2010 Congressional Elections - Polls & Prediction Markets

MattusMaximus · 22nd December 2009, 08:07 PM

Okay, sooner or later someone had to start a thread on this, so here it is. Personally, I prefer prediction markets over polls any day (I'll explain why if you're curious), and one of the oldest & most respected prediction markets has recently opened up on the question of the 2010 Congressional elections.

As of today, here's what the Iowa Electronic Markets have to say...

DH_DS10 75.7%
DH_RS10 1.5%
RH_DS10 22.0%
RH_RS10 2.6%

DH_DS means "Democrats control both the House & Senate"
DH_RS means "Democrats control the House and Republicans control the Senate"
etc.

So, looking at this now (which is very very early), it seems the Dems are in good shape to hold both houses of Congress. Now whether or not that means they hold on strongly or just barely is an open question.

Btw, the specific breakdown on the House is...

DH.gain10 2.0%
DH.hold10 74.4%
DH.lose10 24.0%

Any other polls, prediction markets anyone wants to post?

corplinx · 22nd December 2009, 08:50 PM

I predict some sociopaths might be replaced by other sociopaths. Many sociopaths will keep their current seats, because they are sociopaths.

gtc · 22nd December 2009, 08:58 PM

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

DH.gain10 2.0%
DH.hold10 74.4%
DH.lose10 24.0%

That adds up to 100.4%. Does the 10 mean anything there?

MattusMaximus · 22nd December 2009, 09:28 PM

Originally Posted by gtc

That adds up to 100.4%. Does the 10 mean anything there?

Having numbers add up to more/less than 100% isn't uncommon in a prediction market (I'm not sure why). I've seen it before, and I've never figured it out.

The 10 stands for 2010.

Brainster · 23rd December 2009, 12:06 AM

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

Having numbers add up to more/less than 100% isn't uncommon in a prediction market (I'm not sure why). I've seen it before, and I've never figured it out.

The 10 stands for 2010.

Because they are prices, not percentages. Effectively the same thing, of course, but all it reflects is the imperfection of the market.

Dr Adequate · 23rd December 2009, 12:13 AM

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

Having numbers add up to more/less than 100% isn't uncommon in a prediction market (I'm not sure why). I've seen it before, and I've never figured it out.

I'm not really familiar with predictions markets, but my guess is that what should hold it at 100% is that if it doesn't add up to 100% there ought to be some way to make money out of the situation. But the collective wisdom of the market isn't going to get it right on the nose, rather it'll fluctuate tightly around 100%.

I guess I should look up how they work, eh?

Brainster · 23rd December 2009, 12:24 AM

InTrade has the GOP takeover of the House at 35% right now, so if you want to make some dough, buy the Democrats at InTrade and the GOP at IEM.

Dr Adequate · 23rd December 2009, 02:37 AM

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

I'm not really familiar with predictions markets, but my guess is that what should hold it at 100% is that if it doesn't add up to 100% there ought to be some way to make money out of the situation. But the collective wisdom of the market isn't going to get it right on the nose, rather it'll fluctuate tightly around 100%.

I guess I should look up how they work, eh?

Ah yes, here we are. From the Wikipedia article on the IEM:

It is possible that a given market is simply irrationally priced. If the price of all the different shares is greater than or less than $1, then there is at least one share which is not correctly priced and so can either be shorted or gone long on.

Doing so brings the market closer to 100%.

Francesca R · 23rd December 2009, 05:46 AM

It is possible that there's an anomaly in the prices but not very likely. That wikipedia quote is giving the least likely explanation.

You can't typically arbitrage the contracts because they have bid-offer spreads that remove the ability to get in and out with a certain profit. All the bids will usually sum to less than 100 but all the offers will exceed it. You deal on the "worst" of the two.

The market maker (who therefore gets the "best" side of the price) can make a profit with no position. That's their economic return for providing the ability to bet. If it is too generous (in their favour), somebody else will step in quoting narrower spreads and will win all the punters' flows.

Dr Adequate · 23rd December 2009, 06:18 AM

Originally Posted by Francesca R

It is possible that there's an anomaly in the prices but not very likely. That wikipedia quote is giving the least likely explanation.

You can't typically arbitrage the contracts because they have bid-offer spreads that remove the ability to get in and out with a certain profit. All the bids will usually sum to less than 100 but all the offers will exceed it. You deal on the "worst" of the two.

The market maker (who therefore gets the "best" side of the price) can make a profit with no position. That's their economic return for providing the ability to bet. If it is too generous (in their favour), somebody else will step in quoting narrower spreads and will win all the punters' flows.

I am having some difficulty in grasping your point. Please could you explain that again but less concisely.

Thanks.

Francesca R · 23rd December 2009, 06:46 AM

I mean you can't do a series of trades that ends up at no bet, but nets you a gain (which may be intuitively Bleedin' Obvious)

If you could buy all four contracts for a total price of less than 100, you could be assured of a gain, because they are exhaustive*, and one of them will definitely finish in the money and pay out 100 (while the others pay out nothing). Unfortunately you buy at the "offer" prices, and if you add those up the sum is (should always be) more than 100, so it is a guaranteed risk-free loss. And if you want to sell all four, you'll get less than 100 for it, yet you know you will surely have to pay out 100 on one of them, so that's another guaranteed loss.

If there were identical contracts on two different exchanges with very different prices--say you could sell [DH-DS10] at 72 (the bid price) on IEM and buy it at 71 (the offer price) with InTrade at the same time--then that's also a riskless profit. Unfortunately you can't very often do that either because there are thousands of others looking for free money like that. (In fact the contracts on those two markets are not identical)

*well not quite, but I don't see any for "no control"

MattusMaximus · 2nd January 2010, 03:28 PM

Here's the latest update from IEM...

DH_DS10 75.5%
DH_RS10 1.0%
RH_DS10 20.9%
RH_RS10 2.9%

Specific markets for the U.S. House and Senate...

DH.gain10 1.1%
DH.hold10 74.1%
DH.lose10 25.2%

DS.gain10 6.6%
DS.hold10 90.0%
DS.lose10 5.0%

Meanwhile, over at Intrade, it is projected at 66.6% that the Dems will hold the U.S. House in 2010.

At this stage, while I think the GOP will likely pick up some seats in both houses of Congress this coming November, all this talk of a "GOP takeover" is just puffed-up hyperbole. But that's politics for you

MattusMaximus · 4th January 2010, 06:58 PM

Today's IEM update...

