THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

From this New York Times article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/07/us/politics/07assess.html?hp

Mr. Obama’s aides said Mrs. Clinton would have to win close to 70 percent of the remaining pledged delegates and superdelegates to win the nomination, a shift in the campaign’s trajectory that would seem possible only if some big development came along to hurt Mr. Obama.

“Unfortunately for her, the math reasserts itself,” said Carter Eskew, a Democratic consultant not affiliated with either candidate. “I don’t think this changes very much of anything”

and

With few states left, she and her aides said they would step up their efforts to count the disputed results in Florida and Michigan, where the states held contests in defiance of Democratic Party rules. If Mrs. Clinton can win the battle to have the delegations from those two states seated at the conventions on the basis of the vote there, she could greatly reduce Mr. Obama’s lead in pledged delegates.

But neither candidate actively campaigned in Florida or Michigan, and Mr. Obama did not appear on the Michigan ballot.

Still, in a sign of where the Clinton campaign is going, her aides are asserting that the winner will need 2,209 delegates, not 2,025. That higher number reflects the full inclusion of Florida and Michigan, which held their primaries before the date permitted by the Democratic Party.

The goal of the Clinton campaign here is not just to get the delegate votes counted but also to get superdelegates to consider the popular vote Mrs. Clinton won in those two states; in some calculations that would put her over the top. The party’s Rules and Bylaws Committee is meeting in Washington at the end of the month to vote on an effort by the Clinton campaign to permit the seating of the delegations.

“We’re going to argue that it’s going to take 2,209 to get to the magic number,” said Howard Wolfson, one of Mrs. Clinton’s chief strategists. “We’re going to argue that Florida and Michigan need to be seated full-strength.”

I think the whole article is worth reading.

I will read it.  Sounds interesting.

There is ZERO chance that there will be pledged delegates from MICH and FLO, especially given that Obama was not on the ballot in Michigan.  Whoever suggests that “the person who had the most votes in Michigan should get that state’s delegates,” needs to have their head examined, given that Obama was not on the ballot because the Democratic Party said that the vote would not count.

I have yet, to this day, to see anyone explain why FLO and MICH moved their primaries when the party told them if they moved them, they would not count.  Did they think that they could move the primary, even though they were told that it would not count, and then somehow be able to convince the party to change their mind afterward?  If that was the strategy, whoever planned that was a moron.  It’s like when your mother tells you if you don’t clean up your room, you can’t go to the movies, and then you deliberately don’t clean up your room and complain that your punishment is not fair.

If I was told (by the entity that makes the rules) that if I do something, it will not count, and I do it anyway, in defiance of the warning, I have NO right to then complain that it didn’t count. 

If those states wanted to make an argument that their primaries should be moved, then they were free to do so before the primary.  To change their primaries without permission when they were told that if they did, they would not count, makes no sense to me.  No sense at all.

And then to complain that your voters are disenfranchised?  You (the state) disenfranchised them by holding an unauthorized vote that you KNEW would not count!  Who were the geniuses that started and supported this “moving of the primary” in MICH and FLO?  Those people should be excoriated.

Well, the first paragraph is a joke:

Despite narrowly winning Indiana, while losing North Carolina, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton did not fundamentally improve her chances of securing the Democratic presidential nomination. If anything, Mrs. Clinton’s hopes for overtaking Senator Barack Obama dwindled further on Tuesday night.

Despite?  What is that supposed to mean?  She lost one state by a lot and won another by a little.  There is no “despite.” Of course she did not IMPROVE her chances!  She was already behind by a lot, which everyone knows.  How can someone who is behind by a lot and then just lost a few more net delegates improve their chances?  The word “fundamental” also does not belong in that paragraph/sentence.  Neither does “if anything.” The words “if anything” implies that there is some chance that the opposite is true and/or that the two alternatives are close. In this case, the two alternatives (she improved or did not improve her chances of ultimate victory) are NOT close.

What poor writing by a NY Times writer!  But I’ll read on…

I don’t know that I have anything to say about the article.

