On the gamblers – The Economist:

‘Despite polls being in essence tied, gamblers betting on the outcome of America’s presidential election are increasingly confident that Donald Trump, the Republican nominee, will win. Polymarket, a prediction market that has seen over $2.6bn traded on the election, gives him a two-in-three chance. Bettors are in effect gambling that polls are underestimating him for the third time in a row.’

(…)

‘Since 2020 pollsters have been at pains to reach a representative sample. They have experimented with recruitment that appeals to certain sections of society (postcards plastered with patriotic imagery, for example) and new modes, such as text messages. It is anyone’s guess whether this will be enough to account for the Democratic bias in response rates or whether supporters of Mr Trump are still reluctant to answer polls. If the errors seen in 2020 or 2016 are repeated even to a small degree that would be disastrous for Ms Harris—she could lose all seven swing states.
Democrats aiming to soothe their anxieties may refer to a wider historical lens. It is true that there is a slight correlation between the polling error in a state at one election and the error in the next. That suggests that Mr Trump is more likely to outperform the polls than Ms Harris is. But the relationship is weak and not very useful for predicting election results. There are also plenty of plausible scenarios in which polls underestimate support for Ms Harris. For example, the errors in 2020 could have been pandemic-specific.’

Read the article here.

I hate to say this but I trust the gamblers.

On the other hand, gamblers tend to lose their money as well.