DH_DS10 75.4%
DH_RS10 0.9%
RH_DS10 20.9%
RH_RS10 2.9%

Specific markets for the U.S. House and Senate...

DH.gain10 1.2%
DH.hold10 74.1%
DH.lose10 24.4%

DS.gain10 6.4%
DS.hold10 90.0%
DS.lose10 5.0%

Intrade projects a 66.5% chance that the Dems will hold the U.S. House in 2010.

Are there any other prediction markets and/or polls of interest?

Francesca R · 5th January 2010, 06:17 AM

Maybe people can self-satisfy their interest concerning what the prices are (and whether they have moved by a tick) by visiting the pages themselves.

MattusMaximus · 15th January 2010, 08:26 PM

Today's IEM update...

DH_DS10 74.6%
DH_RS10 0.7%
RH_DS10 22.0%
RH_RS10 8.0%

Specific markets for the U.S. House and Senate...

DH.gain10 1.1%
DH.hold10 74.5%
DH.lose10 32.5%

DS.gain10 4.0%
DS.hold10 90.1%
DS.lose10 5.9%

Intrade projects a 65.9% chance that the Dems will hold the U.S. House in 2010.

I find this to be very interesting, what with all of the developments in the past couple of weeks (Sen. Dodd and Dorgan's retirements, the close MA Senate race, retirements of many House incumbents, etc), the markets are surprisingly stable and unchanged. The only exception to this is a slight uptick in the odds the Republicans will take back the House.

Brainster · 15th January 2010, 09:54 PM

There are two main factors at work here; the underlying situation and the amount of time remaining. Right now the time remaining is the main thing that the Democrats have in their favor; well, that and the fact that they have to lose something like 40 seats in order to lose the House. As I said in the Ted Kennedy's seat thread, apparently the market is currently discounting the idea that Brown's apparent close race there reflects broader discontent. It could also be simply a reflection that the Democrats have time to recover; a few solid employment results would do wonders.

Barring that or terrible unemployment numbers, don't expect big movements in this market until September or so. And even on the day of the election, you can have monstrous swings both ways; check out the IEM Presidential Markets for election day in 2000 and 2004 for examples of how wild it can get.

Part of it is that "all or nothing" aspect of the market. This isn't like buying stock in a stable company where you know your upside and your downside is limited, and you hope it will perform at the upper end of the band. The day after the election, the people who invested in one party will get nothing and the people who invested in the other party will get a tidy profit. That is part of the reason why these markets work fairly well provided they are not too narrow; greed and fear can work wonders.

MattusMaximus · 15th January 2010, 10:03 PM

Originally Posted by Brainster

There are two main factors at work here; the underlying situation and the amount of time remaining. Right now the time remaining is the main thing that the Democrats have in their favor; well, that and the fact that they have to lose something like 40 seats in order to lose the House. As I said in the Ted Kennedy's seat thread, apparently the market is currently discounting the idea that Brown's apparent close race there reflects broader discontent. It could also be simply a reflection that the Democrats have time to recover; a few solid employment results would do wonders.

Yes, any positive job numbers in the next few months will make the GOP's work much harder for them. In addition, if Obama and the Dems can get some popular legislation (re: jobs programs and Wall Street taxation, etc) passed, that could help shore up support for them.

The Dems are really eager to get health care reform over and done with - it's really weighing them down and preventing them from getting to other things. Not good.

Quote:

Barring that or terrible unemployment numbers, don't expect big movements in this market until September or so. And even on the day of the election, you can have monstrous swings both ways; check out the IEM Presidential Markets for election day in 2000 and 2004 for examples of how wild it can get.

Part of it is that "all or nothing" aspect of the market. This isn't like buying stock in a stable company where you know your upside and your downside is limited, and you hope it will perform at the upper end of the band. The day after the election, the people who invested in one party will get nothing and the people who invested in the other party will get a tidy profit. That is part of the reason why these markets work fairly well provided they are not too narrow; greed and fear can work wonders.

Good insights. Nice comparing notes with you again

casebro · 17th January 2010, 09:49 AM

I guess the predictive markets are supposed to be better than polls because having a couple dollars bet means that the subjects are better informed than the average poll subject?

But predictive markets are still only polls, correct?

I predict that as the predictive markets gain members, their predictive value will decrease to the point that they are no better than polls.

JoeTheJuggler · 17th January 2010, 10:01 AM

Originally Posted by casebro

I guess the predictive markets are supposed to be better than polls because having a couple dollars bet means that the subjects are better informed than the average poll subject?

But predictive markets are still only polls, correct?

Not really.

Here's the difference as I see it:

When you read a poll that says 55% would vote for a given candidate, that's exactly what it means. If that's a good solid number (that is with a low margin of error--say + or - 2%), it means the probability of that candidate winning is very near 100%.

If a predictive market says 55% in favor of a certain outcome (as, for example, a given candidate winning), that outcome is very nearly a coin toss.

You can read the predictive markets as a comment on the probability of a certain outcome rather than a poll on how many favor a given outcome.

ETA: Now it'd be different if these predictive markets used a point spread as they do in football betting. For example, just prior to the 2008 presidential elections, polls showed Obama's lead as being maybe 5% (and this is oversimplifying things, because we still do presidential elections by delegates per state, etc.), but the predictive markets showed Obama to win at maybe 80% or more (I don't remember exactly what). But if the question wasn't about whether or not Obama would win, but that he would win by a certain number of votes, you'd change that. If you did it just right, you'd change it so that the bet would always be very close to a 50% probability of winning. (And of course buying shares isn't quite the same as making a bet, but it's closer than asking who you'd vote for in an opinion poll.)

MattusMaximus · 17th January 2010, 05:04 PM

Originally Posted by casebro

I guess the predictive markets are supposed to be better than polls because having a couple dollars bet means that the subjects are better informed than the average poll subject?

But predictive markets are still only polls, correct?

I predict that as the predictive markets gain members, their predictive value will decrease to the point that they are no better than polls.

No, the big difference as I see it is this... a poll will ask who you will vote for or who you want to win. But a prediction market asks you to lay down your own money on who you really think is going to win. That little shift in psychology can make an interesting difference.

Brainster · 17th January 2010, 05:26 PM

Originally Posted by casebro

I guess the predictive markets are supposed to be better than polls because having a couple dollars bet means that the subjects are better informed than the average poll subject?

But predictive markets are still only polls, correct?

No, this is wrong. The markets aren't so much predictions as they are distillations of the conventional wisdom at any point in time. They should be better than the polls as I will illustrate.

