Confusing Polls? Intrade "market model" predicted every state in 2004 (John Kerry, votes)

[Tennis702]

Pollsters are starting to employ the "fudge-factor" as election day grows closer. Pollsters can afford to be wrong but not ridiculously wrong. So, it is quite predictable that they start weighting their polls to make things appear closer. It is the safe thing to do when a polling firm's credibility and $$ are on the line.

Republicans generally prefer to apply "market-based models" to both business and government. It is odd that in 2008, they are more reluctant to embrace the leading "market model" political prediction stock futures results, where real money is put on the line.

Don't trust the polls? Then keep an eye on the ups and downs on Intrade Prediction Markets as a more reliable predictor of the Presidential race.

Originally Posted by PollingReport.com

Indeed, by 2004 the Intrade market model went stratospheric in predictive accuracy as the market favorite won the electoral votes of every single state in that year’s U.S. presidential election. Meanwhile more than one respected pollster and analyst called the race for John Kerry as late as election day itself.

The betting markets saw their best triumph of 2004 in Florida. Even though a number of polls put Kerry ahead in that state, or said the race was too close to call, the betting markets consistently showed Bush would win Florida comfortably.

Indeed, if the Democrats had paid as much attention to the markets as the polls, I am convinced that the election result would have been different. They could have downsized their effort in Florida and focused their efforts more on other swing states where betting sites showed the race was much closer.

Intrade followed up in 2006 when the market favorite won each and every Senate seat up for election. Moreover, in large part the stronger the favorite, the bigger was the margin of victory.

How to Forecast an Election