Election Betting
Dolly Pardon with a double (D) after her name would really stir up the vote.
tuttigym
It appears you are listening to republican talking points too much."
Biden was very obviously suffering from dementia from before he took office. Trump also exhibited serious cognitive if not technical dementia. This was obvious to everyone with a basic level of medical training or indeed, intelligence.
This may shock you but some people are not Americans, and are unable to and have no interest in watching Republican or Democrat media except out of occasional ghoulish curiosity when it is beamed onto their screens for humour value. They can however tell that something is wrong when an adult male is incapable of completing a sentence, forming a coherent series of points in a discussion, mixes up or forgets names repeatedly, forgets rehearsed speeches, all despite the assistance of a teleprompter and/or a team of experts.
In order to bet effectively on events like this you need to listen to such people more and your own partisan bias much less. You'll just lose money betting on the basis of instinctive preference or personal politics.
Darkoz made an explicitly political post with no betting content. He is obviously a democrat who reflexively takes their side on everything ever no matter how ridiculous.
I reintroduced the subject of betting into the discussion, which you cynically edited out.
Quote: TigerWuTrump's betting odds have slipped noticeably over the past week, while Harris continues to trend upwards. She's still a ways behind, though.
Generally speaking favorable media coverage like that Harris has been receiving filters through to the polls but is usually a temporary blip. It is something you want to trade out because it usually vanishes quickly.
If there is a more persistent trend towards Harris that lasts through the next important campaign event then that IS worth betting on or at least considering as a variable. It would indicate that something she said got through to the public eg her line on law and order might resonate with some older-school republicans. It isn't the size of the effect so much as its durability. Most things do not get through to the public but it is important to be able to recognize when they do.
Quote: Archvaldor"Political posts are not allowed in this thread."
Darkoz made an explicitly political post with no betting content. He is obviously a democrat who reflexively takes their side on everything ever no matter how ridiculous.
I reintroduced the subject of betting into the discussion, which you cynically edited out.
link to original post
Discussion of betting odds or not, you keep making political posts.
Calling one side or the other dumb while Discussion of the odds is political.
Seeing as you aren't even from this country and just joined the forum it seems your reason for being here is disruption.
As far as Biden clearly ‘being demented’, after careful thought, I have to disagree. If you (Arch) said he was clearly in mental decline, clearly showing signs of old age, clearly not sharp anymore…. those would be easy to agree with.
I have 91 year old neighbor that I chat with frequently. (He’s a stop on my dog walking route). He sometimes forgets things, sometimes asks me the same question, etc…. He seems like Biden, actually. I’d say he is ‘showing his age’, not demented.
As far as the odds listed a few posts ago, give me Mark Kelly. That would sew up Arizona for the Democrats.
Quote: darkozQuote: Archvaldor"Political posts are not allowed in this thread."
Darkoz made an explicitly political post with no betting content. He is obviously a democrat who reflexively takes their side on everything ever no matter how ridiculous.
I reintroduced the subject of betting into the discussion, which you cynically edited out.
link to original post
Discussion of betting odds or not, you keep making political posts.
Calling one side or the other dumb while Discussion of the odds is political.
Seeing as you aren't even from this country and just joined the forum it seems your reason for being here is disruption.
link to original post
I agree
Seems every Archvaldor post is a political post
Come on admins
This thread could easily go sideways with the lax enforcement
This should be the tightest managed thread on the forum
He's new, been warned and has ignored the warning
Quote:
Seeing as you aren't even from this country
Petty xenophobia is generally considered to be "political" or just trolling, so I think you basically contradicted and conceded your own argument there.
I explicitly tried to bring back the discussion to betting specifically with regard to the Harris bounce and the trading opportunities therein which you ignored. Do you have anything to add to that or other betting related content if you prefer?
Quote: Archvaldor"They wouldn't do that unless they realized they were about to lose.
Their biggest problem now is they convinced so many undecided voters that age is an issue. Choose the younger candidate when he is only three years younger never made much sense to me anyway."
They obviously do not believe they are about to lose. Republicans are infamously delusional about their own chances. Even if they weren't Trump is significantly ahead in the betting. You damage your credibility by saying things which are demonstrably not true.
I'd add that of all the dumb stuff Republicans come out with raising the issue as to why exactly a man with visible dementia was allowed to become president is a question that is likely to resonate with the general public.
link to original post
Political speech. Given the warning recently issued, which you ignored, seven days.
Biden has a speech coming up.
