Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Electability of 2016 Presidential Candidates as Implied by Betting Markets

toddwschneider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 62 posts

Re: Electability of 2016 Presidential Candidates as Implied by Betting Markets

#21

Post by ck2 »

saturdaysaint wrote: post #6

I don't know if this has any special significance, but I think the number of FB/Twitter followers for the current frontrunners are interesting. I'll use Facebook numbers. Hillary Clinton - 1.3 million Jeb Bush - .26 million Donald Trump - 3.7 million Joe Biden - .85 million Bernie Sanders - 1.4 million Marco Rubio - .99 million John Kasich - .14 million Scott Walker - .36 million Ben Carson - 2.88 million No, I don't…

This is like comparing halloween mask sales volumes to who will be elected.

How many Trumps with that hair are going to be running around at the end of October?

Re: Electability of 2016 Presidential Candidates as Implied by Betting Markets

#22

Post by Lawtonfogle »

ck2 wrote: post #15
vixen99 wrote: post #2

How depressing that a country of 300+ million individuals has candidates from the same families again and again.

Right because two sons of a president being a president is exactly the same as a non-blood relation of a president becoming president. The entire Bush family (and it's rather big) is in politics, except the women. How many Clintons are in politics?

Pretty close when you compare the odds and consider the total pool of who could be president. As in 'so close without a microscope I would call them identical'.

Re: Electability of 2016 Presidential Candidates as Implied by Betting Markets

#23

Post by uptown »

vonmoltke wrote: post #20
uptown wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that's your metric, it's probably worth running them through a few filters to detect authenticity of their followers: https://www.twitteraudit.com/

That site thinks I'm a fake, so I question the accuracy of its metrics.

I usually use SocialBakers, but it's down right now.

http://www.socialbakers.com/twitter/fakefollowercheck/

Re: Electability of 2016 Presidential Candidates as Implied by Betting Markets

#25

Post by mabbo »

This same math can be applied to the MLB World Series. (I'm in Toronto, which means for the first time since the early 90s, baseball is interesting!)

Instead of primaries, there's Pennants. Instead of general elections, there's the World Series.

http://www.vegasinsider.com/mlb/odds/futures/

Right now, the Jays are the second most likely team to win their Pennant (2/1 vs 9/5 for the Royals). But at the same time, they are the most likely to win the World Series (17/4 vs 9/2 for the Royals). In terms of the original article, the Jays are more 'electable' than the Royals.

I have no idea how this should affect betting strategies, but it sure is interesting from a statistics point of view.

Re: Electability of 2016 Presidential Candidates as Implied by Betting Markets

#26

Post by djscram »

saturdaysaint wrote: post #6

I don't know if this has any special significance, but I think the number of FB/Twitter followers for the current frontrunners are interesting. I'll use Facebook numbers. Hillary Clinton - 1.3 million Jeb Bush - .26 million Donald Trump - 3.7 million Joe Biden - .85 million Bernie Sanders - 1.4 million Marco Rubio - .99 million John Kasich - .14 million Scott Walker - .36 million Ben Carson - 2.88 million No, I don't…

Pretty sure that a lot of people who hate Donald Trump are following him on social media because he's the most likely person to say something outrageous.

Re: Electability of 2016 Presidential Candidates as Implied by Betting Markets

#27

Post by saturdaysaint »

ck2 wrote: post #21
saturdaysaint wrote: post #6

I don't know if this has any special significance, but I think the number of FB/Twitter followers for the current frontrunners are interesting. I'll use Facebook numbers. Hillary Clinton - 1.3 million Jeb Bush - .26 million Donald Trump - 3.7 million Joe Biden - .85 million Bernie Sanders - 1.4 million Marco Rubio - .99 million John Kasich - .14 million Scott Walker - .36 million Ben Carson - 2.88 million No, I don't…

This is like comparing halloween mask sales volumes to who will be elected. How many Trumps with that hair are going to be running around at the end of October?

I acknowledge that this could be completely invalid, but a Halloween mask sits in a closet, while a Facebook/Twitter follow can be (assuming the user or the algorithm don't bury it) more powerful than any campaign link to voters, well, ever.

They're already breaking rules of past elections where a "gaffe" would be endlessly regurgitated by news anchors until the candidate agreed to a heartfelt exclusive sit-down apology with some network. Trump (perhaps unwittingly) has figured out that the direct relationship of social media makes that irrelevant, and is taking full advantage by belittling his social media inferiors.

The candidates with good followings are basically getting free focus group testing - I wouldn't be surprised if Trump ran with immigration after floating dozens of wild causes and noticing that immigration had a particular resonance.

Re: Electability of 2016 Presidential Candidates as Implied by Betting Markets

#28

Post by Chathamization »

saturdaysaint wrote: post #6

I don't know if this has any special significance, but I think the number of FB/Twitter followers for the current frontrunners are interesting. I'll use Facebook numbers. Hillary Clinton - 1.3 million Jeb Bush - .26 million Donald Trump - 3.7 million Joe Biden - .85 million Bernie Sanders - 1.4 million Marco Rubio - .99 million John Kasich - .14 million Scott Walker - .36 million Ben Carson - 2.88 million No, I don't…

Worth pointing out that Rand Paul has 2.06 million likes and he's polling at 2.7%.

Re: Electability of 2016 Presidential Candidates as Implied by Betting Markets

#29

Post by Killobyte »

saturdaysaint wrote: post #6

I don't know if this has any special significance, but I think the number of FB/Twitter followers for the current frontrunners are interesting. I'll use Facebook numbers. Hillary Clinton - 1.3 million Jeb Bush - .26 million Donald Trump - 3.7 million Joe Biden - .85 million Bernie Sanders - 1.4 million Marco Rubio - .99 million John Kasich - .14 million Scott Walker - .36 million Ben Carson - 2.88 million No, I don't…

"people just aren't interested in the guy" isn't accurate - "people who use social media aren't interested in the guy" is. The candidates with low numbers on social media seem to also be the candidates whose supporters are less likely to be on social media.

Re: Electability of 2016 Presidential Candidates as Implied by Betting Markets

#30

Post by saturdaysaint »

uptown wrote: post #13
saturdaysaint wrote: post #6

I don't know if this has any special significance, but I think the number of FB/Twitter followers for the current frontrunners are interesting. I'll use Facebook numbers. Hillary Clinton - 1.3 million Jeb Bush - .26 million Donald Trump - 3.7 million Joe Biden - .85 million Bernie Sanders - 1.4 million Marco Rubio - .99 million John Kasich - .14 million Scott Walker - .36 million Ben Carson - 2.88 million No, I don't…

If that's your metric, it's probably worth running them through a few filters to detect authenticity of their followers: https://www.twitteraudit.com/

(OP) Good idea - FWIW the numbers look proportionately the same if filtered through that.

Interestingly, Hillary actually towers over Sanders in terms of authentic Twitter follows.

Post reply on HN