Reminder: betting markets have Bernie as the *most* electable candidate.

[andym]

50. Your use of stats is quite wrong

First let me show you Trump's chance of winning the election using your formulas:
Trump's chance of winning his nomination is currently 93%. His chance of winning the election is 56% at the moment.
Using your formula for Trump 56/93= 60.2%.

According to these calculations Bernie's chances of winning the election are 58.6% but Trump's are 60.2%-- greater than Bernie's.
That's interesting because together these chances add up to 118.8%-- much better than 100%!!! That can't be correct.

Now if Bernie had a lower chance of winning the primary using your calculations, but kept his chances of winning the election the same (might not happen) his chances of winning the election would go up-- as would any candidate. At this very moment Bernie's chances of winning the nomination are now 65% on PredictIt and his chances of winning the election against Trump are 38%. So by your calculation Bernie's chances of winning the election have stayed the same, even though both numbers have risen 38>34 and 65>58)!! 38/65=58% thanks to winning Nevada which still doesn't jive with Trump's greater 60.2% chances.

So what's wrong with your calculation?-- it technically means that there will be a direct increase in percent chance to win the election with every increase in percent chance of winning the nomination. But why assume that given that winning the nomination only includes a set of Democrats and some Independents for Bernie, and basically Republicans for Trump, and not everyone together, many of whom won't even vote in the primaries (many independents and some Democrats and Republicans). So the probabilities are built on different populations. There is some overlap of dependence in the numbers, but you can't use them the way you are using them.