Prediction Markets and the 2008 Electoral Map 813
Electionwatch submitted a predicted electoral map of the 2008 US Presidential election, based on the bets made by the intrade prediction markets. I'm always interested in these markets and how accurate they end up being. This one calls it for Obama, but then again you probably could guess that by just watching 10 minutes of any TV "News" channel.
Pretty close to CNN (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/10/electoral.map/index.html
Some of those predictions seem overly confident (Score:4, Interesting)
Best election site (Score:2, Interesting)
They use an amalgamation of national and statewide polls to show the current feeling of Americans on a wide variety of races. Including a national map with a current tally of the electoral votes right at the top.
Obama Underestimated (Score:1, Interesting)
Race not a factor ? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Pretty close to CNN (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Called if for Obama (Score:3, Interesting)
Number of houses lost to predatory lenders - this is what deregulation is all about
Please provide some concrete numbers differentiating the people who are the victim of "predatory lending" from those who were greedy and signed up for too large a house (along with the two SUVs and the new 52" flat screen they couldn't afford either -- all while saving nothing) -- I'm sure we'd all really like to see those.
When people with no / bad credit can't get mortgages, they sue the government. When the government allows / cajoles / forces banks to give the these subprime borrowers loans they can't pay anyway and they inevitably default, guess what? They sue the government. Those of us who are responsible borrowers are sick of this crap, and sure as hell don't want our tax dollars paying for it. Let the banks and borrowers work it out amongst themselves. Bailing out mortgage defaulters is wrong, just like bailing out Bear Stearns was wrong. Let the market forces work, and the financial and housing industries will be much better off. This is a prime example of how government meddling with markets makes things worse for everyone.
Unfortunately, on this issue the choice is between how many billions of dollars will be spent on this by each candidate (at least a few billion from McCain versus ten billion from Obama so far). I'd love a third option which is, "none -- go back to renting for a few years and maybe next time you'll make smarter decisions with your money."
Re:Depends on where you work. (Score:3, Interesting)
Do you have a faint idea what it would mean for the USD if oil (or any internationally traded commodity that you have to import) was suddenly handled in EUR instead? Or what this would mean for the US economy? I doubt Ford can prop up that disaster!
Re:Dolt (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm amazed your nonsense got +5.
Re:I, for one, welcome our new Votemaster! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why McCain? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Obama Underestimated (Score:3, Interesting)
Umm, I don't know where you are getting this from. Hillary had her best showings in states with closed primaries. Obama did much better in states with open primaries where independents could vote. I won't argue with you over working class voters but you lost me at "no affiliation whatsoever with either party" because Obama did much better among Independents than Hillary did.
BTW, I don't think that Obama's appeal is underestimated like the GP. I think McCain's appeal is overestimated. The Conservative base doesn't like him -- the religious folks for obvious reasons, the true conservatives because of McCain-Feingold. If he swings to the center then he further alienates this conservative base (witness the flub over him talking about climate change). If he swings to the right then he runs the risk of losing the independents because he has to associate with GWB and his 30% approval rating. He's also linked to a war that 70% of this country opposes.
I could totally see Obama pulling off a sizable victory. A lot of that will have to do with his appeal as a charismatic candidate -- but a lot of it is also going to have to do with the mistakes that McCain is making and the tough position the Republican Party is in.
Re:Depends on where you work. (Score:4, Interesting)
Let them. Let the price of European and Japanese goods rise so high that they do not export to the USA any more. I've got ten million US manufacturing workers ready to go back to work, and the unions to back them.
Do you have a faint idea what it would mean for the USD if oil (or any internationally traded commodity that you have to import) was suddenly handled in EUR instead? Or what this would mean for the US economy? I doubt Ford can prop up that disaster!
If worse comes to worse, the USA has 150,000 men sitting on top of 200 billion barrels of oil in Iraq. Do you really think it prudent that they leave at this time?
But, be that as it may, its US corn and US wheat and US coal that are really driving exports right now. If the asian countries do not want to accept US dollars, than, certainly, we can demand that they pay for food in gold.
Re:It's not just the economy...... (Score:4, Interesting)
You mean like that PRO-IP Act a few stories down, the one that turns a civil matter into a felony and gives the feds the right to confiscate your computer if they think you might have maybe downloaded something illegal? The one that was introduced by a Democrat and voted against by only 4 Democrats (and only 7 Republicans, don't worry, I fully acknowledge that they BOTH suck)?
