Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Trump edges up even more on Betfair and now a 45.2% chance
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Trump edges up even more on Betfair and now a 45.2% chance
The Biden Trump betting edges towards evens pic.twitter.com/rAw2eZSS94
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I think it will be quite tight. Largely because the US is hyper-partisan, and each candidate is pretty well sure of winning at least 45% of the vote, given the way that each side dreads a victory for the other.
If it hadn't been for CV19, I think Trump would have cruised to reelection. But CV19 happened. And people, hundreds of thousands of them, have died. And unemployment has gone through the roof.
He can say (rightly) that he's been unlucky.
But luck is all a part of life.
Sorry Donald.
But remember one thing. Biden's current polling position is unprecedented. No other candidate since Reagan in '84 has averaged more than 50% in the polling in August.
Now sure, trump can still win, but every day his task becomes a little bit harder.
IMO it depends on the civil disturbances, if these continue into October it plays into Trump's hands - as do sports teams walking out of fixtures, especially when Biden supports them.
Also the economy and unemployment, it will depend on whether we have a second wave of virus and lockdown, or a recovering economy with jobs being created by the time of the election.
There's not a lot that the candidates can actually do about either of these issues, although no doubt they'll have lots to say, given that public health and policing is mostly devolved to the States and Cities.
As suggested above, much of the body of opinion that believes Trump can win in 2020 appears to expect a straight repetition of 2016. I do wonder if that's primarily the result of fatalism/pessimism amongst those fearing such an outcome? We've recent experience of that over here, of course: after the UK came within a hair's breadth of Prime Minister Corbyn in 2017, many of us feared that all the polls were wrong, and that several million wavering Labour voters would go all robot and respond to their homing signals in the polling booth, right up until 10pm on election night when the exit poll came out.
I don't think that a Biden victory is a foregone conclusion, mainly because of voter suppression tactics, but the notion that Trump is a 45% chance is risible. 20% perhaps...?
Things might calm down. But, to paraphrase Teal'c, they may, in fact, calm up.
Imagine there was a horse race, with six runners. Five of them are 12% shots (15-2), and one is a 40% chance (6-4).
If the favourite lost, that would be surprising, right? Yet the favourite is just a 40% chance. 60% of the time, you'd expect him to lose, yet it wouldn't surprise you if he won.
President Trump is like that today. 30 or 40% chance is not "very surprising". It is "happens a lot, but not half the time". That's where President is.
I'd say "very surprising" is perhaps sub 8%, not 30 to 40%.
(And, by the way, I'm broadly in agreement with you. 20% seems a little low, but 40% seems very high. I'd reckon his chances are around 30%. But that's simply not "very surprising".)
Pence, virus task force leader, mingles with largely mask-free audience after convention speech
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/27/pence-speech-rnc-no-masks-403128
Vice President Mike Pence, the White House’s coronavirus point person, offered some of the most pointed comments of the Republican National Convention on the outbreak, vowing on Wednesday night that the U.S. would develop a successful vaccine before the end of the year.
But just moments after presenting himself as a reassuring authority on the raging virus, the maskless vice president, along with President Donald Trump, walked over to greet the mostly mask-free members of the audience, who crowded close to each other on the grounds of Fort McHenry in Baltimore...
... Pence lamented that the pandemic had forced the postponement of his youngest daughter’s wedding. Then he shouted out his 87-year-old mother who sat, sans mask, among the crowd of around 100.
That was the year of the London riots.
I remember the tube not stopping at places because of disturbances.
The riots seemed very close.
CV19 has changed things. Back in 2011, people went into London to work. In 2020 city centers are empty. I'm sure there are riots in Downtown LA. But I see no sign of them. There are no sirens or helicopters. There might be a piece on Fox News, but I see nothing with my own eyes.
So I suspect that the riots will have less impact than people think. Simply most people won't see a single boarded window. If I don't (in sunny 90049), then 99% of the US population won't.
I have also read that there are much lower levels of working from home in France. Could it simply be the case that the virus is spreading through crowded public transportation in urban areas? The Tube was the prime suspect when London got thwacked hard back in April, after all.
Thanks very much @rcs1000 for your work on the server, much appreciated.
538 did this, not sure if it was posted before. I don't think it tells you much we didn't know before but it is useful to put the trends in each state on a historical timeline to see how things have changed,
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/swing-states-2020-election/
However, I vaguely recall the Hillary campaign spent some money advertising in non-swing states out of fear that she'd win the electoral college but lose the popular vote, and Trump would question her legitimacy...
