Election Betting
Quote: AZDuffmanQuote: SOOPOOBetting markets are seeing something CNN isn’t. Predictit 86-14. Polymarket 89-11. For Trump.
I’m getting my check to the Wiz ready..
Anyone here taking Harris at 9-1?
link to original post
I'm kicking myself for not taking your offer of +1MM popular votes on Trump!
link to original post
It’s still available for 5 minutes. Max bet cost of Starbucks largest size premium beverage.
Iowa just called for Trump. I guess the Selzer poll was ‘flat’.
Quote: SOOPOOQuote: AZDuffmanQuote: SOOPOOBetting markets are seeing something CNN isn’t. Predictit 86-14. Polymarket 89-11. For Trump.
I’m getting my check to the Wiz ready..
Anyone here taking Harris at 9-1?
link to original post
I'm kicking myself for not taking your offer of +1MM popular votes on Trump!
link to original post
It’s still available for 5 minutes. Max bet cost of Starbucks largest size premium beverage.
Iowa just called for Trump. I guess the Selzer poll was ‘flat’.
link to original post
Nope. I could bet and lose on the Globetrotters this year!
Quote: AZDuffmanQuote: SOOPOOQuote: AZDuffmanQuote: SOOPOOBetting markets are seeing something CNN isn’t. Predictit 86-14. Polymarket 89-11. For Trump.
I’m getting my check to the Wiz ready..
Anyone here taking Harris at 9-1?
link to original post
I'm kicking myself for not taking your offer of +1MM popular votes on Trump!
link to original post
It’s still available for 5 minutes. Max bet cost of Starbucks largest size premium beverage.
Iowa just called for Trump. I guess the Selzer poll was ‘flat’.
link to original post
Nope. I could bet and lose on the Globetrotters this year!
link to original post
I'm better at gaming than gambling.
Quote: SOOPOOI’m getting my check to the Wiz ready.. link to original post
At least I'll win one bet.
RCP betting odds currently are that Trump has 96% probability to win the presidency.
Quote: gordonm888Republicans win Senate.
RCP betting odds currently are that Trump has 96% probability to win the presidency.
link to original post
Sigh
Stock futures are up 😉
Cummins up almost 9% today
The only thing I care more about then the Presidency is my money lol
If Trump wins, hope he can keep the market chugging along
Quote: FinsRuleBrutal results. Pretty much gave back everything from 4 years ago. Polls were bad.
link to original post
Polls were the bad the same in 2016 and 2020. The key is the RCP was off. To believe polls this year were better you had to believe every poll in the average had fixed their methodology.
Quote: FinsRuleBrutal results. Pretty much gave back everything from 4 years ago. Polls were bad.
link to original post
Looks like Ann Setzer and Lichtman big losers
My only hope is Yogi
Its not over till its over
RCP average was dead on the money in the swing states in 2020 except for Wisconsin. NV 0% points off. PA 0% points off. AZ 0.6% points off. GA 0.8% points off. NC 1.1% points off.Quote: AZDuffmanQuote: FinsRuleBrutal results. Pretty much gave back everything from 4 years ago. Polls were bad.
link to original post
Polls were the bad the same in 2016 and 2020. The key is the RCP was off. To believe polls this year were better you had to believe every poll in the average had fixed their methodology.
link to original post
Quote: MichaelBluejayRCP average was dead on the money in the swing states in 2020 except for Wisconsin. NV 0% points off. PA 0% points off. AZ 0.6% points off. GA 0.8% points off. NC 1.1% points off.Quote: AZDuffmanQuote: FinsRuleBrutal results. Pretty much gave back everything from 4 years ago. Polls were bad.
link to original post
Polls were the bad the same in 2016 and 2020. The key is the RCP was off. To believe polls this year were better you had to believe every poll in the average had fixed their methodology.
link to original post
link to original post
I don't think the "parts of it were excellent" defense is going to work. There is a serious and longstanding bias in favour of centrist candidates not only in this election, but in most US and global elections since 2000. It is very obvious if you look at the numbers over time. They simply are not polling people on the fringes because those people do not participate in surveys.
