In 2010, there will be 36 elections for the US Senate. Of these, 33 are the Class III seats that would normally be up, and 2 are special elections due to resignations of Senators Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton (should she be confirmed as Secretary of State as expected). Republicans currently control 19 of these, and Democrats control 17.
Of the 17 Democratic seats, 13 will have incumbents seeking re-election who were elected in 2004 and served full terms. In another 3, it is probable that an incumbent, who was/will be appointed this year, will seek re-election. These are Colorado (where it is likely that Michael Bennett will be seeking re-election when he is appointed to replace Ken Salazar when he is confirmed as Secretary of the Interior), Illinois (where recently-appointed Roland Burris will probably seek re-election), and New York (where Hillary Clinton’s successor will likely seek re-election). The remaining Democratic seat is Delaware, where Ted Kaufman has been appointed to serve the in place of Joe Biden, but has indicated that he will not seek re-election.
On the Republican side, it is likely that in 15 of the 19 seats, a full-term incumbent will seek re-election. The other 4 are occupied by incumbents who have announced their retirement at the end of their current terms (Mel Martinez in Florida, Sam Brownback in Kansas, Kit Bond in Missouri, and George Voinovich in Ohio).
So, of the 5 seats in which incumbents will not seek re-election, 4 are occupied by Republicans and 1 by a Democrat. This would seem to put the Democratic Party in good shape to maintain or add to their majority.
Intrade is a real money open market for futures contracts. They maintain markets for a large number of contracts on the outcome of upcoming elections. Individuals can buy contracts for prices (set by supply/demand) between 0 and 100 (corresponding to $0 - $10). If the outcome is realized, the payout is $10. If not, it is $0. The contracts are set as to the Political Party that will prevail. For example, right now you can put a contract on Chuck Schumer’s Senate seat for a Democrat to be elected (presumably Schumer) for 85 ($8.50). If he wins, the contract would pay $10. If he loses, the contract would pay $0.
Because the prices are set by supply and demand, the current price can be used as an estimate of the perceived likelihood that the event will occur. An observer can therefore use the current prices as predictors of the outcomes of the elections. In two recent posts, I looked at how well the Intrade contracts were at “predicting” the outcomes on Senate elections in 2006 and 2008. The last data I obtained before the respective Elections Days allowed correct prediction of every Senate election in these two cycles.
The contracts for the 2010 Senate elections were first made available last Friday (January 9, 2009). Today, I looked at the current bid/ask/last price data to get an early look at how the individuals participating in this market think the 2010 Senate elections will come out. If there was a bid or recent sale greater than 80, I concluded that the seat was “safe”. If a seat is not “safe”, then I just categorize them at this point as leaning toward the Party with the highest value for bid/ask (or last) price.
Here is the summary: of the 19 Republican seats, 14 are safe, 3 lean Republican (FL, KY, PA), and 2 lean Democratic (MO, LA). Of the 17 Democratic seats, 15 are safe and 2 lean Democratic (CO).
The current Intrade contract prices indicate a pick up of 2 seats for the Democrats: they would pick up David Vitter’s seat in Louisiana and Kit Bond’s seat in Missouri. Vitter is presumably running for re-election while Bond has announced his retirement. The data suggest that Arlen Specter will win Pennsylvania, Jim Bunning will be re-elected in Kentucky, and the Florida seat of Mel Martinez will be retained by the GOP. The Democratic seats not indicated as safe by these data are the Colorado seat currently occupied by Ken Salazar, which will likely become Michael Bennett’s when Salazar in confirmed to President-elect Barack Obama’s Cabinet, and Harry Reid’s seat in Nevada.
At regular intervals between now and Election Day next year, I’ll provide an update on what the Intrade contracts “predict” for the Senate races.
Showing posts with label Intrade. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Intrade. Show all posts
Friday, January 16, 2009
Thursday, January 8, 2009
How Good Are Intrade Contracts As Predictors of Senate Election Results? A Look at 2008
A few days ago, I looked at how well Intrade contracts performed as predictors of the outcomes of races for the US Senate in 2006. You may recall that just before the elections, the Intrade contracts pointed to the victors in every Senate race. The same was true in 2008: the contract prices that I retrieved on 30 October pointed to the eventual victor in every race (assuming, as expected, that Al Franken is ultimately the winner).