I think perception is what’s important, if people are out of the city centres and tthe media ignore the violenc, then there might not be much perception as to what’s actually going on - so long as the riots stay in city centres, and don’t move toward the leafy residential bits.
Let’s hope the rioting comes to a quick conclusion, before more lives are lost and businesses destroyed. I see that overnight there was a shooting by a 17 year old kid in Wisconsin that left two dead. Not good.
FWIW, I think:
FL will stay Republican, and the whole felon voting thing is a red herring.
Georgia will also stay Republican.
Arizona will go Trump for the Presidency, but Kelly in the Senate. (Because McSally is a dreadful candidate and Kelly is so moderate it makes my teeth bleed.)
Iowa will swing sharply Democratic, but not enough to lose Trump the state. Ms Ernst may - however - find herself on the end of a few spoilt ballots. She probably still holds on, mind.
Maine will see Susan Collins lose out by a smidgen, but Trump will hold on to his single electoral college vote there.
Colorado will be a disaster zone for the Republicans, and the Senate seat will flip.
Minnesota will revert to type and remain Democratic. New Hampshire will be a lot closer, and I think there is a decent outside shot of Trump flipping it.
Pennsylvania is a really hard call. If you put a gun to my head, I think President Trump holds on, but it'll be really close.
Wisconsin, despite recent issues, flips. Likewise Michigan.
Where does that leave us? With a very close election.
The problem for the President is that I'm giving him a lot of close calls (Iowa, Arizona, Georgia, Florida, Pennsylvania and North Carolina.) He only has to lose one or two of these for the Presidency to end up in Biden's hand.
So, I think something in the range of 60-40 and 70-30 is about right. And I'm betting accordingly.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election
Here’s a snippet from their page...
STATE RCP AVERAGE FOUR YEARS AGO
Wisconsin (10) Biden +3.5 Clinton +9.0
Michigan (16) Biden +7.0 Clinton +9.5
Ohio (18) Biden +2.3 Clinton +4.0
Pennsylvania (20) Biden +5.5 Clinton +10.0
Florida (29) Biden +3.7 Clinton +3.7
In August, you had:
+15 (4th to the 7th)
+5 (27th to 30th)
+3 (25th to 28th)
Add in the beginning of September, and you add in a Clinton +2 and a +7.
In other words, with the exception of one big +15 (at the very beginning of August), you have every poll in the +2 to +7 range. So, 4-5 point.
Now, let's look at 2020.
In August, we have +12, +6, +4, +4, -1, and +5.
So...
(1) There are *many* more polls than 2016.
(2) Clinton's polls were skewed by one big +15 at the very beginning of August.
(3) Other than that, they're pretty similar polls
Except.
Pollsters learn from their mistakes.
4 years ago I wrongly assumed Trump had no chance, it seems most people think the same now. I think there's a chance that the BLM etc will play into his hands, that the Democrats seem to be appeasing them which appalls much of America. Lets call them shy Republicans.
I've got no dog in this fight and its Biden's to lose, but I think Americans will hold their noses and vote Trump in big numbers rather than take a chance on Biden.
And the outcome won't affect my life in any shape or form, just an impartial observation. Looking at the betfair market I'm not alone.
These people don't want to be lectured on diversity or sexual politics, they want jobs, security, bread on the table and, just maybe, a little bit of respect. Trump engages with them. You can argue all day as to whether or not his policies are actually good for them but he engages. I'm trying to remember the last Democrat that did: Bill Clinton probably.
Cons...
Outperformed in 2019
Underperformed in 2017
Outperformed in 2015
Underperformed in 2010
Outperformed in 2005
Underperformed in 2001
I think there is a natural tendency to over-correct.
Hopefully Team Biden remembers to campaign in the states they actually need to win from Trump to get to 270, and doesn't make the same mistake as Hilary did.
Hardly a ringing endorsement, but I got his general direction correct.
But here's the thing:
Hillary's *peak* position in the 538 poll of polls was 46.0%.
Biden is now on 50.7%.
Now, that doesn't mean Biden will win (duh). But I think it means that he is a more than 55% chance to win the Presidency. Only one candidate - other than Biden - has averaged more than 50% in the polls in the August before the election, Reagan in '84.
And he did OK.
Which it might, or might not. Will Boris get his red wallers sufficiently motivated the next time? The election might turn on it.
But the economic growth in the Midwest has lagged the rest of the US markedly in the last four years. And that's his problem in a nutshell.
Even before CV19 hit hard, Michigan was registering -6.8% economic growth in Q1.
As ever, turnout is the hardest thing to predict.
That has several consequences, political, psychological and practical, which are to his advantage.
