The POTUS election betting markets

[Seattle or Bust]

Polls tells you who people want to win. Betting markets tell you who people think will win. Both could be wrong but the latter seems more telling.

Polls tell you who people say they are voting for. They include margins of error for an abundance of reasons.

Betting markets can tell you who people think will win. However, Polymarket has been heavily skewed by a $15 million bet from a user named Fredi999 who allegedly has placed multiple other bets on other accounts that total $46 million.

"Business Insider compiled the trading activity of the four accounts and found that two of them, Fredi9999 and Theo4, together have placed more than 2,500 bets in the past 24 hours.Theo4 has placed as many as 71 bets per minute, suggesting that the betting activity could be automated."

People (the bulk of bettors) think it's around 50/50... this "person's" bets have skewed the numbers to 60/40.

And again, these bettors are not Americans. They are overseas. So betting markets do not measure American sentiment through money wagered.

[bpj]

Polymarket has $2.295 Billion in volume on the bet, not sure $46M in bets is going to skew the market that much.

What difference would it make if they made one $46M bet or 2,500 small bets equaling $46M.

Sounds like a whole lot of cope.

[Seattle or Bust]

Polymarket has $2.295 Billion in volume on the bet, not sure $46M in bets is going to skew the market that much.

What difference would it make if they made one $46M bet or 2,500 small bets equaling $46M.

Sounds like a whole lot of cope.

They absolutely do when they're all bet mostly at once.

I also wouldn't put it past Elon to have funded these bets for optics. He's a crypto-nerd and in bed w. the owner of Polymarket who is a die-hard Trump and JD Vance supporter. Musk routinely posts about Polymarket on X...

"Christopher Gerlacher, a political analyst for Prediction News who studies market trends, said that Polymarket’s spike was almost certainly a case of market manipulation.” He added that one of the mystery user’s accounts, Fredi9999, has more than twice as much money on Trump as the next highest gambler."

Gerlacher acknowledges that Trump has been doing better in the polls and points out that Trump has a very real chance to win the election... but cautions betting markets influenced by whale bets are not a good indicator to latch onto.

And again, Polymarket gave 80/20, 70/30 odds to Republicans in the 2022 midterms where all of you here were clamoring for a Red Wave... how'd that go?

[bpj]

Unfortunately this won't help most of the liberal arts majors that can't do anything with their degrees, but this is an interesting development for Trump-

[D-train]

Realclearpolitics tracks 8 betting sites and the average is 59-40.

https://www.realclearpolling.com/bettin ... /president

[Seattle or Bust]

Unfortunately this won't help most of the liberal arts majors that can't do anything with their degrees, but this is an interesting development for Trump-

Yeah, lets live in reality. This is like the kid running for 8th grade class President promising free pizza.

"In June, Mr. Trump floated the idea of replacing federal revenue from income taxes with money received from tariffs. Mr. Trump has not provided specific details of how that would work, and it is unclear if he wants to eliminate all federal taxes, including corporate income taxes and payroll taxes, or only end the individual income tax.

Either way, both liberal and conservative experts have dismissed his idea as mathematically impossible and economically destructive."

[Seattle or Bust]

Realclearpolitics tracks 8 betting sites and the average is 59-40.

https://www.realclearpolling.com/bettin ... /president

And if you read the article I posted at the beginning of this thread... all betting markets favored a massive red wave ranging from 80-20, 70-30, 60-40 splits.

How. Did. That. Go?

[bpj]

Grok weighs in-

The United States relied primarily on tariffs for revenue from its inception until the early 20th century. Here are the key points:

- **From Founding to Civil War**: Throughout the 19th century, tariffs were the main source of federal revenue. This period was characterized by protectionist policies where tariffs were not only used to raise revenue but also to protect nascent American industries from foreign competition.

- **Post-Civil War to Early 20th Century**: Even after the Civil War, tariffs continued to be a significant source of income for the federal government, though other forms of taxation like excise taxes on alcohol and tobacco also played a role.

- **The Change**:

- **16th Amendment**: The shift from tariffs to income tax as a primary source of federal revenue came with the passage of the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which was ratified on February 3, 1913. This amendment allowed Congress to levy an income tax without apportioning it among the states or basing it on the United States Census.

- **Revenue Act of 1913**: Following the amendment, the Revenue Act of 1913, also known as the Underwood Tariff Act, was passed. It significantly reduced tariff rates and implemented a federal income tax. This was the beginning of the modern income tax system in the U.S.

- **Duration**: Therefore, the United States had tariffs as its primary source of revenue for roughly 124 years from the adoption of the Constitution in 1789 until the introduction of the federal income tax in 1913.

