Latest / Predictable with Stu Burguiere / Does Abdul El-Sayad REALLY Have a Shot in Michigan Senate Race?

Transcript

Does Abdul El-Sayad REALLY Have a Shot in Michigan Senate Race? · Predictable with Stu Burguiere

• 0:00
  So is Abdul El Sayed really going to be the next senator from Michigan?
• 0:05
  We've got some polls,
• 0:06
  we've got some,
• 0:06
  uh,
• 0:07
  market data,
• 0:07
  we've got some headlines that could help us kind of lock in on
• 0:10
  what's gonna happen there.
• 0:11
  We've got a brand new edition of Candidate
• 0:13
  Countdown that I think is gonna make some waves
• 0:15
  and
• 0:17
  We'll do uh something about prediction markets.
• 0:19
  You know,
• 0:19
  these things are beat up all the time.
• 0:22
  They're always attacked for being unfair and biased.
• 0:24
  Is that true?
• 0:25
  What does the data actually show us?
• 0:27
  We'll talk to you about that as well.
• 0:29
  All of that,
• 0:30
  so much more coming up on
• 0:31
  Predictable with Stu.
• 0:47
  All right,
• 0:48
  let's go.
• 0:48
  Welcome to Predictable with Stu.
• 0:49
  So much to tell you about.
• 0:50
  If you're new to prediction markets,
• 0:51
  there's a place for you,
• 0:52
  Predictable 101.com.
• 0:54
  A new version,
• 0:55
  a new video is out,
• 0:56
  uh,
• 0:56
  Video 5 in that series that helps you.
• 0:59
  That one's about,
• 1:00
  um,
• 1:00
  buying,
• 1:01
  uh,
• 1:01
  with shares.
• 1:03
  We have another edition that's about to come out,
• 1:05
  buying with a limit order to just kind of
• 1:06
  walk you through all the basics of prediction markets.
• 1:08
  It's predictable 101.com.
• 1:10
  Um,
• 1:11
  and you can get it as well on YouTube at predictable show.
• 1:14
  28 days.
• 1:15
  Until the midterm elections.
• 1:16
  That means 4 weeks,
• 1:17
  boys and girls.
• 1:18
  Yeah.
• 1:18
  Mhm.
• 1:19
  The math class continues,
• 1:21
  but it's interesting to see
• 1:23
  how close we are and what this feels like.
• 1:25
  If,
• 1:25
  if you're like me,
• 1:26
  you saw nonstop political ads all weekend,
• 1:29
  that's not normally the experience of someone who lives in Texas,
• 1:32
  but I will say it is right now.
• 1:34
  I was watching Monday Night Football last night and it was.
• 1:36
  Uh,
• 1:37
  anti-Tallarico ad into pro- Paxton ad,
• 1:41
  into pro Hinojosa,
• 1:43
  the gubernatorial,
• 1:44
  um,
• 1:44
  uh,
• 1:44
  nominee on the Democratic side,
• 1:46
  into a pro-Abbott ad,
• 1:47
  I think then one other ad for like Rice Krispies or something,
• 1:51
  and then back into another Tallarico ad.
• 1:53
  It's unbelievable
• 1:55
  how many ads they're they are throwing
• 1:57
  the entire kitchen sink at this state right now,
• 1:59
  and it's kind of fun to be in the middle
• 2:00
  of it even though I'm a little terrified of the results
• 2:03
  of that.
• 2:03
  Early voting is going on already in 13 states.
• 2:06
  If you are in Indiana,
• 2:07
  New Mexico,
• 2:08
  Ohio,
• 2:08
  or Wyoming,
• 2:09
  congratulations,
• 2:09
  you can vote today,
• 2:10
  right?
• 2:11
  Today's the 6th.
• 2:12
  Um,
• 2:13
  tomorrow in Arizona,
• 2:14
  uh,
• 2:14
  next week,
• 2:14
  you got Georgia,
• 2:15
  Idaho,
• 2:15
  Iowa,
• 2:16
  Kansas,
• 2:17
  Rhode Island,
• 2:17
  Tennessee,
• 2:17
  some of the big races coming online.
• 2:20
  Uh,
• 2:20
  just another thing about
• 2:21
  what is coming up because this is actually a huge week for the election.
• 2:25
  And for your prediction market positions.
• 2:27
  You wanna watch football.
• 2:28
  You want,
• 2:28
  I,
• 2:29
  I know
• 2:30
  how
• 2:30
  dedicated you are
• 2:31
  to watching every second
• 2:33
  of the WNBA playoffs.
• 2:35
  And they're going on,
• 2:36
  and it's gonna be hard to pull yourself away from those playoffs,
• 2:39
  especially now that Caitlin Clark is no longer in.
• 2:41
  Uh,
• 2:41
  but,
• 2:42
  uh,
• 2:42
  tonight we've got 2 massive debates.
• 2:44
  There's 3 actually tonight.
• 2:46
  You've got the Maine Senate debate.
• 2:48
  Uh,
• 2:48
  that's tonight,
• 2:49
  uh,
• 2:50
  Susan Collins,
• 2:50
  Troy Jackson,
• 2:51
  7 p.m. Eastern.
• 2:52
  You've got the Georgia gubernatorial debate,
• 2:54
  which is very close right now.
• 2:56
  That race is close between Keisha Lance Bottoms,
• 2:58
  who isn't a particularly strong candidate.
• 3:00
  They're kind of showing you,
• 3:01
  you've got the,
• 3:01
  the,
• 3:02
  the,
• 3:02
  uh,
• 3:03
  coattails of Ossoff
• 3:05
  and a Democratic year making this race sort of competitive.
• 3:08
  Jackson and Keisha Lance Bottoms pretty much,
• 3:10
  uh,
• 3:11
  toss up there.
• 3:12
  And then the Michigan gubernatorial race,
• 3:14
  Jo Jocelyn Benson and John James going at it.
• 3:16
  Uh,
• 3:16
  as well.
• 3:17
  Tomorrow,
• 3:18
  we've got a couple of big ones.
• 3:19
  Well,
• 3:20
  one big one I would say.
• 3:21
  One I'm,
• 3:21
  uh,
• 3:22
  interested in,
• 3:22
  uh,
• 3:23
  Tina Koek against Christine Drazen.
• 3:25
  Again,
• 3:25
  uh,
• 3:25
  Drazen is just an,
• 3:27
  it's just an oddball race,
• 3:28
  and so far,
• 3:29
  uh,
• 3:29
  my pick on this is not,
• 3:31
  I'm down a little bit on it because I was
• 3:33
  thinking the Democrat in Oregon would push through.
• 3:35
  This race is really close.
• 3:36
  In fact,
• 3:36
  Drazen's actually led in a couple of polls.
• 3:38
  I,
• 3:39
  you know,
• 3:39
  I'm not gonna be all broken up if I lose that particular race
• 3:42
  because of my personal preferences,
• 3:43
  uh,
• 3:44
  but I will say,
• 3:45
  Uh,
• 3:45
  I,
• 3:46
  it's a race to watch.
• 3:46
  I'm gonna watch that debate tonight,
• 3:48
  see,
• 3:48
  do I need to resize my position,
• 3:49
  uh,
• 3:50
  because debates do matter,
• 3:50
  as we've seen.
• 3:51
  I don't know if you may have remembered the 2024 presidential campaign.
• 3:54
  Um,
• 3:55
  occasionally debates really do matter.
• 3:57
  They don't usually swing a race like they did in
• 3:59
  2024 with Joe Biden and having to drop out,
• 4:02
  but they do happen.
• 4:03
  And then Michigan,
• 4:04
  uh,
• 4:04
  is coming up,
• 4:05
  of course,
• 4:05
  as I said,
• 4:06
  in the gubernatorial side
• 4:07
  tonight.
• 4:07
  We also have an Al Sayed Rogers debate on Thursday.
• 4:11
  That's a huge one,
• 4:12
  a huge one.
• 4:12
  That's basically to me a toss-up race,
• 4:14
  even though I'll show you some.
• 4:15
  Poland that
• 4:16
  doesn't back that up,
• 4:16
  but I'll give you my reasons why I don't believe that.
• 4:18
  And then Alaska
• 4:19
  has all four governors,
• 4:20
  including the fake Dan Sullivan
• 4:22
  on stage with the real Dan Sullivan,
• 4:24
  and then also Mary Peltola and whoever the fourth person is who I don't remember.
• 4:28
  Whoever that fourth person is,
• 4:29
  is the most invisible person even in Alaska,
• 4:31
  and that's hard to pull off.
• 4:32
  That's coming up on Thursday night,
• 4:34
  uh,
• 4:34
  as well,
• 4:35
  so.
• 4:36
  Um,
• 4:36
  let me show you the latest update.
• 4:37
  We have the latest update in the predictable,
• 4:39
  uh,
• 4:39
  midterm consensus.
• 4:41
  This is our election model
• 4:42
  called the PMC.
• 4:44
  Uh,
• 4:44
  you get this,
• 4:44
  uh,
• 4:45
  basically what we do,
• 4:46
  we'll give you the updates here.
• 4:47
  You can look at all the numbers,
• 4:48
  but at the top of this article every time,
• 4:50
  if you scroll down a little bit,
• 4:51
  you'll see the 5 points,
• 4:52
  the 5 takeaways
• 4:53
  from the latest PMC.
• 4:54
  The update,
• 4:54
  uh,
• 4:55
  just to quickly go through them,
• 4:56
  uh,
• 4:57
  you know,
• 4:57
  slightly different,
• 4:58
  uh,
• 4:58
  on the top line,
• 4:59
  not much,
• 5:00
  you know,
• 5:01
  0.3 point change,
• 5:02
  not a huge change.
• 5:03
  Uh,
• 5:04
  Republicans
• 5:05
  actually improved a little bit here.
• 5:07
  One of the things we started doing is looking at,
• 5:08
  there's hundreds of inputs that go into the PMC.
• 5:12
  Uh,
• 5:12
  we started looking at all of the individual ones,
• 5:15
  which way are they moving a little bit,
• 5:16
  and we're gonna try to include this with all of our updates.
