Do betting odds for primaries have a natural bias to candidates popular online?

Despite the limited polling we have showing the race a dead heat or even Crockett leading, James Talarico is at around 75 cents while Jasmine Crockett is at around 25 cents on both Kalshi and Polymarket. I could see Talarico winning but is he really favored by this much even after the Colbert incident?

Ken Paxton is also at 76 cents while incumbent John Cornyn is only at 21 cents and Wesley Hunt is at 5 cents.

In Maine, Graham Platner is ahead of Janet Mills, a former governor, by around 65 cents to 35 cents.

In Kentucky-04, Thomas Massie is favored over Ed Gallrein by around 75 to 25, based on what?

Even in Florida, betting odds have James Fishback at 15 cents and he was higher in the past.

If any of Crockett, Cornyn, Mills or Gallrein win their primaries, betting odds take a huge hit as a reliable election predictor. Talarico, Paxton, Platner and Massie all have something in common: they are popular online by their party bases. Perhaps the betting markets think online is now real life?