Apparently, one poll in Iowa has moved PredictIt. Harris v Trump, 52-53 now flipped to 57-50.
Both markets accessed 7:05pm CT on 11/2/2024.
I think the news in question is here.
Smaller moves on Kalshi (55.2to 52.9 for Trump). No change on Polymarket.
While we’re on the subject of election markets, readers of comments may have noticed that joseph and I are having a spat over just this subject. Apologies to innocent bystanders, but I’m not in the habit of letting cheap shots go unanswered, and joseph has taken a number of cheap shots.
How’d this silly spat get started? I mean, we’re in the process of deciding whether a felon will return to the presidency, and joseph takes time out to ridicule ideas he doesn’t understand? Pretty silly.
Well, as I sometimes do, I thought out loud in comments here – I rubbed two ideas together. One idea is from academic supporters of election markets, who claim that election markets offer a hedge to firms which are at risk from election outcomes. That’s where I got the idea that firms might hedge risk in those markets. joseph has insisted that this is wrong, wrong, wrong. The other idea is that Trump represents a greater risk to the economy than Harris. (Anyone doubt this?) That would motivate buying “Trump” in election markets. At no time did I claim this is actually what’s happening, just that it might, so I’m a little puzzled that joseph got all huffy about it.
Here’s a chunk of joseph’s latest effort:
“Readers can decide for themselves what they consider most likely. Whether firms are making multi-million dollar bets in the prediction markets to hedge against hypothetical business risks of a Trump presidency or whether a bunch of loyal MAGA hatters are bidding up prediction prices because they are true believers in the grift. The same MAGA hatters that are bidding up the price of DJT stock. The same MAGA hatters that are buying $100,000 Chinese knockoff Trump watches.”
Let’s take this a point at a time:
“Readers can decide for themselves…”
Reality is not a popularity contest. joseph seems to thing “my rhetoric can beat up your ideas” is what we’re doing here. I don’t. By the way, risk is always “hypothetical” – just an instance of rhetoric on joseph’s part.
“Whether firms are making multi-million dollar bets in the prediction markets…”
Another rhetorical trick. joseph slipped in “multi-million dollar bets” without any evidence that multi-million dollar bets would be needed to move election market prices. Similarly, on another occasion, he mocked the idea that “major corporations” would use betting markets to hedge; I’ve never claimed that major corporations were involved, nor is it necessary to my point. joseph is trying to make my notion seem less plausible by loading it up with made-up stuff.
“…or whether a bunch of loyal MAGA hatters are bidding up prediction prices because they are true believers in the grift.”
This is what is known as a false dichotomy. joseph wants readers to think they have to choose between businesses using election markets as a hedging tool OR partisans expressing political preferences there. That’s a silly. Political junkies, partisans, rich manipulators and hedgers can all participate, but joseph insists it has to be only partisans – sometimes he insists it’s rich ones, sometimes gullible ones. The “evidence” he claims to have? Expensive watches.
Here’s a question. If partisans drove up the price of “Trump” from late September, why’d they stop? Prices for Trump and Harris had returned to roughly equal before the latest wobble. If richies are manipulating the market to help Trump, why’d they stop when voting began?
Maybe that’s why joseph stopped claiming manipulation by richies and substituted “MAGA hatters”. Maybe joseph will offer a made-up explanation – “they bought too many $100,000 watches and ran out of money” or “Democrats have joined the fray and are bidding up Harris”. That would be consistent with his other arguments – made up. He claims he has the facts, but he is really leaning on anecdotes and rhetorical tricks.
In light of recent return of betting market prices to nearer to poll results, let’s compare my notion to joseph’s. What does a hedger do once the hedge is acquired? Stops buying the hedge. That would explain the period of divergence between polling and election market prices, and the subsequent convergence. joseph insisted initially that rich Tump supporters were manipulating prices to make Trump look good. As noted above, politically motivated market manipulation doesn’t explain the recent convergence of prices and polls – why would manipulators stop just when voting started? Neither does the “MAGA hatter” story unless maybe you fancy it up.
I’m interested in markets; that’s my motivation in looking at these price wobbles. joseph’s motivation? Couldn’t say, but he needs to do a heck of a lot netter if he wants to sit at the grown-ups’ table.
Harris 47%, Trump 44%, The poll was of 808 likely voters. Margin +/-3.4%. A month ago, Trump led by 4 ppt in the same poll. The biggest shift was among women.
Note that Emerson carried out a poll of 800 likely Iowa voters a bit more recently, and got Trump 54%, Harris 45%. That’s more consistent with recent average results.
So, believe the outlier, believe the recent average, or remain wildly sceptical of polling?
the poll could be an outlier
The good people of iowa realize that trump is not a positive for the country. People are tired of the drama and chaos that trump represents. Republicans had a couple of chances in the past and missed pushing trump out of the party. Conservatives have now lost the republican party. You get one last chance to reclaim the party, otherwise the trump maga family controls it for a generation to come. Think before you vote. Chaos or change? You still have a choice.
