As much as I wish it wasn't the case, Biden, the incumbent, will obviously be the nominee, barring any health crisis, which I find unlikely to happen over the next 2 years.
@PhillipConstantine Yep. Lots more forecasts can be found here: https://metaforecast.org/?query=2024+nominee+biden. Polymarket at 50%, Insight (another real-money prediction market) at 40%! Some shockingly large price discrepancies between real-money prediction markets where I wouldn't have expected it.
@jack The real money markets seem to have a Republican lean compared to Manifold, and Republicans are more likely than Democrats to think that Biden is a person who should retire (he's senile, he's sick, etc.).
I'd bet money on the real money markets, but I have a strict no-crypto policy. 😄
@Gabrielle Yeah that was also my hypothesis for why they were lower. I generally am pretty confident in Metaculus though, so I'm still willing to bet this market down.
And yeah, betting on the real money markets has so many risks (easy to accidentally lose all your crypto, or someone figures out an exploit to steal all your crypto), fees, and low liquidity that make it much harder to correct price discrepancies.
@Gabrielle Real money markets are strongly expected to have no bias at all. Even if 90% of the traders were hardcore Fox watchers, their money is just a giant incentive for others to make a bunch of money by correcting the odds. If the bias is anywhere, it would be play money markets. Less incentive to keep ideology out of it, and less incentive for more rational people to correct errors.
@PhillipConstantine I think that is true in theory if you make a long list of assumptions. But the longer I've spent on prediction markets, the more I believe that they are definitely not efficient markets. Correcting the prices on prediction markets is nowhere near profitable enough for sophisticated funds to be interested, so it's not done in any systematic way. Otherwise we wouldn't see these significant price discrepancies between different platforms, including even between different real-money prediction markets.
This is a topic I'm currently quite interested in and I've been working on some analysis to try to figure out to why prediction markets are mispriced, like in my election forecast comparison https://firstsigma.substack.com/p/midterm-elections-forecast-comparison-analysis
@jack Nice Substack!
I agree, my comment understates the limitations of those markets. Should have said:
Real money markets would be expected to have net-zero political bias over time, IF they had no taxes, fees, or regulations such as spending caps. Given that they have moderate taxes and fees, and low caps, we should expect them to not have overt obvious political bias like we see in normal politics, and to be accurate only to within ~3-10 percentage points.
My point still stands though that more reliable markets put this closer to 50%. So the result of betting NO here is free (expected value) mana
@PhillipConstantine Why would you expect no political bias?
Suppose, for ideological reasons, prediction market users are 50% Republicans, 25% independents, 25% Democrats. In a perfectly functioning market, and assuming that Republican and Democrat positions are right with the same frequency and people bet ideologically, the Democrat and independent users make gains until the users, weighted by balance, are equally Republican and Democrat.
But in the prediction markets we have now, that feedback mechanism isn’t working. There is slight movement in that direction, but the fees, taxes, and caps mean that users who are right more often aren’t able to increase their balance that much. Moreover, the caps mean that the markets are not weighted by balance, breaking the mechanism entirely.
Because of this, I’d expect Manifold to be more correct than the money prediction markets. The fees are negligible and there’s no spending caps, so the feedback mechanism works properly. On top of that, I think that Manifold has a generally more capable trader base (which wouldn’t be relevant in a perfectly functioning prediction market, but that doesn’t apply here).
It's not just fees, taxes, and regulations though (PredictIt is terrible but Polymarket doesn't have caps and only has 1% fees, so it's actually not bad). There's a bigger fundamental issue: prediction markets weight people's predictions by how much wealth they invest, which for real-money markets is largely determined by their jobs etc and very little by how good they are at predicting. This is one huge advantage a play-money market like Manifold or a non-market like Metaculus can have over real-money prediction markets: they can do a better job of weighting by past prediction track record. Even though users can buy mana, the amount of mana people have on Manifold is much more correlated to prediction track record than the amount of money they have for a real-money prediction market.
