Bet on the Wisdom of Crowds

Most polls have showed that the Democratic nominee will win in November. But there is another kind ofprediction: John McCain is at nearly even odds to win the popular vote, at a 46% likelihood.

This is actually from the latest data of Iowa Electronic Markets, where traders place their money. Perhaps such predictions by large numbers of people betting their own money could have more value than some polls. You know sometimes, polls do suck, and even in politics, market rules.

At least these Web-based prediction markets are showing that how the Web lets people combine their views so that, in the aggregate, they’re more likely to get it right. James Surowiecki, in his book The Wisdom of Crowds, points out the fact that combined guesses from experts and non-experts can result in a nearly perfect answer.

These kinds of collective intelligence also accounts for why Google results, determined by an algorithm reflecting the popularity of Web results matching a search, are so relevant. Likewise, Wikipedia entries edited by many anonymous citizen “editors” can be remarkably accurate.

According to Wall Street Journal, some $165 million in today’s dollars was traded inside Wall Street on the 1916 election. It was twice the amount spent on the election campaign itself. An active market with known information can well reflected in prices. “Betting odds are generally taken as the best indicator of probable results in presidential campaigns,” as the newspaper explained. Numerous firms “make a business of receiving and placing bets, and many of the principal banking houses call these firms up daily to secure information on the betting trend.”

The Iowa Electronic Markets mentioned above claims that its results have been more accurate 75% of the time versus some 1,000 opinion polls since the early 1990s. Similarly, traders from Intrade (another prediction market service based in Dublin, which also powers a political futures market at WSJ.com using play money) has also correctly called the results of 49 states in the 2004 presidential election.

As for now, besides poll results, probably prediction markets can be the second best answer for both candidates and voters to figure out where the election is going. After all, a politician with faith in markets and the populist wisdom of crowds might happen to be the best bet.

Targeting Wright

A new television ad from the Republican Party running in North Carolina attacks Senator Barack Obama as “too extreme” for the state. It is built around the well-known video clip of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. — Mr. Obama’s former pastor — declaring “God damn America.” As noted in New York Times, the only words to describe it are: Manipulative, Shameful, Race-baiting, and Ugly.

Perhaps Barack Obama’s campaign would prefer if Jeremiah Wright, his controversial pastor, faded from the spotlight for a little bit. But Mr Wright seems disinclined to do that, and his speech at the National Press Club this morning this morning (see video below) probably would provide more dishes for the media and critics.

Mr Wright’s interview with Bill Moyers from last week can also be viewed here:

Indeed, with all these public speakings, Mr. Wright probably gonna continue to be featured a lot in the discussion about this year’s election. Just last week more controversial statements by the Rev. Wright surfaced, including one that compared the U.S. Marines with Roman Legionnaires and another that said that al Qaeda’s flag and the U.S. flag were the same flag.

That said, Mr Wright must realize that each time he opens his mouth, he puts on another blade on Mr Obama’s neck. The best the Obama campaign can hope for now is that Mr Wright’s exposure will leave voters so sick of hearing about this pastor that, until November, attacks associated with his name will really seem tired and boring.

Show me the money

This week the McCain’s campaign admitted that it will probably have to accept public funds for the general election in November. This means that Mr.McCain could have a guaranteed $84 million to spend between the Republican convention in September and the election. This also indicates that if he accepts cash from taxpayers, he cannot spend more than one dime from any other source (The Republican Party can also spend another $19 million or so to support him in the campaign).

The public financing system was established in 1974 after scandals involving illegal contributions to Richard Nixon’s campaign and other abuses. This financing system for the primary nominating contests already had fallen apart in 2000, when George W. Bush dropped out in the Republican primary. This year, Sens. McCain, Clinton and Obama also left the system because of the tight spending caps it imposes.

Mr. McCain has raised some $72 million so far, but spent most of it winning his party’s nomination. At the end of March his campaign had about $11.5m in the bank. Such sums are pocket change to Barack Obama, who has raised an incredible $235m. The Illinois Senator had already set all time fund-raising records this presidential campaign, raising $95 million in February and March alone.

