By Ryan Jacobs (Politics Category Editor)

For months we’ve watched the Democratic nomination drudgingly soldier on. Now though the light at the end of the tunnel has finally appeared. As we near the end of the nominating process lets analyze what got us to this point.

At the end of April it still seemed like the fight between Clinton and Obama was a competition. McCain although out in the GOP wilderness was building his machine and raising funds. But as April turned into May a momentous shift occurred showcased by the market chart above. Around May 6-7th the entire Who will be the next President market shifted.

Clinton’s price began a slow but steady downwards slope and this price decrease boosted Obama’s standing, leading him to break free from McCain and soar ahead. Despite fallout from Reverend Wright and other political gaffes Obama’s been able to not only maintain a lead in the markets but build on it.

Oddly, the Gallup polls show a close general election race between Obama and McCain, but the markets which are asking the same question have very different results. They show what seems to be a knockout win for Obama in November. The question is why is this happening? It’s possible that Gallup responders are tinged more by ideology and don’t just take into consideration the facts but also predict who they want to be the next President. Prediction markets users don’t predict who they hope will be the next President, there predictions are based almost solely on cold hard calculations of who will be the next President. This is because they want the large payoff from predicting correct.

So what events or event caused the sudden change in the markets? If we track this back to the primaries, 2 come to mind, the May 6th Indiana and North Carolina primaries. After these as seen through the market Obama began his quick ascension, while Clinton and McCain both faltered.

So why did McCain and Clinton both falter after Indiana and North Carolina? Well, Obama won Carolina with large margins and was able to keep Clinton’s win in Indiana small, therefore he was finally able to shut her down. With Clinton all but officially done Obama could now focus on McCain. As Obama focused on McCain it became clearer and clearer who of the two was the front runner for the Presidential election and the market adjusted for this showcased by McCain’s slow downturn and Obama’s rapid ascent.

Obama now holds a major lead in the markets and once Clinton is officially gone I’d predict Obama’s price will inflate once again. The problem is when will the downturn happen? Obama can’t fly like this forever and soon enough the GOP will begin to mercilessly attack. The election this year won’t be a blowout for Obama and soon enough the markets will adjust to this, the question is when?

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

Hubdub - The News Prediction Game

Popularity: 5% [?]

By Ryan (Politics Category Editor)

With a convincing win in Pennsylvania Clinton has yet again survived to fight another day. The stakes are now higher than ever though. For Clinton Indiana is a must win. The margin doesn’t matter all that much, only the win. Obama was ahead in Indiana, but now his lead is diminishing to a neck and neck, minute by minute coin toss. If Clinton wins Indiana she affirms her right to stay in the race longer. If Clinton gets a loss the prospects are much grimmer. The super delegate tide is already a break towards Obama and a loss in Indiana would only shift that tide further.

North Carolina is a null point. There’s no way the state will goto Clinton, it’s an affirmative Obama win. The question is can Clinton not only win Indiana but drive Obama’s margin of victory down to 5 percent or less in Carolina? That type of win on May 6^th would spell disaster for Obama.

For Obama to win Indiana he has to flood the state with as much advertising as possible, if he isn’t already and rid himself of the “elitist” frame. The best move made by Clinton was framing Obama into an elitist candidate even if he wasn’t. Trying to get rid of the frame will prove difficult especially in the time before May 6^th. A awe inspiring speech could work but it’s risky, there’s a chance it backfires and makes him look like a talker and not a doer.

Finally, the notion that the Democratic nomination process is good for the party is malarkey. The party is splintering and voters are getting bored and annoyed by the length of the campaign. Yes registrations are way up and turnout is phenomenal, but the trend for some 40 years has been a lessening in voter turnout. This process does nothing but reaffirm voters dissatisfaction with the political system.

Who’ll last longer Robert Mugabe or Hillary Clinton?

Will Obama be able to win both the Indiana and North Carolina primaries on May 6th?

Will Hillary Clinton withdraw from the nomination race before the Democratic Convention?

Popularity: 3% [?]

By Ryan (Politics Category Editor)

I’m really tired, I’m worn out and I’m done! Since the end of the Reverend Wright issue last month the Dem. nomination process has taken its toll on me. For weeks all we’ve heard are back and forth arguments between Obama and Clinton. Unfortunately these arguments haven’t been on substantive issues. All they’ve been are petty blame games and tattle tale politics.

For these passing weeks all I’ve seen on the politics pundit roundup are commentators regurgitating the same thing they said a day ago. The news cycle has become so bland that turning on the TV gives me a headache. My mind now swirls in a swath of punditry gone bonkers. The reason? There exists a lack of political events to report on, which in a way is a good thing.

Americans can take a break from the polarizing campaigns to worry about more pressing issues like the dwindling economy, a bad war gone badder or hefty fuel prices. Sadly for someone like me and many other political hooligans we are addicted to the game of politics. So even though no actual events like a primary or debate have occurred a need still exists to stay in touch with election politics.

But this treachery must stop! I’m going nuts with all the useless political commentary from moderates, liberal and conservatives. Can’t we just take a break?

