Why did McCain go up 4 points on Intrade after the convention and Palin?

[GoesTo11]

He was about 37 going into the convention, 41.4 now.

This is mind boggling, because it means that people think the Dems are less likely to win than they thought before the convention. But the main obstacle facing Obama was a potentially divisive convention. That obviously is the opposite of what happened. And then the Palin pick?

Whatever. Maybe it's a chance to make a little money trading.

[JeffersonSean]

1. Knee jerk reaction, that's all

On the surface Palin really does look like a brilliant pick by McCain, but blow the dust off that surface and it shows up for what it really is, a risky, short-sighted, poor judgement pick, and shows us exactly why McCain can't lead this country.

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

2. Last trade 40.5, not exactly a ringing endorsment from the market for Palin.

[grantcart]

3. jeezus what massive panic for nothing

hit the link

McCain has been historically at 40 for a long time.

He drifted a few points down and now has come back to his normal historical point.

http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/contractSearch/

[GoesTo11]

5. Not panic, but I would have bumped Obama way up from 60 to 80 after the convention

Betting odds have also moved closer to a tossup. This is one of those days I feel like I'm living in an alternate universe. After the convention - the Clintons, the unity, Biden, Gore, and then Barack, I thought it went off perfectly. I just wonder what bettors are reacting to to think this convention somehow lowered their expectations for Obama instead of raised them.

[grantcart]

6. the thing about intrade, my friend, is that these investors have already

factored in a near perfect convention and also masterful debate performances.


It is not an investment of who you think will win, it is a measure of the amount of the reward you get for the risk involved.

For example it will never get as high as 80% because even if you are 100% sure that someone will win it isn't worth the risk to by at 80 for something to only go up 20 points the risk is too great in comparison for the reward.

60 points is very high. For it to go much higher investors have to believe that it is not only going to be a win but a certain landslide.

[GoesTo11]

7. Huh? I'd pay $80 for a 99% chance at $100.

You might be right that gamblers (I hate to call them investors) factored in the strong convention - although I would have factored in a 75% chance of a strong convention, so the fact that nothing bad happened should be a reassurance that increases Obama's chances.

But these aren't huge amounts of money, so the risk isn't large. If you think it's 99% chance and buy for 80, then you have a 99% chance of making $20 (100-80), and a 1% chance of losing $80 (if the price drops to 0). 99% x 20 = $19.8 on average, 1$ x -80 = -$0.80 on average, so overall, it's locking in an average $19 gain, with a 1% chance of an affordable loss as part of the risk profile. That can't be the explanation.

For some reason, I think gamblers perceived the convention as a slight disappointment to Democrats. Maybe it's because they largely watch Fox and CNN, so they buy the spin and don't think too hard about the real implications of the unity that emerged. That's all I can come up with.

Like your use of "my friend" - it's my new favorite phrase.

[grantcart]

8. but there is no 99% chance of win in a national election where

some wild October surprise could happen (of course on Nov 1st you might be able to get it).


80% represents a very small upside for an investment that is all or nothing. This is not like a stock pick that will go up and down and you can eventually get something out of it.

Given the fact that people are betting on an all or nothing basis 60% is extremely high at this point.

[MarjorieG]

4. Gee, stealing an election looks to be very profitable.

[Alter Ego]

9. Intrade is a horrible barometer.

A single minute of panic can send prices plummeting or shooting into the fucking troposphere.

[Awsi Dooger]

10. LOL, you obviously know nothing about political wagering

Your summation is exactly the opposite of reality. Intrade is only volatile approaching the wire. That's also true of other political market sites like the Iowa Futures Market or even fixed odds political betting like on Ladbrokes. It's like market betting on sporting events when a late TD or 3 point shot can send contracts avalanching in one direction.

That has no bearing on presidential odds at this stage or recently. While DU panics or overjoys for months, the presidential number has stayed basically unchanged in the 60/40 range. The wild swings are situations like the VP betting market where late info is obviously critical and can alter perceived likelihood. Those numbers were all over the place approaching the pick, for both parties. I can only imagine what the Republican VP market looked like last night.

Obama is somewhat less likely to win based on the Palin pick. That's my instinct and it's shared by other political bettors I've talked to today. No one is wagering on McCain today but they think this choice was the only way he could potentially steal a critical point in states like Ohio and Virginia and Colorado, primarily helping among women. That was exactly my feeling when I heard Palin's name last night.

The Republican brand is so badly damaged by Bush that only an atypical GOP ticket has any chance. I wish they had nominated a run of the mill far right Republican atop the ticket and a Joe Blow white guy at VP, but they used strategic choices for both.

I'm very familiar with Palin. I always follow Hawaii and Alaska politics because you can get bargains in the futures market. I bet on Palin at 4/1 odds in 2006, when Intrade somehow had the Democratic ticket (Knowles) a huge favorite approaching the primaries, under the false assumption the elder Murkowski would win the primary and be toast.

Palin is charismatic with a relaxed style. Anyone who thinks Biden will destroy her in the VP debate is a lousy handicapper, similar to the posters here who expected Cheney to flop in both VP debates. Palin's style is to smile and charm with disarming references including to the moderator. She doesn't try to dominate on specifics like Gore and the Dingle/Norwood bill but she gets the big picture ideas across. I've hosted debate watching parties for more than 10 years and I can tell you Palin's warmth is going to come across great in a debate setting.

I watched all the 2006 Alaska debates on CSPAN. Heading into the final debate of the 3-way primary, Palin was polling in the high 30s. She ended up eclipsing 50% in the primary. Everyone was astonished, including myself. In the general election she had a huge lead then it tightened, but Palin pulled away at the end to win comfortably.

Palin is popular. That's what worries me. Her approval rating is in the stratosphere and that translates elsewhere and to votes. I can almost guarantee Palin's favorable/unfavorable rating will be the highest among Obama, Biden, McCain and herself.

I'm not going to over react. A VP typically has significance only in the home state. Everything else is overblown. But the only way you potentially impact other demographics is a desperate pick, and McCain properly gave it a shot.