• 5:19
  54% of the updates that we got
• 5:21
  that were moves that were over like a half a point,
• 5:23
  you know,
• 5:24
  a lot of them just don't change at all,
• 5:25
  but
• 5:25
  54% of them went toward Republicans,
• 5:27
  only 46% went towards Democrats.
• 5:30
  It's a very modest Republican tilt,
• 5:32
  but notable if that continues,
• 5:34
  you might see this thing start to turn around.
• 5:36
  Alaska moving towards Peltola.
• 5:37
  We know that New York Times poll we covered earlier this week has a big part of that.
• 5:40
  Same thing with Kansas.
• 5:42
  Um,
• 5:42
  it's interesting.
• 5:43
  Kansas,
• 5:43
  the,
• 5:44
  the markets
• 5:45
  said,
• 5:45
  uh,
• 5:46
  I think we're moving too much toward the Democrat.
• 5:48
  The,
• 5:49
  the predictable media consensus,
• 5:51
  our election model said,
• 5:52
  actually we're gonna go more towards Kansas.
• 5:55
  Either way,
• 5:55
  the Republicans still favored in that state,
• 5:57
  but the fact that that one's close is a sign of
• 6:00
  how dire some of these circumstances can be
• 6:01
  for Republicans in the worst case scenario.
• 6:04
  And we also,
• 6:04
  one of the things we do with the PMC is,
• 6:06
  um,
• 6:07
  highlight the differences
• 6:08
  between the prediction markets and what the experts are saying.
• 6:11
  The predictable media midterm consensus doesn't say anything
• 6:14
  about what I think about the elections,
• 6:15
  doesn't think about how prediction markets think about the elections.
• 6:18
  It's all the experts,
• 6:18
  it's all the polling data and all that stuff.
• 6:20
  So,
• 6:21
  seeing a gap,
• 6:21
  and there's some double digits gaps,
• 6:23
  like
• 6:24
  one state,
• 6:24
  you know,
• 6:25
  someone says it's a 20% chance and it's actually
• 6:26
  a 35% chance or whatever the number is,
• 6:29
  we show you where those opportunities are,
• 6:31
  so you can kind of go through and
• 6:32
  cut the corner on all that research.
• 6:34
  So,
• 6:34
  that's what we do for you at predictableshow.com.
• 6:37
  You get every single Senate race as well as part of your,
• 6:39
  uh,
• 6:40
  subscription.
• 6:41
  Um,
• 6:41
  if you are a premium subscriber to PredictableShow.com,
• 6:44
  you get all that.
• 6:45
  So,
• 6:45
  you know,
• 6:45
  if you're a trader,
• 6:46
  I,
• 6:46
  I don't even think it's close.
• 6:47
  I think it's well worth the money.
• 6:49
  Um,
• 6:50
  if you are someone who really wants to dig into election stuff,
• 6:52
  really care about this stuff a lot,
• 6:54
  uh,
• 6:54
  I've,
• 6:54
  you know,
• 6:55
  I'm,
• 6:55
  I've been that way as well over the years.
• 6:57
  Uh,
• 6:57
  I think it's worth your money as well.
• 6:58
  It's lots of great features behind the paywall.
• 7:00
  OK,
• 7:00
  let me talk about El Sayed for a minute.
• 7:02
  El Sayed is,
• 7:03
  uh,
• 7:05
  showing a lead over Mike Rogers in the poll,
• 7:08
  uh,
• 7:08
  right now in,
• 7:09
  uh,
• 7:09
  in Michigan.
• 7:10
  This is a Mitchell poll.
• 7:12
  Let me give you some of the stats,
• 7:13
  basically 46% for El Sayed,
• 7:15
  41%
• 7:17
  for,
• 7:17
  um,
• 7:18
  Mike Rogers.
• 7:19
  That's kind of the top line,
• 7:21
  of course,
• 7:21
  Democrats
• 7:22
  overwhelmingly favoring,
• 7:23
  uh,
• 7:24
  uh,
• 7:24
  El Sayed,
• 7:25
  Republicans overwhelmingly favoring Rogers.
• 7:27
  One thing I'll note in those two numbers,
• 7:28
  which is odd in this climate,
• 7:31
  more Republicans on the Rogers side
• 7:34
  than Democrats on the El Sayyed side.
• 7:36
  And that shows a little bit of a split.
• 7:38
  It's only a couple of points,
• 7:39
  but it's a little bit of a window there for Rodgers to have some potential.
• 7:43
  Independents favor El Sayed by about 12 points,
• 7:46
  which isn't a terrible number in this climate,
• 7:47
  honestly,
• 7:48
  for Rodgers.
• 7:49
  Women overwhelmingly with El Sayed,
• 7:51
  men overwhelmingly with Rogers.
• 7:53
  When it goes to age groups.
• 7:55
  This is a huge part of this.
• 7:56
  Overwhelmingly 18 to 29 year olds are saying we want El Sayed 45 to 17.
• 8:02
  Uh,
• 8:03
  30 to 44 year olds,
• 8:04
  same thing,
• 8:05
  54 to 26,
• 8:07
  Major El Sayed lead.
• 8:09
  Everybody older than that
• 8:10
  is to the Rodgers side only by 3 points
• 8:13
  in the ages 45 to 64,
• 8:15
  and then,
• 8:15
  uh,
• 8:16
  12 points of 65 plus.
• 8:18
  Uh,
• 8:18
  Whitey,
• 8:19
  as you might expect,
• 8:20
  going with the Republican,
• 8:21
  gosh,
• 8:21
  I,
• 8:22
  these white people,
• 8:23
  can you believe these white people,
• 8:24
  uh,
• 8:25
  47 to 42
• 8:26
  African American voters are,
• 8:27
  are.
• 8:27
  For El Sayyed 71 to 9
• 8:29
  and other races uh 46 to 40
• 8:32
  for El Sayed.
• 8:33
  Now one interesting thing,
• 8:34
  and,
• 8:34
  and like it's an interesting coalition you're building there if you're El Sayed.
• 8:37
  You're trying to win a race in a midterm where passions are usually lower,
• 8:42
  turnout is lower,
• 8:43
  and voters who don't typically show up to the polls tend to show up less.
• 8:47
  This is one of the reasons why Republicans have done,
• 8:49
  uh,
• 8:49
  more poorly
• 8:50
  during midterm elections
• 8:52
  than they have during president.
• 8:53
  Presidential years
• 8:54
  because during presidential years,
• 8:56
  especially in the Trump era,
• 8:57
  those Trump voters tend to come out during those presidential years.
• 9:00
  They don't really care as much during those off years.
• 9:03
  Uh,
• 9:03
  again,
• 9:03
  these are,
• 9:04
  it's a certain subset of Trump voters,
• 9:05
  not all of them,
• 9:06
  of course,
• 9:06
  um,
• 9:07
  certain subset,
• 9:08
  uh,
• 9:08
  will come out and say,
• 9:09
  you know what,
• 9:10
  I'll come out for Trump,
• 9:10
  but nobody else.
• 9:11
  So when you get to these midterm elections,
• 9:13
  this is why Trump was saying to his hardcore followers at rallies,
• 9:16
  hey,
• 9:17
  pretend I'm running,
• 9:18
  come out.
• 9:19
  Because
• 9:19
  a lot of those people don't wind up showing up,
• 9:22
  the traditional guidance over the years
• 9:24
  for political campaigns has been
• 9:26
  you gotta be careful of,
• 9:27
  of specific voters,
• 9:28
  like,
• 9:28
  for example,
• 9:29
  young voters.
• 9:30
  If you're depending your campaign on 18 year olds,
• 9:33
  you're likely to be disappointed
• 9:35
  because,
• 9:35
  uh,
• 9:35
  you know,
• 9:36
  they're on Twitch.
• 9:37
  Um,
• 9:38
  so that is when you're building a coalition
• 9:41
  of
• 9:41
  people who are saying,
• 9:43
  um,
• 9:43
  you know,
• 9:43
  I'm young and I'm very passionate for El Sayyed.
• 9:45
  Do they actually show up?
• 9:47
  Are they even really registered?
• 9:49
  That's always a question for campaigns.
• 9:50
  It's not me saying this.
• 9:51
  This is what campaigns worry about.
• 9:53
  They worry about it all the time.
• 9:54
  In addition,
• 9:55
  the numbers with African Americans you see 71 to 9,
• 9:58
  uh,
• 9:58
  you'd think that's a really good number.
• 10:00
  There's a lot of undecided in that number for African American voters.
• 10:03
  That number's way too high for undecideds.
• 10:06
  African American voters in large numbers went to his opponent,
• 10:09
  um,
• 10:09
  uh,
• 10:10
  the Haley,
• 10:10
  Hail Mary,
• 10:11
  um,
• 10:12
  in that race and actually made it,
• 10:14
  you know,
• 10:14
  very,
• 10:14
  very competitive.
• 10:16
  El Sayed,
• 10:17
  they don't particularly like El Sayed that much.
• 10:19
  They may hold their nose and vote for him,
• 10:21
  but they may stay home.
• 10:22
  And so you're building a coalition to try to win a race in a purplish,
• 10:26
  maybe a little leaning blue state,
• 10:28
  especially in this environment,
• 10:29
  but you're trying to do it with young voters and
• 10:31
  African-American voters who don't really like you that much.
• 10:34
  Could be a tough road.
• 10:35
  The other thing is this region has been terrible when it comes to polling.
• 10:38
  The only state worse than Michigan has been Wisconsin,
• 10:40
  which Wisconsin,
• 10:41
  I will never believe a poll in Wisconsin again in my life.
• 10:44
  Uh,
• 10:44
  that's a new,
• 10:45
  that's a new rule.
• 10:45
  We might put that on the predictable,
• 10:46
  uh,
• 10:47
  constitution.
• 10:47
  I don't know.
• 10:48
  Uh,
• 10:48
  after,
• 10:49
  after Francesca Hong,
• 10:50
  I may never believe another poll in that state.
