Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Trumpity Trump: Why Betting on Biden is the right strategy
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Trumpity Trump: Why Betting on Biden is the right strategy
The more I think about the US election, the more I think we’re underweighting the edge scenarios. And of the edge scenarios, I think the one we’re underweighting most is the one where the Democrats have a really good night.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I'm not betting on this, I despise Trump too much to bet rationally on it and don't have faith in Americans not to re-elect him.
In the middle of a pandemic and economic emergency its priority was abolishing DiFiD.
I agree that too many people are letting the recent record excessively influence their thinking. Yes, America is deeply divided but a (say) 51-43 split is still fairly deeply divided but would probably lead to a lop-sided landslide in the Electoral College.
Trump in 2016 was an extremely effective negative campaigner but I'm beginning to wonder whether he still has that in him. He's looking all of his 74 years now, if not more; contrast that with four years ago when he could easily have passed for someone in his early sixties. Sure, he's up against someone even older but that's not the point.
To be honest, I think that's hard. his actions of the last four years have put a granite ceiling on his support, so it's all down to suppressing Biden's vote even lower than Hillary's - and, as Robert points out, doing it with pinpoint accuracy in the right places.
Trump could win re-election but I think it'll be hard for him to top 300 ECVs again.
At least this time your criticism was in only a few words.
In recent days I have started a little nibble of bets on the 'edge' event as Robert calls it starting with TX state going Dem.
I worry that I am so desperate to see the back of Trump that it is massive heart betting over head, but I'm only betting for a few pints.
Most of my head says the malevolent SOB will win four more years.
In my case, it was more the polls that did it. It's not so much the swing States, although they are bad for the President, but the safer seats such as Montana and Arkansas. He's fallen away badly and that suggests an across the board discontent with him. As you correctly point out, he had a mighty small margin in his favour to begin with. Any loss of support at all virtually guarantees defeat.
One small betting point to consider is whether to play on the Next President or Winning Party market. I prefer the latter. In the former, you run the risks of either Biden or Trump not standing. In view of their age, and Trump's erratic behavior, that is a significant factor.
"Our leaders are encouraged by polling that shows continuing public support for their strategy. But when people survey the wreckage of their lives a few months from now, they will forget that they were rooting for the toughest lockdown possible. They will be looking for someone to blame, and I know who it will be."
Of course it shows the republican bias in the system with a lot of small, poorly populated states over represented in the EC and very republican. It shows (again) the ineptitude of Hilary as a campaigner. But it is also a warning that a mere lead in the polling is not enough for Biden.
I very, very much hope that it is adieu Mr President. But I am not counting my chickens.
"But so far, our gloomy epidemiologists have been wrong on virtually everything."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/06/17/declare-pandemic-get-normal-lives/
Yes, on just about every measurable indicator, Trump looks like ash, not just toast. The part I've been banging on about is the economy - the enhanced unemployment support of $600 a week is due to disappear in six weeks, and that could push even more desperate people into the 'anyone-but-Trump' column. Millions have lost their job-dependent healthcare, and evictions could soar in the coming months, as could coronavirus cases in red states. It's a perfect storm. Even if the economy is somehow rebounding strongly in November, the absolute level of immiseration will be a deadly anchor on his campaign.
Biden won the primary largely by being the default candidate, and that will serve him extremely well in the general election - the reassuring, moderate face unlikely to scare anyone away, including former Trump voters who might otherwise be afraid of letting in the forces of progressive radicalism.
What we're left with are wild cards - let's say Biden implodes during the debates and comes across as severely mentally-impaired. What then? The voters would face an awful dilemma.
More minor risks would include choosing a running-mate who is seen as unacceptable to the swing voters he needs, since the VP looks very likely to become President at some point this time. But for that very reason he'll probably choose a safe pair of hands.
Think that's very generous right now.
https://twitter.com/NinjaPotts/status/1273185109701726208
We've completely fucked it up here.
A key factor in my thinking is to put myself in the position of those - and it's surely a big group - who voted Trump in 2016 rather reluctantly but thinking "Ok, at least he's different, let's give him a chance, let's see what he's like in the job."
So now here we are 4 years later and - yep - they have seen what he's like in the job.
I'll leave it there.
Dem landslide is imo the most likely outcome. PV by more than 5% and EC by over 150.
I assume old Karl doesn't talk about Sweden so much nowadays?
Prof Sikora is more wrong than the "gloomy epidemiologists" he disagrees with. More precisely, he dismisses almost every bit of evidence, which isn't a great thing for a supposedly empirical scientist to do.
Looking at the stats now the scary increases in infections are in the south and South West and in states like Florida where gung-ho GOP governers downplayed the problem, opened up early etc etc.
From anyone with better first-hand knowledge of what is happening in the states I would be interested to know whether recent upsurge in cases has back-fired on the anti-lockdowners and "it's all a hoax" brigade. We don't seem to hear much of them lately
Also I'd be interested to know if the daily death rates are widely being accepted as they seem very low in many states given what we know from elsewhere.
Sort of slip up anyone could make.
The candidates running against Biden this time round were sane & moderate enough to win too. And Sanders really will be too old next time. They'll only lose with AOC.
Seven day number - 58
Spanish Style - 8
It's the insance lopsidedness of California wot does it. The GOP most lopsided states - Oklahoma, Mississippi, West Virginia are all much much smaller and Texas is relatively close. That gives the GOP a nice inbuilt efficiency to start off with. If every state was worth its CORRECT amount of ECVs the result would have been 302 ECVs to Trump last time round, and Florida gets to be even more important !
https://twitter.com/RMCunliffe/status/1273217557231697921
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8302025/Ted-Cruz-gets-haircut-Dallas-salon-owner-jailed-keeping-open.html
The low Coraona death rates in the USA are almost certainly due to classification issues.
https://twitter.com/gdog2010_john/status/1273040111085793284?s=20
Oddschecker tells me the Republicans are 11/8 to fall under 50 seats. I think that might be value.
