Latest / Predictable with Stu Burguiere / The GOP’s BEST-CASE Scenario for Midterms EXPLAINED

Transcript

The GOP’s BEST-CASE Scenario for Midterms EXPLAINED · Predictable with Stu Burguiere

• 0:00
  Are you new to prediction markets?
• 0:03
  Predictable101.com.
• 0:04
  Yeah,
• 0:04
  we put this together for you.
• 0:06
  It is a way to kind of bring you from the very,
• 0:07
  very beginning,
• 0:09
  uh,
• 0:09
  to
• 0:09
  trading on these markets as we get closer to the election,
• 0:12
  which is only a few weeks away.
• 0:13
  So,
• 0:14
  predictable101.com have the 1st 4 videos posted plus a,
• 0:17
  uh,
• 0:18
  also a digital guide you can look through,
• 0:20
  kind of get through the entire process.
• 0:22
  It's a,
• 0:22
  it's a resource,
• 0:23
  I would say maybe the most requested resource that
• 0:25
  we've had since the beginning of the show.
• 0:28
  It's uh up there now,
• 0:29
  predictable101.com.
• 0:30
  Go check that out.
• 0:31
  We've got a great show coming up for you today,
• 0:33
  including,
• 0:33
  you know,
• 0:34
  we talked a lot about bad news for Republicans.
• 0:36
  What's the good news?
• 0:36
  Is there a best case scenario we should look at
• 0:39
  for the midterms?
• 0:40
  We're gonna get into that
• 0:41
  next,
• 0:42
  please join us at predictableshow.com.
• 0:59
  Here we go.
• 1:00
  Welcome to Predictable with Stu.
• 1:02
  A lot of great stuff to get to,
• 1:04
  uh,
• 1:04
  today.
• 1:04
  I wanna start with the,
• 1:06
  the election.
• 1:07
  We are,
• 1:07
  uh,
• 1:08
  what,
• 1:08
  40,
• 1:09
  I have been here 42 days now
• 1:12
  until the election.
• 1:12
  Yeah,
• 1:13
  6 weeks away.
• 1:14
  Early voting has started already,
• 1:16
  but we'll give you some of the details on that maybe later,
• 1:18
  um,
• 1:18
  but I wanted to kind of get into
• 1:20
  one of the ways that we're thinking about this election.
• 1:23
  And it ties into sort of an active thesis statement
• 1:26
  that we have.
• 1:27
  We do this from time to time
• 1:28
  where we kind of have a,
• 1:29
  a,
• 1:30
  a general
• 1:31
  way we're thinking about an election,
• 1:32
  a way we're thinking about a market or just a general um prediction market take
• 1:37
  that we sort of apply,
• 1:38
  not necessarily as a,
• 1:40
  uh,
• 1:40
  it's like not the law of gravity here,
• 1:42
  but like something that kind of influences our thinking as we
• 1:45
  go through these markets on a day to day basis,
• 1:47
  and we have a new active thesis.
• 1:57
  This is one of the things that's influenced us as we've approached the election,
• 2:01
  which is to look at elections where we can find value
• 2:05
  and we think there's still some movement that might come
• 2:08
  a little bit later on because you,
• 2:10
  you know,
• 2:10
  a lot of these elections,
• 2:11
  people don't realize you can kind of wait,
• 2:13
  you don't have to necessarily get months and months ahead.
• 2:16
  We saw this in the primaries over and over and over again though,
• 2:19
  where if you were
• 2:20
  246 weeks ahead.
• 2:23
  You got
• 2:24
  what looked like a sure thing at 85 instead of 95.
• 2:28
  You got it at 75 instead of 90.
• 2:31
  Those extra points add up over time and if it's only gonna cost you a few weeks,
• 2:34
  you know,
• 2:34
  uh,
• 2:35
  why not?
• 2:37
  The reason I bring this up is because we are now looking
• 2:40
  at
• 2:40
  an election that is 6 weeks away,
• 2:43
  and it's important to kind of try to get a little bit ahead
• 2:46
  of these markets,
• 2:47
  so you're not necessarily trading on election night,
• 2:49
  um,
• 2:50
  because you might not get the value that you need there.
• 2:52
  There's gonna be a lot of money
• 2:54
  pouring into these election markets,
• 2:56
  and we're trying to get a little bit ahead of that.
• 2:57
  So,
• 2:57
  how do you project what's going to happen next?
• 3:00
  Well,
• 3:00
  The active thesis that we have has been leading our thinking a little bit on this
• 3:04
  is this one,
• 3:05
  and as an election nears
• 3:07
  people come home
• 3:08
  and
• 3:09
  uh
• 3:10
  this isn't universally true,
• 3:12
  but it is something that usually happens.
• 3:15
  I,
• 3:15
  I know you,
• 3:16
  you look at the way that you,
• 3:17
  what you get a lot of times is in
• 3:19
  the summer
• 3:20
  you get a lot of people who are hyper engaged that are talking to pollsters
• 3:24
  that are influencing those polls,
• 3:26
  and as,
• 3:26
  uh,
• 3:27
  time goes on.
• 3:29
  This is 2026 in America,
• 3:31
  right?
• 3:31
  We're now all hyper-engaged in election content.
• 3:34
  This is not back in the day where people really
• 3:36
  didn't pay attention until a week before the election.
• 3:38
  People still start picking it up,
• 3:39
  but they're not picking it up months and months and months ahead for the main,
• 3:42
  main part.
• 3:43
  If you're watching this show,
• 3:44
  you probably did,
• 3:45
  right?
• 3:45
  You're probably watching all these primaries,
• 3:47
  you probably know all these candidates by now.
• 3:50
  And so,
• 3:50
  you're way ahead of everybody else on this stuff.
• 3:53
  And
• 3:54
  when people start paying attention to this,
• 3:57
  they typically will,
• 3:58
  uh,
• 3:59
  maybe express frustration early on.
• 4:01
  They might say,
• 4:02
  hey,
• 4:02
  I don't think my side's doing a good job,
• 4:04
  you know.
• 4:04
  Uh,
• 4:05
  and then as times get closer,
• 4:07
  as you get closer to actually stepping into that booth,
• 4:09
  that's a big moment in your life,
• 4:10
  right?
• 4:10
  It's one of your,
• 4:11
  your big,
• 4:12
  uh,
• 4:12
  privileges of being in this country is to be able
• 4:15
  to go to the polls and then cast that vote.
• 4:17
  And as you get there,
• 4:18
  you start taking it a little bit more seriously,
• 4:20
  right?
• 4:20
  It's easy to say,
• 4:22
  I,
• 4:22
  I don't care,
• 4:23
  these parties are the same.
• 4:25
  In March
• 4:27
  It's a lot harder to say that as you're standing
• 4:29
  in a booth with a curtain closed behind you.
• 4:32
  And,
• 4:33
  you know,
• 4:33
  I,
• 4:34
  I think as we see,
• 4:35
  as we get closer to the election.
• 4:37
  The,
• 4:38
  the general inertia of what you might expect out of a state or an electorate
• 4:42
  winds up playing in not a
• 4:44
  dominating way,
• 4:45
  not a fifteen-point move,
• 4:47
  but a few points here and there that helps move those,
• 4:51
  uh,
• 4:51
  numbers a little bit more
• 4:53
  to one side
• 4:54
  or the other.
• 4:54
  If it's a blue state,
• 4:55
  a lot of times it goes blue.
• 4:56
  Red state kind of goes red,
• 4:57
  and you see that,
• 4:58
  uh,
• 4:58
  from time to time in these elections.
• 5:00
  I wanna go into a little bit more on this because
• 5:03
  It,
• 5:03
  it does affect the way that we're thinking.
• 5:05
  And there are,
• 5:06
  you know,
• 5:06
  depending on how you look at this,
• 5:08
  there are a lot of statistics that will
• 5:10
  add up to say,
• 5:10
  hey,
• 5:11
  well,
• 5:11
  wait a minute,
• 5:12
  maybe this isn't gonna be the catastrophe that,
• 5:13
  that the GOP
• 5:15
  is certainly,
• 5:15
  uh,
• 5:16
  facing right now.
• 5:17
  If you look at the media,
• 5:18
  that is what you're seeing.
• 5:19
  You're seeing constant
• 5:21
  catastrophe talk for Republicans.
• 5:23
  And,
• 5:23
  you know,
• 5:24
  I,
• 5:24
  I,
• 5:24
  I tend to dismiss catastrophes.
• 5:26
  I,
• 5:26
  I tend to think that the,
• 5:27
  the outlier circumstances don't normally occur.
• 5:30
  Um,
• 5:31
  um,
• 5:31
  that's my,
• 5:32
  I guess,
• 5:32
  a somewhat of an internal bias.
• 5:34
  But when you look at the elections now,
• 5:36
  this show has felt that way,
• 5:37
  I think,
• 5:37
  a little bit recently.
• 5:39
  And,
• 5:40
  and the reason why this show has felt that way a little bit recently is
• 5:42
  because the data has shown that that's the way that these things are going.
• 5:46
  At the beginning of this,
• 5:47
  I was,
• 5:47
  I don't know,
• 5:48
  there's a 5% chance of utter catastrophe
• 5:50
  for the,
• 5:51
  uh,
• 5:51
  Republican Party in this,
• 5:52
  and we should really start pricing it,
• 5:54
  like looking at states that Republicans should win easily and,
• 5:56
  and wonder
• 5:57
  if they're gonna go the opposite way.
• 5:59
  I've definitely expanded that.
• 6:00
  I think it's more like a 15% chance maybe now.
• 6:02
  Maybe it's even a 20% chance.
• 6:04
  Uh,
• 6:05
  some people who are crunching these numbers think it's more like a 50%,
• 6:08
  a 60%,
• 6:08
  a 70% chance.
• 6:09
  I don't,
• 6:10
  I don't agree with that analysis,
• 6:11
  at least not yet.
• 6:12
  The data will move me if it,
• 6:13
  if the data moves.
• 6:15
  Um,
• 6:15
  but that's what I see right now.
• 6:17
  I see a situation where we're,
• 6:18
  the outlying
• 6:19
  possibility of Democrats really
• 6:22
  crushing it here and wiping out a bunch of states that should be red,
• 6:26
  uh,
• 6:26
  is a,
• 6:27
  it's a real possibility now,
• 6:29
  um,
• 6:30
  though I still think it's a minority possibility.
