Posted on 11/06/2018 11:17:07 PM PST by Kaslin
Republicans held the Senate! Democrats took the House but by a narrower margin!
Did I just embarrass myself?
I write this Election Day morning, before most polling places even opened. I don't know the actual results, of course.
But I'll pretend I do because I trust the betting odds.
As of Tuesday morning, ElectionBettingOdds.com, a site I co-founded, says Republicans have an 84 percent chance to hold the Senate and Democrats a 71 percent chance to retake the House.
Why trust a bunch of gamblers? Because they have the best track record!
Polls have flaws. Some people lie to pollsters or just give them what they think is the "proper" answer. Others won't even talk to them.
Pundits are worse. They often let their personal preferences skew their predictions.
Bettors are more accurate because of something called the "wisdom of crowds." It turns out that an average of many people's estimates is usually more accurate than any one person's views.
Researchers noticed that while watching the TV series "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire." Stumped contestants could poll the audience or call a friend.
The friends, often experts of some kind, got answers right 65 percent of the time. The studio audience included few experts, but the crowd got the answer right 91 percent of the time.
The crowd that bets on elections online (political betting is legal in Europe and at a small American futures market called PredictIt.com) works hard to get the answers right.
They look at more than polls. They factor in the latest news, try to sense the mood on the ground and research candidates' campaign tactics.
They try harder than pundits because their own money is on the line. You've met blowhards who confidently predict things until someone says, "Want to bet?" Then they shut up. People who put their money where their mouths are become more careful.
Prediction markets, or futures markets, are not new. Stock markets are prediction markets where people bet on companies' future earnings. A hundred years ago, "More money was traded in election markets than in stock markets," says economist Robin Hanson.
Then, unfortunately, governments in America banned most betting. That deprived Americans of one of the best predictors of future events.
There were a few exceptions. Fifteen years ago, U.S. officials asked Hanson to create a betting market that might predict future problems.
"The Department of Defense heard prediction markets were interesting, doing powerful things," says Hanson. "They said, 'Show us it works for stuff we do... (P)redict events in the Middle East.'"
As usual, some elected officials were horrified by the idea of people betting on things like possible terrorism. Sen. Ron Wyden stood up on the Senate floor to declare such betting "ridiculous and grotesque." The next day, the secretary of Defense declared the project dead.
So the Pentagon is deprived of predictions that might save lives. It's too bad, because bettors are just, well, better.
But not perfect. While the betting odds are almost always the best predictors, in the last presidential election they (along with polls and pundits) were wrong about Donald Trump. Bettors gave him only a 20 percent chance.
I shouldn't say "wrong." Twenty percent just means Trump had a 1 in 5 chance. That's not nothing.
The betting markets also got Brexit wrong. They gave it a 25 percent chance.
But in both cases, as election results came in, the betting odds shifted much faster than the TV coverage. It was fun watching anchors try to catch up to what ElectionBettingOdds.com already predicted on my phone.
As I write, the website says this about specific states:
Republicans will narrowly win Arizona (51 percent chance) and Missouri (57), and easily win North Dakota (80), Tennessee (80) and Texas (79).
By the time you read this, say bettors, Democrats will have flipped Nevada (60 percent chance) and held West Virginia (75), Montana (65) and New Jersey (81).
Republicans will win the Georgia governor's race (64 percent chance), but Scott Walker will lose in Wisconsin (59), and Florida now probably has a new far-left governor (64).
Were the bettors right?
I assume some were not. After all, a 60 percent chance of winning means winning only 6 out of 10 times.
Whatever way it turns out, we'll add the results to the "track record" section at ElectionBettingOdds.com.
We'll also keep tracking the 2020 presidential race.
Odds update every five minutes, but Tuesday morning the odds for 2020 were:
Donald Trump: 36.1 percent
Kamala Harris: 10.9 percent
Elizabeth Warren: 5.9 percent
Tulsi Gabbard: 5.7 percent
Bernie Sanders: 4.2 percent
Joe Biden: 4.1 percent
Unfortunately, I don't see many advocates of restrained government on that list.
Yes, you can, when putting election results in an historical *quantitative* context.
Yes losing the house is huge, and I console myself that Marsha Blackburn will be my senator from TN. I also console myself that the candidate Mark Green, who used to be a Flight Surgeon won her seat in the House.
I went back to 2015 for John Stossel’s ob-eds and I could not find anything that he gave Hillary Rotten Clinton a 80% chance of winning. Where you got this from I have no idea. It might have been an other columnist from Townhall.com,but it sure wasn’t John Stossel, and would he? He is a libertarian.
We have to do our best to get the House back in 2020
And please, save the flames. I know a lot of those who packed it in were RINOs and never-Trumpers, but I'm looking at the numbers here, which for some things in politics is what it comes down to. Things like the Speakership, committee chairs, and so forth. We might have not had the perfect group of legislators, but now we won't have much chance of doing anything.
Can someone inform Stossel that Kamala Harris is NOT ELIGIBLE to be POTUS or to be in any position that can succeed POTUS?
Both of her parents came to this country from elsewhere—India & Jamaica.
She was born here, but long before here parents became USA citizens.
Obama snookered us once.
We do NOT need an encore.
The media & others need to quit pumping up this woman for POTUS.
I think we can forget about funding the border wall.
No such thing as a good RINO. They suck sh!t.
That is ONE thing I will NEVER forget about. Trump better not forget about it if he wants a second term.
Democrats now control the money, and they now have a significant say in (not) fixing our immigration laws. What do you want Trump to do?
If the Demoncats want anything legislatively then they will have to fund the wall.
That’s great. Just be prepared for another multi-decade period like the one where the Democrats controlled the House of Representatives every day from the mid-1950s to 1994.
The Dems want to undo whatever few legislative victories Trump has had (notably tax cuts, I don't think there's been much more--thanks Paul Ryan). Should Trump sacrifice that for wall funding?
There is nothing more important than building the wall and stopping illegal migration and cutting legal immigration to a trickle.
So your idea of compromising with a Dem House is to get everything you want and not give them what they want? Right.
The want infrastructure then the infrastructure includes a big beautiful wall!
They don’t want infrastructure, they want pork barrel payoffs for their cronies. That money will get turned around into Dem election coffers. If they wanted infrastructure, the baselined Porkulus money would’ve solved that problem starting in 2009.
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.