re: #195 Vicious Babushka

LOLOLOLOL PRICELESS

[Embedded content]

Not as dumb though as it looks at first blush:

“It is worth knowing that a highly visible market that drove many a media narrative could be manipulated at a cost less than that of a primetime television commercial,” the authors write.

It’s funny because it kind of reconfirms the idea that conservatives can’t distinguish between cause and effect. However the strength of cognitive biases in political betting markets lends credence to the idea that one theoretically could, to a very minor degree, influence the outcome by manipulating the betting market.

Of course Intrade wasn’t the only betting market, it was an extreme outlier giving Romney far better odds than all the other betting websites, so it’s no coincidence that it was by far the one most cited in the American press who wanted a horserace for ratings reasons. In fact, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the betting was being done by someone with a major ownership stake in one or more US cable news channels. Such a person / corporation could have made far more money in increased ad rates than they lost on Intrade.