Skip to comments.Intrade Odds 79.0 Obama 20.6 Romney
Posted on 09/28/2012 11:24:51 AM PDT by stocksthatgoup
Obama 79 Romney 21
(Excerpt) Read more at intrade.com ...
If this is being manipulated, whoever is doing the manipulation has gone to great lengths to manipulate each of the battleground states as well.
I’m surprised that the 0 campaign is spending so much of their campaign funds on betting at Intrade.
Buy it....odds are not going to get better before the election.....
Nothing would be sweeter than having a Romney win and a pile of cash....
Same market that was 90:1 that Obamacare would be overturned by USSC. Yep, they’re infallible.
“Obama 79 Romney 21”
R I I I I I I I I I I I I I I G G G T
Or, you can donate the same money to Romney to guarantee a R victory.
OK, this has to be manipulation. Even if you believe the polls, there’s nothing about the current state of the race that means “Obama is a sure thing.” Just the fact that both camps are saying it’s tight should be enough to deter someone.
Odds with bookmakers in the UK (William Hill, Ladbrokes) are even more skewed: Obama 83 / Romney 17.
Exactly! How long ago were we driving in fear of encountering a Toyota Prius on the road? Oh, the HORROR!!!
Mitt Romney’s vice president choice July 2012
Paul Ryan Intrade chances: 4.1%
Rob Portman Intrade chances: 32%
Any idea what Intrade says that the odds are that America will no longer exist after the Kommie Kenyan is reelected?
What’s the total amount being wagered on the election? I bet it’s quite small, and therefore easy to manipulate.
Something does not compute. (Of course I did not allow for dead people, illegals, felons, and multiple votings)
Predictions about a Supreme Court ruling bear no resemblance to predictions about election results. Markets like this work by "pricing in" information relevant to the prediction. The Supreme Court is, effectively, a black box: until a decision is released, there is very little information with which to make a prediction. With an election, on the other hand, there is an almost endless stream of information one can use to: polls (even skewed polls provide useful information, as long as the internals are released), economic data, other external indicators, etc.
One of the few “polls” that I’d trust.
Stop relying on “oh, the polls are wrong” and start relying on convincing people to vote R.
Intrade is not saying that Obama will get 80% of the vote. It is saying Obama has an 80% chance of winning.
Intrade had Kerry up 90 to 10 on election day 2004 when the bad exit polls were being leaked.
The gamblers betting on Intrade are not “in the know.” ... They’re simply playing off the same conventional wisdom that you see in the media.
Odds don’t reflect percentage of people who’ll supposedly vote for Obama. Merely the % chance, in the bookmaker’s opinion, of who will win the election. And thus the amount you have to stake in order to get a return of $100 if you pick the winner.
If you genuinely believe Romney will win, then you can get a 500% return on your investment if you back him now and are correct.
See no. 19.
“Markets like this work by “pricing in” information relevant to the prediction”
Like this one?
Paul Ryan Intrade chances: 4.1%
This isn't a vote, it's a prediction; it has no bearing on, and is not reflective of, the margin of predicted victory/loss for either candidate. 80% of predictors (or, rather, 80% of dollars in the prediction market) could believe that Obama will win by a margin of 50.01% to 49.99%, and the numbers here would be the same.
Could it be argued that we are no more ‘in the know’ than them though?
My guess is the voters with IQ’s like a squirrel won't be voting as heavily this time.
Well, one good thing. This is the end of the Republican Party.
” Just the fact that both camps are saying its tight “
Neither camp would EVER say “yeah, we’re winning big”, that would just be foolish because it would probably result in people not turning out to vote for them.
See post 19. If you trust Intrade, you’re trusting the media. Most media sources thought the chances of the SCOTUS overturning Obamacare were very high based on the way oral arguments went, so (Surprise!!) Intrade thought the chances were very high.
I’m not saying Intrade is always accurate, or is right in this instance. My point is simply that you can’t compare predictions of SCOTUS decisions to predictions of election results.
Intrade was wrong by a similar margin on the Obamacare decision.
i would place a bet on that NOW
how much would you win if you bet $1000?
Sounds reasonable to me. But why buy now? Wait until obama hits 90%.
There's really no way to convince people to vote R for one simple reason: the Republican party is a lie.
Let me explain:
The party itself does so little to pursue its stated party-planks that it is, effectively, "a great win" whenever even the smallest token of effort is put forward towards them. in effect they treat the constituents with the contempt that Obama did in his "clinging bitterly" statement -- what's the difference between the two: not a whole lot actually, and precisely because the Republican party [as a whole] is not about what it says it is.
With the selection and anointment of Statist/Fabian-socialist Romney, even before the primaries, the Republican party has said that none of those matter; only "electability." What they fail to realize is that by being a party that stands for nothing they will end up leading only those who will fall for anything.
BTW, where do you think Intrade would be if they saw the early voting # s from OH?
Yes, but the data in the polls should be enough to make these people more cautious.