• 10:53
  But Michigan's been really bad too,
• 10:54
  and it's been bad the same way over and over again.
• 10:58
  And you could say,
• 10:59
  well,
• 10:59
  polls always are against the Republicans.
• 11:01
  That's not true.
• 11:01
  When you look back,
• 11:03
  uh,
• 11:03
  year after year after year,
• 11:05
  most midterms recently have been pretty good,
• 11:07
  pretty accurate when it comes to polling.
• 11:09
  Um,
• 11:10
  uh,
• 11:11
  during presidential years,
• 11:12
  they've
• 11:13
  typically favored.
• 11:15
  Uh,
• 11:15
  uh,
• 11:16
  Democrats,
• 11:16
  they've been,
• 11:17
  uh,
• 11:17
  positive for Democrats when they should have been more positive for Republicans
• 11:21
  the last few times.
• 11:22
  If you go back,
• 11:23
  uh,
• 11:23
  to 2012,
• 11:24
  it was the opposite.
• 11:25
  It was actually a little bit favored toward Republicans.
• 11:29
  Um,
• 11:29
  but during the Trump era,
• 11:30
  it's been,
• 11:31
  it's been against Trump three straight times.
• 11:33
  The biggest error of which,
• 11:34
  by the way,
• 11:35
  if you don't know this,
• 11:36
  was actually 2020.
• 11:38
  Uh,
• 11:38
  2020,
• 11:39
  uh,
• 11:39
  had the biggest polling error of the three races.
• 11:41
  That's the one he actually lost,
• 11:43
  uh,
• 11:43
  but
• 11:44
  that was the biggest polling error because they had Biden with
• 11:46
  a big lead that he barely won in that particular race.
• 11:49
  We've seen this though,
• 11:49
  uh,
• 11:50
  over and over again in Michigan where even
• 11:52
  though the midterm polling has been halfway decent.
• 11:55
  Still in Michigan,
• 11:56
  this has played out over and over and over again.
• 11:58
  Um,
• 11:59
  2018,
• 11:59
  John James against Debbie Stabenow.
• 12:02
  Stabenow was favored by 19 at the beginning of October
• 12:05
  and wound up,
• 12:06
  um,
• 12:06
  winning only by 6.4 points in 2020.
• 12:09
  James,
• 12:10
  uh,
• 12:10
  against Peters.
• 12:11
  Peters was favored by 6 points.
• 12:12
  Peters won by 1.7.
• 12:15
  Uh,
• 12:15
  in 2024,
• 12:16
  Slotkin was favored by 5.
• 12:18
  Slotkin only won by 0.3.
• 12:21
  Um,
• 12:22
  and then,
• 12:22
  uh,
• 12:22
  this is the,
• 12:23
  of course,
• 12:23
  El Sayed one.
• 12:24
  This is closer,
• 12:24
  by the way,
• 12:25
  than any of those races.
• 12:26
  El Sayed only up by 3.5 points.
• 12:28
  If any of these
• 12:30
  errors happen again,
• 12:31
  Rodgers will win.
• 12:32
  I think this is a legitimate toss-up race.
• 12:35
  I do.
• 12:35
  Um,
• 12:36
  I,
• 12:36
  especially in Michigan.
• 12:37
  I,
• 12:37
  I don't trust the polling there at all,
• 12:39
  and it seems to go the same way over and over and over again in the state.
• 12:42
  I think while you see a lead for El Sayed in that poll,
• 12:45
  you see a lot of 345 point leads for El Sayed.
• 12:48
  I still think this is a pure toss-up race right now.
• 12:51
  We will see what goes on.
• 12:52
  It's a,
• 12:53
  it's a very Democratic year though,
• 12:55
  and if that is,
• 12:55
  if that holds,
• 12:57
  you may wind up still seeing El Sayed get over the finish line.
• 12:59
  Now,
• 13:00
  Barack Obama is going to be campaigning with El Sayed
• 13:02
  in Michigan to try to get him over.
• 13:04
  That is a very specific thing we just talked about.
• 13:06
  He has weakness among black voters,
• 13:09
  and Barack Obama's coming in
• 13:11
  to try to win those voters over.
• 13:12
  That's
• 13:13
  the approach here.
• 13:14
  That's what they're doing.
• 13:15
  AOC says if Abdul can win in Michigan,
• 13:17
  anyone can win anywhere.
• 13:19
  Um,
• 13:20
  you know,
• 13:20
  again,
• 13:20
  she's,
• 13:21
  you know,
• 13:21
  not a,
• 13:22
  not the brightest bulb,
• 13:23
  uh,
• 13:23
  as we know,
• 13:24
  of course,
• 13:25
  winning in a,
• 13:25
  in a,
• 13:26
  uh,
• 13:27
  purplish state in a very blue year does not prove at
• 13:31
  all that a socialist can win in a red state.
• 13:34
  I mean,
• 13:34
  this is just not at all what it says,
• 13:36
  but what she's lining up,
• 13:37
  lining up for here is a presidential run.
• 13:39
  And she's saying,
• 13:40
  look,
• 13:40
  you can run Socialist.
• 13:41
  I can win.
• 13:42
  Look,
• 13:42
  we won Michigan.
• 13:44
  She's trying to make that point and get out ahead of it.
• 13:46
  Slate,
• 13:46
  uh,
• 13:47
  talks about the black voters skeptical of of Abdul Sayed,
• 13:50
  as we pointed out
• 13:51
  and brings up some interesting points here.
• 13:53
  This is,
• 13:53
  uh,
• 13:53
  again,
• 13:54
  another poll.
• 13:54
  This is the Washington Post poll
• 13:57
  September 10th to the 14th
• 13:59
  that has El Sayed up 3,
• 14:01
  different set of data here but has kind of an interesting,
• 14:03
  um,
• 14:04
  echo to what we just talked about.
• 14:07
  You see Rodgers is down 48 to 45.
• 14:09
  Democrats,
• 14:10
  and again,
• 14:10
  once again we see that same split where Republicans are
• 14:13
  supporting their guy more than Democrats are supporting theirs.
• 14:15
  That's not normal in this climate.
• 14:17
  El Sayed is a weak candidate.
• 14:19
  This is the one race they really picked the weak candidate.
• 14:22
  Uh,
• 14:22
  well,
• 14:22
  you know,
• 14:23
  other races,
• 14:23
  you know,
• 14:24
  someone like Tallarico,
• 14:24
  who I think is,
• 14:25
  you know,
• 14:25
  ridiculous.
• 14:26
  I mean I can't even believe he's competitive,
• 14:28
  but he polls really well and he polls as a stronger candidate.
• 14:32
  You see the black vote here,
• 14:33
  67 to 22,
• 14:35
  um,
• 14:35
  a little bit more,
• 14:36
  um,
• 14:37
  uh,
• 14:37
  made up minds here,
• 14:38
  and some of the undecideds from our other polls seem to
• 14:42
  leak into
• 14:44
  the Republican side here.
• 14:45
  If,
• 14:45
  if,
• 14:46
  honestly,
• 14:46
  if Rodgers can get a number like 22% of black voters,
• 14:49
  he's got a really good chance to win this race overall.
• 14:52
  Uh,
• 14:53
  one other thing I'll point out here,
• 14:54
  would you support
• 14:55
  a Muslim for president?
• 14:56
  Um,
• 14:57
  uh,
• 14:58
  or not,
• 14:58
  if you said yes,
• 14:59
  you would,
• 15:00
  you're voting for El Sayed 76 to 18%.
• 15:03
  Still 18% of people going against that.
• 15:05
  If you would not support,
• 15:06
  this is a very weird poll,
• 15:08
  but,
• 15:08
  uh,
• 15:08
  if you would not support a Muslim for president,
• 15:11
  still 18% would be like,
• 15:12
  yeah,
• 15:12
  but I'm gonna vote for him for Senate.
• 15:14
  OK,
• 15:14
  I'm fine,
• 15:15
  uh,
• 15:15
  but that's uh 75% to 18%.
• 15:17
  Interesting point here as well in the Slate article,
• 15:19
  which I don't,
• 15:20
  I don't always say those words.
• 15:22
  To be clear,
• 15:23
  uh,
• 15:23
  the questions still surround,
• 15:24
  uh,
• 15:24
  Al Sayed's campaign about whether he can bring over black voters.
• 15:27
  Uh,
• 15:28
  he lost Detroit by 28 points.
• 15:30
  Haley Stevens won the,
• 15:31
  won the,
• 15:31
  uh,
• 15:32
  won the,
• 15:33
  uh,
• 15:33
  race handily.
• 15:34
  In nearly every national
• 15:36
  interview with El Sayed,
• 15:37
  he's asked about the concerns of Jewish voters in Michigan,
• 15:40
  in Michigan,
• 15:40
  who make up about 1.5 to 2% of the voters.
• 15:43
  He's rarely asked about the concerns of black voters who make up 11 to 12%
• 15:48
  of those voters.
• 15:49
  Democrats traditionally do not have a plausible path to
• 15:51
  statewide victory without a strong black voter turnout.
• 15:54
  And if the Washington Post poll is any indication,
• 15:56
  El Sayed is a lot of ground to make up
• 15:59
  with those voters.
• 15:59
  About 83% of black voters said they wanted Democrats to control the Senate,
• 16:03
  but only 67% said they black
• 16:05
  El Sayed,
• 16:06
  which would be key.
• 16:07
  And someone asked me the other day,
• 16:08
  hey,
• 16:08
  what's the,
• 16:08
  what's the one race
• 16:10
  that could
• 16:11
  turn the Senate?
• 16:13
  You know,
• 16:13
  there's a lot of races I talk about a lot.
• 16:15
  Texas is kind of the big sexy one that everyone's maybe focusing on.
• 16:19
  Uh,
• 16:19
  Iowa is a race I talk about a lot,
• 16:21
  uh,
• 16:21
  being Ashley Hinson,
• 16:22
  one of my bigger positions
• 16:23
  in this particular election,
• 16:25
  uh,
• 16:25
  which is a very close race.
