what is this?

Who will the 2008 Democratic candidate for President be?

% chance over time

Barack Obama

Hillary Clinton

John Edwards

Someone else

Get this widget

Can you get it right? Make your prediction…

Hubdub – The News Prediction Game

-
.hdwg div {color:inherit;font:inherit} .hdwg a{font:inherit} .hdwg div{margin:0px} .hdwg img {border:0px;padding:0px} .hdwg img {padding:0px}

what is this?

Who will be the next President of the U.S.?

% chance over time

John McCain

Mike Huckabee

Ron Paul

Ralph Nader

Mike Bloomberg

Hillary Clinton

Barack Obama

Other

Get this widget

Can you get it right? Make your prediction…

Hubdub – The News Prediction Game

-

Nigel, it seems that there’s a text line generated, which comes before the chart… Bizarre.

Nigel, those are the market widgets, right? Any chance to have news markers?

I still need to discover the prediction widgets… Any hint? Thanks.

I hope those chart widgets will go thru the feed…

Are those charts dynamic? Will they update themselves, later on, Nigel?

-

Democratic and Republican caucuses in Nevada

—

Democratic caucus in Nevada (Hillary Clinton = 57.4%):

BetFair Democratic prediction markets

—

Democratic caucus in Nevada (Barack Obama = 42%):

BetFair Democratic prediction markets

—

Republican caucus in Nevada (Mitt Romney = 94.9%):

BetFair Republican prediction markets

—

—

Republican primary in South Carolina

—

Republican primary in South Carolina (“Field” = Mike Huckabee = 49.5%):

BetFair Republican prediction markets

—

Republican primary in South Carolina (John McCain = 47.1%):

BetFair Republican prediction markets

How did everyone get New Hampshire so horribly wrong?

These are the markets which accurately predicted the winner of every single state in the 2004 US Presidential election and the winner of every single contested state in the 2006 US Senate elections. These are the markets which said that Barack Obama would win the Iowa caucuses comfortably, as would Mike Huckabee. These are the self-same markets which forecast a handsome victory for John McCain in New Hampshire at the same time as the polls and pundits were declaring the race too close to call.

And yet the markets showed not a clue that Hillary Clinton would overcome the momentum of the charismatic Senator from Illinois, but instead declared the race for Obama with the same confidence as the media and the exit polls. Indeed, it took something of an avalanche of real results showing the former First Lady handily ahead before the baton of market favouritism changed hands.

So what happened?

The conventional wisdom is that the models used by the pollsters under-estimated the turnout of female voters by a significant factor. In the event, women, who make up 57 per cent of the New Hampshire electorate, went for Hillary by a margin of 12 clear points, in contrast to Iowa where she lost the female vote by five.

It was the tears that did it, comes the now familiar cry. Not so, in my opinion. The defining moment for me came in the final debate when the New York Senator [= Hillary Clinton] was asked a question about a likeability problem. Her response – “Well, that hurts my feelings!” was funny, warm and engaging, only to be interrupted by a curt “You’re likeable enough” from Mr. Obama. In his defence, the almost dismissive tone in which the words were delivered was probably unintentional. But the damage was done.

It was what those familiar with Hillary history call the “Rick Lazio moment”, when her Republican Senate opponent in the 2000 New York campaign marched across the stage at her during a debate and demanded she sign a pledge card he brandished in her face. Instantly he turned off a good proportion of New York’s women voters, and a not insignificant number of the men.

It all goes to show that the markets are usually a much more accurate predictor of election outcomes than are the polls, but there are times when those trading the markets are a little too dependent on charting and interpreting the numbers. Sometimes voters are motivated by factors which cannot be reduced to raw numbers. Those who are wise to this when it occurs stand to make a lot of money. Roll on next time!

Professor Leighton Vaughan Williams is the Director of the Political Forecasting Unit and Betting Research Unit of Nottingham Business School, Nottingham Trent University.

Source: Dynamic, compound prediction market charts from InTrade

—

- Yahoo! News US Political Dashboard

- Prediction Market Dashboard

[...] Feeding the development of political gambling is in his own interest. Mr Smithson estimates that there are as few as 1,500 regular political gamblers [*] in the UK, although the number swells to millions on the eve of an election. US constraints on online gambling have impeded the development of a political gambling market there. But Britons are just as happy to bet on US elections as their own. Mr Smithson says British wagers on the 2004 presidential election totalled £35m, against maybe £25m of bets on the UK Parliamentary election the following year [in 2005]. [...]

[About] the US race[.] “I am quite heavily committed at the moment,” says Mr Smithson. The market is moving fast as perceptions of candidates change rapidly in the run-up to the January 3 Iowa caucus. “I think Hillary Clinton is not going to do as well as people are expecting,” says Mr Smithson. “I am a Hillary seller at the moment.” Among Republican candidates, Mr Smithson is a bull of Mike Huckabee, an old-fashioned conservative from Arkansas. “I think he is going to do quite well in Iowa.”

But is the political betting market any good at predicting real-life outcomes? “I think it is,” says Mr Smithson. But if you want to consistently profit from it, he says, you have to exit before the actual elections arrive.

[*] Political bettors and traders, I’d say.