Bovada had a prop of "Will Biden pardon Trump?" - Y/N This was up for months. I just checked and it has been closed down.
Biden will pardon Trump for the good of the country. In the spirit of generosity he might as well pardon Hunter.
Of course this could be wishful thinking. I made a bet on a Hunter pardon a few weeks ago. It was taken down a while back, my bet is still open.
Quote: darkozBiden wasn't allowed to become president with visible dementia. He was voted into office 4 years ago and ran the country ever since.
It appears you are listening to republican talking points too much.
link to original post
I don't see anything about betting the election in this post. Warning issued for making a political comment.
Quote: cyberbabbleInsider trading going on?
Biden has a speech coming up.
Bovada had a prop of "Will Biden pardon Trump?" - Y/N This was up for months. I just checked and it has been closed down.
Biden will pardon Trump for the good of the country. In the spirit of generosity he might as well pardon Hunter.
Of course this could be wishful thinking. I made a bet on a Hunter pardon a few weeks ago. It was taken down a while back, my bet is still open.
link to original post
I don't see anything about betting the election in this post. Warning issued for making a political comment.
My bet is Shapiro or Beshear.
I’m seeing a lot of anti-Shapiro sentiment from certain factions.
(Usual caveat that I really have no idea what will happen).
Quote: ams288I’d bet Beshear.
I’m seeing a lot of anti-Shapiro sentiment from certain factions.
(Usual caveat that I really have no idea what will happen).
link to original post
I don't think it will be Shapiro solely based on the fact I have never even heard of the guy until a couple of days ago, so he obviously doesn't have much name recognition.
I think Kelly is most likely, then maybe Beshear.
Quote: gordonm888Quote: Archvaldor"They wouldn't do that unless they realized they were about to lose.
Their biggest problem now is they convinced so many undecided voters that age is an issue. Choose the younger candidate when he is only three years younger never made much sense to me anyway."
They obviously do not believe they are about to lose. Republicans are infamously delusional about their own chances. Even if they weren't Trump is significantly ahead in the betting. You damage your credibility by saying things which are demonstrably not true.
I'd add that of all the dumb stuff Republicans come out with raising the issue as to why exactly a man with visible dementia was allowed to become president is a question that is likely to resonate with the general public.
link to original post
Warning: You are making partisan political comments which is against the rules of the forum and this thread. I have bolded the comments in your post that are objectionable. You are not allowed to express judgmental comments - positive or negative - about political parties or candidates. If you do this again, you will likely be suspended for 3-7 days and you may get the thread shut down -which will injure everyone posting in this thread.
link to original post
Is that on top of the 7 Days Mike already gave him for the same post? Cruel and unusual punishment..
As for actual polls, you can't trust any of them. I'm not knocking the pollsters. It's just that so much has happened so quickly that a poll might be rendered useless within days or even hours after its release.
We'll just have to wait for the whiplash to subside in a few weeks (assuming nothing else happens).
Quote: GialmereIn the RCP betting pools, Trump and Harris seem to be roughly stabilizing into positions that Trump and Biden were at pre debate.
As for actual polls, you can't trust any of them. I'm not knocking the pollsters. It's just that so much has happened so quickly that a poll might be rendered useless within days or even hours after its release.
Well just have to wait for the whiplash to subside in a few weeks (assuming nothing else happens).
link to original post
It's been literally 96 hours since Biden made his announcement this is not time enough for any poll to be accurate. It took 10 days after the debate for us to get accurate polls. At least what passes for accurate these days.
Quote: TigerWuQuote: ams288I’d bet Beshear.
I’m seeing a lot of anti-Shapiro sentiment from certain factions.
(Usual caveat that I really have no idea what will happen).
link to original post
I don't think it will be Shapiro solely based on the fact I have never even heard of the guy until a couple of days ago, so he obviously doesn't have much name recognition.
I think Kelly is most likely, then maybe Beshear.
link to original post
I think Kelly is the best choice
Piloted 39 combat missions
Astronaut
He appeals to men
Quote: terapinedQuote: TigerWuQuote: ams288I’d bet Beshear.
I’m seeing a lot of anti-Shapiro sentiment from certain factions.
(Usual caveat that I really have no idea what will happen).
link to original post
I don't think it will be Shapiro solely based on the fact I have never even heard of the guy until a couple of days ago, so he obviously doesn't have much name recognition.
