I think, after having paid medium attention to the House of Representatives races, that the Republicans will have a net gain of 52 seats in the November elections. I realize that this is not analysis–it’s based on some data and a lot of gut feel.
Who thinks more and who thinks less? Please give some basis, however brief, which, I admit, I didn’t do.
Oct 26 2010
Matt Ridley discusses a paper that uses "behavioral economics" to assess regulators. The paper is by Slavisa Tasic, and I believe that it can be found here. Tasic writes, In the context of political economy, overconfidence takes the form of the contention of regulators that they fully understand the problems they fa...
Oct 26 2010
Among those trying to popularize the Arrow Impossibility Theorem are Steven Landsburg, Tyler Cowen, and Alex Tabarrok. Alex writes, More generally, what Arrow showed is that group choice (aggregation) is not like individual choice... Arrow showed that when a group chooses, there are no underlying preferences to unco...
Oct 25 2010
I think, after having paid medium attention to the House of Representatives races, that the Republicans will have a net gain of 52 seats in the November elections. I realize that this is not analysis--it's based on some data and a lot of gut feel. Who thinks more and who thinks less? Please give some basis, howeve...
READER COMMENTS
Silas Barta
Oct 25 2010 at 3:34pm
If you’re right about that, you could make a lot of money betting on Intrade — that’s at the higher end of estimates for seat gains for Republicans.
Hyena
Oct 25 2010 at 3:53pm
Five-thirty-eight agrees precisely.
Doc Merlin
Oct 25 2010 at 4:25pm
I was guessing about 53 a couple months ago. Now I am unsure… I am thinking anywhere from 51 to 65, independents have been breaking really hard towards republicans.
caveat bettor
Oct 25 2010 at 4:34pm
Nate Silver catching up to Intrade?
As of Oct 22, Five Thirty Eight is predicting 230 GOP seats in the House of Representatives, up 3 from Oct 18.
Intrade is holding steady at 234 seats, since Oct 18, based on midprices of the 55+ and 60+ contracts.
Posted at 8:20am this morning at http://caveatbettor.blogspot.com/2010/10/nate-silver-catching-up-to-intrade.html
P.S. This prediction is a swing of 57 seats, from the 177 GOP seats held on Nov 19, 2009. I’ve got some money on the line with my favorite Harvard physicist that Intrade is more predictive than Five Thirty Eight.
John Fast
Oct 25 2010 at 6:15pm
@caveat bettor: I assume your favorite Harvard physicist teaches economics at a law school. Regardless, which side of the bet are you taking?
fishsticks
Oct 25 2010 at 7:03pm
[Comment removed for supplying false email address and for rudeness. Email the webmaster@econlib.org to request restoring your comment privileges. Your own email address is required to post comments on EconLog.–Econlib Ed.]
Thomas Sewell
Oct 25 2010 at 7:28pm
Start with Real Clear Politics latest polls and you get the GOP picking up 60 in the House.
Review the turnout models the polls are using and you may sense that the polls could be underestimating the GOP turnout enough to give them an additional 4% each race.
That would translate into 51-52 seats total in the Senate and plus 75-80 in the House for the GOP if turnout ratios are closer to 1994 than to 2006.
Steve
Oct 25 2010 at 8:14pm
@fishsticks:
The joke’s on you. No one is forcing you to read David’s great posts. I for one enjoy them.
Maddog
Oct 26 2010 at 12:52am
Real Clear Politics has the following:
House: Dems 180 toss up 33 Repubs 222
Senate: Dems 48 toss up 8 Repubs 44
Common assumption is midterm elections go 60 to 70% for the out of power party.
This election is an uncommon wave towards the out of power party. I assume the election will tilt +80% towards the Repubs.
House should be Dems 187 Repubs 248
Senate should be about 50/50 but I am assuming the Repubs will get 51% and Dems and Ind 49.
fructose
Oct 26 2010 at 6:05am
~50 house seats to GOP sounds right to me. My guess is the Dems holding the Senate 51-49 is the most likely scenario, with a strong possibility of a 50-50 tie.
caveat bettor
Oct 26 2010 at 10:48am
@John Fast: I get paid for 229 GOP seats or more, and must pay if 228 seats or less. No, my favorite Harvard physicist is actually a recent hire who sits behind me. We work at a bank.
John Goodman
Oct 26 2010 at 1:36pm
David, this is a strange post for someone who believes in markets. Intrade says it will be better than 55.
Hyena
Oct 26 2010 at 3:17pm
Actually, has there been a study on prediction markets lately?
I see one issue with political prediction markets: once they’re no longer a secret to pundits, political junkies will be motivated to purchase for status reasons, diminishing knowledge aggregation about elections.
fructose
Oct 26 2010 at 8:29pm
Hyena: That isn’t a big problem because that draws in lots more smart money. They say someone artificially bid up the McCain wins item in 2008 but the price returned to normal in a short time as people swooped in to cash in on the skew.
Hyena
Oct 26 2010 at 9:08pm
Fructose,
Good to know that there are enough traders to fix that problem. Well, not so good to know, part of me hoped there wouldn’t be and that I’d make a killing.
Comments are closed.