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?

I suspect that if it was Clinton and Anybody except Clinton, she would have the same percentage.

Sam, I postulated the same thing on another board a couple of weeks ago.

Still, right now with so few people bought in a year and a half out, a little money will move those numbers alot

What? No Ron Paul? It's a conspiracy!

I'm really hoping that in the next hundred 'presidential debates' this year, all of these candidates make the public so disgusted with their party infighting and sickening partisanship that an independant with real policy solutions like Michael Bloomberg or Bill Gates (he hasn't said he's not running) wipes the floor with them.

After fourteen years of abysmal governance in both the legislative and executive branch, the US sure as hell can't afford eight years more.

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

The last 5% are illegals and dead people.

Why isn't Dave Barry on the list?

"Michael Bloomberg"

Bloombut? What a joke!

That extra five percent is the built-in profit (aka, the "Juice") for the bookmaker, in this case Intrade. The odds are set so that the bookie and give the winner's money to the losers and pocket the Juice, and if he's set the odds so that betting is on all candidates equally, that's exactly what he'll do. For this reason, future ups and downs on the odds are as likely to be a result of the betting on the candidate as opposed to the candidate actually having increased or decreased odds of winning. (though the latter is likely to affect the former)

That's a better deal than Vegas where to bet a game on a point spread you have to bet $1.10 to win $1.00, which means Vegas takes in a 10% Juice on football game bets.

Bloombut? What a joke!

Absolutely, but despite being a joke no one else in the field even comes close.

On one side we have eight more years of Clinton (either the old hag, or the younger blacker version), and on the other you have Romney, Giuliani or McCain, none of whom should be running a dairy queen let alone a country.

"Absolutely, but despite being a joke no one else in the field even comes close.

On one side we have eight more years of Clinton (either the old hag, or the younger blacker version), and on the other you have Romney, Giuliani or McCain, none of whom should be running a dairy queen let alone a country."

Fred Dalton Thompson is the man to run the country. The field will change shortly with his arrival.

I'm not well versed in his views, largely because he has so few, but I really hope that Thompson wasn't serious with his remarks on forcing regime change in Iran militarily. I really don't think we need a third Vietnam right now.

When we actually get a second one and not something else that the intellectually lazy call a second Vietnam, then I will give a crap.

Who is going to take over Iran if we destabilize the extreme mullahs? That one can only go one way and that is better.

Ok, if you won't agree that we're in a Vietnam would you at least settle on a Cambodia?

Betting in favor of unlikely events is highly leveraged. Ie, one risks much less capital betting on the 1 in 100 longshot than on the 99 in 100 longshot. So odds tend to skew in favor of the unlikely event. This is a well-known phenomena that shows up in markets everywhere.

Ignoring Intrade's transaction fees and trading on margin, a trader would have to bet $7.95 now to get $8 sometime in mid 2008 (the other side would bet $1.05 and get back $1 then). A typical savings account has better return. One can trade on margin, but so can the buyer. If you also consider that the above purchase would (according to my estimate) generate $0.03 in transaction fees, that $0.05 profit has now been reduced to $0.02.