For example, suppose the average of a number of polls taken 5 days out shows a candidate with a 10-point lead. Then in all probability the prediction markets will show that candidate with a much bigger than 10-point lead in share value; it might even be more like 60-40. Now suppose another two days goes by and a new poll shows that candidate still leading by 10 points. We would expect the market to move more strongly in that candidates favor, perhaps even to 75-25. Why? Because time is running out now on the loser. But they would not quite go to 100-0, because there's always the chance that the leading candidate will make a horrible gaffe, or a new poll could come out tomorrow showing him leading by only two points.

JoeTheJuggler · 19th January 2010, 12:27 PM

Originally Posted by Brainster

No, this is wrong. The markets aren't so much predictions as they are distillations of the conventional wisdom at any point in time. They should be better than the polls as I will illustrate.

For example, suppose the average of a number of polls taken 5 days out shows a candidate with a 10-point lead. Then in all probability the prediction markets will show that candidate with a much bigger than 10-point lead in share value; it might even be more like 60-40. Now suppose another two days goes by and a new poll shows that candidate still leading by 10 points. We would expect the market to move more strongly in that candidates favor, perhaps even to 75-25. Why? Because time is running out now on the loser. But they would not quite go to 100-0, because there's always the chance that the leading candidate will make a horrible gaffe, or a new poll could come out tomorrow showing him leading by only two points.

That's about what I was trying to say.

Consider the outcome of a soccer game. If the score is 2-0 and you're near the end of time, the smart money will bet that the team in the lead will win with great confidence. So the market will be something like 99% to 1% on the outcome. The 2 points difference in the score would be analogous to a large margin of victory in the polls (like say 55% to 35% with a few undecideds).

If it's the day before an election and you had an opinion poll like that (55% for A, 35% for B, with 10% undecided) you would consider the outcome to be very nearly 100% certain that A will win. The predictive markets would show that level of confidence (something like 99% to nearly zero) and not the percentages of the opinion poll.

Brainster · 20th January 2010, 10:47 AM

GOP control of the House inched up to around 38 following Brown's win in Massachusetts. I note that InTrade has now added several contracts on how many seats the Republicans can expect to pick up in 2010; looks like the median estimate is somewhere around 30-35.

Brainster · 21st January 2010, 02:32 PM

Larry Sabato (Political Science prof at the U of Virginia) runs the numbers and projects the GOP would pick up 7 seats in the Senate (beyond Kennedy's seat) if the elections were held today, and several more may be considered in play given the Massachusetts Miracle:

Quote:

Among the senators who could be endangered by a new wave of Republican entries are Evan Bayh (Indiana), Kirsten Gillibrand (New York), Patty Murray (Washington), and Russ Feingold (Wisconsin).

Sabato's +7 prediction for the GOP assumes that the Democrats retain all those seats. Sabato's track record is impressive:

Quote:

In July 2008, Dr. Sabato correctly projected that Barack Obama would win the presidency in a near-landslide. He predicted a 364-174 margin in the Electoral College, just one vote away from the final tally of 365-173, as well as the correct popular vote percentages. He also accurately predicted 99% of Senate, House, and Governor winners-by far the best showing in the business.

His spectacular record of predicting elections is not new. In 2006 he was named the most accurate prognosticator by an unusual combination of news organizations: FOX News, MSNBC, CNBC, and Pew's Project for Excellence in Journalism. In 2006 Dr. Sabato was the only national analyst to call the Senate and House contests on the button.

Brainster · 23rd January 2010, 12:52 AM

Michael Barone calculates that if we extrapolate from the Massachusetts results, there are only 103 safe Democratic seats in the House. It is of course very unlikely that the Democrats would end up doing that poorly, but Barone's not exactly an amateur at this sort of analysis.

MattusMaximus · 3rd April 2010, 02:42 PM

Okay, after HCR has finally passed and the Dems can move on to other things...

Update from today's Iowa Electronic Market:

DH_DS10 59.9%
DH_RS10 2.7%
RH_DS10 25.3%
RH_RS10 13.4%

All in all, considering the bruising the Democrats were taking over HCR, these numbers look better for them than I thought they'd be. If the GOP could get its act together, they might do better than these projections, but it's a long way until November.

Specific markets for the U.S. House and Senate...

DH.gain10 0.9%
DH.hold10 64.0%
DH.lose10 36.6%

DS.gain10 1.4%
DS.hold10 84.6%
DS.lose10 16.0%

I can't find the 2010 Congressional market on Intrade, but they do have one regarding the 2012 Presidential election

Dem wins 2012 58.2%
Rep wins 2012 40.1%

MattusMaximus · 3rd April 2010, 08:13 PM

Latest updates from Intrade on the U.S. House...

Dems Control House 2010 57.0%
Reps Control House 2010 41.6%

And here's the Intrade prediction on the U.S. Senate...

Dems Control Senate 2010 80.1%
Reps Control Senate 2010 8.1%

Looking at the trend lines shows that the steady rise of the GOP in this market turned around dramatically a week or two ago. Looks like passing HCR was more beneficial, politically speaking, than not for the Dems.

Thunder · 3rd April 2010, 08:36 PM

Dems maintain control of the Senate and the House. Majority in the House will be slimmer...but still preserved. This will be due to an improving economy, and passing craze over health-care reform.

MattusMaximus · 3rd April 2010, 11:31 PM

Originally Posted by parky76

Dems maintain control of the Senate and the House. Majority in the House will be slimmer...but still preserved. This will be due to an improving economy, and passing craze over health-care reform.

That's how I'd place my bets, if I were gambling real cash. Apparently, the prediction markets agree. But it is still a long way until November...

MattusMaximus · 5th May 2010, 09:31 AM

Update from today's Iowa Electronic Market:

DH_DS10 58.2%
DH_RS10 1.5%
RH_DS10 28.7%
RH_RS10 11.5%

That's not much change from one month ago, despite all that has happened since then.

Specific markets for the U.S. House and Senate...

DH.gain10 1.8%
DH.hold10 58.7%
DH.lose10 42.5%

DS.gain10 2.5%
DS.hold10 82.0%
DS.lose10 13.7%

dudalb · 5th May 2010, 10:05 AM

Interesting how the GOP primary results of APril 4th, in which basically the Tea Party candidates lost badly to the "Establishment" candidates, will impact the November predictions. On the one hand, a GOP establishment candidate will stand a better chance in the general election then a Tea Party candidate would have, on the other, it is a sign that Voter Anger might be cooling which would favor the Dems.

