Election Betting
November 7th, 2024 at 4:51:50 AM
permalink
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/
Sanitized for Your Protection
November 7th, 2024 at 9:16:05 AM
permalink
Quote: SOOPOOQuote: 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.
link to original post
Rasmussen and a YT channel or two I was watching picked it right on the money. For weeks it was being pointed out that if Kamala was not up by at least 4 she was behind. Th betting markets were heavy Trump for weeks. Kamala to win big was the worst line since Superbowl III.
There was even more he double problem of black candidates generally polling high and Trump polling low.
I agree some of the rout was not predictable. I saw one report that she lost votes compared to Biden in literally every county in the country. One has to ask how polls missed all the signs.
Signing off now as I am already in danger of a political post time out.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
November 7th, 2024 at 10:23:37 AM
permalink
"Rasmussen and a YT channel or two I was watching picked it right on the money."
Thanks but I was a whopping 0.2% off:
youtube.com/watch?v=HvjrwwJzL0I
Thanks but I was a whopping 0.2% off:
youtube.com/watch?v=HvjrwwJzL0I
November 7th, 2024 at 12:35:06 PM
permalink
Quote: AZDuffman
{snip}
I agree some of the rout was not predictable. I saw one report that she lost votes compared to Biden in literally every county in the country. One has to ask how polls missed all the signs.
Signing off now as I am already in danger of a political post time out.
link to original post
Here's what happened -the CNN analyst (King) generated a nationwide map for Jake Tapper of all the counties where Trump had improved by at least 3% over his 2020 vote percentages. The computer found there were about 1,100 counties that met that criteria and the digital map was lit up like a christmas tree. Then, in real time, the CNN analyst showed Jake Tapper a nationwide map of all the counties (in the nation) in which Kamala Harris had improved over Joe Biden 's 2020 results by at least 3%. It was blank - not a single county. Tapper was stunned. However when they lowered the criteria to Harris improving over Joe Biden's 2020 results by at least 1% there were 58 counties that popped up. (in 50 states!) So, there were some counties in which she had a tiny improvement. But it was indeed an unforgettable TV moment.
So many better men, a few of them friends, are dead. And a thousand thousand slimy things live on, and so do I.
November 7th, 2024 at 12:47:47 PM
permalink
Let’s all give credit where credit is due
One WoV member consistently and unequivocally called this election correctly! Congratulations, SOOPOO! (Actually NOT)
(Oops, I meant…).
CONGRATULATIONS EVENBOB!!!!!!!
EB interpreted the pre actual voting polls SPOT ON.
I gave scorn to anyone who thought Trump would win the popular vote. Crow casserole for me!
One WoV member consistently and unequivocally called this election correctly! Congratulations, SOOPOO! (Actually NOT)
(Oops, I meant…).
CONGRATULATIONS EVENBOB!!!!!!!
EB interpreted the pre actual voting polls SPOT ON.
I gave scorn to anyone who thought Trump would win the popular vote. Crow casserole for me!
November 7th, 2024 at 12:48:18 PM
permalink
Quote: gordonm888Quote: AZDuffman
{snip}
I agree some of the rout was not predictable. I saw one report that she lost votes compared to Biden in literally every county in the country. One has to ask how polls missed all the signs.
Signing off now as I am already in danger of a political post time out.
link to original post
Here's what happened -the CNN analyst (King) generated a nationwide map for Jake Tapper of all the counties where Trump had improved by at least 3% over his 2020 vote percentages. The computer found there were about 1,100 counties that met that criteria and the digital map was lit up like a christmas tree. Then, in real time, the CNN analyst showed Jake Tapper a nationwide map of all the counties (in the nation) in which Kamala Harris had improved over Joe Biden 's 2020 results by at least 3%. It was blank - not a single county. Tapper was stunned. However when they lowered the criteria to Harris improving over Joe Biden's 2020 results by at least 1% there were 58 counties that popped up. (in 50 states!) So, there were some counties in which she had a tiny improvement. But it was indeed an unforgettable TV moment.
link to original post
I only saw the highlight so I'll go with what you say. Did CNN know that was going to happen I wonder?
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
November 7th, 2024 at 1:15:55 PM
permalink
Just saw the Atlas Intel poll got MI *exactly* right for both candidates. WOW!
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
November 9th, 2024 at 5:37:39 AM
permalink
What's the over under on how long Suzie Wiles lasts as Chief of Staff
What are the odds RFK jr or Musk gets a cabinet post
What are the odds RFK jr or Musk gets a cabinet post
When somebody doesn't believe me, I could care less. Some get totally bent out of shape when not believed. Weird. I believe very little on all forums
November 9th, 2024 at 6:11:18 AM
permalink
Quote: AZDuffmanQuote: gordonm888Quote: AZDuffman
{snip}
I agree some of the rout was not predictable. I saw one report that she lost votes compared to Biden in literally every county in the country. One has to ask how polls missed all the signs.
Signing off now as I am already in danger of a political post time out.
link to original post
Here's what happened -the CNN analyst (King) generated a nationwide map for Jake Tapper of all the counties where Trump had improved by at least 3% over his 2020 vote percentages. The computer found there were about 1,100 counties that met that criteria and the digital map was lit up like a christmas tree. Then, in real time, the CNN analyst showed Jake Tapper a nationwide map of all the counties (in the nation) in which Kamala Harris had improved over Joe Biden 's 2020 results by at least 3%. It was blank - not a single county. Tapper was stunned. However when they lowered the criteria to Harris improving over Joe Biden's 2020 results by at least 1% there were 58 counties that popped up. (in 50 states!) So, there were some counties in which she had a tiny improvement. But it was indeed an unforgettable TV moment.
link to original post
I only saw the highlight so I'll go with what you say. Did CNN know that was going to happen I wonder?
link to original post
No, both Jeff King and Jake Tapper were surprised. I’m pretty sure it was one of those moments when, in response to a Tapper question, King did a data search he had not previously tried. King said something like “ let’s wait for this input screen to disappear so we can see if there’s any counties on the East Coast. …… whoops, no. “. Tapper said something the equivalent of “ Holy s$&t! There’s no counties anywhere.”
