/* trackback code -- i added this */

Tuesday, July 19, 2005

Wrong Edith?

Update 9: I have Roberts confirmed (NB: I didn't say Bush has Roberts confirmed) from a source who would know.

Update 8: As I posted Update 7, Josh Marshall posted saying AP says Roberts.

Update 7: Well, ABC is now saying it's Roberts. And his stock has blown through the roof at TS.

As of 5:20pm EDT, Tradesports (click on Legal then Supreme Court) makes Edith Jones the favorite (P=about 0.50) to get the nod from W tonight.

News reports or no, Clement gets a lot less love (her bid is 13.5, though her ask is a much-higher 25), with Priscilla Owen nearby (12.1/19.9).

Wish I had a TS account.

Update: ABC's website is reporting that a source says it won't be Clement. If you look at the Tradesports contracts for today, there's a huge plummet in Clement's stock this evening (London time) and a huge upward spike in Jones's. Makes you wonder if there are some insiders here.

Update 2: And now Jones has taken a big dive of about 10 points in the few minutes since I wrote the first update. You want to see market volatility, go to TS.

Update 3: Welcome, TPMCafe readers. I hope you'll stay a while and look around. In the meantime, let me tell you that the "Supreme Court Female" contract at Tradesports has gone from the 40s to the 90s today and is now back down to 80ish. Unfortunately, no one I know in the MSM can tell me any more about what is going on right now, beyond the obvious fact that there's some disinfo in the system.

Update 4: ABC now reporting that Clement has been told by the WH they decided to go in a "different direction". Further update: A source in the MSM who would know says they "are hearing" that "it is definitely not Clement".

Update 5: Tradesports news -- Luttig's stock just shot up to about 30, from basically 0.

Update 6: Regarding Update 5, I should have noted that Luttig's Ask price shot up, but his Bid didn't move much. This is means that people holding Luttig shares became more reluctant to let them go, even though those who didn't already have them weren't clamoring to get them. This dynamic is actually consistent with a phenomenon in psychology/behavioral economics known as Loss Aversion. It's a somewhat controversial subject, but there's definitely empirical support for it. Calling Dick Thaler and Sendhil Mullainathan: here's a nice application.....


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home