Comments on: Speculating on Presidential Politics: How to Pick a Winner

By: Alexandru Gasca SIlav

Alexandru Gasca SIlav — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 01:17:24 +0000

I believe the market bets were accurate as the final result was Obama elected as president of the United States. The markets predict better the outcome rather than the polls because people actually use the polls to make their bets. So after collecting all the information they need, they vote and the error margin is very small which the actual presidency results have proved.

By: ET

ET — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 23:51:33 +0000

I’d consider the share markets to have been very accurate on calling this past election. I was somewhat skeptical at first–especially when I saw the margin that Obama was leading the markets by, as I thought that the election would be much closer. However, I was wrong and the predictor markets were right. I would say that the market participants are the key to the accuracy of its predictions, as they were likely to be educated on topics and used poll data to help base their “bets”. Also, as media coverage increased near the election, much momentum shifted toward Obama and this was not ignored by the markets. In the end, Obama clearly won by a large margin just as the markets predicted.

“We compare market predictions to 964 polls over the five Presidential elections since 1988. The market is closer to the eventual outcome 74% of the time.” – I believe them.

By: Jl

Jl — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 22:37:22 +0000

The incumbert president has a 25 – 30% approval rating as compared to a 90% approval rating following 911. Nixon Left office with a 24% approval rating and Carter a 34%. With such a low approval rating and the hope Pres Elect Obama is offering, the pollsters had an easy job at predicting the election.

By: JC

JC — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 21:34:42 +0000

The electronic markets called the election much more closely than the ones used by the media. Although the poles usually refect accuracy well, the markets only account for all the reasons why the president would win. The poles only record people who are willing to ahare how they voted witch creats lots of bias. Overall I think these markets should be watched more closely by media and others politicians to help predict future politicians.

By: PN

PN — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 17:01:24 +0000

I believe the markets prediction on the political race is a good tool to how the results will turn out. People will buy into what’s hot at the time just like in the stock market. Obama was or still is considered “hot” at this time considering all the endorsement and support from a lot of high profile people. He was supported by Oprah, Sean Diddy Combs, and a lot of the celebrities, and even with the youtube “Obama Girl” gaining lots of support of the people. This made Obama the clear favorite among many people therefor getting the popular votes. All these celebrites also have a huge influence over a lot of people. Take Oprah for example. She is one of the most powerful women in the world and a lot of people believe in her and her views as expressed on her talk show.

By: GF

GF — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 15:47:07 +0000

Comparing the results of the election i beleive that the markets were a good tool in order to forecast future results. Seeing how prices in an efficient market already reflect all available information (including polls) I do not find a reason as to why outcomes would differ from that of the market.

By: AS

AS — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 06:36:02 +0000

It is obvious that these prediction methods have greater accuracy then the above mentioned techiques. I agree that persons involved in “poll betting” are likely to reflect the voting public more correctly because, like the betters, voters will take incentive to vote. Additionally, using a market to show the potential conclusions of the election proves to be efficient because one has to weight their gains and losses based on the remaining voting/betting group. I find this idea to be intersting considering the efficient market hypothesis that these betters can, and do use, their available resources.

By: TS

TS — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 03:46:00 +0000

It appears that the markets have predicted the results of the elction with great accuracy. The more information a person has, the better decision and judgement he can make on an issue. Those involved in these markets had access to poll data and information that was very valuable in their decision process, thus proving the “efficient market huypothesis.” With this being said we can take away that markets are an excellent way to predict results because they allow people to make their decisions on all the data concerning the issue. The economy was obviously a major factor in this election and helped Obama gain momentum over John McCain in the final weeks.

By: AA

AA — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 02:28:21 +0000

The betting markets predicted the turnout of the presidential elections very well, as Barrack Obama won the race. These markets are better at predicting the outcomes of elections rather than the daily polls because the speculators look at the poll results and make their judgments and bets based on the average of the polls and who seems to be favored among the american people. Other information is taken in consideration, which brings us to the efficient market hypothesis where all of the information needed to make the decision is available for speculators.

By: TJ

TJ — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 01:34:58 +0000

It looks like the markets were quite accurate in predicting the outcome of the election. The election ended up a lot more one-sided than I thought it would be.