Want to know who will win? Track the Iowa Electronic Markets

[Romberry]

On who is electable and who will or won't get the nomination it may be time to look at something unbiased -- which is to say outside the arena of pundits and candidate supporters -- and with a track record of accuracy. I suggest the Iowa Electronic Markets.

They IEM has been deadly accurate in the past. How accurate? They called Gore's popular vote win over Bush in 2000 when almost every pundit was predicting just the opposite and telling us Bush planned to use his expected popular vote "victory" to continue the fight if Gore won in the electoral college:

http://www.biz.uiowa.edu/iem/media/11_17_00.html


As of now the IEM not only indicates that Howard Dean is the most electable, it indicates that at least at this point in time he is the only one who even has a chance.

The IEM quotes on shares of the Democratic nomination are here:

http://128.255.244.60/quotes/67.html


The graph of those quotes is here:

http://128.255.244.60/graphs/graph_DConv04.cfm



The IEM quotes on shares of Bush vs. Dem nominee are here:

http://128.255.244.60/quotes/66.html


The graph of Bush vs. Dem nominee is here:

http://128.255.244.60/graphs/graph_Pres04_VS.cfm


If you think the IEM is wrong, buy into it. It's real money being traded and if you're right and everyone else is wrong you'll be in a position to make a substantial pile of dough. Right now you can buy shares of Clark for less than a dime in the contest for the nomination and less than a nickel against Bush. Edwards is even cheaper than that. Shares of Dean will cost you substantially more. (As of the time I pasted the links, a share of Dean for the nomination trades at more than 70 cents and shares of Dean vs. Bush are going for close to half a buck. Big, big difference.)

Don't flame me. These numbers have nothing to do with me. These numbers come from the collective decisions of people who are putting real money on the line. If your guy is doing poorly, there is no reason that you can't step up tp the plate and push the price up. Other than money, you have nothing to lose...

[TrueAmerican]

1. Thanks but I am voting for Clark anyways

No midwest state is going to tell me how to vote. Al Gore didn't phase me, why should I care what Iowa thinks.

[Romberry]

2. LOL!!

Dude, check the history. This market isn't just open to Iowans. It's open to you. The market does not tell you how to vote. The market simply predicts outcome.

Let me compliment you on your total grasp of the point and the way you were able to check the links, read the article and form such a reasoned reply all in approximately three minutes. Remind me never to play you in chess...

[TrueAmerican]

5. I am just making up my own mind

You Deanies seem like we who support other candidates should just throw in the towel. It ain't going to happen.

[Romberry]

6. Well, no

All I did was provide a link to the IEM as it stands today. Is there some part of "track the market" that you don't understand? If Clark surges you will see it there. If Dean falls on his face like Clark did coming out the gate, you will see it there.

The IEM is nonpartisan. The IEM is money. Much better track record there than with all the talking head pundits ever put together. And like I said, they aren't my numbers. I just linked em.

I absolutely think that Clark supporters should stick with their guy. I would do the same thing. The only thing I wish that all Democrats would do differently is that they should stop doing Karl Rove's work for him. He has paid staffers for that.

[grannylib]

4. Nothing whatever against Dean or any other candidate but I am leaning

toward Clark as well; I think Gore really blew it by trying to tell us that the rest of the pack should just bow out, now that he has come to tell us for whom we should vote...
I'll make up my own mind, thanks, and there is still much I want to hear from the rest of the candidates.

[Romberry]

7. Good for you!

Seriously. But I disagree on Gore. He has as much right to tell us who he supports as anyone. That's really all he did. Unlike with Bush and the Fascist Five, people do still get to vote.

[creativelcro]

3. great post. Thanks.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

8. Curse you for introducing me to that site!

I think I'm about to have a gambling problem!

[Gin]

9. me too....Im gonna buy some stocks....and Gore owes nothing to

anyone...he is a private citizen....the people will vote for whomever they want.

I want Dean...but will actively support the Dem nominee if it isn't Dean.

I want that shit head shrub out of my white house.

[Frodo]

10. Actually, they got it wrong.

They didn't "Call" Gore's popular vote win. If you followed their markets prior to the 2000 "vote" you would have seen Bush ahead through almost the entire market period (the graph is only from March on)- With Gore's one big "pull away" from early September to early October.

The mistake you're making is in reading their final results. On election eve, Bush was ahead... but the market wasn't "who will win the white-house" it was "who will get the most votes" so there was no need for a recount.

Once Nov 10, it was clear that Gore had more overall votes (whether by 500k or 600k made no difference), so they "paid out" the bet on Gore. But that isn't "predicting", it was looking at what had already happened. The final "prediction" number was Bush 51% Gore 47% (not vote share, % chance they will win the PV).