
Jim Bourg / Reuters file
The GOP presidential field includes, from left, former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum, U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, Texas Gov. Rick Perry and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, shown at attention during the playing of the National Anthem during a Nov. 22 debate. Romney, Paul and Santorum are favored to finish in the top three spots in the Iowa GOP caucuses, while Perry's fortunes have fallen in the polls and the prediction markets.
Last updated 12:45 p.m. ET Jan. 4:
The pundits portrayed the Iowa GOP presidential caucuses as a tight three-way race, but market traders settled on an order of finish even before Tuesday's voting began. They had former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney first, U.S. Rep. Ron Paul second, and former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum third.
The contest turned out to be tighter than even the pundits expected: Romney led Santorum by just eight votes, with Paul not too far behind in third. But when it comes to the Republican nomination, Romney holds a far more commanding lead, at least for now.
Iowa's precinct-level party caucuses were convened to select delegates to go to the county-level conventions, but the real reason why GOP presidential candidates spent the past few months shuttling around the Hawkeye State was because this was the first real-world test of strength in an actual 2012 election. The same could be said for the pollsters and the prediction markets.
Most of the political handicapping you've heard about is based on traditional polling, which tallies up voters' preferences as expressed during telephone interviews. But for more than two decades, researchers have been experimenting with market techniques for sizing up political propositions — and so far, they've found that open market exchanges have been at least as accurate as the pollsters in predicting the results of elections.
Justin Wolfers, an economist at Penn's Wharton School who's been studying prediction markets for years, expected the accuracy record to hold for Tuesday's results, even though caucus outcomes are notoriously difficult to predict.
"All the usual ways we have for gathering information, including polls, are going to be much more screwy," he told me on Tuesday. "Someone's going to be surprised tomorrow. But ... empirical evidence suggests that prediction markets will be the least bad predictor."
How political markets work
Prediction markets let investors purchase "shares" in a particular proposition — for example, that Romney would finish either first or second in the Iowa caucus vote. Over the course of the campaign, they can sell off those shares and buy different ones, depending on how they gauge the candidates' chances. The price fluctuates based on supply and demand, but when the election occurs, the traders who backed the winning proposition get a set payoff. The traders who backed the wrong horse get nothing.
The idea is that markets provide a good vehicle for distilling the "wisdom of crowds," particularly when traders put their money or prestige behind their prediction. It's a lot like online gambling, but totally legal.
The nation's longest-running political prediction market happens to be headquartered in the Hawkeye State: Traders on the Iowa Electronic Markets buy and sell shares with real money, in hopes of reaping a $1-per-share return. Their account is limited to $500, so nobody makes a fortune. But the exercise is a valuable research tool for economists at the University of Iowa's Tippie College of Business, which manages the markets under a no-action arrangement with federal regulators.
Inkling Markets offers similar political trading, but with play money rather than real money at stake. And then there are offshore betting markets such as InTrade and Betfair. A website known as PredictWise.com aggregates the InTrade and Betfair statistics for political propositions.
On all these markets, the stated percentage or value for a given proposition reflects the probability that the proposition will come true. That's different from political polls, which reflect voter preferences in percentage terms. Thus, the numbers you see on the political markets don't exactly track the numbers you see in polling results. But the rankings on Tuesday afternoon were the same as what was seen in the polls: Romney first, followed by Paul and Santorum. Here's how the markets looked at 4:45 p.m. ET Tuesday afternoon, with 100 being the maximum value:
• Iowa Electronic Markets: 81.8 cents for Romney, 69.6 cents for Paul, 51.8 cents for "Rest of Field" (primarily Santorum). This is a market to predict who'll be in the top two.
• Inkling Markets: 73.2 percent for Romney, 15.3 for "Anyone Else" (primarily Paul), 10.1 for Santorum.
• Betfair: 48.3 percent for Romney, 29.4 for Paul, 23.1 for Santorum.
• InTrade: 49.3 percent for Romney, 25.6 for Paul, 24.2 for Santorum.

IEM
This chart shows the wildly fluctuating values for candidates' shares on the Iowa Electronic Markets. For the past few days, Mitt Romney's shares have been most highly valued, followed by Ron Paul and ROF or "Rest of Field," which includes Rick Santorum.
The projected outcome, as reflected in the markets, closely tracked what the polls were suggesting, Wolfers said. "The prediction markets are somewhat more bullish about Mitt Romney," he observed. If Romney didn't lead the pack, that would have been a surprise for the pundits — and for the traders as well.
There are a few additional twists to the trading. For example, much was made of Santorum's late surge in the polls, but the trading suggested that the surge hit its peak a few days ago and fell back somewhat.