With all the limit orders volatility has tightened.
But we have also pushed through a lot of the large No limit orders at this point so it looks like this market will get back up to a reasonable probability soon
We are slowly getting back up to a more sane probability.
Notice that this market without Pepe betting has Biden at above 70%
I don’t understand why people wagering yes are complaining so much. Buy the dips.
I think this is the most volatile market in manifold, adjusted for liquidity
@BryanCulbertson That only works temporarily, while there are lots of traders with divergent opinions, who haven't been able to fully stock up on all the shares they want, so the price bounces back and forth. Eventually the market settles and the free money dissipates.
@MichaelWheatley Right now Pepe is propping up No all now their own due to their outsized wealth. The reason I say this isn't that predictive is most of the people in the market think the odds should be higher, but Pepe alone keeps it suppressed.
We aren't really seeing the wisdom of crowds reflected here.
@BryanCulbertson If that's true, Pepe is handing out free money, so it can't last too long. I'm not confident enough to want a huge position myself.
If you'd been a long-time user I would have offered you a mana loan so you could put your money where your mouth is and profit off the sure-thing mispricing. But you can try asking @BTE, he has a lot which he was looking to lend out.
I am confident enough to eventually build this one to my top position.
I just won big on the Oakland mayor election, but I still have small peanuts compared to Pepe's $50k.
It'll be a while before I get paid out on this market so i think I need to place some near term bets so I can take on Pepe here with more mana.
Pepe most likely has lots of funds because they predicted well in the past (they have 29k total profit). Therefore, Manifold is (correctly) assigning Pepe's predictions more weight. This is correct from a Bayesian perspective.
This isn't very different from https://manifold.markets/BoltonBailey/will-democrats-maintain-control-of-8d067eb38c33 where I held by far the largest YES position because I bet heavily towards 538. My prediction got weight proportionate to my past track record/profits, which is generally a good thing for prediction accuracy. It is however also true that the predictions can be very noisy when one person's decisions make a very large difference to the market price. I discussed some of this a lot more here: https://firstsigma.substack.com/p/midterm-elections-forecast-comparison-analysis (see the comparisons of Manifold and Metaculus vs others in particular)
I am just analyzing why this market is so far from fundamentals and how it got there.
We basically have a couple people who listen to alt-right news and think Biden is "senile" and those people have more mana here either due to good predictions or because they spent a couple hundred real dollars.
Due to this, it means we can take advantage of the volatility that provides, and then later on gain when they try to cash out after it becomes more clear that Biden is the presumptive nominee.
@Chaos There was some discussion of this market on the discord. Manifold is in fact putting a much higher probability on this than other prediction markets like Polymarket or Predictit. So forget about making free mana, you could be making free U.S. Dollars!
@MichaelWheatley Both predictit and polymarket are historically worse at predicting politics than just simple polling, right? It isn't legal in the US to gamble with real money or I would also bet there. Thinking Buttigeg and Harris have a higher chance of being nominated than Biden is.....at odds with any political expert analysis.
The explanation for this market being bet heavily down is simple: it's being bet towards polymarket. However, I don't know why polymarket is so low.
@Chaos I don't think it's clear whether prediction markets have a better or worse track record on elections than the polls. See https://electionbettingodds.com/about.html for some claims that the prediction markets did better than polls. Also, polls alone don't make forecasts, you need to do sophisticated aggregation and statistical modeling on top of that, like what 538 does. But 538 certainly isn't the only one, e.g. back on 2016 I remember there were quite a lot of well-respected models, and both 538 and the prediction markets put Trump at about 1/3 chance, while other models put him at like 2%. So the fact that the prediction markets aligned with 538 and not the other models is a signal that they are doing something useful.
It's wild how big of a disagreement there is between this market and the real money market. Polymarket says ~50% chance, and it's a high volume market.