There is no need for much more than a whisper of punditry or commentary. All I want is to just get to Pennsylvania already. It’s been a long and agonizing wait and Pa. is only a week away now. There’s no need for any commentary. All we have are “if she wins” or “if she loses” or even more dreadful “if she wins by less that 5%.” It’s just gotten boring, we won’t know anything until the Pennsylvania primary on the 22^nd, because everything depends on that date. We can’t say “if she wins Indiana” until the judgment of the Pennsylvania electorate. So if your like me and you’ve just gotten a little sick of it all, just relax. Go watch some Battlestar Galactica for a good political melodrama or discuss something important like the rising price of rice. But for gods sake don’t watch, read or listen to the replicated nonsense of pundits until after Pennsylvania!

Things to do until Pennsylvania:

Predict who will win the Pa. primary?

Predict who will be the Dem. Nominee?

Predict who will be the next President?

Predict which Dem. candidate will win the female vote in Pa.?

Or my personal favorite, predict who’ll last longer, Robert Mugabe or Hillary Clinton?

Popularity: 3% [?]

By Ryan (Politics Category Editor)

Every day the intensity of the attacks brought upon Hillary Clinton increase. We hear how she’s behind in the popular vote as well as the delegate count. And we hear how the possibility of regaining a lead in those categories get slimmer by the hour. But those statistics won’t be the straw that break the camels back. So what will be?

The answer is the media. We’ve seen the SNL skits and watched Clinton’s complaints but the media bias has continued. Oddly enough though, the bias shouldn’t be laid at the medias feet. In fact the only one responsible for the bias is Clinton herself. But why is this the case?

Well, if politics is a game, albeit an important game Clinton’s loss in the primaries have occurred because she hasn’t played the game well enough. The mistake of setting herself as the established nominee and initial mismanagement of Bill were examples of errors that gave the media a narrative of failure and elitism. When inklings of this bias first developed the campaign should have stomped them out, instead the narrative simmered and grew until it was to extensive to be put down. By the time Clinton’s complaints were aired the narrative had been set. Clinton can comeback, resignations like Penn’s won’t help but the media always likes a underdog. It’ ain’t over till it’s over!

So in an era where electronics rather than paper are the medias medium which source has the least bias? After months of statistical study, 5,000 interviews and gigabytes of hard drive space I have the answer!

It’s Complicated

I’ve looked at the three main American news outlets. FOX, MSNBC and CNN. While most would throw FOX right out the window and let it simmer in its own urine, I think I’ve been a bit more subdued. FOX for all its faults covers Clinton at times reasonably well. Whether this is a “right-wing” conspiracy or a weird twist of fate I leave up to you…

MSNBC on the other hand offers a much more left sided perspective. If you watch Chris Mathews or Keith Olbermann the slant towards Obama is noticeable and at times repetitive and annoying. I must admit though that MSNBC is my favorite station for politics. The reason being that MSNBC out of all the other stations seems to have the most in depth political commentary and best shows. Hardball (besides Mathew’s Obama tainted slant) is full of good analysis and punditry all week long.

Onwards to CNN. Out of all the three broadcasters CNN is the most objective. It has a good right left split and lacks the core subjectivity that MSNBC and FOX bring along with broadcasting. Unfortunately you can’t have your cake and eat it to. The problem with CNN is that at times it seems too childish. In trying to reach as many viewing markets as possible CNN cuts down on the complexity of politics and simplifies everything. When watching CNN I want to shout “where’s the analysis, where are the pundits!”

So which should you choose? I can’t endorse one outlet or the other because although I watch MSNBC the most, I religiously watch all three. If your really a political connoisseur you should watch all three. Yes they all come from different colors of the spectrum, but if you want to understand the complexities of American politics and create your own informed opinion you might as well get informed by multiple sources.

Related Questions:

Which site, MSNBC or CNN will have more visitors by June?

Who will win the Pennsylvania Democratic Primary?

Which Democratic Candidate will have the most delegates going into the convention?

Will Hillary Clinton regain the lead in the popular vote by the convention?

Popularity: 3% [?]

By Ryan (Politics Editor)

Many thought a Texas Obama win was very possible, and although Ohio had always been a harder target for the Obama campaign polling before the race had showed a very tight primary. What happened was a message from the voters. In the primaries and caucuses that day the voters decided that the nomination process should go on; they wanted further examination of the candidates. How though, will this help Democrats win the election?

The short answer is it will not. With John McCain as the GOP nominee, McCain is free to open fire on the Democrats. He doesn’t have to worry about primaries or that pesky Huckabee anymore. The only hurdle now is a VP choice, and even that doesn’t need to be sorted with extreme expediency. While the Democrats continue playing chicken down the long road to the convention, McCain can begin his Presidential campaign. He now has free time to raise money and strengthen the GOP political machine.

Meanwhile, the Democrats need to pick a candidate, and that’s where the main dilemma stands. The superdelegates issue has been talked to death by the media, but no real solution has appeared. It now seems very likely that the Democratic convention will be the deciding point for the nomination. If this occurs, whoever wins the nomination will carry a laundry list of attacks on them by the past Democratic contender not to mention a primed and ready GOP political machine.

