"Adam Cochran, a veteran crypto investor who has monitored the activity on Polymarket, said the betting spree appears to be an attempt to generate a sense of momentum for Trump going into Election Day. If Trump loses, his favorable odds in the betting markets could bolster arguments that the election was stolen from him, said Cochran, who described himself as a right-of-center voter backing Harris." A Mystery $30 Million Wave of Pro-Trump Bets Has Moved a Popular Prediction Market - WSJ
Every betting market had Romney ahead in 2012. It's a game. Betting markets as the best indicator of an electoral outcome is at best a myth.
I'd rather follow the trillions of dollars that institutional and accredited investors are betting on the US stock market as an indicator than whatever money is being bet, largely by anonymous foreign nations on offshore betting sites using crypto. You may have missed my point, perhaps because you are personally wanting Trump to win. I'm not being political. My hypothesis is that since the historical trend of the stock market rising during the election year is a strong indicator that the incumbent party wins the White House leads me to believe that so long as Harris is leading in the legitimate polls, not betting markets, not Dem-led polls, but true independent 3rd party polls, that the market is more likely to continue to rise over the next several weeks than it is to reverse into a sustained correction. I don't care about Trump or Harris. I'm looking at this objectively through the lens of history and what those who have studied that history are telling me.
I feel you are bringing the politics. I said in my post don't take this to be political. This is about the markets. You are the one who brought the politics by bringing in the manipulated polymarkets. I presume you intended to use that as an exhibit to argue against the hypothesis that during election years, when the stock market is up strongly, there is a strong correlation between that and the incumbent party winning the election. With all due respect, you are the one who made this political and as I said, you are letting your personal bias show through rather than using data to objectively judge the markets. Another for my ignore list.
In 2016, right before the election, the odds were 5 to 1 against Trump. How did those who bet on Clinton do? In relation to the previous posts by LF, others and myself, are we supposed to create an strategy for the stock market or futures based on the odds of bets on an election? Even if assuming they KNEW (they don't) who's going to win, who the hell knows not just what the new President's effect would be on the US economy but what the aggregate perception of that effect by market participants would be? My money is on the Norwegian Sovereign Fund And as long as the uptrend holds, I'll just continue to buy the bloody dips. Best trading to everyone and may the gods have mercy on US voters
I thought most participants in this thread were mature and thoughtful and serious enough about his trading to be able to objectively view the possible historical relevance of market behavior in election years. But there is always one, I guess, especially in these partisan times. @vanzandt has been making the same point as I have been, and we have both made it several times over the past few months. VZ was the originator of the point and he may have brought it up before I even arrived here. An up market implies a Harris Presidency, whereas a market falling into or at least towards a correction would have indicated a likely Trump victory. It has nothing to do with who one wants to win. It is about incumbency and which is the incumbent party, and it doesn't make any claim as to who is better for the economy and markets and who is worse. The entire hypothesis is based on the power of incumbency and how the markets respond to stability versus change. The only reason for anyone to bring betting markets into this discussion in this journal would be to express a desired political outcome and offer the betting markets as a form of evidence confirming - confirmation bias - of that desired outcome. Again, when it comes to my trading, I don't care for Harris or for Trump. I'm looking at data and I'm looking for edges.
I agree with you on the betting odds part of this conversation. However, aren't things a bit different this time in terms of the idea that the markets going up must mean that Harris is leading? My understanding is that a rising market only historically supports a president going for a second term. Since Biden pulled out, I am not sure the market going up is as reliable an indicator as it has been historically. I think the sectors which are rising the most now, which would benefit the most from either Trump or Harris could be another important indicator. Also, the sectors which are lagging could be another tell. BTW, I have no bias and no idea who will win.