• 6:33
  I wanna look the other way though,
• 6:34
  because
• 6:35
  as we've seen in elections before,
• 6:37
  we don't always get what we thought we were getting.
• 6:39
  You know,
• 6:39
  in 2022,
• 6:40
  there was a red wave that was supposed to come,
• 6:42
  kind of wound up being like a red trickle,
• 6:44
  frankly.
• 6:45
  I mean,
• 6:45
  you know,
• 6:45
  Republicans took the House,
• 6:46
  which was the minimum that they need to do,
• 6:48
  uh,
• 6:49
  needed to do,
• 6:49
  but they,
• 6:49
  that was not a runaway wave by any means for Republicans.
• 6:53
  2018
• 6:54
  looked like a big wave for Democrats.
• 6:56
  We kind of got them.
• 6:56
  Big wave for Democrats in 2018.
• 6:59
  Um,
• 7:00
  good looking back at the previous,
• 7:01
  uh,
• 7:02
  midterm elections.
• 7:03
  Um,
• 7:04
  you know,
• 7:04
  2014
• 7:06
  was a very,
• 7:07
  very good year for Republicans,
• 7:10
  uh,
• 7:10
  in that midterm.
• 7:11
  20,
• 7:12
  2010 was probably the best year for Republicans in the midterm,
• 7:16
  at least in the last century.
• 7:17
  I mean,
• 7:18
  it was a wave election.
• 7:19
  That we haven't seen in a long time.
• 7:20
  And I,
• 7:20
  you know,
• 7:21
  I can tell you that a lot of people did not think that was coming.
• 7:23
  A lot of people thought the Tea Party was just
• 7:24
  this thing that was not going to make any impact,
• 7:26
  made a big impact,
• 7:27
  and it was the biggest wave election.
• 7:29
  Uh,
• 7:29
  in basically a century,
• 7:31
  uh,
• 7:31
  for Republicans
• 7:32
  in 2010.
• 7:33
  So that's kind of the history of this.
• 7:34
  Let me give you a couple of pieces of data here,
• 7:36
  and there's,
• 7:37
  there's some interesting,
• 7:38
  uh,
• 7:38
  data that backs up what I'm talking about here.
• 7:41
  Not necessarily always about just coming home,
• 7:42
  but sometimes just
• 7:43
  how polls
• 7:44
  typically understate
• 7:47
  Democrats during the late summer months.
• 7:49
  Um,
• 7:49
  a great piece written by Patrick Ruffini,
• 7:51
  Why Senate Polling
• 7:52
  Is Always Worse
• 7:54
  in the Summer.
• 7:55
  He,
• 7:56
  it's a very long article.
• 7:57
  I would encourage you to go read the entire thing if you're interested in it,
• 8:00
  but I wanna give you some of the data points here that he notes,
• 8:03
  and it's,
• 8:03
  it's,
• 8:04
  I think,
• 8:05
  uh,
• 8:06
  quite interesting.
• 8:07
  And it,
• 8:07
  I don't know,
• 8:08
  it kind of connects too to just the way that I've felt about some of these,
• 8:12
  uh,
• 8:12
  midterm elections over the years.
• 8:14
  Um,
• 8:14
  OK,
• 8:14
  Senate polls have missed in the same direction for 4 straight cycles.
• 8:18
  This is the first chart I want to start you,
• 8:19
  but kind of a chart of Palooza today.
• 8:21
  Yeah.
• 8:22
  Uh,
• 8:22
  it's kind of a chart of Palooza today.
• 8:24
  Uh,
• 8:24
  you see,
• 8:25
  uh,
• 8:25
  and I'll describe this,
• 8:26
  of course,
• 8:26
  if you are,
• 8:27
  uh,
• 8:27
  on podcast audio only.
• 8:29
  By the way,
• 8:29
  we love you on podcast.
• 8:30
  If you,
• 8:31
  uh,
• 8:31
  listen to podcast audio only,
• 8:32
  make sure to go over and subscribe to Predictable.
• 8:34
  We love to see,
• 8:35
  we see many of you,
• 8:36
  uh,
• 8:36
  have,
• 8:36
  and we appreciate it.
• 8:37
  Uh,
• 8:38
  you see the chart kind of peak
• 8:40
  in,
• 8:41
  uh,
• 8:42
  you know,
• 8:42
  a little bit earlier.
• 8:44
  Uh,
• 8:44
  in the summer,
• 8:45
  and,
• 8:46
  uh,
• 8:46
  from where this was written.
• 8:47
  This was written,
• 8:47
  by the way,
• 8:48
  in
• 8:48
  on August 18th,
• 8:50
  so we're about a month,
• 8:52
  uh,
• 8:52
  this is about a month ago,
• 8:53
  keep this in mind.
• 8:54
  You see,
• 8:55
  uh,
• 8:55
  the,
• 8:55
  the chart peaks for Democrats and
• 8:58
  the,
• 8:58
  the difference here and what we're,
• 8:59
  what this black line is showing.
• 9:01
  Is,
• 9:02
  um,
• 9:03
  the difference between what polls,
• 9:05
  uh,
• 9:05
  showed and where they kind of turned out.
• 9:08
  Election day,
• 9:09
  uh,
• 9:09
  they missed in,
• 9:10
  uh,
• 9:11
  along this,
• 9:12
  uh,
• 9:12
  area
• 9:13
  by about 2.6 points favoring the Democrats.
• 9:15
  The polls were in favor of the Democrats by about 2.5 points.
• 9:18
  But if you go back to late summer,
• 9:20
  it was more like 6 points,
• 9:21
  right?
• 9:21
  So a,
• 9:22
  a 43 to 4 point move.
• 9:24
  Toward Republicans as polls started locking in,
• 9:27
  and I think Republican voters started locking in.
• 9:30
  You see the same thing here,
• 9:31
  and one thing that's interesting in this next chart
• 9:33
  shows the difference between presidential years and midterm years,
• 9:36
  and we do see a pretty big divergence here
• 9:39
  in that presidential years,
• 9:41
  yeah,
• 9:41
  you saw a miss,
• 9:43
  you saw a much bigger miss though,
• 9:45
  when it came
• 9:45
  to midterm years.
• 9:47
  Midterm years tended to favor Democratic candidates in summer polling.
• 9:51
  More
• 9:52
  than
• 9:53
  in the presidential years,
• 9:54
  and that may be somewhat Trump-specific.
• 9:57
  I mean,
• 9:57
  Trump is
• 9:58
  the type of guy who,
• 9:59
  uh,
• 9:59
  brings out a lot of voters who don't normally come out.
• 10:02
  And so,
• 10:02
  uh,
• 10:03
  that might be the reason why.
• 10:05
  Maybe it's not a long term thing.
• 10:07
  We'll have to kind of see a few more cycles
• 10:08
  turn out here,
• 10:09
  but this has been pretty typical.
• 10:11
  What we've seen is Democrats look really,
• 10:13
  really good
• 10:13
  in the summer,
• 10:14
  and then things start tightening up later on.
• 10:17
  You can see the difference here once again in
• 10:18
  this next chart between presidential years and midterms,
• 10:21
  and
• 10:22
  you see the line is,
• 10:23
  is,
• 10:23
  is there's a significant divergence there
• 10:25
  by,
• 10:26
  you know,
• 10:26
  a few points.
• 10:27
  It's several points,
• 10:28
  4 or 5 point difference.
• 10:30
  Between those two margins.
• 10:32
  One more chart I'll show you real quick from uh Patrick's piece,
• 10:35
  which is great.
• 10:36
  Um,
• 10:36
  uh,
• 10:37
  kind of just how it changes by state.
• 10:38
  This is an interesting chart if you're looking at
• 10:42
  What states should I target?
• 10:43
  This is just something to think about.
• 10:44
  It's not an end all be all,
• 10:46
  but it's,
• 10:46
  it's a,
• 10:47
  it's an interesting thing
• 10:49
  to,
• 10:49
  uh,
• 10:50
  to think about and to maybe look at a little
• 10:52
  piece of evidence when you're targeting a particular state.
• 10:55
  Which states have been looked more Democrat
• 10:57
  in the polling leading up and as opposed to where they,
• 11:00
  uh,
• 11:00
  wound up.
• 11:01
  You see major,
• 11:02
  major differences.
• 11:03
  South Dakota might be the biggest on there,
• 11:04
  a 13.7 point difference,
• 11:07
  um.
• 11:08
  You know,
• 11:08
  uh,
• 11:08
  there's a couple of different ways he's broken this down.
• 11:11
  If you look at the chart on the right of your screen,
• 11:13
  how adjusted for how the state was polled,
• 11:16
  you see really,
• 11:16
  like,
• 11:17
  you know,
• 11:17
  you see Maine is an example there,
• 11:19
  Michigan is an example.
• 11:20
  There's no surprise that Michigan,
• 11:22
  Wisconsin,
• 11:22
  Pennsylvania are all more blue.
• 11:25
  The,
• 11:25
  the red differences are very minimal.
• 11:27
  You see a couple of states that tended to be a little bit more red.
• 11:31
  Utah being the biggest one.
• 11:32
  I do wonder though if that is partially because
• 11:34
  Of,
• 11:35
  uh,
• 11:36
  they've been trying to run independence there,
• 11:38
  uh,
• 11:38
  against,
• 11:38
  uh,
• 11:39
  the Republicans there.
• 11:40
  So that could be part of the reason.
• 11:41
  But
• 11:41
  Republicans,
• 11:42
  you know,
• 11:42
  in Utah,
• 11:43
  it's like,
• 11:43
  are they gonna win by 78 or 65?
• 11:46
  You know,
• 11:46
  it's not
• 11:47
  all that competitive.
• 11:48
  But,
• 11:48
  uh,
• 11:48
  you see that generally speaking,
• 11:50
  polls have been right in some states,
• 11:52
  uh,
• 11:52
  Nevada,
• 11:53
  Texas,
• 11:54
  uh,
• 11:54
  Minnesota,
• 11:55
  Georgia,
• 11:56
  very,
• 11:57
  very close,
• 11:57
  uh,
• 11:57
  even Maryland,
• 11:58
  very,
• 11:58
  very close to where,
• 12:00
  uh,
• 12:00
  you'd expect it to be.
