I don't think the betting markets are reliable election indicators anymore. For starters, they could be manipulated by campaigns looking to influence plausibility and keep donations coming in.
But even if that weren't happening, there's another big problem which is that a large portion of Trump supporters believe the election process is likely to be rigged.
Such a person might believe Trump will garner more real votes, but would not want to bet on the outcome. If say 40 or 50 percent of Trump supporters (obviously I'm making up that number, but seems plausible to me) feel this way and don't bet, that means there are 3:1 Harris supporters in the pool of bettors, and that's going to skew the odds massively.
As such, I think the betting markets are terrible indicators this time around.
(The reason this occurred to me was that Polymarket (I read somewhere) had Tim Walz as a big favorite to win the debate. Seemed like that would only be possible if Trump voters were disinclined to bet due to perceived rigging.)
That means much of the analysis around election odds (which if fueled by manipulable polls and poor-indicator betting markets) is garbage-in, garbage out.
Personally, I have two takes on the real election odds:
1. To the extent cheating is possible (and some of that will depend on the vigilance of the citizenry) the chance it happens approaches 100 percent.
And
2. When the usual indicators (polling, betting markets) have been gamed, look to the fundamentals. In this case, it's bad economy, high inflation, immigration crisis paired with a candidate that lacks political skill, i.e., the ability to persuade people and inspire confidence.
I don't know how much cheating will ultimately be allowed, so I can't predict the official result, but to me the fundamentals say landslide.
Chris Liss
npub1dt…4hgu0
2024-10-02 17:45:20
Author Public Key
npub1dtf79g6grzc48jqlfrzc7389rx08kn7gm03hsy9qqrww8jgtwaqq64hgu0Published at
2024-10-02 17:45:20Event JSON
{
"id": "6ec3192dfadde4ce7122c5290e80c0a9234784f7855cff744022e18f4513621c",
"pubkey": "6ad3e2a34818b153c81f48c58f44e5199e7b4fc8dbe37810a000dce3c90b7740",
"created_at": 1727891120,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"client",
"Nostur",
"31990:9be0be0fc079548233231614e4e1efc9f28b0db398011efeecf05fe570e5dd33:1685868693432"
]
],
"content": "I don't think the betting markets are reliable election indicators anymore. For starters, they could be manipulated by campaigns looking to influence plausibility and keep donations coming in. \n\nBut even if that weren't happening, there's another big problem which is that a large portion of Trump supporters believe the election process is likely to be rigged. \n\nSuch a person might believe Trump will garner more real votes, but would not want to bet on the outcome. If say 40 or 50 percent of Trump supporters (obviously I'm making up that number, but seems plausible to me) feel this way and don't bet, that means there are 3:1 Harris supporters in the pool of bettors, and that's going to skew the odds massively. \n\nAs such, I think the betting markets are terrible indicators this time around.\n\n(The reason this occurred to me was that Polymarket (I read somewhere) had Tim Walz as a big favorite to win the debate. Seemed like that would only be possible if Trump voters were disinclined to bet due to perceived rigging.) \n\nThat means much of the analysis around election odds (which if fueled by manipulable polls and poor-indicator betting markets) is garbage-in, garbage out. \n\nPersonally, I have two takes on the real election odds:\n\n1. To the extent cheating is possible (and some of that will depend on the vigilance of the citizenry) the chance it happens approaches 100 percent. \n\nAnd \n\n2. When the usual indicators (polling, betting markets) have been gamed, look to the fundamentals. In this case, it's bad economy, high inflation, immigration crisis paired with a candidate that lacks political skill, i.e., the ability to persuade people and inspire confidence. \n\nI don't know how much cheating will ultimately be allowed, so I can't predict the official result, but to me the fundamentals say landslide.\n",
"sig": "ca0e50f8b1fc4ac0025a56738a24e971854cf64220cc7fe9efa5359b7a874ae6572ef940eb524d0a82c3b80ee2c34fc4ff2665c53d5ec46614d567b4c6c71b3e"
}