• 16:27
  But really,
• 16:27
  if you wanna talk about if there's one race
• 16:30
  that I could see the result on it and see how this would turn the Senate,
• 16:34
  it would be if El Sayed loses,
• 16:35
  I don't think the Republicans are gonna lose the Senate.
• 16:38
  I think it's one of those things that if,
• 16:39
  if we're in an environment that is friendly enough to Republicans
• 16:42
  where
• 16:43
  a really bad Democratic candidate in a purple
• 16:45
  state can lose to a decent Republican candidate,
• 16:48
  that to me says the climate is not right for the Democrats to take the Senate.
• 16:52
  Now they can still win the Senate by losing the seat,
• 16:54
  but I think that,
• 16:55
  that would be the one.
• 16:56
  If,
• 16:56
  if I knew El Sayed was going to lose
• 16:58
  in this race,
• 17:00
  I would be very favorable on the Republican Senate.
• 17:03
  Uh,
• 17:03
  looking forward.
• 17:04
  Now,
• 17:04
  um,
• 17:05
  Muslim Brotherhood,
• 17:06
  uh,
• 17:06
  is another thing that's being,
• 17:07
  uh,
• 17:08
  talked about.
• 17:09
  El Sayed
• 17:10
  won't condemn the Muslim Brotherhood.
• 17:12
  We have a
• 17:13
  clip here.
• 17:14
  Let's play this.
• 17:14
  This is from Fox News.
• 17:15
  Martha McCallum.
• 17:16
  I will say this about El Sayed,
• 17:17
  he's very confident in himself,
• 17:19
  very self-assured,
• 17:21
  um,
• 17:22
  really,
• 17:23
  El Sayyed really likes El Sayed.
• 17:25
  Big fan,
• 17:26
  like he loves himself,
• 17:27
  uh,
• 17:28
  probably thousands of mirrors.
• 17:31
  Uh,
• 17:31
  in his home.
• 17:32
  He really likes looking at himself,
• 17:33
  really likes hearing himself talk,
• 17:34
  really likes going on these shows,
• 17:35
  and to his credit,
• 17:37
  we'll even go on shows like,
• 17:38
  you know,
• 17:38
  uh,
• 17:38
  on Fox News with Martha McCallum because she's gonna ask some tough questions.
• 17:42
  Uh,
• 17:43
  here's a sample of that interview.
• 17:45
  We have the United States has terror
• 17:46
  designations on Muslim Brotherhood organizations in Lebanon,
• 17:50
  Egypt,
• 17:51
  and Jordan.
• 17:52
  So if you become a US senator,
• 17:54
  will you support those terrorist designations of those
• 17:57
  groups in order to support US national security?
• 18:01
  I think terrorism is the act of political violence,
• 18:03
  so I will support a terror designation for any organization that is
• 18:07
  engaged in or committed to political violence.
• 18:09
  Do you support the designations of the Muslim Brotherhood in those?
• 18:12
  I want to understand.
• 18:13
  Show me that they're engaged.
• 18:14
  Any organization is engaged in political violence.
• 18:18
  I will back a terrorist.
• 18:19
  So on October 7th,
• 18:20
  the Egyptian chapter of the Muslim Brotherhood called
• 18:22
  for violent attacks against the United States,
• 18:24
  its partners and interests.
• 18:25
  The Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood supported Hamas,
• 18:29
  and they threatened Americans living in the region and our partners.
• 18:32
  So do you stand by those designations?
• 18:34
  As I said,
• 18:35
  any organization engaged in political violence or calling for political violence
• 18:38
  is engaged in terrorism,
• 18:39
  and I would support those designations.
• 18:43
  I just don't understand,
• 18:44
  I just don't understand these politicians.
• 18:45
  Just say yeah.
• 18:47
  If that's what you,
• 18:48
  now,
• 18:48
  of course,
• 18:49
  the,
• 18:49
  the reason probably is he doesn't want to say that
• 18:51
  cause he doesn't believe it,
• 18:53
  but like,
• 18:53
  why would you phrase it this way?
• 18:54
  Well,
• 18:55
  any,
• 18:55
  any,
• 18:55
  uh,
• 18:56
  any organization,
• 18:57
  well,
• 18:57
  here's 3 examples of them saying they want Americans dead.
• 19:00
  Is that enough for you?
• 19:01
  Well,
• 19:01
  any organization that talks about political violence,
• 19:03
  of course I'm against.
• 19:04
  Just say you're against them then.
• 19:05
  Uh,
• 19:06
  I mean,
• 19:06
  that shouldn't be that hard,
• 19:07
  but apparently it is for El Sayed.
• 19:09
  He was also asked
• 19:10
  about his big,
• 19:11
  big complaint.
• 19:12
  He does not like money in politics.
• 19:14
  Uh,
• 19:15
  he just,
• 19:15
  just,
• 19:15
  just thinks that's absolutely terrible,
• 19:17
  which obviously the first thing you do,
• 19:20
  if you believe that,
• 19:21
  is go out and campaign with Alex Soros.
• 19:26
  He was asked about that as well.
• 19:28
  You were fundraising in California last weekend.
• 19:31
  You're here in New York fundraising
• 19:33
  again,
• 19:33
  so all of this raises the obvious question
• 19:36
  about,
• 19:37
  let me ask you,
• 19:38
  here's what you said on the campaign trail.
• 19:39
  Let's play this.
• 19:41
  All I'm going to be talking about is getting money out of politics.
• 19:43
  It starts with getting money out of politics.
• 19:46
  The reason I'm so passionate about money out of politics is because
• 19:49
  the money in politics is about spending lots.
• 19:52
  OK,
• 19:52
  so here you are in Los Angeles with the Soros family.
• 19:56
  So my question is,
• 19:56
  how is this not taking money from billionaire oligarchs and power brokers?
• 20:01
  So when individuals want to give to my campaign,
• 20:03
  I welcome their support.
• 20:07
  He went on to say,
• 20:08
  well,
• 20:08
  it's the corporations that I don't want.
• 20:09
  Now,
• 20:10
  of course,
• 20:10
  corporations are funding all the super PACs that are running ads for him,
• 20:13
  and we,
• 20:13
  we all know how this works.
• 20:14
  I mean,
• 20:15
  again,
• 20:15
  he's not,
• 20:15
  he's not alone in being a,
• 20:17
  uh,
• 20:17
  uh,
• 20:17
  a smarmy sort of politician,
• 20:19
  but he's
• 20:20
  pretty good at it.
• 20:21
  Um,
• 20:22
  I don't know how he's gonna do in the debate.
• 20:23
  My guess is pretty well.
• 20:24
  Uh,
• 20:25
  he doesn't look flustered in these situations.
• 20:27
  He's generally speaking a,
• 20:29
  uh,
• 20:30
  I mean,
• 20:30
  he might have a bad moment.
• 20:31
  I think like the Muslim Brother Brotherhood thing's pretty weak,
• 20:34
  but
• 20:35
  I don't think he'll have a catastrophe.
• 20:36
  Like he's not,
• 20:37
  you know,
• 20:37
  we were talking about,
• 20:38
  uh,
• 20:38
  Darlene Graham,
• 20:39
  where she was like,
• 20:40
  I don't really have any expertise in that area.
• 20:42
  Like he's not gonna have that moment,
• 20:43
  I don't think.
• 20:44
  Um,
• 20:44
  he won't have that moment where it makes everyone go,
• 20:46
  whoa,
• 20:46
  whoa,
• 20:46
  whoa,
• 20:46
  what you,
• 20:47
  what,
• 20:47
  what,
• 20:47
  what is is that you do,
• 20:48
  is he doing?
• 20:49
  Um,
• 20:49
  but he will have moments they can exploit.
• 20:51
  Uh,
• 20:52
  it will be interesting,
• 20:52
  a really important debate coming up on Thursday in that race.
• 20:55
  This is what the markets look like right now.
• 20:57
  Uh,
• 20:57
  let's look at this one.
• 20:58
  It is a Calshi market.
• 20:59
  Uh,
• 21:00
  Abdul El Sayyed,
• 21:01
  74%.
• 21:02
  1 thing I just wanna look at,
• 21:03
  if you,
• 21:04
  Adam,
• 21:04
  go back to like April.
• 21:06
  If you go back to April,
• 21:07
  you have a,
• 21:07
  a race here,
• 21:08
  um,
• 21:09
  now this says Al Sayed,
• 21:10
  but this is the race,
• 21:11
  but this is by resolves by winning party.
• 21:13
  You see that under the main headline there.
• 21:15
  And the way they structure these markets is to say,
• 21:17
  well,
• 21:17
  is this Republican or Democrat?
• 21:18
  So before
• 21:20
  the actual primary happens,
• 21:22
  you have Al Sayed,
• 21:23
  but actually the Democratic Party had a 78% chance to win.
• 21:26
  People are assuming this is gonna be a Democratic year.
• 21:28
  And so it's at 78%.
• 21:30
  You see this start to get,
• 21:31
  uh,
• 21:31
  to kind of come down as people see,
• 21:33
  wait a minute,
• 21:34
  these polls are close.
• 21:34
  Haley Stevens might lose to El Sayed.
• 21:37
  It maintains that level of around 70% right there
• 21:41
  until
• 21:42
  primary day.
• 21:43
  And you see on primary day,
• 21:44
  it drops all the way to a 55-44 race,
• 21:48
  where Rodgers is all the way up to almost a 50/50 shot
• 21:52
  at winning.
• 21:53
  What the markets have actually decided here.
• 21:55
  now they are as sure as they were before the primary
• 21:59
  that El Sayed is going to win.
• 22:01
  He's up now to what,
• 22:02
  77%,
• 22:04
  74%.
• 22:05
  So,
• 22:06
  basically,
• 22:07
  there was a worry that El Sayed is a bad candidate.
• 22:09
  He's gonna be a weaker candidate.
• 22:11
  The markets have shunned that aside
• 22:14
  and said,
• 22:14
  we still think he's now as sure a thing as we did before this primary even took place.
• 22:18
  It's kind of a remarkable move.
• 22:20
  He's been very,
• 22:21
  very positive lately.
