I believe Silver has overrated the odds of a Harris win, especially her odds of a clean sweep in the battleground states. 
Understanding the Bet
The bet is for $1,000 which in two instances, described below, might become $2,000. This is an amount I can bet without getting the ire of someone special if I lose.
The above table, annotated by me, is from the October 27, Silver Bulletin 2024 Presidential Election Forecast.
I believe Silver understates Trump’s odd of winning overall (52.9 to 46.8) and overstates the likelihood of a Harris sweep of all the battleground states.
Battleground State Proposal
Nate Silver gets all the lines with an N. The total of those lines is 19.5 percent.
I get all the lines with an M. My total is 14.6 percent.
No one wins on the other lines.
I am giving Silver even odds on what he believes is a win-lose-tie proposition of 19.5 : 14.6 : 65.9.
In addition, I get Trump all but Michigan at 2.1 percent and give Silver all but Arizona at 3.0 percent.
Side Bet
For an additional $100 (my risk) I will take a Trump battleground sweep of all but Michigan at 40:1 odds when Silver says the odds are more like 50:1.
Silver’s risk would be $4,000.
What Gambler Would Not Accept These Bets?
I am offering Silver generally attractive odds. Casinos make a fortune off stuff like this.
However, if a person only had $1,000,000 and the bet was for $1,000,000 then no rational person would bet everything he/she had even on 2-1 odds (e.g. a person whose total net worth is $1,000,000 is offered 2,000,000 to correctly call a coin flip).
But this isn’t table stakes or a lose everything proposition.
Over time, in small bets, given a 5+ percentage point edge, with added side bonuses, a rational gambler would accept the bet I proposed, assuming they believed the odds are what they claim they are.
Why Might Nate Silver Refuse the Bet
First, I suspect Silver’s gut feeling is that his model is simply wrong.
I discussed this on October 24, in Nate Silver’s Gut Says Trump Will Win, Just Don’t Bet On It
Also see Nate Silver’s NYT Op-Ed Here’s What My Gut Says About the Election, but Don’t Trust Anyone’s Gut, Even Mine. That’s a free link.
The second reason Silver might refuse such a bet is he would hate losing a bet to a relatively unknown person out of fear of damaging his reputation.
A third reason he might refuse is on grounds of being flooded with similar offers. I dismiss this reason because Silver could easily state on acceptance of the bet that he automatically rejects, without discussion, any additional proposals.
The Most Likely Outcome
If Silver’s model is correct, the most likely outcome would be neither of us wins the bet. The odds of a tie are 65.9 percent.
That’s roughly 2-1 in favor of a draw with only a 14.6 percent chance for me and 19.5 percent chance for him.
Silver should be happy with that.
Nate, what’s your charity? Mine is the Les Turner ALS foundation.
Not surprised- https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/31/us/politics/trump-harris-partisan-polls.html
Trumps going to win. I bet saying $1000. We all know it
No one know anything.
Who knows. My observation is the right tends to paint the picture more rosy than it is. From trump himself all the way down to the conservative talk radio i listen to. I have noticed a lot of conservative friends either go quite or state they wont vote for him. Who knows what people will do in the booths when they buddies are not around.
Who knows.
And of course?
There is this?
Its fake.
Its all fake from top to bottom.
I don’t vote and never have so IDGAF.
It’s simply amusing to watch the plebs elect the wardens and guards to their Digital Gulag. One warden offer them chocolate pudding and the other an extra 15 minutes of sunlight outdoors.
In 2024, Rosenberg posited that Republican organizations were “flooding the zone” with biased opinion polls showing Donald Trump leading, though Rosenberg asserted Trump actually was not. In October, Rosenberg said that twelve of the last fifteen presidential polls in Pennsylvania — a crucial battleground state — were produced by organizations with conservative or Republican affiliations. He asserted this phenomenon was spreading to all seven battleground states, and argued that its intent was to game the polling averages in Trump’s favor. Rosenberg claimed the purpose was to bolster the confidence of the Trump base, while demoralizing the base of his opponent, Kamala Harris. He also argued that the purpose included providing an argument to claim the election had been stolen from Trump should he lose. Rosenberg pointed to a similar phenomenon in the 2022 midterm elections which created an expectation of a Republican “red wave” that did not materialize. He said the 2024 effort was much larger and included new participants, such as the Polymarket online betting market, and Elon Musk. In October, Polymarket showed a $30 million spike in wagers on Trump, pushing his odds of winning the election to 60%. The wagers appeared to be placed by four bettors, or perhaps just one bettor using four trading accounts.
