Latest / Predictable with Stu Burguiere / The Rise of the FAKE Independents & Senate Balance Check

Transcript

The Rise of the FAKE Independents & Senate Balance Check · Predictable with Stu Burguiere

• 0:00
  Welcome to Predictable with Stu.
• 0:02
  Are you new to prediction markets?
• 0:04
  Do you have no idea what I'm talking about when I talk about prediction markets?
• 0:06
  That's OK.
• 0:07
  You're still very early on this stuff.
• 0:09
  Predictable101.com is a great place to go.
• 0:12
  Awesome resources there.
• 0:13
  How to work them,
• 0:14
  how to get involved in them.
• 0:16
  Short videos,
• 0:17
  you'll,
• 0:17
  you'll appreciate it,
• 0:18
  I think,
• 0:18
  if you want to get started.
• 0:19
  Check it out,
• 0:19
  predictable101.com.
• 0:21
  Today,
• 0:21
  we're gonna check,
• 0:22
  check in on The predictable midterm consensus.
• 0:24
  What's the,
• 0:24
  uh,
• 0:25
  the Senate board?
• 0:26
  Where,
• 0:26
  where's control
• 0:28
  looking like it might fall?
• 0:29
  We'll look into that.
• 0:30
  We'll also do,
• 0:31
  uh,
• 0:31
  talk to Mick Bransfield about the legal state of prediction markets.
• 0:34
  Always a very active,
• 0:36
  uh,
• 0:36
  environment.
• 0:37
  Lawyers making lots of money,
• 0:38
  uh,
• 0:38
  on this stuff right now.
• 0:39
  We'll get into that
• 0:40
  as well.
• 0:41
  And a candidate countdown all coming up today on Predictable
• 0:44
  with Stu.
• 0:59
  All right,
• 1:00
  here we go.
• 1:01
  Let's talk about prediction markets.
• 1:02
  Let's talk about elections.
• 1:03
  Why?
• 1:04
  Because we've got 36 days
• 1:06
  until we have an election.
• 1:07
  That's right,
• 1:08
  36 days
• 1:10
  until election day
• 1:12
  right now.
• 1:13
  And uh it's a question I get all the time.
• 1:15
  Is it time to panic?
• 1:18
  Kind of.
• 1:19
  Panic Day though,
• 1:20
  technically is not until,
• 1:22
  what is it?
• 1:22
  October 19th?
• 1:24
  October 19 what?
• 1:26
  19th,
• 1:26
  thank you.
• 1:26
  October 19th is panic day.
• 1:29
  There it is,
• 1:29
  panic day.
• 1:31
  Wow,
• 1:31
  look at that.
• 1:32
  It's terrifying.
• 1:32
  It's a tornado
• 1:34
  of
• 1:35
  ballots and logos of parties.
• 1:37
  Uh,
• 1:37
  that's how you know it's scary.
• 1:38
  Panic Day,
• 1:39
  October 19th.
• 1:40
  So don't panic,
• 1:41
  don't panic yet.
• 1:42
  I had someone asking me this week,
• 1:43
  should I panic about my positions in Texas?
• 1:44
  Should I panic about my positions in,
• 1:46
  in,
• 1:46
  uh,
• 1:47
  on the Senate?
• 1:48
  No,
• 1:49
  I wouldn't say panic yet,
• 1:50
  we're gonna watch closely and we're going to make sure we right
• 1:52
  size our positions and try to take a very balanced view.
• 1:55
  That's what we do here.
• 1:56
  That's what we do here.
• 1:57
  It's not crazy gambling 95 team parlays.
• 2:01
  Look,
• 2:02
  that's all fun and games.
• 2:03
  No problem with that myself,
• 2:05
  but
• 2:06
  What we try to do here is grow your uh bankroll
• 2:09
  and your investment accounts
• 2:10
  in a structured,
• 2:11
  sober,
• 2:12
  reasonable way.
• 2:13
  That's what we try to do here because
• 2:15
  prediction markets give
• 2:16
  unique opportunities for regular people to do that and that's
• 2:20
  what we've been doing so far throughout the primary season.
• 2:22
  We've done very well through the primaries.
• 2:23
  We hope to continue that.
• 2:24
  Now,
• 2:25
  now one of the things we're doing all the time
• 2:26
  is building new new tools to understand the elections better.
• 2:30
  One of the premier tools that we have is an election model of our own.
• 2:33
  It's called the predictable midterm consensus,
• 2:35
  and it is up at predictableshow.com.
• 2:37
  You can access it anytime you want
• 2:39
  for free
• 2:40
  to see
• 2:41
  what is the view of polling averages.
• 2:44
  Expert opinions,
• 2:46
  election models,
• 2:47
  fundraising,
• 2:48
  fundamentals,
• 2:50
  history,
• 2:50
  all of it built into one thing you can see to try to understand all of it,
• 2:54
  or you can click around to 9 million websites.
• 2:57
  Uh,
• 2:57
  every day,
• 2:57
  like I do.
• 2:59
  So you can either live my life
• 3:01
  or just go to predictableshow.com.
• 3:03
  Do we have the PMC available right now to look at this is what the page looks like.
• 3:07
  Kind of gives you a little uh updown,
• 3:09
  uh uh uh uh a little uh update on,
• 3:11
  you know,
• 3:12
  where things are,
• 3:13
  uh,
• 3:13
  what,
• 3:14
  what is the PMC kind of a quick explainer.
• 3:16
  And he kind of rolled down here too and control of
• 3:18
  Congress is what you'll see here at the top right now
• 3:20
  again,
• 3:21
  this is not my opinion.
• 3:22
  I
• 3:22
  my opinion is completely sucked out of this,
• 3:25
  and I will also tell you prediction market
• 3:26
  data is completely sucked out of these estimates.
• 3:29
  I'll tell you why here in a second,
• 3:31
  but
• 3:31
  if you look here,
• 3:32
  control of Congress,
• 3:32
  86.3% chance for Democrats to control the House
• 3:36
  and a 61% chance
• 3:38
  that the Democrats control
• 3:39
  the Senate.
• 3:40
  What you see below that is
• 3:43
  that data compared to prediction markets,
• 3:46
  and that's one of the things we do with the PMC.
• 3:49
  We wanna make sure that you can see where
• 3:51
  the differences are between what the experts are saying
• 3:53
  and what the markets are saying,
• 3:54
  and you'll see
• 3:56
  that,
• 3:56
  uh,
• 3:56
  right now markets are more optimistic for Democrats
• 4:00
  across the board,
• 4:02
  which is interesting.
• 4:03
  Uh,
• 4:03
  that's not the way it's been the entire time for the House.
• 4:06
  You see that Calci and Paully Market are 5 and 6 points ahead
• 4:10
  of where,
• 4:10
  uh,
• 4:11
  the markets are for,
• 4:12
  um,
• 4:13
  uh,
• 4:14
  for the PMC is the model itself,
• 4:16
  and a slight,
• 4:17
  uh,
• 4:17
  more subtle advantage for the Democrats
• 4:20
  over the 61% chance
• 4:22
  Democrats are,
• 4:23
  are,
• 4:23
  are going to win the Senate.
• 4:24
  They're at 61%.
• 4:25
  5 and 62.5%.
• 4:27
  Now,
• 4:28
  as you kind of scroll down,
• 4:29
  you will see,
• 4:30
  uh,
• 4:31
  the,
• 4:32
  uh,
• 4:32
  where the Senate and the House have been.
• 4:34
  You can click on those charts and below that,
• 4:37
  we have this thing called five things from the latest PMC update.
• 4:40
  Uh,
• 4:40
  you see Republicans doing a little bit better.
• 4:42
  Ohio is,
• 4:43
  uh,
• 4:43
  Sherrod Brown having a little bit of a drop.
• 4:45
  Why?
• 4:45
  Why does Sherrod Brown have a drop?
• 4:47
  Could it be
• 4:48
  the,
• 4:49
  the candidate countdown curse,
• 4:51
  the CCC,
• 4:52
  the triple C.
• 4:54
  Uh,
• 4:54
  is in effect,
• 4:55
  uh,
• 4:55
  with Sherrod Brown because he actually went down
• 4:57
  the single largest drop in Democratic win probability
• 5:01
  in this most recent upgrade.
• 5:02
  Uh,
• 5:02
  Nebraska went the other way as Dan Osborne,
• 5:05
  I want to talk about him here in a second,
• 5:06
  um,
• 5:07
  he posted some good polling numbers.
• 5:09
  Florida gave Republicans something to like.
• 5:11
  Ashley Moody looking good and also Donald's
• 5:13
  looking pretty solid there in the polling.
• 5:15
  And then of course the biggest disagreement got bigger,
• 5:17
  um,
• 5:17
  because there are massive disagreements between the markets,
• 5:20
  much more than 1 point or 2%.
• 5:21
  Uh,
• 5:22
  on some of these states,
• 5:23
  if you are a premium subscriber,
• 5:24
  we would love you to join us
• 5:26
  at predictableShow.com.
• 5:27
  A bunch of people are subscribing all the time.
• 5:30
  We appreciate you doing that.
• 5:31
  If you're a premium subscriber,
• 5:32
  you get access to all the Senate races
• 5:34
  and you get to access how they are different,
• 5:36
  um,
• 5:36
  by than the markets.
• 5:38
  For example,
• 5:38
  you can sort by that difference,
• 5:39
  so you can see,
• 5:40
  OK,
• 5:40
  hey,
• 5:41
  these are the biggest differences between the markets
• 5:43
  and what,
• 5:44
  uh,
• 5:45
  What the uh predictable midterm consensus believes.
