The ProQuest P.R. machine sends Koleman Strumpf’s research paper on the historical prediction markets to all journalists, so as to generate good Press for ProQuest, and it works fine, as intended.
[CORRECTION: Jack Shafer found the Strumpf paper on his own. The ProQuest publicist sent him "a batch of clips on the topic culled by the company." Then, Jack Shafer googled for more.]
-
[...] Rhode and Strumpf attribute the demise of election betting to a number of causes. The law generally looked down on such wagers, and it grew tougher over time. Newspapers started giving less coverage to the wagers as they discovered “ethics.” The legalization of pari-mutuel betting on horse races in New York in 1939 provided a much better product for gamblers. And stock exchanges started barring members from gambling on elections.
The final nail, Rhode and Strumpf write, was the advent of the scientific poll, especially Gallup’s successful call of the 1936 election, which supplied newspapers with a “ready substitute for the betting odds, one not subject to the moral objections against gambling.”
As our culture’s moral objections against gambling approach zero [*], what excuse do daily newspapers have for ignoring the trove of political intelligence contained in its prices posted by Intrade, Iowa, and others? As indicators of future results, how much worse can they be than Zogby? They’d sure make better reading.
-
[*] Bizarre comment. There are moral objections to gambling all over the Christian Right. [Jack Shafer is a hard-core libertarian, FYI.]
-