• 12:02
  Other states,
• 12:03
  not so much.
• 12:03
  So,
• 12:04
  you have that.
• 12:05
  And now,
• 12:05
  let me show you another piece of information
• 12:07
  that is interesting from very recent history,
• 12:09
  and there's a,
• 12:10
  there's an asterisk around this a little bit,
• 12:12
  but
• 12:12
  let's go to the Kamala Harris versus Donald Trump polling.
• 12:16
  Remember,
• 12:17
  Joe Biden,
• 12:18
  um,
• 12:19
  you know,
• 12:19
  first of all,
• 12:20
  he fell off his bike too,
• 12:21
  so don't just make fun of me.
• 12:22
  He falls off,
• 12:22
  falls off his bike,
• 12:23
  then falls out of the campaign.
• 12:25
  Um,
• 12:25
  and he,
• 12:26
  uh,
• 12:26
  Kamala Harris runs.
• 12:27
  Kamala Harris has this,
• 12:28
  uh,
• 12:29
  an interesting arc.
• 12:30
  Let's bring up this,
• 12:31
  uh,
• 12:31
  these polls.
• 12:32
  This is from 2024,
• 12:34
  and the final results were Trump by,
• 12:36
  uh,
• 12:36
  about a point and a half,
• 12:38
  uh,
• 12:38
  if I'm reading that right.
• 12:39
  But if you kind of look at the polls as they added up here,
• 12:42
  it's pretty close,
• 12:43
  right?
• 12:43
  This was a very close,
• 12:44
  people overstate how much of a,
• 12:46
  uh,
• 12:47
  uh,
• 12:47
  you know,
• 12:47
  led off by Donald Trump himself,
• 12:49
  saying this was the biggest wave election of all time.
• 12:51
  It was not.
• 12:52
  It was a close election.
• 12:53
  Uh,
• 12:54
  he won all 7 swing states,
• 12:55
  which is why it's kind of understandable to think it was a blowout.
• 12:59
  But generally speaking,
• 13:00
  those were pretty close
• 13:01
  states.
• 13:02
  I mean,
• 13:02
  Trump needed,
• 13:03
  uh,
• 13:03
  a bunch of those states,
• 13:04
  and,
• 13:04
  you know,
• 13:05
  some of those states were less than 1 point.
• 13:06
  Uh,
• 13:07
  anyway,
• 13:07
  so you look at these states,
• 13:08
  a lot of ties,
• 13:08
  a lot of ties,
• 13:09
  but if you kind of scroll back a little bit.
• 13:11
  October and November
• 13:12
  as we get right into the election.
• 13:13
  There's a nice ad for Sentex
• 13:16
  and uh uh
• 13:17
  uh another place to click to proceed.
• 13:18
  But if you kind of scroll down,
• 13:19
  here we go,
• 13:19
  we'll get into the later dates here
• 13:21
  as we scroll back.
• 13:22
  October,
• 13:23
  and now we're getting into uh where we are now and what you see here,
• 13:26
  look at,
• 13:26
  I mean,
• 13:26
  look at what we have on screen right now.
• 13:29
  Harris,
• 13:29
  Harris,
• 13:29
  Harris,
• 13:30
  Harris,
• 13:30
  Harris,
• 13:31
  Harris,
• 13:31
  Harris,
• 13:31
  Harris,
• 13:32
  Harris,
• 13:32
  Trump
• 13:33
  by 2.
• 13:34
  Harris,
• 13:34
  Harris,
• 13:35
  Harris,
• 13:35
  Harris,
• 13:35
  Harris,
• 13:36
  Trump by 2.
• 13:37
  Harris,
• 13:37
  Harris,
• 13:37
  Harris,
• 13:38
  Trump by 2.
• 13:39
  Harris,
• 13:39
  Harris,
• 13:40
  Harris,
• 13:40
  Harris,
• 13:40
  Harris,
• 13:41
  Ty,
• 13:41
  Harris,
• 13:42
  Harris,
• 13:42
  Harris,
• 13:42
  I mean,
• 13:42
  look at this.
• 13:43
  This is all
• 13:44
  Kamala Harris favored in this period.
• 13:46
  Harris,
• 13:47
  uh,
• 13:47
  it's hard to remember that this occurred.
• 13:50
  But Kamala Harris was leading at this point
• 13:53
  in the 2020,
• 13:54
  the most recent election,
• 13:56
  Kamala Harris was leading,
• 13:57
  and then of course,
• 13:58
  wound up losing,
• 13:59
  not just the electoral vote,
• 14:00
  but also the popular vote.
• 14:02
  Now,
• 14:02
  part of this was the arc of the Harris campaign,
• 14:05
  which came in in July,
• 14:07
  took,
• 14:07
  went to kind of new heights in.
• 14:08
  August
• 14:09
  and then started to fade
• 14:11
  through September
• 14:12
  and October,
• 14:13
  but still,
• 14:14
  uh,
• 14:15
  this stuff happens often.
• 14:17
  It was still a close race and wound up being a close race,
• 14:19
  so there wasn't like 20 point movement here.
• 14:21
  I'm not trying to make that case,
• 14:23
  but there was some movement here.
• 14:23
  Let me give you a couple of other pieces of data that we're again,
• 14:26
  we're laying out today.
• 14:27
  The most optimistic case possible
• 14:29
  for Republicans.
• 14:30
  How can they do here?
• 14:31
  Well,
• 14:31
  um,
• 14:32
  let me give you this.
• 14:33
  I've mentioned this several times.
• 14:34
  The polling has gotten much worse
• 14:36
  for Republicans
• 14:37
  over the past couple of weeks.
• 14:39
  Why is that?
• 14:40
  YouGov has a really nice example and it shows you
• 14:43
  why that is partially.
• 14:45
  In this particular case,
• 14:46
  this is their,
• 14:47
  uh,
• 14:47
  how many Democrats plan to vote for uh
• 14:49
  how many Americans have planned to vote for Democrats
• 14:51
  and Republicans for Congress in 2026.
• 14:53
  This is known as the generic ballot,
• 14:55
  and what you see here is a split
• 14:57
  between Republicans and Democrats.
• 14:58
  Democrats certainly favored and have been
• 14:59
  favored since they started taking this poll
• 15:01
  at the beginning of the year.
• 15:03
  Uh,
• 15:03
  it has been 3 or 4 points,
• 15:04
  uh,
• 15:05
  has grown over the past few weeks to about 6 or 7 points
• 15:08
  until
• 15:09
  they make this change.
• 15:10
  You see a dotted line here that signifies this change.
• 15:13
  It was about 7 points.
• 15:14
  Now they are showing a 14-point lead
• 15:18
  for Democrats.
• 15:19
  You might ask,
• 15:20
  how the hell does that chart
• 15:22
  get into
• 15:23
  the,
• 15:24
  uh,
• 15:25
  the conversation about the most optimistic
• 15:28
  possible moment here for the GOP?
• 15:30
  And that's a great question,
• 15:31
  because a 14-point generic ballot
• 15:33
  is.
• 15:34
  Utter catastrophe.
• 15:36
  I mean,
• 15:36
  I,
• 15:36
  like,
• 15:36
  it is
• 15:38
  2018,
• 15:38
  you think of,
• 15:39
  I think that's the beginning of catastrophe levels.
• 15:41
  2018,
• 15:42
  very,
• 15:42
  very bad year for Republicans.
• 15:44
  Everything kind of went the wrong way.
• 15:46
  That is like the beginning of what I would call catastrophe land,
• 15:49
  and that is where the,
• 15:51
  uh,
• 15:51
  the voters,
• 15:52
  uh,
• 15:52
  seem to be when you look at an average poll right around 2018.
• 15:58
  The difference there,
• 15:59
  that dotted line,
• 15:59
  what it signifies,
• 16:00
  and then we have another chart here that shows the kind of the same thing,
• 16:02
  same dotted line.
• 16:03
  This is the,
• 16:03
  uh,
• 16:04
  YouGov again,
• 16:05
  who's leading among,
• 16:05
  uh,
• 16:06
  in the generic ballot.
• 16:07
  Uh,
• 16:07
  again,
• 16:07
  you see a +7 for registered voters.
• 16:11
  Likely voters is +14.
• 16:12
  YouGov just turned on their likely voter screen,
• 16:16
  and what that does,
• 16:17
  I've talked about it a few times,
• 16:18
  is basically say,
• 16:19
  hey,
• 16:20
  yeah,
• 16:20
  sure you're registered,
• 16:21
  but are you actually gonna show up?
• 16:23
  Are you actually going to
• 16:25
  You could,
• 16:25
  you could show that chart a little bit longer.
• 16:26
  Uh,
• 16:27
  actually gonna show up to the polls.
• 16:29
  That is a,
• 16:30
  a big question.
• 16:31
  You see that split
• 16:32
  that we're talking about here,
• 16:33
  that purple line at the top shows likely voters plus 14,
• 16:36
  while registered voters are still showing +7.
• 16:38
  Now registered voters plus 7 for Democrats is still a bad year for Republicans,
• 16:42
  but a lot of the movement you've seen,
• 16:43
  a lot of the catastrophe talk
• 16:46
  comes from changes like this,
• 16:48
  where we're seeing a,
• 16:49
  uh,
• 16:50
  the,
• 16:50
  these pollsters are putting in their likely voter screens,
• 16:53
  and this is stuff like.
• 16:54
  Uh,
• 16:55
  this is stuff like asking basic questions.
• 16:57
  Hey,
• 16:58
  you've registered to vote,
• 17:00
  uh,
• 17:00
  you know,
• 17:01
  you can,
• 17:01
  uh,
• 17:02
  now,
• 17:03
  are you likely to show up?
• 17:04
  Like,
• 17:04
  for example,
• 17:05
  you've registered to vote,
• 17:05
  but you haven't voted in 5 straight elections.
• 17:07
  Are you likely to vote?
• 17:08
  Probably not.
• 17:09
  Some people just ask,
• 17:10
  hey,
• 17:10
  are you definitely gonna vote or are you just kind of thinking about it?
• 17:13
  If they say definitely,
• 17:14
  then they go through the likely voter screen.
