Inkling Public Site

Make a prediction

Spend money (inkles) to express what you think will happen.

Next

Wisdom of the crowd

Everyone's predictions are combined in to a single prediction.

Next

Judgment time

Were you right or were you wrong about your prediction?

Don't show this again

Who will win the 2016 U.S. Presidential election?

POSSIBLE ANSWERS

PREDICTED CHANCE

TODAY

* Any Democrat not listed

(closed)

0.18%

* Any Republican not listed

(closed)

0.06%

* Ben Carson

(closed)

0.12%

* Bobby Jindal

(closed)

0.00%

* Chris Christie

(closed)

0.15%

* Donald Trump

(closed)

1.06%

* Hillary Clinton

(closed)

60.64%

* Jeb Bush

(closed)

3.65%

* John Kasich

(closed)

0.85%

* Marco Rubio

(closed)

12.63%

* Martin O'Malley

(closed)

0.04%

* Mike Huckabee

(closed)

0.01%

* Rand Paul

(closed)

0.03%

* Rick Santorum

(closed)

0.00%

* Ted Cruz

(closed)

20.02%

Al Franken

(closed)

0.00%

Al Sharpton

(closed)

0.00%

Amy Klobuchar

(closed)

0.00%

Andrew Cuomo

(closed)

0.00%

Antonio Villaraigosa

(closed)

0.00%

Any 3rd/independent candidate not listed

(closed)

0.04%

Barbara Boxer

(closed)

0.00%

Bob Corker

(closed)

0.00%

Bob McDonnell

(closed)

0.00%

Brian Sandoval

(closed)

0.00%

Brian Schweitzer

(closed)

0.00%

Colin Powell

(closed)

0.00%

Condoleezza Rice

(closed)

0.00%

Cory Booker

(closed)

0.00%

Deval Patrick

(closed)

0.00%

Elizabeth Warren

(closed)

0.07%

Evan Bayh

(closed)

0.00%

Gary Johnson

(closed)

0.00%

Harry Reid

(closed)

0.00%

Herman Cain

(closed)

0.00%

Jan Brewer

(closed)

0.00%

Janet Napolitano

(closed)

0.00%

Jesse Ventura

(closed)

0.00%

Jim DeMint

(closed)

0.00%

Joe Biden

(closed)

0.01%

Joe Lieberman

(closed)

0.00%

John Barrasso

(closed)

0.00%

John Boehner

(closed)

0.00%

John Hickenlooper

(closed)

0.00%

John Kerry

(closed)

0.00%

John Thune

(closed)

0.00%

Jon Huntsman

(closed)

0.00%

Julián Castro

(closed)

0.00%

Justin Amash

(closed)

0.00%

Kathleen Sebelius

(closed)

0.00%

Kelly Ayotte

(closed)

0.00%

Kirsten Gillibrand

(closed)

0.00%

Maria Cantwell

(closed)

0.00%

Mark Dayton

(closed)

0.00%

Mark Warner

(closed)

0.00%

Mary Fallin

(closed)

0.00%

Michele Bachmann

(closed)

0.00%

Mike Bloomberg

(closed)

0.00%

Mike Crapo

(closed)

0.00%

Mike Pence

(closed)

0.00%

Mitt Romney

(closed)

0.24%

Nancy Pelosi

(closed)

0.00%

Newt Gingrich

(closed)

0.00%

Nikki Haley

(closed)

0.00%

Paul Ryan

(closed)

0.00%

Rahm Emanuel

(closed)

0.00%

Rick Perry

(closed)

0.00%

Rob Portman

(closed)

0.00%

Ron Paul

(closed)

0.00%

Roseanne Barr

(closed)

0.00%

Sam Brownback

(closed)

0.00%

Sarah Palin

(closed)

0.00%

Scott Walker

(closed)

0.09%

Susana Martinez

(closed)

0.00%

Tim Kaine

(closed)

0.00%

Tim Pawlenty

(closed)

0.00%

Tom Coburn

(closed)

0.00%

Tom Harkin

(closed)

0.00%

  • expired

Question ends

January 20, 2017 @ 11:00am PST

Predictions Made

2387

Most by: ChloeBurns (409 predictions)

Discussion

Sort by: Down Date

benthinkin (ADMIN)   •   Tue Jan 05 2016 at 09:28am PST

This question has been suspended. An equivalent question can be found on AlphaCast at: http://alphacast.cultivateforecasts.com/questions/273

sflicht   •   Tue Sep 22 2015 at 04:30am PDT

This question remains irrationally pro-Dem and pro-Hillary, but for some reason I can’t bet against Hillary (even a single share) despite having the free cash to do so. https://primary.guide/

mvguy   •   Sat Oct 03 2015 at 12:04pm PDT

I’m not convinced she’s going to get the nomination. I think 60% is way too high, but I have a hard time seeing a path to victory for anyone else.

benthinkin (ADMIN)   •   Tue Sep 22 2015 at 09:29am PDT

It’s not necessarily irrational just because it differs from other markets.

