
Electability of 2016 Presidential Candidates as Implied by Betting Markets - lil_tee
http://toddwschneider.com/posts/electability-of-2016-presidential-candidates-as-implied-by-betting-markets/
======
saturdaysaint
I don't know if this has any special significance, but I think the number of
FB/Twitter followers for the current frontrunners are interesting. I'll use
Facebook numbers.

Hillary Clinton - 1.3 million

Jeb Bush - .26 million

Donald Trump - 3.7 million

Joe Biden - .85 million

Bernie Sanders - 1.4 million

Marco Rubio - .99 million

John Kasich - .14 million

Scott Walker - .36 million

Ben Carson - 2.88 million

No, I don't think that Donald Trump is the runaway favorite for president. On
the other hand, a look at these would make Walker's collapse and Bush's
struggles (despite a goliath $100 million warchest) less of a surprise than
the political press has portrayed. Likewise, Sanders' challenge to Clinton
would be less surprising.

Bush is the real surprise to me. Endorsements and dollars show that he's the
establishment's pick, but people just aren't interested in the guy. It would
be kind of amazing if someone went from having a D-list celebrity following to
sitting in the oval office in a little over a year.

~~~
uptown
If that's your metric, it's probably worth running them through a few filters
to detect authenticity of their followers:

[https://www.twitteraudit.com/](https://www.twitteraudit.com/)

~~~
vonmoltke
That site thinks I'm a fake, so I question the accuracy of its metrics.

~~~
uptown
I usually use SocialBakers, but it's down right now.

[http://www.socialbakers.com/twitter/fakefollowercheck/](http://www.socialbakers.com/twitter/fakefollowercheck/)

------
secfirstmd
I worked for a summer at Intrade.com during 2008.

It was a very flawed company (and CEO) but it's a pity it's not around during
this election. US Presidential elections were one of the few things were it
had enough data and people putting money on it's markets that it's predictions
were excellent. (Though I think in hindsight I got the job by telling John
Delaney the immediate market highs for the Republican's post-Palin entry was a
temporary bounce and Obama would win because the economy was the main issue,
the Democrats were polling far far higher on it - guess a political degree can
sometimes trump market sentiment :)

In fact, I think it's a pity (with the exception of how badly the company was
run) in general that something like Intrade is not around. If I am legally
allowed to speculate/gamble on oil futures, I really don't understand why I
can't be allowed to speculate/gamble/hedge on geopolitical events.

~~~
endianswap
Isn't predictit.com sufficient for what you want?

~~~
secfirstmd
Hmm, hadn't come across it before.

They seem to be offering to customers in the USA which is interesting. It was
the regulatory issues in the US which was one of the biggest problems with
Intrade's business.

------
vixen99
How depressing that a country of 300+ million individuals has candidates from
the same families again and again.

~~~
matwood
Actually the rise of Trump, Carson, and to a lesser extend Fiorina shows that
people are tired of the professional politician. Even if Bush or Clinton were
the best candidates (I don't think they are), they look to be facing a huge
headwind of people tired of the Bushs and Clintons.

~~~
ck2
The rise of Trump and the others simply means people want entertainment,
that's all, the usa is turning into idiocracy.

~~~
marincounty
I don't know why this comment is being downvotes? I sometimes feel the average
voter actually thinks the president has all the power? He/she is just the
spoke, maybe a few bearings of the hub, on a big wheel?

It kills me when I hear, "Obama hasn't done anything?". Yea, the legislature
put on the brakes on everything? (Sorry about the mechanical metaphors--spent
the weekend under a truck.)

A few years ago someone/group did a study, and concluded most voters literally
don't know who's the best candidate? (Basically saying, the average voter is
to--simple--to vote for the best person.) I think about that study often?

I'll admit, I don't know who's the best candidate for this country. It's
basically a craps shoot? What I really take seriously is, "What kind of judges
will this presidential candidate put in office, if elected?" And I know,
history has shown that liberal/conservative candidates can go in opposite
directions once they get into office. I just hope for the best?

~~~
matwood
How can a study say voters do not know who the best candidate is when _best_
is subjective?

The problem is politics is a lot like religion where logic leaves the room in
favor of polarizing opinions. You mention that Obama does not have all the
power so it is not his fault that some things were not done, yet there are
people still blaming Bush for everything under the sun 7-8 years later.

The difference I have from who you replied to is that I think yes people are
smarter and tired of career politicians. They know DC is screwed up and that
no side is any better than the other (anyone who thinks Bush/Cheney had all
sorts of back door dealings for their friends can in no way support Hillary).
They all just want to consolidate power and help our their friends. That is
where someone like Trump comes in. He's out there, but he's not _them_.

------
imaginenore
Why in the world would they bet on Jeb Bush over Trump or Carson? Look at the
actual polls, Bush is doing worse and worse, while Trump and Carson are
rising:

[http://i.imgur.com/naxgnhi.png](http://i.imgur.com/naxgnhi.png)

[http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/national/rise-of-
the-a...](http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/national/rise-of-the-anti-
establishment-presidential-candidates/1822/)

(yesterday's numbers)