I think you’re right. MI likely goes to Harris because of all the whacko extremists that have chosen to live there. They elected Tlaib. Enough said.
I bet you would have an easier time, getting that bet with Harris!
Just two years ago in Kansas this was written about the abortion referendum in this ruby red state. “Of the more than 1,500 Kansans surveyed earlier this week 47% said they planned to vote yes on the amendment, while 43% said they planned to vote no and 10% were undecided. The margin of error on the poll was 2.78%, which means the divide between the two sides could be as big as nearly seven points or as small as just over one. Kansas is a traditionally red state with a long history of anti-abortion activism. But the poll showed the state starkly divided along partly lines on whether to retain abortion rights in the state constitution: 68% of Republican respondents cited plans to vote yes, while just 10% of Democrats and 30% of independents planned to do the same.
Read more at: https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article263653748.html#storylink=cpy
After the vote, the reporting on the referendum was about a shocking landslide, 59% voted No the the abortion restriction amendment and 41% voted yes and the voter turnout smashed all historical mid-term voter turnout in that state.
Forget about using traditional polling and especially betting markets in this year’s highly charged election. Modern history tells us that Republicans win when they are highly motivated and Democrats are not (2016). Democrats win when both sides are highly motivated 2018, 2020, and 2022.
It is not really that complicated.
If voters hold dear the “abortion rights”-then God has mercy on America!
You have every right in America to believe, religiously, what you believe, but in this country that right applies equally to everyone and when you forget this, you bring the nation one step closer to the very type of religious rule that those who founded our country were freeing us from.
Let me guess, you were in favor of vaccine mandates…..
…and they do
I’ve already made the point several times.
It’s much harder to predict who will cast a vote than which way they lean, and the whole complexion of voter motivation changes in very granular fashion.
Don’t forget that you’re citing an off year election where the Dems had high voter turnout and the Republicans didn’t, because abortion motivated 1 side.
Do you think conservatives are not motivated in 2024?
The conservative consensus seems to be that the country can’t survive more open borders, etc.
I know a conservative and she said she doesn’t like Trump as a human, but that she would “crawl over broken glass to vote for him.”
What is clear is that this election cycle is bound to drive everyone insane, especially analysts like Nate Silver.
The Palestinian issues failed Sinwar, Nasrallah, Iran, the Europeans, Hauge and the demps. Jewish voters, especially Hasidic Jews, might switch to reps for the first time in their history.
Who’s the unknown person here, I know Mish but not much Silver!
Are the polls reliable? Back when FDR was elected the polling was done by phone and most poor people didn’t have phones so the surveys were off.
Today in Penn state there have been over 120,000 Amish who have become registered voters since an Amish farmer was messed with for selling raw milk. Amish don’t have phones so potentially over 100,000 R votes were not in any pollsters survey. Could be the difference between a close vote and a strong R result.
Why would the Amish vote Republican or Democrat?
It was under Biden that the Amish were messed with. Which party supports sex changes, abortion, men in womens sports, DEI etc?
Was it Harris or Vance at recent rallies who mocked an attendee for praising Jesus?
And ask yourself why have the Amish decided that after hundred of years of not enrolling or being involved in federal politics that they are enrolling in droves? Presumably their bishops have coordinated this and the Amish will vote as one. A 120,000 new voters in one swing state voting as a block will have a huge influence on who wins that states delegates.
I live in the heart of Amish country in PA. The Amish definitely vote and you are correct, the one’s who do vote generally vote Republican on cultural/religious issues. However, the Amish vote is not an unknown, they have been voting for a very long-time and my area of PA is solidly “red” as a result of the cultural conservative vote in this area.
But perhaps their leaning Republican was due to the “old” Republicans, when they were known as the fiscally conservative party as opposed to currently where the Republican party is just a cult worshipper of Trump.
I will take this bet instead of Nate Silver, using his odds that you are using as the basis for the bet.
Precisely as you stated for the base bet of $1,000, and then I will substitute myself in your place for the long-shot side bet. I will bet $100 that Harris will sweep the battlegrounds against your $6,000 (I think I am offering you at least as good inverse odds as you were offering him).
