I have no idea about William Hill. But the odds they describe sound about right to me, and the Nate Silver thing and the summary of Trump’s speech sound informative
inb4 BIDEN COPIUM HAHAHA etc and etc
I have no idea about William Hill. But the odds they describe sound about right to me, and the Nate Silver thing and the summary of Trump’s speech sound informative
inb4 BIDEN COPIUM HAHAHA etc and etc
Paying out higher (better) odds means you think they’re less likely to win
Edit: They were initially confused about how betting odds work, now they’re confused about how outcomes work.
William Hill is saying that Trump has a 65% chance to win, and the Democrat has roughly a 35% chance to win, and that Democrat is much more likely to be Kamala than Biden. There is absolutely no conditional involved in this odds presentation that would imply who has a better chance of beating Trump, as separated from the question of how likely the Democrats are to replace Biden.
The article says P(Biden wins) < P(Harris wins). It isn’t saying anything directly about P(Biden nominated) or P(Biden wins | Biden nominated) but it does imply that P(Biden nominated) is low.
I think the chances of Harris vs Biden winning are incorporated into this percentage. But it doesn’t separate out the factors such as likelihood of being the nominee vs likelihood of winning the GE. So we can’t say anything definitive about that without more information on how it’s being calculated.
Yeah, I messed up the notation in my original post. I have replaced it.
I added an edit which is critical of your new assertion