By not taking public money, Sen. Obama can be more nimble in deploying field staff, running television ads, and other campaign activities, because he won’t need to rely on help from the Democratic National Committee and state parties. It’s just easier, you don’t have to talk to anybody, just write the check.

Indeed, the Obama campaign’s sync with grassroots based on the web-focused fund raising operation is just amazing. He has a donor base of 1.3 million people, and now more than half his contributions over the Internet is from people giving $200 or less.The current system of public financing for elections is “creaky”, he says. The Obama method of raising lots of small donations over the internet is like a “parallel public financing system,” he told donors earlier this month.

well, perhaps the even more amazing thing is: the most effective way to raise money from public has, actually, NOTHING to do with a “public financing system”.

Rocky-Baracky

On a memorable Fox News split-screen, Sylvester Stallone has already endorsed John McCain.

It’s somehow interesting to watch this image, an action figure in Hollywood dream works and a tough guy in the real war. You can say it’s a perfect opportunity for the Republican candidate to pose as Rocky Balboa. However, in the real black and blue-collar Philly, Hollywood is leading us back to what Hollywood really want from us: since you have nothing to lose, rooting for the fearless liberal.

One thing really confuses me is: Arnold Schwarzenegger, Clint Eastwood, Bruce Willis and, of course, Chuck Norris—why all these Hollywood’s tough guys always root for Republican? Please explain or disprove.

Hillary, Elton and Sexism

English pop star Elton John pulled in $2.5 million for Hillary Clinton with a Radio City Music Hall benefit concert last night. “Can U Feel the Love Tonite”? Mrs Clinton probably did. However, it was not the “love”, but one line from Mr. John caught the attention of the media quickly:

I’m amazed by the misogynistic attitudes of some of the people in this country. And I say to hell with them…. I love you Hillary, I’ll be there for you.

This was another reference to the all too common accusations that anyone not supporting or disagreeing with Hillary Clinton is biased against women. Well, apparently if this argument stands, then we should be able to say that anyone’s lack of support for Barack Obama means he’s a racist, right? Both arguments collapse completely under the slightest bit of scrutiny.

In fact, it is real difficult to precisely weigh how factors like race and gender could affected political success. Probably because in modern society, certain forms or levels of racism and sexism might be invisible even to those who hold them. From a micro perspective, in other words, if there is a healthy public norm against either form of prejudice, survey respondents are reluctant to tell pollsters that they have a problem voting for a woman or a black.

Via the Monkey Cage, a team of political scientists from Northern Illinois University at least are trying to solve the micro problem in an very interesting research. In the research polls, respondents were asked how upset they felt contemplating a list of scenarios, and the researchers noted how much more upset their subjects reported being when “a woman serving as president” was added to the list. They concluded that about a quarter of the public, across many demographic categories, have a problem with a woman occupying the President office. However, as the paper has pointed out, the result is somewhat confounded in the present context, because it’s hard to say how many interviewees heard “a woman” and simply thought of “Hillary Clinton”. Then maybe the real problem is, just like some comments under that YouTube video:

It’s not that people find women “shrill,” but that they find Hillary Clinton shrill. Many people have no problem with a woman in the White House; they have a problem with Hillary Clinton in the White House.

Perhaps it’s time for Mrs Clinton to give her own “national conversation” speech?

Be Cool

One of Barack Obama’s funniest lines is a reference to his distant cousin, Dick Cheney. “You hope you’ll be related to somebody cool”, and the crowds crack up every time.

Just use your imagination, things can get real interesting, or serious (maybe not). We learn from the England Historic Genealogical Society (and the Associated Press) that Mr Obama is also a distant cousin of Brad Pitt. That’s so much cooler than Dick Cheney. Mr Obama also has a strong line of presidential connections that is somehow very bipartisan: George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush, Gerald Ford, Lyndon Johnson, Harry S. Truman and James Madison all turn up on distant branches of the family tree. Other notable relations include Winston Churchill and General Robert E. Lee.