• 5:49
  The PMC is just uh uh it's all the uh all the data
• 5:53
  and all the experts together in one place.
• 5:55
  So if you look at that and you say wow wow,
• 5:57
  there's 10 points,
• 5:58
  there's one that's almost 20 points different,
• 6:00
  you could look at that,
• 6:01
  you could check it out,
• 6:02
  and then you can invest with that additional knowledge.
• 6:05
  So that's what the PMC looks like right now.
• 6:07
  We also have,
• 6:07
  um,
• 6:08
  the Senate board.
• 6:09
  Do we have the Senate board by any chance up,
• 6:11
  uh,
• 6:11
  Adam,
• 6:11
  yeah,
• 6:11
  this is another tool for you,
• 6:12
  by the way,
• 6:13
  this is totally free.
• 6:13
  You can play with us all you want.
• 6:15
  Uh,
• 6:15
  if you go to predictableShow.com,
• 6:17
  there's a section you kind of see at the top that says midterms.
• 6:20
  Uh,
• 6:20
  there's a drop-down menu there that has the Senate board and also has the PMC there.
• 6:24
  Those are tools for you,
• 6:26
  uh,
• 6:26
  to use.
• 6:27
  The Senate board is totally free for you.
• 6:28
  So look at this.
• 6:29
  This is,
• 6:29
  this is,
• 6:29
  it starts with my latest board,
• 6:31
  which I updated a week or two ago.
• 6:32
  Maybe we should do some updates here live.
• 6:34
  Uh,
• 6:34
  but kind of scroll down and you see it's 49 Democrats,
• 6:37
  49 Republicans with 2 toss-ups.
• 6:38
  This is how I have it set up.
• 6:40
  Now,
• 6:40
  what you can do.
• 6:42
  At any point
• 6:43
  is drag these races around and move them around.
• 6:47
  Like,
• 6:47
  for example,
• 6:48
  we're talking about Nebraska a little bit.
• 6:49
  Let's take that Nebraska,
• 6:50
  which is currently a likely Republican,
• 6:52
  and slide that over to the lean Republican,
• 6:55
  uh,
• 6:55
  column.
• 6:56
  Uh,
• 6:56
  you can kind of drag it over,
• 6:57
  right,
• 6:57
  drop it in there and it'll change the way that that's set up.
• 7:00
  Um,
• 7:01
  uh,
• 7:01
  right now you see,
• 7:02
  uh,
• 7:03
  50 to 48 is what it does.
• 7:05
  Uh,
• 7:05
  now,
• 7:05
  uh,
• 7:06
  currently seems because we moved Ohio as well.
• 7:08
  If you take that Ohio,
• 7:09
  uh,
• 7:09
  move that back to lean Democrat,
• 7:11
  for example,
• 7:12
  um,
• 7:12
  as you do that,
• 7:13
  it'll calculate the difference right up on top.
• 7:16
  If you say,
• 7:16
  OK,
• 7:17
  Maine,
• 7:17
  I think is gonna go to the Republicans,
• 7:18
  we'll move that to lean Republican,
• 7:20
  and Michigan,
• 7:22
  uh,
• 7:23
  let's say that's a Democrat right now.
• 7:24
  Al Sayed
• 7:25
  uh holds on to that one,
• 7:27
  move that to lean Democrat.
• 7:28
  If you do that,
• 7:29
  it,
• 7:29
  it'll basically update you as you go.
• 7:31
  We just added,
• 7:32
  uh,
• 7:33
  today or yesterday.
• 7:34
  A sharing
• 7:36
  feature
• 7:37
  so you can line this up however you want,
• 7:39
  move the states around in any direction that you want,
• 7:42
  and you can,
• 7:43
  um,
• 7:44
  share,
• 7:44
  uh,
• 7:44
  this to Twitter,
• 7:45
  share it to any social media
• 7:47
  that you want.
• 7:48
  Uh,
• 7:48
  you could share it with your friends,
• 7:50
  have them come back and have them participate
• 7:52
  as well.
• 7:53
  And if you don't know,
• 7:53
  if you're like looking at,
• 7:54
  well,
• 7:54
  I don't really know much about the New Hampshire Senate race,
• 7:56
  if you click on New Hampshire,
• 7:58
  uh,
• 7:58
  it'll kind of
• 7:59
  click on that and it should bring up,
• 8:00
  um,
• 8:01
  uh,
• 8:01
  New Hampshire is in the lean Democratic column there.
• 8:03
  Uh,
• 8:04
  you click on that and you see it'll kind of give you a link to the Calshi and,
• 8:07
  uh,
• 8:08
  uh,
• 8:09
  the,
• 8:09
  the PMC,
• 8:10
  uh,
• 8:11
  which is the
• 8:12
  R model.
• 8:12
  It has a link to Calshi
• 8:14
  and kind of has a list at the top,
• 8:16
  John Sununu,
• 8:17
  Republican versus Chris Pappas.
• 8:18
  Uh,
• 8:18
  you can kind of see all the details there
• 8:20
  if you want,
• 8:20
  and of course you can move it around in that menu as well.
• 8:23
  It's just a fun thing,
• 8:23
  honestly,
• 8:24
  it's a fun tool to kind of see how you,
• 8:25
  uh,
• 8:25
  want to do,
• 8:26
  and there are markets,
• 8:27
  by the way,
• 8:27
  on.
• 8:29
  Uh,
• 8:29
  Calci,
• 8:30
  Polymarket,
• 8:30
  all these places
• 8:31
  to see how many seats go one way or another.
• 8:33
  So
• 8:34
  one thing I like to do with this board is to kind of go,
• 8:35
  all right,
• 8:35
  let me go best case scenario for Republicans.
• 8:37
  What can they get up to?
• 8:38
  By the way,
• 8:38
  I think I,
• 8:39
  I was like,
• 8:40
  I think 53 might be their max.
• 8:42
  Absolutely everything goes right,
• 8:43
  they get to 53.
• 8:44
  And if Democrats,
• 8:46
  absolutely everything is right,
• 8:47
  maybe they get to 55.
• 8:49
  Maybe 54
• 8:50
  And you can go on these prediction markets and
• 8:52
  predict the number of seats that will be there,
• 8:54
  uh,
• 8:54
  by the end of the election as well.
• 8:55
  So that's another fun one to do.
• 8:57
  One of the things I like to do is take,
• 8:58
  and I usually I'll do this earlier,
• 9:00
  I don't know how much value is gonna be there right now,
• 9:01
  but if I figure like the max is 53,
• 9:04
  I'll go to things,
• 9:05
  everything above 53 and start putting no positions
• 9:07
  there and just kind of collect whatever's there.
• 9:09
  Uh,
• 9:10
  that's one thing that I like to do,
• 9:11
  although I have not checked that in a while,
• 9:12
  so I'm not sure how much value is there.
• 9:14
  And,
• 9:14
  and it's funny,
• 9:15
  there are values in,
• 9:16
  in weird places,
• 9:17
  you know,
• 9:17
  Nebraska is a really interesting one.
• 9:19
  We were kind of just talking about this.
• 9:21
  Think about Nebraska for a second.
• 9:22
  Nebraska is a state
• 9:24
  which is very,
• 9:25
  very
• 9:26
  conservative.
• 9:26
  It's one of the most red states in the union.
• 9:29
  You never go to bed on election night,
• 9:32
  uh,
• 9:32
  when the presidential race is at hand and think,
• 9:35
  oh,
• 9:35
  I don't know which way Nebraska is gonna go.
• 9:37
  At least it's been that way for a long time.
• 9:39
  They will occasionally have a Democratic senator,
• 9:42
  will occasionally have a Democratic
• 9:43
  governor or something like that in some of these states in that area.
• 9:46
  But you know,
• 9:47
  you think of it as a very red state.
• 9:48
  There are way,
• 9:49
  way more Republicans in Nebraska
• 9:52
  than there are Democrats or Independents.
• 9:54
  It's not even close.
• 9:55
  And so
• 9:56
  why would a race there be
• 9:58
  close?
• 9:59
  Well,
• 10:00
  the Democrats are using a strategy here,
• 10:03
  and they've been using the strategy around the country,
• 10:05
  and they're using it all over the country.
• 10:07
  They're,
• 10:08
  this is the most
• 10:09
  extensive usage of this strategy.
• 10:12
  Which is basically
• 10:13
  what I would,
• 10:14
  I would call the fake independent strategy.
• 10:17
  What they do is they take someone who's
• 10:18
  basically a Democrat in every measurable way,
• 10:21
  and they run them as an independent
• 10:24
  instead of a Democrat.
• 10:25
  The Democrat then most of the time just drops out of the race,
• 10:29
  and the,
• 10:29
  the people are left with a Republican versus Independent.
• 10:32
  The,
• 10:32
  the goal there is to get all the Democrats,
• 10:34
  of course,
• 10:34
  to vote for this person,
• 10:35
  but then.
• 10:36
  You know,
• 10:36
  uh,
• 10:37
  chip in and get a bunch of independents as well
• 10:41
  to go
• 10:42
  for that,
• 10:43
  uh,
• 10:43
  particular candidate.
• 10:44
  If you get the independents and the Democrats together.
• 10:47
  If you can fool enough people who would normally vote Republican into thinking,
• 10:51
  well,
• 10:51
  you know what,
• 10:51
  I want an independent voice,
• 10:53
  even though this is basically a Democrat,
• 10:55
  they wouldn't normally vote for a Democrat,
• 10:57
  uh,
• 10:57
  but they might be able to shave off enough people who
• 10:59
  are kind of disgruntled or unhappy with a particular time.