Oh come on. THE SWING STATES DECIDE THE ELECTION! Duh.Quote: Archvaldor1Quote: MichaelBluejayRCP average was dead on the money in the swing states in 2020 except for Wisconsin. NV 0% points off. PA 0% points off. AZ 0.6% points off. GA 0.8% points off. NC 1.1% points off.Quote: AZDuffmanQuote: FinsRuleBrutal results. Pretty much gave back everything from 4 years ago. Polls were bad.
link to original post
Polls were the bad the same in 2016 and 2020. The key is the RCP was off. To believe polls this year were better you had to believe every poll in the average had fixed their methodology.
link to original post
link to original post
I don't think the "parts of it were excellent" defense is going to work...
link to original post
And it's not a defense, it's a statement of fact. Someone says "Polls were off in 2020!" I showed that, WHERE THEY MATTERED, the polls were generally spot on. And then you come along with this B.S. Please. According to you, "they were not polling people on the fringes", and yet somehow they hit a near bulls-eye in almost every state that decided the election.
I am sure for the sake of argument you can find specific polls which were close to accurate. This does not mean polling is accurate generally.
Quote: MichaelBluejay
And it's not a defense, it's a statement of fact. Someone says "Polls were off in 2020!" I showed that, WHERE THEY MATTERED, the polls were generally spot on. And then you come along with this B.S. Please. According to you, "they were not polling people on the fringes", and yet somehow they hit a near bulls-eye in almost every state that decided the election.
link to original post
But that becomes a lot less relevant when we're betting (trying to keep this about betting). Because we're betting on a lot more than the general winner of the election, the equivalent of prop bets. We're looking for popular vote margins, individual state margins, exact total of electoral votes etc.
My overarching objection to polling is it claims to be science but it isn't. To be science something must be testable, and only the last poll an outfit takes is ever tested. But people were betting months ago based on polls that could have been total BS and we would have no way to know.
When the polls are off it is almost always because they aren't picking up the outlier voters. They could adjust for that by more representative sampling and/or statistical adjustment-they don't because they are very bad at what they do.
Quote: Archvaldor1Quote: MichaelBluejayRCP average was dead on the money in the swing states in 2020 except for Wisconsin. NV 0% points off. PA 0% points off. AZ 0.6% points off. GA 0.8% points off. NC 1.1% points off.Quote: AZDuffmanQuote: FinsRuleBrutal results. Pretty much gave back everything from 4 years ago. Polls were bad.
link to original post
Polls were the bad the same in 2016 and 2020. The key is the RCP was off. To believe polls this year were better you had to believe every poll in the average had fixed their methodology.
link to original post
link to original post
I don't think the "parts of it were excellent" defense is going to work. There is a serious and longstanding bias in favour of centrist candidates not only in this election, but in most US and global elections since 2000. It is very obvious if you look at the numbers over time. They simply are not polling people on the fringes because those people do not participate in surveys.
link to original post
Correct, that is what I am talking about. The reasons could be many, but the polls shorted Trump for the third time. I am still looking at things, but Rasmussen seems to be the pooll that had it right the soonest, a week or so out. Just going by what I remember seeing the last week of watching various predictions. A couple indie YT guys I watched seem to have nailed it almost perfect while the big boys missed.
And just because one or two may have gotten it right, doesn’t necessarily mean they are better. There’s not enough sample, they could have just gotten lucky.
Polling is broken.
Quote: FinsRuleThe national popular vote was not within the margin of error. If that can’t even be right, the polls are useless.
And just because one or two may have gotten it right, doesn’t necessarily mean they are better. There’s not enough sample, they could have just gotten lucky.
Polling is broken.
link to original post
I think in some cases the polling was intentionally misleading to try and influence the voters
Quote: HunterhillQuote: FinsRuleThe national popular vote was not within the margin of error. If that can’t even be right, the polls are useless.