How about Hillary Clinton? A genealogy search showed up her connections to Madonna, Celine Dion and Alanis Morissette (several of them linked through French-Canadian ties on her mother’s side). “You’d think with all that singing talent in the family she’d be able to carry a tune,” joked by a Clinton advisor. Mrs Clinton is also distantly related to Angelina Jolie, who is raising four (soon to be six) children with Mr Pitt.

However, the researchers had less luck tracing John McCain’s genealogy.

It’s game time!

Maybe now it’s time to give up World of WarCraft (WoW).

Serious gamers who want some “real war” are looking forward to the beta release of Political Machine 2008.

Yeah, it is your turn to raise money, hire spin experts, win the endorsements of important groups, go on TV interviews, take out ads, fight off smear merchants to win the 270 electoral votes they need to get into the white house. Simply enough, this time all you need is your arm chair and computer.

Your opponents can be controlled either by human players over the Internet or by a tricky computer AI. This game is not just a timely bit of fun during the campaign season but a real serious strategy game – you can build up your own character with the candidate editor, choose from multiple maps and scenarios, as well as hang out on PoliticalMachine.com to discuss the issues of the day.

Indeed, with campaigning increasingly moving online—from fund raising to the circulation of ugly racial attacks via viral YouTube video—the line between running a campaign and simulating it on a computer may begin to get a bit blurry.

Just to be safe, don’t click the option for “Nuclear War” in case you get too excited to win the whole game…

A High Stake Show Down: Moment of Truth, Get It “Wright”!

 

“Race On the Line” – FoxNews.com
“A Make or Break Moment for Obama” – Howard Fineman, Newsweek
“If he can’t deliver this speech, it really calls into question whether he can stay in this race” – Jonathan Capehart, The Washington Post
“[The speech] could be a pivotal moment for Mr. Obama” – The New York Times

Everybody is eagerly anticipating Sen. Barack Obama’s speech about race on Tuesday in Philadelphia.

It meant to be a “high-stakes show down”. It was a moment needs to be seized. And it was a masterpiece.

It was “big, big, big” and “sweeping”. It was “an extraordinary moment of truth-telling“, and “brilliant, inspiring, intellectually supple”. It was a modern day version of Franklin D. Roosevelt/Abraham Lincoln/John F. Kennedy’s “Profile of Courage“, as well as “a massive break with conventional political precedent”. It was such a “searing, nuanced, gut-wrenching, and loyal” speech, a speech “we have all been waiting for for a generation.” It was glorious.

Changes: A Campaign Quiz

Who said what?

1. John Edwards.

2. Hillary Clinton.

3. Barack Obama.

4. John McCain.

5. Mike Huckabee.

6. Bill Richardson.

7. Mitt Romney.

8. Rudy Giuliani.

(a) “Americans are looking for a change.”

(b) “Our time for change has come.”

(c) “I believe deeply in change.”

(d) “Look, what we need is change, there’s no question.”

(e) “I know that I have been an agent of change.”

(f) “I want to make change but I’ve already made change. I will continue to make change. . . . I embody change.”

(g) “Not only can I talk change with you, I’ve lived it.”

(h) “We don’t mention September 11th nearly as much as people think.”

Well….

Pretty insane, huh?

I wonder what kinda campaign maniac is able to solve this puzzle.

I seriously doubt if there really is someone trying to answer the question.

You see, words… well, just words.

Still remember the war btw Obama & Clinton?

Yes, “just words”.

Change IS in the air.

But who can really deliver it?

LHAF (Laugh Her Ass Off), A Tell?

Whether in a debate or an interview, when something strikes her in a certain way, Sen. Hillary Clinton always laughs, and sometimes in a big, scary way. People obsess about the Presidential campaign are somehow so curious about what really behind Hillary Clinton’s big laughs. I’m not exaggerating. Each time her laugher has burst out on screen, urgent and sophisticated analyses come one after another from every corner of the Internet to the lofty mainstream media.

