President Obama? Web sites bet it's a done deal
After the votes were tallied on Election Day four years ago, the big winners turned out to be the betting Web sites that predicted George W. Bush's re-election.
U.K.-based Betfair correctly predicted that Bush would stay in office and gave him 2-to-1 odds of beating his Democratic rival, Sen. John Kerry. The odds at Dublin-based Tradesports.com were similarly accurate, giving Bush a 58 percent chance to win and Kerry a 42 percent chance.
This year, the predictions are far more dramatic. Betfair's national election chart puts the probability of a President Barack Obama at 94 percent and the probability of John McCain winning at just 7 percent. Obama's odds are up from below 90 percent last week.
What a change a few months make. In May, Obama and McCain were at rough parity. In mid-September, they were almost at parity--in other words, even odds--after Sarah Palin was nominated as the Republican vice presidential candidate. Then the odds of an Obama presidency broke sharply upward, roughly at the same time the financial crisis hit and the bailout bill was approved.
Similarly, Intrade puts Obama at about 92 percent, and McCain at about 9 percent. Other relevant odds: a 36 percent chance Obama will win 370 or more electoral college votes; an 80.7 chance of a U.S. recession in 2008; and a 79 percent chance of substantial income-tax hikes next year.
In general, betting exchanges tend to be surprisingly accurate in their predictions. One explanation is that it's easy enough to offer predictions when being wrong means only potential embarrassment for a blogger or would-be pundit. But when there's a financial penalty for making a mistake, results tend to line up far more closely with reality.
Well, most of the time. Sometimes betting markets--also called prediction markets--do a better job of reflecting conventional wisdom than offering a glimpse of the future.
During the 2008 New Hampshire primary, Obama attracted more enthusiastic crowds than rival Hillary Clinton. Intrade put his odds of winning at a remarkable 54 percent, while a traditional pollster said Obama would get only 28 percent of the vote.
We know how that turned out: Clinton won the state. (Perhaps more to the point, as recently as winter 2007, Intrade had Obama at something like a 10 percent of winning and Rudy Giuliani at 20 percent.)
While Internet-based betting may be novel, political odds-making enjoys a venerable tradition. Two economics professors, Paul Rhode and Koleman Strumpf, once calculated that betting markets predicted the popular-vote winner in every presidential race but one between 1884 and 1940. (In that 1916 race, gamblers were offering even odds between Woodrow Wilson and Charles Hughes.)
Rhode and Strumpf are working on a paper--a publicly available version (PDF) is dated August 2008--that looks at the international history of betting markets. It says election betting was popular in Italian city-states as far back as 1500. And in the United States during the 1830s, politicians including Martin van Buren either bet on themselves or encouraged others to do so.
"While it is sometimes claimed that political betting markets are a recent invention, they clearly are not," Rhode and Strumpf write. "Rather, it is the absence of such markets during the mid- and late-20th century which is the exception."
Declan McCullagh, CNET News' chief political correspondent, chronicles the intersection of politics and technology. He has covered politics, technology, and Washington, D.C., for more than a decade, which has turned him into an iconoclast and a skeptic of anyone who says, "We oughta have a new federal law against this." E-mail Declan.
Lets keep those records online and shame them.
i deeply impressed.He was honest in front of people and voters.my best regards to this man
But even if he were a socialist, even more, a communist, he has fewer chances of destroying America than Palin. Have you heard her? Have you seen how easy she is to fool? The US is a solid country and can survive Obama, Clinton, Carter, even Bush. But cannot survive Palin. Either because of complete economic collapse, full scale international war (even atomic) or total administrative mess, she's capable to disintegrate the US.
I'd rather go with four years of mild socialism than with the end of this great country.
And the picture shows 96% vs 5%. Doesn't add up to 100.
And I don't use any special methods, either.
Just the fact that McCain is too closely associated with Bush (who has approval ratings so terrible, he won't even endorse a candidate for fear of crashing their campaign), as well as the fact that 90% of black voters will choose Obama anyways...who's also the face of "change" (be it socialism or not)...
It's obvious.
Even though I personally voted for McCain, I feel/already-know that Obama is going to win this election.
God Bless America. Please, we're begging You.
Obama is all rhetoric, no substance.
How can he lead a group of people, never mind America, when he cannot tell between a man and a woman?
racist or bigots. The real Americans that believe in our country and our accomplishments as a nation, will vote for Senator John McCain.When the issues are truely examined there is no choice but John McCain.A vote for John McCain is a vote ti defend our beloved country, and a vote to defend our American way if life. This is a critical election. You life and liberities are at stake...This has been a media run campaign all the way..ignore it and vote your own mind !!
John McCain is nothing but a liar. One lie after another does not make what he says the truth.
The REAL AMERICANS will vote for whatever they want. If they like the current state of affairs, and can do with the risk of being governed by someone that doesn't know who the PM of Canada is (despite governing a state bordering Canada exclusively) then they'll vote Republican. Otherwise, they'll vote for whoever else is there to vote or abstain from voting.
well "fake" america is coming to throw your worthless @ss out. and good riddance. you and your mindless jingoistic followers are exactly what the majority of the human race evolved beyond some time ago. shame you and your kind can't keep up.
have fun in the 13th century.
Barack the vote!
We got ya back here in Oregon :)
They charge winners a fee, so the percentages can add up to a little over 100 and the house still makes money.
Betting houses do not gamble. They set the returns based on how the betting is going. If more people started betting on McCain, they would shift the odds to even it out. They offer a service; letting people bet against each other and taking a cut. That's why the line on a sports event goes up and down even when there is no news to drive it; too many peope bet on one time and they move the line to make the other more attractive and even the money. They don't always get it exact, but generally keep it close enough for their take to cover it and it averages out.
p.s. Yay Obama!
-
by mostafa mabrouk
November 4, 2008 11:31 PM PST
- election race was great and competition was over bribe.Obama will restore lost confidence in out side world,same time will improve politic-economic relations with most countries,specialy in africa since
-
Reply to this comment
-
(29 Comments)supporters to him over imagination