MattusMaximus · 5th May 2010, 11:50 AM

Originally Posted by dudalb

Interesting how the GOP primary results of APril 4th, in which basically the Tea Party candidates lost badly to the "Establishment" candidates, will impact the November predictions. On the one hand, a GOP establishment candidate will stand a better chance in the general election then a Tea Party candidate would have, on the other, it is a sign that Voter Anger might be cooling which would favor the Dems.

The questions I have are: what do the Tea Party types do now? Do they keep pushing the Republican further to the right, risking a loss in the general election by alienating moderates? Do they get fed up and stay at home on election day because they don't think there are any good choices? Do they keep fighting and field "true conservative" 3rd party candidates?

"Yes" on any of these scenarios are potentially bad news for the GOP. Catering to the hard right-wing types is, as I've been saying for some time, going to be a thorn in the GOP's side. What's happening in Florida right now is a pretty clear illustration of this.

dudalb · 5th May 2010, 01:17 PM

I think the Teabaggers probably will win a couple of primaries; Russel in Utah is in trouble (despite having an almost perfect conservative record he is in trouble because of his vote for TARP) and Rand Paul in Kentucky will probably win (very weak opposing candidate). But I think their attempts to "Purge" the GOP will fail.
What is ironic is most of them would say they worship Reagan, but Reagan, advocate of the Broad Tent, would be the first to oppose the Tea Baggers crusade for ideological purity as being stupid, short sighted, and just plain wrong.
What the Tea Baggers aversion to TARP does is sort of put a crimp into the "Tea Party is a evil Corporate plot" theory I have heard stated here.

MattusMaximus · 25th May 2010, 09:53 PM

Update from today's Iowa Electronic Market:

DH_DS10 56.6%
DH_RS10 1.8%
RH_DS10 27.9%
RH_RS10 11.7%

Specific markets for the U.S. House and Senate...

DH.gain10 1.5%
DH.hold10 57.9%
DH.lose10 40.5%

DS.gain10 1.8%
DS.hold10 84.1%
DS.lose10 13.6%

There are also graphs available tracking all three of these markets. Given the tempest in a (pardon the pun) teapot that is the Tea Party "movement", the Dems numbers here look pretty damn good.

Brainster · 26th May 2010, 11:21 AM

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

Update from today's Iowa Electronic Market:

DH_DS10 56.6%
DH_RS10 1.8%
RH_DS10 27.9%
RH_RS10 11.7%

Specific markets for the U.S. House and Senate...

DH.gain10 1.5%
DH.hold10 57.9%
DH.lose10 40.5%

DS.gain10 1.8%
DS.hold10 84.1%
DS.lose10 13.6%

There are also graphs available tracking all three of these markets. Given the tempest in a (pardon the pun) teapot that is the Tea Party "movement", the Dems numbers here look pretty damn good.

The market seems pretty inefficient. Look for example at the two components of the RHDS contract. Republican House is rated by the IEM at 40.5%, while the Democratic Senate is rated at 84.1%. This would indicate that the RHDS contract should be somewhere around 34.2%. Instead it's at 27.9%. Note also that DHDS is rated well above its calculated value.

And I'm not sure that a 40% chance of losing 40 house seats is pretty damn good for the Democrats.

MattusMaximus · 26th May 2010, 11:28 AM

Originally Posted by Brainster

And I'm not sure that a 40% chance of losing 40 house seats is pretty damn good for the Democrats.

Given the manner in which the media and various GOP-outlets are spinning it, I'd say it's pretty damn good. For reference, the 60-40 numbers are comparable to the Obama-McCain matchup a couple of years back.

Me, I'll play the odds

MattusMaximus · 3rd June 2010, 11:59 AM

Update from today's Iowa Electronic Market:

DH_DS10 57.0%
DH_RS10 2.5%
RH_DS10 30.1%
RH_RS10 11.3%

Specific markets for the U.S. House and Senate...

DH.gain10 1.8%
DH.hold10 57.0%
DH.lose10 41.0%

DS.gain10 3.1%
DS.hold10 84.1%
DS.lose10 14.7%

In addition, Intrade is running a market on which party will control the U.S. House in November...

Dem 54.1%
Rep 44.1%

The Intrade market is pretty consistent with IEM. In short, it still looks like an uphill climb for the GOP this year, despite all that has happened in their favor. It's still a long way until November - we shall see.

Aside: And, in case this all wasn't enough, Intrade also has a market on who will win the presidency in 2012. Current quotes...

Dem 59.8%
Rep 38.0%

Brainster · 4th July 2010, 11:56 AM

And Intrade now has the GOP favored, with the latest trades for House of Representatives control at 46 (D) and 56 (R). The Iowa Electronic Markets has shown similar movement, although it still shows the Dems keeping the House:

DH Gain: .010
DH Hold: .509
DH Lose: .497

MattusMaximus · 19th July 2010, 12:56 PM

As Brainster has noted, it seems the GOP has made inroads on whether or not they'll retake the U.S. House in November, though there is little to no movement on the question of whether or not they'll retake the Senate. Here's the latest from the Iowa Electronic Market...

DH_DS10 48.7%
DH_RS10 1.0%
RH_DS10 38.9%
RH_RS10 12.8%

Specific markets for the U.S. House and Senate...

DH.gain10 1.1%
DH.hold10 48.6%
DH.lose10 49.8%

DS.gain10 2.7%
DS.hold10 83.8%
DS.lose10 13.9%

So it seems the Republicans have seized on some momentum as far as the U.S. House goes. But the question now is can they maintain this momentum? And even if they do, at this stage, it seems it is only about a 50-50 shot at them retaking the House. The Dems might be able to bounce back some, seeing as how they seem to be getting scared and are working to mobilize. It'll be interesting to see how the House races shake out.

Brainster · 4th August 2010, 09:39 AM

InTrade's latest trades show the Republican takeover of the House at 60.0, and the Democrat's retaining the House at 40.5. The IEM has shown similar movement with the latest trades as follows:

DH.gain: .007
DH.hold: .455
Dh.lose: .535

The release of unemployment figures for July on Friday will be the key to movement in August.

Both markets still show the GOP as unlikely to take back the Senate.