Not sure why you’re unable to forecast Hillary downwards. Are you able to buy shares in other candidates? Have you seen this same problem elsewhere?

sflicht   •   Tue Sep 22 2015 at 02:04pm PDT

Yes I can buy shares in other candidates.
Yes I’ve seen this in other questions (e.g. I can’t short Jeb in the RNOM question).

It seems to occur when I have large exposure in one direction, so I assume it has to do with the way Inkling computes assets available and max loss.

Right now I have ~350 inkles “Cash Available”, which means that even if I realize the maximum loss on my short Hillary and long-other candidate positions, I should still have that much available. To short one share of Hillary at the current price should cause me to take on an additional max loss of 100-p(Hillary) ~= 25 inkles. So I’m not sure what the bug is.

In fact, it’s not just because I happen to have very little cash available right now. Even when I have a few thousand inkles available, it won’t let me short Hillary further.

sflicht   •   Sun Aug 02 2015 at 01:36pm PDT

ChloeBurns   •   Wed May 13 2015 at 07:13am PDT

Nate Silver called 49 states correctly in 2008 and a perfect 50 in 2012. He thinks Hillary Clinton’s chances of winning are 60% at most and realistically closer to 50%. See No Blue Wall.

towstore   •   Thu May 21 2015 at 06:34am PDT

Silver has a lot of good analysis, however I would argue Ross Perot “gave” Clinton the win. Clinton’s 43% plurality belies much of Silver’s commentary.

benthinkin (ADMIN)   •   Wed May 13 2015 at 09:06am PDT

sflicht   •   Wed May 13 2015 at 07:25am PDT

He says there that his gut is closer to 50-50, and that is perfectly consistent with what bookies like Ladbrokes have been saying for a while (remember to take into account the “vig” when converting their odds to probabilities). I think even 50% may be high. She is just such a big target for a scandal to come out any time. Just think how long Republican operatives have been doing opposition research on her. (Even now they’re digging through file drawers not opened since 2008, I’m sure.)

ChloeBurns   •   Wed May 13 2015 at 07:43am PDT

To some extent, the Republican Party already shot its wad with Email-gate. Do you think the Clinton inclined voter is actually influenced by yet another Republican hyped “scandal”?

sflicht   •   Thu May 14 2015 at 12:51pm PDT

Clinton also has enemies on the left who might fuel the scandal machine at an October-surprise-type moment.

ChloeBurns   •   Thu May 14 2015 at 03:17pm PDT

I dont’ agree. This is the year the Democrats fall in line while the Republicans hope to fall in love.

sflicht   •   Thu May 14 2015 at 03:49pm PDT

Sorry, I didn’t mean the progressive left (Warrenites and Bernie fans). If you follow the link I included above, you’ll see it refers to “leftists” like Assange and Kim Dotcom. Hillary has enemies among civil libertarians and anti-war leftists. Some of these people would regard her victory as no worse than a(n establishment candidate) Republican win, with regard to areas like criminal justice, counterterrorism, and foreign policy in general. It’s not outside the realm of possibility that Assange has potentially damaging material and would leak it at an opportune time.

ChloeBurns   •   Thu May 14 2015 at 04:20pm PDT

Kim Dotcom? Really?

sflicht   •   Wed May 13 2015 at 07:57am PDT

I guess I’m not sure that was the only trick up Rove’s sleeve.

sflicht   •   Thu Apr 30 2015 at 06:00pm PDT

Convince me that Hillary has a 65% chance.

benthinkin (ADMIN)   •   Thu Apr 30 2015 at 06:17pm PDT

She’s the presumptive democratic nominee and the republican field is a clown college. ?

sflicht   •   Thu Apr 30 2015 at 06:23pm PDT

OK, so what odds do you give the dems for winning? If it’s 75%, which is maybe reasonable, then she better have an 85% chance of winning the nomination. Do you really believe that? What odds did you give her in mid 2007? Plus she is just not that good a candidate. She has a ton of baggage, her term as Sec of State was undistinguished, and she pisses off a huge percentage of the electorate. Why, again, is she such a lock for the nomination?

benthinkin (ADMIN)   •   Fri May 01 2015 at 08:52am PDT

I’m pretty comfortable with Clinton to win the nomiation ~90% and Democrats to win the presidency ~70%. Not saying I’d buy at 89.9% and 69.9%, but I’m not selling either.