~~~
WildUtah
Republican Party insiders like organizers, lobbyists, congressmen, senators,
governors, media personalities, and fund raisers despise Trump and adore Bush.
Republican insiders make bank working for defense contractors and Trump was
against their Iraq profit center. The donor class is focused like a laser on
driving down wages with unauthorized immigration and H1-B that Trump wants to
limit. The Republican leadership sees Latin Americans as a voting demographic
they can capture 40% of but only by opening the border to unlimited
immigration to prove they really love Latinos and Trump threatens both of
those hopes. (How Republicans will benefit by increasing the number of people
who will vote 60% against them is a mystery to me, but I'm not a Republican.)

As the election approaches, the influence of insiders rises and Republicans
especially are very obedient to authority figures. Historically, the candidate
next in line according to Republican insiders always and without exception
wins the nomination, even when he's very unpopular with the base. Therefore,
analysts find Trump a very long shot.

------
kittenfluff
Interestingly, with Joe Biden in the range (10%, 13.5%) to win the nomination,
and (7.7%, 8.3%) to win the Presidency, the lowest his electability could be
is

    
    
        7.7% / 13.5% = 57%
    

and the highest it could be is

    
    
        8.3% / 10.0% = 83%
    

so the market seems to be pricing a probability in the range of (57%, 83%) for
Biden to be elected president if he won the nomination - compared to Hillary
Clinton's range of (56.9%, 57.7%)

I can think of a few explanations -

1\. Biden really is a lot more electable than Hillary Clinton

2\. Both candidates have electability at the low end of their range (around
57%).

3\. The market is wrong, i.e. they are systematically underrating Biden's
chance of winning the nomination (and overrating Clinton's) or overrating
Biden's chance of winning the election (and underrating Clinton's) or both.

There is no arbitrage, but if you believe 3, there might be a good profit to
be made _in expectation_ by backing Biden to win the election, but Clinton to
win the presidency (you wouldn't hold it through to 2016, but take off the bet
as soon as the odds come back to something that looks more plausible).

I haven't done the analysis to see if it's still worth it after trading costs,
but maybe someone else wants to.

~~~
matthewbauer
A 4th option could be:

If Biden defeats the established nominee, he must have an exceptionally well
run campaign making him more electable. That is by winning the nomination
Clinton has just met expectations but Biden exceeds most expectations.

~~~
ovet
I think it could also be that Vice Presidents have generally done well in
presidential elections when running after their VP term.

[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-hobratsch/when-
vice-p...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-hobratsch/when-vice-
presidents-run_b_4922047.html)

------
mabbo
This same math can be applied to the MLB World Series. (I'm in Toronto, which
means for the first time since the early 90s, baseball is interesting!)

Instead of primaries, there's Pennants. Instead of general elections, there's
the World Series.

[http://www.vegasinsider.com/mlb/odds/futures/](http://www.vegasinsider.com/mlb/odds/futures/)

Right now, the Jays are the second most likely team to win their Pennant (2/1
vs 9/5 for the Royals). But at the same time, they are the _most_ likely to
win the World Series (17/4 vs 9/2 for the Royals). In terms of the original
article, the Jays are more 'electable' than the Royals.

I have no idea how this should affect betting strategies, but it sure is
interesting from a statistics point of view.

------
VT_Drew
You put in Ben Carson but not Rand Paul?

~~~
protomyth
Missed Cruz also who has a pretty big warchest at this point.

------
njharman
I wonder when if ever it will be cost effective for a candidate to put many
bets in order to manipulate the odds. Idea being when you have reported 75%
winning lots of people who would vote against you stay home "cause it's
pointless".

------
impostervt
I'd be curious to see Electability numbers given scenarious of one candidate v
another. For instance, 'Clinton v Bush', 'Sanders v Trump'.

~~~
clarkmoody
A color-coded matrix of candidate pairs would be a nice addition to this
discussion.

------
malloryerik
I'd like to see a history of betting markets in elections. How accurate have
they been in the past?

~~~
dragonwriter
> I'd like to see a history of betting markets in elections. How accurate have
> they been in the past?

IIRC, like polls, they are fairly accurate -- if you look at the state of the
market at the last point before the election.

Earlier than that, not so much.

------
ck2
I don't think people understand how close presidential elections are in the US
(even after the nightmare in Florida with the supreme court picking Bush as
the winner).

The idea of Trump picking the next few supreme court judges is nauseating.