*Yes, I know. But the Trump brand buys Trump a level of support.
I've just received my fortnightly Private Eye. I regret to report that it is considerably less than impressed with both the Governments and the Post Office's response to the recent Parliamentary exposure of the Post Offices disgusting treatment of (apparently) over 1000 sub-postmaster, quoting an MP with a longstanding interest in the case as saying that it is 'totally inappropriate that the PO have appointed the firm it has to investigate the matter.
We wait to see.
https://twitter.com/GuardianHeather/status/1273244621200592896
As to your "economy" point - yes, on the face of it a strong rebound should play well for Trump. But in practice? Very doubtful. Let us remember what happened when he emerged triumphant to talk about the better-than-expected jobs numbers the other week - went "riffing" off piste and delivered the utterly excruciating "it's a great day for George Floyd" performance.
Here it is -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnk0hCgmamQ
Coffin. Nail. Coffin. Nail. Coffin. Nail - lid almost done now - and he's the one with the hammer.
1. "Many Democrats didn’t come out to vote in 2016." Not necessarily true. Clinton's actual number of votes was virtually the same as Obama in 2012 (65.9m). Yes, she got a lower % of the vote than Obama and, in the African-American population, probably less absolute numbers but she didn't "lose" votes. Also remember Clinton probably got some sort of a boost from being the first potential female President. Biden doesn't have that;
2. Trump probably has a reserve in terms of the 2016 3rd party votes. You look at the 2016 election, 7.6m more people voted than 2012. However, Trump only picked up 2m of those compared with Romney (63m vs 60.9m). Most of the extra went to 3rd party candidates who picked up 7.8m votes in 2016 vs 2.2m in 2012. Most of that 3rd party vote went to parties that you could see as boltholes for Republicans who didn't like Trump - the Libertarians and McMullin together picked up 3.8% of the vote in 2016 vs the Libertarians 1% in 2012. The Greens only came up marginally to 1.1%.
In states like NV, AZ, CO, VA etc, the shares of Libertarian / McMullin are enough to solidify Trump's position and / or swing (or nearly swing) the states from Dem to Rep. Sure, some Republicans will hate Trump and not vote for him and some may even vote Biden. But there is going to be at least some of that 3.8% that will return home, especially given what is at stake;
3. What gets forgotten about Obama's victory in 2012 is that (a) it wasn't that much wider in terms of victory than Trump's - if c. 245,000 voters had switched sides from Obama to Romney, the latter would have been President (FL, OH, NH, NV, VA) and (b) at the time, Obama's GOTV campaign was hailed as an extraordinary achievement against what many were banking against an Romney victory;
4. I get Robert's points about the polls showing waning confidence in Trump and many on here saying that the 2016 polls actually weren't that far out but there is a reason why Trump was 6/1 on the day and Clinton didn't have a concession scheme and that was because most people expected Clinton to win based on their readings (note not margin) of the polls. My point is that, if you look at what is happening on the ground (actual results, seeming enthusiasm for Trump in terms of those who turn up to his rallies and stick flags in their gardens, the confidence of Republican officials etc), it doesn't feel like a candidate that is losing.
5. Background data and what is important favour Trump. There have been some signs Trump has been picking up younger Black and Hispanic voters (https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article242358621.html) and, while that may change with Black voters with BLM (though I have my doubts given some of the comments I've heard), it is not sure why it should with Hispanic voters who don't count themselves as Black.
The post masters will not receive compensation on the grounds that it would be upsetting for the people responsible for ruining their lives.
Film at 11
Democrats = 248 ECV
Republicans = 260 ECV
Even (Pennsylvania & Wisconsin) = 30 ECV
So there is a slight advantage to the Republicans in the distribution of votes across States. Clinton did really badly to lose Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin while being 2% ahead in the popular vote, though.
A par score in the Senate gives 54-42 in favour of the GOP (with 4 even). That, and gerrymandering in the House, is a much bigger problem for Democrats than the Electoral College.
I agree; this has the potential to be the most corrupt election since LBJ was around...
The trend line is falling linearly, again - which is rather surprising
The religious right look to be a bit worked up that their newly stacked Supreme Court decided to treat gay and trans people like human beings instead of pariahs and as a result, the bigots seem to be wondering why Trump is not delivering their agenda. The answer is, of course, Trump delivers Trump's agenda.
Having said all that, Biden's price does look awfully large given the election will be conducted in a recession, with likely ongoing covid deaths/restrictions, and a very motivated Dem base.
Even better was the look of utter horror on the official beside her.
Could spending a million pounds on a blow job, sorry respray, be a story that is worrying them..?
Sir Humphrey: None
Jim: your eyes Humphrey, what about that one?
Sir Humphrey: That one was chartered from Freddie Laker last week and repainted specially. Actually there was one 747 that belonged to nine different African airlines in one month, they called it the mumbo jumbo.
The counter argument that worries me is that Biden’s election lacks a real story. Americans love a story, and to watch a story unfold, and most of their successful pitches for the presidency have been based around a strong personal narrative. The maverick outsider TV personality who becomes president was a more compelling tale than of the lifetime Washington insider working her way up toward the top job, and that is disregarding the draw of the being the first female.
Of course, the story of Trump’s re-election isn’t as compelling as the first time around, but then he now has incumbency and precedent on his side.
How are they going to package and sell Biden’s pitch for the White House?
OK, if you say so...
https://twitter.com/NPR/status/1273102488049192960
That's a big big story and imo it's strong enough to carry this movie.