zimmerman8k said:
what garbage. aren't you a proponent of the efficiency of markets. if prices are out of line with what current evidence suggest, people will rush to take advantage of the expected profits. the market never runs out of money waf.
also, out of interest, who would you support here waffles?
The market for, say, oranges today works almost independently of what the price was a week ago. The betting market is skewed not to represent the chance of a candidate winning, but such that the prices reflect the amount of money that's been thrown behind each candidate over the last couple of years (because this generates a profit for the betting agency, obviously). There is, of course a link between the two, but market prices represent who people thought would win 12 months ago as much as they represent what is happening now and the longer the market runs (the US election season is nortoriously long, so this is relevant) the longer it will take the market to adjust to changes in polls, etc. Through your modelling if there happened to be a sex scandal with McCain then everyone would rush and throw hundreds of thousands on Obama, and then if Obama killed a man the betting market might be close to saturation point so there mightn't be as big a rush because they'd have to invest greater and greater amounts of money (and there is a maximum amount that people are generally willing to bet on this shit). This isn't to say that they're not a good indicator of what's happening (they are), just that they're not perfect.
McCain's been the second guy I'd back after Ron Paul since late last year, so yeah behind him.