22nd December 2009, 08:07 PM	#1
MattusMaximus Intellectual Gladiator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In the midst of a vast, beautiful & uncaring universe Posts: 14,175	2010 Congressional Elections - Polls & Prediction Markets Okay, sooner or later someone had to start a thread on this, so here it is. Personally, I prefer prediction markets over polls any day (I'll explain why if you're curious), and one of the oldest & most respected prediction markets has recently opened up on the question of the 2010 Congressional elections. As of today, here's what the Iowa Electronic Markets have to say... DH_DS10 75.7% DH_RS10 1.5% RH_DS10 22.0% RH_RS10 2.6% DH_DS means "Democrats control both the House & Senate" DH_RS means "Democrats control the House and Republicans control the Senate" etc. So, looking at this now (which is very very early), it seems the Dems are in good shape to hold both houses of Congress. Now whether or not that means they hold on strongly or just barely is an open question. Btw, the specific breakdown on the House is... DH.gain10 2.0% DH.hold10 74.4% DH.lose10 24.0% Any other polls, prediction markets anyone wants to post?
	__________________ Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher The Times They Are A-Changin' Last edited by MattusMaximus; 22nd December 2009 at 08:10 PM.

22nd December 2009, 08:50 PM	#2
corplinx JREF Kid Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,944	I predict some sociopaths might be replaced by other sociopaths. Many sociopaths will keep their current seats, because they are sociopaths.
corplinx JREF Kid Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,944	__________________ In the tradition of "Stop Silvia!" Stop Hal Bidlack: http://skepticalcommunity.com/forums...hp?f=1&t=28671

22nd December 2009, 08:58 PM	#3
gtc Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: the downunderverse Posts: 7,114	Originally Posted by MattusMaximus DH.gain10 2.0% DH.hold10 74.4% DH.lose10 24.0% That adds up to 100.4%. Does the 10 mean anything there?
	__________________

22nd December 2009, 09:28 PM	#4
MattusMaximus Intellectual Gladiator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In the midst of a vast, beautiful & uncaring universe Posts: 14,175	Originally Posted by gtc That adds up to 100.4%. Does the 10 mean anything there? Having numbers add up to more/less than 100% isn't uncommon in a prediction market (I'm not sure why). I've seen it before, and I've never figured it out. The 10 stands for 2010.
	__________________ Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher The Times They Are A-Changin'

23rd December 2009, 12:06 AM	#5
Brainster Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 10,427	Originally Posted by MattusMaximus Having numbers add up to more/less than 100% isn't uncommon in a prediction market (I'm not sure why). I've seen it before, and I've never figured it out. The 10 stands for 2010. Because they are prices, not percentages. Effectively the same thing, of course, but all it reflects is the imperfection of the market.
	__________________ My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

23rd December 2009, 12:13 AM	#6
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Waiting Long Enough By The River Posts: 17,897	Originally Posted by MattusMaximus Having numbers add up to more/less than 100% isn't uncommon in a prediction market (I'm not sure why). I've seen it before, and I've never figured it out. I'm not really familiar with predictions markets, but my guess is that what should hold it at 100% is that if it doesn't add up to 100% there ought to be some way to make money out of the situation. But the collective wisdom of the market isn't going to get it right on the nose, rather it'll fluctuate tightly around 100%. I guess I should look up how they work, eh?

23rd December 2009, 12:24 AM	#7
Brainster Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 10,427	InTrade has the GOP takeover of the House at 35% right now, so if you want to make some dough, buy the Democrats at InTrade and the GOP at IEM.
	__________________ My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

23rd December 2009, 02:37 AM	#8
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Waiting Long Enough By The River Posts: 17,897	Originally Posted by Dr Adequate I'm not really familiar with predictions markets, but my guess is that what should hold it at 100% is that if it doesn't add up to 100% there ought to be some way to make money out of the situation. But the collective wisdom of the market isn't going to get it right on the nose, rather it'll fluctuate tightly around 100%. I guess I should look up how they work, eh? Ah yes, here we are. From the Wikipedia article on the IEM: It is possible that a given market is simply irrationally priced. If the price of all the different shares is greater than or less than $1, then there is at least one share which is not correctly priced and so can either be shorted or gone long on. Doing so brings the market closer to 100%.

23rd December 2009, 05:46 AM	#9
Francesca R Girl Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: London EC1 Posts: 11,825	It is possible that there's an anomaly in the prices but not very likely. That wikipedia quote is giving the least likely explanation. You can't typically arbitrage the contracts because they have bid-offer spreads that remove the ability to get in and out with a certain profit. All the bids will usually sum to less than 100 but all the offers will exceed it. You deal on the "worst" of the two. The market maker (who therefore gets the "best" side of the price) can make a profit with no position. That's their economic return for providing the ability to bet. If it is too generous (in their favour), somebody else will step in quoting narrower spreads and will win all the punters' flows.
	Last edited by Francesca R; 23rd December 2009 at 05:49 AM.

23rd December 2009, 06:18 AM	#10
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Waiting Long Enough By The River Posts: 17,897	Originally Posted by Francesca R It is possible that there's an anomaly in the prices but not very likely. That wikipedia quote is giving the least likely explanation. You can't typically arbitrage the contracts because they have bid-offer spreads that remove the ability to get in and out with a certain profit. All the bids will usually sum to less than 100 but all the offers will exceed it. You deal on the "worst" of the two. The market maker (who therefore gets the "best" side of the price) can make a profit with no position. That's their economic return for providing the ability to bet. If it is too generous (in their favour), somebody else will step in quoting narrower spreads and will win all the punters' flows. I am having some difficulty in grasping your point. Please could you explain that again but less concisely. Thanks.

23rd December 2009, 06:46 AM	#11
Francesca R Girl Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: London EC1 Posts: 11,825	I mean you can't do a series of trades that ends up at no bet, but nets you a gain (which may be intuitively Bleedin' Obvious) If you could buy all four contracts for a total price of less than 100, you could be assured of a gain, because they are exhaustive, and one of them will definitely finish in the money and pay out 100 (while the others pay out nothing). Unfortunately you buy at the "offer" prices, and if you add those* up the sum is (should always be) more than 100, so it is a guaranteed risk-free loss. And if you want to sell all four, you'll get less than 100 for it, yet you know you will surely have to pay out 100 on one of them, so that's another guaranteed loss. If there were identical contracts on two different exchanges with very different prices--say you could sell [DH-DS10] at 72 (the bid price) on IEM and buy it at 71 (the offer price) with InTrade at the same time--then that's also a riskless profit. Unfortunately you can't very often do that either because there are thousands of others looking for free money like that. (In fact the contracts on those two markets are not identical) *well not quite, but I don't see any for "no control"
	Last edited by Francesca R; 23rd December 2009 at 07:10 AM.