My only conditions are that I will only make this bet if Nate Silver doesn’t accept yours. I will not accept from anyone else but you. And if you publicly enter into a bet roughly mirroring the money you offered me or I offered you, then no bet, you will have your alternative taker.
You may not accept this because of reasons one (your confidence in your bet) or two (you may not risk your reputation on a bet with someone more obscure than even you). I’ve covered reason three and thanks for the suggestion!
I can afford losing this without making somebody else mad. The offer of the “awesome odds,” any sophisticated bettor would take it side bet stands even if you don’t accept me taking on your main proposed bet to Silver.
Jeff
Sort of on topic: CIA News Network (CNN) has come unhinged with alarmist over-the-top headlines.
“Trump loyalists spew racist, vulgar attacks at NYC rally”
“Madison Square Garden speakers made profane attacks on Harris, other Democrats, Puerto Rico and migrants”
“Trump says he would let RFK Jr. ‘go wild on medicines’ as Kennedy promotes vaccine conspiracy theories”
Sounds like genuine MAGA-Trump speech. But this time even the Trump campaign had to distance itself from one speaker who called Latinos garbage. The Trump campaign said he can start calling Latinos garbage again after November 5.
I don’t know what is more disconcerting: that MSM has headlines and articles are on par with a grocery store checkout lane publication, or that there’s a large enough audience out there that believe all the caricatures about Trump are, in fact, real.
Very interesting. Mish, I think you’d win. I don’t want to count chickens just yet and we can’t get complacent but I think in twenty or thirty years people will think of harris the same way they think of Dukakis or Romney now- completely irrelevant people who were major mistakes on the ticket. harris is a bona fide disaster. A complete embarrassment and 100% incompetent. No way she wins. It’s amazing to me it’s as close as it is. It should be 90/10 for Trump. But many dims are just plain crazy I guess.
TRUMP 2024
I think Silver kinda knows that his model is a little slow to react (perhaps intentionally done, in order to avoid whipsaws and rapid fluctuations), and also that the way things are headed, it is likely that your ACTUAL chances are better than his chances. So, he will decline the bet.
When I use to visit Nate’s site it was majority left wing people on there. I haven’t been there in years but he use to have video segments with a panel of liberals. Also, he had a live chat during the 16′ election. When she started slipping bad they bashed him with ruthless foul mouthed personal attacks.
I think this is great! But my bet is Silver does not accept it.
I see little chance Silver accepts
If Silver declines, what will you do then? Will you make a prediction and back it with the same amount to the same charity if you are wrong?
Apologies, Mish, for posting this here, but 60 Minutes has a segment tonight that exactly describes the results of tariffs (in this case against Russia), and speak to exactly what you mentioned – it creates new markets that the US can’t reasonably control.
Thanks!
that’s problem with most tariff analysis. To make the analysis simple, they assume everything else will remain static but only the tariff changes.
This is true for a lot of “economic analysis”, like raising taxes. They rarely take into consideration the complex reactions of the people who are taxed.
Bastiat says “That which is seen, and that which is not seen…” as he rolls over in his grave…
I find it very hard to understand the appeal of the types of tariffs that Trump is envisioning. The United States for the last 70+ years has championed free trade, only using mostly temporary tariffs in targeted fashion. The rest of the world has continued to use tariffs in a much more protectionist manner and look at the result. Over the last 70+ years since we changed policy from protectionism to promoting free trade we have only steadily become more economically dominant. Exactly what economic problem are we trying to solve? We have demonstrated through our actions that free trade is superior to protectionism and trade barriers around the world have been coming down, not going up. Why would we reverse course on a policy that has made us economically stronger and brought down trade barriers around the world?
Thank you for supporting Les Turner Foundation. I know first hand what a meaningful and life changing charity it is.
Not to be mean, but neither the monetary nor reputational stakes are high enough for Nate.
Totally agree
It’s a strong bet for you…much of the outcome depends on the level of ballot harvesting “fortified” by the NGO rackets.
Mike you must have missed it. Trump just won in Michigan. The muslim mayor of Dearborn, Michigan endorsed Trump. https://www.zerohedge.com/political/seeking-middle-east-peace-michigan-muslim-leaders-endorse-trump-saturday-rally
Nate seems to be undercounting the probability of a Trump win in Michigan as well…
Nate undercounting Trump across the board.
But one must realize there is a chance the polls are all wrong in the opposite direction.
Not aware – Michigan was the weakest for Trump as I read the polls.