• 11:02
  And by the way,
• 11:02
  that's the,
• 11:03
  that's the era we're in right now.
• 11:04
  Everybody's pretty much unhappy,
• 11:05
  and including a bunch of Republicans with Republicans.
• 11:09
  So,
• 11:09
  they're annoyed with their own party,
• 11:11
  they don't really like their candidate all that much,
• 11:13
  maybe they're not particularly popular,
• 11:15
  and they think,
• 11:15
  well,
• 11:16
  you know what,
• 11:16
  maybe this time,
• 11:17
  I'll go with an independent,
• 11:18
  I'll send a message.
• 11:19
  I won't be putting a Democrat in.
• 11:22
  But that's it,
• 11:22
  that's basically what you're doing,
• 11:24
  right?
• 11:24
  I mean,
• 11:24
  these people will have one or two issues
• 11:27
  that kind of are a little bit more towards the Republican side,
• 11:31
  uh,
• 11:31
  but this is an issue that,
• 11:32
  uh,
• 11:33
  the Democrats are trying and have tried to do this over and over and over again,
• 11:37
  uh,
• 11:37
  in recent memory.
• 11:38
  Now I will say this,
• 11:39
  I,
• 11:39
  I'm not sitting here as like a.
• 11:43
  Uh,
• 11:43
  holier than thou moralist on this issue.
• 11:46
  Like if Republicans think that this would work.
• 11:49
  They should try it too.
• 11:51
  Frankly,
• 11:51
  in some of these states.
• 11:52
  I mean,
• 11:53
  that,
• 11:53
  that's probably what they should do politically.
• 11:55
  I mean,
• 11:55
  you could take,
• 11:56
  again,
• 11:56
  we're talking politics,
• 11:58
  take out all morals for a second.
• 12:00
  Uh,
• 12:01
  but if you take out all morals for a second,
• 12:04
  fooling the voters is probably a really good idea.
• 12:06
  If you're in a bright blue state,
• 12:08
  like if you were in California,
• 12:09
  and you wanted to try to run someone who
• 12:11
  is going to be competitive statewide in California,
• 12:14
  an independent would probably be a more likely victor
• 12:17
  than a Republican would be in most circumstances.
• 12:20
  And that is what the Democrats are doing.
• 12:22
  They tried this back in Utah with Evan McMullin,
• 12:25
  who,
• 12:25
  you know,
• 12:26
  kind of started off as a lukewarm Republican and then
• 12:29
  over the Trump era sort of turned into a Democrat,
• 12:32
  um,
• 12:32
  and was basically,
• 12:34
  you know,
• 12:35
  adopted mostly Democratic views,
• 12:37
  uh,
• 12:37
  and,
• 12:38
  uh,
• 12:38
  they ran him as an independent against Mike Lee.
• 12:40
  That did not work.
• 12:41
  Uh,
• 12:41
  also,
• 12:41
  Osborne as well ran in 2024 against Deb Fischer.
• 12:45
  This was a race that,
• 12:46
  you know,
• 12:46
  Deb Fischer
• 12:48
  wasn't an over.
• 12:48
  Overwhelmingly
• 12:49
  or a popular Republican,
• 12:51
  but a Republican in her state gonna win easily against a Democrat.
• 12:54
  What they did is they said,
• 12:55
  well,
• 12:55
  wait a minute,
• 12:56
  um,
• 12:56
  actually,
• 12:57
  uh,
• 12:57
  Dan Osborne's an independent.
• 12:59
  Does that sound better?
• 13:01
  And it did
• 13:02
  to a lot of people.
• 13:03
  In fact,
• 13:03
  Osborne ran within 7 points
• 13:06
  of Fisher in that election.
• 13:07
  So
• 13:07
  it's a very good result for Democrats in Nebraska.
• 13:10
  Saying the person's independent
• 13:12
  is enough
• 13:13
  to kind of fool enough people to make it competitive.
• 13:17
  The question is whether that is going to be
• 13:19
  um uh something that will get
• 13:21
  Osborne over the finish line.
• 13:22
  The polling there is very close right now.
• 13:25
  In fact,
• 13:25
  many polls show Osborne ahead of Ricketts in Nebraska.
• 13:29
  Now,
• 13:29
  I'm kind of skeptical that that's gonna last all the way to the finish line.
• 13:32
  We will see.
• 13:33
  I did very well with Fisher
• 13:35
  in Nebraska as that race showed to be very,
• 13:37
  very close,
• 13:37
  and then Fisher held on.
• 13:39
  However,
• 13:39
  2024,
• 13:40
  a better environment for Republicans
• 13:43
  than 2026.
• 13:44
  And the fact that Osborne came within 7 points in 2024
• 13:48
  indicates that maybe there's a chance for Osborne to actually win in 2026.
• 13:52
  Now,
• 13:54
  This is a strategy that you use in a bright red
• 13:56
  state for Democrats or if Republicans were to do it,
• 13:59
  it would be in a bright blue state.
• 14:00
  You run a,
• 14:00
  you know,
• 14:01
  independent in Rhode Island,
• 14:02
  maybe they have a better chance of winning.
• 14:04
  Why go and continually bang your head against the,
• 14:07
  the wall
• 14:08
  to lose by 25 points.
• 14:10
  Running
• 14:10
  independent.
• 14:11
  Maybe people don't realize people aren't super engaged in the election.
• 14:13
  People don't pay close enough attention.
• 14:15
  Maybe you get some votes,
• 14:16
  right?
• 14:17
  That's the theory here.
• 14:18
  And
• 14:18
  this theory is now being expanded
• 14:21
  really to the entire country.
• 14:23
  I mean,
• 14:24
  Democrats are doing this in more states than ever before.
• 14:27
  Let me give you some examples.
• 14:28
  We talked about Nebraska.
• 14:29
  Why are there so many independent Nebraska candidates
• 14:31
  running for office this year this year?
• 14:33
  Question mark.
• 14:33
  I don't know,
• 14:34
  Nebraska Examiner.
• 14:35
  What could it possibly be?
• 14:38
  Well,
• 14:38
  it's happening all over the state and all over the country.
• 14:41
  This is how the Nebraska Senate race looks right now.
• 14:45
  Uh,
• 14:45
  markets are
• 14:46
  a little skeptical that
• 14:47
  they're kind of skeptical like I am.
• 14:49
  Osborne is competitive in the polls,
• 14:51
  sometimes leading in the polls,
• 14:52
  and still only has a 30% chance to win.
• 14:55
  In,
• 14:56
  uh,
• 14:56
  in Nebraska.
• 14:57
  Uh,
• 14:58
  so you have that situation going on right now.
• 15:00
  Osborne is really the only
• 15:02
  opponent that Ricketts has.
• 15:04
  Ricketts is a,
• 15:05
  you know,
• 15:05
  a candidate that has,
• 15:06
  uh,
• 15:06
  been there before.
• 15:07
  He was,
• 15:07
  uh,
• 15:08
  you know,
• 15:08
  he's well known in the state
• 15:09
  and has a lot of resources.
• 15:11
  That's probably the reason why he's a 70% favorite still right now,
• 15:14
  but the polling would show maybe a 50/50 race,
• 15:16
  uh,
• 15:16
  if you just believed the polling.
• 15:19
  But that is example #1
• 15:21
  of Democrats doing this fake independent strategy.
• 15:23
  Example #2,
• 15:24
  we go to Idaho.
• 15:27
  Idaho,
• 15:27
  Jim Risch is the uh senator
• 15:29
  in Idaho,
• 15:30
  been there for a long time.
• 15:32
  Uh,
• 15:32
  he usually wins his races by 30,
• 15:34
  40,
• 15:34
  50 points.
• 15:35
  Democrats are like,
• 15:36
  why bang our head against the wall?
• 15:38
  Let's get Todd Achilles,
• 15:40
  uh,
• 15:40
  to run.
• 15:41
  Democrat David Roth withdrew from the Idaho Senate race,
• 15:44
  uh,
• 15:44
  and just leaves independent Todd Achilles there to run against Jim Risch.
• 15:48
  Now,
• 15:49
  look,
• 15:49
  if you think Todd Achilles is gonna be like,
• 15:51
  I don't know,
• 15:51
  he could go either way on policy,
• 15:53
  don't be fooled.
• 15:54
  This is just a Democrat
• 15:56
  running in the state of Idaho.
• 15:57
  And uh yeah,
• 15:58
  he'll probably emphasize his one or two points
• 16:01
  that are kind of more aligned with Republicans.
• 16:03
  That's how this works.
• 16:04
  That is the strategy.
• 16:06
  This is what they're doing.
• 16:08
  And you,
• 16:08
  you know,
• 16:08
  look,
• 16:09
  I am of the belief that
• 16:10
  If you're doing it within the rules,
• 16:12
  you should be allowed to do it.
• 16:13
  I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to do this strategy,
• 16:16
  uh,
• 16:16
  but it's up to us as citizens to understand what's going on.
• 16:20
  If you want to vote for a Democrat,
• 16:21
  you have options here,
• 16:22
  right?
• 16:23
  It's not gonna be David Roth in Idaho.
• 16:25
  It said it's gonna be Todd Achilles,
• 16:26
  and you can say,
• 16:27
  a Democrat,
• 16:27
  and I wanna vote for that person.
• 16:29
  But don't be fooled.
• 16:30
  Understand what's going on.
• 16:31
  This is what's happening here.
• 16:33
  Uh,
• 16:34
  this is the approach for Democratic parties around the country.
