2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumPrediction markets don't seem to care much about Bernie's big fundraising number.
Hillary at 68%.
Biden at 18%.
Bernie at 12%.
About the same as it's been for a while now.
So either the markets weren't impressed, or they already saw this coming. Probably the latter: he raised $15M in Q2, and the news from Q3 (e.g. the $1M he raised after the David Brock thing) indicated that Q3 would be better.
http://www.predictwise.com/politics/2016demnomination
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)So they can be educated as to why Bernie Sanders will crush Hillary.
It's time for Bernie supporters to take the other side of the trade and make loads of cash off these clueless people who aren't feeling the Bern.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)bunnies
(15,859 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)A pattern begins to emerge.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)Name recognition is still a thing.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)You like?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)This is exactly my point.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)bunnies
(15,859 posts)Im guessing its a no.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)representative of the electorate.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)But if its even *close* to reality, its not great news in the General. Seriously though... I think Indies are a wild card this cyle, more so than any other and I think how they vote is going to be consequential to the outcome. Have there been any national polls that have seriously factored them into the primary equation? Im not sure that Ive seen it, if so.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)facebook poll. So, no, it's not anywhere close to reality.
There are ways to poll independents scientifically, but this isn't one of them.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)Many open primaries on super Tuesday. Could get interesting.
mythology
(9,527 posts)This poll has absolutely no bearing on reality. It's known that internet polls have particular biases:
By contrast, most online polls that use participants who volunteer to take part do not have a proven record of accuracy. There are at least two reasons for this. One is that not everyone in the U.S. uses the internet, and those who do not are demographically different from the rest of the public. Another reason is that people who volunteer for polls may be different from other people in ways that could make the poll unrepresentative. At worst, online polls can be seriously biased if people who hold a particular point of view are more motivated to participate than those with a different point of view. A good example of this was seen in 1998 when AOL posted an online poll asking if President Clinton should resign because of his relationship with a White House intern. The online poll found that 52% of the more than 100,000 respondents said he should. Telephone polls conducted at the same time with much smaller but representative samples of the public found far fewer saying the president should resign (21% in a CBS poll, 23% in a Gallup poll, and 36% in an ABC poll). The presidents critics were highly motivated to register their disapproval of his behavior, and this resulted in a biased measurement of public opinion in the AOL online poll.
http://www.pewresearch.org/2010/12/29/how-accurate-are-online-polls/
bunnies
(15,859 posts)I work with a shitload of Republicans. Thanks for the info.
moobu2
(4,822 posts)unless they show Bernie ahead right? lol
DanTex
(20,709 posts)bunnies
(15,859 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Hillary was at 80% in the polls. Saw them all the time, was told she could not be beaten, according to the polls.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)Name recognition be damned!
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)the first debate?
Then what there aren't enough debates
Then what Hillary's big bad surrogates
Then what!
bunnies
(15,859 posts)But thats jmho of course.
CanadaexPat
(496 posts)ever more abstract consolations.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)Obama pulled off the 4-1 shot. Can Bernie pull off the 8-1 shot? I'd say the odds of that are about 8-1.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)But you knew that.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)they put his chances at 12%.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)You seem to be quite into it.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)bunnies
(15,859 posts)heh. Shows what I know.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)customers were US based that they had to fold.
Right before that, sadly, the CEO died climbing Mount Everest, but I don't think that had anything to do with it.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)I can imagine its a horrible way to go.
Lemme guess. The gov't wasnt getting enough of a share of the intrade pie? I had thought it was very popular. I think I even checked it out once during a short-lived fantasy about becoming a day trader.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)would have to comply by whatever regulations that other futures markets do. Which, since they were tiny compared to "real" futures markets, would have been a huge burden.
Yeah, I liked Intrade a lot. The graphs and stuff were neat, and you could get a reasonably accurate snapshot of what "they" thought the chances of a bunch of different world events were, besides just presidential elections.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)Probably best I didnt though. I tend to get absorbed in things.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)why, as useless as your thread.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)probability occur, umm, 20% of the time.
Bernie might also beat the odds. The chances of that are about 12%. Which is not zero.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)information, determined by people who actually have money on the line, as opposed to people who are paid to talk on TV. And, on average, events with higher values occur more often. But obviously not always. Like I said, a 20% event will occur 20% of the time, and that's not zero. In fact, if 20% events occurred 0% of the time, that would mean that the markets weren't functioning properly.
karynnj
(59,474 posts)Do you have any studies that compared these markets to other analyses and then to results?
To me, it seems they are very likely to fall to "nobody I know voted for FDR - how did he win?". People are betting with money on something they have no more real information than any of us here. They may be taking into consideration who people they know are voting for or who they want to win. However, because it involves money, it is likely never going too far from the average of national polls. If any candidate got far from that, their price would seem either too low - making people buy it until that increased demand brought the price up -- or too high pushing some to sell before it goes down. This is just economics 101.
Not to mention, that is an estimate as of a point in time - just like the polls.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Things don't have to be based on statistics to be accurate.
Sure, some of the people betting money are dumb, but many are not, because the dumb ones lose their money, and people don't like losing money. The other good thing is that someone who is just positive that the markets are wrong can make easy money (if they are right, that is). That in itself is a big part of the reason why they work. If some number is way off, the people will realize this and place bets which corrects the market value. That's economics 101.
Also, no, they don't just reflect polls, they reflect the totality of the information available. For example, Bernie is ahead of Biden in the polls, but Biden has better odds in the markets.