What a terrible thing it would be, in my opinion, if Obama wins the majority of the delegates and the party somehow gives the candidacy to Clinton because they think she has a better chance to win against McCain.  Would that not completely defeat the purpose of a primary?  If they (the party leaders) feel so strongly about choosing a candidate that THEY think is the best one to defeat the other party, regardless of who the “country wants” (by virtue of the primary vote, however it is structured), then they might as well get rid of the primary system!

Again, even if Hillary “would have” won the overall nomination or it would have been a lot closer had MICH and FLO been included, that is too bad.  They should have thought of that before they changed their primaries.  We will NEVER know what would have happened in those primaries, and that is EXACTLY why nothing from those states can count.  I was/am not opposed to redoing the primaries there, but apparently that was/is not going to happen.

Hillary’s and her campaign’s finagling to try and win this nomination is exactly why I dislike her. She is a dishonest person who will do just about anything to get her way.  Although I would vote for Mickey Mouse over any republican candidate, I sincerely hope that she does not somehow steal the nomination, which is the only way she can win.

I also do NOT believe that she is a better candidate than Obama against McCain. I think that is propoganda and spin from her campaign.  There are so many people that can’t stand her for her constant prevarication.  I don’t think anyone hates Obama, other than for racist reasons.

Here is what the Florida Democratic Party has to say:
http://www.fladems.com/page/content/makeitcount-faqs/

I didn’t say it was good, just that I thought it was worth reading (given the context of political reporting).  The sad thing is to compare it to CNN:

Obama wakes up this morning with a larger lead in pledged delegates as well as the overall popular vote. For Clinton, time for a rebound may be slipping away.

The finish line is 2025 delegates, and with North Carolina and Indiana in the rear view mirror, only six contests and 217 pledged delegates remain. Over the next month, in addition to wooing the dwindling pool of voters who have yet to weigh in on this nomination battle, Clinton and Obama aides tell CNN they are actively pursuing the roughly 280 uncommitted super delegates.

These party insiders and elected officials—who are granted special voting privileges at the convention—will eventually determine the next Democratic nominee.

Pressure is now on Clinton to somehow find a way to stop what increasingly looks like an unstoppable Obama march to the nomination

The Washington Post says:

An MSNBC count showed Obama expanded his delegate edge by a net of nine in the two states. Obama now has 1,876 total delegates to Clinton’s 1,729, still short of the 2,025 needed to clinch the nomination.

But neither candidate can win without help from superdelegates—nearly 800 party insiders and officials who are free to back any candidate—and the results on Tuesday undermined Clinton’s argument that she is the candidate with the best chance to beat McCain in November.

With just 217 delegates at stake in the last six contests, Clinton has no realistic chance to overtake Obama’s lead in pledged delegates or in popular votes won in the state-by-state battle for the nomination that began in January.

As with the baseball world, analysis in the political world suffers when it is profit driven.  I still think today (for the most part) is a step up from newspapers led by people like Pulitzer, Hearst, and Greeley.

I like what Chris Rock says about super delegates: 

What’s that?  Is that something where White people get to count their votes as nine?  Who ever heard of superdelegates till a black guy was in the race?

More Chris Rock:
http://blogs.tampabay.com/media/2008/03/chris-rock-on-w.html

“Bush has f%**ed up so bad,” (Rock) will posit to any and all congregants in braying loops of oratory, “that he’s made it hard for a white man to run for president. ‘Gimme anything but another white man, please! Black man, white woman, giraffe, anything!’ A white man’s had that job for hundreds of years — and one guy f****ed it up for all of ya!”

And: “Each candidate tells you how humble they are. No, you’re not humble! Do you know how big your ego has to be to say you wanna be president of the United States? Do you know how much Puff Daddy juice you have to drink? How many Kanye injections you have to take?”

