Source: Bigstock

When things looked murkier for the Donald back in February, the Gray Lady chimed in on prediction markets, almost gleefully reporting his chances were greater than 50% of securing the nomination. Now that prediction markets have the anointed one safely on her way to the White House again, this time in her man-pants-suit, The New York Times keeps stories about the FBI investigation of e-mails buried and also keeps quiet about the fact that markets have predicted that Hillary Clinton has already won. No wonder her campaign is so lackluster; it is all over except for turning calendar leaves, and most of her campaign staff are focusing on having head of presidential transition Mary Gibert, of the General Services Administration, on speed dial and picking out their offices.

Given their accuracy, prediction markets should be watched all the time rather than the news, but instead they appear to be only a freak feature story on thin news days. The top left column of the Drudge Report should have a constant prediction market feed, but instead the last time Drudge gave a nod to prediction markets over polls was in January in a tweet, not even on his page. Drudge’s lack of emphasis on prediction markets as a source of news flow is curious, given that financial headlines on the Drudge Report have been linked to bearish market movements.

And the lack of attention prediction markets receive in proportion to their accuracy and significance is all the more curious given that the single point of tangency of big-tent conservatism is that markets and money are good things.