Bettors Say DeSantis and Haley Won 1st GOP Debate
Bettors went back and forth, but their first instincts were right
The first GOP debate was this week! Now that the dust has settled, here's what the bettors say:
Bettors initially picked DeSantis and Haley as winners
During the debate, betting odds rose for DeSantis and fell for Ramaswamy. Near the end of the debate (10:20pm) DeSantis even regained the #2 spot in the odds:
When the debate ended, DeSantis was still higher, and Nikki Haley also gained:
I suspect the bettors thought DeSantis came across as an adult, got decent airtime, had no "gaffes.” Also, the other candidates didn't attack him much.
Haley also had rhetorically strong moments.
Bettors reversed their picks after the debate
However, after the debate, the betting started to revert to the pre-debate rankings. It's well known that the "spin" around a debate can be as important as the event itself. As media, focus groups, and pundits weighed in, bettors started to see Ramaswamy's performance in a better light.
For example, this NY Times article noted that, because he was attacked so much, Ramaswamy got the most speaking time:
Meanwhile, a CNN focus group declared that Rawaswamy won.
Rawaswamy generally got plaudits on Twitter, and in comment sections, from the populist wing of the party.
So for a day after the debate, the odds went back to what they were pre-debate.
Betting odds have now reverted to bettors’ initial debate reaction
Now, 3 days after the debate, the odds have flipped again -- probably due to national polls conducted since the debate.
Here are the current odds, with changes over the last week:
RealClearPolitics lists three polls that came out post-debate. Here's how they changed compared to the same pollster's most recent pre-debate polls:
Reuters (Trump +5, DeSantis +0, Ramaswamy -2, Haley -1)
InsiderAdv (Trump -6, DeSantis +8, Ramaswamy +1, Haley +6)
Morning Consult (Trump +0, DeSantis +0, Ramaswamy +1, Haley +0)
Average of the three (Trump -0.33, DeSantis +2.66, Ramaswamy +0, Haley +1.66)
So that is some evidence that the bettors' initial read on the debate was correct.
Analyzing Ramaswamy’s polarizing performance — was it honest?
There were wildly different perceptions of the debate, both within the media, and also between Republican voters. I talked with GOP voters who found Vivek Ramaswamy inspiring and populist, and others who saw him as childish and glibly dishonest.
Calling the “climate change agenda” a hoax
For example, at one point, Ramaswamy called the “climate change agenda” a hoax, even though he has said elsewhere that he believes in manmade climate change. What he thinks is a “hoax” is the idea that lots of people are dying from climate change (in fact, temperature-related deaths are down, as Ramaswamy pointed out.)
For Ramaswamy, the “agenda” in “climate change agenda” makes it clear that he’s talking about narrative around climate change being false, not about climate change itself. But I suspect that 90% of viewers thought he was just calling climate change a hoax.
So he speaks in a bit of a lawyer-like way, always being pretty careful to be technically correct, even if the impression he gives might be different, or misleading.
Calling Trump the best President “of the 21st Century”
President Trump has suggested that he may have been the best President since George Washington.
Ramaswamy dialed that down a bit, saying that Trump was the best “of the 21st Century.” That’s quite the qualification — really just saying that Trump did better than Bush, Obama and Biden.
Calling all his opponents “bought and paid for”
One line that strains the “lawyer-like correctness” claim above is Ramaswamy’s claim that he was the only one on the stage not “bought and paid for.”
Seems like a cheap shot.
Charitably, he just means that he’s the only one not dependent on donors, as he independently funds his campaign with his business wealth. But “bought and paid for” implies some corruption beyond simply having to rely on supporters, and that’s surely inaccurate for many of his opponents.
A Ramaswamy-Pence debate exchange that revealed a generational divide
RAMASWAMY: We're in the middle of a national identity crisis. And I say this as a member of my generation. The problem in our country right now, the reason we have that mental health epidemic is that people are so hungry for purpose and meaning, at a time when family, faith, patriotism, hard work have all disappeared. What we really need is a tonal reset from the top saying that this is what it means to be an American…
PENCE: We don't have an identity crisis, Vivek. We're not looking for a new national identity. The American people are the most faith filled, freedom loving, idealistic, hard-working people the world has ever known. We just need government as good as our people.
RAMASWAMY: Mike, I think the difference is … It is not Morning in America. We live in a dark moment, and we have to confront the fact that we're in an internal sort of cold cultural civil war and we have to recognize that --
(CROSSTALK)
PENCE: …We just need government as good as our people again.
As a millennial, I think Pence just grew up in a different era where more people shared a common understanding of America.
Ramaswamy is well aware that most young people don't have a great sense of what America stands for, often are more aware of its negatives than its positives, and that it would help for a President to give a healthy vision of what it means to be an American.
Does any of this matter? Yes.
Ohio Republican Senator JD Vance called the GOP primary a “charade” on Twitter/X:
But the betting odds disagree that it’s “inevitable.” They give about a 30% chance that the nominee will not be Trump. Also, it’s healthy to have these competitions in a democracy.
So I’ll continue to closely follow the nomination contest. After Super Tuesday (March 5, 2024) we’ll know whether there’s a real contest here or not.
As always, you can see the live odds at ElectionBettingOdds.com