So the Tradesports people have futures markets for various Election 2008 scenarios. Among the contracts up for bid are the likelihood of the various candidates becoming the Democratic/Republican nominee and the likelihood of the various candidates of becoming president.
So I figure that some combination of these two contracts will reveal who the market thinks is the strongest candidate for either party. Say, for instance, the contract for Joe Schmoe becoming the Democratic nominee is trading at 25 and the contract for Mr. Schmoe becoming president is trading at 13. It stands to reason, then, that the market is essentially telling us that should Schmoe actually become the nominee, he has a 13/25 = 52% chance of winning.
So apply this principle to the leading Republican candidates and we see the following:
Giuliani = 16.0/38.0 = 42.1% chance of winning if nominated
Thompson = 9.0/23.5 = 38.3% chance of winning if nominated
Romney = 8.4/23.0 = 36.5% chance of winning if nominated
McCain = 2.3/5.5 = 41.8% chance of winning if nominated
Not much of a spread, fairly consistent across the board, with Giuliani the strongest candidate (regarded as most likely to win the presidency should he be the Republican nominee) and Romney as the weakest.
Now to the leading Democrats:
Clinton = 43.7/65.6 = 66.6% chance of winning if nominated
Obama = 7.8/15.6 = 50% chance of winning if nominated
Edwards = 2.8/6.4 = 43.8% chance of winning if nominated
Very intersting. First of all, a much wider spread than seen for the Republican field. Second of all, even the weakest Democrat is seen as more likely to win the presidency if nominated than the strongest Republican. And finally, it's pretty clear that the market has decided that Hillary Clinton would be the strongest Democratic nominee - the most likely to win the presidency if nominated - and John Edwards is the weakest.