2nd January 2010, 03:28 PM	#12
MattusMaximus Intellectual Gladiator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In the midst of a vast, beautiful & uncaring universe Posts: 14,175	Here's the latest update from IEM... DH_DS10 75.5% DH_RS10 1.0% RH_DS10 20.9% RH_RS10 2.9% Specific markets for the U.S. House and Senate... DH.gain10 1.1% DH.hold10 74.1% DH.lose10 25.2% DS.gain10 6.6% DS.hold10 90.0% DS.lose10 5.0% Meanwhile, over at Intrade, it is projected at 66.6% that the Dems will hold the U.S. House in 2010. At this stage, while I think the GOP will likely pick up some seats in both houses of Congress this coming November, all this talk of a "GOP takeover" is just puffed-up hyperbole. But that's politics for you
	__________________ Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher The Times They Are A-Changin' Last edited by MattusMaximus; 2nd January 2010 at 03:33 PM.

4th January 2010, 06:58 PM	#13
MattusMaximus Intellectual Gladiator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In the midst of a vast, beautiful & uncaring universe Posts: 14,175	Today's IEM update... DH_DS10 75.4% DH_RS10 0.9% RH_DS10 20.9% RH_RS10 2.9% Specific markets for the U.S. House and Senate... DH.gain10 1.2% DH.hold10 74.1% DH.lose10 24.4% DS.gain10 6.4% DS.hold10 90.0% DS.lose10 5.0% Intrade projects a 66.5% chance that the Dems will hold the U.S. House in 2010. Are there any other prediction markets and/or polls of interest?
	__________________ Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher The Times They Are A-Changin'

5th January 2010, 06:17 AM	#14
Francesca R Girl Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: London EC1 Posts: 11,825	Maybe people can self-satisfy their interest concerning what the prices are (and whether they have moved by a tick) by visiting the pages themselves.

15th January 2010, 08:26 PM	#15
MattusMaximus Intellectual Gladiator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In the midst of a vast, beautiful & uncaring universe Posts: 14,175	Today's IEM update... DH_DS10 74.6% DH_RS10 0.7% RH_DS10 22.0% RH_RS10 8.0% Specific markets for the U.S. House and Senate... DH.gain10 1.1% DH.hold10 74.5% DH.lose10 32.5% DS.gain10 4.0% DS.hold10 90.1% DS.lose10 5.9% Intrade projects a 65.9% chance that the Dems will hold the U.S. House in 2010. I find this to be very interesting, what with all of the developments in the past couple of weeks (Sen. Dodd and Dorgan's retirements, the close MA Senate race, retirements of many House incumbents, etc), the markets are surprisingly stable and unchanged. The only exception to this is a slight uptick in the odds the Republicans will take back the House.
	__________________ Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher The Times They Are A-Changin' Last edited by MattusMaximus; 15th January 2010 at 08:27 PM.

15th January 2010, 09:54 PM	#16
Brainster Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 10,427	There are two main factors at work here; the underlying situation and the amount of time remaining. Right now the time remaining is the main thing that the Democrats have in their favor; well, that and the fact that they have to lose something like 40 seats in order to lose the House. As I said in the Ted Kennedy's seat thread, apparently the market is currently discounting the idea that Brown's apparent close race there reflects broader discontent. It could also be simply a reflection that the Democrats have time to recover; a few solid employment results would do wonders. Barring that or terrible unemployment numbers, don't expect big movements in this market until September or so. And even on the day of the election, you can have monstrous swings both ways; check out the IEM Presidential Markets for election day in 2000 and 2004 for examples of how wild it can get. Part of it is that "all or nothing" aspect of the market. This isn't like buying stock in a stable company where you know your upside and your downside is limited, and you hope it will perform at the upper end of the band. The day after the election, the people who invested in one party will get nothing and the people who invested in the other party will get a tidy profit. That is part of the reason why these markets work fairly well provided they are not too narrow; greed and fear can work wonders.
	__________________ My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

15th January 2010, 10:03 PM	#17
MattusMaximus Intellectual Gladiator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In the midst of a vast, beautiful & uncaring universe Posts: 14,175	Originally Posted by Brainster There are two main factors at work here; the underlying situation and the amount of time remaining. Right now the time remaining is the main thing that the Democrats have in their favor; well, that and the fact that they have to lose something like 40 seats in order to lose the House. As I said in the Ted Kennedy's seat thread, apparently the market is currently discounting the idea that Brown's apparent close race there reflects broader discontent. It could also be simply a reflection that the Democrats have time to recover; a few solid employment results would do wonders. Yes, any positive job numbers in the next few months will make the GOP's work much harder for them. In addition, if Obama and the Dems can get some popular legislation (re: jobs programs and Wall Street taxation, etc) passed, that could help shore up support for them. The Dems are really eager to get health care reform over and done with - it's really weighing them down and preventing them from getting to other things. Not good. Quote: Barring that or terrible unemployment numbers, don't expect big movements in this market until September or so. And even on the day of the election, you can have monstrous swings both ways; check out the IEM Presidential Markets for election day in 2000 and 2004 for examples of how wild it can get. Part of it is that "all or nothing" aspect of the market. This isn't like buying stock in a stable company where you know your upside and your downside is limited, and you hope it will perform at the upper end of the band. The day after the election, the people who invested in one party will get nothing and the people who invested in the other party will get a tidy profit. That is part of the reason why these markets work fairly well provided they are not too narrow; greed and fear can work wonders. Good insights. Nice comparing notes with you again
	__________________ Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher The Times They Are A-Changin'

17th January 2010, 09:49 AM	#18
casebro Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 6,792	I guess the predictive markets are supposed to be better than polls because having a couple dollars bet means that the subjects are better informed than the average poll subject? But predictive markets are still only polls, correct? I predict that as the predictive markets gain members, their predictive value will decrease to the point that they are no better than polls.
casebro Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 6,792	__________________ Please pardon me for having ideas, not facts. Some have called me cynical, but I don't believe them. It's not how many breaths you take. It's how many times you have been breathless that counts.

