Walz has been way above 3% since I started watching. Shapiro was the heavy favorite (like 60-70%) most of the time, with Walz at 10-15% iirc. Then when it narrowed down to him and Walz, it wnt to about 50-50 though I didn’t keep an eye on it. There might be graphs on the site showing how things moved. Supposedly these betting markets have been more accurate than polls historically, though maybe that has changed in the past few years, as people figured out you can manipulate public opinion by dumping money on your candidate.
Yeah, somebody pointed out that they tracked pretty close to 538, which suprised me. Digging into it, that seems to only scale to “big” questions, and even then is wildly wrong in the days/weeks range.
Digging further, one of the big markets got a huge chunk of money from Peter thiel (who dumps hundreds of millions into far right campaigns) and then added Nate silver to its “advisors.”
So at this point, the neutrality and quality of all of these things are suspect.
Walz has been way above 3% since I started watching. Shapiro was the heavy favorite (like 60-70%) most of the time, with Walz at 10-15% iirc. Then when it narrowed down to him and Walz, it wnt to about 50-50 though I didn’t keep an eye on it. There might be graphs on the site showing how things moved. Supposedly these betting markets have been more accurate than polls historically, though maybe that has changed in the past few years, as people figured out you can manipulate public opinion by dumping money on your candidate.
Yeah, somebody pointed out that they tracked pretty close to 538, which suprised me. Digging into it, that seems to only scale to “big” questions, and even then is wildly wrong in the days/weeks range.
Digging further, one of the big markets got a huge chunk of money from Peter thiel (who dumps hundreds of millions into far right campaigns) and then added Nate silver to its “advisors.”
So at this point, the neutrality and quality of all of these things are suspect.