(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
(T
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)"> (This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
(T
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)">
[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ucr/wpaper/201711.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Information Flow Between Prediction Markets, Polls and Media: Evidence from the 2008 Presidential Primaries

Author

Listed:
  • Urmee Khan

    (Department of Economics, University of California Riverside)

  • Robert Lieli
Abstract
Are the forecast errors of election-eve polls themselves forecastable? We present evidence from the 2008 Democratic Party nomination race between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton showing that the answer is yes. Both cross-sectional and time series evidence suggests that market prices contain information about election outcomes that polls taken shortly before the contests do not. Conversely, election surprises relative to polls too Granger cause subsequent price movements. We then investigate whether the additional information in prices could come from the media coverage of these campaigns, and uncover a set of complex relationships between pollster’s surprise, price movements, and various aspects of media coverage. Prices anticipate the balance and content of media coverage, but not the volume. On the other hand, it is the volume of media coverage, not the balance or content, that anticipates the surprise element in election outcomes. Moreover, Granger causality between prices and election surprises barely changes after controlling for media coverage, and causality from media volume to surprises persists too after controlling for price movements. Taken together, the results suggest that both prices and the volume of media coverage contain independent election-relevant information that is not captured in polls.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
(T
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Urmee Khan & Robert Lieli, 2017. "Information Flow Between Prediction Markets, Polls and Media: Evidence from the 2008 Presidential Primaries," Working Papers 201711, University of California at Riverside, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:ucr:wpaper:201711
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://economics.ucr.edu/repec/ucr/wpaper/201711.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2017
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jacobsen, Ben & Potters, Jan & Schram, Arthur & van Winden, Frans & Wit, Jorgen, 2000. "(In)accuracy of a European political stock market: The influence of common value structures," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 205-230, February.
    2. Berg, Joyce & Forsythe, Robert & Nelson, Forrest & Rietz, Thomas, 2008. "Results from a Dozen Years of Election Futures Markets Research," Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, in: Charles R. Plott & Vernon L. Smith (ed.), Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 80, pages 742-751, Elsevier.
    3. Andrew Leigh & Justin Wolfers, 2006. "Competing Approaches to Forecasting Elections: Economic Models, Opinion Polling and Prediction Markets," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 82(258), pages 325-340, September.
    4. Jonathan B. Hill, 2007. "Efficient tests of long-run causation in trivariate VAR processes with a rolling window study of the money-income relationship," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(4), pages 747-765.
    5. Kou, S. G. & Sobel, Michael E., 2004. "Forecasting the Vote: A Theoretical Comparison of Election Markets and Public Opinion Polls," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 12(3), pages 277-295, July.
    6. Christian Franz Horn & Bjoern Sven Ivens & Michael Ohneberg & Alexander Brem, 2014. "Ideas Markets: Prediction Markets – A literature review 2014," Journal of Prediction Markets, University of Buckingham Press, vol. 8(2), pages 89-126.
    7. Taamouti, Abderrahim & Bouezmarni, Taoufik & El Ghouch, Anouar, 2014. "Nonparametric estimation and inference for conditional density based Granger causality measures," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 180(2), pages 251-264.
    8. Rothschild, David, 2015. "Combining forecasts for elections: Accurate, relevant, and timely," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 952-964.
    9. Justin Wolfers & Eric Zitzewitz, 2004. "Prediction Markets," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 18(2), pages 107-126, Spring.
    10. Joyce E. Berg & Thomas A. Rietz, 2003. "Prediction Markets as Decision Support Systems," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 79-93, January.
    11. Jean-Marie Dufour & Eric Renault, 1998. "Short Run and Long Run Causality in Time Series: Theory," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 66(5), pages 1099-1126, September.
    12. Steger, Wayne P., 2008. "Forecasting the presidential primary vote: Viability, ideology and momentum," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 193-208.
    13. Lewis-Beck, Michael S. & Skalaban, Andrew, 1989. "Citizen Forecasting: Can Voters See into the Future?," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 19(1), pages 146-153, January.
    14. Clemen, Robert T., 1989. "Combining forecasts: A review and annotated bibliography," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 5(4), pages 559-583.
    15. Murr, Andreas E., 2015. "The wisdom of crowds: Applying Condorcet’s jury theorem to forecasting US presidential elections," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 916-929.
    16. Gelman, Andrew & King, Gary, 1993. "Why Are American Presidential Election Campaign Polls So Variable When Votes Are So Predictable?," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 23(4), pages 409-451, October.
    17. Lewis-Beck, Michael S. & Tien, Charles, 1999. "Voters as forecasters: a micromodel of election prediction," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 175-184, April.
    18. Granger, C. W. J., 1980. "Testing for causality : A personal viewpoint," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 329-352, May.
