We (the wife and I) lived in California from the early 1970s to the early 2010s and are guilty of having made a living in what used to be called "show business". We find amusement in our very old age in seeing how much Hollywood accounting has carried over to the digital age. The Captain makes money the old-fashioned way; he earns it. In the world of expert opinion he is up against all the people like NextGen who never have to show a profit. That is why, on the Captain's wish that real research will be believed and propagandists and politically illiterate firms will be kicked to the curb, I have to bet the under for 2026. (The wife never gambles; that is how we kept our ill-gotten gains.) But, we both think he and the very few brave, smart people like him will somehow manage to lead the country to victory in the war for liberty of conscience. On that we take the over.
You make the most money in any market when you bet against the consensus. Which, by the way, is usually correct. Skepticism, yes. Reflexive contrarianism, no. Conventional wisdom is not to be dismissed even if it's in the New York Times. Even a blind squirrel finds acorns. This is where the value of objective, rigorous analysis asserts itself. And after it's all said and done, even a talented analyst will be wrong at times.
Two things about analysis. First is that you can be right with astonishingly little information. There's even a declassified CIA paper on the subject. Second is that a talented, disciplined analyst will first develop a hypothesis, and then direct his efforts towards demolishing the hypothesis rather than confirming it. This is much easier said than done.
We swim in an ocean of confirmation bias, which I'd compare to sharks in the water. In Capt K's case, it's clear that he's a right-winger who prefers Trump, and will prefer Vance in '28, so his job will be to watch out for sharks in his water. Having gotten it right in '24 is a feather in his cap, but no guarantee that he'll get it right again.
Jim - I’ll make you a $10K side bet that he is correct on this and the Republican candidate wins the Arizona governor’s race in ‘26. Terms: Even money wager, no juice, you put up $10K and I put up $10K. We can speak on the phone and agree to do it on the honor system or we can agree on a third-party to hold it in escrow. I have given my cell # to Seth. If you’re interested get him your # and we can talk.
When it comes time to bet on the '28 presidential, we can do that. I use a formula based on the direction of the headline unemployment rate ("U-3") in the second quarter of a presidential year. If U-3 does anything but decline, the incumbent party's candidate should lose the popular vote.
But I will consider betting on '28 only if U-3 changes between March and June, and only if it's part of a larger trend, as it almost always is.
If it's flat (1960, 1968, 1976, 2000, 2012), even though the incumbent party candidate should lose, those elections are often very close and unpredictable. Example: In 2000, Gore should have lost the popular vote but he won it by a whisker. In flat U-3 years the presidential election will often have a whiff of fraud or interference, as in 1960 and 2000.
Another flat-year anomaly was 2012, when the indicator pointed toward an Obama defeat. The reason for that failure was that in 2011, the Bureau of Labor Statistics changed its seasonal adjustment methodology in a way that made the fall of '11 look stronger than it really was, and the spring of '12 look weaker than it was.
In years where U-3 changed between March and June, the indicator has performed well. The only time it failed was 1956, when Eisenhower was re-elected even though U-3 ticked up. The reason was that, unlike most years where the spring direction is part of a larger trend (2008 and 2024 are good examples), there was no U-3 trend in 1956 and the economy was rockin' and rollin'.
The indicator made its bones in 1948, 1992, 2008, 2016, 2020, and 2024. Remember: It only predicts the winner of the popular vote, not the electoral college, and says nothing about the victory margin.
By the way, I think that if Trump wasn't such an erratic, undisciplined jerk, he'd have won '24 by a bigger margin. Calling him names doesn't mean that I somehow endorse those who he's run against. I can understand why he had to do his a-hole schtick in '16, but I think he could have added a few points to his '24 margin if he'd taken a different personality tack.
Trump is a very good example of how someone's strengths are their weaknesses. He has only one forward gear, and this time around I think it has hurt him a good deal more than it has helped him. But if U-3 is favoring Vance, I think Trump's personality will help him. He'll be able to do what Bush Sr. did with his "kinder and gentler" schtick back in 1988.
If the U-3 wind blows in a favorable direction, I think the Dems will rue the day when they mocked Vance at every turn. I look at Vance and see a lot of Ronald Reagan, so for his sake I hope that, unlike Trump, he's able to maintain his equilibrium.
With the economic proviso, I think 2028 could look a lot like 1952, when Ike beat Adlai by 10 points. Again, I cannot over-stress the economy, because I think every presidential election is first and foremost about the pocketbook. By '28, either Trump's economy is rocking and rolling or it's not. I am optimistic, but my optimism +$5 buys an iced grande cold brew at the nearby Starbucks.