• 17:15
  There's a bunch of different ways to do this.
• 17:17
  But the bottom line is those likely voter screens aren't always right.
• 17:19
  In fact,
• 17:19
  that's kind of the reason why some of these things miss.
• 17:22
  They,
• 17:22
  they think
• 17:23
  people with lower education levels aren't gonna show up at the polls.
• 17:26
  Pollsters got burned by that one,
• 17:28
  year after year after year.
• 17:29
  You might remember 2016 being one of them,
• 17:32
  right?
• 17:32
  They thought,
• 17:32
  oh gosh,
• 17:33
  well,
• 17:33
  we're gonna screen by education levels.
• 17:35
  If you
• 17:36
  didn't go to college,
• 17:36
  well,
• 17:37
  you're probably less likely to,
• 17:38
  to show up to vote.
• 17:39
  Well,
• 17:39
  the people who didn't go to college were like,
• 17:41
  uh,
• 17:41
  yeah,
• 17:41
  I'm showing up.
• 17:42
  They were passionate about that election.
• 17:44
  It is a mem it is a a bit of a way
• 17:47
  to mention,
• 17:48
  uh,
• 17:48
  to measure,
• 17:49
  um,
• 17:49
  enthusiasm.
• 17:50
  If you're really enthusiastic to vote,
• 17:52
  if you're telling people that,
• 17:53
  yeah,
• 17:53
  I'm definitely voting,
• 17:54
  I'm not gonna miss this for,
• 17:55
  for my entire life,
• 17:56
  you're more likely to get through that likely voter screen.
• 17:58
  So it does tell us something,
• 18:00
  but that doesn't mean they did this right.
• 18:02
  That it doesn't the jump that you've seen over the past couple of weeks.
• 18:05
  Has something to do
• 18:07
  with that particular look.
• 18:08
  Now,
• 18:08
  another thing I wanna look at,
• 18:09
  this is from Third Way.
• 18:10
  Third Way is a,
• 18:11
  uh,
• 18:11
  a group that they try to,
• 18:13
  they're more like moderate,
• 18:14
  right?
• 18:14
  They try to focus on moderates and how
• 18:17
  moderates react in elections and how they are important in elections.
• 18:20
  They're trying to draw attention to moderates.
• 18:22
  So I understand the context here,
• 18:23
  but this is a poll,
• 18:24
  uh,
• 18:24
  and,
• 18:24
  and they,
• 18:25
  they look at this data,
• 18:26
  which is pretty interesting.
• 18:27
  What they say is basically if
• 18:29
  conservatives have to hold 90%,
• 18:31
  let's say conservatives get 90% of their voters,
• 18:33
  Republicans get 90%.
• 18:34
  Um,
• 18:35
  this is actually done by conservative and liberal.
• 18:37
  If
• 18:37
  conservatives go 90% Republican,
• 18:39
  liberals go 90% Democrat,
• 18:40
  what has to happen with moderates
• 18:42
  in each state?
• 18:43
  And this is what has to happen.
• 18:45
  Uh,
• 18:45
  and this is one of the reasons why I've liked the Hinson race,
• 18:48
  which,
• 18:48
  by the way,
• 18:48
  terrible poll for Hinson today.
• 18:50
  Uh,
• 18:50
  she is down,
• 18:50
  I think,
• 18:51
  8.
• 18:52
  I,
• 18:52
  I,
• 18:52
  you know,
• 18:52
  it was a Marist poll.
• 18:53
  Marist polls famously,
• 18:54
  uh,
• 18:55
  do not,
• 18:55
  uh,
• 18:56
  do,
• 18:56
  do justice to Republican candidates at times.
• 18:58
  But,
• 18:59
  uh,
• 19:00
  the reason why,
• 19:00
  uh,
• 19:01
  this,
• 19:01
  there's some optimism here.
• 19:02
  Look at these.
• 19:03
  Numbers they have to hit.
• 19:04
  For example,
• 19:04
  in Iowa,
• 19:05
  they have to win 75%
• 19:07
  of moderate voters.
• 19:08
  Right now they're winning 63%.
• 19:10
  In Alaska,
• 19:11
  they have to win 74%.
• 19:12
  Right now they're winning 66% of the voters.
• 19:14
  In Texas,
• 19:15
  Tallarico
• 19:16
  has to win 73% of moderate voters.
• 19:19
  Right now he's winning 65%.
• 19:21
  In Ohio,
• 19:21
  72%
• 19:23
  of,
• 19:23
  of,
• 19:23
  of,
• 19:24
  um,
• 19:25
  uh,
• 19:25
  moderate voters.
• 19:26
  Uh,
• 19:27
  and they,
• 19:27
  and right now they're only winning 62%.
• 19:29
  This is a race where,
• 19:30
  by the way,
• 19:30
  I'm pretty optimistic,
• 19:31
  uh,
• 19:31
  for Sherrod Brown,
• 19:32
  the Democratic candidate there.
• 19:34
  But you see there's a gap.
• 19:35
  Georgia and North Carolina,
• 19:36
  they're doing what they need to do.
• 19:37
  Ossoff and Cooper.
• 19:39
  New Hampshire,
• 19:39
  we,
• 19:39
  we,
• 19:39
  this,
• 19:40
  the data is not in yet.
• 19:41
  Uh,
• 19:41
  El Sayed,
• 19:42
  you have to get 62% of the moderates,
• 19:44
  he's only winning 54%.
• 19:45
  In Maine,
• 19:45
  you have to win 51% of the moderates,
• 19:47
  only winning 46%.
• 19:48
  This is a pattern that is really consistent throughout this data.
• 19:51
  Now,
• 19:51
  you might say,
• 19:51
  well,
• 19:52
  wait a minute.
• 19:52
  And they're winning all the polls,
• 19:54
  why,
• 19:54
  how can that be right?
• 19:55
  The reason why that's right,
• 19:57
  why both pieces of information
• 19:59
  are right,
• 20:00
  is because as of right now,
• 20:02
  we're seeing people like James Tallarico
• 20:04
  pick off more than 10% of Republicans.
• 20:08
  That might hold.
• 20:09
  I mean,
• 20:09
  like,
• 20:09
  you know,
• 20:10
  a guy like Paxson has his issues and like that,
• 20:12
  so this might hold,
• 20:13
  um,
• 20:13
  but it is a difficult lift
• 20:16
  for a,
• 20:17
  a left-wing candidate,
• 20:18
  some certainly someone like El Sayed or Troy Jackson
• 20:21
  to pick off a moderate candidate against Susan Collins,
• 20:24
  who is very moderate of of her own rights.
• 20:28
  To,
• 20:28
  to do that,
• 20:29
  as we get closer to the election,
• 20:31
  you think a lot of those Republicans are gonna go to the Republican side,
• 20:34
  a lot of those Democrats go to the Democratic side,
• 20:36
  and you have to win those moderates.
• 20:38
  Are,
• 20:39
  are Democratic candidates doing enough?
• 20:41
  Right now,
• 20:41
  for the most part,
• 20:42
  the answer to that is no.
• 20:44
  So if people do come home,
• 20:45
  and that isn't if,
• 20:46
  it is our thesis statement.
• 20:48
  But it is an if.
• 20:49
  We don't know if that's gonna happen.
• 20:51
  If
• 20:51
  people like,
• 20:52
  for example,
• 20:52
  in Texas,
• 20:53
  in Iowa,
• 20:54
  decide,
• 20:54
  hey,
• 20:55
  wait a minute,
• 20:55
  we're Republicans,
• 20:56
  I'm not gonna vote for the,
• 20:57
  for this left-wing candidate.
• 20:58
  If they decide that,
• 21:01
  Well,
• 21:01
  you've got something here.
• 21:02
  Um,
• 21:02
  let me give you a couple of pieces before we go cause I'm a little bit long.
• 21:07
  Few,
• 21:07
  um,
• 21:08
  places of weird optimism,
• 21:10
  uh,
• 21:10
  for Republicans.
• 21:12
  Minnesota Senate.
• 21:14
  Peggy Flanagan is the very progressive candidate.
• 21:17
  She is,
• 21:17
  uh,
• 21:18
  she kind of won a battle,
• 21:20
  uh,
• 21:20
  there that we did very well on in the primaries,
• 21:23
  where she was going up against a more,
• 21:25
  um,
• 21:25
  establishment candidate and wound up winning.
• 21:28
  She's now the candidate against
• 21:29
  what I believe is a pretty good candidate
• 21:32
  in Republican Minnesota,
• 21:34
  Michelle Tafoya.
• 21:34
  You may know her from ESPN.
• 21:36
  She's a sports broadcaster.
• 21:37
  Now,
• 21:37
  we don't,
• 21:37
  she's not been like tested on a big political stage,
• 21:40
  so we don't know,
• 21:40
  but she's a very good communicator,
• 21:42
  seems to be a smart,
• 21:43
  uh,
• 21:43
  uh,
• 21:44
  lady.
• 21:44
  Um,
• 21:45
  and here's what that market looks like right now.
• 21:47
  Um,
• 21:48
  and,
• 21:48
  and right now you see Peggy Flagan's up at 90%,
• 21:51
  OK?
• 21:52
  Um,
• 21:52
  she's a heavy,
• 21:53
  heavy,
• 21:53
  heavy favorite,
• 21:54
  and this is because of the Democratic.
• 21:56
  Um,
• 21:57
  uh,
• 21:57
  uh,
• 21:57
  climate.
• 21:58
  This has been pretty clear.
• 21:59
  The polling though is actually pretty close in this race.
• 22:02
  And,
• 22:03
  you know,
• 22:03
  if you believe the Democrats are gonna continue to,
• 22:05
  to get gains here,
• 22:06
  I like the value of Peggy Flanagan at 90.2%.
• 22:10
  If you're in that camp,
• 22:11
  um,
• 22:12
  where you believe Peggy is,
• 22:13
  uh,
• 22:14
  going to win that race because of the climate.
• 22:16
  90.2% is a nice price to get in Minnesota,
• 22:18
  where Republicans can't seem to win,
• 22:20
  uh,
• 22:20
  even in good years.
• 22:21
  Uh,
• 22:22
  this isn't probably gonna be a bad year.