17th January 2010, 10:01 AM	#19
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 26,749	Originally Posted by casebro I guess the predictive markets are supposed to be better than polls because having a couple dollars bet means that the subjects are better informed than the average poll subject? But predictive markets are still only polls, correct? Not really. Here's the difference as I see it: When you read a poll that says 55% would vote for a given candidate, that's exactly what it means. If that's a good solid number (that is with a low margin of error--say + or - 2%), it means the probability of that candidate winning is very near 100%. If a predictive market says 55% in favor of a certain outcome (as, for example, a given candidate winning), that outcome is very nearly a coin toss. You can read the predictive markets as a comment on the probability of a certain outcome rather than a poll on how many favor a given outcome. ETA: Now it'd be different if these predictive markets used a point spread as they do in football betting. For example, just prior to the 2008 presidential elections, polls showed Obama's lead as being maybe 5% (and this is oversimplifying things, because we still do presidential elections by delegates per state, etc.), but the predictive markets showed Obama to win at maybe 80% or more (I don't remember exactly what). But if the question wasn't about whether or not Obama would win, but that he would win by a certain number of votes, you'd change that. If you did it just right, you'd change it so that the bet would always be very close to a 50% probability of winning. (And of course buying shares isn't quite the same as making a bet, but it's closer than asking who you'd vote for in an opinion poll.)
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons Last edited by JoeTheJuggler; 17th January 2010 at 10:10 AM.

17th January 2010, 05:04 PM	#20
MattusMaximus Intellectual Gladiator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In the midst of a vast, beautiful & uncaring universe Posts: 14,175	Originally Posted by casebro I guess the predictive markets are supposed to be better than polls because having a couple dollars bet means that the subjects are better informed than the average poll subject? But predictive markets are still only polls, correct? I predict that as the predictive markets gain members, their predictive value will decrease to the point that they are no better than polls. No, the big difference as I see it is this... a poll will ask who you will vote for or who you want to win. But a prediction market asks you to lay down your own money on who you really think is going to win. That little shift in psychology can make an interesting difference.
	__________________ Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher The Times They Are A-Changin'

17th January 2010, 05:26 PM	#21
Brainster Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 10,427	Originally Posted by casebro I guess the predictive markets are supposed to be better than polls because having a couple dollars bet means that the subjects are better informed than the average poll subject? But predictive markets are still only polls, correct? No, this is wrong. The markets aren't so much predictions as they are distillations of the conventional wisdom at any point in time. They should be better than the polls as I will illustrate. For example, suppose the average of a number of polls taken 5 days out shows a candidate with a 10-point lead. Then in all probability the prediction markets will show that candidate with a much bigger than 10-point lead in share value; it might even be more like 60-40. Now suppose another two days goes by and a new poll shows that candidate still leading by 10 points. We would expect the market to move more strongly in that candidates favor, perhaps even to 75-25. Why? Because time is running out now on the loser. But they would not quite go to 100-0, because there's always the chance that the leading candidate will make a horrible gaffe, or a new poll could come out tomorrow showing him leading by only two points.
	__________________ My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

19th January 2010, 12:27 PM	#22
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 26,749	Originally Posted by Brainster No, this is wrong. The markets aren't so much predictions as they are distillations of the conventional wisdom at any point in time. They should be better than the polls as I will illustrate. For example, suppose the average of a number of polls taken 5 days out shows a candidate with a 10-point lead. Then in all probability the prediction markets will show that candidate with a much bigger than 10-point lead in share value; it might even be more like 60-40. Now suppose another two days goes by and a new poll shows that candidate still leading by 10 points. We would expect the market to move more strongly in that candidates favor, perhaps even to 75-25. Why? Because time is running out now on the loser. But they would not quite go to 100-0, because there's always the chance that the leading candidate will make a horrible gaffe, or a new poll could come out tomorrow showing him leading by only two points. That's about what I was trying to say. Consider the outcome of a soccer game. If the score is 2-0 and you're near the end of time, the smart money will bet that the team in the lead will win with great confidence. So the market will be something like 99% to 1% on the outcome. The 2 points difference in the score would be analogous to a large margin of victory in the polls (like say 55% to 35% with a few undecideds). If it's the day before an election and you had an opinion poll like that (55% for A, 35% for B, with 10% undecided) you would consider the outcome to be very nearly 100% certain that A will win. The predictive markets would show that level of confidence (something like 99% to nearly zero) and not the percentages of the opinion poll.
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons

20th January 2010, 10:47 AM	#23
Brainster Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 10,427	GOP control of the House inched up to around 38 following Brown's win in Massachusetts. I note that InTrade has now added several contracts on how many seats the Republicans can expect to pick up in 2010; looks like the median estimate is somewhere around 30-35.
	__________________ My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

21st January 2010, 02:32 PM	#24
Brainster Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 10,427	Larry Sabato (Political Science prof at the U of Virginia) runs the numbers and projects the GOP would pick up 7 seats in the Senate (beyond Kennedy's seat) if the elections were held today, and several more may be considered in play given the Massachusetts Miracle: Quote: Among the senators who could be endangered by a new wave of Republican entries are Evan Bayh (Indiana), Kirsten Gillibrand (New York), Patty Murray (Washington), and Russ Feingold (Wisconsin). Sabato's +7 prediction for the GOP assumes that the Democrats retain all those seats. Sabato's track record is impressive: Quote: In July 2008, Dr. Sabato correctly projected that Barack Obama would win the presidency in a near-landslide. He predicted a 364-174 margin in the Electoral College, just one vote away from the final tally of 365-173, as well as the correct popular vote percentages. He also accurately predicted 99% of Senate, House, and Governor winners-by far the best showing in the business. His spectacular record of predicting elections is not new. In 2006 he was named the most accurate prognosticator by an unusual combination of news organizations: FOX News, MSNBC, CNBC, and Pew's Project for Excellence in Journalism. In 2006 Dr. Sabato was the only national analyst to call the Senate and House contests on the button.
	__________________ My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

23rd January 2010, 12:52 AM	#25
Brainster Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 10,427	Michael Barone calculates that if we extrapolate from the Massachusetts results, there are only 103 safe Democratic seats in the House. It is of course very unlikely that the Democrats would end up doing that poorly, but Barone's not exactly an amateur at this sort of analysis.
	__________________ My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

3rd April 2010, 02:42 PM	#26
MattusMaximus Intellectual Gladiator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In the midst of a vast, beautiful & uncaring universe Posts: 14,175	Okay, after HCR has finally passed and the Dems can move on to other things... Update from today's Iowa Electronic Market: DH_DS10 59.9% DH_RS10 2.7% RH_DS10 25.3% RH_RS10 13.4% All in all, considering the bruising the Democrats were taking over HCR, these numbers look better for them than I thought they'd be. If the GOP could get its act together, they might do better than these projections, but it's a long way until November. Specific markets for the U.S. House and Senate... DH.gain10 0.9% DH.hold10 64.0% DH.lose10 36.6% DS.gain10 1.4% DS.hold10 84.6% DS.lose10 16.0% I can't find the 2010 Congressional market on Intrade, but they do have one regarding the 2012 Presidential election Dem wins 2012 58.2% Rep wins 2012 40.1%
	__________________ Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher The Times They Are A-Changin' Last edited by MattusMaximus; 3rd April 2010 at 02:43 PM.