After the top three, the GOP field's share values dropped dramatically. University of Iowa spokesman Tom Snee noted that within the past few days, traders had U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann's shares at 0.2 cents, compared with businessman Herman Cain's 0.3 cents. "What they're saying is that Bachmann has less of a chance to win than someone who's not running anymore," Snee said. (Cain's shares have sunk since then, however.)
The big picture for the GOP nomination
For now, the traders on all the markets give Romney the overwhelming edge for the Republican nomination. The IEM had him at 81 cents on Tuesday, Inkling had him at 85.06 percent, and Betfair and InTrade had him at 74.4 and 79.8 percent, respectively.
If Romney faltered in Iowa, these prices could have changed overnight. Literally.
Joyce Berg, the IEM's director, noted that four years ago, Hillary Clinton was the market favorite before the Iowa caucuses, but was displaced by Barack Obama afterward. Clinton made an unexpected resurgence in the 2008 New Hampshire primary but eventually lost ground again to Obama. "What we're seeing is that markets are very good aggregators of news," Berg said. "In our markets, people appear to trade with their heads, not their hearts."
The IEM's traders are primed to respond quickly to the results of the caucuses, just as traders on the New York Stock Exchange respond quickly to the latest unemployment figures. So the fact that Romney has been on top for the past few months is no guarantee, in the political world or in the marketplace. "If he did not finish in the top two, that would be news," Berg said. "You would expect that to show up in the Republican convention market."
Wolfers said the fact that the GOP field was so wide in the run-up to the Iowa caucuses made this "one of the most unstable markets we've ever seen," in large part because the different voting constituencies didn't want to waste their votes on someone who wasn't perceived as a potential winner. Evangelical Christians, for example, might have wavered between several candidates based on the perception of their chances. Now there's a good chance that the evangelical vote will coalesce behind Santorum.
"It's not a standard two-horse race," Wolfers observed. "The dynamics when you have strategic voting are very, very volatile."
How do you think the Iowa caucus results compared with the pre-election predictions? Weigh in with your comments below.
Update for 5:45 p.m. ET Jan. 3: Mashable and Global Point Research are checking out whether positive sentiments expressed in Twitter tweets can be correlated with the Iowa caucus results. Analysis of data collected between Dec. 27 and 30 shows a big spike for Santorum, which would mesh with his surge of support in the polls and prediction markets.
Update for 9:28 p.m. ET Jan. 3: The betting on InTrade and Betfair shifted quickly toward Ron Paul, making him the betting favorite. Romney fell to No. 2, with Santorum rated No. 3. The order on the IEM and Inkling Markets was unchanged: Romney, Paul, Santorum. Inkling, meanwhile, closed its market for the night at 9 p.m. ET, so there'll be no chance for folks to change their prediction.
Update for 11:25 p.m. ET Jan. 3: By this time it was clear that Ron Paul will finish third, but Romney and Santorum were neck-and-neck for first and second. InTrade and Betfair favored Romney to squeak out a victory. The IEM's traders basically valued Romney's and Santorum's shares at the maximum price of $1, in recognition of the fact that they were both assured of finishing in the top two. It was possible to make a quick buck by betting on Santorum: Someone who invested $51.80 in 100 of his shares on Tuesday afternoon will get $100 on Wednesday.
Update for 3:40 a.m. ET Jan. 4: I've updated this report with the complete results from Iowa, headlined by Romney's eight-vote edge and Santorum's surprisingly strong surge.
Update for 12:45 p.m. ET Jan. 4: One of the night's other big winners was Justin Wolfers, the prediction-market expert from Penn's Wharton School. FiveThirtyEight.com's polling guru, Nate Silver, bet Wolfers a steak dinner that Santorum would be the top vote-getter in the Iowa caucuses, but Wolfers prevailed along with Romney by an eight-vote margin. Wolfers is a pescetarian who eats fish but not steak, so Silver will have to pay off with seafood. "Am I allowed to request a recount in Iowa if I have a seafood dinner riding on the outcome?" he asked in a Twitter tweet. (Sorry, Nate, there'll be no recount, even if seafood is at steak ... er, stake.)
More about prediction markets:
- How to make an honest profit in politics
- 2012 political markets open for business
- Buying into all sorts of predictions
For the latest results from Iowa and their significance for the 2012 presidential campaign, check in with NBCPolitics.com.
Alan Boyle is msnbc.com's science editor. Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page, following @b0yle on Twitter and adding the Cosmic Log page to your Google+ presence. You can also check out "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for new worlds.


Even if you win, you lose. Hillarious. I'd be ashamed to call myself a republican with this car of clowns.
