Fuck its silent in here.......

[J. Walter Weatherman]

I was shocked to learn last night that Iran would use Syria as its access to the sea.



Yes, yes, I'm sure the Governor meant to say "Mediterranean."

I must have missed that.

[Gilgamesh]

I was shocked to learn last night that Iran would use Syria as its access to the sea.



Yes, yes, I'm sure the Governor meant to say "Mediterranean."

I must have missed that.

I didn't miss that either.

[Bort]

I was shocked to learn last night that Iran would use Syria as its access to the sea.



Yes, yes, I'm sure the Governor meant to say "Mediterranean."

I must have missed that.

I didn't miss that either.

Not to be a total Bort, but why on earth would anyone DVR the deba--

Oh wait. You're Gil. Carry on.

[SKO]

I was shocked to learn last night that Iran would use Syria as its access to the sea.



Yes, yes, I'm sure the Governor meant to say "Mediterranean."

I must have missed that.

I didn't miss that either.

Not to be a total Bort, but why on earth would anyone DVR the deba--

Oh wait. You're Gil. Carry on.

Based on twitter, Gil DVR'd the Bears game and watched the debate live, because he is the worst person in the world.

[flannj]

I was shocked to learn last night that Iran would use Syria as its access to the sea.



Yes, yes, I'm sure the Governor meant to say "Mediterranean."

I must have missed that.

I didn't miss that either.

Not to be a total Bort, but why on earth would anyone DVR the deba--

Oh wait. You're Gil. Carry on.

Based on twitter, Gil DVR'd the Bears game and watched the debate live, because he is the worst person in the world.

Gil DVR'd the Bears game and watched the debate live AND DVR'd the debate.

[Bort]

I was shocked to learn last night that Iran would use Syria as its access to the sea.



Yes, yes, I'm sure the Governor meant to say "Mediterranean."

I must have missed that.

I didn't miss that either.

Not to be a total Bort, but why on earth would anyone DVR the deba--

Oh wait. You're Gil. Carry on.

Based on twitter, Gil DVR'd the Bears game and watched the debate live, because he is the worst person in the world.

Gil DVR'd the Bears game and watched the debate live AND DVR'd the debate.

Gil is going to keep the debate on his DVR until his deluxe debate Blu-Ray box set with exclusive commentary by Andrew Sullivan arrives.

[Gilgamesh]

I was shocked to learn last night that Iran would use Syria as its access to the sea.



Yes, yes, I'm sure the Governor meant to say "Mediterranean."

I must have missed that.

I didn't miss that either.

Not to be a total Bort, but why on earth would anyone DVR the deba--

Oh wait. You're Gil. Carry on.

Based on twitter, Gil DVR'd the Bears game and watched the debate live, because he is the worst person in the world.

Gil DVR'd the Bears game and watched the debate live AND DVR'd the debate.

Gil is going to keep the debate on his DVR until his deluxe debate Blu-Ray box set with exclusive commentary by Andrew Sullivan arrives.

That made me actually spit out my Coke now.  Damn you all!!

[J. Walter Weatherman]

Nice try, Morph...

http://twitter.com/justinwolfers/status/260755924493418496

From 9:57-10:03 this morning, someone pushed the Romney's Intrade stock from 41 to 48. Total outlay was $17.8k, and they overpaid by $1250.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/10/should-presidential-campaigns-spend-more-money-manipulating-intrade/264000/

DT: What just happened?

JW: At around 9:57am this morning, I noticed something funny happening on InTrade: Obama's stock was tanking, and this was happening in the absence of any concrete political news. Barnard College's Rajiv Sethi alerted me over Twitter that this was really due to some unusual trades in the Romney stock (which then ultimately affect Obama).

In the chart below, you can see this very clearly: Romney's stock shot up from 41 to 48 in a matter of minutes (suggesting that his chances of winning the election had risen from 41% to 48%).



