Catherine Rampell noted earlier Monday afternoon that the Intrade odds for the "Democratic candidate" winning the 2012 election and for Obama winning the 2012 election don't match up perfectly. I downloaded the data and charted the spread.
The clearest interpretation I can give the spread is that it reflects the odds that Obama will die in office, which has happened to eight of his predecessors. But unfortunately for data lovers, it's pretty hard to credit this as a meaningful forecast. The spread has actually gone negative on many days, implying that people thought—as recently as Sept. 19—that there was some chance Obama could win the election but not as the Democratic nominee.
The real issue here is simply that the Intrade markets don't have enough trading in them to process information efficiently. Arbitrage opportunities arise all the time without being instantly exploited by highly leveraged hedge funds, and consequently weird stuff like this keeps happening. Somewhat ironically more "noise" traders buying and selling for no real reason might help eliminate these things by creating a deeper market that it would make more sense for arbitrageurs to dive into.
TODAY IN SLATE
Slate Plus Early Read: The Self-Made Man
The story of America’s most pliable, pernicious, irrepressible myth.
Rehtaeh Parsons Was the Most Famous Victim in Canada. Now, Journalists Can’t Even Say Her Name.
Mitt Romney May Be Weighing a 2016 Run. That Would Be a Big Mistake.
Amazing Photos From Hong Kong’s Umbrella Revolution
Transparent Is the Fall’s Only Great New Show
Rehtaeh Parsons Was the Most Famous Victim in Canada
Now, journalists can't even say her name.
Lena Dunham, the Book
More shtick than honesty in Not That Kind of Girl.