But again, I wanted to examine how far in advance successful predictions could be made based upon these futures contracts. In early 2007, Colorado Sen. Wayne Allard announced his retirement. In May 2007 when I obtained my first information from Intrade, the contract was already indicated a Democratic victory. Ultimately, Mark Udall won this seat. At the end of August of 2007, Virginia Sen. John Warner told his constituents of his retirement. Within two weeks, former Governor Mark Warner announced his candidacy for the post. Intrade contract information obtained later that month indicated Mark Warner as the clear favorite, and he won election the following year. The third retirement announcement came from New Mexico’s Pete Domenici in early October in 2007. Congressman Tom Udall announced his candidacy almost immediately for the Democratic nomination and the state’s two Republican congresspersons did likewise for the nomination of their Party. By May of 2008, Udall’s ultimate victory was indicated by the pricing of Intrade contracts. At that same time, the Intrade numbers were suggesting the victory of former Governor Jeanne Shaheen over Sen. John Sununu in New Hampshire.
So, by May 2008, fully 6 months before Election Day, the ultimate winners were being “predicted” by the Intrade contracts. The other four Democratic pick-ups were not so indicated until much closer to the elections. By early October, Mark Begich’s win over Ted Stevens in Alaska, Jeff Merkley’s defeat of Gordon Smith, and Kay Hagan’s victory over Elizabeth Dole were indicated by the Intrade contracts. It wasn’t until a few days before the election that Al Franken’s (apparent) victory over Norm Coleman was indicated by the Intrade numbers.
Once again, all Senate races were could be correctly predicted by interpretation of these Intrade futures contracts, and most could be determined almost a month ahead of time. Unfortunately, I don’t have the appropriate information in order to compare the relative accuracy and timeliness of predictions based on the various polling that occurred in these two cycles. Hopefully, I’ll be able to obtain such data for the coming cycle. If anyone would like to help collect such information, I would welcome their assistance
But again, I wanted to examine how far in advance successful predictions could be made based upon these futures contracts. In early 2007, Colorado Sen. Wayne Allard announced his retirement. In May 2007 when I obtained my first information from Intrade, the contract was already indicated a Democratic victory. Ultimately, Mark Udall won this seat. At the end of August of 2007, Virginia Sen. John Warner told his constituents of his retirement. Within two weeks, former Governor Mark Warner announced his candidacy for the post. Intrade contract information obtained later that month indicated Mark Warner as the clear favorite, and he won election the following year. The third retirement announcement came from New Mexico’s Pete Domenici in early October in 2007. Congressman Tom Udall announced his candidacy almost immediately for the Democratic nomination and the state’s two Republican congresspersons did likewise for the nomination of their Party. By May of 2008, Udall’s ultimate victory was indicated by the pricing of Intrade contracts. At that same time, the Intrade numbers were suggesting the victory of former Governor Jeanne Shaheen over Sen. John Sununu in New Hampshire.
So, by May 2008, fully 6 months before Election Day, the ultimate winners were being “predicted” by the Intrade contracts. The other four Democratic pick-ups were not so indicated until much closer to the elections. By early October, Mark Begich’s win over Ted Stevens in Alaska, Jeff Merkley’s defeat of Gordon Smith, and Kay Hagan’s victory over Elizabeth Dole were indicated by the Intrade contracts. It wasn’t until a few days before the election that Al Franken’s (apparent) victory over Norm Coleman was indicated by the Intrade numbers.
Once again, all Senate races were could be correctly predicted by interpretation of these Intrade futures contracts, and most could be determined almost a month ahead of time. Unfortunately, I don’t have the appropriate information in order to compare the relative accuracy and timeliness of predictions based on the various polling that occurred in these two cycles. Hopefully, I’ll be able to obtain such data for the coming cycle. If anyone would like to help collect such information, I would welcome their assistance
Saturday, January 3, 2009
How Good Are Intrade Contracts As Predictors of Senate Election Results? A look at 2006
The Intrade futures contracts on the outcomes of political events are one of the available metrics that can be used as predictors of elections. Intrade is a real money open market that has been in operation for several years. With respect to the US Senate, they offer contracts on all of the races and on several “derivatives”, such as Senate control after elections, the number of seats that a Political Party will control, and currently, the appointments that will follow recent or projected resignations. The contracts for the races are not based on the individual candidates, but rather on the Political Party that would prevail.
The use of real money futures markets began, as far as I know, with research at the University of Iowa – the Iowa Electronic Markets http://www.biz.uiowa.edu/iem/markets/. Beginning in 1988, their goal was to investigate the relative accuracy of predictions based on such markets as opposed to those based on polling data. Without going into details, there seems to be some evidence that futures markets provide very slightly better predictive ability. The Intrade market is completely independent of the University of Iowa market – it is a private entity.