And just because one or two may have gotten it right, doesn’t necessarily mean they are better. There’s not enough sample, they could have just gotten lucky.
Polling is broken.
link to original post
I think in some cases the polling was intentionally misleading to try and influence the voters
link to original post
They have been for some time, Pre-1990s you heard the Gallup poll on the 3 channels and 1-2 local newspapers and that was that. Then you got more news sources who needed to report more things. Polling got easier even if accuracy was not as high. Polls were made to make news, not report it.
An answer may be a polling firm might need to do it Nielsen style. Get a big enough sample, screen them well, and have them report weekly. Calling on the phone is not working anymore and will get even worse.
Quote: HunterhillI think in some cases the polling was intentionally misleading to try and influence the voters
link to original post
Quote: AZDuffmanPolls were made to make news, not report it.
link to original post
That is not only a political statement, but an unsophisticated one.
The business of the polls is to get it right. To believe otherwise is to buy into ridiculous conspiracy theories, such as that casinos rig shuffling machines.
I get polls all the time via my businesses, and try to answer them accurately if I decide to take the time to answer at all. Also every time we buy a brand new car, new appliance, hell lately whenever I or one of the contractors who works for me buys something from Lowe's or Home Depot I get a survey.
Feedback given after buying or selling something on any online marketplace such as Ebay, Amazon, OfferUp, all of that is like a survey too.
Quote: MDawgQuote: AZDuffmanPolls were made to make news, not report it.
link to original post
That is not only a political statement, but an unsophisticated one.
The business of the polls is to get it right. To believe otherwise is to buy into ridiculous conspiracy theories, such as that casinos rig shuffling machines.
I get polls all the time via my businesses, and try to answer them accurately if I decide to take the time to answer at all. Also every time we buy a brand new car, new appliance, hell lately whenever I or one of the contractors who work for me buys something from Lowe's or Home Depot I get a survey.
Feedback given after buying or selling something on any online marketplace such as Ebay, Amazon, OfferUp, all of that is like a survey too.
link to original post
Political? How? I did not say anything for any side.
People do not try to answer polls accurately. Some do, but many are so tired of them they do not. Do you answer the polls YouTube asks before your video? Last time I bought a car the salesman said that I needed to answer "5" to every question as anything but the best was a fail. Even if he was lying I answered that way to help him out.
Do you honestly believe that last outlier Iowa poll was made to be accurate vs. push an agenda?
Polls have been making news for years now. Product of our times. Both sides have to deal with it.
Quote: FinsRuleThe national popular vote was not within the margin of error. If that can’t even be right, the polls are useless.
And just because one or two may have gotten it right, doesn’t necessarily mean they are better. There’s not enough sample, they could have just gotten lucky.
Polling is broken.
link to original post
Polling is broken for any number of reasons. Traditional techniques no longer work, as Americans no longer have landlines and are evidently willing to lie when surveyed; seven months of working to eliminate biases resulted in projections that were even farther off than the traditional ones.
Quote: MDawgQuote: HunterhillI think in some cases the polling was intentionally misleading to try and influence the voters
link to original postQuote: AZDuffmanPolls were made to make news, not report it.
link to original post
That is not only a political statement, but an unsophisticated one.
The business of the polls is to get it right. To believe otherwise is to buy into ridiculous conspiracy theories, such as that casinos rig shuffling machines.
I get polls all the time via my businesses, and try to answer them accurately if I decide to take the time to answer at all. Also every time we buy a brand new car, new appliance, hell lately whenever I or one of the contractors who works for me buys something from Lowe's or Home Depot I get a survey.
Feedback given after buying or selling something on any online marketplace such as Ebay, Amazon, OfferUp, all of that is like a survey too.
link to original post
People might answer honestly but if the polls deliberately target a specific audience to achieve the desired result then the poll is flawed, and if you don’t think that happens.