And: “I actually think America is ready for a woman president. But does it have to be that woman? . . . She’s gonna work in the office where her husband got blow jobs?! There ain’t enough redecorating in the world she can do to change that! . . . There’s one thing Hillary Clinton’s better at than everybody else, and one thing only — and that’s forgiveness! Hillary Clinton is the greatest forgiver in the history of the Chris_rock world. Even Jesus knows: ‘You really good at fo’giveness. I mean, I talk the talk, but you walk the walk!’”

And: “Barack Obama — he’s a black man with two black names! Barack. Obama. He doesn’t let his blackness sneak up on you. As soon as you hear Barack Obama you wonder, ‘Does he have a spear?’ . . . He’s so cool, too, man. I don’t think he realizes he’s a black candidate! When you’re the only black guy doing something, people expect you to take it up a notch. If you’re the only black playing basketball with a bunch of white guys — they expect you to dunk! . . . Barack has a handicap the other candidates don’t have: Barack Obama has a black wife. And I don’t think a black woman can be first lady of the United States. Yeah, I said it! A black woman can be president, no problem. First lady? Can’t do it. You know why? Because a black woman cannot play the background of a relationship. Just imagine telling your black wife that you’re president? ‘Honey, I did it! I won! I’m the president.’ ‘No, we the president! And I want my girlfriends in the Cabinet! I want Kiki to be secretary of state! She can fight!’ “

MGL, not sure I follow.  I’m under the assumption that Hillary would rather have Obama than McCain as president.  And I’m under the assumption that, as common belief states, the longer this primary goes on, the less chance the democratic winner has of winning in November.  So if her chances of winning the primary were truly 0, she’d be stupid not to concede, right?  So she’s either the most stubborn, stupid candidate ever… or she thinks she has a reasonable chance of taking the primary somehow.

I guess I’m saying I can’t imagine someone in her position would allow themselves to get deluded into thinking they can win, if the cost of being wrong about that is so steep (cost being a republican having a real good chance of winning in November).

What would be a “major political scandal” for Obama is different than what it would be for McCain.  For McCain, it would be a revelation that he sold state secrets to the Russians, ran a prostitution ring or something of that sort.  For Obama, something less would be required, as the thoughtful analysis of Chris Rock would suggest…

The odds of Clinton winning were, before yesterday, very low and are now near zero. I guess that she has adopted New York as her home, and remembers the 1978 baseball season.  It is a very selfish approach to the situation, but frankly, what else can one expect from her?

I don’t think we should be so quick to just assume that Hillary would prefer Obama to McCain as POTUS. Sure, for obvious reasons she has to say that she does and appear to have that preference or else she loses the support of the party.

But consider this. If Obama is elected president in 08, chances are extremly small that any other democrat will be president before 2016, probably to late for Hillary.

If on the other hand, McCain wins, then she might very well be nominated to run against him in 2012(or another republican if he decides not to run due to age/health) and posibly win.

I don’t see how her odds have changed as a result of the results (since the results were expected). This is similar to Microsoft reporting huge profits, but if those profits were expected, then the stock price won’t change.

Her odds have changed as a result of there being one less day where something bad happened to Obama.

As for why she is not dropping out already: to be a cynic, one could say that this is a woman who has spent her entire life geared toward a run of the presidency, and there’s no mania or intern that’s going to get in her way of trying.

As for her Yankee-love, I’m reminded of what David Cone said at a conference with Giuliani sitting at the table: “It’s good to see a politician with a Yankee cap that doesn’t have the tag still on it.”

#8: That’s awesome.

Speaking of political coverage, I really like Chuck Todd on MSNBC. He has to be the most rational, reasonable person on any of the news networks.

Tango,

The results yesterday were not exactly as expected. A double digit win for Clinton in Indiana and a single digit win for Obama in North Carolina would have been equally plausible in light of the polling and late voting patterns over the primaries.

All that said, the difference in approach between Romney and Clinton is pretty striking.

I agree with pretty much everything MGL said, but the media coverage is finally getting a little more realistic. Quotes from the three morning shows:

NBC’s Tim Russert: “I cannot find an objective Democrat who does not think this race is over”

ABC’s Stephanopoulos (on whether Hillary is done): “Yes. Toast. Hillary needs a miracle. This nomination fight is over.”