• 22:22
  Uh,
• 22:22
  his polls are
• 22:24
  on the right side of things.
• 22:26
  If you look strictly at the polls,
• 22:27
  you'd rather be El Sayyed right now that he has a slight lead.
• 22:29
  However,
• 22:30
  I still have that
• 22:31
  in the toss-up category.
• 22:32
  We're gonna do a little bit about the Senate board here in a,
• 22:34
  in a,
• 22:34
  in a minute.
• 22:35
  So maybe we'll get into that and I'll show you where my,
• 22:37
  uh,
• 22:37
  where my current positions are
• 22:39
  in the Senate.
• 22:40
  But El Sayed,
• 22:40
  I think that's a 50/50 race.
• 22:42
  I think that is a toss-up right now.
• 22:43
  Rodgers actually has a real chance to win in a very difficult year for Republicans.
• 22:47
  So that,
• 22:48
  that,
• 22:48
  that,
• 22:48
  uh,
• 22:48
  I'm gonna be watching very closely
• 22:50
  when it comes to the debate
• 22:52
  on Thursday.
• 22:52
  All right,
• 22:52
  we're gonna take a break.
• 22:53
  Back in a second.
• 23:12
  We've got a lot of talk about waves,
• 23:14
  wave elections are coming.
• 23:16
  The blue wave
• 23:17
  we've seen before,
• 23:18
  the red wave.
• 23:19
  There's always a wave,
• 23:20
  then there's a tsunami.
• 23:21
  What,
• 23:22
  what,
• 23:22
  how do we get above,
• 23:23
  what's above that apocalypse?
• 23:25
  Uh,
• 23:25
  whatever it is,
• 23:26
  there's always a wave talk,
• 23:27
  and the wave kind of meaning like one side just kind of dominates,
• 23:29
  right?
• 23:30
  Like does better than expectations,
• 23:31
  kind of blows
• 23:32
  things out of the water.
• 23:33
  The biggest wave we've seen in our lifetime,
• 23:35
  uh,
• 23:35
  was 2010,
• 23:36
  the Tea Party wave,
• 23:38
  which was the biggest,
• 23:38
  uh,
• 23:39
  wave election in a century.
• 23:41
  Um,
• 23:41
  but we've seen others.
• 23:42
  Uh,
• 23:42
  2006 was really bad for Republicans.
• 23:44
  Uh,
• 23:44
  2010 was really good for,
• 23:46
  uh,
• 23:46
  excuse me,
• 23:46
  yeah,
• 23:47
  really bad for Republicans in 2006,
• 23:49
  really,
• 23:49
  uh,
• 23:50
  pretty bad for Republicans in 2008.
• 23:52
  Uh,
• 23:52
  2010
• 23:55
  was a huge wave,
• 23:56
  as I mentioned,
• 23:56
  for Republicans.
• 23:58
  2014 was pretty good for Republicans,
• 24:00
  2018,
• 24:01
  pretty good for Democrats.
• 24:02
  Um,
• 24:03
  you know,
• 24:03
  it's depending on your definition of wave,
• 24:06
  all or some of those would qualify.
• 24:08
  Uh,
• 24:08
  2022,
• 24:09
  there's a lot of talk about a red wave,
• 24:11
  you know,
• 24:11
  I,
• 24:11
  and I mentioned this at the time,
• 24:12
  the polling
• 24:13
  really didn't support
• 24:14
  a wave.
• 24:15
  I mean,
• 24:15
  it looked like it was gonna be a good year for Republicans.
• 24:18
  Republicans did check the box by winning the House,
• 24:20
  which they needed to do,
• 24:21
  uh,
• 24:21
  but it wasn't a great year for Republicans.
• 24:23
  The wave was more of a ripple,
• 24:25
  as they say.
• 24:26
  Um,
• 24:26
  so what is exactly a wave election?
• 24:28
  Should Republicans be on high alert?
• 24:30
  Um,
• 24:30
  Nate Cohn,
• 24:31
  who's one of the data guys over at The New York Times,
• 24:33
  and actually does a good job over there,
• 24:34
  unlike many other sections of the New York Times,
• 24:36
  in my,
• 24:37
  uh,
• 24:37
  opinion.
• 24:38
  Um,
• 24:38
  but he says,
• 24:38
  uh,
• 24:38
  2026 wave implied by recent polling
• 24:41
  would not be the biggest one in memory.
• 24:43
  That distinction,
• 24:43
  as we said,
• 24:44
  belongs to 2010
• 24:46
  when a GOP wave,
• 24:47
  Democratic landslide,
• 24:48
  a 17 point,
• 24:49
  uh,
• 24:50
  swing toward Republicans.
• 24:52
  But that would be what we're seeing now would be,
• 24:55
  as he says,
• 24:56
  comparable to 2006 or 2018.
• 24:59
  As a result,
• 25:00
  many states and districts where Mr.
• 25:02
  Trump or Republicans won easily in 2024 would be expected to come into play,
• 25:06
  and we're seeing a lot of that,
• 25:07
  uh,
• 25:07
  right now.
• 25:08
  Um,
• 25:09
  uh,
• 25:10
  Republicans are making the argument they're not saying,
• 25:11
  well,
• 25:11
  we're gonna have a red wave.
• 25:13
  They're saying this,
• 25:14
  uh,
• 25:14
  midterms won't be a blue wave or a red wave,
• 25:17
  only knife fights and dark alleys,
• 25:18
  says the GOP campaign boss,
• 25:21
  um,
• 25:21
  kind of making the idea that like,
• 25:22
  look,
• 25:22
  even the Republicans aren't necessarily saying there's going to be a red wave.
• 25:26
  So I bring all that up as kind of context to talk about.
• 25:30
  Our candidate of the day,
• 25:31
  and,
• 25:31
  you know,
• 25:31
  you might look at this and say,
• 25:32
  well,
• 25:32
  wait a minute,
• 25:33
  that doesn't even work as a candidate of the day,
• 25:34
  and here's the thing,
• 25:35
  it's my show.
• 25:37
  I get to make up the rules for all of these segments.
• 25:40
  So if I want to make the candidate of the day this.
• 25:43
  Then it's gonna be this.
• 25:44
  Candidate of the day,
• 25:45
  28 days until the midterms.
• 25:47
  Yes,
• 25:47
  our candidate of the day,
• 25:48
  what does that look like right now?
• 25:50
  That candidate is the red wave.
• 25:52
  Yes,
• 25:52
  the candidate of the day is the red wave,
• 25:54
  and you may be disappointed in this,
• 25:56
  but the no position.
• 25:58
  On the red wave.
• 25:59
  Now,
• 25:59
  a wave,
• 26:00
  you can come up with a bunch of different definitions.
• 26:01
  We just talked about that.
• 26:02
  The definition,
• 26:03
  uh,
• 26:03
  here,
• 26:04
  an election cycle where the Republican Party achieves
• 26:06
  a major surge in voter support and wins
• 26:08
  a large number of seats or control across the government.
• 26:11
  Well,
• 26:11
  what's that definition?
• 26:12
  That's not really the important definition.
• 26:14
  The 2nd Amendment
• 26:17
  to the predictable Constitution.
• 26:19
  We have a predictable constitution,
• 26:20
  by the way,
• 26:20
  all of our rules that I use every day to to trade
• 26:23
  on prediction markets,
• 26:24
  it's up at predictableshow.com.
• 26:27
  Free,
• 26:28
  for you to look at all the time.
• 26:29
  I want you to do well on these markets,
• 26:30
  so,
• 26:30
  uh,
• 26:31
  use these rules cause they're usually rules
• 26:33
  made by mistakes that I have participated in.
• 26:35
  But our Second Amendment is,
• 26:37
  you gotta read the rules.
• 26:38
  It doesn't matter what the definition of the dictionary is or
• 26:40
  the definition of the New York Times says it is.
• 26:43
  What is the definition in this particular contract?
• 26:45
  This is a Calci contract,
• 26:47
  and it's interesting for a couple of different reasons.
• 26:49
  Let me show you the market.
• 26:51
  Uh,
• 26:51
  this is a,
• 26:52
  will there be a red wave
• 26:54
  this year?
• 26:55
  The chances are very low.
• 26:56
  So there's not a massive profit opportunity here,
• 26:58
  but there's a couple of things I like about this.
• 27:00
  Number one,
• 27:01
  Uh,
• 27:01
  I,
• 27:01
  you know,
• 27:02
  you may know this,
• 27:03
  I am a conservative.
• 27:04
  Uh,
• 27:04
  I like to hedge my life.
• 27:06
  This is a really nice clean opportunity for you to hedge
• 27:09
  your life if you happen to be a Republican or a conservative
• 27:12
  rooting for red results,
• 27:14
  uh,
• 27:15
  because if you put no on here.
• 27:17
  Um,
• 27:17
  click over to the no position if you could,
• 27:19
  Adam.
• 27:19
  I don't know what that,
• 27:19
  uh,
• 27:20
  if you can do that,
• 27:21
  uh,
• 27:21
  or not,
• 27:22
  given the way the screen is set up.
• 27:23
  If not,
• 27:23
  that's OK.
• 27:24
  Um,
• 27:25
  uh,
• 27:25
  yeah,
• 27:26
  so you're like,
• 27:26
  you know,
• 27:26
  in the mid-nineties here.
• 27:27
  Um,
• 27:28
  you know,
• 27:28
  you can see 93.3 would be the,
• 27:30
  the straight,
• 27:31
  straight position from the latest trade.
• 27:33
  Um,
• 27:33
  is there a chance for a,
• 27:34
  uh,
• 27:35
  a red wave this year?
• 27:36
  It's Gonna be really hard,
• 27:37
  right?
• 27:37
  This is a blue leaning year.
• 27:39
  Now,
• 27:39
  let's scroll down to the results or to the rules here for a moment.
• 27:41
  Let's,
• 27:42
  let's,
• 27:42
  let's participate in the Second Amendment.
• 27:45
  We love the Second Amendment here in this program.
