Post analysis finds primary candidates win about as often as prediction markets expect

A Post analysis found that primary candidates won about as often as prediction market bettors expected, suggesting the markets' election picks remain useful even when individual forecasts appear wrong. The analysis, which examined how prediction markets align with actual election results, acknowledged high-profile misses in the midterm elections as part of its broader examination. The article argues that apparent errors in prediction market outcomes do not negate their overall utility for forecasting political contests. The findings come as prediction markets face renewed scrutiny over their accuracy following recent high-stakes electoral contests.