Options
READING THE TEA LEAVES: A LOOK AT NORTH CAROLINA EARLY VOTING – politicalbetting.com
The North Carolina Board of Elections is great: they give you turnout by day, by type (mostly in person early voting), by gender and by party affiliation.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1320500007817093121?s=19
In other words, you are correct IF history repeats itself. But, strangely, sometimes (indeed often) it simply does NOT.
They have huge population growth and churn in a way quite alien to the UK.
The electorate of the previous election is not the same as the current one.
On suppression I think you have to split this into two parts, voting and post-election litigation.
On voting, I think everything about the process is going to be better than 2016. Several key states that were previously fully GOP-run now have Dem governors, and Dems and state courts have made some progress in improving access. Even GOP-run states have expanded early voting and mail-in voting because of the rona. People are talking about the issue, and thinking hard about how they're going to vote and get their vote counted. And because Trump is now relying so much on the election day vote, any attempt to DoS the system on the day risks blowing up in his face.
The harder part if post-election litigation. SCOTUS looks like it will have not just a GOP majority (ie a majority counting Roberts), but (Gorsuch-permitting) a GOP Hack majority. Wisconsin also has a fairly audacious GOP-majority court with a history of ratfuckery. So if it comes down to a Bush-vs-Gore-style coin flip, it's easy to see how someone could put their thumb on the scale. I think you can count this as something like a 0.5% benefit to Trump in the case of a close election, above his Electoral College advantage. But I don't think it does much to the probability of the landslide-type cases.
Like the old Greek said about the river - you can't stick your stick into the same stream twice.
Note that OH, PA and (IIRC) MI have among the highest percents in the Union, of residents who are native-born residents. Meaning that leavers are mostly NOT being replaced by newcommers.
1.1% in North Carolina
1.2% in Arizona
1.2% in Florida
2.8% in Pennsylvania
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/
Hopefully Nate Silver disqualifies Trafalgar now after those very sketchy crosstabs (which have now since been deleted hilariously). Broken clocks are right twice a day.
As has been note, demographics (like plenty of other things) can change with impressive rapidity here in the good old USA.
Trump’s Army of Angry White Men
This group will continue to fight for Trump and he knows that.
Charles M. Blow"
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/25/opinion/trump-white-men-election.html
What you say about TX, NY, CA does NOT rebut my rebuttal. Just ignores it.
https://www.ncsbe.gov/results-data/election-results/voter-turnout-statistics
So best not to be TOO categorical. Even (or especially) if you have skin in the game.
Personally think arguments by HYUFD & Co would be way more effective & possibly even persuasive IF they focused on what "might" happen, instead of pronouncing what "will" happen.
Because plenty enough CAN happen in the Tar Heel State - just ask the ghost of General Cornwallis!
Second, massive demographic changes have taken place in both TX and CA. CA has become very blue from just blue, whereas TX is on its way to becoming purple. Just because the tipping point as not been reached in the last couple of decades ignores the fact that tipping points are sudden when they happen.
Joe Biden is not anti British. He backed us in the Falklands when Ronald Reagan didn't"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-8878655/DOMINIC-LAWSON-Joe-Biden-not-anti-British.html
https://twitter.com/kerpen/status/1320566384754130944
Except for the really committed, I suspect an enthusiasm gap for both sides. Maybe less for the Dems, but still.
Yesterday's CBS/YouGov North Carolina poll is a big one I think: Biden ahead +4
We should remember that opinion polls are now no longer merely hypothetical litmus tests, they represent a virtual exit poll for anything up to 50% of respondents. Because Biden and his Democrat coat tails continue to perform significantly well amongst mainstream and peer-reviewed pollsters this reinforces Robert's point. Trump would have to do exceptionally well on 'the day' to reverse what appear already to be big losses. There's no evidence that he will.
I am very confident of a big win for Joe Biden and the Democrats.
(Please no one comment on the Trafalgar Group poll: this isn't a case of cherry picking pollsters)
The number of people on here who don't dig into American politics surprises me. Go onto the US sites, read the journos, dig deep, look at the polls and respondents as Robert has done.
As I mentioned, the CBS/YouGov poll is a clear pointer: Biden up 4. Speculate away but that tallies with everything else happening on the ground.
The art of successful betting is to study what's actually happening right here, right now. This time the markets are skewed by your kind of normalcy bias but they are out of kilter with polling and evidence on the ground.
Which makes for a terrific opportunity for those prepared to step up.
That's pretty much all he has to do but it's an important thing to do.
Why would Trafalgar give away the secrets of their superior method ?
And anyway they’re now denying those were their crosstabs.
