I've recently posted an analysis of the implications of my Bread and Peace model for the 2008 US presidential election at my web site: www.douglas-hibbs.com

Expand full comment

Mr Hibbs,

I think the pollsters are not interested in making predictions any more. Their aim is to influence people with numbers and creating the "reality" convenient for their interest. Who is funding the "prediction polls?" I think this is a good question to ask and who are the ones broadcasting these polls? I am pretty shocked with the treatment Ms Clinton is getting from all the media-predictionpolls circuit. I was fed for three days with fragments of Mr Obama speech in Iowa and Ms Clinton Victory speech in NH was cut at the 3rd sentence (by the broadcasting Network, I do not have cable TV)to, instead broadcast Mr Gibbs (Red Skins Coach ) retirement Speech that was old news (his retirement was exhaustively announced on the previous day)and Ms Clinton Victory Speech New News, something just happening was cut short. I think this is meaningful. Is this a bunch of "Media guys" trying to influence our choices by filtering what we can see ? This episode was a shame, and I hope people become aware of this kind of trick! The polls predicting Ms Clinton loosing in NH, could it be a way to influence the results by putting negative pressure over the ones who cast utilitarian votes?

Expand full comment


Good question. My short answer is that it seems like too much trouble; I'd rather spend my work time writing books, blog entries, etc. Not to say that it wouldn't be a good idea for me to put my money where my mouth is, it's just something I haven't really been in the business of doing.


Follow the links and take a look at the graph and at the papers. The models of Hibbs and Erikson/Wlezien are not the sort you describe.

Expand full comment

I still remain very skeptical of statistical prediction of politics: Even a blind hen pecks the odd bit of corn every now and then. And if you have thousands of blind hens, one of them is bound to pick a large number of corns. This doesn't make blind hens the best mechanism of picking corn.

I'm pretty sure one could go back to 1952 and find a "predictive" equation based on some combinations of trivial variables such as candidates' height, disposition, favourite color, family size, or favourite sport and "predict" the outcome of each election since then. And if this formula still somehow holds for the next two elections, it hardly makes it the best and most reliable prediction mechanism.

Expand full comment

Andrew, if you really believe this, how much are you betting? Or how much did Erikson and Wlezian bet before publishing their paper? That's always been the primary reason I give more credence to prediction markets than futzable statistics.

(Incidentally, on one occasion I used this argument on a Peak Oil believer - "Why aren't you buying oil?" - and she replied "I've been buying the dips for a while now, and doing very well for myself.")

Expand full comment


I wouldn't be surprised if the markets eventually fixed this. That's why I wrote that the markets "have been" inferior to the polls rather than that they "are" inferior. Perhaps this very blog entry will be what it takes for the market players to realize they can do better.

It's been pointed out, however, that this sort of prediction market has a limitation: if the size of the market is large enough for the money to really matter, there are moral hazards of the Black Sox variety (throwing an election to win the bet); if the market is small enough to avoid this problem, then there can be motivation to spend money on the market to manipulate perceptions. I'm sure this is something you've thought about in more general context; I know people have talked about it as a fundamental limitation on election prediction markets.

Regarding Erikson and Wlezien's paper: I think the point is that some people have been so impressed by the successes that prediction markets have had, that they've been too quick to assume some sort of perfection.

Expand full comment

A key question is when exactly are these properly discounted poll forecasts available to the public? If they are only available with a long delay, then it still makes sense to point people to the market as the best available forecast. If they are available with a short delay, then why don't some people base their trades on them, and fix market mistakes?

Expand full comment