CBS’s Bob Schieffer: “This race is over.”

The percentage votes really don’t matter.  What counts are the number of delegates they get.  What did they end up with, and was that more than 1 delegate of difference?

This is MGL’s point, that the most that Clinton can possibly get in any head-to-head contest is one more delegate than expected.  If it’s expected to be 19-17, the best she can hope for is 20-16, and at worst 18-18.

This thing is setup so taht you don’t have surprises, like one person winning the whole state, 36-0 like you could in some states with the republicans.

As for the superdelegates, their function was to make sure that they act as a “balance” in case something really off-the-wall happened (say Stephen Colbert ran and was pulling in great votes), and you need to restore a qualified candidate.  In this particular case, they are not needed.  Both are equally qualified, and therefore, we don’t need them to restore order.  They need to stand aside and vote based on what the people wanted.

#10, a “mild” scandal (like the Wright thing) cannot prevent Obama from winning.

#9, there are many reasons for Hillary to stay, some of them stated in the other posts.

I had not heard that the longer the Dem Primaries go on, the worse it is for them in November.  I think that when they are over, the party, including the loser, will (obviously) reunite, and by election time, everyone will forget the in-fighting.

For various reasons, I DON’T think in a million years that Hillary will or would quit for party reasons.  She will only quit if and when Obama gets the requisite 2025 voted, and even then, as you can see from the NY Times article, she will claim that he needs more than that to clinch the nomination.  She is ruthless.  As to whether she “knows” that she has a near zero chance, I have know idea.  Does Griffey know that he can’t play the outfield anymore, and is a near replacement level player?  Does Manny know that due to his defense, he is NOT a great or even good player overall?  Does Jeter know that he has been one of the worst defensive SS in baseball for many years now?  Does Jason Marquis know that he sucks?

Politicians, like athletes, have a distorted, delusional view of themselves, and, I am afraid, things in general.  I mean what rational, intelligent person who wants to be POTUS, thinks that a “gas tax holiday” is actually a good idea, and not some childish gimmick to try and get elected?  “What, my opponent is against saving you money?  He must be a bad guy!”

cann/15: why did they wait so long?  This is MGL’s point.  All of the counts are virtually a foregone conclusion (like most profit earning reports, which is why the stock market doesn’t react when they are finally delivered), but they follow the race as if there were a race.

I am not American, and so I had to look up “POTUS”.  For all our Canadian, Taiwanese, Korean, et al friends, it means “President of the United States”.  Shouldn’t it really be called POTUSA, or POUSA?

Does Griffey know that he can’t play the outfield anymore, and is a near replacement level player?

You say that alot, but how bad is your forecast for him as a hitter?  Marcel has him with a wOBA of .349 coming into 2008, with 560 PA.  That makes him +0.5 wins above average as a hitter.  He gets +1.5 wins for what 560 average PA represents over replacement (in the NL).

Fielding+position has a lower boundary of -2 wins (because anyone worse than that would simply move to DH).  A poor fielding 1B (-1.0 wins relative to the average 1B, and another -1.0 wins for the average 1B relative to the average player at an average position) would be -2.0… hmmm… I guess the best we can expect of Junior is to be -1.5 in fielding+position.

So, at best, Junior is +0.5 WAR (+0.5, +1.5, -1.5).  And if he’s that bad, he shouldn’t be getting 560 PA.

Yowza… Junior IS a near-replacement level player.  How about that…

His last year in MLB should be 2009, if not sooner.  Really great players don’t wait until they are near replacement-level players before retiring.  But, maybe I’m wrong about that.

MGL provided his Griffey rant here:
http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/sabermetric_moves_of_the_2008_pre_season/#158

His hitting matches Marcel’s.

And I didn’t include baserunning, which knocks out another 0.5 wins.  That makes, Junior, optimistically, a replacement-level player.

And, more than likely, a -0.5 WAR player.

