Conversation
![](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="73" height="73"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>)
![David Watson 🥑](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="96" height="96"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>)
Post your reply
To be clear, both excerpts above were from the “corrected” second version of the article.
Here was the original version:
NYT still making changes…
Here’s the third version (and current as of posting):
Last tweet on this from me:
As of posting the correction still hasn’t been corrected.
This whole episode is extra embarrassing for the NYT bc this article is from the financial markets team, not the politics team.
Prediction markets work like other markets with bids and asks!
I read this and thought: there’s no way they could be saying that, I must be reading it wrong
POLLS Show Trump and Kamala are in an Extremely Close Race. Some Conservatives No Longer Support Trump. Do You Still Stand with Trump? vote.conservativevoterpolls.com/trump-2024-pol
Rate proposed Community Notes
Probability of winning the election is not comparable to vote share in polls of likely voters
My nomination for most embarrassing NYT mistake is still this March 10, 1932 headline:
Sports betting, election betting, it's truly a shock how far our collective intelligence has decreased that we trust these monied interests to tell us what truth is.
I remember one time they published that a 2% IRR edge over market benchmarks was “weak” for Bridgewater.
The writer didn’t realize that led to DOUBLE the absolute return over the time period were referencing. Crucial to understand that 2% is everything in a compounding world
Are we going with "they thought prediction market chances are the same as poll % numbers" or "54 and 49 add up to >100?"
There was a time when it's spot as national paper of record wasn't controversial among conservatives and liberals alike, despite griping. The hell happened?
Former prosecutors endorse Kamala Harris, claiming Trump packed the Supreme Court with 'extremely conservative judges'
Rate proposed Community Notes
Woah this is bad. Someone should really keep track of the misinformation propagated by media outlets. Scrutinise the scrutinisers, if you will.
Next time you’re at a restaurant, can you do me a favor?
Will you put one of these VOTE TRUMP FOR NO TAX ON TIPS stickers on your bill?
Democrats are mortified by millions of Americans hearing about President Trump’s popular idea.
So I need YOU to help spread the word!
Rate proposed Community Notes
Quote
amplice.eth 
@amplice_eth
Uphill battle here.
In a world where people literally don't understand that producers don't just *set prices to whatever they want* (see discourse on housing, gas prices, etc etc)
It will prove next to impossible to get people to understand the difference between polling x.com/shayne_coplan/…
Show more
I say this without any judgement, as a fact that's good to know:
The average journalist is very much "not good with numbers". Their core skill is writing, which they excel at. People who excel at math have much better careers available to them.
unclear it's a mistake - probably them try to make people think harris is going to win
Sometimes people make a mistake that tells you so much than the contents of the mistake.
Wow.
I originally agreed with you, but reading again I think NYT is actually fine here. I realised when I tried to rewrite the paragraphs myself -- they already give the correct units, and I couldn't make it much clearer without adding length.
Earlier today I was going to post how I think a lot of people are mistaking the election forecast probabilities (538/Silver/ etc.) ... then I thought better of it. Well, well, well.
So they are comparing bets which pay not on margin, but in winner; to nationwide polls, which don't reflect the electoral college, which actually decides the winner.
This is like saying that team A moneyline is -200 (a 2:1 favorite), but team B gets 2x the rebounds.
Dem poll workers in battleground states BLATANTLY changed ballots from Trump to Biden.
“I read her a Trump Republican ballot as soon as she entered it into the Dominion system the ballot DEFAULTED on the screen to a Biden."
Rate proposed Community Notes
I'm actually quite uncomfortable with betting markets being used as a reliable indicator. Especially if it turns out there the only reliable indicator. This time line sucks.
has been hammering on this distinction for weeks in her tweets.
This reaffirms my belief that all these prediction polls are going to create more confusion when there is an “upset”. A 55-45 poll is essentially a rout. A 55-45 prediction is essentially a coin flip. They should really be quoted in American betting odds not percent (ie +120).
wonder why i bother having a subscription when their basic factual errors make me feel the need to double check half their reporting
they are lucky their games are so good
"PredictIt shows them at 54 to 49." That is 103%??
It's not even true. There have been election betting markets since at least the 19th Century in the US.
lol. I actually accidentally ranted at my students for like 20 minutes about this at the start of class today…
I 
TRUMP!
If you love Trump too, I WANT YOU TO HAVE ONE OF THESE HATS.
Chip in to help President Trump WIN and we’ll send a hat right to your door.
With your support, we will Make America Great Again!
TRUMP!
If you love Trump too, I WANT YOU TO HAVE ONE OF THESE HATS.
Chip in to help President Trump WIN and we’ll send a hat right to your door.
With your support, we will Make America Great Again!
If the prediction market results WERE polls, then "slightly more of a lead" would be a terrible way to describe the gap in those results, just way off
56-44 would be enormous, jaw dropping.
Is there any empirical evidence that prediction markets yield accurate political predictions? I don’t know if I believe in the emergent wisdom of coked-out divorcees.
I asked my team to make this shirt.
If you donate today to help me win, my team will send a shirt to you ASAP.
But these are almost SOLD OUT! I want you to have one before they’re gone.
So FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT and claim your shirt now.
WE WILL MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!
An event that has a 51% chance of happening will always happen because 51 is more than 49. Nate Silver still doesn't understand this no matter how much people on Twitter yell it at him.
"slightly more of an edge" that reverses the outcome completely.
Remember when the Times wasn't a god damn joke?
I did NOT realize until this year how many people misunderstand or outright conflate a betting market with a poll.
I don't profess to be a card shark, but there is a LOT of dumb money out there. Reminds me of online poker in 2010.
The idea being that betting markets have people putting their money down so “they are very accurate”
Like, bitch. There is a betting market every week where people put there hard earned money on an individual winning and almost every time everyone loses.. it’s called the lottery
A big part of the Polymarket grift is getting people to conflate probabilities with percentage vote share.
Isn't this snippet comparing apples to oranges? Percent of people likely to vote for a candidate is not the same as the probability that the candidate will win.
Always worth remembering this one when you get to an article on a topic you are not an expert in (because they are likely just as incompetent at covering that)
This is inexcusable. If you allow this sort of a mistake, you simply do not have a high-quality standard as a news organization.
Look I get it, it's subtle but if someone doesn't get it, what the fuck are they doing writing politics for the paper of record? Wtf
I’m here to watch the NYT burn the rest of their credibility to the core of the earth.
I lost faith in prediction markets when I saw briny James getting 20% action in wining rookie of the year
No, prediction markets are not more accurate, because the sample is skewed toward people stupid enough to bet money on a presidential election
Discover more
Sourced from across X
I think the basic problem with “young men are becoming more right wing because they’re freaking out over losing the privileges they’ve had forever” analysis is that they are YOUNG—by definition they haven’t lived long enough for that to be the explanation
Quote
Mike Solana
@micsolana
left: long, thoughtful, fundamentally incorrect analysis of the democratic party's problem with white men
right: the actual problem
*Me, an NYer, casually walking to my office*
My California created app: wow great workout, why don’t you record it!
After January 6th and until Biden's inauguration, America was lead by a triumvirate in most capacities except for officially and I think that's so fucking wild.
