Posted on 05/02/2007 9:39:49 AM PDT by areafiftyone
The idea behind political prediction markets is simple. Lots of people wager on the outcome of political campaigns: Who's going to be the Democratic presidential nominee? Will the Republicans take back the House? And when the votes are counted, the winning bettors collect. The thrill of prediction markets for political junkies is that they harness "the wisdom of crowds." A single person's bet on an election outcome isn't very good, but thousands of bets, with real stakes, are more likely to predict the correct result than even the best pundit. The Iowa Electronic Markets, the big daddy of the political prediction markets, is consistently better at forecasting winners than pre-election polls. (Read a 2003 Slate "Explainer" about prediction markets here.)
If a single prediction market is wiser than the pundits and the polls, imagine how wise all the prediction markets are together. That's the idea behind Slate's "Political Futures," which offers a comprehensive guide to all the big political prediction markets. From now until Election Day 2008, we'll publish regular updates of the key data from Iowa Electronic Markets,
Intrade.com, Newsfutures.com, and Casualobserver.net. (Casualobserver has not yet launched its 2008 political prediction market, but we will add it as soon as it goes up.) In these early days of the campaign, we are tracking four markets: 1) Democratic nominee for president, 2) Republican nominee for president, 3) presidential victor, and 4) party control of the presidency. We'll add Senate and House races as they heat up next year.
(Excerpt) Read more at specials.slate.com ...
Current Market Value
Per Candidate
Current Individual
Market Values
Loading...
|
||||||
Intrade | Iowa Electronic | News Futures | ||||
Candidate | Price | Change | Price | Change | Price | Change |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Rudy Giuliani | 31.80 | +0.100 | 31.10 | +0.012 | 33.00 | -4.000 |
John McCain | 19.00 | -1.000 | 18.00 | -0.014 | 37.00 | -1.000 |
Mitt Romney | 15.20 | -0.200 | 17.50 | -0.005 | 24.00 | +0.000 |
Fred Thompson | 15.10 | +0.300 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
Chuck Hagel | 3.20 | +0.200 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
Newt Gingrich | 3.00 | -0.300 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
Mike Huckabee | 2.40 | +0.000 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
Condoleezza Rice | 1.20 | +0.000 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
Michael Bloomberg | 1.00 | +0.000 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
Sam Brownback | 0.60 | +0.000 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
Dick Cheney | 0.40 | +0.000 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
Tom Tancredo | 0.30 | +0.000 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
Colin Powell | 0.20 | +0.000 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
Tommy Franks | 0.10 | +0.000 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
Note: Click a market name in the above table to see a graph of those movements (which are updated once an hour).
Go to these market sites:
Intrade
Iowa Electronic Markets
Casual Observer
Fred’s a bargain. So is Edwards on the Dem side, IMO.
So, where is Duncan Hunter?
The markets take take all information about the election into account — and they react to changing events very rapidly. Unlike polls, they don’t ask you how you would vote — they ask you to consider how everyone else will vote. They also require people to "put their money where their mouth is".
You know I didn’t even notice that. This is weird. It has Tommy Franks but no Duncan Hunter.
“Putting your money where your mouth is” is the key. Markets always predict stuff better.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.