So many better men, a few of them friends, are dead. And a thousand thousand slimy things live on, and so do I.
November 9th, 2024 at 8:54:06 AM
permalink
Quote: gordonm888Quote: AZDuffmanQuote: gordonm888Quote: AZDuffman
{snip}
I agree some of the rout was not predictable. I saw one report that she lost votes compared to Biden in literally every county in the country. One has to ask how polls missed all the signs.
Signing off now as I am already in danger of a political post time out.
link to original post
Here's what happened -the CNN analyst (King) generated a nationwide map for Jake Tapper of all the counties where Trump had improved by at least 3% over his 2020 vote percentages. The computer found there were about 1,100 counties that met that criteria and the digital map was lit up like a christmas tree. Then, in real time, the CNN analyst showed Jake Tapper a nationwide map of all the counties (in the nation) in which Kamala Harris had improved over Joe Biden 's 2020 results by at least 3%. It was blank - not a single county. Tapper was stunned. However when they lowered the criteria to Harris improving over Joe Biden's 2020 results by at least 1% there were 58 counties that popped up. (in 50 states!) So, there were some counties in which she had a tiny improvement. But it was indeed an unforgettable TV moment.
link to original post
I only saw the highlight so I'll go with what you say. Did CNN know that was going to happen I wonder?
link to original post
No, both Jeff King and Jake Tapper were surprised. I’m pretty sure it was one of those moments when, in response to a Tapper question, King did a data search he had not previously tried. King said something like “ let’s wait for this input screen to disappear so we can see if there’s any counties on the East Coast. …… whoops, no. “. Tapper said something the equivalent of “ Holy s$&t! There’s no counties anywhere.”
link to original post
That be the highlight I was thinking of. I’m amazed they did not get it first.
This election gets more and more interesting. If you look at the numbers NJ, MN, and a few others could almost be swing states next time around. CA while not a swing state might not be as reliable as it has been soon. FL and TX might now be the “GOPs California.”
Podcasts came into their own and in 2028 we might see the old media having to compete with them for time. In the primaries the smart candidates are as we speak lining them up for a 2026 tour to get attention.
May you live in interesting times!
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
November 9th, 2024 at 9:58:50 AM
permalink
Quote: AZDuffman
Podcasts came into their own and in 2028 we might see the old media having to compete with them for time. In the primaries the smart candidates are as we speak lining them up for a 2026 tour to get attention.
I think you are a bit behind the times there. The old tv networks are not remotely competitive with the top podcasts right now, let alone in 2028. Joe Rogan's Trump podcast had the same numbers watching as the rough advertising equivalent of an hour day on every major TV news network for a week.
That said claims that Rogan swung the election for Trump don't really add up. Trump polled the same number of votes he did last time. He won because people didn't vote for Harris. Most of Rogan's audience would have voted Trump anyway.
November 9th, 2024 at 10:50:54 AM
permalink
Quote: Archvaldor1Quote: AZDuffman
Podcasts came into their own and in 2028 we might see the old media having to compete with them for time. In the primaries the smart candidates are as we speak lining them up for a 2026 tour to get attention.
I think you are a bit behind the times there. The old tv networks are not remotely competitive with the top podcasts right now, let alone in 2028. Joe Rogan's Trump podcast had the same numbers watching as the rough advertising equivalent of an hour day on every major TV news network for a week.
That said claims that Rogan swung the election for Trump don't really add up. Trump polled the same number of votes he did last time. He won because people didn't vote for Harris. Most of Rogan's audience would have voted Trump anyway.
link to original post
Competitive isn’t the question. People noticing and pols using is. And I’m talking more about the primary process. Yes Vance is likely to bypass CBS in 2028 in favor of Rogan and that will only move the needle a little. I’m talking about even late 2026 when campaigning is barely started and lesser candidates need to break out.
One of the reasons Trump got the nomination in a crowded 2020 field is he took almost any interview on any channel. No such thing as bad publicity. It got people looking at him. Jen and Walker couldn’t catch but maybe could have if they got out there more.
I listen to an indie podcast who really does not do politics much. But when he does and I listen I’m listening close. Enough people do that you can go second tier to first without needing the media or kissing the ring of your party kingmaker.
That imho is how it happens in the future.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
November 9th, 2024 at 12:07:58 PM
permalink
A Harvard group put out an interesting article about using AI for polling. If you're a pollster tired of nobody answering your calls and then lying to you when they do, why not replace the pesky humans with what's called AI agents?
Using history, election results and news stories, these agents can be programmed to represent the various factions of the electorate. They may then be polled as often as you like. You could even fine tune, such as asking if candidate A polls better with running mate X or Y. Or, perhaps, if spending $100 million on a project is unacceptable, how about only $50 million?
Does it work? Well, using a prototype the writers found that it did a pretty good job of representing the population, perhaps as good as human analysts. It did, however, like Google images, have issues. For example, when asked about the war in Ukraine, conservative agents were in favor of it while liberal agents opposed the conflict. This is because the prototype was programmed before the Russian invasion and the politics has changed.
So "garbage in, garbage out" is an issue, but the same could be said for traditional polling methods. Future versions will be continuously updated.
Is this a good thing? Does it matter? AI is here and it's not going away.
Full story at Harvard Ash Center
Using history, election results and news stories, these agents can be programmed to represent the various factions of the electorate. They may then be polled as often as you like. You could even fine tune, such as asking if candidate A polls better with running mate X or Y. Or, perhaps, if spending $100 million on a project is unacceptable, how about only $50 million?
Does it work? Well, using a prototype the writers found that it did a pretty good job of representing the population, perhaps as good as human analysts. It did, however, like Google images, have issues. For example, when asked about the war in Ukraine, conservative agents were in favor of it while liberal agents opposed the conflict. This is because the prototype was programmed before the Russian invasion and the politics has changed.
So "garbage in, garbage out" is an issue, but the same could be said for traditional polling methods. Future versions will be continuously updated.
Is this a good thing? Does it matter? AI is here and it's not going away.
Full story at Harvard Ash Center
Have you tried 22 tonight? I said 22.