We shall see. I plan to vote for Vance in '28 but will not hesitate to predict his defeat if the economy fails to cooperate. I am THE economic determinist. All about the numbers, baby. No one should bullshit themselves about that one. Thou shalt not drink thine own Kool-Aid.
Capt K, I have a mechanical question about the betting sites. Quite some time back -- too many years to remember -- I bet in one of those markets. Also too far back to remember which one. I made good calls and was never paid.
My lack of trust is why I didn't make any bets on Polymarket or other sites in '24 even though I had a high degree of confidence that Trump was going to win. Parenthetically, I might add that I am a three-time write-in voter starting in '16, having felt insulted by the low quality of the candidates on each side. My belief that Trump would win was not a matter of hope or preference, but a cold assessment of the numbers. In fact, the bigger the dog in the fight, the less inclination I'd have to make a bet for fear that my preference might cloud my judgment.
Separately, I won a $100 bet with a friend on the '24 presidential. He wanted to make a bigger bet but I said that I didn't want it to be big enough to make me a Trump cheerleader or hurt his wallet when he lost. Afterward, he ended a longstanding friendship even though I never gloated, and had made clear from the start that my bet was based strictly on the numbers. Maybe he was pissed off because it was the second time I'd won an election bet with him on a Trump race. In '16, I bet him that Hillary would win the popular vote but by less than 4%. On election day that year, I predicted that she'd win by 2% (she won by 2.1%), and was as surprised as anyone that she lost in the electoral college.
Anyway, you could help me, and I'm sure others, if you'd explain the workings of Polymarket and other election betting sites. I'm sure it's simple, but I was so pissed off about not being paid way back when that I said "screw those sites" and didn't return. I'm thinking of dipping my toe into the water again, so an explanation of the mechanics and reliability of being paid would help.
Thanks much in advance, and keep those registration numbers coming. I'm very intrigued by all of that; it's why I am your customer. With all due respect, your opinionating about the issues? Meh. I don't even trust my own opinions, so don't feel insulted by my not particularly caring about yours. This is especially true when I agree, agreement being the seductive path to laziness. Give me numbers and disciplined, fearless, cold-blooded analysis of those numbers. Tell me not what I want to hear but what I need to hear, and then you're cookin' with gas.
We (the wife and I) lived in California from the early 1970s to the early 2010s and are guilty of having made a living in what used to be called "show business". We find amusement in our very old age in seeing how much Hollywood accounting has carried over to the digital age. The Captain makes money the old-fashioned way; he earns it. In the world of expert opinion he is up against all the people like NextGen who never have to show a profit. That is why, on the Captain's wish that real research will be believed and propagandists and politically illiterate firms will be kicked to the curb, I have to bet the under for 2026. (The wife never gambles; that is how we kept our ill-gotten gains.) But, we both think he and the very few brave, smart people like him will somehow manage to lead the country to victory in the war for liberty of conscience. On that we take the over.
You make the most money in any market when you bet against the consensus. Which, by the way, is usually correct. Skepticism, yes. Reflexive contrarianism, no. Conventional wisdom is not to be dismissed even if it's in the New York Times. Even a blind squirrel finds acorns. This is where the value of objective, rigorous analysis asserts itself. And after it's all said and done, even a talented analyst will be wrong at times.
Two things about analysis. First is that you can be right with astonishingly little information. There's even a declassified CIA paper on the subject. Second is that a talented, disciplined analyst will first develop a hypothesis, and then direct his efforts towards demolishing the hypothesis rather than confirming it. This is much easier said than done.
We swim in an ocean of confirmation bias, which I'd compare to sharks in the water. In Capt K's case, it's clear that he's a right-winger who prefers Trump, and will prefer Vance in '28, so his job will be to watch out for sharks in his water. Having gotten it right in '24 is a feather in his cap, but no guarantee that he'll get it right again.
Jim - I’ll make you a $10K side bet that he is correct on this and the Republican candidate wins the Arizona governor’s race in ‘26. Terms: Even money wager, no juice, you put up $10K and I put up $10K. We can speak on the phone and agree to do it on the honor system or we can agree on a third-party to hold it in escrow. I have given my cell # to Seth. If you’re interested get him your # and we can talk.
I'm not disputing his predictions, and have no opinion or interest in who'll win the AZ governor's race.
Fair enough, have a good day
When it comes time to bet on the '28 presidential, we can do that. I use a formula based on the direction of the headline unemployment rate ("U-3") in the second quarter of a presidential year. If U-3 does anything but decline, the incumbent party's candidate should lose the popular vote.
But I will consider betting on '28 only if U-3 changes between March and June, and only if it's part of a larger trend, as it almost always is.