I agree she’s not that great a candidate; I just think everyone else running is considerably worse.

mvguy   •   Wed May 13 2015 at 10:59am PDT

I think the right Republican candidate — if he can present himself well during the primaries and consolidate the opposition — could beat Clinton. I’m not sure which one is best suited to do that (but I can tell you some who aren’t!), and it remains an open question how much a drawn-out process will hurt the GOP nominee.

GradualStudent   •   Wed Nov 26 2014 at 07:09pm PST

kryoung02   •   Thu Oct 24 2013 at 02:18pm PDT

Rand Paul (P) & Ted Cruz (VP) would make a great ticket

mvguy   •   Wed May 13 2015 at 11:01am PDT

Any ticket with Cruz on it is doomed to failure because he’s an extremist, and Paul is unlikely to get the nomination because he’s more of a leftist on foreign policy than Clinton is (which isn’t saying much).

bobdevine   •   Thu Jul 18 2013 at 01:20am PDT

mvguy   •   Sun Aug 25 2013 at 01:47pm PDT

Yeah, it surprised me a few days ago to see his stock go up. He’s now worth more here than Chris Christie or Andrew Cuomo, which doesn’t a lot of sense.

The problem is that for any candidate that comes to mind with the exception of Hillary Clinton, I have a hard time seeing a clear path to victory. And I may be way off on this, but I don’t expect her to run.

ChloeBurns   •   Wed Jul 17 2013 at 02:37pm PDT

This raises the interesting question of which market contains the most information and is therefore priced correctly.

Normally, I would say that the more detailed market is the better predictor, i.e., “Who will win the 2016 U.S. Presidential election?” is more accurate than “As of the end of the day on January 20, 2017, the President of the United States will be a member of which political party?” The reason for this is that the more detailed market forces participants to consider and price low probability outcomes. It appears that other traders agree because the party markets are trading to move closer to the sum by party of the options included in this market.

However, this approach, IMO, is incorrect here. Let me explain why. I contend that Inkling is inaccurate below a threshold of 1 or 2%. Below 1%, shorting an option, even an option that is 1 in 1000 or 1 in 10000 is rarely if ever an efficient use of capital. If you remove the candidates with less than 1% in the individual market, the remaining Democrats sum to 70% (69.3% to be precise) of the remaining total. This is the value predicted by the party market before the creation of the individual market.

mvguy   •   Wed Jul 17 2013 at 04:13pm PDT

Interesting observations and comments. It is also possible that a market like this could be unintentionally skewed by the selection of candidates used. For example, the current probability for a Republican not listed in about 2 percent, but it’s possible that if some other Republicans such as Mitch Daniels and Dave Heineman had been included that their total could be more than that 2 percent.

ChloeBurns   •   Wed Jul 17 2013 at 08:08pm PDT

Yes. In particular, this market includes more low probability Republicans than low probability Democrats. This artificially skews the sum by party higher for Republicans.

mvguy   •   Sat Jul 20 2013 at 07:22am PDT

When I was compiling the list, I had a hard time finding comprehensive listings of potential Democratic candidates. I assume that’s because everyone is waiting to see whether Hillary Clinton will enter the race. She’s certainly the favorite for the nomination if she seeks it.

ChloeBurns   •   Sat Jul 20 2013 at 07:26am PDT

I wasn’t complaining. I’ve commented elsewhere that I find your lists very thorough. It is no surprise that the party in power is dominated by a few well known names while the list for the party out of power includes a number of lesser known hopefuls.