I think Kelly is most likely, then maybe Beshear.
link to original post
I think Kelly is the best choice
Piloted 39 combat missions
Astronaut
He appeals to men
link to original post
Shapiro has ticked off certain progressive groups for his staunch pro-Israel position. Kelly as ticked off labor for his blocking of certain pro-labor legislation in the Senate. For Harris to chose one of those two, she'd have to chose which group to tick off more. Choosing Beshear, or Tim Walz or Roy Cooper may just avoid that drama all together.
Still say Shapiro or Walz Beshear are in the pole position.
(Edited to correct mistype from Walz to Beshear)
Quote: AZDuffmanJust saw Kamala only polling about 75% among blacks. That is disaster for her. Dems usually get about 90% of that vote, a fall to 75% is losing 2% of the total vote. Breakdown by gender wasn't stated, but black males seem to be driving it. If this is accurate this is big.
link to original post
Rasmussen? lol
Quote: AZDuffmanJust saw Kamala only polling about 75% among blacks. That is disaster for her. Dems usually get about 90% of that vote, a fall to 75% is losing 2% of the total vote. Breakdown by gender wasn't stated, but black males seem to be driving it. If this is accurate this is big.
link to original post
Quote: AZDuffmanJust saw Kamala only polling about 75% among blacks. That is disaster for her. Dems usually get about 90% of that vote, a fall to 75% is losing 2% of the total vote. Breakdown by gender wasn't stated, but black males seem to be driving it. If this is accurate this is big.
link to original post
It's not a disaster at all -- it's actually a huge improvement. Biden was only polling around 33% with black people just last month.
Quote: TigerWuElectionbettingodds recently updated their electoral college prediction. It had been around 312 to 226 in favor of Trump. Now it's showing 297 to 241 (still in favor of Trump).
Quote: AZDuffmanJust saw Kamala only polling about 75% among blacks. That is disaster for her. Dems usually get about 90% of that vote, a fall to 75% is losing 2% of the total vote. Breakdown by gender wasn't stated, but black males seem to be driving it. If this is accurate this is big.
link to original post
It's not a disaster at all -- it's actually a huge improvement. Biden was only polling around 33% with black people just last month.
link to original post
33% sounds impossible. Beyond even an outlier.
Quote: AZDuffman
33% sounds impossible. Beyond even an outlier.
link to original post
I just realized that those numbers are for black people under 40.
tuttigym
Quote: tuttigymThere is supposed to be real "science" in polling, but I personally cannot fathom such when the actual numbers of people polled is such a small sample. Some Fox News polling shows less than 1,000 polled participants. The same for other "trustworthy" polls. How can they be reliable? There are so many variables, and folks do lie.
tuttigym
link to original post
It looks like they follow the Nielsen ratings type of polling where they just sample a small size of US television usage.
Star Trek famously got canceled thanks to bad polling
Quote: tuttigymThere is supposed to be real "science" in polling, but I personally cannot fathom such when the actual numbers of people polled is such a small sample. Some Fox News polling shows less than 1,000 polled participants. The same for other "trustworthy" polls. How can they be reliable? There are so many variables, and folks do lie.
tuttigym
link to original post
1,000 is a pretty big sample but it has to be random and representative. IOW, you cannot call 1,000 people from San Francisco and expect a good result, even for CA. You cannot call 1,000 black people or 1,000 white people.
Yes, people do lie. But that is why you ask other questions. A famous example here is how many people said "they were Republican until Trump (Bush43 before him) came along. So you would ask who they voted for before and how they stood on some issues. If they fall too many times on the left of the issues and say they are "a lifetime Republican" you probably throw them out as unreliable.
This is why it takes days to poll. 1,000 calls is not all that hard.100 people making 10 contacts. But you might need to call 3,000 or more to get 1,000 good samples.
Michigan
Harris 49
Trump 49
Minnesota
Harris 52
Trump 46
Pennsylvania
Kamala Harris 49
Donald Trump 49
Wisconsin
Trump 50
Harris 49
Quote: ams288New Fox News swing state polls.
Michigan
Harris 49
Trump 49
Minnesota
Harris 52
Trump 46
Pennsylvania
Kamala Harris 49
Donald Trump 49
Wisconsin
Trump 50
Harris 49
link to original post
Those polling numbers are screaming for Shapiro as VP. And a really exciting election night. Hard to imagine Harris does not get a bump from the Dem convention.
Quote: SOOPOOThose polling numbers are screaming for Shapiro as VP. And a really exciting election night. Hard to imagine Harris does not get a bump from the Dem convention.
link to original post
You may be right about Shapiro.
Here are some expanded PA numbers from the Fox poll.
