Trump bros. are these days touting the “prediction markets” that show most people are betting Trump will win. Wait, that’s not exactly right: most of the money being bet is on Trump. Some big bettors could obscure how most people are betting, and “most people” refers here to the cohort that bets on a presidential election result. Are men or women more apt to do that? And is there a gender gap in political preferences?
I think I have the answers! Men are way more likely to bet and also way more likely to prefer Trump. Of course the idea is that their preferences don’t matter, because they’re betting their own real money. Thus the bet can only represent what they honestly think is going to happen.
By the same logic, however, people who bet on the outcome of athletic competitions never permit their rooting interest to affect their judgment about who will most likely win. I feel sure that something like the opposite is more nearly true. A lot of bettors put money on this team or that one for no other reason than fandom. I hope they win, so I bet on them, and now I really hope they win. The bet reflects not what they think but what they hope (and, as has been observed, hope can be a bastard).
If you accept the proposition that there’s wisdom in crowds, and the crowd thinks Trump will win, then there might be something to these “prediction markets.” But the markets don’t necessarily reflect what the crowd thinks. In many cases, probably most, they more likely reflect what the subset of the population inclined to bet on the outcome hopes will happen. And bettors self-select for preferring Trump.
I got interested in this topic when nutwing blogger John Hinderaker recently wrote that bettors are bullish on Trump because the Harris campaign is “unraveling.” As it happens, Hinderaker’s own recent record as an election prophet vividly illustrates the points I try to make above. Partly because it’s enjoyable, but also for evidentiary purposes, I’m going to set down here his post from the eve of the 2022 midterms wherein he predicts what the outcome will be. My comments, mostly just stating what actually happened, are in brackets.
As we wait for election results to start coming in, this is a good time for a final set of predictions. Scott has said more than once that he is, by temperament, a pessimist. I balance that by being, for the most part, a hopeless optimist. You will see that reflected in my election forecast. [He basically admits that there’s no distinction between what he predicts and what he’s hoping for.]
U.S. Senate: GOP finishes the night with 55 senators. [GOP held 50 seats going into the election, finished with 49.]
U.S. House: GOP picks up a net 30 seats. [GOP picked up 9 seats.]
I think it is a foregone conclusion that Republicans will control both the House and the Senate in January, the only question being their margin of victory. [The House did swing to Republican control, but the Dems held the Senate—gained a seat, in fact.]
In my home state of Minnesota, I expect Republicans to net two additional Senate seats to solidify their control of that body. The GOP will pick up between 15 and 18 House seats, easily taking control of that chamber. [The Democrats made gains in both chambers, flipping the Senate and increasing their majority in the House.]
The main Congressional race is in my own district, where Republican Tyler Kistner will oust incumbent Democrat Angie Craig. [Craig was re-elected by a substantial margin.]
In Minnesota’s constitutional races, Jim Schultz will send Attorney General Keith Ellison into retirement. [Ellison won.] Ryan Wilson will beat the Democratic incumbent for state Auditor. [The Democratic incumbent beat Wilson.] The Secretary of State race will be close, but most observers think the Democratic incumbent has the edge. [The Democratic incumbent was re-elected by 9 points.]
The great unknown is the governor race. It, too, will be close, likely razor-thin, but I am picking Republican Scott Jensen to narrowly defeat incumbent Tim Walz, if only because Walz’s record is so terrible, on so many fronts, that it is hard to imagine him being re-elected. Also, if Republicans do as well as I think they will in legislative races, it will take a remarkable amount of ticket-splitting for Walz to win. [Walz easily won re-election.]
I actually bet on Jensen a month or two ago on one of the election prediction sites, when the odds against him were 9 to 1. So if he wins I get $1000—a very small return compared to the immense benefit that will accrue to Minnesota from a Jensen victory. [A stupid losing bet that had little to do with the realities of the race and, as indicated above, a lot to do with what Hinderaker was merely hoping for.]
Now, a few specific races in other states.
*Never fear, poor John Fetterman will not be going to Washington. [Fetterman won.]
*Tiffany Smiley will beat Patty Murray in Washington. [Murray won by 57 to 43 percent.]
*Lee Zeldin will be elected Governor of New York. [Zeldin lost.]
*Tudor Dixon will come agonizingly close to being elected Governor of Michigan, but will fall short. [Dixon fell short by more than 10 points.]
*Kari Lake will absolutely trash Katie Hobbs in the Arizona governor race, and will bring Blake Masters across the finish line with her. [Lake and Masters both lost.]
That’s about it—the rest of this masterpiece consists of a clip of Kari Lake speaking (if Hinderaker has a little crush on her, it’s not a case of opposites attracting, since they’re both nuts) and an “update” in which he acknowledges that things “didn’t go the way I expected” and Republican losses mean “we have seen the last of Donald J. Trump.” So even when the results were in, and he’d been proven wrong about everything, he couldn’t refrain from making another prediction—and it turned out to be as wrong as all the rest. It’s fun that in 2024 he’s pontificating about what conclusions should be drawn from the prediction markets!