An observation (Score:2, Interesting)
The South, the Plains states, and portions of the Midwest and Southwest states do not believe in Obama. These are mostly rural and farm states.
Could it be that the data is skewed by the availability of net access?
Also, is this an indicator that those who grow most of the food do not believe that Obama will do what is in their best interest?
Re:Obama will win! (Score:3, Interesting)
Is it just me or is McCain one big senior moment away from totally blowing this thing for himself? 'Beer' instead of 'bill', 'Shiite' instead of 'Sunni', the overall creepiness of his speech delivery ("That's not change we can believe in.... hehehe"), blah, blah, blah.
If he falls off a stage this thing is over with.
Re:I, for one, welcome our new Votemaster! (Score:3, Interesting)
A few days ago there was one line on his page that hinted at who he had preferred for the Democrat nominee (after Obama had already won) and it struck me that through all these months of coverage I previously had no indication of who he was going for.
This is to be expected (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem comes in when no one really knows the answer. People will buy and sell these prediction securities on hunches or what not, but the actual price will not truly be reflective of the outcome of, say, an election. Case in point, a month after John McCain had secured the Republican nomination for President, his likelihood of becoming President was still trading at around $.39 (Intrade works on fractions of a dollar). Any reasonably intelligent person should have been able to forecast this price would shoot up to at least $.45 or better once the Democrats chose a candidate - Consider that presidential elections are usually around 50/50.
The question was: why weren't people snatching these securities up like hotcakes? I still haven't been able to figure that out. But personally I think it proves the notion I heard someone else mention a while back. To paraphrase: these aren't prediction markets, they're extremely recent history markets.
Re:Called if for Obama (Score:4, Interesting)
let me tell you; people in rural maine are still afraid of terrorists. I got my sigs because many rural mainers are also damn near libertarians and luckily this time around realID is an unfunded mandate and mainers hate taxes, but I lost plenty to people who want the government to be covering us all like some big, faceless security blanket.
Classic Rookie mistake. People are not logical. (Score:4, Interesting)
The book explains that people are not rational or logical especially when it comes to risk assessment. The best recent example (the book was written in 1989) is America's reaction to the 9/11 attacks. More people died of hunger that day than were killed in the attack. The US response to the attacks was totally illogical because people felt threatened and this caused them to stop using the higher levels of their brains. They instead, reverted to their reptilian "flight or fight" instincts.
Another similar (or worse) attack will most likely produce a similar response from the American people. They will stop thinking rationally, which is probably the only way the Republicans can beat Obama on November 4th.
Dunno about the South. (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, no one seems to notice that there are plenty of black voters in the south. Contrary to what many in the media would have you believe, black voters aren't afraid to go to the polls; Sheriff Cracker hasn't been at the polls with his shotgun in a long, long time. The problem is that they, like every other voter group, seldom have a reason to go.
Re:Called if for Obama (Score:3, Interesting)
The human party?
Vote Zombie in 2008 to get them on the ticket in 2012!
A donation has been submitted in your name to The Human Fund!
Risk Assessment during Vietnam (Score:3, Interesting)
They chased down every lead, and the most they ever found was a Russian newspaper in a Vietnamese embassy. Their conclusion? Ho Chi Minh was such a dedicated communist client that they didn't even need to send orders. Ho Chi Minh just "knew what to do."
I also recently finished watching "RFK Must Die," and at this point, we just need to wipe the whole intelligence community out the door and start over again.
Re:Classic Rookie mistake. People are not logical. (Score:2, Interesting)
Libertarianism is also unstable (Score:4, Interesting)
In a libertarian country, who would prevent the Mafia from taking over? Certainly not the government, which would be so tiny it may as well not exist. Most libertarians have never even considered this vital question. The question is of primary importance because it directly addresses the stability and therefore the durability of a libertarian society.
A few might offer up the feeble answer, "hire a private security firm against the Mafia", but this is not looking far enough ahead. Nothing would prevent these firms from merging with each other or with the Mafia, and growing ever more powerful. And as history teaches us again and again, power corrupts. Eventually, some sufficently merged security firm would become your lord and master, and you would be at its mercy.
Isn't it obvious how easily a libertarian society could descend to feudalism or fascism?
Re:Obama will win! (Score:3, Interesting)
Count Them [msn.com]
Though this isn't meant to take away from your comment, just to clarify.