Clark overtakes Dean in political odds market

[David_REE]

If you don't know about it, I suggest you start following

http://www.tradesports.com

Political futures markets, where people bet real money, have historically been more accurate than polls in predicting election results. And, as far as I know, TradeSports has the highest trading volume of any political markets.

Click on "Politics" in the left-hand column. Then check out "Democratic Presidential Nominee."

Look at the number in the "Last" column to see the percentage odds, based on actual money being wagered.

Since a Clark contract has not been available, the "Field" contract represents him. (It means "someone else in the field".)

The odds right now are:
Clark 29
Dean 27
Kerry 16
Hillary 12
Lieberman 6
Gephardt 6
Edwards 3

If you click on the name, you can see a graph showing how their odds have fared in recent weeks/months. (Note that they use the DD/MM instead of MM/DD.) It's a British site, because gambling is not legal in the U.S., but most of the betters are U.S. citizens taking a small risk of being caught.

The odds had Kerry as the frontrunner for a long time. Dean overtook him a few weeks ago. And now Clark has overtaken Dean.

Also, check out their odds for Bush's re-election (63 right now). And the California governor's race, which has been fluctuating A LOT, but at this moment is Davis (recall fails) 41.9, Arnold 41.0, and Bustamante 28.0.

They also have odds on the Democratic caucuses/primaries, and the state-by-state odds in the 2004 election.

Put it in your favorites-- it's fascinating to watch on a daily basis.

[carpetbagger]

1. There's some real bargains out there.

I'm looking in particular at some red states. Bush is selling (per $100 contract) for a lot more than what he's probably worth:

AZ 87
DE 57
IL 50
IA 72
KY 90
ME 56
MI 63
MT 95
NV 84
NH 77
OR 65
PA 62
VA 92
WV 64
WI 64

[David_REE]

2. Gonna buy any contracts?

It'd be nice to make money off of political insight, for a change.

[tridim]

3. Wouldn't "field" cover the other unlisted candidates?

like Kucinich, Moseley Braun, Graham and Sharpton in addition to Clark?

Edit: It also looks like it started trending up in July, before Clark was even on the radar screen.

[David_REE]

5. Yes, but the value represents the strongest one, not the sum.

And I think we know it's none of the others that's getting front-runner status at this time.

[tridim]

6. I don't think front-runner status matters

Betters putting their money on Kucinich or Graham have to bet on "field", therefore the number is a sum of all the other candidates. I'm no expert on this stuff, but that seems logical.

[David_REE]

7. No, not at all.

If they want to buy the "Field" contract, they currently have to pay 29. They'd have to be BETTING (not just wanting) Kucinich or Graham to BE the frontrunner.

The number represents the strongest, NOT the sum.

[FlemingsGhost]

4. Talk to me in 9 months...

Just because a horse is fast out of the gate, doesn't necessarily mean it has a finishing kick.

(edited for clarity)