It all can be dated back to the past September, after the former First Lady’s appearances on all five Sunday political shows. Fox News Sunday’s Brit Hume commented on Clinton’s laughter during her interview with host Chris Wallace earlier in the show as “disarming,” “engaging,” and “attractive”. Right in that day, the Republican National Committee had rushed out a “research briefing” headlined, “Hillary: No Laughing Matter: On Sunday Morning Shows, When Not Laughing Off Important Questions, Hillary Hides From The Facts And Her Own Record”.

Not surprisingly, the issue was kicked off by Jon Stewart in The Daily Show. Once the agenda was set, it just went on and on. In the following week, Sean Hannity played an audio clip seven times in his radio show and described the candidate’s laughter as “frightening.” Bill O’Reilly digged out a “body-language expert” in Fox News to pronounce the laughter “evil.” Dick Morris, the onetime Clinton adviser but now full-time Clinton trasher, described it as “loud, inappropriate, and mirthless.” On September 30th, The New York Times‘ Pat Healy, Frank Rich and Maureen Dowd, The Boston Globe‘s Joan Vennochi, Time magazine’s Joe Klein, and the Politico‘s Mike Allen and John Harris all wrote columns or articles that mentioned Clinton’s laugh. The next day, ABC’s Good Morning America, CNN’s Situation Room, Fox News’ Hannity & Colmes and MSNBC’s Hardball all featured segments on Clinton’s laughter.

Are they really serious?

At least, MSNBC is still very serious. On the February 22, 2008 edition of MSBNC Live, Dan Hill, author of Emotionomics: Winning Hearts and Minds , claimed that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is often showing what he would call a “crocodile smile.” Then the NBC News correspondent replied: ” ‘Crocodile smile,’ we will add that to our lexicon. Dan Hill, a facial decoding expert.” Hill also claimed that during the February 21 Democratic presidential debate Clinton “had a true smile, which for Hillary Clinton, is about as rare as a lunar eclipse.”

Guys on YouTube are not that serious. A number of videos featuring Hillary laughing are available on the site, and most of them edited into different ways in order to make her appear ridiculous or hysterical. After all, how an individual laughs in a certain way, or how a person as an audience perceives others’ smiling styles, is a matter of personal taste. At least on YouTube, it’s just something worth to be made fun of.

Indeed, I want to look at Hillary’s big laugh in a Poker’s perspective. In the Poker world, a player’s facial expressions, general body language, hand motions when he’s betting his chips all serve as his physical tells. All players, more or less, are trying their best to spot others’ tells at the table, as well as to hide their owns. What’s more, the most simple but amazing insight from Mike Caro’s classic Book of Tells is that “weak means strong, and strong means weak”. As Caro illustrated in his book, “when humans want to conceal their true intentions, they tend to act the opposite of what they really mean. Dissembling is such a powerful innate drive that it can overcome a strong conscious desire to act in some randomly mysterious fashion.” Then from a poker player’s view, Hillary’s big laughter probably has become her biggest tell.

There is an experiment, which is based on research by Professor Paul Ekman, a psychologist at the University of California, to test whether you can spot the difference between a fake smile and a real one on BBC’s website. It is even more interesting to rewind all of the former First Lady’s smile after you are done with the test. At least for me, I’ve already had some answers.

Calculating the Odds

Back in January, when Clinton and Obama were sitting at the “card table” facing each other in Nevada, they played their “hands” differently.

In an interview with Los Angeles Times, Mrs. Clinton described the gambling industry as an “economic development tool”, and declared that “for many places in the country, it seems to be an important part of what they are trying to do to revive and maintain an economic base”. On the contrary, Sen. Obama spoke out in opposition to expanded gambling, and his reputation as a critic of gambling industry can be dated back when he was in Illinois.

We are unable to know how Mr. Obama was “calculating the odds” and made his decisions in the Nevada campaign, especially when the opponent was singing “Viva Las Vegas”. The interesting thing is, when asked by AP to name one of Sen. Obama’s hidden talent, his campaign people pointed out that “he is a pretty good poker player”.