November 9th, 2024 at 1:28:37 PM
permalink
Quote: AZDuffman
Competitive isn’t the question. People noticing and pols using is. And I’m talking more about the primary process. Yes Vance is likely to bypass CBS in 2028 in favor of Rogan and that will only move the needle a little. I’m talking about even late 2026 when campaigning is barely started and lesser candidates need to break out.
One of the reasons Trump got the nomination in a crowded 2020 field is he took almost any interview on any channel. No such thing as bad publicity. It got people looking at him. Jen and Walker couldn’t catch but maybe could have if they got out there more.
I listen to an indie podcast who really does not do politics much. But when he does and I listen I’m listening close. Enough people do that you can go second tier to first without needing the media or kissing the ring of your party kingmaker.
That imho is how it happens in the future.
link to original post
Reminds me that in the days before television newspapers used to elect presidents. They were either in the tank for a certain candidate or they had a reporter who had a daily column that was equivalent to the podcast of today and he would sway a huge number of voters.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
November 9th, 2024 at 1:46:26 PM
permalink
Quote: GialmereA Harvard group put out an interesting article about using AI for polling. If you're a pollster tired of nobody answering your calls and then lying to you when they do, why not replace the pesky humans with what's called AI agents?
Using history, election results and news stories, these agents can be programmed to represent the various factions of the electorate. They may then be polled as often as you like. You could even fine tune, such as asking if candidate A polls better with running mate X or Y. Or, perhaps, if spending $100 million on a project is unacceptable, how about only $50 million?
Does it work? Well, using a prototype the writers found that it did a pretty good job of representing the population, perhaps as good as human analysts. It did, however, like Google images, have issues. For example, when asked about the war in Ukraine, conservative agents were in favor of it while liberal agents opposed the conflict. This is because the prototype was programmed before the Russian invasion and the politics has changed.
So "garbage in, garbage out" is an issue, but the same could be said for traditional polling methods. Future versions will be continuously updated.
Is this a good thing? Does it matter? AI is here and it's not going away.
Full story at Harvard Ash Center
link to original post
I'm taking a more cynical view, and evermore seeing the polling results as part of a corrupt bargain (possibly tacit, possibly not) between the media, polling outfits, and campaigns. Close polls keep the money flowing to both candidates, and there is likely some data out there correlating the closeness of polls to the total money contributed to the campaigns. These are the roles:
Media: Stoke outrage. ("They're going to turn your kids into..." "The ... are going to take over!" "They are going to ... you and make you be a ...!")
Pollsters: "Oh, it's so close. Closer than we can measure. Yes, YOU make a difference!"
Sheep: "It's so close! We are just that close to the ... taking over and our kids all going ... ! I had better send money to the candidate who won't let that happen! It could make the difference!"
Campaigns: Cash the checks. Pay off the media with access and favorable treatment for those who play ball, and pay the polling agencies for the real data, or just pay them for whatever. They did their job.
Repeat ad nauseam.
If a candidate is way up or way down in the polls sending them money loses its appeal, and absolutely no one donates money to a candidate they are sure is going to lose. Those perceived as winners get plenty of money in exchange for future considerations, but only at the very high (i.e., corporate, billionaire) level and I would confidently hypothesize that total contributions are maximized when both candidates are seen by their supporters as being still in the game.
November 9th, 2024 at 2:26:09 PM
permalink
One thing that really made me angry this year was the major media networks constantly said that the race was super tight. Oh, it's razor thin they said every day, it can go either way. When they knew damn well it wasn't razor thin. They knew that the polsters always under sample Trump and oversample Democrats and the polls all had Trump in the lead by a small amount which meant that he really had a large lead which was obvious after the election was over. They played a game with us. Trump knew he had a big lead because of his internal polling and Harris knew she had a large deficit because of her internal polling. Put the public had no idea what was really going on.
Tulsi Gabbard said something really interesting about a week before the election. She was traveling around the country doing rallies with RFK Jr and she said every time they went to a rally she would ask the crowd how many people were Democrats in 2020 and how many were Democrats now. And she said about 40 to 50% of the crowd would raise their hands which was incredible. 40 to 50% of these people attending the Trump rallies were Democrats switching over to Trump. This was a poll that you never heard about, it was anecdotal but these are often far more accurate than the crappy ones they do over the phone.
Tulsi Gabbard said something really interesting about a week before the election. She was traveling around the country doing rallies with RFK Jr and she said every time they went to a rally she would ask the crowd how many people were Democrats in 2020 and how many were Democrats now. And she said about 40 to 50% of the crowd would raise their hands which was incredible. 40 to 50% of these people attending the Trump rallies were Democrats switching over to Trump. This was a poll that you never heard about, it was anecdotal but these are often far more accurate than the crappy ones they do over the phone.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
November 9th, 2024 at 4:16:17 PM
permalink
Quote: gordonm888Quote: AZDuffmanQuote: gordonm888Quote: AZDuffman
{snip}
I agree some of the rout was not predictable. I saw one report that she lost votes compared to Biden in literally every county in the country. One has to ask how polls missed all the signs.
Signing off now as I am already in danger of a political post time out.
link to original post
Here's what happened -the CNN analyst (King) generated a nationwide map for Jake Tapper of all the counties where Trump had improved by at least 3% over his 2020 vote percentages. The computer found there were about 1,100 counties that met that criteria and the digital map was lit up like a christmas tree. Then, in real time, the CNN analyst showed Jake Tapper a nationwide map of all the counties (in the nation) in which Kamala Harris had improved over Joe Biden 's 2020 results by at least 3%. It was blank - not a single county. Tapper was stunned. However when they lowered the criteria to Harris improving over Joe Biden's 2020 results by at least 1% there were 58 counties that popped up. (in 50 states!) So, there were some counties in which she had a tiny improvement. But it was indeed an unforgettable TV moment.
link to original post
I only saw the highlight so I'll go with what you say. Did CNN know that was going to happen I wonder?
link to original post
No, both Jeff King and Jake Tapper were surprised. I’m pretty sure it was one of those moments when, in response to a Tapper question, King did a data search he had not previously tried. King said something like “ let’s wait for this input screen to disappear so we can see if there’s any counties on the East Coast. …… whoops, no. “. Tapper said something the equivalent of “ Holy s$&t! There’s no counties anywhere.”
link to original post
Sorry for the double reply on this post. Just saw this, interesting number I just saw.
