On Intrade, here’s the standings for the 2008 election (security pays 100 if individual is elected):

1. 32.7 Clinton
2. 17.4 Obama
3. 16.0 Thompson
4. 13.2 Giuliani
5. 9.5 Romney
6. 7.6 Gore
7. 4.7 McCain
8. 3.1 Edwards
9. 1.2 Bloomberg

Adds up to 105. Could some partisans be trying to raise their favorite’s numbers?

On Intrade, here’s the standings for the 2008 election (security pays 100 if individual is elected):

1. 32.7 Clinton
2. 17.4 Obama
3. 16.0 Thompson
4. 13.2 Giuliani
5. 9.5 Romney
6. 7.6 Gore
7. 4.7 McCain
8. 3.1 Edwards
9. 1.2 Bloomberg

Adds up to 105. Could some partisans be trying to raise their favorite’s numbers?

On Intrade, here’s the standings for the 2008 election (security pays 100 if individual is elected):

1. 32.7 Clinton
2. 17.4 Obama
3. 16.0 Thompson
4. 13.2 Giuliani
5. 9.5 Romney
6. 7.6 Gore
7. 4.7 McCain
8. 3.1 Edwards
9. 1.2 Bloomberg

Adds up to 105. Could some partisans be trying to raise their favorite’s numbers?

Economics is the only subject where two economists can share a Nobel Prize saying opposing things.
Roberto Alazar

But all the big names (25 all told including a bevy of Nobel winners) agree on this:

Prediction markets are markets for contracts that yield payments based on the outcome of an uncertain future event, such as a presidential election. Using these markets as forecasting tools could substantially improve decision making in the private and public sectors.

We argue that U.S. regulators should lower barriers to the creation and design of prediction markets by creating a safe harbor for certain types of small stakes markets. We believe our proposed change has the potential to stimulate innovation in the design and use of prediction markets throughout the economy, and in the process to provide information that will benefit the private sector and government alike.

Amen. Too late for Poindexter.