So as of right now, the Democrats, once seen as the party to beat for this years elections are actually behind in the race for President, with no foreseeable conclusion until the convention.

Will the democratic nomination be decided by a brokered deal between the two candidates?

Who will win the Pennsylvania Democratic Primary?

Popularity: 4% [?]

By Ryan (Politics Editor)

After 11 straight losses since Super Tuesday, the Clinton campaign is on the ropes. Though it may be depressing for Clinton supporters to face, the possibility of her dropping out after March 4th is very real. The inspiration of New Hampshire might still reinvigorate hope of a comeback in some, but even if Clinton manages to bag Ohio, dropping out may be her best course of action.

It is said that money makes the world go round, and in political campaigns no truer words are spoken. Contributions to Obama in recent months have filled the coffers and due to this Obama currently trounces Clinton in advertising. Especially in Texas where Obama is dominating the airwaves. News forecaster, Hubdub is predicting that the chances of Clinton winning in Texas are slim. Hubdub and others like it have been accurate predictors of the primaries so far.

But why should she drop out? Yes she’s losing primaries, yes she’s losing money, but why should she really dropout? The answer is Nader! Yes that wily 60 something year old is at it again. He ruined Gore and now he’s ruined Hillary. It would seem the outspoken consumer rights activist really has something against the former Clinton administration…

So how is this possible? Well, we can all agree that to a certain extent Clinton is a more divisive candidate than Obama. If Hillary were to run against McCain in 2008, the Nader factor would come into play. In a divisive campaign Nader pulls votes from Democrats, not Republicans. With Hillary only winning by the slimmest of margins in match ups against McCain, Nader’s siphoning of Democratic votes would turn an already polarized electorate lethal. Clinton would not be able to get enough votes to beat McCain due to Nader. In tight states like Florida, McCain would win by the smallest of margins, but he would still win.

Thinking tactically, Democrats, which ever candidate they favor, should support Clinton dropping out after March 4th. Not because of her policies or her message but because of the baggage carried with the Clinton name. This divisive factor compounded by Nader’s siphoning are to blame. With Obama, it’s more likely Republican votes can be stolen. Additionally independents, usually a mainstay of McCain, have shown increased support for Obama. To ensure a rerun of 2000 doesn’t occur Democrats must think about the most plausible way of winning, and as of now that way is Obama.

Track Clinton v McCain in a head to head: If Clinton is nominated, who will win the Presidency?

Track Obama v McCain in a head to head: If Obama is nominated, who will in the Presidency?

Popularity: 5% [?]

The Clinton win in New Hampshire wasn’t only bad for Obama, its also given commentators an opportunity to knock prediction markets. New York Times has a go, as does Slate.

The problem is when the commentators read the markets and deduce that the market is predicting the favorite is the one that will win. However, the great thing about markets is they state the probability with which they make their predictions. And Obama with a 90% chance of winning means that one in ten times he won’t. Desert Vision won the 3:40 at Musselburgh this afternoon. The odds where 25/1 implying around a 4% chance. Does that mean the market was wrong? No, 25/1 shots tend to win around 1 in every 25 races (actually a bit less often due to the bookmakers margin). That just happened to be one of those races.

Basically, the ‘prediction markets where wrong’ commentators are like a bunch of punters at the race track complaining that the market wasn’t right every time the favorite doesn’t win. (In fact they should go to the race track for a probably expensive but very educational day out!)

Chris Masse is diligently following the story at Midas Oracle and the Silicon Alley Insider gives a nice analysis. Of course the only way to measure whether markets are accurate is to look at them over a number of events. Caveat Bettor is keeping the score on the primaries and it is prediction markets 3, Zogby 1 (with one 2-way tie and one 3-way tie).

Popularity: 3% [?]

Prediction market, Intrade, topped the pollster Zogby in predicting the winners of Iowa’s caucus. The forecast taken last night at 9:30 EST shows Obama and Huckabee having clear leads on Intrade. Zogby however while forecasting a Huckabee win couldn’t separate Clinton and Obama (putting both at 28%). Interestingly, neither suggested that Clinton would end up in third place.

Onward to New Hampshire where Obama is favorite on both Intrade (67%) and Betfair (59%) to win the state. John McCain, who appears to be one of the surpising winners of Iowa, has seen his forecast probability of taking New Hampshire has shot up from around 40% to 71% over the past couple of days (Intrade).

Overall, Clinton still remains favorite to gain the Democratic nomination, but only by a sliver (52% on Intrade, 53% on Betfair). For the Republicans, John McCain has now become the front runner for the nomination (32% on Intrade, 29% on Betfair). Despite last night’s win Huckabee trails in third position on a forecast on both exchanges of 16% chance of getting the nomination.

For all you Paulites, both exchanges are forecasting around a 5% chance of Ron getting the nomination.

For me, I’ve got a tenner on Obama to get the Democrat nomination. For him to get such a resounding win in a rural 95% white state I think indicates the strength and breadth of his appeal.

Hat tip to Caveat Bettor.

Popularity: 4% [?]