Who is going to win?

[Jaguar]

Since both markets seem to be the same size, and I have no particular reason to believe Betfair's implied odds are more or less distorted than Intrade's, I'll believe the average of their predictions instead. ~67% and ~76% average to 71.5% or so for Obama, so I'll adopt that as my new belief.

Both of these are more bearish than Nate Silver's 84%, which I don't accept as the best possible prediction. The piece Silver wrote (posted above) was very good. I agree completely with the headline. For Romney to win, the state polls indeed must be statistically biased. I also trust Nate's ability to calculate this sort of thing: "Based on the historical reliability of polls, we put the chance that they will be biased enough to elect Mr. Romney at 16 percent."

I take the substantial disagreement from large national trackers as weak evidence of state poll bias. There isn't enough historical data to support this claim empirically or estimate the effect, because elections are rare.

When the empirical data is bad, reason and common sense are excellent substitutes. If Gallup's tracker had Obama leading by nine for weeks, not trailing by five, Nate Silver's state poll model would still predict 84%. However, I suspect Obama would be a lot happier in that world, and he'd be right to feel that way.

[giblets]

When I read his post it seemed to me like he was saying that the state polls could be biased in favor of Obama, or biased against Obama, and these two possibilites are equally likely:

To be exceptionally clear: I do not mean to imply that the polls are biased in Mr. Obama’s favor. But there is the chance that they could be biased in either direction. If they are biased in Mr. Obama’s favor, then Mr. Romney could still win; the race is close enough. If they are biased in Mr. Romney’s favor, then Mr. Obama will win by a wider-than-expected margin, but since Mr. Obama is the favorite anyway, this will not change who sleeps in the White House on Jan. 20.

That probably seemed like a reasonable assumption when he set up the model. You seem to be saying a pro-Obama bias is more likely than an anti-Obama bias, and I don't see any reason to disagree with that.

[Jaguar]

Yep, that's all. I suspect that's what the prediction markets are reflecting as well.

[Wiglaf]

http://www.theonion.com/articles/new-york-times-bully-knocks-stack-of-polls-from-na,30218/

[Guynemer]

Okay, who had the auto bailout in the obscure-past-issue-that-will-surprisingly-decide-the-election pool?

[-Jrabbit]

Naw, the winner in that category is clearly "Chris Christie."

[Hauldren Collider]

Okay, who had the auto bailout in the obscure-past-issue-that-will-surprisingly-decide-the-election pool?

What's most surprising is that the auto bailouts were seriously unpopular and made people angry everywhere--except in the Midwest, that is.

It's your goddamn corn subsidy.

[giblets]

I don't remember that much anger over the auto bailout except from some ideologues on the right. It doesn't seem to me like most people cared that much about it at the time.

[Hauldren Collider]

It was not more popular than unpopular anywhere except the rust belt.

[dannubis]

WHat I have heard is that Ford is again doing alright in the US. It seems the "bailout" did at least some good.

[Hauldren Collider]

Ford didn't get bailed out.

[giblets]

It was not more popular than unpopular anywhere except the rust belt.

In opinion polls, there was clearly more disapproval than approval. However, that doesn't mean very many people on the disapproval side actually cared all that much.

[DinoDoc]

It seems the "bailout" did at least some good.

Explain the existence of the Chevy Volt?

[MRT144]

What's most surprising is that the auto bailouts were seriously unpopular and made people angry everywhere--except in the Midwest, that is.

It's your goddamn corn subsidy.

Sausage making everywhere.

[Alexander's Horse]

Obama lost the election whene he failed to give Chris Christie a hug, da big lug..