And if you keep putting him out in the outfield where he is even more exposed, he gets -0.5 WAR, and the Reds manager/GM gets another -0.5 wins for being so boneheaded about it.

Yowza, how the mighty have fallen.  If the Mariners want to give him a swan song, fine.  But, don’t give him more than 150 PA.

Tango,

Better late than never. I’m just glad the media is finally being more realistic, which will hopefully lead to the public being more realistic. I constantly encounter people who think Hillary still has a shot, maybe that won’t happen as much anymore.

For anyone really into all the election math, this is a pretty cool website:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

#22, interesting web site.

From Chris Bowers, who has a left-wing blog linked to from the above web site:

Fundamentally, nothing changed in the campaign tonight. The popular vote and delegate margin are basically the same as they were before Pennsylvania. If you were following the campaign closely, you knew it wouldn’t change, and that all but a handful of delegates are up for grabs before any given primary night. Obama was always going to win at least 61 delegates in North Carolina, and at least 32 in Indiana. The only question was whether he would win two or three more in each state. And yet, somehow, it is over because Obama did about 4-5% better than expected in both Indiana and North Carolina, and picked up those two or three delegates in each of those states. And all this in a campaign where over 4,000 delegates are at stake.

So, please correct me if I am missing something, but if a shift of 4-5% and two or three delegates in Indiana and North Carolina is enough to end the Democratic nomination, then why didn’t anyone frakking tell us that the campaign was so close to ending? Why was there this massive kabuki theater pretending that it was still a close campaign where Clinton had a legitimate chance at winning? Why were Clinton’s attacks on Obama repeated again, and again, and again, without anyone mentioning that Clinton was a desperate candidate hanging by a thread who would probably say anything in order to stay afloat?

The reason is simple: the established media was never covering the Democratic nomination campaign. They were, instead, covering some form of kabuki theater where reality is ignored and liberals are ritually gutted on the public stage for the pleasure of elite, rich, white, male pundits who like to pretend they know what is in the mind of the “common man” or some other formulation that is equally rustic, offensive and laughable. That is all that we have been watching since the Wisconsin primary, since the delegates have not improved for Clinton since the Wisconsin primary (and have actually gotten much worse, if you include the supers). If we had been watching something else, then tonight would not be the end of the campaign, because nothing really changed tonight. If this is the end, then the last two and a half months have been a Clinton-fueled fairy tale, which is basically a white-hot lie about the nomination campaign. Puns intended in the previous sentence.

Another everyday player (I think) who is near replacement-level (though not quite as bad as Griffey) is Shannon Stewart.  I had not realized that until Rob Neyer mentioned it in his recent chat on ESPN.com.

At first, I figured he said that (that Stewart should not be playing) because he was having a bad 2008 (everyone who is having a bad 2008 who is not a bona-fide superstar or star “should not be playing,” right?), but that he was still a decent player, according to his projection.

But, no, Rob was right.  While he IS having a bad season (-29 lwts per 150), he also had a near replacement level projection before the season started, and it is even worse now.  He is -2 in UZR, zero in baserunning, and -10 in hitting.  In the AL, he gets 2 WAR for being league average, so that puts him at 8 RAR.  Throw in his position (LF) and he is replacement level or worse.

Toronto, as I have said for many years now, is a disaster of an organization (as was Cincinnati), despite having a so-called Beane protoge at its helm.  I think we have put to rest, a long time ago, the notion that Ricciardi was a sabermetric GM or even just a good GM.  Some time ago, he said something like, “I don’t care what the numbers say about Jeter’s fielding, that’s the guy I want at SS (defensively speaking).”

That is what I call a “signature comment.” That means that even though we all say and do stupid things every once in a while that belie our true intelligence and knowledge, when someone says something so colossally stupid or ignorant, it means that to some extent they ARE stupid or ignorant.  NO sabermetric/smart GM says that.  None.  (Except maybe Cashman because he HAS to.)

You can short a total 1,326 shares of Hillary at InTrade at an average price of 8 (in other words, short her at an 8% chance of winning). So… profit if she loses = $1,061. Loss if she wins = $12,199.