• 16:37
  They don't think they'll be competitive
• 16:39
  in these states,
• 16:40
  so they're running independents.
• 16:41
  In Idaho,
• 16:42
  this is what that market looks like.
• 16:44
  Again,
• 16:44
  I talked about RIS as a potential because there have been occasional.
• 16:48
  You know,
• 16:49
  I would argue questionable polls that have showed this race to be very close,
• 16:52
  even Achilles ahead
• 16:53
  in some of them.
• 16:55
  The market does not believe this at all.
• 16:57
  Uh,
• 16:57
  as you can see here,
• 16:58
  Jim Risch with a 92.6% chance of winning,
• 17:01
  uh,
• 17:01
  Todd Achilles only an 8% chance of winning.
• 17:04
  David Roth,
• 17:04
  despite dropping out,
• 17:06
  still at 0.4%.
• 17:07
  And a lot of people are like,
• 17:08
  oh,
• 17:08
  can you really guarantee results?
• 17:09
  I don't know.
• 17:10
  I mean,
• 17:11
  the guy's not even in the race.
• 17:12
  I don't think he's gonna win.
• 17:14
  So if you want to pick up your 0.4% profit,
• 17:16
  on top of,
• 17:17
  by the way,
• 17:17
  the 3.
• 17:19
  3.25%
• 17:21
  that they pay you for just having money in the account.
• 17:24
  Uh,
• 17:25
  you know,
• 17:25
  it's a little bit better than your bank account,
• 17:27
  though I would say you could probably do better than the 0.4% situation.
• 17:30
  OK,
• 17:30
  so that's Nebraska and Idaho,
• 17:32
  and you're like,
• 17:32
  oh,
• 17:32
  this is just a couple of states,
• 17:33
  so this isn't really a strategy.
• 17:34
  Let me bring you to South Dakota.
• 17:36
  South Dakota.
• 17:37
  Democrat X's Senate race clears way for independent.
• 17:40
  What a surprise.
• 17:42
  Uh,
• 17:42
  Julian Beaudoin
• 17:44
  is out
• 17:45
  and in is,
• 17:47
  uh,
• 17:47
  the,
• 17:48
  the demo uh the independent candidate.
• 17:50
  Let's see the market here real quick.
• 17:51
  Independent candidate is there
• 17:53
  and that's Brian Banks.
• 17:54
  Again,
• 17:54
  it's similar look to what we saw in Idaho,
• 17:57
  92 to 8 is basically where this breaks down.
• 18:00
  Again,
• 18:00
  you've seen some.
• 18:01
  Some questionable polling.
• 18:02
  This,
• 18:03
  by the way,
• 18:03
  we're getting flooded with really bad polls right now,
• 18:05
  and it's important
• 18:06
  to understand like this is one of the things prediction markets do well.
• 18:09
  People are like,
• 18:09
  well,
• 18:09
  they're reacting to these BS polls.
• 18:11
  Well,
• 18:12
  there is a reaction to them,
• 18:13
  and then people get into the market and say,
• 18:15
  wait a minute,
• 18:15
  I don't think that's right.
• 18:16
  And then the markets kind of correct themselves.
• 18:19
  We saw that with in a couple of these races where
• 18:21
  a poll comes out,
• 18:22
  it looks bad for Risch or,
• 18:24
  or,
• 18:24
  um,
• 18:25
  uh,
• 18:25
  uh,
• 18:26
  the,
• 18:27
  uh,
• 18:27
  South Dakota race as well,
• 18:29
  where,
• 18:29
  and it will drop down a little bit and then it'll kind of pop back up.
• 18:32
  If you can get 10% in one of these states,
• 18:34
  I think it's a great win,
• 18:36
  especially in 5 weeks,
• 18:37
  right?
• 18:37
  So,
• 18:38
  uh,
• 18:38
  that's one of the things we're looking for in that as well.
• 18:39
  Now,
• 18:40
  the strategy is being attempted,
• 18:41
  but there's a little bit of a
• 18:43
  Uh,
• 18:44
  um,
• 18:45
  what is it,
• 18:45
  a stick in the spokes of your bike,
• 18:47
  whatever it is,
• 18:48
  uh,
• 18:49
  like,
• 18:49
  uh,
• 18:50
  a cog,
• 18:51
  a broken cog
• 18:52
  in the machine.
• 18:53
  Uh,
• 18:53
  I'll never bow down.
• 18:55
  Montana Democratic
• 18:56
  Senate nominee refuses to pave way for independent.
• 18:58
  They wanted to do this strategy there as well.
• 19:00
  Let's look at that
• 19:01
  particular,
• 19:02
  that's Elani
• 19:03
  Bankhead,
• 19:03
  I think it is.
• 19:04
  And yeah,
• 19:04
  there she is.
• 19:04
  She's got a 1.4% chance.
• 19:06
  Uh,
• 19:07
  Kurt Alney at 91%,
• 19:09
  Seth Bodnar is the independent,
• 19:10
  9.6%.
• 19:12
  So you see these three races
• 19:13
  kind of working out the same way.
• 19:14
  People don't really believe
• 19:16
  these candidates are going to win.
• 19:17
  It's a different case than Nebraska where it does look actually very,
• 19:21
  very close.
• 19:22
  And I'll throw in one other.
• 19:24
  It doesn't exactly fit into the fake independent
• 19:27
  situation,
• 19:27
  but it's a similar sort of dynamic working
• 19:30
  here in Alaska,
• 19:31
  where we have Sullivan versus Sullivan.
• 19:33
  It's not a,
• 19:33
  uh,
• 19:34
  it's not a law firm,
• 19:35
  uh,
• 19:35
  it's not a bad movie from the eighties
• 19:37
  about divorce.
• 19:38
  It is instead,
• 19:39
  Uh,
• 19:39
  it is instead a,
• 19:41
  uh,
• 19:41
  couple of dudes.
• 19:42
  One of them is the,
• 19:43
  one of them is the actual senator,
• 19:44
  and the other one is just a guy with the same name
• 19:47
  who ran
• 19:48
  obviously to deflect votes away from the actual Dan Sullivan.
• 19:52
  Now,
• 19:52
  he denies this completely,
• 19:53
  just got interested in politics.
• 19:55
  It happens to all of us.
• 19:57
  Uh,
• 19:57
  but this is what that market looks like.
• 19:58
  Now,
• 19:58
  Dan Sullivan has no chance to win that particular race.
• 20:01
  He's at,
• 20:01
  uh,
• 20:01
  he's not even listed
• 20:03
  as one of the,
• 20:04
  uh,
• 20:04
  candidates here.
• 20:05
  Um,
• 20:06
  he is on the ballot.
• 20:07
  The way this
• 20:08
  system works,
• 20:09
  if I can,
• 20:09
  uh,
• 20:09
  yeah,
• 20:09
  you can go down and scroll down.
• 20:10
  You'll find him here eventually.
• 20:12
  There he is.
• 20:12
  Daniel J.
• 20:13
  Sullivan,
• 20:13
  you can buy shares at 1%.
• 20:15
  Um,
• 20:16
  the other one,
• 20:17
  go scroll down.
• 20:17
  I,
• 20:18
  I don't remember who it is.
• 20:19
  It might be Ann Diener.
• 20:21
  There's 4 candidates.
• 20:22
  I don't remember
• 20:23
  who the fourth one was.
• 20:24
  I don't think it's Sid Hill.
• 20:26
  Maybe it's Richard Grayson,
• 20:27
  I don't remember.
• 20:28
  There's 4 candidates that make it to this round.
• 20:29
  Their system is this ranked choice voting system.
• 20:32
  4,
• 20:32
  the top 4 vote getters from the first round
• 20:35
  go onto the ballot.
• 20:36
  And then they,
• 20:37
  if whoever had,
• 20:38
  uh,
• 20:39
  you know,
• 20:39
  like if you have the 4th place candidate as your top choice,
• 20:42
  um,
• 20:42
  when you realize you're in last place,
• 20:44
  your votes get taken away from,
• 20:45
  uh,
• 20:46
  your top choice,
• 20:47
  go to your next choice,
• 20:48
  which would be one of these other candidates.
• 20:50
  Now
• 20:51
  it may wind up being that whatever votes go to Dan Sullivan,
• 20:55
  uh,
• 20:55
  the,
• 20:55
  the theory here is that
• 20:57
  some of the votes that they're meant for the senator
• 21:00
  will go to the other Dan Sullivan.
• 21:02
  Uh,
• 21:02
  and they'll call this,
• 21:03
  uh,
• 21:03
  you know,
• 21:04
  sometimes a ghost candidate or,
• 21:06
  um,
• 21:06
  uh,
• 21:06
  a zombie candidate.
• 21:08
  And they will go there and that will help the top of the ticket,
• 21:11
  which would be Mary Peltola in this particular,
• 21:14
  uh,
• 21:14
  instance.
• 21:15
  With ranked choice voting,
• 21:16
  it's a little more complicated.
• 21:17
  I mean,
• 21:17
  I would think if people were fooled they'd go from one Dan Sullivan,
• 21:20
  they just picked the wrong one,
• 21:21
  and it would go to the other Dan Sullivan when,
• 21:23
  when the ranked choice voting plays out.
• 21:25
  But they're hoping Peltola can get above 50%
• 21:27
  or at least very close to it before that happens.
• 21:30
  We will see if the strategy works,
• 21:31
  uh,
• 21:32
  for these,
• 21:32
  uh,
• 21:33
  independents and fake candidates.
• 21:35
  I,
• 21:36
  I tend to,
• 21:37
  to be a believer in the American people
• 21:39
  on these things.
