This study compares the accuracy of different methods for predicting the 2024 US presidential election winner. I posit that, while assets directly tied to election outcomes may seem intuitively appealing for predicting election probabilities, options on broader market indices, may provide a more reliable indicator of election expectations and associated risks. The analysis reveals that election forecasts derived from options prices on the S&P 500 index consistently outperformed other methods in predicting Trump's win probability. While experts and public opinion surveys underestimated Trump's chances, prediction markets were prone to overestimation and excessive volatility. The empirical evidence also indicates that neither a lack of liquidity nor traders' unrepresentativeness and/or partisan bias explain the inaccuracies in prediction markets, and that option traders correctly priced in a 2.5% increase in the S&P 500 index following a Trump victory, which closely matched the actual outcome. These findings demonstrate that financial markets, often overlooked in discussions of election forecasting, can consistently outperform other alternatives in making accurate predictions.