Re:Electability of 2016 Presidential Candidates as Implied b...
by matthewbauer on Tuesday September 15, 2015 @10:59AM
(#10221004)
A 4th option could be:
If Biden defeats the established nominee, he must have an exceptionally well run campaign making him more electable. That is by winning the nomination Clinton has just met expectations but Biden exceeds most expectations.
Re:Electability of 2016 Presidential Candidates as Implied b...
by ovet on Tuesday September 15, 2015 @01:02PM
(#10221720)
I think it could also be that Vice Presidents have generally done well in presidential elections when running after their VP term.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-hobratsch/when-vice-p...
Re:Electability of 2016 Presidential Candidates as Implied b...
by matwood on Tuesday September 15, 2015 @10:41AM
(#10220882)
This makes a lot of sense. I see Biden as much more electable than Clinton mainly because Clinton will draw out the 'hate Clinton' crowd to vote against her. I think the DNC is also realizing this, hence all the talk of Biden jumping in to begin with.
I can think of a few explanations -
1. Biden really is a lot more electable than Hillary Clinton
2. Both candidates have electability at the low end of their range (around 57%).
3. The market is wrong, i.e. they are systematically underrating Biden's chance of winning the nomination (and overrating Clinton's) or overrating Biden's chance of winning the election (and underrating Clinton's) or both.
There is no arbitrage, but if you believe 3, there might be a good profit to be made in expectation by backing Biden to win the election, but Clinton to win the presidency (you wouldn't hold it through to 2016, but take off the bet as soon as the odds come back to something that looks more plausible).
I haven't done the analysis to see if it's still worth it after trading costs, but maybe someone else wants to.