• 27:47
  Second Amendment,
• 27:47
  read the rules.
• 27:48
  This resolves,
• 27:49
  yes,
• 27:50
  if
• 27:51
  all of the following occur for the 2026 midterms.
• 27:54
  US House Republicans win 220 or more seats.
• 27:56
  Stop for a second and think about that.
• 27:57
  You only need 218 to win.
• 27:59
  So in theory,
• 28:01
  You could actually,
• 28:01
  if you're in the no position here,
• 28:03
  you could actually you could get control of the House
• 28:05
  for Republicans and still win because it's not a wave.
• 28:08
  Now,
• 28:09
  I don't know why they picked 220 for a wave,
• 28:10
  that doesn't scream wave to me,
• 28:12
  but it is a victory.
• 28:13
  It's a win for Republicans.
• 28:15
  So 220 seats,
• 28:16
  and then
• 28:18
  Republicans hold 55 or more seats.
• 28:22
  So,
• 28:22
  that is a,
• 28:23
  you know,
• 28:23
  a really good year in the Senate.
• 28:25
  Let me show you quickly the,
• 28:27
  uh,
• 28:28
  Senate board.
• 28:28
  Do we have the Senate board live view.
• 28:30
  This is,
• 28:30
  uh,
• 28:31
  this is available as well,
• 28:32
  predictableShow.com.
• 28:34
  We can go there and drag these states around
• 28:36
  however you like.
• 28:38
  Uh,
• 28:38
  this is how my board is set up.
• 28:40
  I think this is,
• 28:41
  this looks,
• 28:41
  yeah,
• 28:41
  it looks pretty current.
• 28:42
  I guess they updated it.
• 28:44
  Um,
• 28:44
  but,
• 28:45
  so this is where I have it at 4949 right now.
• 28:48
  Let's try to get to 55 for the heck of it,
• 28:50
  for Republicans.
• 28:51
  To do that,
• 28:52
  you gotta give,
• 28:52
  uh,
• 28:53
  Michigan and Maine,
• 28:54
  which are my two toss-up states,
• 28:56
  drag those over to the Republican side to the lean R for a moment here.
• 28:59
  That gets you only to 51.
• 29:02
  How are you getting to 55 seats here?
• 29:03
  Well,
• 29:03
  let's give the lean Democrat states also to the Republicans.
• 29:06
  That's Alaska
• 29:07
  and Ohio.
• 29:09
  That gets you to 53.
• 29:10
  You still got to pick off 2 more seats here.
• 29:12
  Now,
• 29:13
  I will be honest with you,
• 29:14
  I don't think there's any,
• 29:16
  I don't think there's any reasonable chance
• 29:18
  that Republicans are winning either Georgia or North Carolina.
• 29:21
  So I guess to get to 55,
• 29:23
  you've got to have Michelle Tafoya pick off Minnesota in a year like this,
• 29:28
  and,
• 29:28
  yeah,
• 29:28
  drag that over.
• 29:29
  And you gotta have,
• 29:31
  uh,
• 29:31
  Sununu,
• 29:33
  whose polling is OK
• 29:34
  in New Hampshire,
• 29:36
  pick off Pappas,
• 29:37
  that gets you to 55%.
• 29:38
  That's really hard.
• 29:40
  I mean,
• 29:40
  that is,
• 29:41
  that would be a shocking result
• 29:44
  on election night.
• 29:44
  Now,
• 29:44
  you're paying for this,
• 29:45
  right?
• 29:46
  It's,
• 29:46
  it's,
• 29:46
  you're getting only like,
• 29:47
  you know,
• 29:47
  56,
• 29:48
  7%.
• 29:49
  On your money here.
• 29:50
  So it's not like some miracle thing.
• 29:52
  But
• 29:52
  even
• 29:53
  if you want to go on,
• 29:55
  uh,
• 29:55
  do we have,
• 29:56
  um,
• 29:57
  I don't have it in front of me.
• 29:58
  If you can pull up the,
• 29:59
  uh,
• 29:59
  US House,
• 30:01
  uh,
• 30:01
  markets,
• 30:02
  just who's gonna win the House,
• 30:03
  Adam,
• 30:03
  on poly market or on,
• 30:05
  uh,
• 30:05
  on,
• 30:06
  uh,
• 30:07
  uh,
• 30:07
  over on,
• 30:08
  or if you have the predict uh predictable market consensus or midterm consensus,
• 30:11
  it's on there as well.
• 30:13
  I don't know what that number currently is,
• 30:15
  but like,
• 30:15
  you gotta pay in the 90s just to get the house.
• 30:18
  Where are we at now?
• 30:19
  Uh,
• 30:20
  this is,
• 30:20
  OK,
• 30:21
  this is actually a little bit of a mid,
• 30:23
  this is actually both,
• 30:24
  um,
• 30:24
  sides.
• 30:24
  But if you look at,
• 30:25
  uh,
• 30:25
  let's see,
• 30:26
  Democrats.
• 30:27
  Um,
• 30:28
  sweep is 65%,
• 30:30
  and Democrats,
• 30:31
  uh,
• 30:31
  House,
• 30:32
  Republican Senate is 29%.
• 30:34
  So add those both up,
• 30:35
  those are the Democrats winning,
• 30:36
  that's 85,
• 30:37
  94%.
• 30:38
  1 of those two things happens.
• 30:40
  You're basically getting.
• 30:43
  That if you could have the Democrats win the House,
• 30:46
  and you have the Democrats win the Senate.
• 30:48
  Um,
• 30:49
  and,
• 30:49
  uh,
• 30:49
  you're gonna be fine there.
• 30:50
  You're getting better prices than you're getting on some of these other markets.
• 30:53
  So,
• 30:53
  in a weird way,
• 30:54
  I like this market a little bit more than
• 30:56
  some of the other traditional markets if you can find
• 30:58
  some shares there because
• 31:00
  you're getting a little bit of a bonus out of this red wave thing
• 31:03
  and you have a little bit of room.
• 31:04
  I mean,
• 31:04
  Republicans could win
• 31:06
  the,
• 31:06
  uh,
• 31:06
  the House
• 31:07
  and hold the Senate and get to 54 seats,
• 31:09
  which would be a miracle,
• 31:11
  and you're still gonna win this contract.
• 31:13
  So,
• 31:13
  it's a great hedge.
• 31:14
  The only way you lose this,
• 31:15
  if you happen to be a person who wants conservatives,
• 31:18
  uh,
• 31:18
  to win this particular election,
• 31:21
  the only way you lose your contract is if you have an
• 31:24
  incredible year that you're gonna be thrilled by
• 31:27
  politically.
• 31:28
  Uh,
• 31:28
  and again,
• 31:29
  it's not the biggest return in the world,
• 31:31
  but you're talking about 7,
• 31:33
  maybe 8%
• 31:34
  over a period of
• 31:36
  4 weeks,
• 31:38
  which is great
• 31:39
  as far as a return in any other circumstance.
• 31:42
  So,
• 31:42
  again,
• 31:42
  I think there's tons of,
• 31:43
  uh,
• 31:44
  this,
• 31:44
  this type of market is still available out there.
• 31:47
  We've been drilling down to these candidates for a while.
• 31:49
  We've hit a lot of the big kind of sexy races,
• 31:51
  and we're gonna have to get deeper and deeper
• 31:53
  into looking for these,
• 31:54
  getting into margin markets,
• 31:55
  getting into these combo type markets.
• 31:56
  I like these markets a lot.
• 31:58
  I like these markets a lot.
• 32:00
  I want more of them.
• 32:01
  I want more volume in them because I think there's real opportunities
• 32:04
  there.
• 32:04
  So,
• 32:05
  my candidate of the day.
• 32:06
  It's not a candidate at all.
• 32:08
  It is Red Wave.
• 32:09
  No,
• 32:10
  it's a Calshi market,
• 32:12
  but look for these other,
• 32:13
  uh,
• 32:13
  combo markets.
• 32:14
  You can find really interesting versions of these
• 32:16
  where they'll combine 3 or 4 things happening.
• 32:19
  And
• 32:20
  you can kind of say,
• 32:20
  well,
• 32:20
  wait a minute,
• 32:21
  that even just that one is not gonna happen.
• 32:23
  I can rule that one out.
• 32:25
  Um,
• 32:25
  I like those markets and I like going no on them as well,
• 32:28
  typically.
• 32:28
  I like finding the no side
• 32:30
  to those markets cause it's just a little bit of a different way to play and
• 32:33
  you never can think
• 32:34
  it's like saying like,
• 32:35
  you know,
• 32:35
  people talk about parlays a lot,
• 32:37
  right?
• 32:38
  Um,
• 32:38
  and that's,
• 32:39
  you know,
• 32:39
  in a way,
• 32:40
  you can compare this to a parlay if you want to look in a colloquial sense.
• 32:43
  Uh,
• 32:44
  you can say,
• 32:44
  OK,
• 32:44
  well,
• 32:45
  unless you need 4 things to happen or 5 things to happen in some of these markets,
• 32:48
  uh,
• 32:48
  to win.
• 32:49
  I like going no on those
• 32:51
  because
• 32:51
  oftentimes one of those things just burns you somehow.
• 32:54
  You don't see it coming,
• 32:55
  you're like,
• 32:55
  oh gosh,
• 32:55
  I would have never thought that that state would have gone the wrong way.
• 32:58
  Uh,
• 32:58
  but you can kind of go no on those markets,
• 33:00
  and then if you get one of those things,
• 33:01
  uh,
• 33:01
  that doesn't go the way of,
• 33:03
  of the combo,
• 33:04
  you wind up with a victory,
• 33:05
  and that's what we want here.
• 33:06
  That's what we're doing here.
• 33:08
  We've been doing this for months.
• 33:09
  Uh,
• 33:09
  you've been here with us on this ride.
• 33:10
  You probably did pretty well in the primaries.
• 33:12
  If you've been around here for a while,
• 33:13
  we hope to do just as well.
• 33:14
  Coming up in just 1 month.
• 33:16
  Yeah,
• 33:16
  we're 4 weeks away from the election
• 33:18
  and still hopefully churning out winners.