I have monitored the Intrade contracts for US Senate races off and on since early 2006. How well did these contracts “predict” the outcomes of the US Senate races in the last two elections? This is the first of two posts in which I will examine the outcomes. Here I will examine the 2006 election cycle. Very shortly, I’ll look at last year’s results.
In 2006, the last time I obtained the numbers was on 2 November, five days before Election Day. The contract for Senate control was still firmly pointing to the Republican Party. However, in each of the individual races, the eventual winner was successfully predicted by the Intrade contracts. To refresh your memory, the 2006 election saw the Democrats pick up six Senate seats: Bob Casey, Jr. defeated incumbent Rick Santorum in Pennsylvania, Sherrod Brown defeated incumbent Mike DeWine in Ohio, Sheldon Whitehouse defeated incumbent Lincoln Chafee in Rhode Island, Jon Tester defeated incumbent Conrad Burns in Montana, Jim Webb defeated incumbent George Allen in Virginia, and Claire McCaskill defeated incumbent Jim Talent in Missouri.
I monitored the Intrade contracts two to three times per month starting in February 2006. At that point, these data were already indicating victories in Montana and Pennsylvania. The other four races gradually went in favor of the eventual winners. That took place in mid-April for Ohio, mid-July for Rhode Island, but not until November for Missouri and Virginia.
It may seem odd that all of the individual races were “predicted” correctly by the Intrade contract data, and the Democratic Party did take control, while the contract for “Senate control” still strongly indicated the Republican Party. For those well versed with statistical inference, this is not at all surprising. The best way to verbalize this is that while each of these six events (Democratic pick-ups) were favored, some were only very slightly favored, and the consensus was that it was unlikely that all six would go in favor of the Democratic candidates.
The use of real money futures markets began, as far as I know, with research at the University of Iowa – the Iowa Electronic Markets http://www.biz.uiowa.edu/iem/markets/. Beginning in 1988, their goal was to investigate the relative accuracy of predictions based on such markets as opposed to those based on polling data. Without going into details, there seems to be some evidence that futures markets provide very slightly better predictive ability. The Intrade market is completely independent of the University of Iowa market – it is a private entity.
I have monitored the Intrade contracts for US Senate races off and on since early 2006. How well did these contracts “predict” the outcomes of the US Senate races in the last two elections? This is the first of two posts in which I will examine the outcomes. Here I will examine the 2006 election cycle. Very shortly, I’ll look at last year’s results.
In 2006, the last time I obtained the numbers was on 2 November, five days before Election Day. The contract for Senate control was still firmly pointing to the Republican Party. However, in each of the individual races, the eventual winner was successfully predicted by the Intrade contracts. To refresh your memory, the 2006 election saw the Democrats pick up six Senate seats: Bob Casey, Jr. defeated incumbent Rick Santorum in Pennsylvania, Sherrod Brown defeated incumbent Mike DeWine in Ohio, Sheldon Whitehouse defeated incumbent Lincoln Chafee in Rhode Island, Jon Tester defeated incumbent Conrad Burns in Montana, Jim Webb defeated incumbent George Allen in Virginia, and Claire McCaskill defeated incumbent Jim Talent in Missouri.
I monitored the Intrade contracts two to three times per month starting in February 2006. At that point, these data were already indicating victories in Montana and Pennsylvania. The other four races gradually went in favor of the eventual winners. That took place in mid-April for Ohio, mid-July for Rhode Island, but not until November for Missouri and Virginia.
It may seem odd that all of the individual races were “predicted” correctly by the Intrade contract data, and the Democratic Party did take control, while the contract for “Senate control” still strongly indicated the Republican Party. For those well versed with statistical inference, this is not at all surprising. The best way to verbalize this is that while each of these six events (Democratic pick-ups) were favored, some were only very slightly favored, and the consensus was that it was unlikely that all six would go in favor of the Democratic candidates.
Friday, January 2, 2009
Intrade Contracts for New York and Minnesota Seats
I’ve added a couple of things to the left sidebar. They both involve Intrade contracts. Intrade (www.intrade.com) is a real money futures market that has contracts on future political elections and events. The range of prices on the contracts is between 0 and 100. They correspond roughly to the perceived likelihood of the event in the eyes of those who are buying the contracts on this open market. The closer to 100 the contract is, the greater is the perceived likelihood that the even will occur. These contracts have proven to be quite accurate predictors. I’ll have more to say on such political futures markets a bit later. At this point, I’ve added the contracts on the appointment to fill the New York Senate seat occupied by Hillary Clinton. This is obviously contingent on her resigning to become Secretary of State. The other set of contracts I have up at this point involve the Norm Coleman’s Senate seat. The outcome is uncertain. The recount is underway and it is likely to be followed by challenges in court.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