Quote: MDawg
The business of the polls is to get it right. To believe otherwise is to buy into ridiculous conspiracy theories, such as that casinos rig shuffling machines.
The business of polling companies is to make money. They must make money to stay in business. This is not directly aligned to "being right".
If a pollster provides attention-grabbing polls to a media outlet, then the media outlet will make more money. Often these are outliers. The media outlet doesn't care-they are making money. They want social engagement not accuracy. This is one source of bias, there are others. There have been situations for example where a pollster simply suppressed a poll because they couldn't believe their own data due to personal prejudice. And then there is the herding effect Silver recently alluded to.
Essentially the issue is that incentives or risk-aversion can skew polls one way or another.
I wouldn't rule out the notion of polling companies trying to manipulate the electorate but frankly, if that ever has occurred, it was a waste of time. The electorate don't pay that much attention to polls. Unless there was a cartel involved it would be one company in a sea of polls and any manipulative effect would be minimal..
I figure this is the end of this thread anyway.
Quote: FinsRuleThe national popular vote was not within the margin of error. If that can’t even be right, the polls are useless.
Yes and in 2020 also. Also in the recent UK election. The odds of that happening by chance alone are very low.
In every case this happens the party most perceived to be centrist is over-represented in the polling.
Quote: rxwineHas anyone ever changed their mind because of a poll number showing their candidate up or down? If that's really common I can see why a poll would attempt to manipulate, but I have big doubts that really happens, so why not try to be accurate?
I figure this is the end of this thread anyway.
link to original post
It's about the marginal votes. People want to be behind the winner, maybe 1 in 200 do change like this. Or more important, if one side is ahead then people on the losing side might stay home. I thought of staying home in 2008. Again, get enough of that and the poll might become reality.
Quote: AZDuffmanQuote: rxwineHas anyone ever changed their mind because of a poll number showing their candidate up or down? If that's really common I can see why a poll would attempt to manipulate, but I have big doubts that really happens, so why not try to be accurate?
I figure this is the end of this thread anyway.
link to original post
It's about the marginal votes. People want to be behind the winner, maybe 1 in 200 do change like this. Or more important, if one side is ahead then people on the losing side might stay home. I thought of staying home in 2008. Again, get enough of that and the poll might become reality.
link to original post
Yes, I can see that, but to counter, I think someone on the inside might also expose the fraud at some point. A pollster could lose whatever credibility once that happens.
Quote: AZDuffmanQuote: rxwineHas anyone ever changed their mind because of a poll number showing their candidate up or down? If that's really common I can see why a poll would attempt to manipulate, but I have big doubts that really happens, so why not try to be accurate?
I figure this is the end of this thread anyway.
link to original post
It's about the marginal votes. People want to be behind the winner, maybe 1 in 200 do change like this. Or more important, if one side is ahead then people on the losing side might stay home. I thought of staying home in 2008. Again, get enough of that and the poll might become reality.
link to original post
Yes, I can see that, but to counter, I think someone on the inside might also expose the fraud at some point. A pollster could lose whatever credibility they have once that happens.
Quote:In 1936, his new organization achieved national recognition by correctly predicting, from the replies of only 50,000 respondents, that Franklin Roosevelt would defeat Alf Landon in the U.S. Presidential election. This was in direct contradiction to the widely-respected Literary Digest magazine whose poll based on over two million returned questionnaires predicted that Landon would be the winner. Not only did Gallup get the election right, he correctly predicted the results of the Literary Digest poll, as well as using a random sample smaller than theirs but chosen to match it.
Twelve years later, his organization had its moment of greatest ignominy, when it predicted that Thomas Dewey would defeat Harry S. Truman in the 1948 election, by between 5% and 15%; Truman won the election by 4.5%. Gallup believed the error was mostly due to his decision to end polling three weeks before Election Day, thus failing to account for Truman's comeback.