Quote:Pennsylvania poll: Fox News
HEAD TO HEAD
Harris 49%
Trump 49%
FULL FIELD
Harris 45%
Trump 43%
RFK Jr. 7%
West 1%
Stein 1%
FAVORABLE/UNFAVORABLE RATINGS
Kamala Harris 49/49
Donald Trump 46/53
Gov. Josh Shapiro 61/32 (!)
Quote: AZDuffmanQuote: tuttigymThere is supposed to be real "science" in polling, but I personally cannot fathom such when the actual numbers of people polled is such a small sample. Some Fox News polling shows less than 1,000 polled participants. The same for other "trustworthy" polls. How can they be reliable? There are so many variables, and folks do lie.
tuttigym
link to original post
1,000 is a pretty big sample but it has to be random and representative. IOW, you cannot call 1,000 people from San Francisco and expect a good result, even for CA. You cannot call 1,000 black people or 1,000 white people.
Yes, people do lie. But that is why you ask other questions. A famous example here is how many people said "they were Republican until Trump (Bush43 before him) came along. So you would ask who they voted for before and how they stood on some issues. If they fall too many times on the left of the issues and say they are "a lifetime Republican" you probably throw them out as unreliable.
This is why it takes days to poll. 1,000 calls is not all that hard.100 people making 10 contacts. But you might need to call 3,000 or more to get 1,000 good samples.
link to original post
Excuse me. "1,000 is a pretty big sample"? out of 330mil folks? "random and representative"? "1,000 good samples"? out of only 3,000 calls? I understand how microscopic those suggestions are. Do you? If I were to tell you that I have a winning system based on 1,000 attempts of random play, what would you say?
tuttigym
Democrat and live in Philadelphia you represent a certain category of voters and the pollsters know how many people are in that Category and their propensity to vote. They are trying to get a certain number of voters in each category and you preferences are weighted by the number of people in your category and the likelihood you will vote
Quote: tuttigymQuote: AZDuffmanQuote: tuttigymThere is supposed to be real "science" in polling, but I personally cannot fathom such when the actual numbers of people polled is such a small sample. Some Fox News polling shows less than 1,000 polled participants. The same for other "trustworthy" polls. How can they be reliable? There are so many variables, and folks do lie.
tuttigym
link to original post
1,000 is a pretty big sample but it has to be random and representative. IOW, you cannot call 1,000 people from San Francisco and expect a good result, even for CA. You cannot call 1,000 black people or 1,000 white people.
Yes, people do lie. But that is why you ask other questions. A famous example here is how many people said "they were Republican until Trump (Bush43 before him) came along. So you would ask who they voted for before and how they stood on some issues. If they fall too many times on the left of the issues and say they are "a lifetime Republican" you probably throw them out as unreliable.
This is why it takes days to poll. 1,000 calls is not all that hard.100 people making 10 contacts. But you might need to call 3,000 or more to get 1,000 good samples.
link to original post
Excuse me. "1,000 is a pretty big sample"? out of 330mil folks? "random and representative"? "1,000 good samples"? out of only 3,000 calls? I understand how microscopic those suggestions are. Do you? If I were to tell you that I have a winning system based on 1,000 attempts of random play, what would you say?
tuttigym
link to original post
Polling is (theoretically) a science. Like many mathematical models, it will give results with a confidence level. No one is denying that if you polled 1,000,000 people instead of 1,000 that you would tend to get more accurate results when compared to the actual election. Whether they need 1,000 or 10,000 or 100,000 to make the results worth talking about is above my pay grade. And my pay grade is above yours.
Quote: SOOPOOQuote: tuttigymQuote: AZDuffmanQuote: tuttigymThere is supposed to be real "science" in polling, but I personally cannot fathom such when the actual numbers of people polled is such a small sample. Some Fox News polling shows less than 1,000 polled participants. The same for other "trustworthy" polls. How can they be reliable? There are so many variables, and folks do lie.
tuttigym
link to original post
1,000 is a pretty big sample but it has to be random and representative. IOW, you cannot call 1,000 people from San Francisco and expect a good result, even for CA. You cannot call 1,000 black people or 1,000 white people.
Yes, people do lie. But that is why you ask other questions. A famous example here is how many people said "they were Republican until Trump (Bush43 before him) came along. So you would ask who they voted for before and how they stood on some issues. If they fall too many times on the left of the issues and say they are "a lifetime Republican" you probably throw them out as unreliable.
