Intrade Odds 79.0 Obama 20.6 Romney

Intrade ^ | Current | Intrade

[stocksthatgoup]

Obama 79 Romney 21

[Zajko]

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.

[Arthurio]

See no. 19.

[HenryArmitage]

they dont tell you the total value but they do tell you the total shares.
for O it is 739,359 shares at an average of around 7.80 so around 5.7m.
for Rom it is 890,611 shares at an average of around 2.15 so about 1.9m.
best guess anyway.

[1035rep]

“Markets like this work by “pricing in” information relevant to the prediction”

Like this one?

Paul Ryan Intrade chances: 4.1%

[Conscience of a Conservative]

My question on this is if the figures are true, then how many Republicans are voting for Obama? Assume the percentages of voters are 1/3 Dims, 1/3 Independents, and 1/3 Republicans. To get almost 80% of the vote means that all the Dims, all the Independents, and almost half of the Republicans are voting for Obama.

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.

[tatown]

Could it be argued that we are no more ‘in the know’ than them though?

[HereInTheHeartland]

Take the bet.

My guess is the voters with IQ’s like a squirrel won't be voting as heavily this time.

[pabianice]

Romney's that high?

Well, one good thing. This is the end of the Republican Party.

[RedStateRocker]

” Just the fact that both camps are saying it’s 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.

[Mr. Silverback]

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.

[Conscience of a Conservative]

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.

[Austin Vet]

Intrade was wrong by a similar margin on the Obamacare decision.

http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contract/?contractId=745353

[Mr. K]

i would place a bet on that NOW

how much would you win if you bet $1000?

[mamelukesabre]

Sounds reasonable to me. But why buy now? Wait until obama hits 90%.

[OneWingedShark]

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.

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.

• 2nd Amendment -- When was the last time that the Republican party really pursued application of the 2nd Amendment, as it is written? Never in my political lifetime. {And no, the Assault Weapon Ban does not count. Why? Because it had a sunset clause in it and they literally had to do nothing for it to cease operation.} They have never, as a party, even entertained the idea of repealing the GCA or NFA.
• Abortion -- This one is really damning. If they so believe abortion to be murder, then why did they do jack-shit during Bush's tenure when they had the Executive and the Legislative? Not even a token act, like a resolution stating that anyone crossing state lines for an abortion would be charged with federal [crossing state lines] murder. (Roe v. Wade is also, itself, incredibly suspect: the USSC forced the states to violate the 14th & 5th amendments and therefore the decision itself is null.)
• Small government -- When have they seriously put forward the dissolution of government agencies?
• Responsible government -- The Fast & Furious fiasco shows this to be a lie. They have more than enough information to bust skulls; especially since the operation was an unauthorized act of war and, by definition, state sponsored terrorism.
• Loyalty -- Remember NY-23? Where the national party endorsed the Democratic candidate rather than the Tea Party winner of the Republican primary. Yeah, says a lot.
• Morality -- Remember the proposed rule-changes for delegates? It shows the immoral heart of a authoritarian, if not an out-and-out statist. -- Also there's that distasteful "the ayes have it" on the teleprompter before the voice-vote finished.

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.

[LS]

I get it. You mean like pricing in poll info? Yeah, that's solid evidence.

BTW, where do you think Intrade would be if they saw the early voting # s from OH?

[Mr. Silverback]

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.

[Theoria]

Intrade does fine. In 2008 McCain was making inroads until he started running around like a fool.

Did Intrade correctly predict the 2008 Presidential Election?

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

[ProudFossil]

This is my reply to those who replied to me correctly saying the 80 - 20 spread was not percentages of voters, but simply the amount of money people are betting based on who they think will win. Very correctly stated. My undergraduate is in math and so I was well aware what I was saying was misleading.

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.

[JSteff]

This may be a tough call.
Heck right here on FR there are loads of Freepers who say they will NOT VOTE for Romney.
Strange that they would all be voting for OBAMA by not voting for Romney... cause that is exactly what they will be doing.
Just amazing that so many conservatives would be voting for OBAMA!! Thanks to all who will be voting for obama.
Just read my tag-line... it will hold doubly true after they elect him again.