2012-01-25 Obama 56.5%, Romney 27.9%, Gingrich 8.2%, Paul 2.6%. - Adriano

2012-03-02 Obama 59.5%, Romney 33.2% -- each of the rest have less than 2% probability. - Adriano

2012-07-26 Obama 57.3%, Romney 40.0% -- (Hilary Clinton and Ron Paul still have a chance?? 1.1% each :-) - Adriano

2012-09-11 Obama 59.7%, Romney 40.9% -- post-conventions check-in... people have finally moved away from Hilary Clinton and Ron Paul, 0.1% each, and maybe even Clint Eastwood :-) - Adriano

2012-10-21 Obama 61.1%, Romney 38.9% -- seemed like qualitatively after the debates the gap was narrowing, but the numbers instead show a very slight widening. - Adriano

these numbers are so wrong - ؛ patrick

Why are they wrong? - Amit Patel

even the most biased polls are way different than these numbers. looks like you haven't read any these days - ؛ patrick

those people have a good chance to lose their money ;-) - ؛ patrick

Patrick, I'll offer you the same deal, I want to lose my money too. You buy from me at $4.00 per share. I'll pay you $10.00 per share if Romney is elected; if not, I keep your money. How much are you in for? (http://www.intrade.com/v4...) - Stephen Mack

LOL... I'm not into gambling, not even in the stock market. And in no way what I said meant that Romney is going to win (or Obama). I am from mathematics background and for me even 1 percent means a chance. I think those people who are betting there are mostly looking at their surrounding societies which is very inaccurate. I live in Florida and I can tell you that there is a very good chance for Romney here. A person living in a red state like Texas or a person in a blue state like California may never have a good judgement in this regard - ؛ patrick

I don't expect prediction markets and polls to produce the same results. - Amit Patel

Let's wait and see. We are talking about politics here. I hope Stephen makes some money ;-) - ؛ patrick

unlike polls, if you disagree with the numbers, you can create a hedge, i.e. buy one asset while selling another in proportions, to exactly express the valuations you believe are correct. Battlefield states only matter partially -- this prediction market is focused solely on the final outcome which does not necessarily reflect the preference of the populace but rather how it plays out among the 538 electors in the U.S. Electoral College. - Adriano

ok, again this sounds like a misunderstanding. my point was that a 50-50 with some few percent of error should appear in the bets but there were too many people betting for Obama. today it's at about 58% for Obama which is a good correction - ؛ patrick

The Economist's updated interactive US election polling map and electoral-college counter http://www.economist.com/blogs... - Amira

nice link to graphics, Amira, thanks! Interestingly, it says, "the popular vote and the electoral college may not be in tandem after all the votes are counted for the first time since 2000." !!! - Adriano

yes, and the intrade numbers are back to 61% - 39% again - ؛ patrick

Looks like Rasmussen was the most accurate and the most consistent pollster in 2008 - http://electoralmap.net/2012... - ؛ patrick

2012-11-04 Obama 64.0%, Romney 36.5% -- does not look "deadlocked" as widely reported in the news. - Adriano

2012-11-05 Obama 68.2%, Romney 31.9% -- zooming up, equivalent to 367 electoral votes for Obama (only 270 needed to win), one day prior to elections. - Adriano

up - ؛ patrick

FINAL: Obama got 332 electoral votes out of 538, thus the observed realization of the probabilistic event resolves to 61.7%. (The Obama binary option paid out 100% at settlement.) Although the popular vote had no bearing on the contract settlement, we note Obama received 51% (62,088,847) of such votes. It was indeed a close race from the polling perspective, but it's noteworthy that the prediction market was not perturbed by the media. - Adriano