If it's flat (1960, 1968, 1976, 2000, 2012), even though the incumbent party candidate should lose, those elections are often very close and unpredictable. Example: In 2000, Gore should have lost the popular vote but he won it by a whisker. In flat U-3 years the presidential election will often have a whiff of fraud or interference, as in 1960 and 2000.
Another flat-year anomaly was 2012, when the indicator pointed toward an Obama defeat. The reason for that failure was that in 2011, the Bureau of Labor Statistics changed its seasonal adjustment methodology in a way that made the fall of '11 look stronger than it really was, and the spring of '12 look weaker than it was.
In years where U-3 changed between March and June, the indicator has performed well. The only time it failed was 1956, when Eisenhower was re-elected even though U-3 ticked up. The reason was that, unlike most years where the spring direction is part of a larger trend (2008 and 2024 are good examples), there was no U-3 trend in 1956 and the economy was rockin' and rollin'.
The indicator made its bones in 1948, 1992, 2008, 2016, 2020, and 2024. Remember: It only predicts the winner of the popular vote, not the electoral college, and says nothing about the victory margin.
https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000?years_option=all_years
By the way, I think that if Trump wasn't such an erratic, undisciplined jerk, he'd have won '24 by a bigger margin. Calling him names doesn't mean that I somehow endorse those who he's run against. I can understand why he had to do his a-hole schtick in '16, but I think he could have added a few points to his '24 margin if he'd taken a different personality tack.
Trump is a very good example of how someone's strengths are their weaknesses. He has only one forward gear, and this time around I think it has hurt him a good deal more than it has helped him. But if U-3 is favoring Vance, I think Trump's personality will help him. He'll be able to do what Bush Sr. did with his "kinder and gentler" schtick back in 1988.
If the U-3 wind blows in a favorable direction, I think the Dems will rue the day when they mocked Vance at every turn. I look at Vance and see a lot of Ronald Reagan, so for his sake I hope that, unlike Trump, he's able to maintain his equilibrium.
With the economic proviso, I think 2028 could look a lot like 1952, when Ike beat Adlai by 10 points. Again, I cannot over-stress the economy, because I think every presidential election is first and foremost about the pocketbook. By '28, either Trump's economy is rocking and rolling or it's not. I am optimistic, but my optimism +$5 buys an iced grande cold brew at the nearby Starbucks.
We shall see. I plan to vote for Vance in '28 but will not hesitate to predict his defeat if the economy fails to cooperate. I am THE economic determinist. All about the numbers, baby. No one should bullshit themselves about that one. Thou shalt not drink thine own Kool-Aid.
US citizens are not allowed to bet on Polymarket. Just tried opening an account.
I pray you are correct, Capt K!
It would be great to see that sorry, cheating Governor thrown aside to the waste bin of history.
Capt K, I have a mechanical question about the betting sites. Quite some time back -- too many years to remember -- I bet in one of those markets. Also too far back to remember which one. I made good calls and was never paid.
My lack of trust is why I didn't make any bets on Polymarket or other sites in '24 even though I had a high degree of confidence that Trump was going to win. Parenthetically, I might add that I am a three-time write-in voter starting in '16, having felt insulted by the low quality of the candidates on each side. My belief that Trump would win was not a matter of hope or preference, but a cold assessment of the numbers. In fact, the bigger the dog in the fight, the less inclination I'd have to make a bet for fear that my preference might cloud my judgment.
Separately, I won a $100 bet with a friend on the '24 presidential. He wanted to make a bigger bet but I said that I didn't want it to be big enough to make me a Trump cheerleader or hurt his wallet when he lost. Afterward, he ended a longstanding friendship even though I never gloated, and had made clear from the start that my bet was based strictly on the numbers. Maybe he was pissed off because it was the second time I'd won an election bet with him on a Trump race. In '16, I bet him that Hillary would win the popular vote but by less than 4%. On election day that year, I predicted that she'd win by 2% (she won by 2.1%), and was as surprised as anyone that she lost in the electoral college.
Anyway, you could help me, and I'm sure others, if you'd explain the workings of Polymarket and other election betting sites. I'm sure it's simple, but I was so pissed off about not being paid way back when that I said "screw those sites" and didn't return. I'm thinking of dipping my toe into the water again, so an explanation of the mechanics and reliability of being paid would help.
Thanks much in advance, and keep those registration numbers coming. I'm very intrigued by all of that; it's why I am your customer. With all due respect, your opinionating about the issues? Meh. I don't even trust my own opinions, so don't feel insulted by my not particularly caring about yours. This is especially true when I agree, agreement being the seductive path to laziness. Give me numbers and disciplined, fearless, cold-blooded analysis of those numbers. Tell me not what I want to hear but what I need to hear, and then you're cookin' with gas.