• 21:40
  I tend to be a believer that they're
• 21:42
  gonna suss these things out eventually and recognize
• 21:45
  what's going on.
• 21:47
  Um,
• 21:47
  look,
• 21:48
  a Republican does not have a right to any Senate seat.
• 21:51
  If you suck as a Republican candidate,
• 21:53
  you're gonna get beaten,
• 21:54
  whether,
• 21:54
  you know,
• 21:55
  you're really red,
• 21:56
  uh,
• 21:56
  state or not.
• 21:57
  Uh,
• 21:57
  you have no,
• 21:58
  it's not your seat,
• 21:59
  you don't own it.
• 22:00
  You have to do enough to get people across the finish line to vote for you.
• 22:04
  But those people should be aware of what they're voting for.
• 22:07
  And if they're not gonna vote for you
• 22:08
  as a Republican candidate and they're a Republican,
• 22:10
  they shouldn't be fooling themselves into believing,
• 22:12
  well,
• 22:12
  I'm getting an independent voice here.
• 22:14
  What they should understand is that these are
• 22:16
  Democratic candidates running under the independent banner.
• 22:19
  And you know,
• 22:19
  look,
• 22:20
  they're gonna deny that
• 22:21
  all day long.
• 22:22
  I get it.
• 22:23
  It wouldn't be effective if you didn't deny it,
• 22:25
  but that is the way this works.
• 22:26
  That is what the truth is in a lot of these circumstances.
• 22:29
  And,
• 22:30
  uh,
• 22:30
  you know,
• 22:30
  even some of them,
• 22:31
  oh gosh,
• 22:31
  I swear I'm gonna be,
• 22:33
  uh,
• 22:33
  I'm not even gonna caucus with the Democrats.
• 22:35
  I won't be doing that.
• 22:37
  Sure,
• 22:37
  sure,
• 22:38
  let's,
• 22:38
  let's see how that works out when they're in office.
• 22:40
  They might not caucus with the Democrats,
• 22:42
  but watch what their voting patterns are.
• 22:44
  You tell me if they're
• 22:45
  fair and balanced across the aisle.
• 22:46
  That's not gonna happen.
• 22:47
  It's not gonna happen.
• 22:48
  So,
• 22:49
  anyway,
• 22:49
  know who you're voting for,
• 22:51
  uh,
• 22:51
  understand who these people are and understand the strategy that's in play.
• 22:54
  If,
• 22:54
  if,
• 22:55
  if it was one of these cases,
• 22:56
  maybe you could be fooled,
• 22:57
  right?
• 22:58
  The fact that they're doing this in 4 and more,
• 23:00
  uh,
• 23:01
  states across the country,
• 23:02
  it's just a strategy that they're trying out.
• 23:04
  They're giving it a whirl.
• 23:05
  It's a new,
• 23:07
  a new way of playing offense.
• 23:09
  Um,
• 23:09
  and so it's up to you to understand
• 23:11
  who these people are and how this is working.
• 23:14
  Um,
• 23:14
  I'm gonna take a break.
• 23:15
  I'm gonna come back on the other side with a prediction market.
• 23:17
  Like maybe you're in a state and you're saying,
• 23:18
  hey,
• 23:18
  I would love to get involved in these prediction markets too.
• 23:20
  Uh,
• 23:20
  I've,
• 23:21
  I've got all this incredible knowledge about these,
• 23:23
  uh,
• 23:23
  elections,
• 23:24
  and I would like to put it to the test.
• 23:25
  However,
• 23:25
  I can't because my stupid state
• 23:27
  just banned it.
• 23:29
  Well,
• 23:29
  I wanna talk to a legal expert who understands all these rulings,
• 23:32
  how they're working,
• 23:33
  and how they're kind of
• 23:34
  working together to see what the landscape is gonna look like.
• 23:38
  As we go forward,
• 23:39
  I'm gonna talk to him coming up next.
• 23:58
  You know,
• 23:58
  pretty much every single day,
• 24:00
  uh,
• 24:00
  I'm on the internet,
• 24:01
  I'm,
• 24:01
  I'm reading news sources and going through social media and there's probably
• 24:05
  10 different legal rulings
• 24:07
  about prediction markets and half of them disagree with the other half.
• 24:10
  I have no idea what's going on.
• 24:12
  I don't think it's possible for any one human
• 24:14
  being to have any idea what is actually going on
• 24:17
  in the prediction market world in this realm,
• 24:19
  honestly,
• 24:19
  at this point.
• 24:20
  Luckily,
• 24:20
  however,
• 24:21
  we have Mick Bransfield.
• 24:23
  Uh,
• 24:23
  he's the founder of Kingston Chase Consulting and he is the only human
• 24:26
  being on Earth who actually can keep track of all of this stuff,
• 24:29
  and he joins me now.
• 24:30
  Mick,
• 24:30
  uh,
• 24:30
  thanks so much for coming on the program.
• 24:32
  Oh,
• 24:32
  thanks for having me,
• 24:33
  Stu.
• 24:34
  I appreciate it.
• 24:34
  Uh,
• 24:34
  you followed this stuff so closely and I,
• 24:36
  I guess it's an impossible question to ask,
• 24:38
  I think at this point,
• 24:39
  which is
• 24:41
  what's going on right now?
• 24:42
  What are the state of affairs with prediction markets,
• 24:45
  uh,
• 24:45
  in states and federally?
• 24:47
  What,
• 24:48
  what is,
• 24:48
  what's the,
• 24:49
  what's the,
• 24:50
  I don't even know,
• 24:50
  I don't even know how to ask this question because it seems like every time I turn on
• 24:54
  the news,
• 24:54
  there's 5 different rulings that disagree with each other.
• 24:58
  I,
• 24:58
  I would say the technical term is it's a mess.
• 25:02
  So we,
• 25:02
  so we have,
• 25:04
  uh,
• 25:04
  I think 195 different court dockets with different cases at the,
• 25:10
  you know,
• 25:10
  federal district,
• 25:11
  the federal appellate,
• 25:12
  and the state court level,
• 25:13
  all over the country,
• 25:15
  courts are
• 25:16
  handling this issue on their own,
• 25:19
  uh,
• 25:19
  with very little guidance from Congress,
• 25:22
  and so we're
• 25:24
  Seeing a lot of bad court decisions,
• 25:26
  I would,
• 25:26
  I would say,
• 25:27
  and we're seeing a lot of conflicting court decisions.
• 25:30
  It's,
• 25:31
  there are two main issues going on.
• 25:33
  The first is,
• 25:35
  Uh,
• 25:35
  you know,
• 25:36
  federal commodities law is coming into conflict with state gaming law,
• 25:39
  and how do we reconcile the two.
• 25:42
  The second is,
• 25:43
  you know,
• 25:43
  the CFTC has exclusive authority over commodities,
• 25:48
  but
• 25:49
  tribe,
• 25:49
  tribal reservations also have exclusive authority
• 25:52
  over gaming on their reservations.
• 25:54
  How do we reconcile those two exclusive
• 25:57
  authorities that are now coming into conflict?
• 25:59
  Yeah,
• 26:00
  that's a you hit on a really interesting part of this,
• 26:02
  I think,
• 26:02
  because I see this often.
• 26:04
  Uh,
• 26:05
  it,
• 26:05
  it seems to be there's,
• 26:06
  there are groups who are lined up making big statements,
• 26:09
  writing op-eds all across the country,
• 26:11
  uh,
• 26:11
  typically against prediction markets,
• 26:14
  and,
• 26:14
  uh,
• 26:14
  you know,
• 26:15
  the,
• 26:16
  you know,
• 26:16
  it's just my opinion,
• 26:17
  my suspicions here,
• 26:18
  Mick,
• 26:19
  uh,
• 26:19
  but it seems like a lot of them are coming
• 26:21
  from.
• 26:22
  Essentially what is viewed as the competition,
• 26:24
  right?
• 26:24
  Like the,
• 26:25
  the gaming institutions that want to try to shut down prediction markets
• 26:29
  because they see this as cutting into whatever business they have.
• 26:32
  Is this a,
• 26:33
  is there a real movement against these things or is,
• 26:35
  or is this funded from those types of sources?
• 26:38
  Um,
• 26:38
  uh,
• 26:39
  the,
• 26:39
  most of the op-eds and letters of the editor and
• 26:43
  posts you see are coming from the American Gaming Association
• 26:47
  through one of their various public affairs firm.
• 26:49
  I,
• 26:49
  I can confirm that.
• 26:51
  But there are,
• 26:51
  there are some people who have,
• 26:53
  you know,
• 26:54
  moral objections to prediction markets,
• 26:56
  uh,
• 26:57
  particularly if they think it's gambling,
• 26:59
  and then you have others who
• 27:02
  I,
• 27:02
  I think their problem with prediction markets
• 27:03
  come from Donald Trump Junior's involvement.
• 27:06
  Uh,
• 27:07
  we're
• 27:08
  hunted,
• 27:08
  were Hunter Biden an investor or board member,
• 27:11
  they would be content with that.
• 27:12
  But the fact that it's a Trump family member,
• 27:15
  uh,
• 27:15
  just kind of sulllies prediction markets in their eyes.
• 27:18
  Yeah,
• 27:18
  no,
• 27:18
  that,
• 27:18
  that
• 27:19
  both of those track,
• 27:20
  I think,
• 27:20
  really,
• 27:21
  really well.
• 27:22
  Um,
• 27:23
  you know,
• 27:23
  I,
• 27:23
  I talked to Michael Selig from the CFTC,
• 27:26
  uh,
• 27:26
  we discussed this at length,
• 27:27
  and I,
• 27:27
  I tend to agree with his,
• 27:29
  uh,
• 27:29
  take on this.
