ELECTION BETTING MARKETS
Big news: Harris has now pulled ahead of Trump as the betting favorite in the 2024 presidential election.
This post isn’t a grave dance. Rather, I’ll offer some straight non-partisan analysis and also ask a few questions.
First, the facts (according to recent changes in global betting markets):
— Bettors at Polymarket predict Harris-Walz now has a slight advantage, with a 49 percent chance of winning compared to Trump-Vance’s 48 percent (I’m not sure why this doesn’t add up to 100 percent, but these numbers were taken from the article).
— This data shows a dramatic shift from a few weeks ago, when markets gave Trump a numerical 64 percent chance to win, compared to Harris’ 29 percent (ibid).
— Polymarket also predicts Harris now has a 71 percent chance of winning the American popular vote, compared to Trump’s 27 percent.
— Bookmakers on the New Zealand-based PredictIt (which has been very reliable in past elections) give Harris even stronger victory odds of 57 percent.
READ THE FULL REPORT HERE AT FORBES
Earlier, I got into a discussion with Bob Jones about this. I was curious why betting markets would shift by such a significant number based on nothing in particular in recent days. Sure, Harris’ VP pick of Walz might have boosted the percentages up a point or two. But that was four days ago. So—-what happened exactly in the last 24 to 48 hours that shifted markets and propelled Harris into becoming the favorite??? Note: This is where analytical skills are needed, and partisanship actually hurts making an accurate assessment.
Jones, proving to be a far more astute political scientist that me, theorized the following:
“Casual voters aren’t betting on the race. The guys who are betting on it almost certainly pay attention to stuff like the press conference and recognize it as another sign of Trump weakness. Just his comments on milfepristone will possibly cost him some amount of independent voters over time as word gets out. There also could be polls the campaigns have run that show Kamala ahead. Much like the stock market, by the time the public is aware of it, the insiders have already locked up their positions.”
I thought this was a very astute observation. Do others agree? I do give markets lots of credibility here. After all, markets are typically ahead of popular thinking and those who engage in them must be ANTICIPATORY rather than REACTIONARY
My direct response to Jones was this:
“I noted that the rambling press conference yesterday (quite possibly revealing more Trump cognitive problems) wouldn’t show up in polls just yet, but something I didn’t think about was serious bettors in election markets watching for signs, and that would certainly move the needle.”
Again, is there agreement betting markets are superior predictors to outcomes (including elections) than any other data-driven source? I think so.
None of this means Harris will beat Trump, of course. Lots of stuff can happen in three months time, including debates, global events, and unforeseen surprises. But this SHIFT does appear to be a significant snapshot in time.
Finally, I have a hard time separating my emotions from wagering. In fact, I doubt if I’ll make any type of wager on the presidential race. The stakes are much higher than for money this time around. Nonetheless, betting markets have and very much do serve as predictors. “Smart money” is the real bell-weather of where things are and what’s about to happen.
A few weeks ago, I read all kinds of nonsense about Harris having “no shot.” Those were the exact words that were used. This kind of mass ignorance is why smart betting and fading stupidity sometimes nets big profits. Anyone who says Harris has “no shot” is a moron. By the way, anyone who says Trump has “no shot” is also a moron. They both have “a shot,” at 49 to 48 percent, respectively. But hey, thank goodness for morons.
Sorry, I couldn’t help myself.