Loading Profile...
EMPLOYEE
How should primary/caucus 2008 election markets be answered (Politics)?
As many people have probably noticed many of the primary/caucus questions about the 2008 election are being settled via different major news outlets, such as CNN, MSNBC and NYT.
The problem with this is that these outlets all count delegates in different ways. It would be better if we just use one site and stick by its data.
For questions about who will win the most delegates on Super Tuesday I still have not settled them because all of the sites are disagreeing on who has what.
What does everyone think about this plan, and lets try to get a majority of which site to use.
The problem with this is that these outlets all count delegates in different ways. It would be better if we just use one site and stick by its data.
For questions about who will win the most delegates on Super Tuesday I still have not settled them because all of the sites are disagreeing on who has what.
What does everyone think about this plan, and lets try to get a majority of which site to use.
2
people have this question
I have this question, too!
Tell me when someone answers.
The more people who ask this question, the more it gets noticed.
The more people who ask this question, the more it gets noticed.
Create a customer community for your own organization
Plans starting at $19/month
-
Inappropriate?New York Times (but NOT the AP figures, which are an estimate -- they even add in "guesses" of how superdelegates will vote). But their delegate page, which is very careful to only enter official values into their tally. I should add that some of the state parties don't decide until later in the season how all of their delegates are divided up (not sure if they affect the questions in question). CNN figures include all past contests and declared superdelegates. MSNBC includes previous primaries. The best site I have seen is called "2008 Democratic Convention Watch" (not associated with the Dem. party though). They show the allocated delegates for each state for the 2 candidates, and the number to be still allocated. Currently a tie with 300+ still to be allocated for Super Tuesday. But it's a blog, not an official news site, though it's worth a look.
-
Inappropriate?It depends on how the questions are worded. A lot of the problem comes form estimated superdelegates. Superdelegates are just party members who get a delegate vote at the party's convention towards the nomination. Superdelegates can flip flop there vote all the way up to the convention and they do not have to reveal there vote. So hundreds of votes are just speculation at this point.
You would have to look at how a question was worded to include these estimated superdelegates or not.
I’m frustrated
-
Inappropriate?There's an article today (Feb 9/08) in the NYT which addresses why the numbers are different at every site.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/09/us/...
In particular, using the Iowa Dem caucus as an example, it explains how in some states official results can be delayed until as late as June.
For the Republican Super Tuesday, this is less of a problem, as there's a clear winner, but for the Democrats, given the closeness of the race, it means that a final tally of delegates may be months away. And by then, no one is going to be reporting Super Tuesday results separately from the the states that voted before and after Feb 5th.
So in particular I think that the question about the delegate totals for the Democrats should be retroactively voided, so that people who voted Obama get their wagers back, and the Clinton pickers keep their winnings.
It also suggests that primary/caucus questions should only be on popular vote. Or that delegate count questions have a warning that they'll have to be voided for indeterminability if the result is too close. Similar problems attach to the Presidential race, with its electoral college complexity. -
Inappropriate?Why do you suggest the people who wagered on Obama should only get thier wagers back, while those who wagered on Hillary are allowed to keep thier ill gotten gains. Either void this question and return everyone's wages, minus profits or consider this question suspended until the official count is finalized. There should be no reason that on an unsettled decision should one side be rewarded and another penalized. Those people who wagered on Hillary and were rewarded are also able to generate more profits with those dollars they shouldn't have.
I said void question, return everyone to where they were before. No one should be a winner when there is no clear winner as of yet.
I’m flabergasted
-
Inappropriate?I only expressed it that way because it's the way it's done currently. My post was to draw attention to the possibility that the question (which is currently settled in favour of Clinton) will never be resolvable via a news source. At the moment, hubdub admins have said that they will adjust the results if it turns out that Obama won, and I'm suggesting that voiding the question might be fairer.
-
Inappropriate?Hey guys I'm leaning to using CNN for popular vote/delegate vote and primary questions. Unless a market specifically states that the market be settled by FOX or MSNBC.Thoughts?
I’m excited
-
Inappropriate?CNN, for national figures, includes the super delegates in the totals. Not so good for that. But the state figures are probably okay, but so are the other two. AP is the source for most newspapers popular vote figures, but their delegate count is a little artistic (like CNN)
-
Inappropriate?Infernal,
At this page http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/prim...
on the left hand side the pledges delegates are stated as well as the guesstimate of superdelegates. CNN also has pop vote let me check to see if it is taken from the AP. -
Inappropriate?Yes. The left side is broken down that way, but if you check the bottom of the page, the asterix next to Total Delegates (which is what they use on that page for the state by state breakdown) includes superdelegates. AFAIK, the MSNBC policy is not to include them. It's all very confusing, and I wish you luck in finding a happy solution.
EMPLOYEE
EMPLOYEE