• 33:20
  So check that one out.
• 33:21
  It's a red wave no on Calshi
• 33:23
  for that particular market.
• 33:24
  We're gonna be back in just a moment.
• 33:38
  Welcome back.
• 33:38
  Um,
• 33:39
  there's all,
• 33:39
  um,
• 33:39
  you know,
• 33:40
  it's one of these things where we talk about,
• 33:41
  um,
• 33:42
  there's people coming for prediction markets all the time.
• 33:45
  They are a target.
• 33:46
  And if you like prediction markets,
• 33:48
  if you think they,
• 33:49
  they give value,
• 33:50
  it's important to understand
• 33:52
  that that's just not your vibe,
• 33:54
  you know,
• 33:54
  if you think it's just fun,
• 33:56
  if you think,
• 33:56
  oh gosh,
• 33:57
  I'm throwing money around and I don't care,
• 33:59
  play money and
• 34:00
  You might use them that way.
• 34:01
  Some people do.
• 34:02
  We use it a totally different way on this program.
• 34:04
  We talk about it as investing all the time because
• 34:08
  that's what we're doing,
• 34:09
  you know,
• 34:09
  I mean,
• 34:09
  it,
• 34:10
  it's
• 34:11
  You know,
• 34:11
  there,
• 34:12
  look,
• 34:12
  there's not a lot of people who are like,
• 34:13
  hey,
• 34:13
  you,
• 34:13
  you wanna be a gambler?
• 34:14
  Let me give you something where you can get 8% gains.
• 34:17
  Like,
• 34:17
  that's not really a thing,
• 34:18
  right?
• 34:19
  Most,
• 34:19
  that's not how people gamble.
• 34:21
  People invest that way to try to get those types of gains,
• 34:23
  and we look for
• 34:24
  85,
• 34:25
  2015,
• 34:26
  30% gains,
• 34:28
  um,
• 34:28
  often on this show.
• 34:30
  And,
• 34:30
  you know,
• 34:31
  a lot of people are like,
• 34:31
  oh gosh,
• 34:32
  give me a real long shot.
• 34:33
  It's like,
• 34:33
  well,
• 34:33
  you know,
• 34:33
  long shots usually lose.
• 34:35
  I'd rather give you something where I think we're gonna win.
• 34:37
  If I can find a long shot,
• 34:38
  I will happily give you those,
• 34:39
  and we've hit some of those as well.
• 34:41
  Um,
• 34:41
  one of the reasons I bring this up is because people
• 34:42
  are talking about prediction markets as if they have no value,
• 34:45
  right?
• 34:45
  They,
• 34:46
  this is like,
• 34:46
  oh gosh,
• 34:47
  a bad thing for society and people are gambling
• 34:49
  on these young people who are on markets.
• 34:50
  Like,
• 34:50
  I,
• 34:50
  I will,
• 34:51
  I,
• 34:51
  I've picked apart
• 34:53
  a bunch of different pieces of this argument over
• 34:55
  the years and I'll continue to do it,
• 34:57
  um,
• 34:57
  because I think it's important that you know the facts.
• 35:00
  But when it comes to whether they're providing something for the public,
• 35:03
  really that is kind of guarded,
• 35:04
  uh,
• 35:05
  uh,
• 35:05
  you know,
• 35:05
  guided by whether they're accurate or not,
• 35:07
  right?
• 35:07
  If they're just giving you random numbers,
• 35:09
  they,
• 35:09
  they,
• 35:09
  they don't serve all that much value even if they might be fun,
• 35:13
  um,
• 35:13
  and they might be able to,
• 35:14
  you know,
• 35:14
  you,
• 35:14
  a way for you to test your own opinions,
• 35:16
  you're gonna get that much value out of them,
• 35:18
  uh,
• 35:19
  unless they're
• 35:19
  telling you the right thing.
• 35:20
  So I wanna highlight a couple of things.
• 35:21
  This is from,
• 35:22
  uh,
• 35:22
  Benjamin Freeman.
• 35:23
  Um,
• 35:24
  he says depending on whether prediction
• 35:25
  markets are favoring Republicans or Democrats,
• 35:27
  everyone seems to have an opinion they are biased one way or the other.
• 35:30
  In reality,
• 35:31
  a Dartmouth study dating all the way back to 1880
• 35:34
  finds nosy uh systematic evidence of political or demographic bias.
• 35:39
  For most prediction market traders,
• 35:40
  this probably doesn't come as a surprise,
• 35:41
  but I would encourage everyone to read the study and give it some,
• 35:43
  some,
• 35:44
  some thoughts.
• 35:44
  Now,
• 35:45
  um,
• 35:45
  this was,
• 35:46
  uh,
• 35:46
  tweeted by,
• 35:47
  uh,
• 35:48
  Tarek Mansour,
• 35:48
  who's the,
• 35:49
  uh,
• 35:49
  CEO of Calsci.
• 35:50
  Obviously,
• 35:50
  he likes prediction markets.
• 35:52
  He's a fan.
• 35:53
  Uh,
• 35:53
  he says this,
• 35:54
  uh,
• 35:54
  our prediction markets biased
• 35:56
  by white men,
• 35:57
  Republicans or young people?
• 35:58
  Dartmouth professor analyzed 145 years of election prediction market data.
• 36:02
  Now,
• 36:02
  I gotta be honest with you,
• 36:03
  I know a lot about elections,
• 36:04
  uh,
• 36:04
  and prediction market data.
• 36:06
  Didn't know there were prediction markets in 1880.
• 36:08
  I,
• 36:08
  I need to go through this entire study to learn about this,
• 36:11
  the history of this,
• 36:12
  cause my understanding of it is it went back,
• 36:13
  you know,
• 36:13
  a few decades.
• 36:14
  There were examples of this.
• 36:15
  I didn't know it went back that far,
• 36:17
  but
• 36:17
  They found no systemic evidence
• 36:19
  of political bias across different eras,
• 36:21
  countries,
• 36:22
  and offices.
• 36:22
  I will say some prediction markets were biased toward the Whig Party.
• 36:27
  That's just,
• 36:27
  I don't have any data to support that,
• 36:28
  but that's what I believe.
• 36:29
  Uh,
• 36:29
  no systemic evidence of pricing bias based on candidates' race,
• 36:32
  gender,
• 36:33
  or age.
• 36:34
  Uh,
• 36:34
  traders weren't always representative of the voting population,
• 36:37
  yet that didn't translate into systematic bias.
• 36:39
  What's interesting about that is it's kind of something you,
• 36:41
  you know,
• 36:41
  right?
• 36:43
  If you ask somebody,
• 36:44
  uh,
• 36:45
  who might be of a particular racial group or
• 36:47
  a particular gender or a particular political group,
• 36:50
  you may or may not be able to trust what they think about an election.
• 36:53
  But when you're talking to people who are putting their money where their mouth is,
• 36:55
  I mean,
• 36:56
  how many people,
• 36:56
  how many times have I recommended to you
• 36:58
  that to put money on a democratic position?
• 36:59
  I just did.
• 37:01
  I mean,
• 37:01
  you know,
• 37:01
  I,
• 37:01
  my,
• 37:02
  when I say recommend,
• 37:03
  recommend,
• 37:03
  it's just my opinion and what I'm doing.
• 37:05
  But when you talk about like,
• 37:06
  uh,
• 37:07
  the red wave,
• 37:08
  like,
• 37:08
  I would rather have conservatives win in these elections,
• 37:10
  OK?
• 37:11
  That's my own political opinion personally.
• 37:14
  That being said,
• 37:15
  I'm telling you,
• 37:15
  I think the red wave is a,
• 37:17
  uh,
• 37:17
  is a no position because I don't think it's gonna happen.
• 37:20
  And like,
• 37:21
  frankly,
• 37:21
  it's been difficult to hold up over the years when it comes to,
• 37:24
  uh,
• 37:24
  normal sort of partisan,
• 37:26
  if you will,
• 37:27
  media coverage.
• 37:28
  I mean,
• 37:28
  I've been on a lot of media coverage
• 37:29
  talking with people who are very much rooting for their own side.
• 37:32
  And like,
• 37:33
  I get that,
• 37:33
  that's important,
• 37:34
  you have to do that.
• 37:35
  Uh,
• 37:35
  you have to do things that are support your own side if you think that's important.
• 37:39
  But like,
• 37:40
  taking the no,
• 37:41
  no,
• 37:41
  I don't think Mitt Romney's gonna win this election was not an easy thing.
• 37:44
  I mean,
• 37:44
  I had to do that a lot and say,
• 37:46
  gosh,
• 37:46
  I just don't think the data is there to support it.
• 37:48
  Um,
• 37:49
  and uh people hated that at the time,
• 37:51
  uh,
• 37:51
  when I was on with Glenn,
• 37:53
  uh,
• 37:53
  and some Blaze program,
• 37:54
  and they,
• 37:54
  they we're not fans of that particular argument,
• 37:56
  but it wound up being,
• 37:57
  you know,
• 37:57
  true,
• 37:57
  and that's what we try to do here.
• 37:59
  Um,
• 37:59
  he goes on to say,
• 38:00
  uh,
• 38:00
  open competition incentivizes research,
• 38:02
  challenges consensus,
• 38:04
  and gives the best ideas to surface.
• 38:05
  People are rewarded for being right
• 38:07
  regardless of their background or preferences.
• 38:09
  The paper does find some pricing biases,
• 38:12
  um,
• 38:13
  uh,
• 38:14
  including slight overpricing of long shots and underpricing of favorites,
• 38:17
  which is interesting cause I think that's sort
• 38:19
  of reversed over the past month or two.
• 38:21
  I think some of the favorites are overpriced lately,
• 38:23
  and we did find a lot of underdogs
• 38:25
  that we were able to hit.
• 38:27
  Um,
• 38:27
  uh,
• 38:27
  or at least ride them from a 5% chance up to a 20% chance during the primaries,
• 38:32
  but
• 38:32
  I do think that because these markets are getting sharper,
• 38:35
  I think almost they've overcompensated for that,
• 38:37
  but that's just my opinion.