Yup! That's one of the many reasons why the independent voting bloc has been growing while those that affiliate themselves as Republicans is shrinking and the Democrats are barely holding tight.
Short of Obama doing something really stupid before November, he's pretty much got this election in the bag.
Jon Stewart did a fantastic episode last night and compared Romney's approach "the same sort of 'out-of-touchedness' as John Kerry in 2004".
First off...Lt. Governor makes things happen...well wasn't that what Perry was (before he became a governor)? However, I really think that is the other way around.
Now, maybe some of you on the board "believe" the drivel that comes out of the mouths of these pols. I don't. I fact check...and I live now in Texas ( but was born & raised in california & lived in new jersey till 2000). But...later for that. We have Romney who decided to get out of Michigan and become a Bostonian Blue Blood. Can you see the headlines if he is elected "President out of touch with most of America". I guess so...the man does not know what it is like to be poor or middle class. He was pro choice than pro-life. He lied about his decision...in that he not only further funded planned parenthood...he appointed judges that upheld pro-choice ideology. Then he lied in the debates..yup. We talk about Perry's oops moment...Hey Press...what about WILLARD not remembering his first and last name. That's as bad as our current president thinking we have 57 states. Newt. Yes...the man with ideas...lots of them...without any main, centralized conclusion that correlate with each other. WOW...can you imagine the stock market with his ideas popping out one after the other...the shorts would be broke and the investors would also. Let the people decide who stays and goes with regard to immigration??? Hatfields and McCoys all over again. Bachmann...I've had 27 kids and I'm a tax attorney, my husband has gotten $$ for Federal Grants to change people's minds about their sex orientation. People...why is the government involved in giving money for that? Isn't that something one finds out by themselves? Just asking. Paul. He likes the Constitution and makes sense on many issues...BUT and there is a BIG BUT....foreign affairs...Iran...having books published under his name and not knowing the content??? Oh...bubbles...bubbles...bubbles. Do you think that the American people are that adept in economics that they understand bubbles. You lose them there Congressman Paul. Huntsman...I believe you know world affairs better than most. Unfortunately, you painted yourself as a moderate...when in fact your governed as a Conservative. I believe you are a practicing Mormon and saw that Iowa was not a place to campaign which begs me to question...is WILLARD a practicing Mormon or has he flipped into another religion? Santorum...Mega mistake today in Iowa...it will be played as George Allen's macaca moment. He wants to give Black people jobs so they can support their families. Rick...how about we want to give Americans jobs and stop with the divisive language. You know...American. Oh...you might be socially Conservative...but fiscally...you like to spend lots of our money. Bridge of Nowhere....or the Montana Sheep Farm? What's up with that? You want to subsidize private companies that manufacture to compete...that's our money...what happened to the free market system WITHOUT GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION?
Now to Perry. I see all since 2001. Big population explosion since last time. Building four more lanes on the interstates from a year and one half ago. New housing...and not low end either. New businesses coming in...and with that...all the service industries along with it, i.e., restaurants, barbers, electricians, car dealers, etc. Insurance is going down in Texas. Tort reform has paid off. The healthcare...Healthy Texas has really paid off for the people. Did you know that Texas was the 13th largest economy in the world? They are also responsible for 63+% of Obama's job creation.
Some people say Rick Perry is an idiot... But...if the above results are from idiots...we need more of them because the elitists in DC are running this country into the ground. So...I live here...Im seeing it...I truly believe. Governor Perry is telling the truth about Texas and he will bring us out of the ditch if elected...because I've seen it happen in this state....it just wasn't campaign rhetoric!!!! It was the truth...how refreshing!!!
RICK PERRY - 2012
Rick Perry = Bush 2.5
I'm not buying it. We've tried the Evangelical governors from Texas rout before. Didn't turn out so well last time either.
At least Bush Jr's handlers managed to keep quiet all the drug abuse and the row of failed businesses W. left in his wake leading up to office.
Perry is a corporate shill, just like the rest of the presidential contenders; and much like Pelosi and Gingrich, Perry's hand was caught in the cookie jar as seen with his Gardasil-fiasco back in the Lone Star State.
Too bad Bachman was so nutty that even when she bit down onto some serious flesh during the earlier debates, she quickly managed to ruin all of her credibility by going Jenny McCarthy on the issue.
Lastly, Perry didn't "create" any jobs. He's eating other states' lunches by undercutting business income tax rates as a loss-leader approach propped up by revenues from mineral royalties. Perry's strategy works great as a governor and I commend him for that, but it is not a strategy that works equivalently on a global level.
What's so cosmic about this log?
Well, Bachman is a space case