Quote: rxwineHas anyone ever changed their mind because of a poll number showing their candidate up or down? If that's really common I can see why a poll would attempt to manipulate, but I have big doubts that really happens, so why not try to be accurate?
I figure this is the end of this thread anyway.
link to original post
There was an election in Ontario in 1990 when. according to legend, after polling showed a massive lead for the ruling liberal party, their support collapsed. The theory was that the polls made liberals think there was no need to bother to vote. This may actually just be a legend-their could be other explanations.
However just from personal experience I tend to think it just common sense that you would be less likely to vote if you think your favored party is going to win anyway.
So if you wanted to manipulate an election showing a massive lead for the party you want to do poorly may have some impact. But we don't have any hard proof.
Quote: rxwineQuote: AZDuffmanQuote: rxwineHas anyone ever changed their mind because of a poll number showing their candidate up or down? If that's really common I can see why a poll would attempt to manipulate, but I have big doubts that really happens, so why not try to be accurate?
I figure this is the end of this thread anyway.
link to original post
It's about the marginal votes. People want to be behind the winner, maybe 1 in 200 do change like this. Or more important, if one side is ahead then people on the losing side might stay home. I thought of staying home in 2008. Again, get enough of that and the poll might become reality.
link to original post
Yes, I can see that, but to counter, I think someone on the inside might also expose the fraud at some point. A pollster could lose whatever credibility they have once that happens.
link to original post
They lose credibility by putting out bad polls. That IA outlier that came out over the weekend, next election they do that do you think it will not be mentioned how bad they did before?
Quote: AZDuffman
They lose credibility by putting out bad polls. That IA outlier that came out over the weekend, next election they do that do you think it will not be mentioned how bad they did before?
It should be recognized that there is very little comeback in modern media for putting out inaccurate information.
All that matters is how many people view an article which determines how much money it makes. Objective reporting is something that only really works in financial journalism and other sectors where the truth really matters like the military. Mass circulation media is about the number of eyes watching: that is all.
Quote: Archvaldor1Quote: AZDuffman
They lose credibility by putting out bad polls. That IA outlier that came out over the weekend, next election they do that do you think it will not be mentioned how bad they did before?
It should be recognized that there is very little comeback in modern media for putting out inaccurate information.
That depends a bit. They do lose viewers. "60 Minutes" has had issues in 2 elections now, 2004 and 2024. Do you think this does not affect people watching other stories?
Quote: AZDuffmanQuote: Archvaldor1Quote: AZDuffman
They lose credibility by putting out bad polls. That IA outlier that came out over the weekend, next election they do that do you think it will not be mentioned how bad they did before?
It should be recognized that there is very little comeback in modern media for putting out inaccurate information.
That depends a bit. They do lose viewers. "60 Minutes" has had issues in 2 elections now, 2004 and 2024. Do you think this does not affect people watching other stories?
link to original post
I said "little" rather than zero. So factual programming designed for an audience interested in the truth will be impacted if it fails to deliver on its purpose. But that is a very niche audience-always has been to some extent but arguably much more so now.
When it comes to newspapers or TV stations generally it is more about attention. The Iowa poll is an excellent piece of marketing even if it told us nothing about the election. Harris voters would have been desperate for info showing their candidate stood a chance. Trump voters would be alarmed at the prospect of a late surge for the Democrats and would feel the need to be informed. The truth is not important. I doubt any one will remember.
For over 40 years I have been aware of a centrist bias in opinion polls, no one seems to remember it exists or even bothers to look it up online.
Quote: MDawgQuote: HunterhillI think in some cases the polling was intentionally misleading to try and influence the voters
link to original postQuote: AZDuffmanPolls were made to make news, not report it.
link to original post
That is not only a political statement, but an unsophisticated one.
The business of the polls is to get it right. To believe otherwise is to buy into ridiculous conspiracy theories, such as that casinos rig shuffling machines.
I get polls all the time via my businesses, and try to answer them accurately if I decide to take the time to answer at all. Also every time we buy a brand new car, new appliance, hell lately whenever I or one of the contractors who works for me buys something from Lowe's or Home Depot I get a survey.