Look, on the afternoon of election day in 2004, the crappy exit polls came out and Intrade went to 90-10 Kerry victory. Meanwhile, coming back from last minute efforts for Bush in Iowa, I heard Sean Hannity talking about the exit poll results on the radio and said “Never in a million years.” I could tell Kerry was going to lose because of where he and Bush had been stumping the last two weeks of the campaign. I’m not an “insider,” I just knew that if Kerry and Bush were fighting over states Bush lost in 2000, that meant that Kerry was losing. But the guys at Intrade figured that if it came over the AP wire it was gospel. They didn’t have sense enough to do what I had done, much less be enough of an “insider” to be able to call some Dem and/or GOP bigwigs in swing states and say, “How’s turnout looking?”
When Intrade “predicts” something the media has already said is likely, it gets trumpeted in the media as a prescient market. When it fails to predict something, it doesn’t get a mention. That’s why it’s given credibility it doesn’t deserve.
The answer is - without a doubt. The Intrade prediction market was forecasting a sizeable Obama victory for most of the election season, and correctly predicted the results of nearly every state in the Union.
Shown below is a graph which uses the state-by-state betting data from the Intrade prediction market. The graph shows the total number of electoral votes Barack Obama was predicted to win from late May until election day. States had to be trading above 55 on the prediction market to count toward the total number of forecasted electoral votes.
Barack Obama was predicted to win over 270 Electoral votes (the winning threshold) for most of the election season, except for a few weeks during the late summer. Once the sub-prime lending mess began to unravel on Wall Street, Intrade predicted an overwhelming victory for Senator Obama.
Shown below is the same chart for Senator McCain. At no time during the entire election season was John McCain forecasted to win 270 or more electoral votes. Immediately after naming Alaska governor Sarah Palin as his running mate McCain saw a brief surge in his forecasted EV count, which quickly dissipated. Senator McCain consistently found himself in the position of needing to win every single swing state to be able to secure a winning 270 electoral votes.
There was only one point in mid-September when McCain was actually forecasted to win more electoral votes than Obama. Other than that, Obama enjoyed a sizeable lead for most of the election season. Shown below is a graph of Obama's lead over McCain during the election season.
See Also: Intrade compared to the polling data
What I was showing is how the media and such will use these numbers to demonstrate that everybody except a few Republicans will be voting for His Excellency (according to the UN) Obama. All hail to the Chief.
And as been pointed out, there could be five bets of $4 each for Romney and one bet of $80 for Obama to give the 80-20 odds but the true picture is four to one for Romney.
Good post. I hate to, but I have to agree.
Yes, poll info. But, not only the reported information - the internals should (theoretically) be priced in as well. The fact that Obama is still ~80% on Intrade suggests that the people who are trading on Intrade are buying in to the media "poll consensus." Obviously doesn't mean that the polls are right, just that traders on Intrade seem to be according them substantial weight. I happen to think that Intrade is weighing the polls too heavily, and that Romney is a (very) cheap bet right now.
BTW, where do you think Intrade would be if they saw the early voting # s from OH?
Anyone can buy/sell on Intrade. So, in that sense, "they" have already seen those numbers (or, at least, have access to them).
Oh yeah, let them “believe” LoL and thanks for the tip. Betting on RR against OButt is a very good bet to clean up and run all the way to the bank. ;-)
Intrade was right because the media was right that Obama would win. See post 19.
Then there’s election day 2004. I’m no insider, didn’t see any internal polls, none of that. I knew Kerry was losing because he and Dubya were spending the last two weeks of the campaign in states Dubya lost in 2000. Dubya was trying to take new ground, Kerry was trying to defend it...there seemed to be no way both campaigns could have internals so far off. So, when the exit polls got it way, way wrong, I said, “Yeah, right!” and Intrade said “90% chance of a Kerry victory.”
This year, the polls and media are telling us something, and so is Intrade, but that something doesn’t match up with polling, candidate activities (Obama and Biden are winning in Wisconsin by 14%, but are holding rallies there to buck up the base? Really?), absentee ballot and early voting or what knowledge we have about ground game. So, instead of a 2008 year when the media pointed out the obvious, we have a 2004 year where the media is trying to achieve a result and Intrade believes them.
Intrade is the dumb money, and I will maintain that even if Obama wins, because it’s the truth.
If you were assigning odds based on what you see right now, what would they be?
Is there a place you suggest to look where ‘smart money’ hides?
Romney gives me nothing to vote for; so why should I vote for him? (His rhetoric is just talk; I have no faith that he will "do no harm," to borrow from the Hippocratic oath, much less do good for the country.)
The whole "the other guy's worse" argument? Ridiculous, especially when you compare what the Republican party does as opposed to its stated party-planks.
They can’t be manipulating all the betting sites. This bothers me intratrade had Wisconsin right 80/20. Real money is betting on the one and it can’t be spun as a good sign.
We still have 40 days however and a whole lot can happen.
Please - reconsider?
Please don’t be one of the non-voters who enables Obama.
Ryan has good conservative credentials. Vote for Romney if for no other reason than to put Ryan in as VP, so he can step up to bat if Romney were unable (due to illness, for example) to serve out his term.
Also - I support Israel and believe its very important that our country support Israel. Romney/Ryan would be a heck of a lot better for Israel than are Obama/Biden/Hillary.
Romney does not even have to win to make money on Intrade. You could make some money day trading on anticipation that Romney will do well enough in the debates to move the polls somewhat in his favor but not enough to win. In which case, you’d buy now and then dump the stock a week or so after the debates are over before any polling bounce would dissipate.