This is the first POTUS election since 1932 for the winner not to lose a county from last time or conversely for the loser to not have flipped at least one county. Now, think about this. That was the depression so of course Hoover was not going to be picking up any counties he lost in 1928. Thus that CNN map thing was really seeing this early.
As to polling this shows how far off the polling had to be. This means that while there might not have been "strong Trump" everywhere, there should not have been "strong Kamala" anywhere. The polls did flip to Trump the last 20 or so days of the election, so did that many people change their mind late? That seems doubtful on its face, but when you take this county thing into account it seems unlikely.
How it all plays in 2028 we will find out in 2028. But no matter what I do predict that 2028 will break the most old rules since 2008 , or maybe since 1960. Anyone who thinks that there was an election between them where things "changed" more lets discuss.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
November 9th, 2024 at 4:33:09 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobOne thing that really made me angry this year was the major media networks constantly said that the race was super tight. Oh, it's razor thin they said every day, it can go either way. When they knew damn well it wasn't razor thin. They knew that the polsters always under sample Trump and oversample Democrats and the polls all had Trump in the lead by a small amount which meant that he really had a large lead which was obvious after the election was over.
I don't think it was that malicious. Bear in mind you could still have Trump at 1.73 on the day of the election. It wouldn't have been that high if some had really known for certain he was going to win. There was a lot of clutching at straws and outliers that suggested dreamy wish-fulfillment.
My analysis which proved very close to accurate in terms of vote share suggested Trump was a strong favorite, but the probability of a win for Harris was still 25%.
That said I do agree that the way media and pollsters alike the way the repeated sampling error was ignored is pretty weird. It didn't take a genius to work it out. Very good thing for advantage gamblers though.
Last edited by: Archvaldor1 on Nov 10, 2024
November 14th, 2024 at 10:24:57 AM
permalink
I wonder what the betting odds on Gaetz being confirmed as AG? I’ve read there are enough Repubs who hate him enough to vote against him, but that puts them as ‘disloyal’ to Trump. I’m still betting against him getting confirmed. Any takers?
November 14th, 2024 at 10:51:13 AM
permalink
I don't think it gets to a vote, and he withdraws his nomination.
The older I get, the better I recall things that never happened
November 14th, 2024 at 10:57:56 AM
permalink
Polymarket has this at yes 30 cents. I've used predictit before, which I thought was being shut down. I'm not familiar with polymarket.
November 14th, 2024 at 11:12:27 AM
permalink
As more information comes in and I talk with other Advantage Players a large majority are telling me they took Harris as they thought it was a good value bet.
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
November 14th, 2024 at 2:28:51 PM
permalink
Quote: AxelWolfAs more information comes in and I talk with other Advantage Players a large majority are telling me they took Harris as they thought it was a good value bet.
link to original post
A 'good value bet', gibberish that gamblers like to use when they lose. I put everything on Trump because I like winning bets. There's only winning, everything else is just the losers chattering among each other.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
November 14th, 2024 at 2:40:43 PM
permalink
PolyMarket raided yesterday by the FBI.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
November 14th, 2024 at 2:50:31 PM
permalink
Comparing 2024 vote totals to 2020:
Trump only got about 1 million more votes in 2024 than in 2020
Democrat's vote total dropped by about 10 million from Biden's 81 M in 2020 to Harris' 71 M in 2024
During last 4 years about 13 million voters died and about 17 million young voters came onto the voter rolls.
Any analysis/comments?
Trump only got about 1 million more votes in 2024 than in 2020
Democrat's vote total dropped by about 10 million from Biden's 81 M in 2020 to Harris' 71 M in 2024
During last 4 years about 13 million voters died and about 17 million young voters came onto the voter rolls.
Any analysis/comments?
So many better men, a few of them friends, are dead. And a thousand thousand slimy things live on, and so do I.
November 14th, 2024 at 3:27:45 PM
permalink
. I thought you were a moderator? Any comment is OF COURSE political. And of little present day relevance to betting.Quote: gordonm888Comparing 2024 vote totals to 2020:
Trump only got about 1 million more votes in 2024 than in 2020
Democrat's vote total dropped by about 10 million from Biden's 81 M in 2020 to Harris' 71 M in 2024
During last 4 years about 13 million voters died and about 17 million young voters came onto the voter rolls.
Any analysis/comments?
link to original post
November 14th, 2024 at 3:30:49 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobI put everything on Trump because I like winning bets.
I thought you didn’t make internet bets like that? How much is ‘everything’? What odds did you get? Did you also bet on the popular vote?
November 14th, 2024 at 3:42:53 PM
permalink
Quote: gordonm888Comparing 2024 vote totals to 2020:
Trump only got about 1 million more votes in 2024 than in 2020
Democrat's vote total dropped by about 10 million from Biden's 81 M in 2020 to Harris' 71 M in 2024
During last 4 years about 13 million voters died and about 17 million young voters came onto the voter rolls.
Any analysis/comments?
link to original post
Something seems wrong with some of the numbers, at first glance. In Arizona, a number of people voted for straight Democratic tickets but left the President blank. Experts are looking into this and other trends, but nothing sinister has been suggested yet. If there are any discrepancies, I'm sure they will be looked at.
The older I get, the better I recall things that never happened
November 14th, 2024 at 3:53:30 PM
permalink
Quote: SOOPOO. I thought you were a moderator? Any comment is OF COURSE political. And of little present day relevance to betting.Quote: gordonm888Comparing 2024 vote totals to 2020:
Trump only got about 1 million more votes in 2024 than in 2020
Democrat's vote total dropped by about 10 million from Biden's 81 M in 2020 to Harris' 71 M in 2024
During last 4 years about 13 million voters died and about 17 million young voters came onto the voter rolls.
Any analysis/comments?
link to original post
link to original post
True, unless the discussion is relevant to betting on future races… It seems clear that voter turnout was a huge factor, either this year or 4 years ago, or both! Of course, any discussion will be a slippery slope to political speech, so maybe if we just watch the level of detail…?