Also, for all his many failings, Corbyn respected the democratic process and the outcome of the vote. Trump is willing to steal the election. How confident are you that the vote will be free and fair?
And that's why I'm cautious about pollsters making the same mistake twice.
I think (hope) he will lose but I agree with the markets more than the polling: there are ways for Trump to win this.
If Trump holds Florida and Pennsylvania it gets hard for Biden. He would have to eg flip Wisconsin and Michigan and Arizona and Nebraska 2nd district to get 270. Not totally implausible but a long shot.
Similarly if Biden gains both Florida and Pennsylvania, it's pretty tough to find a way for Trump. He would have to eg hold on to all of his 2016 states, including Michigan and Wisconsin, and also flip Minnesota and either Nevada or New Hampshire.
If they get one each of PA and FL, then either could easily win. Although you could argue that Biden is favourite in either case. If he wins Florida he only has to flip one more state (and hold onto 2016 Clintons), which seems probable. If he wins Pennsylvania then he probably also wins Michigan and Wisconsin.
But I wonder if those odds are primarily a reflection people thinking about 2016. Maybe people think that the incumbent usually wins if the economy is growing and unemployment is falling, and they are taking a punt on the economy growing and unemployment falling by November. Something which the 538 forecast might not be taking enough account of (or it isn't designed to make economic forecasts).
I'm hopeful that enough people have already made up their minds and will vote Trump out regardless.
It'd be like Starmer retweeting Lewis Hamilton walking out on an F1 race here.
He just thinks that being a nice guy and not dealing the agro Clinton did is enough for him to walk into the presidency.
It isn't.
Which raises the question of whether Democrats should be unscrupulous too. Exactly the same propaganda could suppress Republican votes if targeted correctly. But it would reduce American politics to a battle between crooked protection rackets. Should they have a darkside operation too, or not?
Potentially dangerous ground if they're not careful. Biden's already said that "you ain't black" if you don't vote Democrat, as several black Republicans have pointed out this week.
From a personal standpoint, I am waiting until much closer to the election to put a bet on.
I don't think that's enough. It's no good stacking up votes where it doesn't matter. And, although he's not as repellent as Hillary, I'm not sensing people are much more enthusiastic about him as opposed to her.
"You can fool some of the people all of the time. And those are the ones you want to concentrate on...."
Nice piece of analysis from Stodge yesterday and the polling cross-tabs. Executive summary was hard to disagree with - Biden is piling up votes in areas that don't matter and the race is very close in States that do. A close election must be expected therefore and Trump could well repeat his trick of four years ago and win by means of a very efficient vote spread.
Couldn't agree more that Dems make a huge mistake each time they appear to be patronising or condescending to Trump's core supporters. Nothing fires them up more.
In such a large country, both of these may be true in different places at the time of the election.
I think you can just as easily make the argument that Trump has catastrophically crippled the GOP turnout operation.
He's created a wedge where Dems support postal voting and think they need to get their vote in as early as possible to avoid it being dumped in a lake by an unscrupulous Postmaster General, and the GOP think they have to vote on the day. Not only is this great for turnout operations (you'd like to bank lots of postal votes early, right?), GOP voters are old, and there's a pandemic which, much as Trump might try to tell them not to worry about, they're mostly smart enough to know that they *should* worry about.
The unlucky GOP campaigners on the ground are now having to resort to telling people that although *postal* voting is terrible and an affront to democracy, *absentee* voting is absolutely fine, and your patriotic duty.
God alone knows what will happen on the night, never mind the following couple of weeks.
I am green on Biden to the tune of a couple of very good nights out, but that's partly because I can't stomach putting money anywhere near Trump's name.
I am pessimistic enough at the moment to be expecting to have a loss by end of November.
Its why bookies make money out of football betting, supporters back who they want to win regardless of the odds.
As I've said, I've no interest in who wins beyond a betting angle
It's not helped by the fact that most states find it impossible to count votes at anything like acceptable speed, results will be trickling in for a couple of weeks.
Right, work to do. Laters PB.
But I think it also cuts both ways. There are lots of people who aren't going to be put off voting for Trump no matter what fresh scandals emerge about him or his family or the criminals he keeps managing to accidentally appoint to his administration ("Never met the guy! Hardly know him!"). But there are also lots of people who aren't going to be put off voting against Trump, no matter how many gaffes Biden manages to fit in between now and the election.
Say something did happen between now and November that meant Next President - Biden and Next President - Democrat were not the same thing... who here would dare to predict how it would truly play out?