• 27:30
  Which these are,
• 27:32
  these are events contracts and we have a lot of different things in our country.
• 27:35
  Like there's
• 27:36
  layers upon layers upon layers of regulation in all sorts of different
• 27:40
  industries and often we look at these things and we say,
• 27:42
  oh gosh,
• 27:42
  well,
• 27:42
  this seems like a similar activity as this.
• 27:44
  Why,
• 27:45
  why isn't this overseen by the same agency?
• 27:48
  Well,
• 27:48
  look,
• 27:48
  I wasn't the one that designed the system,
• 27:50
  OK?
• 27:51
  Congress did.
• 27:52
  And,
• 27:52
  uh,
• 27:53
  you know,
• 27:53
  the way this is set up is that event
• 27:55
  events contracts like this are overseen by the CFTC.
• 27:59
  Is that how you see it?
• 28:00
  And is that how the courts are seeing it so far?
• 28:04
  That is how I see it.
• 28:05
  That is how commodity lawyers see it.
• 28:08
  However,
• 28:08
  gaming lawyers see it the exact opposite way,
• 28:10
  and that's kind of what's personally fascinating to me is
• 28:14
  these two
• 28:16
  sets of lawyers from different fields,
• 28:17
  gaming and commodities,
• 28:19
  are both
• 28:20
  100% certain their interpretation is correct,
• 28:24
  and they're completely at odds with each other.
• 28:26
  The courts are generally seeing it as gaming.
• 28:31
  Uh,
• 28:31
  part of that is
• 28:33
  this looks like a duck,
• 28:34
  walks like a duck,
• 28:35
  quacks like a duck issue.
• 28:37
  Um,
• 28:38
  uh,
• 28:39
  judges are seeing the marketing,
• 28:41
  you know,
• 28:42
  Calcian Polymarkets
• 28:43
  ads are coming up in the oral arguments and in the circuit court opinions,
• 28:48
  and the judges are clearly having trouble
• 28:52
  getting around the fact that they're advertising themselves as betting,
• 28:56
  but are legally not gambling.
• 28:59
  Yeah,
• 28:59
  and,
• 28:59
  and look,
• 28:59
  you know,
• 29:00
  I think there are legitimate questions to ask,
• 29:02
  ask about some of that,
• 29:03
  uh,
• 29:04
  some of that marketing,
• 29:04
  but I was,
• 29:05
  I was,
• 29:05
  I was talking to somebody about this the other day because they're like,
• 29:07
  uh,
• 29:07
  you know,
• 29:07
  you know,
• 29:08
  uh,
• 29:08
  why shouldn't this be seen overseen by,
• 29:10
  uh,
• 29:11
  you know,
• 29:11
  the,
• 29:11
  uh,
• 29:12
  the,
• 29:12
  the state gambling,
• 29:13
  um,
• 29:13
  uh,
• 29:14
  laws,
• 29:15
  and like I understand that because I think a lot of
• 29:17
  it does sort of boil down to what you said.
• 29:20
  If it looks like a duck and it,
• 29:21
  uh,
• 29:22
  quacks like a duck,
• 29:22
  it's a duck.
• 29:23
  Now,
• 29:23
  like,
• 29:24
  what I use,
• 29:25
  uh,
• 29:25
  prediction markets for is mostly related to politics
• 29:28
  and things like that that aren't really,
• 29:29
  you know,
• 29:30
  like,
• 29:30
  I understand a lot of people do love and I,
• 29:32
  and I love the sports stuff too,
• 29:33
  um,
• 29:34
  but generally speaking,
• 29:35
  that's more of my interest.
• 29:36
  But like,
• 29:37
  you know,
• 29:37
  we,
• 29:38
  we,
• 29:38
  I said that it's like if you were,
• 29:40
  let me know if I'm thinking about this the right way,
• 29:41
  Mick.
• 29:42
  If I were to say to you,
• 29:43
  go watch a movie right now,
• 29:44
  you could go to a movie theater,
• 29:46
  right?
• 29:46
  And you can and you can buy a ticket there.
• 29:48
  You could go on a streaming service and watch a movie there.
• 29:50
  You could go to your turn on your local
• 29:52
  television channel and maybe there's a movie running,
• 29:53
  right?
• 29:54
  All three of those are kind of like,
• 29:56
  well,
• 29:56
  they're kind of the same activity,
• 29:57
  right?
• 29:58
  However,
• 29:59
  they're all,
• 29:59
  they,
• 30:00
  they're all funded different ways,
• 30:01
  right?
• 30:02
  Some are commercial,
• 30:02
  some are subscriptions,
• 30:03
  some are ticket sales.
• 30:04
  They're overseen by different authorities in our country,
• 30:07
  uh,
• 30:07
  you know,
• 30:07
  the,
• 30:08
  the FCC does not oversee what's going on a streaming service at all.
• 30:11
  There are totally,
• 30:12
  this is super common in our country that things
• 30:15
  that are seem similar are overseen by different agencies.
• 30:19
  And like,
• 30:20
  I,
• 30:20
  I,
• 30:20
  while I can see on a,
• 30:22
  on a,
• 30:22
  on an op ed or a,
• 30:24
  a basic,
• 30:25
  uh,
• 30:25
  you know,
• 30:25
  argument with your friends,
• 30:26
  how that might be a winning position,
• 30:29
  when it comes down to the law,
• 30:30
  it seems like there there's very clear precedent for these to,
• 30:34
  to be overseen by different authorities.
• 30:38
  The judges can't
• 30:39
  get beyond the fact that it looks like gambling,
• 30:42
  and there,
• 30:42
  that's also,
• 30:43
  you,
• 30:44
  you can see where they're clearly starting out,
• 30:46
  this looks like gambling,
• 30:47
  this must be gambling.
• 30:48
  Now how do we backfill kind of this legal rationale.
• 30:53
  Determining that it's gambling,
• 30:54
  and that's where
• 30:56
  they're having trouble.
• 30:57
  In the 9th Circuit,
• 30:58
  you had
• 30:59
  conflicting logic,
• 31:01
  uh,
• 31:02
  where,
• 31:02
  you know,
• 31:02
  different parts of the decision didn't reconcile with each other,
• 31:06
  and how they,
• 31:07
  you know,
• 31:08
  interpreted sports contracts as a swap.
• 31:10
  In the 6th Circuit
• 31:12
  opinion that came out last week,
• 31:14
  um,
• 31:15
  they came up with this commonly understood standard.
• 31:20
  Uh,
• 31:20
  you know,
• 31:20
  a,
• 31:21
  a,
• 31:21
  you know,
• 31:21
  a sports,
• 31:22
  you know,
• 31:22
  like a event contract can only be a hedge
• 31:24
  if it's commonly understood to be used for hedging.
• 31:27
  Now,
• 31:27
  what does that mean?
• 31:29
  Um,
• 31:29
  it's,
• 31:30
  it's just this meaningless words that the judges
• 31:33
  are using to rationalize the fact that it,
• 31:35
  you know,
• 31:36
  this looks like a duck.
• 31:37
  Yeah,
• 31:38
  uh,
• 31:38
  uh,
• 31:38
  it's a,
• 31:38
  it's a fascinating time because I,
• 31:40
  I mean,
• 31:40
  look,
• 31:40
  it's,
• 31:41
  it's new,
• 31:41
  and,
• 31:41
  and you understand that there'd be these disagreements,
• 31:43
  but I,
• 31:43
  I look at like,
• 31:44
  you know,
• 31:44
  there's Calci,
• 31:45
  for example,
• 31:46
  has an entire section
• 31:47
  for company KPIs,
• 31:49
  key performance indicators,
• 31:50
  and it's stuff like,
• 31:51
  you know,
• 31:52
  how many iPhones will be sold,
• 31:53
  uh,
• 31:54
  this year.
• 31:55
  There's so much activity on these things that have
• 31:57
  not nothing that even looks close to gambling,
• 31:59
  and if you wanna call that type of stuff gambling.
• 32:02
  You have to go and call the stock market gambling,
• 32:05
  and we can like,
• 32:06
  you know,
• 32:06
  we're talking among friends and say,
• 32:08
  gosh,
• 32:08
  the stock market's a casino.
• 32:09
  It's a very common phrase.
• 32:12
  Quite clearly,
• 32:12
  that's not how we think about that.
• 32:14
  That is an investment.
• 32:15
  And,
• 32:16
  you know,
• 32:16
  it,
• 32:16
  it is a,
• 32:17
  it's a bizarre thing that
• 32:18
  we can't get in courts
• 32:21
  beyond these like surface-level,
• 32:24
  almost like tweet length arguments,
• 32:27
  uh,
• 32:27
  that are just pretty kind of basic,
• 32:29
  right?
• 32:29
  Like I feel like we should be thinking a little deeper about this.
• 32:33
  Yes,
• 32:33
  and if it's,
• 32:34
  you know,
• 32:34
  if it
• 32:35
  Looks like sports gambling,
• 32:36
  cause it's a sports contract,
• 32:38
  then our election contracts banned as well,
• 32:40
  or weather derivatives outlawed because you're
• 32:43
  gambling on the weather,
• 32:44
  and
• 32:45
  that's where the courts are also struggling,
• 32:47
  is how do they draw the line.
• 32:48
  So these
• 32:49
  bad event contracts are outlawed,
• 32:51
  but these good event contracts are still allowed.
• 32:54
  And there,
• 32:55
  so far,
• 32:56
  no judge has come up with any kind of coherent
• 33:00
  reasoning.