It’s a dog eat dog world.
…Or maybe it’s the other way around!
November 14th, 2024 at 4:06:18 PM
permalink
Quote: gordonm888Comparing 2024 vote totals to 2020:
Trump only got about 1 million more votes in 2024 than in 2020
Democrat's vote total dropped by about 10 million from Biden's 81 M in 2020 to Harris' 71 M in 2024
During last 4 years about 13 million voters died and about 17 million young voters came onto the voter rolls.
Any analysis/comments?
link to original post
Comment is we said back then the numbers seemed off.
But the reason I came over to post. Steve Turley had one of the YTers who predicted the EV perfect on his channel yesterday. The guy made a good point on all the predictions/polls. He said you cannot just poll, you have to *model* the election.
He pointed out that the IA poll showing Kamala in the lead should have been thrown right out. It was just too off what you would model. My analogy would be anyone who has ever had to add up numbers for a business of some sort will sometimes get a number that seems way off. So you add again since you probably made a mistake. But he said you find out with models.
His example was WI tends to vote left of MI which votes left of PA which all vote left of IA. Thus, if Trump was ahead in any of these states how could he be ahead in IA? Then you go county by county. How many GOP registered vs. Democrat registered? What % of each vote and how much do they split tickets or cross over? Then take some polls and see how accurate they themselves were, how do the relate to voting in nearby states like mentioned above?
This all takes a ton more work than a simple phone poll. But these guys were totally correct and they kept the same calls for over a month before. I figure this is what the internals do for the campaigns. He also said this election might be the start of a shift to a GOP era like from 1860-1932 and 1968-1992. Democrats had it 1932-1967, Since 1993 things have not been to any one side never more than 8 straight years one side or the other. He says this is based on modeling.
Maybe we see more of this kind of predicting in 2028.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
November 14th, 2024 at 4:44:12 PM
permalink
I understand what you are saying about throwing outlier polls out. But when you do that, then it turns into what the polls this cycle were (besides the IA one), all polls saying almost the same thing because no one wants to be wrong.
I don’t know what the answer is.
I don’t know what the answer is.
November 14th, 2024 at 4:57:09 PM
permalink
Quote: AxelWolfAs more information comes in and I talk with other Advantage Players a large majority are telling me they took Harris as they thought it was a good value bet.
link to original post
They might be advantage players at other games like blackjack but they did not have an advantage on this bet if they bet Harris. At no stage was a wager on Harris positive expectation.
There is no way any one who is sharp or who has studied elections in any depth could possibly have bet her.
November 14th, 2024 at 5:04:29 PM
permalink
Quote: Archvaldor1Quote: AxelWolfAs more information comes in and I talk with other Advantage Players a large majority are telling me they took Harris as they thought it was a good value bet.
link to original post
They might be advantage players at other games like blackjack but they did not have an advantage on this bet if they bet Harris. At no stage was a wager on Harris positive expectation.
There is no way any one who is sharp or who has studied elections in any depth could possibly have bet her.
link to original post
Like I said calling it a 'good value' bet is just a way to soothe yourself after you blow your money. It doesn't mean anything but it sounds really wise.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
November 14th, 2024 at 5:05:51 PM
permalink
Quote: SOOPOOQuote: EvenBobI put everything on Trump because I like winning bets.
I thought you didn’t make internet bets like that? How much is ‘everything’? What odds did you get? Did you also bet on the popular vote?
link to original post
What I marvel at is that you haven't caught on yet that I never answer any questions that you ask me on any subject. Why would you think that is. LOL
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
November 14th, 2024 at 5:18:04 PM
permalink
Quote: SOOPOOQuote: EvenBobI put everything on Trump because I like winning bets.
I thought you didn’t make internet bets like that? How much is ‘everything’? What odds did you get? Did you also bet on the popular vote?
link to original post
I am guessing that he had the same amount on it that I did. $0
At my age, a "Life In Prison" sentence is not much of a deterrent.
November 14th, 2024 at 5:45:57 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobQuote: SOOPOOQuote: EvenBobI put everything on Trump because I like winning bets.
I thought you didn’t make internet bets like that? How much is ‘everything’? What odds did you get? Did you also bet on the popular vote?
link to original post
What I marvel at is that you haven't caught on yet that I never answer any questions that you ask me on any subject. Why would you think that is. LOL
link to original post
Because you are delusional? Just a guess….
November 14th, 2024 at 6:22:48 PM
permalink
Quote: gordonm888Comparing 2024 vote totals to 2020:
Trump only got about 1 million more votes in 2024 than in 2020
Democrat's vote total dropped by about 10 million from Biden's 81 M in 2020 to Harris' 71 M in 2024
During last 4 years about 13 million voters died and about 17 million young voters came onto the voter rolls.
Any analysis/comments?
link to original post
I'll take the challenge and attempt (in good faith) to answer non-politically!
Because it was exactly what it seems- an unorthodox and unfamiliar method of voting (by mail) was used universally, which created opportunities for enormous numbers of ballots to be faked up and submitted. It appears both candidates had more than the expected number of votes in 2020 which suggests both parties were doing it to some degree. But voter fraud on that level requires partisan domination of the electoral apparatus to get away with and one party has more and larger jurisdictions with that kind of monolithic control than the other, so that party won that game.
It is not the first time this has been tested and failed. France once allowed mail-in voting until it was discovered that basically the entire island of Corsica was a voting fraud operation, using the mailed ballots. I don't believe any First World democracy allows it, and for the same reasons we were warned not to do it in 2020. The political world is full of fanatics who believe "the end justifies the means" and people like that consider turning down an opportunity to commit voter fraud to advance their beliefs to be the disgrace, not committing the voter fraud.
November 14th, 2024 at 6:28:34 PM
permalink
Quote: AutomaticMonkeyQuote: gordonm888Comparing 2024 vote totals to 2020:
Trump only got about 1 million more votes in 2024 than in 2020
Democrat's vote total dropped by about 10 million from Biden's 81 M in 2020 to Harris' 71 M in 2024
During last 4 years about 13 million voters died and about 17 million young voters came onto the voter rolls.