Feedback given after buying or selling something on any online marketplace such as Ebay, Amazon, OfferUp, all of that is like a survey too.
link to original post
No, the business of polls is the same as any other business: to make money. Let me explain how easy it would be to make money as a corrupt pollster.
Suppose you want to run for office. You can pay Monkey Opinion Research Of Nevada to start off your campaign in April. Then I publish a poll that says "Mdawg 61%, FatCat 39%. (1535 LV, MoE +/- 1.5%) More detailed polling found that among men over 6' and women weighing less then 130 pounds, Mdawg is preferred by 66% to 34%."
Congratulations, you are now "a thing!" People see this and want to be on the winning side, so they start sending you campaign contributions. Your party endorses you without a primary because no one else they have is polling as high. Journalists write fawning articles about you because they want to make sure they are among your favorites who have direct access to you after your coronation. Around the water cooler, nobody wants anyone to think they're one of those short, fat weirdos who prefer FatCat so they sing your praises. And you can cite the respected Monkey poll in all of your campaign and fundraising communications.
Now I'm watching the other pollsters and assuming they are not as corrupt and sleazy as me (because no one really is!) and every week when I publish this "scientific poll" I totally pulled out of my hindquarters, you're still in the lead but I'm nudging the numbers more towards the average of the other pollsters. And I make sure that on my final poll, the weekend before the election, I'm somewhere between two other established polls, let's say between Gallup and Rasmussen, or between Marist and Quinnipiac. So no matter how it ends up or how much garbage I made up all year, some established, professional pollster did worse in their final results.
Explain to me how anyone using the published data could prove I'm the fraud and not any of the other polling companies, if I did exactly as I described here.
Quote: rxwineHas anyone ever changed their mind because of a poll number showing their candidate up or down? If that's really common I can see why a poll would attempt to manipulate, but I have big doubts that really happens, so why not try to be accurate?
I figure this is the end of this thread anyway.
link to original post
Not sure if it has changed a vote, but DEFINITELY could influence turnout. I certainly have heard ‘I live in NY so why waste my time to vote for (name any Republican) for President. The same can be said for a Democrat. ‘He is an easy winner so my vote is meaningless’.
Time for my ‘crow’ dinner. I am beyond stunned Trump won the popular vote. In what can be characterized as a blowout. I think he’s up around FIVE MILLION votes. SOOPOO’s line the day before Election Day would have been 2.5 million with Harris as a favorite.
Agree with most herein the uselessness of the polls nowadays. Just too many obstacles to accuracy, and that’s even assuming their goal is to be accurate!
The Selzer poll in Iowa was the nail in the coffin. How about ALL the polls for the national popular vote?
Quote: SOOPOO
Time for my ‘crow’ dinner. I am beyond stunned Trump won the popular vote. In what can be characterized as a blowout. I think he’s up around FIVE MILLION votes. SOOPOO’s line the day before Election Day would have been 2.5 million with Harris as a favorite.
If it makes you feel any better I did not take your action because I thought the margin in CA would give Kamala a very slight edge. It's her home state. I did think Trump would have a large margin in the other 49 states but I was not sure enough.
A YT channel or two I was watching the last month or so making electoral maps appears to have nailed the states exactly. They did occasionally give some "stretch" states but never said they would fall.
In 2020
158,429,631 people voted
Trump 74.2 million votes
Biden 81 million votes
In 2024 (so far, as counted)
140,633,770 people voted
Trump 72.1 million votes
Harris 67.3 million votes
So it was a simple matter of too many people stayed home and said F.it. And given that there are more potentially eligible voters in 2024 than 2020, it's even worse than it looks, as far as potentially eligible voters not voting.
In short, if the voting numbers had been the same or better in 2024, than 2020, Trump would have been toast.
I think what it came down to is a lot of people were so turned off by both candidates that they simply did not vote - and mostly people who last time around voted for Biden.
