Kruse Kronicle

Intrade: Obama Widens Lead to 18 Electoral Votes

—

by

mwkruse
in

We are now six weeks from the presidential election. Last week I did my initial post on Intrade and the presidential election. During the 2004 election, Intrade picked the presidential race correctly in every state but Alaska. It picked every senatorial race correctly in 2006.

According to state-by-state Intrade markets, Barack Obama will win by eighteen electoral votes. Last week the margin was eight votes. I broke down the votes for both candidates into two categories. If the candidate trades sixty or higher to win in a state, I consider that state a solid win. If the candidate is trading in the 50.1 to 59.9 range in a state, then I consider that state leaning toward that candidate. Here is a map showing the outcomes by state:

Usamap20080922  

Electoral Votes

McCain – 260
Obama – 278

What changed is that Nevada went from leaning significantly toward McCain to leaning slightly toward Obama. Furthermore, Colorado and New Mexico went from leaning toward Obama to being solidly for Obama. Ohio went from being solidly for McCain to leaning toward McCain. In short, all the shifts in the key states were toward Obama.

Leaning States

In the following analysis, it should be noted that there are two types of Intrade contracts worthy of mention. One contract says McCain wins, and the other says Obama wins. Because they are traded separately, the sum of the two prices rarely equals exactly 100.

Nevada (5) – Currently leaning toward Obama at 52.9 (+7.9 over last week), while McCain is at 59.8, with Obama at 45. Last week Nevada was leaning toward McCain.

New Hampshire (4) – Still leaning toward Obama at 59.8 (+3.3), with McCain at 41.5 (-2.0).

Ohio (20) – Currently leaning toward McCain at 54.9 (-6.0), and Obama now ate 47. Ohio had just barely been in the safe category for McCain last week.

Virginia (13) – Still leaning toward McCain at 53 (-4.0), with Obama at 45 (+0.1).


Four other states of interest (Winner in the 60-70 range.)

Colorado (9) – Obama at 60 (+5.1) and McCain at 39.2 (-8.6). It was leaning toward Obama last week.

Florida (27) – McCain is at 61.9 and Obama at 38.4 after being solidly for McCain last week.

Michigan (17) – Obama currently is at 67 (+2.0), while McCain is at 35.

Ohio (20) – McCain at 60.9 after trading in the 30s in July and the 40s in August.

Pennsylvania (21) – Obama is at 66.7 (+0.7), while McCain is at 31.6.

States now of less interest.

Minnesota (10) – Now solidly for Obama is at 71.5 (+3) and McCain at 27.1.

New Mexico (5) – Solid for Obama at 74 (+14.5) and McCain at 31.1 (-8.8). Had been leaning Obama.

Thoughts

Intraders clearly sense a shift in Obama's direction. If their perceptions are right, then McCain can't win without bringing at least one of the four states of interest into his column. If things stand as they are now, but McCain either wins Colorado or brings in the combination of New Hampshire and Nevada, then we will have a tie 269 votes.

Intrade on the overall question of who will win the White House

McCain – 48 (-2.5)
Obama – 50.8 (+1.9)

To look at the election from polling data, you can visit Real Clear Politics. Here is their map. Notice that polling data shows the race in several states to be much less certain.

RCPmap20080922 

Real Clear Politics polls indicate the following changes since last week:

States that were solid for McCain now leaning McCain: MT, NC, ND

States that were leaning for McCain now a toss-up: FL, IN

States that were a toss-up now leaning Obama: MI, NM

States that were leaning Obama that are now solid Obama: IA

States that were leaning Obama that are now a toss-up: WI

 

Comments

7 responses to “Intrade: Obama Widens Lead to 18 Electoral Votes”

  1. susan Avatar
    susan

    The real issue is not how well Obama or McCain might do state-by-state, but that we shouldn’t have battleground states and spectator states in the first place. Every vote in every state should be politically relevant in a presidential election. And, every vote should be equal. We should have a national popular vote for President in which the White House goes to the candidate who gets the most popular votes in all 50 states.
    The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral vote — that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
    Because of state-by-state enacted rules for winner-take-all awarding of their electoral votes, recent candidates with limited funds have concentrated their attention on a handful of closely divided “battleground” states. In 2004 two-thirds of the visits and money were focused in just six states; 88% on 9 states, and 99% of the money went to just 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential election.
    Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide.
    The National Popular Vote bill has passed 21 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, North Carolina, and Washington, and both houses in California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes– 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
    See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

    Reply
  2. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    Thanks for your comment, Susan. I’m not inclined to agree. We are a Republican-Democracy and think preserving the “republic” feature is important.
    All of our votes count the same within our segment of the republic. Doing away the electoral college just inches us more toward a totally federalized existence. Checks and balances are important.
    On a practical note, if not for the electoral college, the only voters who would ever see candidates during the election year would be those in large media markets. Rural and small state voters will be completely ignored. Having a situation where candidates must compete in at least a couple of small states tends to improve the chances that small and rural state issues are going to be considered.