Obama is described as a “calculating” cardplayer, avoiding long-shot draws and patiently waiting for strong starting hands, and never played high-stakes. A pretty standard image of a tight-solid player means when player Barack stays in the pot, you pretty much figured he’s got a quality hand. More importantly, maintaining this sort of solid-tight image indeed makes it even easier for Mr. Obama to bluff.

Back in Illinois, “poker player” Obama, along with another freshman senator, Terry Link, used to start up a regular game in Link’s living room. A small home game quickly developed a long waiting list, which included not only Democrats but also Republicans and lobbyists. As a “Pokertician” during that time, the going ring games enabled him to form political alliances that he might not otherwise have formed.

Then one thing is for sure, “Pokertician” Obama is calculating the odds carefully and making different decisions in different circumstances. Ironically, that’s also a significant sign of a good poker player.

Yes We Can

This “Yes We Can” song is inspired by Barack Obama’s speech after 2008 New Hampshire Primary. Since its first release on February 2nd, the video had been watched a combined total of over 7.4 million times in all the postings on YouTube. It has also been viewed over 3.6 million times on Dipdive, for a combined of over 11 million online viewings.

As the song was produced by the former Black Eyed Peas member will.i.am, the music video was directed by Jesse Dylan (he’s the son of Bob Dylan). The video indeed features appearances from numerous celebrities. Guys I’m able to recognize include: Scarlett Johansson (Of course!), Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (“skyhook”, considered to be the best NBA player ever), Bryan Greenberg (the guy in One Three Hill and October Road), Harold Perrineau, Jr. (Michael, will you come in Lost season 4), Nicole Kea (Pussycat Dolls, of course again!), and Kelly Hu.

Shot in a sharp B&W style, the song’s lyrics are entirely quotations from Obama’s New Hampshire’s speech. Although it is reported that the senator’s campaign had no involvement in its production, it was featured on the Obama campaign’s community blog, and also promoted later as a viral video by the campaign on its website.

Obama’s Winning Hand – Kenndys’ Endorsement

In front of a screaming rally here at American University in Washington, while surrounded by two generations of Kennedys on the stage, Mr. Obama has been dealt with a big hand (I won’t say it’s “pocket Aces”, but at least could be a “KK”) – official endorsement from the Kennedy family – as Sen. Edward Kennedy said on Monday, “It is time now for Barack Obama.”

Why this endorsement such a big hand for Mr. Obama?

A deficit of some heavyweight campaigners (except Oprah Winfrey) has been a problem for him. On the contrary, his biggest rival Mrs. Clinton has relied on the use of influential public figures, such as her husband and daughter from the very beginning. Bill and Chelsea Clinton’s ability to draw large crowds and press exposure enables the former first lady to spread her influence without even physically being present.Thus, exactly as Mr. Obama said during the endorsement speech – “I know what your support means. I know the cherished place the Kennedy family holds in the hearts of the American people,” – now he is able to make the most of Kennedys’ endorsement.Senator Edward Kennedy represents a powerful wing in Democratic Party. Served on several influential committees, as well as the chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee, Mr. Kennedy has endorsed some Democratic candidates in the past decades, including Al Gore and John Kerry, many of whom won the nomination in the end. Moreover, as a popular figure in Hispanic community, Mr. Kennedy’s long time effort on immigration issues, as well as representing minorities can be such a huge lift for Obama’s campaign, especially before the coming Super Tuesday.

With such quality cards in hand, Mr. Obama certainly ought to make a “sizable and aggressive raise”, as he gave one of his best speeches on Monday’s endorsement stage, claimed that he would work to carry on the vision of the Senator Kennedy’s brother laid out when he was president nearly five decades ago.”The dream has never died … it lives on in those Americans, young and old, rich and poor, black and white, Latino and Asian and Native American, gay and straight, who are tired of a politics that divides us and want to recapture the sense of common purpose that we had when John Kennedy was president of the United States of America,” Obama said.”That is the dream we hold in our hearts,” Obama said. “That is the kind of leadership we long for in this country. And that is the kind of leadership I intend to offer as president of the United States of America.”