Replies

No, they aren't more accurate.

I just googled it because I remember 2004 and how lousy they called that one.

http://www.geekmedia.org/tradesports/

Tradesports had Bush getting 227 with Kerry getting 311.

Oh, yeah, and Bush lost Ohio.

From Kaus on the two betting sites IEM and Tradesports

http://www.slate.com/id/2109137/

Conclusion excerpted-So, what are we to conclude? Over the long-term of the campaign, IEM was quite accurate in projecting the vote distribution. And over the long term, both markets projected the winner. But so, by and large, did the polls. The furious and seemingly irrational Election Day market action stands as evidence that the traders are more poll-followers than poll-beaters.

In short, the betters saw the MSM push polls and panicked. Last week they heard Christians would abandon over Foley and they panicked. Their results likely are as close to reality as Bush losing in 2004 after they got the false exit polls.

That data you pulled was from election day on which there was false data being disseminated by the Demos...but go back and look at these betting contracts for all the days before the election, they were correct....these betting sites incorporate "all best currently known information"...if bad information is being bandied about, then they will be off. If someone said Bill Gates died, and there was good reason to believe that to be true, Microsoft stock would fall....but, if later we learned that Bill Gates was fine and healthy, Microsoft stock would go back up...it doesn't mean the stock was "wrong" to drop.....the stock price simply incorporated "all best known information"....that is why stock fluctuates throughout the trading day...it is incorporating information about the company and the economy to determine the right price...subject to change with new, better information..... Anyhow, all best known information is, it will be a tough election day for House Repubs....subject to change....but accurate given current info.