Ps
New server is awesome
Fine, that's just practical tactics. But it's a short step from that to favouring policies that help middle-class families like those teachers and nurses, and forget about families struggling on a sink estate who probably won't vote, especially as they're a shrinking share of the electorate. And yet, we're still perfectly clear that we want to give priority to the latter as they need help more urgently, and if we forget them we've actually sold our souls and the whole reason for bothering.
The converse right-wing problem is that if they want to reap a rich harvest of working-class voters attracted by populism, they risk losing the sober traditional Tories who just want a steady ship. My mother was a Tory to her bones (unless I happened to be the candidate), but she despised people like Trump and wouldn't have voted for him in a million years.
It isn't.
https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/1298888663854723073?s=19
In particular, the declaring of states before the votes are completely counted and certified seems daft to me.
Riding a tiger is a risky enterprise.
- The Areas of concern and intervention are working, but better in smaller towns than in the biggest cities. Thus, R last week in West Yorkshire restricted area was 0.84 (26% suppression in a week), E. Lancs and Newark look similar, but in Manchester and Leicester R is much closer to 1 and suppression of the case rate is much slower.
- It seems we are currently holding the fort or suppressing in similar fashion across the north: low incidences in Liverpool, Newcastle and moderate incidence in Birmingham are holding steady (in the latter two cases after an increase a couple a weeks ago), as are Leeds and Wakefield, whilst Middleborough and South Yorkshire have suppressed strongly.
- Northampton is not out of the woods but did an excellent initial job containing the sandwich factory outbreak (R from the initial intervention looks to have been around 0.7 for the last 2 weeks).
- Overall in hotspots, R is decently below 1, probably below 0.9 and this drove R across the UK below 1 last week.
- But, there are a lot of places with low incidence where that incidence is creeping up, and the danger is that we replace every current hotspot with 2 more, and lose control again in the cities where we're barely suppressing.
- Incidence is creeping up mostly in the south. London is just about steady, but many towns between London, Bristol, Birmingham and Peterborough look like emerging warmspots, particularly the Thames Valley. Maidenhead is a definite hotspot (Slough, with lower incidence, is already on the watchlist), Oxford could soon join, and Bristol looks as likely as any place for a September increase).
- The tip of balance from lockdown suppression to emerging warmspots (plus Scotland, which I'm glossing over given I'm discussing ONS data), means R is now back up around 1.08 UK wide.
- My previous E. Mids town prediction looks reasonably accurate - Newark, Retford and Melton Mowbray all saw hot/warmspots and Wellingborough, Kettering and Corby are still there. Spread further east, into Lincoln and Cambridge, has been snuffed out so far, and the focus swings south for the moment. They remain vulnerable, whilst Nottingham/Derby seems very vulnerable to a bigger outbreak (low previous incidence means R might be naturally 0.1-0.2 higher than a similar location with larger prior outbreaks which, when many places are bobbling around 1, can be the difference).
We saw that article on here reporting they are confident.
Plus Biden's if you ain;t a democrat you aint black comment. Could there be a 'black wall'; event here similar to the 'red wall' event in the UK, where the black vote is a no show for Biden or even drifts to Trump?
Except in the case of a total Biden blowout there will be HUUuUUUUUUge trading oppertunities on election night.
Especially focused around Pensylvania and Michigan.
Because Trump still ended up winning those states people have forgotten just how many Clinton votes turned up after election night. In Pensylvania the gap was 6 figures but that closed to 5 figures once all the votes were counted. Same in Michigan.
It is incredibly frustrating that there is not graph of how the vote totals changed over time that I can find.
These slow vote counts will throw people off. Who can forget that you could still back Clinton to win the popular vote and New Hampshire the day after election?
But the Labour party has the biggest problem, it is completely dominated by the middle classes, the public sector and the educated. Inevitably its interests reflect their concerns rather than the people it was actually supposed to be for. When the Tories neglected them too it maybe didn't matter so much but Boris has reached out to them and Labour have found re-engaging with them difficult.
https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1298901120073568256
https://twitter.com/reactionlife/status/1298901295089283073
The rise of Angela Rayner (who Starmer should make better use of) to Deputy Leader is a good example. Her political antennae are pretty good, and she injects a bit of passion.
I agree with Nick though, if people don't vote, then parties will ignore them. Labour also speaks too much of those in the bottom 10%, while ignoring those only marginally better off.
Perhaps Labour's biggest problem though is the collapse of private sector and manufacturing unions. If the only unions with a voice are NHS, Civil Service, Council workers and teachers then that is too small of base.
Employment has changed, and Labour needs to look more at the employment issues of the working poor. There is a place for ZHC and portfolio gig working, but for corporations to use it as a way around employment law should clearly be unacceptable.