Quote: SOOPOOI am beyond stunned Trump won the popular vote.
I wouldn't beat yourself up about it since that seemed to surprise most of the media and a good many advantage players I would have thought would know how to play this.
That said I don't really understand why this proved so difficult for people to get. You didn't have to do anything clever. If you take the RCP average subtract the pro-trump bias in the last two elections from this one you get the exact result. This works in most elections. In this literally accurate to tenths of per cent.
Quote: SOOPOOQuote: rxwineHas anyone ever changed their mind because of a poll number showing their candidate up or down? If that's really common I can see why a poll would attempt to manipulate, but I have big doubts that really happens, so why not try to be accurate?
I figure this is the end of this thread anyway.
link to original post
Not sure if it has changed a vote, but DEFINITELY could influence turnout. I certainly have heard ‘I live in NY so why waste my time to vote for (name any Republican) for President. The same can be said for a Democrat. ‘He is an easy winner so my vote is meaningless’.
Time for my ‘crow’ dinner. I am beyond stunned Trump won the popular vote. In what can be characterized as a blowout. I think he’s up around FIVE MILLION votes. SOOPOO’s line the day before Election Day would have been 2.5 million with Harris as a favorite.
Agree with most herein the uselessness of the polls nowadays. Just too many obstacles to accuracy, and that’s even assuming their goal is to be accurate!
The Selzer poll in Iowa was the nail in the coffin. How about ALL the polls for the national popular vote?
link to original post
Polls affect fundraising. In 2012, a local businesswoman ran against Peter King for his House seat. Redistricting had pushed his district further west into Democratic towns. Early polls showed it a tossup, and money poured in from out of state. Then Newsday released a poll showing she trailed by thirty points. Money dried up almost instantly.
I had similar results in 1980. John Anderson polled at 21% in one poll and money flowed in. A few weeks later, a poll showed him at eight percent and the moneytrain stalled.
Quote: MDawgThis is all there is to it, or at least one solid way of looking at it. Versus some of the oddball hypotheses espoused above.
In 2020
158,429,631 people voted
Trump 74.2 million votes
Biden 81 million votes
In 2024 (so far, as counted)
140,633,770 people voted
Trump 72.1 million votes
Harris 67.3 million votes
So it was a simple matter of too many people stayed home and said F.it. And given that there are more potentially eligible voters in 2024 than 2020, it's even worse than it looks, as far as potentially eligible voters not voting.
In short, if the voting numbers had been the same or better in 2024, than 2020, Trump would have been toast.
I think what it came down to is a lot of people were so turned off by both candidates that they simply did not vote - and mostly people who last time around voted for Biden.
link to original post
WTF
Total votes are far from being totally tabulated
Take California
They have only counted 58% of the votes as of 703pm EST today. AZ 65% counted. Washington 66%. OR 73%. CO 80%. NJ 91%
Quote: rxwineHas anyone ever changed their mind because of a poll number showing their candidate up or down? If that's really common I can see why a poll would attempt to manipulate, but I have big doubts that really happens, so why not try to be accurate?
I figure this is the end of this thread anyway.
link to original post
I think people may or may not vote depending on the polls. If one thinks their candidate is going to win they may not bother voting.
Quote: AZDuffmanPoll wise I was just watching the review of the Rasmussen numbers. They really nailed it right. As did most betting numbers. Something to remember in 2028.
link to original post
Betting numbers for the time leading right up to the election showed Trump as a slight favorite. Not the electoral rout we saw. I mean, who would have thought Trump would win enough of the swing states by so much that we wouldn’t be hearing ‘recount’.
Trump will be gone in 2028. No way to generalize for the next two unnamed candidates.
Quote: AZDuffmanPoll wise I was just watching the review of the Rasmussen numbers. They really nailed it right. As did most betting numbers. Something to remember in 2028.
link to original post
What question were they answering? Best overall this year or best over time (over number of years).