To be clear: We don't know what caused this. It may have been an attempt at manipulating the market. It may also have been a trader with fat fingers making a mistake. But the fact that the uptick took several minutes, rather than occurring instantly, suggests that perhaps it wasn't fat fingers. It still may have been some other form of naive trading. Remember: When you're buying a stock, you want to minimize the extent to which you bid the price up, because that only makes it more expensive for you. These trade did the opposite. It's hard to think of a way of having a more immediate impact on the price.

How much might this sort of manipulation have cost?

The total quantity of Romney stock traded between 9:57 and 10:03 was around $17,800. But that's not the "cost" of this manipulation (if that's what it was), because the buyer got stock in return. If we value that stock at 41 (rather than the higher price he paid), the net cost of this manipulation/error was about $1,250.

What did the trader get in return?

About six minutes where Romney's stock rose sharply. Notice though that the effect disappeared very quickly. The Obama Flash Crash disappeared nearly as quickly as it appeared.

Two conclusions follow. First, you can manipulate prediction markets fairly easily. But second, you won't get much bang for your buck.

Considering the attention Intrade prices get in media, is is possible that sustained Intrade manipulation would be a relatively smart use of campaign money?

My guess is that a campaign would have been better off with another $1250 spent on get-out-the-vote efforts than on the six minutes of a higher stock price that Romney got this morning.

But that doesn't say much. There are surely more subtle, and hence less expensive ways of manipulating political prediction markets. And there are times when it will likely also yield some useful publicity -- something that a short-term blip at 10am on a Tuesday won't do.

There are several scholars right now looking at manipulation of political prediction markets. They tell me that they have some circumstantial evidence that InTrade has been the subject of several manipulation attempts, but I'm yet to see their work, so I'm not sure how seriously to take it.

[morpheus]

Nice try, Morph...

http://twitter.com/justinwolfers/status/260755924493418496

From 9:57-10:03 this morning, someone pushed the Romney's Intrade stock from 41 to 48. Total outlay was $17.8k, and they overpaid by $1250.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/10/should-presidential-campaigns-spend-more-money-manipulating-intrade/264000/

DT: What just happened?

JW: At around 9:57am this morning, I noticed something funny happening on InTrade: Obama's stock was tanking, and this was happening in the absence of any concrete political news. Barnard College's Rajiv Sethi alerted me over Twitter that this was really due to some unusual trades in the Romney stock (which then ultimately affect Obama).

In the chart below, you can see this very clearly: Romney's stock shot up from 41 to 48 in a matter of minutes (suggesting that his chances of winning the election had risen from 41% to 48%).



To be clear: We don't know what caused this. It may have been an attempt at manipulating the market. It may also have been a trader with fat fingers making a mistake. But the fact that the uptick took several minutes, rather than occurring instantly, suggests that perhaps it wasn't fat fingers. It still may have been some other form of naive trading. Remember: When you're buying a stock, you want to minimize the extent to which you bid the price up, because that only makes it more expensive for you. These trade did the opposite. It's hard to think of a way of having a more immediate impact on the price.

How much might this sort of manipulation have cost?

The total quantity of Romney stock traded between 9:57 and 10:03 was around $17,800. But that's not the "cost" of this manipulation (if that's what it was), because the buyer got stock in return. If we value that stock at 41 (rather than the higher price he paid), the net cost of this manipulation/error was about $1,250.

What did the trader get in return?

About six minutes where Romney's stock rose sharply. Notice though that the effect disappeared very quickly. The Obama Flash Crash disappeared nearly as quickly as it appeared.

Two conclusions follow. First, you can manipulate prediction markets fairly easily. But second, you won't get much bang for your buck.

Considering the attention Intrade prices get in media, is is possible that sustained Intrade manipulation would be a relatively smart use of campaign money?

My guess is that a campaign would have been better off with another $1250 spent on get-out-the-vote efforts than on the six minutes of a higher stock price that Romney got this morning.

But that doesn't say much. There are surely more subtle, and hence less expensive ways of manipulating political prediction markets. And there are times when it will likely also yield some useful publicity -- something that a short-term blip at 10am on a Tuesday won't do.