• 33:01
  It's amazing.
• 33:02
  Now,
• 33:02
  look,
• 33:03
  there is an alternate world here,
• 33:04
  Mick,
• 33:04
  where Congress could actually just do its job,
• 33:06
  uh,
• 33:07
  and they could,
• 33:08
  I know it's a crazy world.
• 33:11
  I,
• 33:11
  I will,
• 33:11
  I will,
• 33:11
  I will take the no position on that market.
• 33:15
  Yes,
• 33:15
  and you will,
• 33:16
  you will,
• 33:16
  you will not get a good price unfortunately on that one.
• 33:19
  there is something out there called the Prediction Market Act of 2026.
• 33:22
  Uh,
• 33:23
  Senator McCormick has worked on that one.
• 33:24
  It's,
• 33:24
  uh,
• 33:25
  it's,
• 33:25
  it's,
• 33:25
  you know,
• 33:26
  goes a long way to try to,
• 33:28
  to clarify a lot of these things,
• 33:29
  but like,
• 33:30
  assuming,
• 33:31
  which I always do,
• 33:32
  that,
• 33:33
  that the Congress will not actually do its job,
• 33:36
  uh,
• 33:36
  where does this end up?
• 33:37
  Does this go?
• 33:38
  Are we just looking,
• 33:38
  is everyone kind of playing this game and
• 33:40
  eventually we're gonna hear from the Supreme Court?
• 33:44
  Everyone seems to be waiting for the Supreme Court to decide this for America.
• 33:50
  Um,
• 33:50
  I'm not optimistic it's gonna happen anytime soon,
• 33:53
  so none of these,
• 33:54
  you know,
• 33:55
  the recent 3 circuit court decisions,
• 33:57
  the 3rd,
• 33:58
  the 6th,
• 33:58
  and the 9th,
• 33:59
  were actually over
• 34:01
  the actual case and how it was decided.
• 34:04
  They were all over
• 34:05
  the issue of how a preliminary injunction was decided or not decided.
• 34:10
  So where it's very,
• 34:11
  it's typically unlikely that the Supreme Court.
• 34:15
  Takes court,
• 34:16
  you know,
• 34:17
  takes cases before they've been resolved,
• 34:19
  and we're talking about,
• 34:21
  you know,
• 34:21
  a
• 34:22
  base rate in the low single digits,
• 34:24
  and not
• 34:25
  single digit,
• 34:26
  but like,
• 34:27
  you know,
• 34:27
  123 cases a year,
• 34:29
  sometimes 0.
• 34:31
  And even if they did take up the case soon,
• 34:34
  these are all state preemption issues.
• 34:36
  It wouldn't resolve,
• 34:38
  uh,
• 34:39
  the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act issues,
• 34:41
  which means the Supreme Court would then have to take it up a second time.
• 34:45
  And I'm,
• 34:47
  I,
• 34:48
  smarter people than me,
• 34:49
  uh,
• 34:50
  disagree,
• 34:50
  but I'm of the mindset that the Supreme Court's
• 34:53
  not gonna want to deal with this twice.
• 34:55
  They're gonna
• 34:55
  most likely wait for
• 34:57
  some combination of appeals that kind of wrap up
• 35:01
  the entire issue and kind of wipe the slate clean
• 35:04
  in terms of prediction markets.
• 35:06
  Hm,
• 35:06
  it's gonna be a fascinating,
• 35:07
  uh,
• 35:08
  yeah,
• 35:08
  I,
• 35:09
  I think we have another 2 or 3 years of this.
• 35:11
  Uh,
• 35:12
  of this mess going forward,
• 35:14
  um,
• 35:14
  and so,
• 35:15
  you know,
• 35:15
  we in theory,
• 35:16
  in theory see all these things wind through the courts and eventually,
• 35:19
  uh,
• 35:20
  get a final ruling,
• 35:21
  then it goes to the Supreme Court
• 35:22
  if we don't get legislation that might clarify some of these things.
• 35:26
  Um,
• 35:26
  Mick,
• 35:26
  the question,
• 35:27
  uh,
• 35:27
  before you go that I get maybe most often from a
• 35:30
  lot of people around the country who are interested in this,
• 35:32
  who,
• 35:32
  you know,
• 35:33
  are kind of like,
• 35:33
  hey,
• 35:33
  I,
• 35:34
  I've got this knowledge about elections and I wanna,
• 35:36
  you know,
• 35:36
  I wanna put it to the test on these prediction markets.
• 35:38
  Um,
• 35:39
  they,
• 35:40
  uh,
• 35:40
  but they're in states where these rulings have gone against them,
• 35:43
  and,
• 35:43
  uh,
• 35:43
  you know,
• 35:43
  there's a few of those states around where these prediction markets are
• 35:47
  currently,
• 35:48
  uh,
• 35:48
  seemingly banned.
• 35:50
  Um,
• 35:50
  those
• 35:51
  are those,
• 35:52
  you know,
• 35:52
  those state level bans holding up?
• 35:55
  Uh,
• 35:56
  how should people who live in these states look at,
• 35:58
  you know,
• 35:58
  whether they can access these or not?
• 36:00
  Are there options for people who want to access them in these states?
• 36:03
  Uh,
• 36:04
  what are we looking at?
• 36:06
  So right now,
• 36:07
  there are essentially 3 state level bands,
• 36:11
  uh,
• 36:11
  Michigan,
• 36:11
  Washington State,
• 36:12
  Nevada,
• 36:13
  that will certainly expand.
• 36:15
  Uh,
• 36:16
  most likely to Oregon and Arizona coming soon,
• 36:19
  as well as Ohio,
• 36:20
  Kentucky,
• 36:20
  Tennessee with the recent 6th Circuit decision.
• 36:24
  Uh,
• 36:24
  they're also
• 36:27
  Not targeting all prediction markets equally,
• 36:30
  so like in Michigan,
• 36:31
  Calci may be banned,
• 36:33
  but maybe
• 36:34
  uh
• 36:35
  there there is
• 36:36
  likely other exchanges you can trade on.
• 36:40
  So I would
• 36:41
  both keep an eye on what state you're in,
• 36:43
  what circuit court you're under,
• 36:45
  and the variety of uh the different regulated.
• 36:51
  Uh,
• 36:51
  designated contract markets operating.
• 36:55
  Um,
• 36:55
  at that time in your state,
• 36:57
  uh,
• 36:57
  someone mentioned too that because of the way
• 36:59
  Predicted is set up,
• 37:01
  which is,
• 37:01
  uh,
• 37:01
  you know,
• 37:02
  I was on for years and years and years before Calcium polymarket kind of came up,
• 37:05
  they're under like an academic letter of,
• 37:08
  of,
• 37:08
  uh,
• 37:08
  uh,
• 37:09
  allowing them to essentially to do business.
• 37:11
  I is that treated differently in these states,
• 37:13
  or are they
• 37:14
  generally speaking,
• 37:15
  the ones that aren't naming specific markets are all of the markets wiped out?
• 37:20
  So far no state has gone after predicted or the Iowa Electronic markets,
• 37:24
  which both operate under a no action letter from the CFTC,
• 37:28
  um,
• 37:29
  I'm
• 37:31
  I,
• 37:31
  I've been curious as to why
• 37:34
  states
• 37:35
  are going after Calci and Polymarket
• 37:38
  and Coinbase,
• 37:39
  but not
• 37:39
  those two academic-based markets.
• 37:42
  I assume it's just a matter of volume,
• 37:44
  and it's not cutting into,
• 37:46
  you know,
• 37:46
  the,
• 37:46
  the legal sports,
• 37:48
  you know,
• 37:48
  the legal online sports books in their states.
• 37:51
  Hm,
• 37:51
  uh,
• 37:51
  well,
• 37:52
  you know,
• 37:52
  of course,
• 37:53
  check your local listings,
• 37:54
  but that might be a way for people to uh
• 37:56
  To deal,
• 37:56
  uh,
• 37:57
  to deal with that.
• 37:57
  I don't wanna get anyone in trouble,
• 37:58
  of course,
• 37:59
  uh,
• 37:59
  but people wanna get on these markets and they wanna,
• 38:01
  they wanna,
• 38:01
  they wanna participate and,
• 38:03
  uh,
• 38:04
  you know,
• 38:04
  hopefully this isn't gonna be a,
• 38:05
  a super widespread,
• 38:06
  but it does seem like for a while we're gonna be dealing with this uncertainty.
• 38:09
  Uh,
• 38:10
  luckily you can sort through a lot of that,
• 38:11
  uh,
• 38:11
  at,
• 38:12
  uh,
• 38:12
  with Mick's,
• 38:13
  uh,
• 38:13
  I know your Twitter feed is great,
• 38:14
  by the way,
• 38:14
  Mick,
• 38:15
  uh,
• 38:15
  cause I,
• 38:16
  I learned about
• 38:16
  tons of stuff here all the time,
• 38:19
  uh,
• 38:19
  from you and your coverage of this.
• 38:20
  It's,
• 38:21
  uh,
• 38:21
  Mick Brand.
• 38:21
  Field.com.
• 38:22
  Kingston Chase Consulting as well
• 38:24
  and to follow him on,
• 38:25
  uh,
• 38:25
  Twitter as well or X I suppose it's supposed to be called
• 38:28
  at Mick Bransfield.
• 38:29
  Get,
• 38:30
  keep up to date on this stuff so we know,
• 38:32
  uh,
• 38:32
  you know,
• 38:33
  I mean,
• 38:33
  look,
• 38:33
  I don't,
• 38:34
  I don't know.