    Reply
  3. ZZMike Avatar
    ZZMike

    “We should have a national popular vote for President in which the White House goes to the candidate who gets the most popular votes in all 50 states.”
    The Founding Fathers thought long and hard before they set us up as a Federal Republic. They drew from the examples of history. (The “Federalist Papers” is the record of them trying (successfully) to convince the Public that we should adopt the Constitution. And they wrote about the dangers of each system they considered. Just about the only thing that tilted the election in their favor was the promise to add the Bill of Rights as soon as it was adopted. And it was not a “shoe-in”.)
    They knew well the dangers of direct democracy – a system that started more or less in Greece. The problem with a direct democracy is that the People are too easily swayed by demagogues. Go back and read the history of Huey Long in Louisiana; of the first Mayor Daley in Chicago; of the 1932 German election that brought Hitler to power.
    I think the problem with direct democracy is that it doesn’t scale up all that well. Local associations, cities and states elect on that basis, and it works reasonably well. But not on a national level.
    The problem with the system is not so much that we have “standby states”, the problem is that we have “winner-take-all” primaries. They guarantee that California, Massachusetts, New York, and the other high-population blue states – many of whose voters feed at the public trough and are unlikely to give it up – pretty much determine the outcome. And they guarantee that [possibly] viable candidates, like Paul and Huckabee, drop out even before they get in the ring.
    Not too long ago, conventions were where the nominee was decided. It would take several days of nominations, counter-nominanations, speeches – and yes, smoke-filled back room bargaining – before the front-runner emerged.
    Nowadays, the media pretty much decide the winner, and the convention is little more than a victory party.
    I think Obama’s ratings are more from a media frenzy than an objective view of his qualifications – which are tenuous at best.
    I am almost as afraid of a direct democracy as by a totalitarian government. The differences may well be negligible.
    Ben Franklin said (but that’s irrelevant, except to put a date on it), “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for lunch.”
    Then he added, “Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote”.
    There are too many problems, too many weaknesses, with direct democracy, to try it out.

    Reply
  4. VanSkaamper Avatar
    VanSkaamper

    If you think political pandering is bad now, do away with the electoral college and it would get exponentially worse, for the reason Michael points out. Less populous states and the best interests of their citizens become irrelevant if you can pander effectively to a handful of large population centers.
    The electoral college was a very well thought out construction by the founders, and we’d eliminate it a our peril.

    Reply
  5. Bob Robinson Avatar
    Bob Robinson

    “If there were no racial prejudice among voters, Sen. Barack Obama would receive about 6 percentage points more support, according to an AP-Yahoo News poll, designed in partnership with Stanford University.” (source)
    I wonder if this needs to be calculated into the Intrade findings?

    Reply
  6. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    I’ve heard numbers tossed about of about 2 to 2.5% but that deals with polls. Intrade is a market system where people are putting actual money on the line. Thus, theoretically, one would expect Intraders are taking the full range of issues into account, including polling bias. We’ll see.

    Reply
  7. Sue Avatar
    Sue

    Hi, Im from Australia. I find the entire Presidential election process to be entirely bizarre—nothing REAL is ever discussed and in fact is essentially taboo.
    For instance: which insitution dominates every aspect of USA “culture”?
    The book The Complex by Nick Turse shows us in no uncertain terms.
    I also find most of the right-wing “conservative” side to be a dramatization of the deep psychosis at the root of American “culture” altogether.
    That having been said please find a comment on the “conservative” use of the colour red.
    Once upon a time conservatives used to warn us about the power and control seeking red menace that communism was supposed to represent—which it did.
    Now it seems that RED is the way to be if you are a “conservative”.
    Meanwhile I quite like this book which gives a very detailed study of what and who Sarah Palin is appealling to:
    Between Jesus and the Market: The EMOTIONS That Matter in Right Wing America by Linda Kintz.
    Also two related books: The Political Mind and The Political Brain by George Lakoff and associates.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to susanCancel reply

Discover more from Kruse Kronicle

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading