Always start with the base rate
I've been watching this PA race from afar. The debate between Oz and Fetterman was really something, and if that debate was all we had to go on, Oz would destroy Fetterman.
The counterpoint is that PA is really a Blue state and that 2016 was just a quirk of a year that won't be repeated. I guess some people will argue that Philadelphia is electorally a hyper-fraudulent place, and I'll probably believe you, but if a state reliably votes Blue, whether due to fraud or otherwise, I'm going to call it a Blue state.
I wonder if Fetterman would have been better off adopting the Tommy Tuberville strategy of refusing to debate his opponent, go on TV, etc. Just let the party brand (and antipathy to the Trump brand) carry him, run some ads about how Oz is a quack. Unlike Tuberville, Fetterman also has the MSM to cover for him to and to highlight Oz's quackery at every opportunity. Tuberville might make some gaffes, but his strategy of acting like HE was the incumbent and Doug Jones was a deranged homeless man claiming to be a candidate for US Senate was apparently the right one.
It's hard to see how Fetterman had much to gain from the contrast of his TV appearance and presentation skills to those of Oz, even before his stroke. After the stroke, he's so bad that it makes everyone uncomfortable.
It's more likely that the difference between Metaculus and PredictIt/Polymarket is a first order effect of how it's structured - rewarding low information predictions on lots of questions vs rewarding beating the market - than the second order effect of how this structure effects what politics the people who use the platform agree with.
If you're a low information predictor taking 1 minute to answer each question on Metaculus, the most effective way to predict is to pull up the polls and adjust by whatever amount you think they are biased by. If you're a no information predictor taking 10 seconds to answer questions, the most effective prediction is just to put in the same guess as everybody else. On real money markets, there's no incentive to make predictions on questions where you don't have an opinion.
Wow, new NYT/Siena has:
So yeah, best the GOP can do is keep the "tie" in Senate. Might win the House, who knows.
I don't think representativeness (more republicans in betting markets) is a big enough issue to explain the divergence from 538. As market participation grows, it is increasingly likely there will be enough people without right-leaning bias to counteract the bets of those with it since in principle even one participant can arbitrage away all of the mispricing if they can access enough funds.
In my mind at least, not having real money involved is a much bigger limitation than representativeness and we see the largest divergence in the real money markets. That said, if I were betting my own money I would be inclined to view Predictit as at least a little overpriced given how much higher it is than all of the rest.
Well, going to Predictit for the 2nd time today. I'll go with you.
Kudos to u for being willing to put yourself out there and make predictions.
I keep thinking the pollsters will crack the code and finally find an accurate, representative methodology. They've had several elections to make adjustments. What if they are all really accurate this time and Warnock, Fetterman, and Kelly all win? Or Vance loses. Or Laxalt.
Idk, I just have a hard time believing they haven't adjusted the formula yet. Seeing a lot of cons declaring victory way too early. Maybe the angry wine aunts really will descend on the polls like the Rohirrim at the Battle of Helm's Deep.
As a political scientist, I generally agree that Republicans will take the House. History is a good predictor of future outcomes. Republican identifiers are more motivated to vote when their party does not hold power, thus we should see better turnout amongst Republicans next week.
The Senate is more complex because candidates matter more in those contests than just what party they are affiliated with. I do think the Republican odds are a bit stronger than what some analysts are saying but they also have exceptionally weak candidates in some races. J.D. Vance could not win Ohio in a Presidential Election year but can win easily in a midterm. Dr. Oz is a terrible candidate with no political experience, which would matter even more if there were a presidential election happening. Let's not even talk about Herschel Walker. Republicans need to start recruiting experienced candidates with serious policy gravitas if they want to ensure winning. This election should be a cakewalk for them but the poor quality of many of their candidates and their penchant to kiss Trump's rear end could hurt them in very close races. There are a lot of independent and moderate voters who want nothing to do with Trump or any of his endorsed candidates. The question, as always, is whether they will show up to vote. If they do, it could be a long night for the GOP. If they don't, Republicans may win all three of the closest races and end up with 52 or 53 seats in the Senate. We'll see.