Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If you want to bet that the WH2020 polls are wrong you need lo
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If you want to bet that the WH2020 polls are wrong you need longer odds than currently available
A former PB regular has been in touch with me to say that we’ve got it all wrong over the betting on the American election. He argues that Trump is in a much better position than several of the recent posts on the site have suggested and there are reasons to believe that the US polling is is not correct.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Don't waste pixels on it, just use the 538 numbers. Whatever you think of their projections, they at least know how to type a poll into Excel.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/mi/michigan_trump_vs_biden-6761.html
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/michigan/
Most taxes are actually dealt with by some form of self-assessment and self-reporting. Even if you're on PAYE then your employer will be self-assessing what taxes need paying and sending that information to HMRC. Actual inspections are rare and for fraud and carry criminal penalties.
There is no reason the Irish border can't be dealt with the same way. If we have a free trade deal with the EU there won't be many customs to deal with anyway and just rely on self-assessment and self-reporting rather than customs posts.
The law is there, the infrastructure is not. It risks some smuggling but then if anyone is caught smuggling they can face criminal sanctions - same as any other law breaker.
I was half tempted by the 9/2 on Colorado.
As it stands, all we can assume is that whoever it might be is more convincing the HYUFD. Which is not the highest of bars.
The whole world lives by those [Mafia] rules and no the "big guys" do not always win. Organised and small works better than sclerotic and spread out.
This is in the context of the UK government explicitly breaking international law.
To work!
The thread header doesn't actually mention the former PBer's reasons.
Rasmussen's own 2,500 poll had Trump just two behind Biden nationally.
There was a chunky national vote bias to the GOP there in both 2016 and 2018, so they could possibly take it at D+4 in the generic ballot according to my calculations.
I thought the reason for the polling errors in 2016 was undersampling of non-college educated white voters - a defect that has been fixed by the polling companies.
So we would require something new to be wrong with the polls to repeat the polling error. This is certainly possible, but I'm struggling to think what it might be.
The dictionary definition of realpolitik is this. It doesn't have to be, and normally isn't, incompatible with the rule of law. Incidentally Brexit is highly ideological and is the opposite of realpolitik.
a system of politics or principles based on practical rather than moral or ideological considerations.
But as I say, the thread header does not actually mention the reasons the former PBer gave for the polls overstating Biden.
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/515793-cohen-i-guarantee-that-its-not-going-to-go-well-for-whoever-set-up-woodward
My solution to get NI peaceful by relying on self-assessment and trust rather than border posts is more practical than the highly ideological obsession about "integrity of the Single Market"
Taking the data from https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/healthcare and plotting the last two months (to avoid swamping the graph with the previous peak) and using England+Wales (directly comparable with ONS death stats if we need to draw comparisons later - and because the Scottish data is not available for the most recent several days), it looks like this:
(raw daily admissions and 7-day average as a line on top).
It does look as though there's been a bit of a change as of a couple of weeks ago (which would equate with an uptick in cases about 3 weeks ago):
Without it, Trump could have told a decent economic story (debt notwithstanding).
i) Incumbents tend to win
ii) Sitting presidents tend to slightly outperform polling *
iii) Sitting presidents tend to lose when the economy is in the shitter. Now the current economy might be a debt fuelled mirage, but it's still going relatively well.+
iv) The protests and so forth are leading to a larger shy Trump factor than normal as people don't want to give the socially unacceptable 'Trump' answer.
* I think this one is true. Was in 2012 at any rate https://www.pollingreport.com/wh12gen.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_presidential_election
Needs further checking though.
+ Well the stock markets are. Is main Street though ? In the rust belt ? More difficult to check than the stock market.
All that said, I think the market is still overstating Trump's chances. But it's not impossible he wins. Personally I'm staying long Biden for now.
Practical considerations would generally lead to complying with an international rules based system, and maintaining your reputation for doing so.
Like how the Australians stopped illegal boat migration?
Like how the UK went to war with Iraq?
Like how the UK refuses to give prisoners the vote?
Sometimes the right thing to do is to break the rules.
It is, though, another indicator on the dashboard that's blinking as if in warning.
The cases number is up - which could be an artefact of increased testing. We'd expect positivity rates to be up if there's a real growth.
The positivity rates are up - which could be an artefact of the concentration of testing in hotspots. We'd expect hospitalisation rates to be up if there's a burgeoning problem
Hospitalisation rates are up - but that's from a low base and still rather limited.
With all three indicators swinging upwards, and aware that this thing can bloom fast if not watched carefully and that hospitalisations are a driving-by-the-rear-view-mirror sort of thing, you can see why the Government are getting cautious.
Incidentally, I was walking down Trump Street in the City of London the other day. It is outrageous that there is no Biden Street to balance it. Still, the fact that it turns into Russia Row makes me feel that the Corporation has a mischievous sense of humour after all.
