Voters told DailyMail.com who they would bet their money on between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris to win Tuesday’s election.
More than ever before, betting markets have begun to rival polls in terms of how people view elections.
Tens of millions of dollars have already been allocated to try to make money for the democratic process.
As a billboard in Times Square displayed live, real-time betting on the election, we asked people walking through The Crossroads of the World who they would bet their money on.
While many were skeptical about using their own money, one man confessed to having already invested $1,200 in a Trump victory.
Voters told DailyMail.com who they would bet their money on between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris to win Tuesday’s election.
A couple more voters said Harris, but they had to be qualified because they already supported her or were using someone else’s money.
“I think I’ll donate about $1,500 to Trump,” said another, only to be criticized by his friend, who told him he didn’t have the money for it.
Another even said they would bet $2,000 on Trump, but most people didn’t consider betting on either candidate to be a smart investment.
Trump has had a setback in the betting markets following an increase in bets on Harris of late.
The former president had soared on several betting platforms, but the money moved to Harris in recent days.
Four days before the election, prominent betting website Kalshi had Trump’s chances of winning at 53 percent, compared to Harris’ 47 percent.
On Tuesday, the former president had 64 percent and Harris 36 percent on the site.
Meanwhile, at Polymarket, the odds of Trump winning fell from 67 percent on October 30 to 59 percent on Friday afternoon.
While many were skeptical about using their own money, one man confessed to having already invested $1,200 in a Trump victory.
A couple more voters said Harris, but they had to be qualified because they already supported her or were using someone else’s money.
The political prediction site Predictit had Trump with a lead of just two points on Friday.
On October 29, their lead in the siege was 14 points.
During the same period (October 29 to November 1), Trump’s odds at bookmakers Bet365 and Paddy Power fell from 66.7 percent to 63.6 percent.
Kalshi still had Trump most likely to win five of the seven key battleground states: Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, North Carolina and Pennsylvania.
But it gives Harris a better chance in Michigan and Wisconsin.
Pennsylvania is very close with Trump at 52 percent and Harris at 48 percent as of Friday lunchtime.
The Real Clear Politics betting market average still had Trump ahead of Harris by 60.6 percent to 38.1 percent.
However, as of earlier this week, the Republican candidate had won 63.9 percent.
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump and Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton shake hands after the presidential debate in Hempstead, New York, on September 26, 2016.
The betting markets were wrong in 1948, when President Harry S. Truman won; Here, he gleefully displays a premature first edition of the Chicago Daily Tribune from his train in St. Louis, Missouri, after his defeat of Thomas E. Dewey.
Polls put the election on a knife-edge and essentially tied, but for weeks betting markets have consistently given Trump a clear lead.
It was unclear what precipitated the shift in betting markets in recent days.
On October 27, a comedian at Trump’s rally at Madison Square Garden in New York made a derogatory joke about Puerto Rico, sparking widespread backlash.
Kalshi, which is the first legal online election prediction betting platform in the United States, has already accepted $92 million in bets for the 2024 race.
This week, Tarek Mansour, its chief executive, said bettors are a more accurate indication of the outcome than polls because they have “skin in the game.”
He told DailyMail.com: ‘We should definitely trust the (betting) markets.
‘Prediction markets are places where people have money at stake. People don’t lie with their money.
In 2016 the polls indicated that Hillary Clinton would easily defeat Trump, but they were wrong.
Live election betting at a digital screen kiosk on a New York City street
In the past, betting markets have proven successful in predicting the outcome of elections.
However, like the polls, they were not a good indicator in 2016.
As early as 1924, the Wall Street Journal wrote: “Betting odds are generally considered the best indicator of likely results in presidential campaigns.”
At the time, betting houses sent people to candidates’ speeches and based their odds on how the public responded, according to the newspaper.
In 15 presidential elections between 1884 and 1940, there was only one upset because the bookmakers were wrong, according to a study by economists Paul Rhode and Koleman Strumpf.
However, in 1948 the betting markets, like the polls, went spectacularly wrong when they gave President Harry Truman only about a one in ten chance of winning.