Any analysis/comments?
link to original post
I'll take the challenge and attempt (in good faith) to answer non-politically!
Because it was exactly what it seems- an unorthodox and unfamiliar method of voting (by mail) was used universally, which created opportunities for enormous numbers of ballots to be faked up and submitted. It appears both candidates had more than the expected number of votes in 2020 which suggests both parties were doing it to some degree. But voter fraud on that level requires partisan domination of the electoral apparatus to get away with and one party has more and larger jurisdictions with that kind of monolithic control than the other, so that party won that game.
It is not the first time this has been tested and failed. France once allowed mail-in voting until it was discovered that basically the entire island of Corsica was a voting fraud operation, using the mailed ballots. I don't believe any First World democracy allows it, and for the same reasons we were warned not to do it in 2020. The political world is full of fanatics who believe "the end justifies the means" and people like that consider turning down an opportunity to commit voter fraud to advance their beliefs to be the disgrace, not committing the voter fraud.
link to original post
On that note, in 2020 my wife received 7 mail-in ballots. My daughter who also lives in this area received 13 mail in ballots. They knew of many many others who received similar amounts and there was nothing stopping any of them from filling them out and mailing them in. That didn't happen this time. This is the reason that Donald Trump in 2020 received more votes than any sitting president in history yet Joe Biden received even more than that.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
November 14th, 2024 at 6:33:54 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobQuote: AutomaticMonkeyQuote: gordonm888Comparing 2024 vote totals to 2020:
Trump only got about 1 million more votes in 2024 than in 2020
Democrat's vote total dropped by about 10 million from Biden's 81 M in 2020 to Harris' 71 M in 2024
During last 4 years about 13 million voters died and about 17 million young voters came onto the voter rolls.
Any analysis/comments?
link to original post
I'll take the challenge and attempt (in good faith) to answer non-politically!
Because it was exactly what it seems- an unorthodox and unfamiliar method of voting (by mail) was used universally, which created opportunities for enormous numbers of ballots to be faked up and submitted. It appears both candidates had more than the expected number of votes in 2020 which suggests both parties were doing it to some degree. But voter fraud on that level requires partisan domination of the electoral apparatus to get away with and one party has more and larger jurisdictions with that kind of monolithic control than the other, so that party won that game.
It is not the first time this has been tested and failed. France once allowed mail-in voting until it was discovered that basically the entire island of Corsica was a voting fraud operation, using the mailed ballots. I don't believe any First World democracy allows it, and for the same reasons we were warned not to do it in 2020. The political world is full of fanatics who believe "the end justifies the means" and people like that consider turning down an opportunity to commit voter fraud to advance their beliefs to be the disgrace, not committing the voter fraud.
link to original post
On that note, in 2020 my wife received 7 mail-in ballots. My daughter who also lives in this area received 13 mail in ballots. They knew of many many others who received similar amounts and there was nothing stopping any of them from filling them out and mailing them in. That didn't happen this time. This is the reason that Donald Trump in 2020 received more votes than any sitting president in history yet Joe Biden received even more than that.
link to original post
There is nothing wrong with sending out duplicate ballots. It's illegal to return more than one, it's not illegal to send someone more than one.
The older I get, the better I recall things that never happened
November 14th, 2024 at 7:17:01 PM
permalink
It looks like EB feels mail in ballots don't have any type of computer system and the people who count the mail in ballots do it like an SNL skit
"Chee'burger, chee'burger, chee'burger
"Chee'burger, chee'burger, chee'burger
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
November 14th, 2024 at 7:22:54 PM
permalink
I didn't make any personal bets on the election, I didn't see convincing enough arguments either way. However, I did have action on both Trump to win, and Trump to win the popular vote. I had no input on the decision to make those bets. I didn't even know what bets were made until well after.Quote: EvenBobQuote: Archvaldor1Quote: AxelWolfAs more information comes in and I talk with other Advantage Players a large majority are telling me they took Harris as they thought it was a good value bet.
link to original post
They might be advantage players at other games like blackjack but they did not have an advantage on this bet if they bet Harris. At no stage was a wager on Harris positive expectation.
There is no way any one who is sharp or who has studied elections in any depth could possibly have bet her.
link to original post
Like I said calling it a 'good value' bet is just a way to soothe yourself after you blow your money. It doesn't mean anything but it sounds really wise.
link to original post
People thought they had good value BEFORE they made the bets, NOT AFTER.
There is such thing as good value bets that's what all +EV bets are. If the same +EV bets are made over and over eventually, it will produce a profit.
I'm talking about people who are ahead lifetime making similar bets in different situations. They are never correct 100% of the time they are correct enough times to make money given the odds they are getting. Somthing can be a good bet, but you still lose, somthing can be a bad bet but you win.
Perhaps you are the kind of person who thinks all losing bets are bad bets and all winning bets are good bets.
If so, then I guess you think someone had a bad bet if they were getting 10000000000 to 1 on a 50/50 coin flip situation, but they just happen to lose.
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
November 14th, 2024 at 7:30:38 PM
permalink
You'll have to tell that to the Wizard, I believe he bet Harris. Would you like his PM link to clarify? I would hazard to guess there are people much sharper than everyone here who bet Harris.Quote: Archvaldor1Quote: AxelWolfAs more information comes in and I talk with other Advantage Players a large majority are telling me they took Harris as they thought it was a good value bet.
link to original post
They might be advantage players at other games like blackjack but they did not have an advantage on this bet if they bet Harris. At no stage was a wager on Harris positive expectation.
There is no way any one who is sharp or who has studied elections in any depth could possibly have bet her.
link to original post
How much money did you make betting on the Election?
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
November 14th, 2024 at 8:17:17 PM
permalink
Quote: billryanQuote: EvenBobQuote: AutomaticMonkeyQuote: gordonm888Comparing 2024 vote totals to 2020:
Trump only got about 1 million more votes in 2024 than in 2020
Democrat's vote total dropped by about 10 million from Biden's 81 M in 2020 to Harris' 71 M in 2024
During last 4 years about 13 million voters died and about 17 million young voters came onto the voter rolls.