This is why it takes days to poll. 1,000 calls is not all that hard.100 people making 10 contacts. But you might need to call 3,000 or more to get 1,000 good samples.
link to original post
Excuse me. "1,000 is a pretty big sample"? out of 330mil folks? "random and representative"? "1,000 good samples"? out of only 3,000 calls? I understand how microscopic those suggestions are. Do you? If I were to tell you that I have a winning system based on 1,000 attempts of random play, what would you say?
tuttigym
link to original post
Polling is (theoretically) a science. Like many mathematical models, it will give results with a confidence level. No one is denying that if you polled 1,000,000 people instead of 1,000 that you would tend to get more accurate results when compared to the actual election. Whether they need 1,000 or 10,000 or 100,000 to make the results worth talking about is above my pay grade. And my pay grade is above yours.
link to original post
So, you are just as clueless as me but at a higher level. Great to know.
I ask questions to increase my knowledge and appreciate the great answers when posted such as the one above by gordon888. Thank you g888.
tuttigym
Still, it's more proof that the blue team has, at the very least, stopped the bleeding. We'll have to see if they can turn this honeymoon bump into some churning momentum.
Trump still has more electoral paths to victory, but Harris has (for now) seized the initiative. It's sure looking like Pennsylvania will be the key to...everything.
Quote: GialmereThe RCP electoral map has shifted Minnesota from "toss up" grey to "leans" blue. This is hardly a huge surprise considering the Land of 10,000 Lakes hasn't gone red in over 50 years. (Not even Reagan could win there.)
Still, it's more proof that the blue team has, at the very least, stopped the bleeding.
link to original post
It's not proof of anything and people in politics know that. All they did was get rid of Joe Biden, it has nothing to do with who's going to replace him yet. At this point it could be Daffy Duck and it would still show a boost because Joe Biden is gone. It's only been 6 days, wait 60 days and then do a reading. This is called the honeymoon period and if you listen carefully somebody mentions that in the media about every 25 seconds because it's a very real thing. Nothing that happens in the honeymoon period means anything.
Quote: EvenBobNothing that happens in the honeymoon period means anything.
Tell that to my son…..
Trump will end voting apparently. I would add "or end the world, whichever comes first."
J.D Vance Favorable Polling:
Unfavorable: 42%
Favorable: 29%
Unsure: 29%
AtlasIntel / July 25, 2024 / n=1980
Quote: ChumpChange
J.D Vance Favorable Polling:
Unfavorable: 42%
Favorable: 29%
Unsure: 29%
AtlasIntel / July 25, 2024 / n=1980
link to original post
Are there any places taking bets on whether Vance gets swapped out for someone else?
Quote: ChumpChangeThis is why Trump is in full freakout mode in the last few days, 7-27-24
Trump will end voting apparently. I would add "or end the world, whichever comes first."
J.D Vance Favorable Polling:
Unfavorable: 42%
Favorable: 29%
Unsure: 29%
AtlasIntel / July 25, 2024 / n=1980
link to original post
You said: "Trump will end voting apparently. I would add "or end the world, whichever comes first." "
30 days suspension for partisan political speech. This is ChumpChange's 2nd infraction for political speech this month, earlier suspension this month was for 14 days.
Quote: EvenBobIt's not proof of anything and people in politics know that. All they did was get rid of Joe Biden, it has nothing to do with who's going to replace him yet. At this point it could be Daffy Duck and it would still show a boost because Joe Biden is gone. It's only been 6 days, wait 60 days and then do a reading. This is called the honeymoon period and if you listen carefully somebody mentions that in the media about every 25 seconds because it's a very real thing. Nothing that happens in the honeymoon period means anything.
link to original post
Thanks again for pointing out the extremely obvious observation that polling numbers and election odds can change. I'm sure none of us could have figured it out without you.
Electionbettingodds.com now has Shapiro ahead of Kelly for Dem VP pick.
The electoral total has also shifted again towards Democrats, but still showing a Republican win.
Spoiler alert: Biden won't resign. Besides that one, I don't have strong opinions on any of these markets at current prices.
Quote: Mental
Spoiler alert: Biden won't resign. Besides that one, I don't have strong opinions on any of these markets at current prices.
Actually, I think it's reasonable that he could still resign at some point due to deteriorating health. He has to last until inauguration in January of next year. But yes, I don't think he'll resign if he maintains around his current level and doesn't get much worse.
Electoral college odds favor the GOP, but it's kind of close again.
Trump's odds have been slowly trending downward since the Convention, while Harris' odds have slowly been trending upward since Biden dropped out.