You're right that it is just an estimate as of this point in time. And since we can't see into the future, this is the best estimate we have. Over time, as more information is revealed, the numbers will change to reflect this new information.
karynnj
(59,474 posts)This is nothing other than a market -- and the value is just the equilibrium where sellers and buyers meet. There is no additional information in the market.
Before you say that it is "better" than other means of assessing where the election is now, it would be nice if you could point to a study or preferably a few studies. The studies should look at predictions made and results.
Not to mention, the people betting are not likely to be representative of the entire population. Therefore it is likely to have biases in the results.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)economics, I'm sure you can find some papers explaining futures markets, how they work, how the current price reflects expected future values, etc.
And if you read up on the efficient market hypothesis, you will also learn that the people trading in a futures market don't have to be representative of the entire population in order for it to be efficient. This isn't a poll, it's a futures market. What makes it work is that people want to make money. If enough of the people in the market don't care about money, then the market is not efficient (although it's OK of some of them are noise traders, just not all). But since people, in general, do care about money, that's not usually a problem.
karynnj
(59,474 posts)You might as well bet on who is going to win the football game. Just like here -- the team considered most likely to win will be at a higher price than one thought to have far less chance.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)or the stock market, for that matter, is also gambling. Certainly most day traders are basically gamblers.
But, fundamentally, it is identical to a cash-settled futures market. You have a contract that expires at (say) $100 if candidate A wins and at $0 if candidate A loses. The current price of the contract will be (roughly) the expected value of the price at expiration, which is the percentage chance that the candidate wins. That's the theory at least. Like I said, if everyone in the market is a noise trader, or if there's manipulation, or whatever, then that won't be the case, but by and large, there's no easy money anywhere, so it's pretty close.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)they can never have enough information to make an informed choice.....so they always make the obvious choice in that moment, and whenever the wind blows in one direction or another, the numbers change.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)0% or 100%. That's the whole point. They are the best estimates based on the current (incomplete) information.
And the good thing is, people who are convinced that they are smarter than the markets can make easy money. But that's also the reason it works. If the numbers were way off, people would go in and grab the easy money, and then numbers wouldn't be way off anymore.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)In general, there's no easy money. But if you think that Bernie is easy money this time around, by all means, cash in.
Left Ear
(81 posts)to win it all?
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)http://tippie.uiowa.edu/iem/ (Limit $500 total)
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)I probably wouldn't have post that in case people would claim I was just trying to hurt her. Because that DOES hurt her.
Bernie is the candidate of the people. And we the people don't much care about the 'Prediction Markers'.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)or not doesn't affect their predictive value.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)which we didn't then and don't now, it doesn't affect their 'predictive value'. They were wrong, so much for their 'value'. That is why we don't care about them.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)the chances of him doing so are about 12%. People misunderstand what prediction markets do. The most probable event doesn't happen 100% of the time (if it did, its probability would be 100%). Instead, an event with an 80% probability happens 80% of the time, which means 1 out of every 5 times it will go the "wrong" way.
Another thing that happens is that they learn from things that happened in the past. People betting this time around know exactly what happened in 2008, and even taking that into account, they place the odds of a Bernie win at 12%.
The reason I posted this OP is that the punditry has gone berserk over Bernie's fundraising, but it hasn't moved the markets at all, which means that people who actually have money at stake in the outcome, as opposed to people who get paid for talking on TV, don't think it was much of a big deal.
Dawson Leery
(19,348 posts)She did not have this in 2008.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Godhumor
(6,437 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)and this website? Seriously? There is not a poll in the world that could induce me to vote for war, fracking, TPP, cluster bombs.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Bread and Circus
(9,454 posts)That Hillary will make a better President? That Hillary is more electable in the general regardless of her value as a President? Or just that Hillary "is winning" or "will likely win" (the Primary)?
I ask that because it seems that a lot of what you post is something to the effect that Hillary "is winning" or "will likely win" the Primary. And thus it leaves me puzzled, as if we didn't know these two salient facts or that reminding us will somehow add to the discussion or convince those who oppose Hillary to come the conclusion of "giving up".
I mean who fucking cares about the "predictive markets" unless you are betting on them? Yes, it's safe to say the odds are Hillary will still win the Primary (despite how sucky I think that will be) but what does that really add to the conversation on DU?
Do you talk so much about the odds of Hillary winning because you can't say much about the candidate herself? Because that's what it seems like.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)while Biden has about an 18% chance, and Bernie has about a 12% chance. I'm interested in this kind of thing, particularly how prediction markets digest the information and often tell a different story than pundits, whose job is not to be right, but instead to get page views and sell TV advertisements.
If you don't share my interest, there are plenty of other OPs on different topics for you to participate in. But certainly, discussing the different candidates' chances is relevant to GD-P.
I take it from your post that you are a Bernie supporter, or at least not a Hillary supporter. Well, there are plenty of OPs where people post their opinions that Bernie will get the nomination. Since this stuff seems to bother you, I urge you to repeat the same complaints you have to those OPs as well.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)Events with 20% probability occur about 20% of the time, not 0% of the time. Unlikely is not the same as impossible. 20% is a little better than the chances of rolling a 7 on a pair of dice. 7 doesn't come up most of the time, but it does come up. If it never came up, craps would be a really really fun game to play.
6chars
(3,967 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)And a bunch of political commentators are talking about what a game changer that is. But it looks like the prediction markets weren't surprised, or else they don't think it matters much.
Left Ear
(81 posts)so who gives a hoot?
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)with numbers and data. What new depths will you Bernie Bashers sink to?