Any analysis/comments?
link to original post
I'll take the challenge and attempt (in good faith) to answer non-politically!
Because it was exactly what it seems- an unorthodox and unfamiliar method of voting (by mail) was used universally, which created opportunities for enormous numbers of ballots to be faked up and submitted. It appears both candidates had more than the expected number of votes in 2020 which suggests both parties were doing it to some degree. But voter fraud on that level requires partisan domination of the electoral apparatus to get away with and one party has more and larger jurisdictions with that kind of monolithic control than the other, so that party won that game.
It is not the first time this has been tested and failed. France once allowed mail-in voting until it was discovered that basically the entire island of Corsica was a voting fraud operation, using the mailed ballots. I don't believe any First World democracy allows it, and for the same reasons we were warned not to do it in 2020. The political world is full of fanatics who believe "the end justifies the means" and people like that consider turning down an opportunity to commit voter fraud to advance their beliefs to be the disgrace, not committing the voter fraud.
link to original post
On that note, in 2020 my wife received 7 mail-in ballots. My daughter who also lives in this area received 13 mail in ballots. They knew of many many others who received similar amounts and there was nothing stopping any of them from filling them out and mailing them in. That didn't happen this time. This is the reason that Donald Trump in 2020 received more votes than any sitting president in history yet Joe Biden received even more than that.
link to original post
There is nothing wrong with sending out duplicate ballots. It's illegal to return more than one, it's not illegal to send someone more than one.
link to original post
So in your mind it's not unusual that in 2020 people got tons of ballots in the mail and everybody I know this year only got one. I only got one, my wife only got one, my daughter only got one, her husband only got one. But in 2020 there was no limit on how many you got and that's perfectly normal to you.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
November 14th, 2024 at 8:26:36 PM
permalink
Quote: AxelWolfI didn't make any personal bets on the election, I didn't see convincing enough arguments either way. However, I did have action on both Trump to win, and Trump to win the popular vote. I had no input on the decision to make those bets. I didn't even know what bets were made until well after.Quote: EvenBobQuote: Archvaldor1Quote: AxelWolfAs more information comes in and I talk with other Advantage Players a large majority are telling me they took Harris as they thought it was a good value bet.
link to original post
They might be advantage players at other games like blackjack but they did not have an advantage on this bet if they bet Harris. At no stage was a wager on Harris positive expectation.
There is no way any one who is sharp or who has studied elections in any depth could possibly have bet her.
link to original post
Like I said calling it a 'good value' bet is just a way to soothe yourself after you blow your money. It doesn't mean anything but it sounds really wise.
link to original post
People thought they had good value BEFORE they made the bets, NOT AFTER.
There is such thing as good value bets that's what all +EV bets are. If the same +EV bets are made over and over eventually, it will produce a profit.
I'm talking about people who are ahead lifetime making similar bets in different situations. They are never correct 100% of the time they are correct enough times to make money given the odds they are getting. Somthing can be a good bet, but you still lose, somthing can be a bad bet but you win.
Perhaps you are the kind of person who thinks all losing bets are bad bets and all winning bets are good bets.
If so, then I guess you think someone had a bad bet if they were getting 10000000000 to 1 on a 50/50 coin flip situation, but they just happen to lose.
link to original post
"People thought they had good value BEFORE they made the bets, NOT AFTER."
At least that's what people say, when it's all over. Like somebody else said, Harris was never a good value bet because she never had a chance no matter what the polls said. It was never close, it was never razor thin, it was never a toss-up. This is why Harris replaced Biden because they knew for a fact that Biden was going to lose. What logic does it make replacing him with somebody who people liked even less, who is far less qualified than him, how does that make any sense that she would win and he would not.
As far as good value bets go, I know a good value bet when I see one in roulette. I also see no value bets.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
November 14th, 2024 at 8:40:13 PM
permalink
Quote: SOOPOO. I thought you were a moderator? Any comment is OF COURSE political. And of little present day relevance to betting.Quote: gordonm888Comparing 2024 vote totals to 2020:
Trump only got about 1 million more votes in 2024 than in 2020
Democrat's vote total dropped by about 10 million from Biden's 81 M in 2020 to Harris' 71 M in 2024
During last 4 years about 13 million voters died and about 17 million young voters came onto the voter rolls.
Any analysis/comments?
link to original post
link to original post
I'm simply quoting or referring to election results and pointing out something that some of us may not have noticed. My purpose in doing so is because I don't understand these vote totals, and by implication what happened in the election - which certainly undermines our ability to predict things in the future and then bet on them. I'm expecting comments about turnout - possibly shifts in demographics, possibly Covid-specific aspects of the 2020 race. What cohort of 2020 voters sat out the 2024 election? Or is that not the right way to think of this? I definitely was not encouraging or expecting responses about strengths or weaknesses of the candidates or the parties.
So many better men, a few of them friends, are dead. And a thousand thousand slimy things live on, and so do I.
November 14th, 2024 at 9:57:49 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobQuote: billryanQuote: EvenBobQuote: AutomaticMonkeyQuote: gordonm888Comparing 2024 vote totals to 2020:
Trump only got about 1 million more votes in 2024 than in 2020
Democrat's vote total dropped by about 10 million from Biden's 81 M in 2020 to Harris' 71 M in 2024
During last 4 years about 13 million voters died and about 17 million young voters came onto the voter rolls.
Any analysis/comments?
link to original post
I'll take the challenge and attempt (in good faith) to answer non-politically!
Because it was exactly what it seems- an unorthodox and unfamiliar method of voting (by mail) was used universally, which created opportunities for enormous numbers of ballots to be faked up and submitted. It appears both candidates had more than the expected number of votes in 2020 which suggests both parties were doing it to some degree. But voter fraud on that level requires partisan domination of the electoral apparatus to get away with and one party has more and larger jurisdictions with that kind of monolithic control than the other, so that party won that game.