**What Changed:**

- **Economic Reasons**: The need for more revenue due to increased government spending, particularly around wartime (though the U.S. was not in a major war in 1913, the anticipation of expenses related to global tensions was growing), and the desire for a more elastic source of income led to the shift.

- **Political Reasons**: There was a growing sentiment that tariffs disproportionately benefited certain industries and regions while potentially harming consumers through higher prices. An income tax was seen as a way to spread the tax burden more equitably.

- **Social and Economic Shifts**: The early 20th century saw significant changes in American society with industrialization, urbanization, and a push for progressive reforms, which included taxation based on ability to pay rather than consumption.

- **Global Trade**: With the world economy becoming more interconnected, high tariffs were seen as less viable for encouraging international trade, particularly post-World War I when economic reconstruction required more open trade policies.

This transition marked a fundamental change in how the U.S. government funded itself, moving from indirect taxes on trade to direct taxation of income, reflecting broader shifts in economic policy towards progressive taxation.

So they had to switch to income taxes to fund their bigger government.

Eff that, have Elon cut all the waste and go back to barebones government.

[Seattle or Bust]

Grok weighs in-

The United States relied primarily on tariffs for revenue from its inception until the early 20th century. Here are the key points:

- **From Founding to Civil War**: Throughout the 19th century, tariffs were the main source of federal revenue. This period was characterized by protectionist policies where tariffs were not only used to raise revenue but also to protect nascent American industries from foreign competition.

- **Post-Civil War to Early 20th Century**: Even after the Civil War, tariffs continued to be a significant source of income for the federal government, though other forms of taxation like excise taxes on alcohol and tobacco also played a role.

- **The Change**:

- **16th Amendment**: The shift from tariffs to income tax as a primary source of federal revenue came with the passage of the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which was ratified on February 3, 1913. This amendment allowed Congress to levy an income tax without apportioning it among the states or basing it on the United States Census.

- **Revenue Act of 1913**: Following the amendment, the Revenue Act of 1913, also known as the Underwood Tariff Act, was passed. It significantly reduced tariff rates and implemented a federal income tax. This was the beginning of the modern income tax system in the U.S.

- **Duration**: Therefore, the United States had tariffs as its primary source of revenue for roughly 124 years from the adoption of the Constitution in 1789 until the introduction of the federal income tax in 1913.

**What Changed:**

- **Economic Reasons**: The need for more revenue due to increased government spending, particularly around wartime (though the U.S. was not in a major war in 1913, the anticipation of expenses related to global tensions was growing), and the desire for a more elastic source of income led to the shift.

- **Political Reasons**: There was a growing sentiment that tariffs disproportionately benefited certain industries and regions while potentially harming consumers through higher prices. An income tax was seen as a way to spread the tax burden more equitably.

- **Social and Economic Shifts**: The early 20th century saw significant changes in American society with industrialization, urbanization, and a push for progressive reforms, which included taxation based on ability to pay rather than consumption.

- **Global Trade**: With the world economy becoming more interconnected, high tariffs were seen as less viable for encouraging international trade, particularly post-World War I when economic reconstruction required more open trade policies.

This transition marked a fundamental change in how the U.S. government funded itself, moving from indirect taxes on trade to direct taxation of income, reflecting broader shifts in economic policy towards progressive taxation.

So they had to switch to income taxes to fund their bigger government.

Eff that, have Elon cut all the waste and go back to barebones government.

Ya great idea... lets copy economic policies from the pre-Civil War era when there was a total population of 31 million people vs now where there's 341 million people. Where telephones and the internet didn't exist. Lets copy economic policies from when almost no millionaires existed and apply them to a time where 22 million millionaires exist.

Makes total sense.

[Walla Walla Dawg II]

Unfortunately this won't help most of the liberal arts majors that can't do anything with their degrees, but this is an interesting development for Trump-

Yeah, lets live in reality. This is like the kid running for 8th grade class President promising free pizza.

"In June, Mr. Trump floated the idea of replacing federal revenue from income taxes with money received from tariffs. Mr. Trump has not provided specific details of how that would work, and it is unclear if he wants to eliminate all federal taxes, including corporate income taxes and payroll taxes, or only end the individual income tax.

Either way, both liberal and conservative experts have dismissed his idea as mathematically impossible and economically destructive."

I tend to agree 100% with this (what you wrote).

We have to have a federal income tax because as a country we spend way too much. Now, I will also say that taxes are way too high, and that as a country we have A SPENDING PROBLEM, NOT A COLLECTING TAX PROBLEM.