I do find it interesting that even the better known candidates of the Republican party such as Marco Rubio & Rand Paul are trading not significantly higher than the anyone but option. Will the 2016 nomination process follow the same pattern as 2012 in which voters sampled a list of potential nominees in rapid succession — Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum — and found none to their liking?

mvguy   •   Sun Aug 25 2013 at 04:03pm PDT

I think that’s more likely to happen on the Republican side than on the Democratic side. For Democrats, it could be much like 2008 where many party voters would have been happy with either Obama or Clinton. None of the likely not-Clinton Democrats are particularly unpopular. But Republicans have a more difficult collection of constituencies (religious right, libertarian, moderates and conservatives, pro-military, isolationist, etc.) to hold together.

ChloeBurns   •   Sat Jun 22 2013 at 05:40am PDT

This market sets up delicious risk arb opportunities with the Democratic nominee and Republican nominee markets.

This is how it works. Inkling is currently predicting that a Democrat will win the White House in 2016 with 70% certainty (yes, this is a shameless plug for one of my markets). So, if Hillary Clinton wins the nomination, the probability she will win the election is also 70%. The value of Clinton stock in this market ought to remain close to .7 times the value of her stock in the nominee market. Similarly, for Republican candidates, the value here ought to be .3 times the value to win the nomination. If the values are too far out of line, sell the expensive stock and buy the cheap one.

Good luck trading!

towstore   •   Thu Jun 13 2013 at 03:45pm PDT

I am surprised, you omitted both Kilroy and Alfred E. Neuman!

mvguy   •   Sat Jun 15 2013 at 11:51am PDT

But I included Roseanne Barr!

SneakyPete   •   Sat Jun 15 2013 at 12:14pm PDT

Great option!!!!!!

mvguy   •   Tue Jun 11 2013 at 06:29pm PDT

Now I’m curious know which names I left out that I should have included. I tried to get all reasonable candidates (and a few not so reasonable, such as Roseanne Barr, who is looking at mounting a third-party bid), but I’d be surprised if I didn’t leave someone important out.

bobdevine   •   Tue Jun 11 2013 at 07:10pm PDT

> Now I’m curious know which names I left out that I should have included.

Some other possibilities:
Joe Biden
Roy Blunt (Missouri GOP senator)
Drew Carey (Libertarian; “Price Is Right” host)
Mitch Daniels (Gov Indiana)
Jack Dalrymple (Gov North Dakota)
Bill Haslam (Gov Tennessee)
Dave Heineman (Gov Nebraska)
Dan Malloy (Gov Conecticut)
Jay Nixon (Gov Missouri)

mvguy   •   Wed Jun 12 2013 at 09:32am PDT

Good list. I thought I had put Daniels and Blunt in there, but I guess not. Joe Biden is listed near the top (with an asterisk by his name).

mvguy   •   Sun Apr 12 2015 at 01:45pm PDT

And now there’s Lincoln Chafee.

mvguy   •   Thu Apr 30 2015 at 06:09pm PDT

And Bernie Sanders.

bobdevine   •   Mon Jun 10 2013 at 12:17pm PDT

“Gary Johnson” is listed twice.

mvguy   •   Tue Jun 11 2013 at 07:28am PDT

I see him there only once.

bobdevine   •   Tue Jun 11 2013 at 01:20pm PDT

Hmmm, I wonder if there was a software bug somewhere. I don’t see a duplicate now.

mvguy   •   Tue Jun 11 2013 at 06:13pm PDT

I suppose it’s also possible that the powers that be removed it.

Rationales

"split opposition party"

unregistered_user_a!esa5Mf bought * Hillary Clinton at 61.69%
December 17, 2015 @ 09:55pm PST

"Clinton has too much baggage."

unregistered_user_uk3!eHah bought * Marco Rubio at 17.09%
December 17, 2015 @ 09:44am PST

"He is a leader. He is the smartest, toughest and citizens want his leadership."

unregistered_user_Jph9#eeg bought * Donald Trump at 1.62%
December 15, 2015 @ 08:29pm PST

"Because I think Bernie Sanders will click with the general population most of whom hate Clinton."

unregistered_user_say3#Dee bought * Any Democrat not listed at 0.33%
December 11, 2015 @ 04:57am PST

Show more

historical trend

Click on possible answers in the right column to hide/show them on the graph. You can also hover over any line to see current value at that time. Graphs will begin to show data one hour after the question has been open. The Historical Trend chart does not display all prices ever reached since it is only updated at discrete time intervals, (hourly/daily/weekly, depending on the date range).
Help
Ajax-loader

More information about the possible answers

* Any Democrat not listed

* Any Republican not listed