It is not the first time this has been tested and failed. France once allowed mail-in voting until it was discovered that basically the entire island of Corsica was a voting fraud operation, using the mailed ballots. I don't believe any First World democracy allows it, and for the same reasons we were warned not to do it in 2020. The political world is full of fanatics who believe "the end justifies the means" and people like that consider turning down an opportunity to commit voter fraud to advance their beliefs to be the disgrace, not committing the voter fraud.
link to original post
On that note, in 2020 my wife received 7 mail-in ballots. My daughter who also lives in this area received 13 mail in ballots. They knew of many many others who received similar amounts and there was nothing stopping any of them from filling them out and mailing them in. That didn't happen this time. This is the reason that Donald Trump in 2020 received more votes than any sitting president in history yet Joe Biden received even more than that.
link to original post
There is nothing wrong with sending out duplicate ballots. It's illegal to return more than one, it's not illegal to send someone more than one.
link to original post
So in your mind it's not unusual that in 2020 people got tons of ballots in the mail and everybody I know this year only got one. I only got one, my wife only got one, my daughter only got one, her husband only got one. But in 2020 there was no limit on how many you got and that's perfectly normal to you.
link to original post
People can only vote once. If they return two ballots, it is a felony. Republicans in Michigan have spent years looking for people who voted twice, without success. I received three ballots this year, having moved thrice since 2020. As an ordinary American, I was aware I could only vote once.
The older I get, the better I recall things that never happened
November 14th, 2024 at 10:33:59 PM
permalink
And how much do you make on all those "I know good bets when I see them"? Oh yeah, I remember now, enough to pay your lower-than-average bills.Quote: EvenBobQuote: AxelWolfI didn't make any personal bets on the election, I didn't see convincing enough arguments either way. However, I did have action on both Trump to win, and Trump to win the popular vote. I had no input on the decision to make those bets. I didn't even know what bets were made until well after.Quote: EvenBobQuote: Archvaldor1Quote: AxelWolfAs more information comes in and I talk with other Advantage Players a large majority are telling me they took Harris as they thought it was a good value bet.
link to original post
They might be advantage players at other games like blackjack but they did not have an advantage on this bet if they bet Harris. At no stage was a wager on Harris positive expectation.
There is no way any one who is sharp or who has studied elections in any depth could possibly have bet her.
link to original post
Like I said calling it a 'good value' bet is just a way to soothe yourself after you blow your money. It doesn't mean anything but it sounds really wise.
link to original post
People thought they had good value BEFORE they made the bets, NOT AFTER.
There is such thing as good value bets that's what all +EV bets are. If the same +EV bets are made over and over eventually, it will produce a profit.
I'm talking about people who are ahead lifetime making similar bets in different situations. They are never correct 100% of the time they are correct enough times to make money given the odds they are getting. Somthing can be a good bet, but you still lose, somthing can be a bad bet but you win.
Perhaps you are the kind of person who thinks all losing bets are bad bets and all winning bets are good bets.
If so, then I guess you think someone had a bad bet if they were getting 10000000000 to 1 on a 50/50 coin flip situation, but they just happen to lose.
link to original post
"People thought they had good value BEFORE they made the bets, NOT AFTER."
At least that's what people say, when it's all over. Like somebody else said, Harris was never a good value bet because she never had a chance no matter what the polls said. It was never close, it was never razor thin, it was never a toss-up. This is why Harris replaced Biden because they knew for a fact that Biden was going to lose. What logic does it make replacing him with somebody who people liked even less, who is far less qualified than him, how does that make any sense that she would win and he would not.
As far as good value bets go, I know a good value bet when I see one in roulette. I also see no value bets.
link to original post
Regardless, I posted in this thread before the results that Advantage Players seem to be Betting on Harris. So it's not an "At least that's what people say when it's all over" in this case. Perhaps that's what the people in your life do.
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
November 14th, 2024 at 10:50:33 PM
permalink
Quote: billryan
There is nothing wrong with sending out duplicate ballots. It's illegal to return more than one, it's not illegal to send someone more than one.
link to original post
It's a stretch to say there's "nothing wrong with it." If that were so, there would be nothing wrong with giving people blank checks from your checkbook. Not a crime unless someone forges and passes one, right?
There is no purpose in sending anyone more than one that I can deduce, other than facilitating the crime of voter fraud. Because we have a secret ballot in the US (which is not a Constitutional right, by the way) it is somewhere among difficult, impracticable, and impossible to determine who filled out what when ballots are sent out pell-mell and returned similarly.
If you want any kind of remote voting and at the same time preserve the secret ballot, there is only one way to do it: you would have to affirmatively request an absentee ballot, identify yourself to the satisfaction of the registrar, and once you have received that ballot you are deemed to have voted. Your name is crossed off the list and you may do what you wish with the ballot.
Can we at least have a measure of security for voting as thorough as what we would put up with for using a buffet comp at a casino?
November 15th, 2024 at 2:41:28 AM
permalink
Quote: billryan
There is nothing wrong with sending out duplicate ballots. It's illegal to return more than one, it's not illegal to send someone more than one.
link to original post
Yes, there is something wrong with it. Doing so makes fraud easier. It almost invites it. Person sends multiples back, very little chance of getting caught. If they do get caught they play dumb. "Uh, I thought there was a problem so they sent me a new ballot." This is fundamental security. It is the same reasoning why a secure place will not give employees more than 1 access badge. Or a prison does not have more keys than required.
Unless the ballots are coded to the voter to have the computer kick out multiples then it is easy to vote more than once. And if you do that you end the secret ballot.
2020 is not the first USA election with this kind of tainted results. But tainted it is, based on the drop in voters to 2024 alone.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
November 15th, 2024 at 2:46:46 AM
permalink
Quote: FinsRuleI understand what you are saying about throwing outlier polls out. But when you do that, then it turns into what the polls this cycle were (besides the IA one), all polls saying almost the same thing because no one wants to be wrong.
I don’t know what the answer is.
link to original post
Some of it is the modeling I described. But that is more work than most media outlets are going to put in. It takes lots of time meaning by the time they do it everyone is done reporting on the IA outlier and on to the next thing. A channel needs to get a good and unbiased person or a team of a couple from all sides to do the analysis daily. But again there is another but. This will only appeal to real nerds, like myself and others here, the general public will not tune in.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
