Today's PredictWise - 2016 Democratic Nomination - Hillary 83% - Bernie 17%

[Alfresco]

http://predictwise.com/politics/2016-president-democratic-nomination

Key data on this page includes: Prediction Markets (Betfair, PredictIt, Hypermind), Polling (HuffPost Pollster), Bookie (OddsChecker).

[madokie]

1. Looks to me like

a lot of gamblers will be losing their shirts

[hoosierlib]

2. How does that trend look over the 3 months?

[Alfresco]

3. It tends to look very good for Hillary. There is a graph at the link for your perusal.

[Karma13612]

4. it shows Bernie

Trending up and Hillary dropping.

Taking with a grain of salt.

[kristopher]

5. You are aware that this far out prediction markets have virtually zero validity, right?

They are no more valid than the long term polling.
Well, f you weren't aware, at least you are now.

Markets vs. polls as election predictors: An historical assessment
Robert S. Erikson a, Christopher Wlezien b, *
a Department of Political Science, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027, USA
b Department of Political Science, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA 19122-6089, USA
articleinfo abstract
Article history:
Received 16 August 2011
Received in revised form 20 April 2012 Accepted 23 April 2012

Prediction markets have drawn considerable attention in recent years as a tool for fore- casting elections. But how accurate are they? Do they outperform the polls, as some scholars argue? Do prices in election markets carry information beyond the horserace in the latest polls? This paper assesses the accuracy of US presidential election betting markets in years before and after opinion polling was introduced. Our results are provocative. First, we find that market prices are far better predictors in the period without polls than when polls were available. Second, we find that market prices of the pre-poll era predicted elections almost on par with polls following the introduction of scientific polling. Finally, when we have both market prices and polls, prices add nothing to election prediction beyond polls. To be sure, early election markets were (surprisingly) good at extracting campaign information without scientific polling to guide them. For more recent markets, candidate prices largely follow the polls.

http://www.utexas.edu/cola/government/_files/wlezien-web/EriksonandWlezienElectoralStudies2012published.pdf

[Alfresco]

6. Yes, they are a snapshot in time.

[kristopher]

7. Do you think that polling about the outcome of the primary race is accurate

[Alfresco]

8. I think Hillary will be the nominee for the Democratic Party.

[kristopher]

9. That isn't what I asked. I don't care about your personal opinion except re polling.

Do you think that polling this far out is valid?

It's a simple question.

[Alfresco]

10. kris, It's up to me how I respond. Is it not? Please read carefully the simple post #6 again please.

[kristopher]

11. So you just can't bring yourself to say the polling re Hillary winning is bullpucky.

And while how you respond is up to you, it is my prerogative to point our your evasiveness and questionable motives for posting junk.

[Alfresco]

12. :-) Hillary will be the nominee. Sorry if that displeases you. Have a wonderful day.

[kristopher]

13. If it happens it will displease me. But that is looking less and less likely.

[NurseJackie]

14. I repeat it often enough: Bernie will not be the nominee. (Period. End of sentence. The end.) :-D

But here it is again in case anyone needs reminding.

Go, Hillary! We love you!

[Stuckinthebush]

15. Thanks, Jackie...

Sometimes the Sanders cacophony around here drowns out the math.

He won't be. You are correct. A few more weeks and that will be clearly evident to everyone.