This doesn't even mean anything to me. This is just bored people with money playing a little gambling game.

Rouge trader.

What Greg @1 said. Freaking out about the election because of election futures trading results is like freaking out about the NFL season because of fantasy football scores.

As discussed here previously, there's no particular reason to assume that the Intrade market knows much more than you do.

Jonathan, could you elaborate about how this reflects on the potential for Obama to be harmed? Are you implying that someone seems to think it more likely that not only McCain, but Clinton, will be the next president?

Sorry @5:

The hypothesis goes like this:
If you're planning on harming Obama, or somehow causing him to drop out and make Clinton the candidate instead, you would bet against Obama winning the election on the futures market.

Because you know what you're planning on doing--but others don't--you have an opportunity to make bit of cash. You know the true odds of the event better than other people, because you planning on changing the outcome yourself.

A real world example of this might be right before the 9/11 attacks, when a bunch of insurance and airline company stocks had unusually high amounts of short selling (a bet that a stock is going to go down in the near future.) The attackers knew that the stocks would take a beating, and so bet on the very outcome they were trying to create.

I'm not sure how much I buy this. I tend to agree with the other commenters: this seems like a pathetic gambler (a PUMA, or bored republican) fucking around rather than a serious threat.

Those rouge traders.... I bet his/her next target will be shorting Estee Lauder futures contracts

Rogue trader

Golob, stop repeating james bond plotlines.

I spent a year trading futures at Intrade, and think that there's real potential in future's markets to predict outcomes. But, I'm not convinced that the numbers of traders at Intrade is yet strong enough to provide reliable results. Far from it, actually. The traders there are dramatically influenced by simple day-to-day polling and fluctuate much to radically.

Don't read this too closely just yet, especially don't look at small subsets of trades and try to figure out reality. The numbers of traders are yet too small to be significant.

If you read the entire five thirty eight post, they propose that by buying shares in Clinton, someone--perhaps someone important or "in the know"--is making large bets on some kind of disqualifying event happening to Obama, eg assassination. It's kind of like the put options placed on the 9/11 airlines.

Lame. Some smart Republican went in there to play mindgames with guillable Dems.

When Sarah Palin acquires the Goldeneye, rouge futures will skyrocket in a revived and pitbullish market.

There is not enough money in these markets to be significant. Look at the book on the Obama contract. Even if you go 10 asks deep, you're still only dealing with less than 1000 or so contracts, which would have a notional value of no more than 10000 bucks. Assuming that intrade allows standard margin, people can easily bully the market with only a few thousand bucks.

Remember when Ron Paul was trading at 15%? Hilarious.

Look, markets are stupid. Markets are like monkeys at typewriters. Over time, they will average out to something but that something isn't necessarily correct or helpful. And the price at a given slice in time isn't even that good.

repeat the lie elenchos, while you participate in it.

Bellevue, it has been forever since anything you posted about me make a lick of sense. What the fuck are you trying to say?

I know that everyone wants to discount these (because it's creepy), but these markets have been historically more accurate than polling.