.3% / 10.0% = 83%
I can think of a few explanations -
1. Biden really is a lot more electable than Hillary Clinton
2. Both candidates have electability at the low end of their range (around 57%).
3. The market is wrong, i.e. they are systematically underrating Biden's chance of winning the nomination (and overrating Clinton's) or overrating Biden's chance of winning the election (and underrating Clinton's) or both.
There is no arbitrage, but if you believe 3, there might be a good profit to be made in expectation by backing Biden to win the election, but Clinton to win the presidency (you wouldn't hold it through to 2016, but take off the bet as soon as the odds come back to something that looks more plausible).
I haven't done the analysis to see if it's still worth it after trading costs, but maybe someone else wants to.
If Biden defeats the established nominee, he must have an exceptionally well run campaign making him more electable. That is by winning the nomination Clinton has just met expectations but Biden exceeds most expectations.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-hobratsch/when-vice-p...
Instead of primaries, there's Pennants. Instead of general elections, there's the World Series.
http://www.vegasinsider.com/mlb/odds/futures/
Right now, the Jays are the second most likely team to win their Pennant (2/1 vs 9/5 for the Royals). But at the same time, they are the most likely to win the World Series (17/4 vs 9/2 for the Royals). In terms of the original article, the Jays are more 'electable' than the Royals.
I have no idea how this should affect betting strategies, but it sure is interesting from a statistics point of view.
IIRC, like polls, they are fairly accurate -- if you look at the state of the market at the last point before the election.
Earlier than that, not so much.
The idea of Trump picking the next few supreme court judges is nauseating.