That seems like a pretty significant inefficiency if her chances outside of a death or scandal are really 0.

You can short a total 1,326 shares of Hillary at InTrade at an average price of 8 (in other words, short her at an 8% chance of winning). So… profit if she loses = $1,061. Loss if she wins = $12,199.

That seems like a pretty significant inefficiency if her chances outside of a death or scandal are really 0.

8% is approximately the number of politicians found in bed with dead girls and live boys.

Re #14:  The results in IN and NC were very much as expected if you had the right model, which (a) almost nobody did, and (b) didn’t depend too much on the polls.  To use a perhaps faulty analogy, those who relied on polls and the image of a horse race with late deciders, etc., are like baseball analysts who rely on short-term random factors to determine the underlying quality and skill of the players.

There was one forecasster who relied more on fundamentals (demographic analysis) who has nailed the last three major primaries within a few points.

In yesterday’s primaries, he had projected +2 for Clinton in Indiana and +17 for Obama in North Carolina.

Here’s the site: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com

“538” is also known as “poblano” on DailyKos.com.  He lays out his methodology in great detail on his 538 site.

Please don’t blame the media for the long drawn out nomination process.  It’s a foolish system.  The whole primary process should take no longer than one month.  You should not be campaigning for president for almost two years.  You should not have to be out on the campaign trail, attempting to win elections/primaries for more than one month.  Blame the system, don’t blame the media.  That’s a cop out!
vr, Xeifrank

Who is blaming the media for the long drawn out process?  I agree with you that it is a joke that they have to campaign for two years and that we have to listen to the media talk about the campaign for two, long, boring years.  THAT is not the media’s fault.  What is their fault is (clearly) misrepresenting what is presently going on in the Dem primary, in terms of each candidate’s chance of winning.

#26, that is the number only for those that get caught.  Including the ones who don’t get caught, it is around 28%.

About the 8%, two things:

In these kinds of markets (where there is NOT a lot of liquidity, I assume), long shots are often overrated.  No one but a professional who can wager a lot of money and hedge his bets to reduce his risk is going to bet a lot of money on something that has a payoff of 8 to 92, or whatever it is.  Yet, lots of people like to take a flyer on a long shot, which sometimes raises the price of that long shot above the level of what the true price should be.

It should not be assumed that any of these markets are even close to 100% fair or efficient.  For example, sports betting markets are one of the most efficient markets out there, for a small market (as compared to stocks and commodities), yet, trust me, they can be and are exploited considerably by very smart and knowledgeable people.

The other thing is that her true chance may be in that range (5-10%).  I am no expert on these kinds of things.  My “zero percent” was a bit hyperbolic, plus I am saying zero percent absent any scandals, etc.  Plus, I should add, absent any shenanigans by her or the party.  If the party thinks that she is more electable (which I dispute), it is not above them to engage in shenanigans to see that she gets the nomination.

So, maybe it is 0% without any scandals, death, injury, sickness, or shenanigans, and 8% with that stuff.

I still think the 8% is too high, which would not surprise me (that the “market” is wrong) for the reasons stated above.

I agree with Chris Rock. I’m voting for the giraffe.

On a serious note, I really enjoyed this thread. I’ve been trying to tell people that Hillary needs to give it up for a while now, but couldn’t really back it up with concrete numbers. I just sorta noticed how Obama had a significant lead and each primary was generally 60-40 or closer. Just based on common sense it would be near impossible for her to win. The math proves that.

So why ISN’T she quitting? I can’t believe she and all her people are that stupid. And I can’t believe that, with the possibility that this could hurt Obama’s campaign, she would continue on because she’s stubborn.

What do her people know that we don’t? I tend to think they’re banking on some kind of superdelegate shennanigans. But if that were the case, why wouldn’t these superdelegates all be supporting her now?

Something about it doesn’t add up, and that worries me.

For the same reason that Huckabee did not quit when he first had a near zero chance of winning, and the same reason why some athletes don’t quit when they should.  A distorted view of one’s own world I guess.