There are several scholars right now looking at manipulation of political prediction markets. They tell me that they have some circumstantial evidence that InTrade has been the subject of several manipulation attempts, but I'm yet to see their work, so I'm not sure how seriously to take it.

Zerohedge had a different take.

[Wheezer]

Nice try, Morph...

http://twitter.com/justinwolfers/status/260755924493418496

From 9:57-10:03 this morning, someone pushed the Romney's Intrade stock from 41 to 48. Total outlay was $17.8k, and they overpaid by $1250.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/10/should-presidential-campaigns-spend-more-money-manipulating-intrade/264000/

DT: What just happened?

JW: At around 9:57am this morning, I noticed something funny happening on InTrade: Obama's stock was tanking, and this was happening in the absence of any concrete political news. Barnard College's Rajiv Sethi alerted me over Twitter that this was really due to some unusual trades in the Romney stock (which then ultimately affect Obama).

In the chart below, you can see this very clearly: Romney's stock shot up from 41 to 48 in a matter of minutes (suggesting that his chances of winning the election had risen from 41% to 48%).



To be clear: We don't know what caused this. It may have been an attempt at manipulating the market. It may also have been a trader with fat fingers making a mistake. But the fact that the uptick took several minutes, rather than occurring instantly, suggests that perhaps it wasn't fat fingers. It still may have been some other form of naive trading. Remember: When you're buying a stock, you want to minimize the extent to which you bid the price up, because that only makes it more expensive for you. These trade did the opposite. It's hard to think of a way of having a more immediate impact on the price.

How much might this sort of manipulation have cost?

The total quantity of Romney stock traded between 9:57 and 10:03 was around $17,800. But that's not the "cost" of this manipulation (if that's what it was), because the buyer got stock in return. If we value that stock at 41 (rather than the higher price he paid), the net cost of this manipulation/error was about $1,250.

What did the trader get in return?

About six minutes where Romney's stock rose sharply. Notice though that the effect disappeared very quickly. The Obama Flash Crash disappeared nearly as quickly as it appeared.

Two conclusions follow. First, you can manipulate prediction markets fairly easily. But second, you won't get much bang for your buck.

Considering the attention Intrade prices get in media, is is possible that sustained Intrade manipulation would be a relatively smart use of campaign money?

My guess is that a campaign would have been better off with another $1250 spent on get-out-the-vote efforts than on the six minutes of a higher stock price that Romney got this morning.

But that doesn't say much. There are surely more subtle, and hence less expensive ways of manipulating political prediction markets. And there are times when it will likely also yield some useful publicity -- something that a short-term blip at 10am on a Tuesday won't do.

There are several scholars right now looking at manipulation of political prediction markets. They tell me that they have some circumstantial evidence that InTrade has been the subject of several manipulation attempts, but I'm yet to see their work, so I'm not sure how seriously to take it.

Zerohedge had a different take.

What does Orly Taitz have to say?

[J. Walter Weatherman]

Nice try, Morph...

http://twitter.com/justinwolfers/status/260755924493418496

From 9:57-10:03 this morning, someone pushed the Romney's Intrade stock from 41 to 48. Total outlay was $17.8k, and they overpaid by $1250.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/10/should-presidential-campaigns-spend-more-money-manipulating-intrade/264000/

DT: What just happened?

JW: At around 9:57am this morning, I noticed something funny happening on InTrade: Obama's stock was tanking, and this was happening in the absence of any concrete political news. Barnard College's Rajiv Sethi alerted me over Twitter that this was really due to some unusual trades in the Romney stock (which then ultimately affect Obama).

In the chart below, you can see this very clearly: Romney's stock shot up from 41 to 48 in a matter of minutes (suggesting that his chances of winning the election had risen from 41% to 48%).