• 38:34
  I don't I mean,
• 38:34
  I guess I don't have a job or a company if all these things are,
• 38:36
  are,
• 38:37
  are illegal.
• 38:37
  So,
• 38:38
  uh,
• 38:38
  um,
• 38:38
  we're rooting for at least.
• 38:39
  On my side of the camera,
• 38:40
  I'm rooting for him.
• 38:42
  Mick,
• 38:43
  thanks so much for following all this and doing all this hard work.
• 38:45
  We appreciate everything you've done and I would love to talk to you again soon.
• 38:48
  Oh,
• 38:48
  definitely,
• 38:49
  this was fun.
• 38:49
  Thanks too.
• 39:03
  It's time for candidate countdown.
• 39:04
  We feature one race and a prediction market pick that I have,
• 39:07
  a position that I have.
• 39:09
  Stu's picks,
• 39:09
  by the way,
• 39:10
  all 350 of them or something
• 39:12
  are up on predictableShow.com if you wanna check them out for premium,
• 39:16
  uh,
• 39:16
  subscribers only.
• 39:17
  Uh,
• 39:18
  but they're all up there,
• 39:19
  and we try to feature one here every day on a,
• 39:21
  a race that we're talking about.
• 39:23
  And as we've done this,
• 39:23
  we've realized something very,
• 39:26
  very
• 39:26
  serious and ominous about this particular
• 39:29
  segment.
• 39:29
  It's the
• 39:30
  candidate countdown curse.
• 39:46
  Yes,
• 39:46
  the curse of candidate countdown,
• 39:48
  and we've decided now to try to use our,
• 39:50
  our powers here to curse whatever candidate I feature,
• 39:54
  uh,
• 39:54
  strategically.
• 39:55
  So today's candidate countdown with only 36 days left until the midterm election,
• 39:59
  congratulations to Jon Ossoff,
• 40:02
  yes,
• 40:02
  of Georgia.
• 40:03
  He's a
• 40:05
  Democrat,
• 40:05
  uh,
• 40:06
  36 days left until,
• 40:08
  uh,
• 40:08
  this particular,
• 40:09
  uh,
• 40:10
  election goes down.
• 40:10
  Now I,
• 40:11
  uh,
• 40:12
  I wanna show you the polling,
• 40:13
  uh,
• 40:13
  here on this particular race.
• 40:15
  This is what it looks like.
• 40:16
  Uh,
• 40:16
  right now,
• 40:17
  as we,
• 40:18
  uh,
• 40:18
  get closer and closer,
• 40:20
  uh,
• 40:20
  to this election,
• 40:21
  you see,
• 40:22
  uh,
• 40:22
  every poll is basically pointed toward Ossoff.
• 40:25
  He is
• 40:26
  one of these guys who has had a lead for a while
• 40:28
  and,
• 40:29
  um,
• 40:30
  he seems to be in a really good position,
• 40:34
  uh,
• 40:34
  overall.
• 40:35
  He seems to be a guy who has,
• 40:37
  um,
• 40:39
  A lead of UC 8
• 40:41
  and 10
• 40:43
  and all sorts of,
• 40:44
  uh,
• 40:44
  you know,
• 40:45
  stuff like that.
• 40:45
  Like these are like,
• 40:46
  it's not even really particularly close.
• 40:47
  The closest one you're gonna get is a 49-45 Ossoff over
• 40:51
  Collins.
• 40:51
  And look,
• 40:52
  it's a difficult year and he's relatively
• 40:54
  popular in the state.
• 40:56
  Um,
• 40:56
  and
• 40:58
  I,
• 40:58
  uh,
• 41:00
  You kind of wonder,
• 41:01
  honestly,
• 41:01
  if this is gonna be a particularly close race,
• 41:03
  even though you think Georgia should be.
• 41:05
  Now,
• 41:05
  Georgia,
• 41:05
  of course,
• 41:06
  uh,
• 41:06
  give me kind of the ups and downs of this as I forgot to print this out.
• 41:09
  I'm gonna read it off my phone,
• 41:10
  my notes.
• 41:11
  Um,
• 41:11
  his,
• 41:12
  uh,
• 41:12
  as far as Ossoff,
• 41:13
  the points,
• 41:13
  why do we think he's a good investment.
• 41:15
  Again,
• 41:15
  it's not a massive investment in profits on this one.
• 41:18
  Um,
• 41:19
  it's not as close as you'd think it would be in Georgia.
• 41:21
  Uh,
• 41:22
  but his personal favorability is very,
• 41:23
  very positive.
• 41:24
  Uh,
• 41:25
  it's about 20.
• 41:26
  Uh,
• 41:27
  Collins on the same measure is about -3,
• 41:29
  so you have a nice lead for Ossoff there,
• 41:31
  even in Georgia.
• 41:33
  Um,
• 41:34
  it is,
• 41:34
  uh,
• 41:35
  you've got,
• 41:35
  uh,
• 41:37
  35% of Republicans
• 41:39
  in that poll approving of Ossoff's performance,
• 41:42
  which is very,
• 41:42
  very high.
• 41:43
  You don't normally see that.
• 41:44
  Um,
• 41:45
  Ossoff won in a close election
• 41:47
  back in,
• 41:48
  was it 2021,
• 41:50
  right after January 6th,
• 41:51
  but that was a real mess,
• 41:53
  uh,
• 41:53
  you know,
• 41:53
  honestly,
• 41:54
  it's why we're,
• 41:55
  I was so passionate.
• 41:56
  I was like,
• 41:56
  why we can't
• 41:57
  let this one
• 41:58
  go as a conservative,
• 41:59
  you really couldn't lose those races.
• 42:01
  It was really,
• 42:02
  really a bad one.
• 42:03
  Um,
• 42:03
  he is also one of the leaders in the 2028 discussion,
• 42:06
  and you'll be surprised to hear,
• 42:09
  uh,
• 42:09
  let's see if there's anything,
• 42:10
  any other stats I wanna bring you here.
• 42:11
  Oh,
• 42:11
  yeah,
• 42:11
  the fundraising is important to hit as well.
• 42:13
  Uh,
• 42:14
  42.6 million cash on hand,
• 42:16
  uh,
• 42:16
  at the end of the summer
• 42:17
  compared to 2.1 million for Collins.
• 42:20
  This guy's a fundraising machine.
• 42:22
  He is a Democratic priority to protect,
• 42:24
  and that's where we are.
• 42:25
  And you should know this as well,
• 42:26
  he is the Senate's top spender
• 42:28
  on hair and makeup.
• 42:30
  Yes,
• 42:30
  that
• 42:31
  he is number one.
• 42:32
  He,
• 42:32
  he's even outpacing the women.
• 42:35
  Congratulations.
• 42:36
  The only people outspending him,
• 42:37
  by the way,
• 42:37
  seem to be in the squad in the house.
• 42:39
  So in the Senate,
• 42:40
  he's on a tier of his own,
• 42:41
  uh,
• 42:41
  but the House is,
• 42:42
  uh,
• 42:42
  very,
• 42:43
  very positive.
• 42:43
  And then,
• 42:44
  uh,
• 42:44
  let me give you this as well.
• 42:45
  Uh,
• 42:45
  Georgia Senate winner,
• 42:46
  this is the view,
• 42:47
  um,
• 42:48
  market view right now,
• 42:49
  what it looks like.
• 42:50
  He's way ahead.
• 42:51
  Oh my gosh,
• 42:51
  96.9% now.
• 42:54
  Wow.
• 42:55
  I mean,
• 42:55
  I was buying this in the 80s,
• 42:58
  high 80s and the low 90s.
• 43:01
  Look,
• 43:02
  there's not a lot of value left here.
• 43:03
  Um,
• 43:04
  we'll probably dig into the margin markets at a later time to get,
• 43:06
  to find some value on that because I do think he's gonna win by more than,
• 43:09
  let's say 5 points.
• 43:11
  Uh,
• 43:11
  I think he's gonna be probably high single digits,
• 43:12
  low,
• 43:13
  maybe even double digits.
• 43:14
  Um,
• 43:15
  and he is now in the presidential Democratic nominee,
• 43:17
  uh,
• 43:17
  race,
• 43:18
  doing very,
• 43:18
  very well as well.
• 43:19
  As you see here,
• 43:20
  he is actually number 1,
• 43:21
  which is incredible.
• 43:22
  And the path here is simple.
• 43:24
  A big blowout win in Georgia
• 43:25
  makes him look a lot better than someone,
• 43:27
  you know,
• 43:27
  winning in a purplish red state.
• 43:30
  Uh,
• 43:30
  you're gonna look a lot better than AOC or Gavin Newsom.
• 43:33
  So that's where we are.
• 43:33
  Candidate of the day,
• 43:34
  the cursed candidate,
• 43:36
  Jon
• 43:37
  Ossoff.
• 43:37
  Back in a second.
• 43:48
  Before I go,
• 43:48
  we have so much great information.
• 43:49
  If you're interested in
• 43:51
  in prediction markets at predictable101.com,
• 43:53
  that'll get you started.
• 43:55
  PredictableShow.com is a great place to go if you are in
• 43:57
  these markets or you just want the best election information.
• 44:01
  Nothing boils these things down better than prediction markets,
• 44:03
  and they're available now at predictableshow.com and predictable101.com.
• 44:09
  So much more for you this week.
• 44:10
  We've got a great
• 44:11
  lineup of shows.
• 44:12
  We'll get to,
• 44:12
  uh,
• 44:13
  more
• 44:13
  in the coming days.
• 44:14
  Thanks so much for joining us and we'll see you at predictableshow.com.