There may be other reasons that we don’t know about. 

I DO think that she thinks her chances are much greater than zero (and they may be) because of her hope for some shenanigans.  There is also the embarrassment/shame factor, I think.  When you are embarrassed or ashamed about doing something, you often put it off.

Also, what is the downside for her to stay in the race?  I don’t think she gives a crap about hurting the Dem’s chance in November (if that is even true).  As some have speculated, she could easily be hoping for a Repub victory in order for her to run in 2012.  We ALL sometimes hope for someone else’s defeat for our own selfish interests.

Maybe she thinks that the longer she stays in the race, and the longer her exposure, the better her chances in 2012 if Obama loses in November.  Who knows?

She is only lending her campaign money, and not giving it to them (although I don’t know enough about campaign money to know how she would get paid back), so that may not be an issue.

And what else has she to do with her time?  Spend it in the Senate, doing something good for the country?

InTrade also has Al Gore at 2.5% to win the Dem nominee.  This would put the probability of dead girl/live boy as at least sqrt(.025) = 16%.  Or for Clinton would it be dead boy/live girl?

InTrade also has Al Gore at 2.5% to win the Dem nominee

Wow, that has got to be another example of an inflated long shot in a not very liquid market.

If I wanted to make a crude joke about Clinton, I would say, “Dead girl/live girl.”

One theory is that she is actually hanging around for the good of the party.  Look at it this way, it would be a major embarrassment for Obama if she beat him in some state where they don’t have time to remove her from the ballot (West Virginia?) after dropping out of the race.  So by hanging around, she spares the party that potential embarrassment.  I don’t really buy this, just some speculation I’ve heard (can’t remember where).

MGL, I think InTrade presidential markets are more efficient than you are giving them credit for.  As I read it, there’s been about $10 million wagered on the Democratic nominee over the lifetime of that contract.  That’s tiny compared to some markets, but I think it’s big enough to ensure that there are no obvious, absurd errors.

In sportsbetting, even though the markets are not efficient, they are much better predictors of outcomes than mainstream media conventional wisdom.  If the media talks about one team being the favorite, but they’re at +135, then the media is probably wrong.  Same thing (in my opinion) in these political markets ... if the InTrade prices conflict with “conventional wisdom”, I’d trust the InTrade prices more.

In sportsbetting, even though the markets are not efficient, they are much better predictors of outcomes than mainstream media conventional wisdom.  If the media talks about one team being the favorite, but they’re at +135, then the media is probably wrong.

That is correct in spades!  The difference between the mainstream media’s assessment of a game or series, and the sports betting market is like Hawking’s assessment of the origin of the universe and a 6-year old child!

It takes a real expert to exploit the sports market, or someone with a rare gift.  There are very few people who can do that. And of course, how much a person can exploit the sports market is on a continuum, from zero to whatever, and the number of people graphed against their average edge is probably the tail end of a Bell curve. 

There are probably many people who can slightly exploit it, less people who can exploit it by a little more, and VERY, VERY few people, who can exploit it by a lot (5% edge or more).

I agree that the inTrade prices on the Presidential stuff is a heck of a lot better than mine, and conventional wisdom, but I still think that my “theory” on long-shots, as evidenced by the Gore price, is likely to be true, but I am not VERY confident with that assessment.  Heck, maybe the Gore price is correct.

Some things I think are true, but could easily be false, and other things, I am very confident that they are true. This is not one of those things in which I am confident my opinion is correct.

You want to hear some spin on Clinton’s chances, listen to Terry McCauliffe (Clinton’s campaign head?) on CNN. According to him (I don’t mean that literally), the candidate who wins the most popular votes wins the nomination.  He is apparently unaware that it doesn’t work that way.  He says that the race is “very close” so far.

Not that I can blame him.  That is his job.

The FiveThirtyEight website linked to in posts #22 & 27: turns out it’s run by Nate Silver.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/05/no-im-not-chuck-todd.html