This kind of thing happens when people on betting exchanges realise they are about to make losses.
And they always seem to be what I thought they were.
Back off mate.
I get very suspicious of people pushing rumours or rumours of rumours (as you are despite pretending not to) in the immediate run up to results. It's almost always an attempt to recover losses on the exchanges. So I'll take you at your word but urge you to be wary.
Rose x
So hyperbolic it's hilarious. But we should expect the QAnon & Far Right to be trying everything they can.
“Abraham Lincoln over here” sounded like deliberate sarcasm to me.
https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/793306268152766464?s=09
No one, literally no one, on here is saying that Trump cannot win. That's because people on here are interested in betting and gambling. If anyone on here was capable of predicting the future 100% of the time they would not be working. The odds based on the polling we have accross all pollsters, and some other data, put the odds greatly against him. If you cannot deal in odds, only in certainties, you are on the wrong site. There is slightly a greater than zero chance that the Sun will not come up tomorrow - there may be the reminants of a neutron star expolsion heading our way at the speed of light. I grew up in Canterbury - if you had told me as recently as early 2017 that Labour would win two consecutive parliamentary elections in the constituency I would have told you where to go.
Trafalgar got it right in 2016. Good for them. That's a single data point in Trump's favour. But if Trafalgar were omnicient then they would be based in Vegas and owing the world. Where are the data points then to back Trafalgar up? You are simply ignoring all the others because there are very few others in Trump's favour and you want reassurance your candidate will win. Trafalgar's picked 7 out of 9 (77%) states correctly in 2016 and overstated Trump in all 9. In Michigan they overstated him by 3% - if they do that again they get that state wrong (it's tied on their latest poll). How have they changed their methodology to correct since 2016?
You simply have to stop talking about certainties. Trump may win. I don't deny that. They most vehment Biden supporter on here doesn't deny that. But the fact that Trafalgar pinned the tail on the donkey in 2016 is not enough to persuade people who deal in probabilities. You need more than that
As I said, I heard something, got it confused with another breaking story, then got it confirmed they weren't the same thing, and so decided not to say anything. Is that ok?
HYUFD is succumbing to the same error I made in 2019. It comprises two fatal betting mistakes:
1. normalcy bias. I believed Corbyn would perform in 2019 like he had in 2015. Same error here re. assuming 2020 will repeat 2016.
combined with
2. What you wish for. Allowing your personal preferences to control your objectivity. I wanted Labour to win. I allowed it to override my judgement.
What I didn't do was read the actual signs on the ground as I had with the Brexit vote and the 2015 election: both of which I successfully bet on.
It's key to successful betting that you try to suspend your own desired outcome, suspend normalcy bias, and study the actual facts on the ground as they are occurring.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/26/republican-party-autocratic-hungary-turkey-study-trump
If you study Florida with even a modicum of attention to detail you will see why Trump is losing it.
Accidentally release something you didn't want others to see.
Defend it (optional)
Delete the evidence
Claim you got hacked or fake news
He's an utter turd.
If accurate the 99-1 Dem registered crossbreak for Biden of voters who have voted thus far in Florida is beyond awful for Trump considering the implications for the rest of the south.
Which read and thought has somewhat spoiled what until now, personally and thinking about yesterday, had been quite a good morning. When one is retired Monday's seem different to the way they day during one's working life!
Still, at least it isn't raining, and the sky looks clear.
Not much sign of shy Trumpers, indeed the contrary...
https://twitter.com/JeremyKonyndyk/status/1320566108877967362
Interestingly, if you assess the actual early turnout Democrats are ahead 43% to 36%. In 2016 early voting at the same time point Republicans were ahead by 1%, the same margin by which he went on to win the State.
Florida looks very good for Biden and I see no reason to bet against the reliable pollsters which have Biden ahead in the State by 2% up.
Data here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/12YvPqiTHtWdC4CnV0zAtNtvj7_QO-mr9/view
and here:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/25/politics/pre-election-voting-surpasses-2016-early-ballots/index.html
Florida looks bleak for Trump to me. Certainly no justification for brokenwheel to mock it as a good betting tip.
https://twitter.com/RobertCahaly/status/1320396164286586882
https://twitter.com/RobertCahaly/status/1320397640849362945
That poll claims independent/NPA are 198/603 = 32.8% of its early voters, actually it's 19.5%
The poll claims Republicans are 161/603 = 26.7% of the early vote, it's actually 35.8%
https://targetearly.targetsmart.com/?view_type=State&demo=Registered Party&demo_val=All&state=FL
The sample is garbage.
Boris was to chicken to show up in the first place.
Brave of you, really.