• 22:23
  DeFoya is a strong candidate,
• 22:25
  so,
• 22:25
  but it's interesting the polling has been that close.
• 22:27
  Another one here,
• 22:28
  Oregon Governor.
• 22:29
  I've talked to you about this.
• 22:30
  This is one of my favorite races when it comes to,
• 22:32
  uh,
• 22:32
  prediction markets of one of my biggest positions
• 22:35
  is on Tina Kottek there.
• 22:37
  The polling.
• 22:38
  Has been really minimal when you talk about what could be reliable,
• 22:41
  seen as reliable polling.
• 22:42
  Let's see the market though.
• 22:44
  Um,
• 22:44
  this is where it shows right now.
• 22:45
  Katina Kotak's at 85%.
• 22:47
  Uh,
• 22:48
  Christine Drazen has,
• 22:50
  uh,
• 22:50
  hit,
• 22:51
  has,
• 22:51
  is led in some of these polls.
• 22:52
  Now they're polls that she's sponsored,
• 22:54
  they're internal polls,
• 22:55
  but there's every reason to believe this is a little
• 22:58
  way too close to comfort for the Democrats in Oregon.
• 23:00
  She's very,
• 23:01
  seemingly very,
• 23:02
  very close.
• 23:03
  She's been close before.
• 23:04
  I tend to believe my thesis here is people come home.
• 23:07
  People in Oregon are,
• 23:08
  are gonna go to the.
• 23:09
  Side mostly,
• 23:10
  and at the end of the day are not gonna want to elect a Republican.
• 23:12
  That's kind of my thesis on this particular race.
• 23:14
  But
• 23:15
  Republican optimism is somewhat justified in Oregon as well.
• 23:18
  And then in New Hampshire is another case
• 23:20
  where you'd look at this.
• 23:21
  New Hampshire is a less,
• 23:22
  you know,
• 23:23
  less blue or red,
• 23:24
  so it's hard to know with our thesis statement,
• 23:26
  but this is,
• 23:26
  uh,
• 23:26
  the Sununu Pappas race,
• 23:28
  and,
• 23:28
  uh,
• 23:29
  Chris Pappas is at 84%.
• 23:31
  Sannu is at 16%.
• 23:32
  The polling is much closer than that market would show you though.
• 23:35
  Uh,
• 23:36
  Sannu,
• 23:36
  uh,
• 23:36
  had some good polls there,
• 23:38
  uh,
• 23:38
  that looks like it's close to very well known in the state,
• 23:40
  and that's a good part of the reason there.
• 23:42
  Again,
• 23:42
  a strong candidate from Republicans.
• 23:44
  I tend to still think Pappas will probably win here,
• 23:47
  but there are reasons for optimism for Republicans there.
• 23:50
  So,
• 23:50
  basically what I'm saying here is Republicans absolutely have a chance
• 23:53
  to win the Senate still.
• 23:55
  Uh,
• 23:55
  there are many weird opportunities for pickups
• 23:57
  like that that they might actually get.
• 24:00
  And if this polling,
• 24:01
  I mean,
• 24:02
  the downside of this is,
• 24:02
  I will tell you that that that what Patrick has said about the
• 24:05
  polling kind of coming back towards Republicans has not happened in the timeline.
• 24:09
  That we,
• 24:09
  uh,
• 24:10
  saw it necessarily in that last race.
• 24:11
  And so
• 24:12
  now with more data,
• 24:13
  a month more data,
• 24:14
  Democrats have some reason for optimism there.
• 24:16
  But
• 24:17
  Republicans have a path here.
• 24:18
  It's not
• 24:19
  like they have to get destroyed.
• 24:21
  If,
• 24:22
  if they can get their base activated,
• 24:24
  there's still a case for optimism for the GOP for sure.
• 24:26
  OK,
• 24:26
  we're gonna take a break,
• 24:27
  come back on the other side,
• 24:28
  uh,
• 24:29
  with more.
• 24:29
  Make sure to join us at predictableshow.com.
• 24:31
  By the way,
• 24:32
  if you,
• 24:32
  if you heard all those pictures,
• 24:33
  like I can't keep track of all those picks.
• 24:34
  He just talked about like 10 different races.
• 24:36
  I've got a position in this.
• 24:37
  I've got a position in that.
• 24:38
  Shout out to.
• 24:39
  You don't have to listen to me.
• 24:40
  You just go to predictableShow.com.
• 24:41
  Every single one of my positions in prediction
• 24:43
  markets from politics to sports to elections to
• 24:47
  uh culture,
• 24:47
  everything
• 24:48
  is listed for premium subscribers at predictableShow.com.
• 24:52
  So,
• 24:52
  you can look at it in your own time.
• 24:54
  It's up there now.
• 24:55
  Back in a second.
• 25:13
  I want to bring in Jesse Rosen and Tanner Lux to the program.
• 25:15
  They're from the Predict 2026 conference.
• 25:18
  This is happening in New York City,
• 25:19
  December 7th to the 9th.
• 25:21
  You can learn all about it at predict2026.org.
• 25:25
  Guys,
• 25:25
  thanks so much for coming on the program.
• 25:26
  Appreciate it.
• 25:27
  Yeah,
• 25:28
  thank you for having us.
• 25:28
  Excited to be here.
• 25:30
  Yeah,
• 25:31
  great to see you guys.
• 25:32
  Uh,
• 25:32
  tell me quick before we get started,
• 25:33
  tell me a little bit about Predict 2026.
• 25:35
  It's in New York.
• 25:35
  I know it's,
• 25:36
  it's in the New York Times
• 25:38
  building.
• 25:38
  Uh,
• 25:38
  uh,
• 25:39
  we did an event there a million years ago and that it's like an incredible room.
• 25:42
  I mean,
• 25:42
  it is legitimately impressive.
• 25:44
  Tell me about the conference and what's going on there.
• 25:47
  Yeah,
• 25:48
  definitely,
• 25:48
  and I'm sure
• 25:49
  Jesse will have stuff to add um on top of what I say,
• 25:52
  but
• 25:52
  we are both prediction market traders.
• 25:55
  I
• 25:56
  came into prediction market trading from,
• 25:58
  uh,
• 25:58
  you know,
• 25:58
  working on political campaigns and organizing political
• 26:01
  events
• 26:02
  to eventually trading on politics and then.
• 26:05
  During that time,
• 26:05
  I,
• 26:06
  as I got into trading on politics,
• 26:08
  making forecasts,
• 26:09
  and I got better at that,
• 26:10
  I really,
• 26:11
  you know,
• 26:11
  trading can be a very lonely activity,
• 26:13
  and we wanted to do something for the community,
• 26:15
  by the community,
• 26:17
  and that's
• 26:18
  really what I'm,
• 26:18
  uh,
• 26:19
  excited to say that we've,
• 26:20
  uh,
• 26:20
  we've put together.
• 26:21
  We've got a great group of speakers,
• 26:22
  great group of sponsors,
• 26:23
  a lot of great,
• 26:24
  you know,
• 26:24
  all the,
• 26:25
  all the major players in the space coming in to
• 26:26
  talk about these markets we all know and love.
• 26:30
  Yeah,
• 26:30
  I mean,
• 26:30
  I don't,
• 26:31
  I don't have too much to add on top of that.
• 26:32
  Um,
• 26:33
  I'm a
• 26:33
  liquidity provider in the space.
• 26:35
  I do a lot of,
• 26:36
  um,
• 26:36
  liquidity provision on
• 26:38
  politics markets as well as,
• 26:40
  you know,
• 26:41
  culture companies,
• 26:42
  um,
• 26:43
  lots of different categories,
• 26:44
  and
• 26:45
  I wanted there to be this space for,
• 26:47
  you know,
• 26:48
  traders to be
• 26:51
  meeting each other,
• 26:52
  you know,
• 26:52
  like
• 26:54
  collaborating in some way or another,
• 26:55
  but also
• 26:56
  for builders and researchers and
• 26:59
  The regulators in the space to all be
• 27:02
  really connecting and figuring out how
• 27:04
  we're moving this full industry forward because
• 27:07
  you know as you know things are moving so fast right now.
• 27:10
  Um,
• 27:11
  but it's hard to keep up,
• 27:12
  and I think we all just need to like
• 27:15
  figure out together where,
• 27:16
  where we're going.
• 27:17
  Yeah,
• 27:17
  it's,
• 27:18
  it's an amazing time,
• 27:19
  honestly,
• 27:19
  so much growing,
• 27:20
  uh,
• 27:20
  so fast.
• 27:20
  I'm definitely gonna be up at this thing.
• 27:21
  I,
• 27:22
  I'm really excited to be there.
• 27:23
  It's gonna be really cool.
• 27:24
  Um,
• 27:25
  let's,
• 27:25
  let's talk a little bit about these markets though.
• 27:27
  Uh,
• 27:27
  we,
• 27:27
  you know,
• 27:27
  we do,
• 27:28
  there's all sorts of different markets,
• 27:29
  as we all know,
• 27:30
  there's a market on everything.
• 27:31
  Um,
• 27:32
  we focus,
• 27:33
  I would say most of our attention on politics and elections
• 27:36
  cause that's just where I've always,
• 27:38
  I've always been interested.
• 27:39
  Um,
• 27:40
  you know,
• 27:40
  I,
• 27:40
  I,
• 27:40
  I,
• 27:41
  Tanner,
• 27:41
  you mentioned working in politics.
• 27:44
  Does that,
• 27:44
  you know,
• 27:45
  does that help you?
• 27:45
  I mean,
• 27:46
  because you feel like there's a behind the scenes part of
• 27:48
  working in politics that gives you a little bit of,
• 27:50
  of knowledge
• 27:51
  of just being
• 27:52
  able to understand kind of like maybe,
• 27:53
  uh,
• 27:54
  disassemble the hype a little bit around a particular candidate.
• 27:58
  Yeah,
• 27:58
  I,
• 27:58
  um,
• 27:59
  I think it's,
• 28:00
  it's very useful to have spent a lot of time both at the beginning
• 28:03
  of my career in politics going door to door and talking to people.
• 28:05
  You learn that
• 28:06
  the candidates that people are really excited about
• 28:08
  on the internet are not always the,
• 28:10
  you know,
• 28:11
  candidates that,
• 28:11
  you know,
• 28:12
  uh,
• 28:12
  porch and patio voters in Michigan or Arizona are excited about,
• 28:17
  so.