People here seem to be starting with the base rate (correctly), and then failing to consider how different this really is from the norm. Biden himself has expressed uncertainty over wether he will run. The guy is 80! We should be more open to the idea that his age really is a large burden on his chances, not just a Fox talking point.
@RumHammithy Election Betting Odds says Newsom is the most electable now, fwiw.
@PhillipConstantine That's chance of winning if nominated, which is not what this market is about. The correct link is https://www.electionbettingodds.com/DEMPrimary2024.html. It puts Biden above everyone else, but only at 47%.
The “100.0” and “95%ers” can easily double five to six figure sums on polymarket if they have a point
This is absolute cope. There's a zero percent chance they do not run Biden again.
The reason for him to run is he will beat Trump. The reason for him not to run, and the greater concern imo, is that Trump is not going to be the nominee. What Biden should do is open up the Democratic primary and invite people to challenge him. That would require starting that process now, because they need to plan things like the debates that as of now aren't happening. It would be in the country's best interests, and that is actually what I think drives Biden in the end.
@BTE There hasn't been a primary challenger to an incumbent president in over 40 years. Right now Dems are doing better than expected by passing their platform through a 50/50 congress, holding control of the Senate, and almost holding the House.
Right now Dems on a path to easily keep the presidency in 2024. What would they have to gain by risking an easy victory?
@BryanCulbertson the problem is that a lot of the success this fall has been related to the Dobbs decision, which probably will have lost even more momentum by 2024 (if the election had been four months ago, the Democrats would probably have kept the house and won another Senate seat or two). It seems more like antipathy for the Republicans than favor towards the Democrats, even though personally I'd say that they've been doing a pretty good job.
Biden has been seen as doing poorly, with a lower approval rating at this point in the term than any president since they've been tracking it. A lot of that has to do with inflation, which should be better by 2024. But we might be in a recession by then as a result, which also would be bad for Biden.
I'm just really not sure that we can infer much about Biden's chance of victory from this year's elections.
@MP here's a market for you to bet that Ṁ1000: https://manifold.markets/Gabrielle/if-the-democratic-party-runs-open-p
@BTE Here's the link for the challenge:
@BTE I'm sure that many people will still care deeply about it in 2024, but the amount that they care about it will be almost certainly lower than the amount that they cared about it on the day of the Dobbs decision. Looking at polls, it's definitely gone down as an issue since then, and unless some major news stories hit (or something happens like Republicans making it a major campaign issue to outlaw it nation wide), then I would expect it to be less impactful than it was in this election cycle.
That's especially true for someone like an 45-year old male swing voter in a purple state, who thinks that it's good for people to be able to get an abortion, but probably only in the first trimester, and it doesn't impact him directly so he doesn't get fired up about it. Those swing voters impact presidential races much more than the people who care strongly about the issue (since they were likely already politically engaged and voting democrat).
This market should be at like 95%, but it looks like there are some fox news watchers in the arena
@BryanCulbertson It's not that simple. There is basically no precedent for a sitting president being this old, particularly in the age of social media (high visibility), so the normal pattern of incumbents always winning nomination could be overcome.
Also, the accusation that the "NO"s are Fox News viewers is nonsense. Some Democrat is guaranteed to win the nomination, there is little room for partisanship when this is an ingroup contest.
If anything, this still seems high. Real money markets are giving Biden 50%, and I think that's right.
@MP But a hairdresser wouldn't suggest a haircut to a bald person. Newsom seems to think that it's worth campaigning for 2024, so he must think there's at least a chance of winning. The chance is probably still low, but I think it would need to be a good deal more than 5% for him to bother.
@Gabrielle Ty Gabrielle.
Here's the challenge link, BTE: https://manifold.markets/challenges/MP/if-the-democratic-party-runs-open-p/o5QpC2e4
I just think his health will be too poor to participate in debates. Now...if they take away debates then maaaaybe.
