Posted on 10/23/2024 5:38:10 PM PDT by henbane
These numbers vastly differ from the polls, particularly the national polls, which continue to show Harris ahead by a few percentage points. But which one should you believe?
Maxim Lott, the guy who runs ElectionBettingOdds.com, personally thinks you should believe the betting sites, not the polls.
“These are really accurate,” he told Fox News. “They’re more accurate than just trying to look at polls or especially more accurate than listening to pundits bloviating. [The bettors] look at all sorts of historical data; they look at trends. I find the percent more useful than the polls.”
“Last cycle we had more than a billion dollars traded. That’s still [not] that much if you compare it to … the stock market or something, but it’s enough that we have a reliable indicator, and that’s what [is] important to us as users who just want to know what’s going to happen,” he added.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanwirenews.com ...
Kamala pulled out in front in the betting markets when she was first tossed into the ring back in early August--with tremendous cheering from the Dems and the lamestream media.
It's been nip & tuck since then--but in early October Kamala began to lose ground.
Suddenly, here, in late October, it looks like the bottom has fallen out of her campaign where people put hard cash down on the table.
The real question is how blatant can the steal be? My guesstimate is 8-10%.
The betting folks have to evaluate the cheating issue as part of their calculations—money on the table—no excuses if you get it wrong.
IIRC, Hillary was 88% to win...How’d that work out.
I would expect that they take cheating into account, as well. Hopefully there are enough bettors that have their ear to the ground, hearing of the depths of Rat chicanery, and they still come up with these good numbers.
Disregard the polls get out the vote, it must be too big to rig.
Is it like the Philippine beauty contest from 20+ years ago? Or when Benji Aquino beat Ferdinand?
Might be a lose lose lose for DJT
1) He wins outright but cheating is alleged and he’s not sworn in and Harris (supported by the alphabet agencies) refuses to leave the WH.
2) He wins and is sworn in but Soros with BLM and company resort to nationwide manufactured terrorism in efforts to destroy what’s left of our nation.
3) She ‘wins’ but only after a repeat of 2020 thievery.
A Trump victory with a peaceful transition of power is a pipe dream.
This doesn’t account for the margin of cheat.
If you were a pollster with a good record and knew what was really happening, wouldn’t you toss a few shekels on the prognositcation. Remember almost none of the pollsters are paid by people who just want the truth. News organizations want to maximize political advertising revenue so they want answers that maximize advertising takes. They may care who wins, but more they care about their bank accounts.
I think you are mistaken. If new organizations wanted to maximize revenue, they would be relatively neutral. There are numerous examples the news organizations care more about their political agenda than they do about revenue.
Fox showed there was a vast, untapped potential for news which was not far left biased. Other news organizations doubled down on leftist bias, in fact they became far more leftist.
The Washington Post refused offers to buy them out, until they could find a politically correct entity to purchase the outlet.
Revenue is a priority, but ideology is a much higher priority.
Interesting tidbit I read yesterday. The so called “whale” account on Polymarket that bet $10M on Trump, is NOT a whale account. It is in fact their most profitable single account. Let that sink in. Someone very smart who knows an arbitrage opportunity when they see it and goes big before the rest of the market sees it.
Nobody got it right in 2016. Nobody was even close. It was an anomaly. Give em a break. No different than the Tyson losing to Buster Douglas. Nobody got it right. Sometimes upsets happen.
Just sayin...
“IIRC, Hillary was 88% to win...How’d that work out.”
That was only 2 days prior to the election!
The three sites all reported an 83 percent probability of a Clinton victory on Tuesday. Her probability shot up a few percentage points on Sunday after the FBI stood by its earlier recommendation that no criminal charges were warranted against Clinton in her use of a private email server.
https://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/07/betting-sites-see-record-wagering-on-us-presidential-election.html
I pray to God that Trump wins in a landslide too big to steal.
2) He wins and is sworn in but Soros with BLM and company resort to nationwide manufactured terrorism in efforts to destroy what’s left of our nation.
><
They would activate the Sleeper Cells who have come through in the invasion, then paid terrorists/gangs would go to work. 911 x100.
Only in a vague calculus sense i might consider betting numbers to be a derivative of polling numbers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.