• 28:18
  I think it gives you a grounded perspective for like my personal trading.
• 28:21
  I think
• 28:22
  it made me worse
• 28:24
  at first,
• 28:24
  you know,
• 28:25
  coming into forecasting.
• 28:27
  I carried a lot of personal
• 28:29
  biases and personal thoughts about the way the
• 28:32
  world works that weren't always in tune with.
• 28:34
  You know,
• 28:35
  exactly,
• 28:36
  you know,
• 28:36
  the
• 28:37
  probabilities and forecasts,
• 28:38
  but then
• 28:39
  over time I think it's become a real
• 28:41
  sustainable edge in my trading once I was able to sort of learn to think and,
• 28:45
  you know,
• 28:45
  more
• 28:46
  Bayjian sort of terms,
• 28:47
  it,
• 28:48
  it really has been quite a resource.
• 28:50
  Yeah,
• 28:50
  it's interesting you say that we have a
• 28:52
  predictable constitution where we try to like,
• 28:54
  you know,
• 28:55
  I try to remember all the dumb mistakes I've made over the years as a trading contract
• 28:59
  and made it into a constitution.
• 29:00
  Our 12th Amendment is don't invest with your heart.
• 29:03
  And that's,
• 29:03
  I think one of the hardest things for people to get past because
• 29:07
  you want something so badly,
• 29:08
  you want a particular candidate to win,
• 29:11
  and then you look at those markets and you're like,
• 29:12
  well,
• 29:12
  wait a minute,
• 29:13
  I think actually the other guy might win,
• 29:16
  you know,
• 29:16
  do I have the strength internally to actually go for that other candidate?
• 29:19
  I,
• 29:20
  it's more difficult than I think people would think.
• 29:22
  Yeah,
• 29:23
  yeah,
• 29:23
  no,
• 29:23
  there's a lot of challenges in it,
• 29:25
  I think especially,
• 29:27
  you know,
• 29:28
  everyone's worse at forecasting on farther out time horizons,
• 29:30
  just if you look at any of the data on,
• 29:32
  on Briar scores and accuracy,
• 29:35
  and I think
• 29:36
  as people get less accurate,
• 29:37
  as you have to start stacking assumptions,
• 29:39
  you're relying on sort of
• 29:41
  fundamental
• 29:42
  world beliefs that
• 29:44
  might not really be relevant,
• 29:45
  you can come to these very extreme.
• 29:47
  Uh,
• 29:48
  conclusions in the long run are not
• 29:50
  even so much extreme,
• 29:51
  but just
• 29:52
  something,
• 29:52
  yeah,
• 29:53
  that you,
• 29:53
  you don't realize is,
• 29:54
  is much closer to your,
• 29:55
  to your heart than your mind.
• 29:57
  Jesse,
• 29:58
  what was,
• 29:58
  what are the state of political markets right now?
• 30:00
  Cause I think,
• 30:01
  you know,
• 30:01
  look,
• 30:01
  I like sports,
• 30:02
  I like going on,
• 30:03
  I like predicting markets for using them for sports.
• 30:06
  Like I have no problem with it at all.
• 30:07
  But also like,
• 30:08
  it gets all the attention,
• 30:09
  it gets all,
• 30:10
  you know,
• 30:10
  gets all the anger,
• 30:11
  uh,
• 30:11
  gets all the hype.
• 30:12
  Um,
• 30:13
  you know,
• 30:13
  predict prediction markets for politics is really how I came into this,
• 30:16
  you know,
• 30:16
  back to predicted back in the day and in,
• 30:18
  in that world.
• 30:20
  What is,
• 30:20
  uh,
• 30:21
  what is,
• 30:21
  what are the state of,
• 30:22
  of these markets today,
• 30:23
  and I know they're growing,
• 30:24
  but are they growing and,
• 30:25
  you know,
• 30:25
  and being as big a part of the pie as some people expect?
• 30:29
  I think that,
• 30:30
  you know,
• 30:30
  the volumes are definitely growing on politics markets.
• 30:33
  They're getting bigger,
• 30:34
  um.
• 30:36
  I think that they're still,
• 30:38
  they're still at a point where
• 30:39
  it's harder for
• 30:41
  big businesses,
• 30:42
  big trading firms to get as big of a slice of them as they want,
• 30:46
  you know,
• 30:46
  they want more liquidity in these markets,
• 30:48
  and that's just something that's
• 30:50
  building up over time.
• 30:51
  I think that the,
• 30:52
  the politics trajectory has definitely been
• 30:55
  increased significantly by the sports volume,
• 30:57
  you know,
• 30:57
  kind of like the,
• 30:58
  the interest trickling into them,
• 31:00
  but it's not.
• 31:03
  It,
• 31:04
  it,
• 31:04
  it hasn't taken off in the same rocket ship.
• 31:06
  So
• 31:07
  we're seeing that interest,
• 31:08
  um,
• 31:09
  increase over time and definitely like the midterms are going
• 31:11
  to have a huge effect and I think we're going to
• 31:14
  just kind of have to
• 31:15
  see
• 31:16
  how much of the sports interest ends up moving into,
• 31:20
  ah,
• 31:20
  midterms as the date gets closer.
• 31:22
  As you know,
• 31:22
  people really like these short term markets,
• 31:24
  they like to turn over their money quickly,
• 31:26
  so.
• 31:27
  I think that
• 31:29
  as we get closer,
• 31:30
  we might start to see these people who
• 31:31
  are really interested in the short-term markets,
• 31:34
  moving from,
• 31:35
  you know,
• 31:36
  just being into sports into
• 31:38
  now considering more of the politics markets.
• 31:40
  Yeah,
• 31:40
  that's one of the arguments I,
• 31:41
  I,
• 31:42
  I have with people sometimes when they talk about like,
• 31:43
  oh well,
• 31:44
  you know,
• 31:44
  70% of the,
• 31:45
  you know,
• 31:45
  the volume is sports.
• 31:46
  Well,
• 31:47
  part of the reason For that is there's so many events,
• 31:49
  right?
• 31:49
  Like these things are happening constantly and inside of every one of those events,
• 31:53
  there's another,
• 31:53
  you know,
• 31:53
  several layers of,
• 31:54
  you know,
• 31:55
  player props and all these other different things
• 31:57
  that you can look at.
• 31:57
  Well,
• 31:58
  of course,
• 31:58
  people are on their train.
• 31:59
  There's,
• 31:59
  there's only one election every couple of years,
• 32:01
  uh,
• 32:02
  for the most part.
• 32:03
  Um,
• 32:03
  so that I think that is a difference.
• 32:05
  We are still seeing that people are,
• 32:07
  I think,
• 32:08
  you know,
• 32:08
  it's funny,
• 32:08
  I talk to people all the time about the,
• 32:10
  the,
• 32:10
  the main market they always bring up to me
• 32:12
  is who's gonna win in 2028.
• 32:14
  And
• 32:15
  you know,
• 32:15
  like that is a really fun,
• 32:17
  interesting market.
• 32:18
  But when you stop and think about how long you have to lock your money up,
• 32:21
  uh,
• 32:22
  to trade a market like that,
• 32:23
  it really,
• 32:24
  you really wonder whether
• 32:25
  it's,
• 32:26
  it's the right target.
• 32:27
  I mean,
• 32:27
  am I,
• 32:27
  am I thinking about that right,
• 32:28
  Tanner?
• 32:30
  Yeah,
• 32:30
  I would,
• 32:30
  I would say you are,
• 32:31
  even,
• 32:32
  um,
• 32:33
  I,
• 32:34
  I think there,
• 32:35
  if you're looking for a quick
• 32:37
  turnaround,
• 32:37
  there were some good trades at least I was
• 32:39
  seeing earlier in some of these primary markets,
• 32:42
  particularly with,
• 32:43
  you know,
• 32:44
  a few Democrats I think were priced a little bit lower,
• 32:46
  but you're still counting on.
• 32:48
  You know,
• 32:48
  not just being right that their true odds are
• 32:51
  higher than you believe the market is pricing them,
• 32:54
  but also that the market will realize that it's incorrect in a,
• 32:57
  in a reasonable enough time for you to exit
• 32:59
  that position with any sort of profit unless you wanted to
• 33:01
  hold to a resolution which You know,
• 33:03
  creates a lot of extra risk,
• 33:04
  especially if you believe
• 33:06
  a 2 cent candidate is more of a 4 cent candidate for,
• 33:09
  you know,
• 33:09
  winning the overall election.
• 33:11
  Yeah,
• 33:11
  the primary schedule is great for this stuff because you can,
• 33:13
  you can go in,
• 33:14
  you have a weekly event,
• 33:15
  you can go in with all your stuff there,
• 33:17
  you can roll it over.
• 33:18
  The next week and build on it from there to there.
• 33:19
  I mean,
• 33:19
  it's a really fun,
• 33:21
  uh,
• 33:21
  time of year and we had a great,
• 33:22
  great time doing it.
• 33:23
  Um,
• 33:24
  I need to notice,
• 33:24
  Jesse,
• 33:24
  you know,
• 33:25
  you look at the liquidity in some of these markets and,
• 33:27
  you know,
• 33:27
  talking,
• 33:27
  you know,
• 33:28
  we're
• 33:28
  generally speaking,
• 33:29
  my audience is,
• 33:30
  is,
• 33:30
  you know,
• 33:31
  less like expert traders and more like people who are love politics,
• 33:34
  right?
• 33:34
  They're in it,
• 33:35
  they're thinking about it all the time.
• 33:37
  And like,
• 33:37
  you know,
• 33:37
  so liquidity is not something they think about on an everyday basis,
• 33:40
  but sometimes they'll have a take,
• 33:41
  they'll want to go into a market and there's just
• 33:43
  no shares really there to buy in an interesting price.
• 33:45
  How,
• 33:46
  how do prediction markets,
• 33:47
  you know,
• 33:48
  work with you and and others to,
• 33:49
  to make that more of a usable,
• 33:51
  user-friendly experience?