Given that Trump is the presumptive GOP nominee, I suspect any resistance in the DNC to running Biden again will dissolve. "Pressured to retire due to a combination of age and unpopularity" was by far the most likely route for a NO here, and given that Biden performs pretty well against Trump specifically, if badly against replacement republicans, I see no reason they would decide to toss an incumbency advantage and the guy who's already beaten his presumptive opponent once, for an untried candidate.
So, if you're still putting money down on NO, you're leaning hard into "health problems/premature death" and the odds on that aren't great, I think. I'd say this belongs closer to 70%, which is still pretty low for a renomination of a first-term president, but I'll acknowledge he is pretty old and he's gotta make it, eh, like a year and a half till the filing point of no return?
@AndrewHartman Trump couldn't beat someone in a coma right now in a general election. Biden may do well head to head, but as long as they don't nominate Kamala the Dems can't lose to Trump. There has never been a candidate for a major party so completely unable to win new voters than Trump. His popularity among his base doesn't mean shit for the general election. Only people who have never worked in politics think you can benchmark Trump based on historical precedent. Also thinking Biden is going to remain healthy for 6 more years basically ignores his health history, which was not very good the first time he ran for president in 1980. Newsom is obviously the best candidate IMO, it's not even close.
@AndrewHartman And saying Trump is the presumptive nominee ignores so many factors, such as how is he going to fund his campaign when the major donors have already bailed on him? His dedicated media is going out of business. He had basically zero prominent republicans at his announcement. To say he is the presumptive nominee is like saying the GOP doesn't care about winning, when all evidence is that winning is the only thing they care about.
@BTE Trump is also worse than the replacement ballot, yes. Ironically both Biden and Trump (being united in that characteristic) are best served facing each other. It's a weird time in politics.
And speaking of weird times in politics: as for the funding angle, I think firstly it's less of an issue than advertised, but also, why wouldn't the democratic PACs be willing to bankroll his primary? They spent lavishly on his endorsed candidates. To the extent that money is an issue in campaigning, I see no reason to think he wouldn't have enough to get the message out.
I really cannot stress enough that parties do not necessarily select their best candidates in the sense of the ones most suited to victory in the general election, anyway. I think there are good structural reasons to believe that both Biden and Trump will face each other, and that either party would've been better suited running someone else, particularly if their opponents failed to do so. Such is the nature of the sausage that gets made, and its inevitably unsatisfying rubbery texture.
@BryanCulbertson If you actually watch Biden's public appearances, I think the NOs aren't completely off-base on the health angle - the dude is clearly at least a bit senile. However, I think they're mistaken in believing that the majority of voters are watching Biden's random pressers. Partisans are willing to vote for child molesters and dead people, and hell - just this year we have clear evidence that democrats will vote for brain damage over a republican (at least in PA).
Basically, Biden doesn't seem willing to forgo the run when he's lucid, and there doesn't seem to be any notable disadvantage to the establishment for him giving it a go, so I'm not seeing many structural reasons to think he's not going to secure the nom. Perhaps my stance is cynical, but I have yet to find a degree of cynicism regarding politics that isn't eventually proved right by the vote tallies.
Real money markets say the odds here are way off. Yes, base rates for presidents in their first term getting nominated again are very high, but Biden's age is a lot worse than most, and in the age of social media, is is also highly visible. 45% sounds right to me. https://polymarket.com/market/will-joe-biden-win-the-us-2024-democratic-presidential-nomination
@MP Lol, retirement is totally reasonable. There is a high probability he won't live until 2028 anyways. As for the alternative, there are many, including Harris, Newsom, and Buttigieg.
As an example of how new media changed long standing patterns, presidents have gotten much taller on average since the dawn of TV. I think something similar will happen with how senile presidents can be with social media.
@PhillipConstantine So, a Vice-President who is widely considered unelectable by the right, too right-wing by the left, and would be seen to be stabbing Biden in the back if he didn't go willingly, a governor who managed to get a major recall effort going against him in one of the most Democratic states in the nation, and the former mayor of South Bend, Indiana. Not exactly inspiring terror if I'm Biden.