There is a stretch of the Mississippi that runs east west, and there Iowa is on the north bank and Illinois on the south, with a lock, and a Rock Island Arsenal in between. On the island is a Civl War cemetery with graves of Southern POW’s, the island had been a POW camp.
I have not been there since 2015.
Nice place!
It has been suggested that a large number of voters are not paying any attention to politics until the last two week before election day. At that time they take a serious look at both candidates and make up their mind. Anybody taking a serious look at Trump, would have to go with Harris. So a late Harris surge would be expected from that group.
To me the Selzer & Co. poll is one of the few based on actual in-person interviews and statistically based sampling rather than a sample model based on outdated census data. I say the results in Wisconsin will be more similar to the state-wide Janet Protasiewicz Wisconsin Supreme Court race rather than any polling. The Iowa poll is interesting and certainly indicates that many people – especially women – have had enough of the Republican B.S. control of their private health care choices https://www.nbcnews.com/health/womens-health/texas-abortion-ban-deaths-pregnant-women-sb8-analysis-rcna171631
The global oligarch class, Trump, Musk, Putin and the billionaire tech bros are colluding together – https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/10/28/fiona-hill-explains-trump-musk-putin-00185820 Heads up people – if felon Trump and his criminal buddies get in charge – you will face hardship
https://www.msnbc.com/the-reidout/reidout-blog/elon-musk-trump-hardship-austerity-taxes-rcna177732 if you are wondering what that means – in Russia – people are fighting over butter https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russian-butter-prices-soar-testing-putin-pledge-supply-both-guns-butter-2024-10-31/
In election “horse race” news – the corporate media is finding it increasingly difficult to sane-wash a clearly unhinged/unwell Donald Trump – https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/donald-trump-slammed-for-vulgar-imitation-of-oral-intimacy-on-his-microphone-at-wisconsin-rally/ar-AA1toNDS
Harris has a detailed vision for an opportunity economy for all that protect’s women’s access to reproductive healthcare as well as being VP, former Senator, former AG and knows policy, legislation, and the law – https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2024-10-27/election-kamala-harris-top-10
The reason for the oversized response is twofold:
1. Selzer is the gold standard in Iowa, and has not been afraid to resist herding before.
2. Trump’s campaign felt the need to respond by leaking a “favorable” poll, showing him up by 5.
But Trump carried Iowa by over 9% in 2016 and 8% in 2020. If the *favorable* case in that he’s lost 3% of his 2020 support, and the unfavorable one that he’s lost 11% of his 2020 support, nationwide that translates into a big Harris win.
And Trump is closing his campaign with *4* rallies in NC, a big sign that he thinks he’s in trouble in that must-win State.
Looks like my first attempt to leave a comment got eaten. If so, feel free to delete this one.
The reason for the big reaction is twofold:
1. Selzer is the gold standard in Iowa, with an excellent track record.
2. Trump’s campaign was rattled enough that in response they released a “favorable” poll showing him up by 5%.
But Trump won Iowa by over 9% in 2016, and by 8% in 2020. If the *favorable* case is that he’s lost 3% of his 2020 support (let alone the unfavorable case that’s lost 11%), then applied nationally it suggests a decisive win by Harris.
Trump is leaking bogus polls in preparation for arguing election fraud. “How could i lose if all the polls showed me winning biggly”. Dems need ti release polls to neutet the trump argument.
Polls have become notoriously shaky with the “silence unknown callers” option available on cell phones and used extensively during the “silly season”. Real Clear Polling does an averaging of polls to try to get a clearer picture of current sentiment.
https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/president/general/2024/trump-vs-harris
Bruce Hall: Or instead of a simple average, one can weight by quality: https://abcnews.go.com/538
agreed. why would you weight politically biased polls equally with an attempt to make an unbiased poll? seriously bruce, is that how simple your mind operates? a biased poll should not be included at all.
Macroduck: “At no time did I claim this is actually what’s happening, just that it might”
This is hilarious. Macroduck is backing off his silly “little idea” saying “I never claimed pigs could fly. I just said that theoretically pigs could fly.”
You’re making stuff up again. Seek help.
Can I ask a question.
Why does the US has sooo many polls that have large margins of error. I laugh then ignore them when I see the MOE because it means the sample size is so small.
how come we can afford polls that have larger sample sizes but you yanks cannot?
i heard the iowa polls are being influenced by college students in particular. the region around university of iowa has been marginally republican recently. but latest numbers show it to be decidedly democrat. the thinking is republicans have pissed off young women in particular. the abortion issue is turning a red state purple. if it has that impact on a red state, could be a bigger issue in the swing states. conservatives have shown they have no problem trampling on women’s rights. your vote counts, ladies.