Wouldn't panic be closing pubs, restaurants, schools etc?
Come on.
It appears they were allowed to accept people they weren't obliged to by the regulation, or are you thinking of something else?
http://www.asylumineurope.org/news/24-08-2015/germany-halt-dublin-procedures-syrians
On the Senate I agree it is 50 50 as the states up were last up in 2014 when the GOP won a landslide so most of them are Republican held with many Democratic targets.
The House though will likely see GOP pick ups as it was last up in 2018 when the Democrats got a big swing to them to take control of the chamber
National: 7.7
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/national/
Tipping point state (PA): 5.1
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/pennsylvania/
In 2016 538 called Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania for Hillary, Trafalgar called Michigan and Pennsylvania for Trump, Trafalgar was correct
The difference is, because we have a more legalistic and accountable government, we signal in advance what we're going to do, rather than breaching it, then presenting Brussels with a fait accompli, then bargaining to avoid penalties. I once had to deal with the EU when we had infringed the letter of European rules in a minor way, though overall, we were about the only country in Europe who was working to comply with the spirit - the rest were just prevaricating. It was fascinating to see the difference in approach between us and the other countries.
The fourth is possible but there's not really any consistent evidence for it.
To my mind the only real reason for backing Trump is that 'stuff happens' and a lot more stuff seems to be happening this year than usual, which means it might be reasonable to factor in more uncertainty this year than compared with the historic experience on which the models are based. It's a judgement, obviously, but the betting markets are already adding a chunk of extra Trump-friendly uncertainty.
In other words, as well as every thing else, it is a blatant power grab from Parliament to the Executive...
France - There would seem to be an obvious public health justification for the French action, and as we've seen with Covid, public health is a legal justification for temporarily suspending normal rules. So I think this was not contrary to law.
Australia - If the migration is illegal then it isn't contrary to law to stop it. You seem confused. In any case, I do think the Australian government is in the wrong and it does affect my opinion of them.
Iraq - The justification given by the British government was that the invasion was legal in international law due to an impending humanitarian catastrophe. While I didn't agree with that interpretation, that sort of defence is very different to "we are breaking international law and we don't care."
Prisoners voting rights - I think the government is wrong with that one, so I don't see the point you are making. They've also wilfully misrepresented the judgment against them for political gain, so I do also see that as undermining the rule of law.
Will Biden and Harris match Obama's turnout with blacks? If anything polls show a slight swing amongst black voters to Trump since 2016
Still cannot believe he was favourite at one point, @4.2 - just unelievable.
The crucial point which people seem to have trouble understanding is that, if a forecast says the favourite has (say) a 75% chance of winning, then not only is it not at all surprising if the favourite doesn't win, but for the forecast to be accurate the favourite shouldn't win in one out of four such forecasts.
https://twitter.com/richardpbacon/status/748534124009361408?s=20
Interestingly Nige attacked the governments latest moves on COVID as too authoritarian.
When this happens they will definitely take points out of Johnson. There are just too many tory voter gripes right now for them not to.
And that's why, for me, Johnson goes next year. And Cummings with him.
We’re now in a scary situation where the Official opposition is cowed against questioning issues of huge national and constitutional importance because “the public don’t care”, or even worse “will react negatively to the raising of these issues”.
I had my latest set of blood tests last week post July's Lukemia-treatment, and that is good news - haemoglobin and white cells are back to the lower end of "normal" levels, and the platelets and the other one are going back up but not there yet.
So officially back from shielding to cautious. And now on a periodic 3 then 6 month test regime.
Which is all to the good. Now I need to start getting some proper exercise and strength back. I did, however, manage to land on my Rs on the oak floor this week, so a touch sore around the rear end.
http://aboutasfarasdelgados.blogspot.com/2017/05/the-problem-with-opinion-polls-polls.html
https://twitter.com/CharlotteAlter/status/1301712700867842049?s=20
https://twitter.com/CharlotteAlter/status/1301715512309809153?s=20
https://twitter.com/CharlotteAlter/status/1301726287048867840?s=20
In other words, sometimes the public doesn't realise something is important at first, but if it really is important they will realise eventually. Is this a likely example of that? I suspect it is, but as for what the trigger will be for the silent majority to get it, that I don't know.
However, there is plenty of evidence, for example, to suggest that the proposition "Trump insults women, therefore women will dislike Trump" is not entirely untrue.
I would add one caveat, though. Sometimes people misunderstand listening to mean "agreeing with what they're told." I think it's perfectly fine to listen to people, try to understand them, but then use that understanding to try and change their minds.
100%.
The only uncertainty is how he will spin it and what @Philip_Thompson will say it is and why he thinks it is such a masterstroke.
What a place we have arrived at in politics.