Rubio now the clear favorite according to prediction markets

February 2, 2016

[reaganaut1]

According to PredictWise, which aggregates the results of betting markets, the candididates' chances of winning the nomination are now 54% Rubio, 26% Trump, 13% Cruz, 4% Bush. A day ago, before the Iowa cacuses, the chances were 51% Trump, 33% Rubio, 10% Cruz. So the biggest winner in Iowa was Rubio.

I think Rubio is the most electable candidate, because Cruz (who I like) is too conservative for the country. If Rubio is elected president, I hope the congressional GOP can stop a bad immigration bill, as it did under George W. Bush.

[chae]

All the polls I’ve seen show Cruz beating Hilary. Trump losing to her.

[moehoward]

Rubio has ALWAYS been the guy. He’s “KENNEDY-ESQUE” dontchaknow.

[Dr. Sivana]

This is amazing. The guy who came in third is getting all the accolades.

Yes, but he may also finish third in New Hampshire as well, and just think how he'll do in South Carolina, Georgia and Texas! I'm going to make a bold prediction. Rubio will finish a strong second in Florida and bring home ZERO delegates from his home state!

[lodi90]

Rubio is Romney with a tan. R - Chamber of Commerce all the way.

[armydawg505]

The biggest winner was the third place finisher? Interesting.

[chae]

I think Cruz has that figured out. Cruz was touting the endorsement of Guam the other day. I remember reading somewhere, I think it was an article here, that part of Cruz’s strategy is to pick up the areas like Guam, they can’t vote in the Presidential race, but they do send delegates to the convention, and I believe they are “winner take all”.

[zzwhale]

RUBIO RINO

[angcat]

I don’t believe it. With all the voter fraud and brain dead women and college kids and illegals Cruz will never beat Killary.

[dfwgator]

Rubio will get crushed like a bug in the General, he’s worse than Romney.

[Bigg Red]

Rubio is definitely more likable -

***
According to whom? I can’t stand him, and I will not vote for him.

[Bigg Red]

Ditto

[CPT Clay]

THIS is the droid you were looking for.

This thread is as you predicted.

[dfwgator]

The biggest winner was the third place finisher? Interesting.

I called it last night even before the polls closed. I said it didn't matter who won, Rubio was going to be the big story.

[CPT Clay]

Bingo

[Jane Austen]

I agree. Rubio is a first term senator with zero accomplishments other than pushing hard for amnesty and being a part of Gang of Eight.

Why would anybody vote for Rubio who has an long list of negatives and no reason to vote for him. GOPe and special interests want him because they can control him.

He did run an effective campaign in Iowa. People were getting well-done, slick mailers several times a week and he misrepresented his stance on immigration in his TV ads.

One woman encountered at the caucus young men who said they were registered Democrats but switched to vote for Rubio.

[1Old Pro]

3 tickets out of Iowa. Actually the results are not that surprising. Cruz had the ground game and 60% of the voting population were evangelicals and he was the clear choice vs. Huck or Rick.

Trump, 2nd is about right and only 3% off the leader. Rubio is gaining momentum and is a factor as the “pleasant” antidote to Trump or Cruz.

What’s surprising to me is the LOUD anti-establishment message from Iowa with these 3 (Rubio and Cruz are too young to be swallowed up in D.C. and thought of as establishment) and Jeb, Christie, Kasich (the real establishment) going nowhere. Also, the fact that a socialist can tie Hillary also supports the anti-establishment sentiment on both sides.

Up next, New Hampshire - not much can change unless Sanders doesn’t win big, then it’s all over for him. On the GOP side, can Rubio move closer to Cruz and does Trump still win. Lastly, is there room for 1 more GOP candidate? Only if one other has a huge finish which is unlikely.

[jjsheridan5]

You mean the very same 'betting market' that had Trump's chances of winning Iowa 58%-32% over Cruz.....those markets?

Yes, those markets. As prediction tools, these markets are generally fairly accurate. When a ~2-1 prediction is made, the one with ~1/3 chances will win roughly 1/3 of the time. As a result, it will look like a "bad" prediction to those who don't really understand percentages. Your insinuation that the markets are poor predictors, simply because a 1-in-3 candidate won an election, reflects this common misunderstanding.

[don-o]

Same prediction markets that has Trump a lock in Iowa, no doubt.

Dumb as a bag of hammers.

[jjsheridan5]

Same prediction markets that has Trump a lock in Iowa, no doubt.

They didn't have Trump as "a lock". They had him as a 2-1 favorite. What this means, is that if that same race were run 100 times, the favorite would win ~67 of those times, and the underdog, 33. This doesn't make the prediction bad (although the prediction may be bad, it is not because the underdog won).

It was obvious in 2014 that, despite the celebrations of conservatives, that 2014 was a terrible outcome for conservatives, and that the establishment won. Similarly, it is obvious that the big winner last night was Rubio. Conservatives celebrating a Cruz victory are, in a manner similar to 2014, celebrating an equally obvious loss for conservatives (although this wasn't as big a loss for conservatives as 2014, since Iowa really isn't that important a state). Rubio is now a viable contender for the nomination, meaning that the establishment, which could have been fatally wounded, emerged unscathed.

Celebrations right now are woefully misplaced.

[traderrob6]

They are statistical probabilities and are nothing but that based on assumtions.

Change the assumptions, change the SP.

We would all get rich in the stock market basing our decisions on this approach if it were all that definitive.