To be clear: We don't know what caused this. It may have been an attempt at manipulating the market. It may also have been a trader with fat fingers making a mistake. But the fact that the uptick took several minutes, rather than occurring instantly, suggests that perhaps it wasn't fat fingers. It still may have been some other form of naive trading. Remember: When you're buying a stock, you want to minimize the extent to which you bid the price up, because that only makes it more expensive for you. These trade did the opposite. It's hard to think of a way of having a more immediate impact on the price.

How much might this sort of manipulation have cost?

The total quantity of Romney stock traded between 9:57 and 10:03 was around $17,800. But that's not the "cost" of this manipulation (if that's what it was), because the buyer got stock in return. If we value that stock at 41 (rather than the higher price he paid), the net cost of this manipulation/error was about $1,250.

What did the trader get in return?

About six minutes where Romney's stock rose sharply. Notice though that the effect disappeared very quickly. The Obama Flash Crash disappeared nearly as quickly as it appeared.

Two conclusions follow. First, you can manipulate prediction markets fairly easily. But second, you won't get much bang for your buck.

Considering the attention Intrade prices get in media, is is possible that sustained Intrade manipulation would be a relatively smart use of campaign money?

My guess is that a campaign would have been better off with another $1250 spent on get-out-the-vote efforts than on the six minutes of a higher stock price that Romney got this morning.

But that doesn't say much. There are surely more subtle, and hence less expensive ways of manipulating political prediction markets. And there are times when it will likely also yield some useful publicity -- something that a short-term blip at 10am on a Tuesday won't do.

There are several scholars right now looking at manipulation of political prediction markets. They tell me that they have some circumstantial evidence that InTrade has been the subject of several manipulation attempts, but I'm yet to see their work, so I'm not sure how seriously to take it.

Zerohedge had a different take.

Sure.

[Richard Chuggar]

Nice try, Morph...

http://twitter.com/justinwolfers/status/260755924493418496

From 9:57-10:03 this morning, someone pushed the Romney's Intrade stock from 41 to 48. Total outlay was $17.8k, and they overpaid by $1250.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/10/should-presidential-campaigns-spend-more-money-manipulating-intrade/264000/

DT: What just happened?

JW: At around 9:57am this morning, I noticed something funny happening on InTrade: Obama's stock was tanking, and this was happening in the absence of any concrete political news. Barnard College's Rajiv Sethi alerted me over Twitter that this was really due to some unusual trades in the Romney stock (which then ultimately affect Obama).

In the chart below, you can see this very clearly: Romney's stock shot up from 41 to 48 in a matter of minutes (suggesting that his chances of winning the election had risen from 41% to 48%).



To be clear: We don't know what caused this. It may have been an attempt at manipulating the market. It may also have been a trader with fat fingers making a mistake. But the fact that the uptick took several minutes, rather than occurring instantly, suggests that perhaps it wasn't fat fingers. It still may have been some other form of naive trading. Remember: When you're buying a stock, you want to minimize the extent to which you bid the price up, because that only makes it more expensive for you. These trade did the opposite. It's hard to think of a way of having a more immediate impact on the price.

How much might this sort of manipulation have cost?

The total quantity of Romney stock traded between 9:57 and 10:03 was around $17,800. But that's not the "cost" of this manipulation (if that's what it was), because the buyer got stock in return. If we value that stock at 41 (rather than the higher price he paid), the net cost of this manipulation/error was about $1,250.

What did the trader get in return?

About six minutes where Romney's stock rose sharply. Notice though that the effect disappeared very quickly. The Obama Flash Crash disappeared nearly as quickly as it appeared.

Two conclusions follow. First, you can manipulate prediction markets fairly easily. But second, you won't get much bang for your buck.

Considering the attention Intrade prices get in media, is is possible that sustained Intrade manipulation would be a relatively smart use of campaign money?

My guess is that a campaign would have been better off with another $1250 spent on get-out-the-vote efforts than on the six minutes of a higher stock price that Romney got this morning.

But that doesn't say much. There are surely more subtle, and hence less expensive ways of manipulating political prediction markets. And there are times when it will likely also yield some useful publicity -- something that a short-term blip at 10am on a Tuesday won't do.

