Prediction markets are showing Warren on top.

[DanTex]

I know some people here don't like or trust prediction markets, but I think they are a valuable tool -- not infallible, of course, but useful, interesting, and more predictive than polls, IMO. Anyway, here are the latest numbers from predictwise:

Elizabeth Warren 34 %
Joe Biden 24 %
Bernie Sanders 13 %
Kamala Harris 11 %
Pete Buttigieg 5 %
Andrew Yang 5 %
Cory Booker 2 %

In contrast, here is the latest RCP poll average:

Joe Biden 30.3
Elizabeth Warren 17
Bernie Sanders 16.3
Kamala Harris 7
Pete Buttigieg 4.6
Corey Booker 2.5
Andrew Yang 2.5

A few interesting things here. First, Biden is still comfortably ahead in the polls -- and even though there have been some outlier polls showing him behind, if you look at the chart at RCP, he really hasn't been losing much ground in the last month or two. But, the prediction markets obviously don't see that holding up.

Also, Warren and Sanders are pretty close in polls, but prediction markets have Warren way ahead of him. Sanders is only slightly ahead of Harris in the markets, even though Harris's poll numbers have been low for a while now.

My guess at what the markets are thinking is that the Sanders-Warren support is eventually going to coalesce behind one candidate, and that candidate is going to be Warren. (But why not Sanders?) Another possibility is that the prediction markets are thinking that Warren is going to win Iowa, which will change the trajectory of the race.

[Demsrule86]

1. I don't think so...and some of both would go to Biden.

[LincolnRossiter]

2. Prediction markets are based on where people think the race is going. They incorporate bettors' and

handicappers' views of polls, media coverage, “hype,” fundamentals, and some intangibles. And they respond to scandals, mistakes, changes in dynamics, debate “moments” etc a lot more quickly than do polls. I think they are a useful metric with some limitations. For one, they can bounce around quite a bit based upon singular events (though Warren’s led in these for at least a few weeks now). Consider that Kamala shot from 4th place to the top and stayed there in the days following the first debate—just based upon a few minutes of talking at the one event. Polls followed, but it didn’t last.

I live tracked the prediction markets during Kavanaugh’s hearing and during Prof Blasey-Ford’s testimony his chances of confirmation tanked from the low 60s to the low teens in a span of half an hour. Then they started to rebound the minute Lindsey Graham went into his tirade and reached 80% the moment Susan Collins started waffling.

So prediction markets can be a volatile business, but they are worth watching just the same.

[dsc]

3. I tend to agree with them on Sanders

but not on Warren being above Biden. I think Biden is the favorite right now with Warren and Harris behind. If Biden falters it will depend on what the South Carolina black vote decides. I think if Harris is viable at that point it will go to her, if she isn't then I think it would go to Warren or maybe Booker or Beto. I don't see the black vote going to Warren over a viable Harris.

[TheCowsCameHome]

4. It's all over.

n/t

[Thekaspervote]

5. predictwise nor or any of the other betting markets did not correctly predict a trump presidency

From WaPo:

Those difficulties have been on display in some high-profile failures to predict how citizens will vote. For instance, few pollsters predicted that the United Kingdom would so decisively vote for Brexit. Other surprises include Bernie Sanders’s upset of Hillary Clinton in the Michigan primary this year; Ted Cruz beating Donald Trump in this year’s Iowa caucus; and the outcome of the 2015 U.K. general election. Some in the prediction business have wondered if we’re moving toward a “post-polling world.”

More at the link:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/08/09/do-betting-markets-outperform-the-polls-hardly/

[jcgoldie]

7. Neither did polling

Unfortunately.

[crazytown]

6. BetOnline

[jcgoldie]

8. 538

Here's an article from last week on 538 which may have been posted here, but I did not see it. They discuss the reasons why many are bullish on Warren's chances despite the fact that she still trails Biden in the polls. They all stop short of saying she should be the favorite, but they do make some good arguments on why her chances seem more promising than current polling may indicate.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-much-of-a-threat-is-warren-to-bidens-front-runner-status/

[NYMinute]

9. In my opinion, BS is ranked too high

BS is already being seen as a giveaway candidate even by progressive standards. He is literally trying to give away $31 trillion (so far) and he will neither attract new voters to his coalition nor stop the exodus of former BS supporters.

BS's staying in the race is negatively impacting EW because most people think that they are two peas in a pod and too closely associated. So BS will drag EW down eventually.

There is a finite pool of extreme progressives ... not enough to win delegates in the red midwest, intermountain-west and south. So there is no chance that EW will get the nomination -- although she would make a fine POTUS.

[jcgoldie]

10. My fear is..

As a Warren supporter, my fear based on 2016 is that Bernie will hold on until the bitter end even if it becomes evident he can't win and as you said siphon just enough support to make it very difficult for her as well.

[Blue_true]

11. The debate in two weeks is going to be huge.

It is going to shake up this race and likely set the pattern for voting, when voting starts. If Warren dominates the debate as she has with Biden on stage, that badly damages Biden and potentially, for all purposes, ends his candidacy. If Warren falters with Biden onstage, Biden likely opens a big gap that she does not recover from, my sense is Biden can handle Sanders, so if Sanders get a bump from Warren faltering, it won't be permanent enough to threaten Biden.