• 33:53
  Yeah,
• 33:53
  for sure,
• 33:54
  I mean,
• 33:54
  there's definitely like
• 33:57
  lots of the exchanges are offering ah liquidity programs and
• 34:00
  they're doing that to try to beef up liquidity,
• 34:02
  especially at points in time in which
• 34:04
  traders are going to be interested in a market,
• 34:07
  um,
• 34:08
  so that will be around like a volatility event they know that some sort of,
• 34:12
  ah,
• 34:13
  news has just come out,
• 34:14
  so they want to beef up the liquidity to make sure that makers are,
• 34:18
  are directed there,
• 34:19
  um.
• 34:21
  And,
• 34:21
  and then sometimes they're making these maker agreements
• 34:23
  with individual market makers in which they're,
• 34:25
  they're signing something that's saying,
• 34:26
  OK,
• 34:27
  I'm,
• 34:27
  I'm committing to put up
• 34:29
  quotes,
• 34:29
  um,
• 34:30
  with like this spread and this many,
• 34:33
  um,
• 34:34
  you know,
• 34:34
  quantities so that you're sure that.
• 34:36
  When a trader comes along,
• 34:37
  there's not going to be some huge amount of slippage,
• 34:40
  and I think that another thing that's really
• 34:42
  interesting in the political markets coming up,
• 34:43
  especially around the midterms,
• 34:45
  is some of these platforms are thinking about doing
• 34:47
  combos kind of similar to parlays in sports,
• 34:50
  but around politics,
• 34:51
  and that's something that's going to be really interesting
• 34:54
  to see what the liquidity environment is like because
• 34:57
  Quoting these,
• 34:59
  these events,
• 34:59
  you know,
• 35:00
  they're definitely not independent.
• 35:02
  A lot of the sports combos are easy to price because
• 35:05
  they're different teams,
• 35:06
  it's independent events,
• 35:08
  um,
• 35:09
  you know,
• 35:09
  you just
• 35:10
  say,
• 35:10
  you just consider them to be independent and the math is very simple,
• 35:14
  but with politics markets,
• 35:16
  these things are
• 35:17
  correlated,
• 35:18
  and especially when you get to like,
• 35:20
  345,
• 35:22
  events all in one combo,
• 35:26
  there can be some,
• 35:26
  some hidden
• 35:28
  probabilities and covariances between different,
• 35:31
  um,
• 35:31
  markets that
• 35:33
  it's going to be hard for makers to consider.
• 35:34
  So I think that's going to be a really interesting opportunity for,
• 35:37
  ah,
• 35:38
  the,
• 35:38
  the,
• 35:40
  you know,
• 35:40
  takers out there who are interested in politics to,
• 35:42
  to try to think through these scenarios and
• 35:46
  You know,
• 35:46
  see what they can get over on makers.
• 35:48
  I'm not yet sure if I want to be quoting these things for that reason,
• 35:51
  you know,
• 35:51
  I think it's gonna be really difficult,
• 35:53
  uh,
• 35:53
  but I think it's also going to be really fun.
• 35:55
  Yeah,
• 35:55
  I,
• 35:55
  I always say that that does interest me,
• 35:57
  like,
• 35:57
  especially because,
• 35:57
  you know,
• 35:58
  you get,
• 35:58
  you find these things.
• 35:59
  I feel like you can find these,
• 36:00
  these things that are priced at like 85,
• 36:02
  90% that I feel really confident in.
• 36:04
  And that,
• 36:04
  look,
• 36:04
  I'll,
• 36:05
  I'll take that 1520,
• 36:06
  you know,
• 36:06
  10,
• 36:06
  15% all day.
• 36:08
  But if I could combine a couple of those,
• 36:10
  and
• 36:11
  I don't know,
• 36:11
  it's,
• 36:11
  it would be pretty interesting.
• 36:13
  It would be pretty interesting.
• 36:13
  I'll probably screw it up.
• 36:15
  There'll be one
• 36:15
  there will be one leg that screws me up
• 36:17
  and I will hate that politician more than anybody.
• 36:19
  Uh,
• 36:19
  in the world,
• 36:20
  but that's just me,
• 36:21
  I suppose.
• 36:22
  Um,
• 36:22
  20 predict 2026.
• 36:23
  I wanna get to this because,
• 36:24
  uh,
• 36:24
  you know,
• 36:25
  this is gonna be a great event.
• 36:26
  Uh,
• 36:26
  there's huge names there.
• 36:27
  It's,
• 36:27
  it's in New York.
• 36:28
  Uh,
• 36:29
  not only it's in New York,
• 36:29
  it's in New York at,
• 36:30
  you know,
• 36:31
  Christmas time.
• 36:31
  This is gonna be a really cool event.
• 36:32
  You know,
• 36:33
  lots of,
• 36:33
  if you wanna go,
• 36:34
  if you're interested in this stuff,
• 36:35
  check it out.
• 36:36
  It's predict 2026.org.
• 36:38
  You can visit.
• 36:39
  Uh,
• 36:40
  there and check,
• 36:40
  get out all the details.
• 36:41
  Jesse Rosen and Tanner Lux's putting this whole thing together.
• 36:43
  It's gonna be a lot of fun.
• 36:44
  And
• 36:45
  look,
• 36:45
  this world is growing,
• 36:46
  as everybody I know who watches the show on a day to day basis knows,
• 36:49
  and it's important that we,
• 36:51
  we,
• 36:51
  we look at this and understand where it's going and,
• 36:53
  and how we can be a part of it.
• 36:54
  Predict 2026.org is the place to go.
• 36:56
  Tanner,
• 36:57
  Jesse,
• 36:57
  thanks so much for coming on.
• 36:58
  I appreciate it.
• 36:59
  Yeah,
• 36:59
  thank you for having us.
• 37:00
  Thanks.
• 37:16
  Alright,
• 37:16
  it's time for our candidate countdown candidate of the day.
• 37:19
  We do a different candidate feature a different race,
• 37:21
  uh,
• 37:21
  that we're,
• 37:22
  that I have a position on every single day,
• 37:24
  and today's candidate of the day,
• 37:25
  we've got 42 days left until the midterm election,
• 37:28
  and we go to Florida
• 37:30
  and we say hello
• 37:31
  to Ashley Moody.
• 37:32
  Yes,
• 37:33
  Ashley Moody.
• 37:34
  Running for Senate
• 37:35
  in,
• 37:35
  uh,
• 37:36
  Florida,
• 37:37
  she was appointed by DeSantis after uh Rubio left
• 37:40
  to go to serve in the Trump administration.
• 37:42
  Been the senator for a while there,
• 37:44
  um,
• 37:44
  and,
• 37:45
  uh,
• 37:45
  she is running in Florida and she,
• 37:47
  she wound up getting a,
• 37:48
  I think she was gonna win anyway,
• 37:49
  but she also got a really bad candidate to go against her,
• 37:52
  which is,
• 37:53
  I always wanna say Cynthia Nixon,
• 37:54
  which it's not,
• 37:55
  it's,
• 37:55
  uh,
• 37:56
  something else,
• 37:56
  Nixon,
• 37:57
  what's her name?
• 38:00
  Angie Nixon,
• 38:01
  thank you very much.
• 38:01
  Angie Nixon.
• 38:02
  I was gonna say Richard,
• 38:03
  but I was pretty sure it wasn't Richard.
• 38:04
  Uh,
• 38:05
  Angie Nixon is running there.
• 38:06
  She,
• 38:06
  she's like the socialist candidate,
• 38:07
  kind of a,
• 38:08
  a wild-eyed socialist,
• 38:09
  uh,
• 38:10
  running in Florida,
• 38:10
  which has become a very red state.
• 38:13
  You know,
• 38:13
  is this a,
• 38:13
  a complete sure thing?
• 38:14
  I mean,
• 38:15
  no,
• 38:15
  uh,
• 38:15
  but I really like it.
• 38:16
  I really like this race,
• 38:17
  and one of the reasons I like it is every once in
• 38:19
  a while there's been a couple polls that have showed it close.
• 38:22
  Again,
• 38:22
  you know the thesis statement.
• 38:23
  We talked about it in the first segment today.
• 38:25
  Uh,
• 38:26
  people tend to come home.
• 38:27
  This is a,
• 38:27
  you know,
• 38:27
  a Republican state at this point.
• 38:29
  It's a red state.
• 38:30
  I think by maybe not 2025 points like DeSantis has won it by,
• 38:34
  but I think
• 38:34
  high single digits is reasonable.
• 38:36
  Uh,
• 38:36
  Ashley Moody sounds alarmed with a second poll shows dead heat with Angie Nixon.
• 38:40
  This is the headline
• 38:41
  from Newsweek.
• 38:42
  Now,
• 38:43
  this is one of those things where like,
• 38:44
  normally,
• 38:44
  if you're a candidate,
• 38:45
  you wanna say,
• 38:46
  I'm winning.
• 38:46
  I'm winning,
• 38:47
  I'm winning.
• 38:47
  I'm doing great.
• 38:48
  Ashley Moody,
• 38:49
  oddly,
• 38:50
  and,
• 38:50
  and this is a new thing that has happened over the past few years,
• 38:53
  and is also
• 38:55
  common among not just Moody's campaign or Republican campaigns,
• 38:58
  but everybody,
• 38:59
  is you actually are incentivized to point
• 39:01
  out the bad things about what's happening because
• 39:04
  you want to fundraise off of them.
• 39:06
  Holy crap,
• 39:07
  we're tied.
• 39:08
  Uh,
• 39:08
  oh,
• 39:08
  no,
• 39:09
  it's 2 ties,
• 39:10
  2 polls tied,
• 39:10
  and there are 2 polls that are tied,
• 39:12
  by the way,
• 39:12
  Saint Pete polls,
• 39:14
  uh,
• 39:14
  and Change Research.
• 39:16
  Have it as even,
• 39:17
  but you see the other polls around it are pretty consistently
• 39:20
  in the favor of Moody.
• 39:21
  The most recent one from Insider Advantage,
• 39:23
  which is a new poll from a few days ago,
• 39:25
  has Moody up by 8 points.
• 39:27
  Qantas had her up by 7.
• 39:29
  University of North Florida had her up.
• 39:31
  The various
• 39:32
  measures in July by 8 and 10 points.