There are several scholars right now looking at manipulation of political prediction markets. They tell me that they have some circumstantial evidence that InTrade has been the subject of several manipulation attempts, but I'm yet to see their work, so I'm not sure how seriously to take it.

Zerohedge had a different take.

What does Orly Taitz have to say?

[morpheus]

A Justin Wolfers Tweet

Romney's Intrade contract stuff

Zerohedge had a different take.

Sure.

I believe you mispronounced "shoah."

[Slaky]

Nice try, Morph...

http://twitter.com/justinwolfers/status/260755924493418496

From 9:57-10:03 this morning, someone pushed the Romney's Intrade stock from 41 to 48. Total outlay was $17.8k, and they overpaid by $1250.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/10/should-presidential-campaigns-spend-more-money-manipulating-intrade/264000/

DT: What just happened?

JW: At around 9:57am this morning, I noticed something funny happening on InTrade: Obama's stock was tanking, and this was happening in the absence of any concrete political news. Barnard College's Rajiv Sethi alerted me over Twitter that this was really due to some unusual trades in the Romney stock (which then ultimately affect Obama).

In the chart below, you can see this very clearly: Romney's stock shot up from 41 to 48 in a matter of minutes (suggesting that his chances of winning the election had risen from 41% to 48%).



To be clear: We don't know what caused this. It may have been an attempt at manipulating the market. It may also have been a trader with fat fingers making a mistake. But the fact that the uptick took several minutes, rather than occurring instantly, suggests that perhaps it wasn't fat fingers. It still may have been some other form of naive trading. Remember: When you're buying a stock, you want to minimize the extent to which you bid the price up, because that only makes it more expensive for you. These trade did the opposite. It's hard to think of a way of having a more immediate impact on the price.

How much might this sort of manipulation have cost?

The total quantity of Romney stock traded between 9:57 and 10:03 was around $17,800. But that's not the "cost" of this manipulation (if that's what it was), because the buyer got stock in return. If we value that stock at 41 (rather than the higher price he paid), the net cost of this manipulation/error was about $1,250.

What did the trader get in return?

About six minutes where Romney's stock rose sharply. Notice though that the effect disappeared very quickly. The Obama Flash Crash disappeared nearly as quickly as it appeared.

Two conclusions follow. First, you can manipulate prediction markets fairly easily. But second, you won't get much bang for your buck.

Considering the attention Intrade prices get in media, is is possible that sustained Intrade manipulation would be a relatively smart use of campaign money?

My guess is that a campaign would have been better off with another $1250 spent on get-out-the-vote efforts than on the six minutes of a higher stock price that Romney got this morning.

But that doesn't say much. There are surely more subtle, and hence less expensive ways of manipulating political prediction markets. And there are times when it will likely also yield some useful publicity -- something that a short-term blip at 10am on a Tuesday won't do.

There are several scholars right now looking at manipulation of political prediction markets. They tell me that they have some circumstantial evidence that InTrade has been the subject of several manipulation attempts, but I'm yet to see their work, so I'm not sure how seriously to take it.

Zerohedge had a different take.

What does Orly Taitz have to say?

Perfect

[J. Walter Weatherman]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/03/24/donald-trump-wants-to-see-barack-obama-s-long-form-birth-certificate.aspx

Later, he doubts the two 1961 newspaper clippings announcing the birth of Obama, because he's "seen fraud" before -- a rationale that I could use to develop a theory that "Donald Trump" is actually a PCP-addicted gardener, on the run from the Federales for a crime he didn't commit, who kidnapped the real Donald Trump in 2004 and stole his identity.

I used to actually not hate teh Donald, but his ditching of any sensible moderation in favor of the right wing's lowest common denominator is as transparent and cynical as it is wrong.  Fuck this ruh-tard and his dumbass wig.

Very big anticipatory bump for Trump's very big game-changing announcement that the media is going to cover in a very big fashion and that could possibly change the course of this race in a very, very big way.