marketing (betting) charts have been found to be more accurate at predicting victories than polling in nearly every instance, kucinich and Dodd aren't on their because almost no one is willing to bet money they will win.

For example, tt's interesting that Huckabee is so much lower in this than in polling - but it makes complete sense. Huckabee has a lot of baggage that will curtail his support once people come aware of it, which is why people arent willing to bet money on him, and is part of the reason this type of data has more predictive value. (there's the whole efficiency of markets thing also)

*******************
These crappy charts are about as reliable as Billboard telling us what is "hot".

WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP IF:

The winner in Iowa determines the winner in NH...
and
The winner in NH determines who will be the nominee?

OUR NATION IS SCREWED IF:

People in Iowa and New Hampshire choose who we get to run for President?

Total and Complete Bullshit.

Combine that with the broken "Electoral College"
and the fact that
WE STILL HAVE VOTING MACHINES
that we KNOW are crappy and easy to break into
(you can buy a key online for 6 bucks)
(or get one for free from your local hacker)
and
WE
ARE
A
MESS!

Somebody do something!

(crickets)

(crickets)

(croak) (crickets)

Anyone?

Help!
***********

These polls are meaningless and irrelevant. They don't include the most important candidates: Kucinich and Dodd. It's just another attempt by the MSM to pick our candidates for us.

There you have it! Some official looking, fancy charts and your instructions how to vote.

Drumroll please
Clinton. No because she is a woman and you GW supporters would never put a woman in charge.
Giuliani. 3 ex-wifes can't be wrong.
Obama. Not white enough, or too white for some.
Romney. Life long elitist and a JFK wannabe.
Huckabee. To nice. Makes to much sense and not backed by Faux News.
Paul. The next great white hope to some. To unknown for the average American.
Gore. To smart to and to rich to care.

America needs to see another sweep by anyone-but-a-Republican, like we did in 2006. There will be no return to sanity as long as the Republicans have the presidency and can block the senate.

Hillary is so far ahead she won't even win Iowa.

Poll that.

It looks like Senator Clinton is still the one to beat!

So, who the heck is intrade.com, and what qualifications do they have to predict anything but what a tiny fraction of the electorate thinks? I don't think idlers with nothing better to do than to waste money buying "futures" on candidates represent a significant demographic or reliable cross-section.

I disagree with the Democratic New Hampshire prediction, now with the endorsement Obama just got

Very realistic charts to any well informed person in America and the global village.

This is just aggregated punditry. Not worth looking at.

***************************
SUCK IT, SEAN!
hahaha!********************

Heres a presentation tip - if you use a color for a candiate - say blue for Obama - then use blue for that candidate on every chart.

Calm down, Kranky. This is a futures market. People are betting on the outcome based on their best guesses from their own perspective and in the hopes of making money. Viz Wisdom of Crowds.
These charts are a lot easier to read than the Intrade site itself. Also, check out Iowa Electronic Markets, which I think is the oldest of these news prediction sites.