3rd April 2010, 08:13 PM	#27
MattusMaximus Intellectual Gladiator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In the midst of a vast, beautiful & uncaring universe Posts: 14,175	Latest updates from Intrade on the U.S. House... Dems Control House 2010 57.0% Reps Control House 2010 41.6% And here's the Intrade prediction on the U.S. Senate... Dems Control Senate 2010 80.1% Reps Control Senate 2010 8.1% Looking at the trend lines shows that the steady rise of the GOP in this market turned around dramatically a week or two ago. Looks like passing HCR was more beneficial, politically speaking, than not for the Dems.
	__________________ Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher The Times They Are A-Changin'

3rd April 2010, 08:36 PM	#28
Thunder Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Queens Posts: 34,947	Dems maintain control of the Senate and the House. Majority in the House will be slimmer...but still preserved. This will be due to an improving economy, and passing craze over health-care reform.

3rd April 2010, 11:31 PM	#29
MattusMaximus Intellectual Gladiator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In the midst of a vast, beautiful & uncaring universe Posts: 14,175	Originally Posted by parky76 Dems maintain control of the Senate and the House. Majority in the House will be slimmer...but still preserved. This will be due to an improving economy, and passing craze over health-care reform. That's how I'd place my bets, if I were gambling real cash. Apparently, the prediction markets agree. But it is still a long way until November...
	__________________ Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher The Times They Are A-Changin'

5th May 2010, 09:31 AM	#30
MattusMaximus Intellectual Gladiator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In the midst of a vast, beautiful & uncaring universe Posts: 14,175	Update from today's Iowa Electronic Market: DH_DS10 58.2% DH_RS10 1.5% RH_DS10 28.7% RH_RS10 11.5% That's not much change from one month ago, despite all that has happened since then. Specific markets for the U.S. House and Senate... DH.gain10 1.8% DH.hold10 58.7% DH.lose10 42.5% DS.gain10 2.5% DS.hold10 82.0% DS.lose10 13.7%
	__________________ Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher The Times They Are A-Changin'

5th May 2010, 10:05 AM	#31
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 22,814	Interesting how the GOP primary results of APril 4th, in which basically the Tea Party candidates lost badly to the "Establishment" candidates, will impact the November predictions. On the one hand, a GOP establishment candidate will stand a better chance in the general election then a Tea Party candidate would have, on the other, it is a sign that Voter Anger might be cooling which would favor the Dems.

5th May 2010, 11:50 AM	#32
MattusMaximus Intellectual Gladiator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In the midst of a vast, beautiful & uncaring universe Posts: 14,175	Originally Posted by dudalb Interesting how the GOP primary results of APril 4th, in which basically the Tea Party candidates lost badly to the "Establishment" candidates, will impact the November predictions. On the one hand, a GOP establishment candidate will stand a better chance in the general election then a Tea Party candidate would have, on the other, it is a sign that Voter Anger might be cooling which would favor the Dems. The questions I have are: what do the Tea Party types do now? Do they keep pushing the Republican further to the right, risking a loss in the general election by alienating moderates? Do they get fed up and stay at home on election day because they don't think there are any good choices? Do they keep fighting and field "true conservative" 3rd party candidates? "Yes" on any of these scenarios are potentially bad news for the GOP. Catering to the hard right-wing types is, as I've been saying for some time, going to be a thorn in the GOP's side. What's happening in Florida right now is a pretty clear illustration of this.
	__________________ Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher The Times They Are A-Changin' Last edited by MattusMaximus; 5th May 2010 at 11:55 AM.

5th May 2010, 01:17 PM	#33
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 22,814	I think the Teabaggers probably will win a couple of primaries; Russel in Utah is in trouble (despite having an almost perfect conservative record he is in trouble because of his vote for TARP) and Rand Paul in Kentucky will probably win (very weak opposing candidate). But I think their attempts to "Purge" the GOP will fail. What is ironic is most of them would say they worship Reagan, but Reagan, advocate of the Broad Tent, would be the first to oppose the Tea Baggers crusade for ideological purity as being stupid, short sighted, and just plain wrong. What the Tea Baggers aversion to TARP does is sort of put a crimp into the "Tea Party is a evil Corporate plot" theory I have heard stated here.
	Last edited by dudalb; 5th May 2010 at 01:18 PM.

25th May 2010, 09:53 PM	#34
MattusMaximus Intellectual Gladiator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In the midst of a vast, beautiful & uncaring universe Posts: 14,175	Update from today's Iowa Electronic Market: DH_DS10 56.6% DH_RS10 1.8% RH_DS10 27.9% RH_RS10 11.7% Specific markets for the U.S. House and Senate... DH.gain10 1.5% DH.hold10 57.9% DH.lose10 40.5% DS.gain10 1.8% DS.hold10 84.1% DS.lose10 13.6% There are also graphs available tracking all three of these markets. Given the tempest in a (pardon the pun) teapot that is the Tea Party "movement", the Dems numbers here look pretty damn good.
	__________________ Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher The Times They Are A-Changin'

26th May 2010, 11:21 AM	#35
Brainster Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 10,427	Originally Posted by MattusMaximus Update from today's Iowa Electronic Market: DH_DS10 56.6% DH_RS10 1.8% RH_DS10 27.9% RH_RS10 11.7% Specific markets for the U.S. House and Senate... DH.gain10 1.5% DH.hold10 57.9% DH.lose10 40.5% DS.gain10 1.8% DS.hold10 84.1% DS.lose10 13.6% There are also graphs available tracking all three of these markets. Given the tempest in a (pardon the pun) teapot that is the Tea Party "movement", the Dems numbers here look pretty damn good. The market seems pretty inefficient. Look for example at the two components of the RHDS contract. Republican House is rated by the IEM at 40.5%, while the Democratic Senate is rated at 84.1%. This would indicate that the RHDS contract should be somewhere around 34.2%. Instead it's at 27.9%. Note also that DHDS is rated well above its calculated value. And I'm not sure that a 40% chance of losing 40 house seats is pretty damn good for the Democrats.
	__________________ My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.