    19. Granger, C W J, 1969. "Investigating Causal Relations by Econometric Models and Cross-Spectral Methods," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 37(3), pages 424-438, July.
    20. Geweke, John & Meese, Richard & Dent, Warren, 1983. "Comparing alternative tests of causality in temporal systems : Analytic results and experimental evidence," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 161-194, February.
    21. Graefe, Andreas & Armstrong, J. Scott & Jones, Randall J. & Cuzán, Alfred G., 2014. "Combining forecasts: An application to elections," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 43-54.
    22. Georgios Tziralis & Ilias Tatsiopoulos, 2007. "Prediction Markets: An Extended Literature Review," Journal of Prediction Markets, University of Buckingham Press, vol. 1(1), pages 75-91, February.
    23. Berg, Joyce E. & Nelson, Forrest D. & Rietz, Thomas A., 2008. "Prediction market accuracy in the long run," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 285-300.
    24. Hiemstra, Craig & Jones, Jonathan D, 1994. "Testing for Linear and Nonlinear Granger Causality in the Stock Price-Volume Relation," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 49(5), pages 1639-1664, December.
    25. Sims, Christopher A, 1972. "Money, Income, and Causality," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 62(4), pages 540-552, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Urmee Khan & Robert Lieli, 2010. "Information Processing in Prediction Markets: An Empirical Investigation," Working Papers 201426, University of California at Riverside, Department of Economics.
    2. Jonathan B. Hill, 2005. "Causation Delays and Causal Neutralization up to Three Steps Ahead: The Money-Output Relationship Revisited," Econometrics 0503016, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 23 Mar 2005.
    3. Lennart Sjöberg, 2009. "Are all crowds equally wise? a comparison of political election forecasts by experts and the public," Journal of Forecasting, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(1), pages 1-18.
    4. Yaser Abolghasemi & Stanko Dimitrov, 2021. "Determining the causality between U.S. presidential prediction markets and global financial markets," International Journal of Finance & Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(3), pages 4534-4556, July.
    5. Salamaliki, Paraskevi K. & Venetis, Ioannis A., 2013. "Energy consumption and real GDP in G-7: Multi-horizon causality testing in the presence of capital stock," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 108-121.
    6. Li, Haiqi & Zhong, Wanling & Park, Sung Y., 2016. "Generalized cross-spectral test for nonlinear Granger causality with applications to money–output and price–volume relations," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 52(PB), pages 661-671.
    7. Joyce E. Berg & John Geweke & Thomas A. Rietz, 2010. "Memoirs of an indifferent trader: Estimating forecast distributions from prediction markets," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 1(1), pages 163-186, July.
    8. Ghysels, Eric & Hill, Jonathan B. & Motegi, Kaiji, 2016. "Testing for Granger causality with mixed frequency data," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 192(1), pages 207-230.
    9. Patrick Buckley & Fergal O’Brien, 0. "The effect of malicious manipulations on prediction market accuracy," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-13.
    10. Bonato, Matteo & Gupta, Rangan & Lau, Chi Keung Marco & Wang, Shixuan, 2020. "Moments-based spillovers across gold and oil markets," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    11. Coulomb, Renaud & Sangnier, Marc, 2014. "The impact of political majorities on firm value: Do electoral promises or friendship connections matter?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 158-170.
    12. repec:grz:wpsses:2019-01 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Patrick Buckley & Fergal O’Brien, 2017. "The effect of malicious manipulations on prediction market accuracy," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 611-623, June.
    14. Stephanie-Carolin Grosche, 2014. "What Does Granger Causality Prove? A Critical Examination of the Interpretation of Granger Causality Results on Price Effects of Index Trading in Agricultural Commodity Markets," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 65(2), pages 279-302, June.
    15. Snowberg, Erik & Wolfers, Justin & Zitzewitz, Eric, 2013. "Prediction Markets for Economic Forecasting," Handbook of Economic Forecasting, in: G. Elliott & C. Granger & A. Timmermann (ed.), Handbook of Economic Forecasting, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 657-687, Elsevier.
    16. Goodell, John W. & McGroarty, Frank & Urquhart, Andrew, 2015. "Political uncertainty and the 2012 US presidential election: A cointegration study of prediction markets, polls and a stand-out expert," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 162-171.
    17. Robert Reig & Ramona Schoder, 2010. "Forecasting Accuracy: Comparing Prediction Markets And Surveys – An Experimental Study," Journal of Prediction Markets, University of Buckingham Press, vol. 4(3), pages 1-19.
    18. Taoufik Bouezmarni & Jeroen V.K. Rombouts & Abderrahim Taamouti, 2011. "Nonparametric Copula-Based Test for Conditional Independence with Applications to Granger Causality," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(2), pages 275-287, October.
    19. Reade, J. James & Vaughan Williams, Leighton, 2019. "Polls to probabilities: Comparing prediction markets and opinion polls," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 336-350.
    20. Tai, Chung-Ching & Lin, Hung-Wen & Chie, Bin-Tzong & Tung, Chen-Yuan, 2019. "Predicting the failures of prediction markets: A procedure of decision making using classification models," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 297-312.
    21. Stefan Palan & Jürgen Huber & Larissa Senninger, 2020. "Aggregation mechanisms for crowd predictions," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(3), pages 788-814, September.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ucr:wpaper:201711. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kelvin Mac (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deucrus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.