• 39:35
  These two polls,
• 39:36
  look,
• 39:36
  I would be,
• 39:36
  of course you'd be worried about a poll that's close,
• 39:38
  but I'm,
• 39:38
  I'm pretty confident
• 39:39
  in Ashley Moody.
• 39:41
  It is one of my biggest positions.
• 39:42
  This is what the market looks like right now,
• 39:44
  and the reason why it's not 95%,
• 39:45
  98%,
• 39:46
  99%.
• 39:47
  Uh,
• 39:47
  is because of these couple of polls,
• 39:50
  um,
• 39:50
  uh,
• 39:51
  you know,
• 39:52
  she's competitive.
• 39:53
  I mean,
• 39:53
  Nixon's more competitive than she would normally be.
• 39:56
  In another year,
• 39:56
  she ran in 2024,
• 39:58
  she'd get absolutely destroyed,
• 39:59
  but it's 20,
• 40:00
  it's 2018 all over again,
• 40:01
  at least,
• 40:02
  it seems like in some of these cases.
• 40:03
  So
• 40:04
  she is more competitive.
• 40:06
  Uh,
• 40:06
  Polly market here has Ashley Moody at 92%.
• 40:10
  Angie Nixon.
• 40:11
  At 9%.
• 40:12
  I,
• 40:13
  I wanna say Calci is a little bit more
• 40:15
  um
• 40:16
  uh favorable for Nixon.
• 40:18
  I wanna say it's 90 to 10% or something in that vicinity.
• 40:21
  Again,
• 40:21
  this is a race that
• 40:22
  only utter catastrophe
• 40:25
  really could could endanger Ashley Moody.
• 40:29
  Not impossible,
• 40:30
  but I really like the candidate.
• 40:31
  I really like the play here.
• 40:33
  So that is my candidate of the day,
• 40:35
  kind of playing off the GOP optimism.
• 40:36
  Let's,
• 40:36
  let's look at a race that maybe the Republicans are a little excited about.
• 40:40
  Uh,
• 40:40
  Ashley Moody getting in there and winning an election
• 40:43
  will probably have her there for as long as,
• 40:44
  you know,
• 40:45
  for at least a good period of time,
• 40:47
  uh,
• 40:47
  if she is able to win in this particular race.
• 40:50
  It's not always easy.
• 40:51
  Uh,
• 40:51
  an incumbency has its advantages.
• 40:53
  That advantage is oftentimes minimized
• 40:56
  if you were appointed.
• 40:58
  You know,
• 40:58
  I don't know,
• 40:58
  I,
• 40:59
  I guess,
• 40:59
  you know,
• 40:59
  people don't have that connection,
• 41:00
  right?
• 41:01
  They didn't vote for you.
• 41:02
  You appointed by DeSantis,
• 41:03
  so there,
• 41:04
  that is,
• 41:04
  uh,
• 41:04
  you know,
• 41:05
  I wouldn't treat her as a normal incumbent where
• 41:06
  I would even have her as a higher favorite.
• 41:08
  But I'm totally comfortable buying her,
• 41:10
  uh,
• 41:11
  uh,
• 41:11
  buying shares of her political,
• 41:13
  I always say weird,
• 41:14
  I,
• 41:14
  I feel really comfortable buying her.
• 41:16
  It just feels weird.
• 41:17
  It feels a little sexual slavery,
• 41:19
  and I don't,
• 41:20
  it's not what I'm looking for here.
• 41:21
  I'm looking to buy shares of her contract
• 41:23
  in a political election.
• 41:24
  90 cents.
• 41:25
  I like,
• 41:26
  I like that price.
• 41:26
  So
• 41:27
  that's where we are.
• 41:27
  Ashley Moody,
• 41:28
  our,
• 41:28
  uh,
• 41:29
  candidate countdown candidate of the day.
• 41:43
  Another episode of Stranger Trades where we
• 41:45
  highlight the bizarre things that happen on
• 41:48
  prediction markets,
• 41:49
  and sometimes they do.
• 41:50
  And that's kind of what makes them fun sometimes,
• 41:52
  unless of course you're on the wrong side
• 41:53
  of one of those trades.
• 41:54
  The stranger trades yesterday
• 41:56
  has to do with uh Donald Trump's battles with the media.
• 41:59
  He has been uh taking people uh different media organizations and saying,
• 42:02
  yeah,
• 42:03
  well,
• 42:03
  you're banned from the White House.
• 42:05
  uh,
• 42:05
  and there has been some
• 42:08
  weirdness associated with that.
• 42:10
  Uh,
• 42:10
  one of the things is they're not using,
• 42:12
  they're not doing pool audio anymore.
• 42:14
  Usually what happens is.
• 42:15
  Instead of every single
• 42:17
  news organization having to bring their own microphone,
• 42:19
  uh,
• 42:19
  to every single press conference,
• 42:21
  they usually have like responsibilities.
• 42:23
  So there's a pool and someone someone does it.
• 42:25
  Uh,
• 42:26
  and kind of provides it to everybody.
• 42:28
  Well,
• 42:28
  they're kind of protesting this because they don't like what
• 42:30
  he's done with kicking people out of the White House.
• 42:32
  Uh,
• 42:32
  and what happened was he did an event and there was no audio.
• 42:36
  Trump inaudible during TV blackout,
• 42:38
  what the press pool does,
• 42:39
  and the Axios explains
• 42:41
  what we're talking about.
• 42:42
  This is what it looked like yesterday,
• 42:43
  and it's got a tie to prediction markets,
• 42:45
  which is very,
• 42:45
  very interesting.
• 42:47
  Here's the event.
• 42:48
  Uh,
• 42:48
  he is doing,
• 42:49
  this is for a,
• 42:50
  I think a helipad,
• 42:51
  right?
• 42:51
  Wasn't it
• 42:52
  something like that?
• 42:52
  I don't even know.
• 42:53
  He's ribbon,
• 42:54
  it was a ribbon cutting.
• 42:55
  And he's just,
• 42:56
  you can see Trump's mouth moving.
• 42:58
  You can see him talking to everyone.
• 42:59
  It looks like a totally normal event,
• 43:01
  except instead,
• 43:03
  hearing what he's saying
• 43:05
  because there's no microphone because the pool cameras aren't there.
• 43:08
  So maybe,
• 43:09
  uh,
• 43:09
  Tim,
• 43:09
  this is one example of it backfiring just a little bit,
• 43:12
  um,
• 43:13
  pick up on some of the things
• 43:15
  Michael was saying.
• 43:17
  So that's Newsmax,
• 43:18
  by the way,
• 43:18
  saying like,
• 43:18
  yeah,
• 43:18
  maybe this,
• 43:19
  uh,
• 43:20
  all right,
• 43:20
  that's enough guys,
• 43:21
  um,
• 43:21
  where there's like,
• 43:22
  uh,
• 43:22
  maybe that's a little bit too much,
• 43:23
  uh,
• 43:23
  battling with the media anyway.
• 43:25
  What's interesting about this is there was a mention market
• 43:28
  set up for this event.
• 43:29
  What will Trump say at this particular
• 43:32
  event?
• 43:33
  This is what it looks like on,
• 43:35
  uh,
• 43:35
  Calci right now.
• 43:36
  Uh,
• 43:37
  the graph looks a little bit weird.
• 43:38
  You can ignore that,
• 43:39
  but kind of go down.
• 43:39
  What is he gonna say?
• 43:40
  If you don't know what a mention market is,
• 43:41
  they give you a big list,
• 43:42
  right?
• 43:42
  Oil,
• 43:43
  gas,
• 43:43
  helicopter,
• 43:44
  right?
• 43:44
  Uh,
• 43:44
  Biden,
• 43:45
  uh,
• 43:45
  Melania,
• 43:46
  all these different things that he might say.
• 43:49
  Well,
• 43:49
  of course,
• 43:49
  the
• 43:51
  The answer to all of them were no,
• 43:52
  because he didn't say anything,
• 43:53
  at least on at least on the microphone.
• 43:55
  It's an interesting
• 43:57
  conversation there because he obviously did say some of these things.
• 44:01
  I don't know how they're gonna play this out.
• 44:02
  The fact that you couldn't hear,
• 44:04
  there's no confirmation of him saying any of those things.
• 44:07
  Every single market
• 44:08
  resolved to know.
• 44:10
  So,
• 44:11
  again,
• 44:11
  if you had no shares,
• 44:12
  you did very,
• 44:12
  very well in that market.
• 44:14
  If you had some yeses,
• 44:15
  maybe not so well.
• 44:16
  It's just another weird thing that happens on prediction markets.
• 44:18
  What's fun about this area is it is a new frontier.
• 44:20
  We don't know everything that's gonna happen.
• 44:22
  Uh,
• 44:22
  so sometimes
• 44:23
  we all get surprised.
• 44:25
  Uh,
• 44:25
  you get surprised a little bit less.
• 44:26
  We try to make this
• 44:27
  unpredictable world a little bit more predictable here on this show.
• 44:30
  You can go further at predictableshow.com.
• 44:33
  If you have a premium subscription,
• 44:34
  you get every one of my picks,
• 44:35
  you get a live stream of the taping every single day,
• 44:37
  so you get all these positions early.
• 44:39
  Uh,
• 44:39
  you also get a great community conversation of people talking
• 44:43
  about prediction markets and,
• 44:44
  uh,
• 44:44
  and all the associated,
• 44:45
  uh,
• 44:46
  fun there.
• 44:46
  There's,
• 44:47
  uh,
• 44:47
  also the prediction model.
• 44:48
  We have the PMC,
• 44:49
  the,
• 44:50
  uh,
• 44:50
  predict predictable,
• 44:52
  uh,
• 44:52
  medium,
• 44:53
  predictable,
• 44:54
  uh,
• 44:54
  midterm
• 44:55
  consensus,
• 44:55
  uh,
• 44:56
  which is up there.
• 44:56
  The PMC,
• 44:57
  uh,
• 44:57
  shows you all the breakdowns of what the experts are saying
• 44:59
  and every single state broken down for premium subscribers as well.
• 45:01
  So there's tons of stuff,
• 45:03
  uh,
• 45:03
  for you,
• 45:03
  for you to,
• 45:04
  to play with
• 45:05
  at predictableshow.com.
• 45:06
  Go there and join us.
• 45:07
  We'll see you later.