• 38:38
  This is the market,
• 38:38
  this is the study,
• 38:39
  by the way,
• 38:39
  our prediction market's politically biased.
• 38:41
  Um,
• 38:42
  it talks about,
• 38:42
  uh,
• 38:43
  finds no evidence
• 38:44
  of an overpricing either left or right-leaning candidates
• 38:47
  across a variety of subsample samples and goes through the entire data.
• 38:50
  You can go check that out.
• 38:52
  This is not the only piece of evidence that shows though that this is accurate.
• 38:56
  And you might say,
• 38:56
  well,
• 38:56
  wait a minute,
• 38:57
  I saw a guy who was,
• 38:57
  they were,
• 38:58
  Francesca Hong was a 92% favorite and then she lost.
• 39:02
  Prediction markets aren't accurate.
• 39:04
  I see that all the time.
• 39:05
  Oh,
• 39:05
  look at the numbers are going up and down over a short period of time.
• 39:08
  That can't mean they don't know anything,
• 39:09
  prediction markets.
• 39:10
  There is a lot of academic research on this.
• 39:13
  Let me give you a,
• 39:14
  a few different examples of academic research,
• 39:17
  industry research
• 39:18
  that shows this in case you're interested in it.
• 39:21
  Um,
• 39:21
  Calci,
• 39:22
  uh,
• 39:22
  did a,
• 39:22
  uh,
• 39:23
  an,
• 39:23
  a research study on its,
• 39:24
  on its own,
• 39:25
  and,
• 39:25
  and you might be saying,
• 39:26
  oh gosh,
• 39:26
  well,
• 39:26
  that's just Calci.
• 39:27
  Let me,
• 39:27
  let me,
• 39:27
  let me go through this data though first.
• 39:29
  Calibration and prediction markets theory and evidence.
• 39:31
  This is a working paper from August 2026.
• 39:34
  They measured,
• 39:35
  um,
• 39:35
  2.2 million different prediction markets,
• 39:38
  2.2 million calci markets
• 39:40
  over,
• 39:41
  uh,
• 39:41
  a five-year period.
• 39:42
  And this is what they found.
• 39:45
  A three-month probability.
• 39:46
  Now,
• 39:47
  just explain what this graph is showing you,
• 39:48
  to,
• 39:48
  to oversimplify it,
• 39:50
  and I'll explain it for podcasters.
• 39:51
  There's a line going from the lower
• 39:52
  left-hand corner to the upper right-hand corner,
• 39:54
  straight line.
• 39:56
  Perfect calibration
• 39:57
  would mean
• 39:58
  that that red line
• 40:00
  would be exactly on the dotted line.
• 40:03
  What you see here is a red line that is very close
• 40:06
  to the dotted line,
• 40:07
  not exact,
• 40:08
  but very close.
• 40:09
  Uh,
• 40:09
  so what calibration means is like,
• 40:12
  if,
• 40:12
  if prediction markets say there's a 20% chance of,
• 40:14
  of something happening.
• 40:16
  It should happen
• 40:17
  20% of the time.
• 40:18
  If it says there's an 80% chance of happening,
• 40:21
  it should happen 80% of the time.
• 40:23
  So when you say something like Francesca Hong,
• 40:24
  well,
• 40:24
  it said there was a 95% chance and she lost,
• 40:27
  that should happen
• 40:28
  5% of the time.
• 40:29
  5% of the time,
• 40:31
  a 95% favorite should lose.
• 40:34
  And what we've seen over millions of markets,
• 40:37
  is that a 95% favorite actually loses about 5% of the time.
• 40:42
  Now,
• 40:42
  that's 3 months in advance.
• 40:44
  They also have it at 1 month,
• 40:46
  you'll see,
• 40:46
  uh,
• 40:47
  with the 1 month chart,
• 40:48
  the line is even a little bit closer
• 40:49
  to perfect calibration.
• 40:51
  When you go to 1 week,
• 40:53
  the line is even a little bit closer to perfect calibration,
• 40:56
  and you go to 1 day,
• 40:58
  this is 492,000 markets,
• 41:01
  the,
• 41:01
  the,
• 41:02
  the,
• 41:02
  I mean,
• 41:03
  it's almost perfect.
• 41:04
  Almost perfect calibration over that
• 41:07
  size sample.
• 41:08
  You might say,
• 41:08
  OK,
• 41:08
  that's Calci,
• 41:09
  they're talking,
• 41:10
  you know,
• 41:10
  it's Calci,
• 41:11
  you know,
• 41:11
  checking their own homework here?
• 41:13
  No.
• 41:14
  There's another independent study,
• 41:15
  74,000,
• 41:16
  uh,
• 41:16
  Calci Markets,
• 41:17
  uh,
• 41:17
  found a similar pattern.
• 41:19
  Washington Post,
• 41:20
  yeah,
• 41:20
  the Washington Post even found this.
• 41:22
  Why prediction markets elections
• 41:23
  are,
• 41:23
  uh,
• 41:24
  election picks are useful even when they seem
• 41:26
  wrong.
• 41:27
  They predict they produced,
• 41:28
  uh,
• 41:29
  their own study.
• 41:30
  Uh,
• 41:30
  with a similar type graph,
• 41:32
  again,
• 41:32
  you see an upper right-hand line of like,
• 41:33
  here's the the,
• 41:34
  the,
• 41:34
  uh,
• 41:35
  the,
• 41:35
  the numbers should be,
• 41:36
  and you see the dots,
• 41:38
  they fit on that line again,
• 41:40
  almost perfectly
• 41:41
  in the green boxes
• 41:43
  in every single shaded area,
• 41:45
  all the way from 0 all the way to 100.
• 41:47
  The bottom line here
• 41:48
  is that
• 41:49
  when you hear arguments about people saying,
• 41:51
  well,
• 41:51
  there's no value to this.
• 41:52
  You know,
• 41:53
  it's just gambling.
• 41:55
  You getting better information is valuable.
• 41:59
  It is incredibly valuable,
• 42:00
  especially in this crappy media era we're in,
• 42:04
  when people are lying to you all the time.
• 42:06
  The fact that you now have a tool
• 42:08
  that you can see,
• 42:10
  you know,
• 42:11
  almost exactly,
• 42:13
  uh,
• 42:13
  to that one line that we're talking about here.
• 42:17
  They,
• 42:17
  these are perfectly calibrated results over millions of markets over years.
• 42:21
  In some markets going back to 1880.
• 42:25
  That is a massive improvement over the media diet and the information diet you,
• 42:29
  you had before 2021 when Calci came online or predicted before that or,
• 42:33
  or polymarket or whoever you wanna say.
• 42:35
  This is a massive,
• 42:36
  massive improvement for you and your life when it comes to your news and media diet.
• 42:40
  And,
• 42:41
  uh,
• 42:41
  you know,
• 42:42
  the fact that three-quarters of people
• 42:44
  don't trade.
• 42:44
  They come to these sites to check the numbers,
• 42:46
  they don't trade.
• 42:47
  That is a real benefit to society
• 42:49
  that,
• 42:49
  of course,
• 42:50
  the media will not admit.
• 43:00
  All right,
• 43:00
  that's all the time we have,
• 43:01
  uh,
• 43:01
  today.
• 43:01
  I wanna remind you we have lots of great tools at predictableShow.com.
• 43:04
  Go there,
• 43:05
  you get,
• 43:05
  uh,
• 43:05
  the Senate board for free.
• 43:07
  You can check that out whenever you want.
• 43:08
  The predictable midterm consensus.
• 43:10
  Get those top line numbers for free.
• 43:11
  If you want every single race broken down by prediction market data
• 43:14
  and the expert data,
• 43:15
  you can get that as part of your premium.
• 43:17
  Description.
• 43:18
  We also have the predictable constitution,
• 43:20
  predictable 101.com.
• 43:21
  These are things to get you started to make sure that you don't,
• 43:24
  you know,
• 43:24
  blow all your money on prediction markets.
• 43:26
  Um,
• 43:27
  be smart with it,
• 43:27
  start small,
• 43:28
  get to understand them.
• 43:29
  If you're new to this,
• 43:30
  don't feel like you're like,
• 43:31
  oh gosh,
• 43:32
  I'm way left behind.
• 43:33
  I don't understand what he's talking about.
• 43:35
  Get started,
• 43:35
  watch,
• 43:36
  go to predictable101.com.
• 43:38
  Get involved in it.
• 43:39
  Kinda make a couple of small trades,
• 43:40
  a couple of bucks,
• 43:41
  that's it.
• 43:41
  Uh,
• 43:42
  don't jump in with hundreds of dollars and thousands of
• 43:44
  dollars because you probably will make some mistakes early on.
• 43:47
  But you've got a month here
• 43:48
  before this election happens.
• 43:49
  There's a ton of opportunities
• 43:51
  we've been telling you about that we're gonna take advantage of,
• 43:53
  and I think you can take advantage of them as well.
• 43:56
  We would love to have you at predictableShow.com.
• 43:58
  We have every pick.
• 44:00
  Stu's picks is up on the premium site as well.
• 44:02
  It's every prediction market position that I take.
• 44:04
  So if you're just thinking like,
• 44:05
  I don't.
• 44:05
  really know what I wanna do here.
• 44:07
  Look at my list,
• 44:08
  see which ones you think are smart plays,
• 44:09
  see which ones you don't,
• 44:11
  and you can even piggyback on some of those if you think they're valuable.
• 44:14
  Uh,
• 44:14
  that's all up at predictableShow.com.
• 44:15
  We try to give you as many resources as you can.
• 44:17
  Tons of them are free.
• 44:18
  You can be a free subscriber and get all the stuff
• 44:20
  at predictableShow.com
• 44:22
  or if you want to upgrade,
• 44:23
  if you're a trader,
• 44:23
  if you wanna get more involved,
• 44:25
  we'd love to have you there
• 44:26
  on the premium side as well.
• 44:27
  It's all the time we have for tonight.
• 44:28
  We'll see you later.