Comments on: Sugar Momma? Did You Buy John a Lead on Intrade?

By: Rayne

Rayne — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 02:53:05 +0000

Looks like the work of somebody 1) too stupid (or young) to realize we’d notice; 2) with access to an open line of credit on a credit card.

Megan? Is that you with Mommy’s AmEx Centurion card?

By: behindthefall

behindthefall — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 22:56:41 +0000

I’ve been asking this unanswered question the past few days: If McCain wins, do we say that the polls were just wrong, or do we take that as evidence of foul play? And what do we do then?

By: freepatriot

freepatriot — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 22:26:37 +0000

intrade, more accurate than the polls ???

what a fucking joke

intrade is about as accurate as a lou dobbs on-line poll

sounds like the people making money on intrade just landed a whale

By: cinnamonape

cinnamonape — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 21:32:20 +0000

If it is an “institutional investor” wouldn’t there be a fiduciary responsibility to the others who are involved within the firm to take action against speculative transactions that are nepotistic. Unless of course there was some sort of potential economic payoff to building the probability of the one “gambled upon” actually winning.

Or perhaps there are some sub-investments occurring on the side?

By: alank

alank — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 20:20:13 +0000

Isn’t this of the same species as push-polling and voter-caging? Seems to me it is the very same. I expect these shenanigans continue as the story above drifts into the darkness.

By: earlofhuntingdon

earlofhuntingdon — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 19:28:44 +0000

If the trades were not made for financial purposes, they were made for another purpose. The only other purpose here is to influence the election, promoting McCain’s chances by making it appear that gambling statisticians predict his win. That’s not “issues oriented” advocacy, to which 527’s are limited; it’s advocacy specifically in support of McCain’s win. This use of money should constitute a political donation, not a “financial investment”, and be governed by applicable disclosure rules and spending limits governing this Deep-Throated source.

As for Intratrade’s claim that its “privacy rules” prohibit disclosing the identity of this market manipulator, why do they apply to someone trying to corner the market? Intratrade’s actions seem self-immolating. Its business, the “credibility” of its published odds, depends on avoiding, culling out, this sort of manipulation. Which suggests that the “anonymous” player that manipulated McCain’s chances of winning manipulated Intratrade’s management. I wonder if that was handing out cash under the table or something more creative than crude manipulation of the odds? How long would a casino in Vegas be in business if it allowed a player to manipulate its tables, then claimed that its privacy rules prevented telling other players who helped them incur losses?

Whose hallmark does this manipulation bear? It’s open, from a single source, making it desperate and unprincipled. It harms Intratrade’s business, making it wasteful and punitive to the cut-out, the public and the candidate it seeks to benefit. So it was done without thinking ahead. Intratrade is still protecting its source, at considerable risk to its business, which puts it on the wrong end of an abusive relationship built on dominance.

Is it Rove and his acolytes or the RNC? It would be their style to invent dozens of such collateral attacks, previously untried because unthinkable, to persuade a duped electorate that their man “won”, now something of a GOP family business. But it seems crude even by Rovian standards. It looks most like something St. John himself would do, Lady St. John really, since she’s the only one in the family with that much money to lose.

By: bmaz

bmaz — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 19:18:24 +0000

I have been rather disappointed, to say the least, with some of the things Cindy has said out on the trail; this cannot be her though, she just isn’t that stupid. Hensley Co. has actually been run pretty darn well by her, and she makes the big calls there, so i don’t think there is any chance it is them either. You do have to wonder just who the hell would do something so frivolous and insane, but I just cannot believe it is Cindy or Hensley. They have enough losses on McCain already.

By: bell

bell — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 19:14:42 +0000

hilarious! intrade would be in no position to release info as to who it was as they would have confidentially rules of some sort too… the answer is appears fairly straightforward however convoluted these same people have worked to conceal it…

By: drational

drational — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 18:55:45 +0000

This was so inefficient (short-term organic bounceback, restricted to intrade rather than all markets) that it had to have been “organized” by the McCain campaign.

It would be interesting to go back and see if anyone from the campaign was pointing to intrade as “McCain gains” in blogs or press discussions during that time.

I am wondering if the buys might be considered “advertising” and subject to FEC rules?

By: emptywheel

emptywheel — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 18:49:50 +0000

Yeah. It actually really fries my butt that Intrade won’t confirm or deny his player has ties to McCain. The takeaway from this OUGHT to be “Intrade is a complete hoax.”