It is not easy done, but it is possible that some bettors are trying move prices to get better odds. However, as long as the goal is to make money, this manipulation has nothing to do with the election. For this betting approach to be a money making scheme, you are absolutely correct that these bettors must actually believe in the bet they are making.
His final prediction is coming today, I think he is waiting for the next mail drop, one didn’t come in over the weekend. The drop today could be a large number that will give a clearer picture. The one thing that’s not accounted for in his numbers though (by his own admission) is crossovers. Even if that ends up being 1-2 percent for her, her odds of winning go up dramatically. A 2 percent crossover advantage for example nets her over upwards of 18k votes, and in most of his likelier scenarios she wins. If Trump wins that, the race is already over. But I have noticed a pattern across most analytics folks where they are assuming an even crossover in how they view the early returns. If she does win (or even win big), this is going to be the number that people got most wrong I think. If crossovers are in fact dead even, I think Trumps is 60-40 or better to win.
You crack me up sometimes, thanks for the chuckle. You try so hard to walk the middle line on everything you can't see what is directly in front of your face.
Democrats are worried about turnout. Dan speaks about it specifically, starting at the 17:30 minute mark.
Funny, Halprin said today that Axelrod loves to trash any Democratic campaign that he is not working on.
Spicer's point which follows is also very valid. The improvement in early voting for GOP doesn't make it harder for Dems to vote early and they haven't been, even though they have a tradition of doing so. This goes along with what I've been saying here for the past two weeks or so. The issue is not the slightly higher than normal turnout by GOP voters. The issue for Harris is the lack of turnout by Dem voters.
I don't think Axelrod is looking to be a torpedo this close to an election. It sounds more like a plea to get Democrat voters to turn out, because he knows they have not been, compared to previous cycles.
The assumption is that all registered Rs will be voting for Trump. Obvious speculation my guess is roughly ten percent of Republican women will be voting for Harris and also keep in mind that the Culinary Union does a remarkable job of turning out its members who vote overwhelmingly Democratic. Personally I still think it's too close to call. From 538, all polls in which sampling was completed Nov. 1 or later. AltlasIntel seems to be an outlier.
Guess this was the last emotional turn I was talking about the other day. Dems are back to freaking out. It really is funny to watch.
Great. That’s not what polling and early returns show. You can worry about anything. This will likely be historic turnout. Who knows until it’s over though?
Ralston is assuming both candidates hold on to 90% of their voters and lost 10%. Which way Indies are breaking is probably the biggest question right now.
Actually, I prefer freaking out to overconfidence. Anyone remember 2016 when the Dems were absolutely certain that Hillary Clinton would be elected. During the general election campaign she didn't visit Wisconsin once and only campaigned in Michigan a couple of times.
Yeah, since the polls seem to reflect that the election is a statistical toss up, it would be weird to me if either side were not worried about getting their voters out tomorrow.
I would likely be less embarrassed to intentionally entertain you, JMDZ, but I guess I can be happy to have accomplished this at all. You are correct that I intentionally try to see things from different perspectives, but here I don’t think I’m trying to tow some middle line. I just think claims require evidence, and the complexities of the price system are often vastly underestimated. (Eg this is explained well in this NPR article on price gouging). But I am happy to come to your side JMDZ. I just need to see the reasoning. What evidence do we have that shows the prediction markets have been manipulated? And if they were, what US would law would that manipulation have broken?
It's everywhere. You have to cherry pick mail in state reductions which are impacted by covid changes to think anything differently. Early voting turnout high as almost 44% of 2020 electorate cast ballots - The Washington Post Kentucky secretary of state says early voting turnout is exceeding expectations | whas11.com Michigan’s early voting numbers smash state and local expectations Early voting opens with scrambled post-pandemic turnout expectations - Memphis Local, Sports, Business & Food News | Daily Memphian Mass. exceeds 1.6M early votes cast for presidential election South Carolina sets record early voting turnout for 2024 election | wltx.com In person early-voting turnout in Maryland increases for 2024 | WYPR
I did a Quick Look and saw AAs are underperforming by about 2 percent of the overall electorate in GA and NC compared to how the NYT sampled them in their last poll (she led by 1 and 2 there). If they are voting 85-15 for her, that’s around a 90k vote loss (if the white vote that would fill that sample void voted 60-40 Trump) in a state with 5 million votes. Or 1.8 percent of the vote. So if they didn’t make anything up on ED it would cost her GA and she might still squeak out NC in those NYT polls. So if they don’t turn out it is relevant, but way early when there’s still Election Day to make it up, as well probably some of the late mail ins and in persons to be counted, from what I saw AAs closed strong the last few days to make up some ground. Not to mention other groups could overperform as he stated. Women, crossovers, indies, seniors (that was the big takeaway from the Selzer poll, women over 65 for her), etc. It’s mostly just normal last minute hand wringing that could mean something on Wednesday, but might not. Just like the Trump campaign freaking out about seniors.
