Betfair,
Ladbrokes, Sportsbet and TAB are offering state by state
betting on the November 5 US election.
I
derived implied probabilities from the state by state odds
from each agency and used them to simulate the election result. The method is
discussed here.
The
odds are as at October 20. A lot may change between
now and November 5, so I’ll run another simulation just before election day.
A
simulation over 1,000,000 paths with a range of correlation parameters gives a
58% probability of a Trump victory. The variation in the 58% result was very
small over the range of reasonable correlations. The most likely outcome in the
538 member Electoral College is 271 Republican and 267
Democrat, so whatever happens it is likely to be close.
Looking
at the odds, of the 50 states + Washington DC (3 delegates), only 13 states are
in play at all. Those are Arizona (11), Florida (30), Georgia (16), Maine (4),
Michigan (15), Minnesota (10), Nevada (6), New Hampshire (4), New Mexico (5),
North Carolina (16), Pennsylvania (19), Virginia (13) and Wisconsin (10). The
numbers in brackets are their Electoral College delegates. They are available here.
Of
those, Florida is highly likely to go Republican and Maine, Minnesota, New
Hampshire, New Mexico and Virginia are all paying between 1.05 and 1.15 for the
Democrats. So that leaves 7 states which are highly uncertain. These are the 7
“battleground states” described in the media: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan,
Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
States
in play in 2020 such as Texas and Ohio are not in 2024, according to the
betting. They appear to be firmly Republican.
Maine
and Nebraska are the only states which do not use a winner take all system. However as Maine is usually 3 Democrat and 1 Republican and
Nebraska 4 Republican and 1 Democrat, this usually balances out.
Any
state where the odds of one party winning were at most
1.05 on all four sites was deemed to be already won and its Electoral College
seats allocated by the model. That put the allocated standings at 190 Harris
and 189 Trump. The 159 delegates from the other 13 states listed above were
simulated from the odds.
Allocating
the 6 low odds states and simulating just the 7 battleground states starts at
226 Harris and 219 Trump + the simulation of the remaining 93. The results
obtained by this method show little variation from the results obtained by
simulating the 13 states.
Interestingly,
the head to head Trump (1.71) v Harris (2.40) odds imply
a 58% probability of a Trump win. There is usually some arbitrage between head to head and state by state betting, but not in this
market.
On
a political note, if either party had a quality candidate, this election wouldn’t
be close. If the Democrats had run anyone with the presence and electability of
Bill Clinton or Barack Obama in 2020, they would likely have won by a much wider
margin. But apparently the best they could put up was a senile, incompetent,
corrupt old hack. Given the closeness of results in Arizona,
Georgia,
Pennsylvania
and Wisconsin,
the 306
– 232 margin was highly flattering to Biden.
Now,
after 4 years of gross incompetence, manifest failure, lies and left wing ideology over pragmatism and substance, we have
another close election. How?
Because
the Republicans can’t find themselves a strong, credible, right-of-centre
candidate. So Trump is back for another round of
chaotic charlatanism. He might well win, because he can connect with people; at
least enough of them to win against Kamala Harris, whose transparent
insincerity connects with almost no-one.
Americans
should rightly be asking what is so dysfunctional about their political system.
In a nation of 340 million people, the best candidates they were offered were
Trump and Biden, who was then replaced via backroom dealing by the possibly
even more useless and self-serving Kamala Harris. How can America not do better?
The
mainstream media should be asking these questions. But they are not. Instead of
seeking the answers the public really wants and needs, they have largely descended
into party political activism.
ABC,
MSNBC, CNN, The New York Times and The Washington Post are the media organs of
the Democratic Party. Fox has filled the gap and become the organ of the
Republicans.
Until
the media start acting with their true purpose: honest investigation and careful
analysis, future elections are likely to evince as little genuine hope as this
one. But that will require replacing the current party
political activists with proper journalists.
Interestingly, current owner Jeff Bezos has directed long time Democratic Party mouthpiece The Washington Post to not endorse a candidate in this election. His reason?
"What presidential endorsements actually do is create a perception of bias. A perception of non-independence. Ending them is a principled decision, and it’s the right one."
Here is the Post's own piece on the matter.
Unsurprisingly, left wing "commentators" have responded with the line that Jeff Bezos is the wrong person to own a newspaper like The Post, because he is too rich. Yes, if The Post had principled owners, it would have done the right thing and endorsed the Democratic candidate, no matter who that was. And where was this honest commentary published? That principled defender of independent journalism, The Guardian.
Update:
Thought I'd go with orange due to who's in the lead in the betting.
The same simulation on the latest betting odds as of the morning of Tues Nov 5 (in Australia) has Kamala Harris edging slightly closer, but with Trump still more likely to win. The Nov 5 result was a 56% probability of a Trump victory, versus a 58% probability 2 weeks ago.
The most frequent outcome in the simulation was a 281 - 257 victory for Trump.
What has changed?
Most notably, the polling in Iowa, which has put that state in play. It was firmly Republican 2 weeks ago. Now the Republicans are paying 1.20 - 1.25.
The betting in Nevada and North Carolina has moved significantly toward Trump. In Michigan, it has moved significantly toward Harris. Pennsylvania has moved a little more toward Trump. Georgia and Wisconsin have moved a little more toward Harris.
Florida (Republican) is now on the border of the no contest criterion, although removing it from the simulated states does not materially alter the prediction. The movement of the betting in Iowa was the dominant factor in changing the Trump win probability from 58% to 56%.
