In-House News

Once upon a time, whilst indulging a youthful taste for overstatement, I tried to maintain that if you paid Ron Brownstein to leave the LA Times and start a reported blog instead, that you'd destroy about 50 percent of the Times' value as a news source. That may have been going to far, and I don't think he's going to be writing a blog, but I introduce this idea by way of noting that I'm pretty psyched that Brownstein's going to be joining the Atlantic Media Company mini-empire as political director.

Meanwhile, in other corporate news, the National Journal Political Stock Exchange is now up and running. I'm not totally sure I understand why "prediction markets" aren't the same as illegal gambling (I'm "predicting" that the roulette wheel will land on a red square, right?) but they're pretty fun to watch.

Comments

Obscenely good pickup.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | September 18, 2007 9:00 AM

"I don't think he's going to be writing a blog"

That's really too bad. It would be incredibly cool if he did.

Posted by Petey | September 18, 2007 9:09 AM

That's really too bad. It would be incredibly cool if he did.

Yeah . . . maybe I'll be able to tempt him into my decadent lifestyle . . . who knows.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | September 18, 2007 9:24 AM

Yeah . . . maybe I'll be able to tempt him into my decadent lifestyle . . . who knows.

You're talking about the gay sports bars again?

Posted by southpaw | September 18, 2007 9:26 AM

the roulette wheel will land on a red square

Uh, it's the ball that lands, not the wheel.

Posted by Ryan | September 18, 2007 9:35 AM

i don't know exactly how the $$ works in a prediction market, but i think as long as the market operator isn't taking a vig / skimming of the top / whatever it's called, it's OK.

Posted by gambling genius | September 18, 2007 9:53 AM

"I'm not totally sure I understand why "prediction markets" aren't the same as illegal gambling "

Intrade operates out of Dublin precisely because prediction markets are indeed considered illegal gambling in the US.

Posted by Petey | September 18, 2007 9:56 AM

"I'm not totally sure I understand why "prediction markets" aren't the same as illegal gambling "

And FYI, the Iowa Electronic Market has always had a government exemption from prosecution since investors are limited to a $500 investment, and since political prediction markets are seen as having more of a public service than sports prediction markets.

But Intrade is technically illegal from a US government perspective.

Posted by Petey | September 18, 2007 10:01 AM

I'm pretty psyched that Brownstein's going to be joining the Atlantic Media Company mini-empire as political director.

Geez, did George Steinbrenner become majority owner of the Atlantic? You guys are picking up high priced free agents all over the place.

Meanwhile, in other corporate news, the National Journal Political Stock Exchange is now up and running.

I like it. They ought to allow for private leagues instead of just an overall leaderboard - then we can all see who actually knows what they are talking about here. Petey would have big money on Edwards, right?

Posted by Al | September 18, 2007 10:04 AM

"Petey would have big money on Edwards, right?"

At current Intrade prices, Petey rates Edwards and McCain as strong buys.

Posted by Petey | September 18, 2007 10:08 AM

I'm not familiar with Brownstein's writing, but IMHO as a long-time Atlantic reader, better front-of-the-book feature stories are what the magazine needs most. Hopefully Brownstein will find some time to produce some (in addition to doing whatever a "political director" does.)

Posted by James Gary | September 18, 2007 10:11 AM

Speaking of in-house news, Sullivan has "Daily Dish" and McMeg has "Asymmetrical Information" as their blog titles and you got nothing.

"The Ringleader-of-sorts" would suit you (or anything with a gay sports bar theme works too).

Posted by beowulf | September 18, 2007 11:17 AM

I'm not totally sure I understand why "prediction markets" aren't the same as illegal gambling (I'm "predicting" that the roulette wheel will land on a red square, right?) but they're pretty fun to watch.

It depends how you set up the prediction market. In most states, gambling and "games of chance" are prohibited only if the house takes a cut.* But 100% payout games are usually okay. For example, your weekly poker game in a friends' basement is legal in most states (though not all).

If NRO's market is free to all comers and requires no fees paid to the operators of the website, then there'd be no problem.** InTrade, by contrast, requires fees and commissions paid to the site operators.

----

*There are usually additional restrictions on gambling activities in establishments serving alcohol.

**As you might expect, there are also restrictions to prevent "100% payout" gambling being used as a loss leader to attract customers to the revenue generating parts of the business. If NRO uses the market to increase ad revenues on those pages, there might be a problem.

Posted by EthanS | September 18, 2007 11:30 AM

There's some law/precedent to the effect that chance has to be an overwhelming influence of chance over skill for something to be gambling, which might explain it. Of course, any rule which puts poker on the chance side is officially 'interesting'.

Posted by Justin | September 18, 2007 11:34 AM

"There's some law/precedent to the effect that chance has to be an overwhelming influence of chance over skill for something to be gambling"

Hogwash.

Posted by Petey | September 18, 2007 11:59 AM

"If NRO's market is free to all comers and requires no fees paid to the operators of the website, then there'd be no problem."

First of all, NRO's "market" is not for real money, so there's obviously no legal problem.

Second, internet gambling is governed by the feds, not the state. And the presence or not of fees to the operator is irrelevant to the feds.

Posted by Petey | September 18, 2007 12:04 PM

The last time I read anything from Brownstein he was peddling this tripe about how "brave" Rudy was for acting like a total coward...

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-brownstein25jul25,0,3879519.column?coll=la-opinion-rightrail

Now Mr. Brownstein may have been having a bad day, but that was some of the most shallow, "couldn't be more wrong if he tried" analysis I've seen in some time.

Posted by Rihilism | September 18, 2007 12:50 PM

(I'm "predicting" that the roulette wheel will land on a red square, right?)

Taken as a series of bets (on roulette or whatever), you will win 49.3% of the time in a casino. It's random, but fixed, chance. Whereas a stock market (even a prediction market) isn't 'fixed'. So you takes your chances, but the market operator isn't going to rake off 50.7% of the table.

Beyond that, however, it don't look like a casino, so it ain't one.

max
['The Awful and Usually Senseless Majesty of the Law.']

Posted by max | September 18, 2007 2:27 PM

Cute market, but without money kinda silly. Even if your goal is to win the leaderboards, that just makes you horribly risk-friendly.

Posted by Tony V | September 18, 2007 2:33 PM

Although I do love the idea of such markets for making contrarians put their money where their mouth is. "Oh? you think there's a good chance of a McCain resurgence? Then go bet on him, since you'd make a killing."

My own political contrarianism (and so bet on)
Thompson is overvalued
Richardson is undervalued

Posted by Tony V | September 18, 2007 2:36 PM

"Cute market, but without money kinda silly. Even if your goal is to win the leaderboards, that just makes you horribly risk-friendly."

Exactamundo.

-----

"Richardson is undervalued"

Perhaps so, but only in a tactical fashion. You're going to have to sell into strength at some point before it gets too late, because that contract is going to eventually end up at zero. Richardson isn't ultimately nominatable.

Posted by Petey | September 18, 2007 4:37 PM

"Oh? you think there's a good chance of a McCain resurgence? Then go bet on him, since you'd make a killing."

You don't even have to think there's a "good" chance of a McCain resurgence. At 20 to 1, it's a bit of a no-brainer.

Posted by Petey | September 18, 2007 4:39 PM

going to far ?

going too far!

Harvard?

Posted by An Outhouse | September 19, 2007 8:24 AM