Political campaigns spend billions to make their candidate win. We know that one of the most important things in order to get a candidate to win, is the percept

Political campaigns spend billions to make their candidate win. We know that one of the most important things in order to get a candidate to win, is the perception of strength. There's the theoretical risk of complacency, that people don't turn up to vote for your candidate because they think he will win anyway, but in practice that seems to be more than made up for with discouragement on the other side - especially on the donor's side. Voters may be willing to turn up to cast a vote of defiance, but self-interested donors will not throw money at a candidate who won't get in a position to reward them for it. So if people are paying attention to prediction markets at all, why wouldn't a campaign pour money into it to create the perception that their candidate is doing better than they are? Betting on a statistically impossible walkover win isn't a problem if your goal is to create the impression of fanatic support anyway. There's not that much money in these markets, so it shouldn't take all that much money to move them, in the scale of a US presidental election.