Why are people quoting pulling from 2016 when there is a more recent national election available for comparison. At the midterms in 2018 the pollsters, apart from Rasmussen, got it pretty right.
In 2018 Trump was not on the ballot, there was no shy GOP vote in 2018 or 2014 and there was no shy Romney vote in 2012 either, there was a shy Trump vote in 2016 and a surge of white working class voters for Trump in 2016 in the rustbelt, voters who did not bother to vote in 2018.
In 2018 the Democrats got 60 million votes ie only 5 million less than the 65 million Hillary got in 2016, the GOP only got 50 million votes in 2018 though, a huge 12 million fewer than the 62 million who voted for Trump in 2016.
Clinton wasn't on the ballot in 2018 either. have you factored that in?
Obama got 65 million in 2012 too, same as Hillary in 2016, Trump however got 62 million in 2016, 2 million more than the 60 million who voted for Romney in 2012
Blaming the Rothschilds Blaming the 'gnomes of Zurich' Blaming George Soros Blaming short-sellers Blaming Hedge Funds
It's the same silly story, almost always from a position of great ignorance.
(There was also some anti-Semitism mixed in with some of these, but that's not true of the most recent couple, except on the loonier fringes of Corbynism).
Thank you. Comments like this are helpful in distinguishing between reasoned disagreement, which is worth engaging with, and blinkered ideology, which is not.
I appreciate that it's not always easy to understand written English at a basic level so I will spell it out for you as you are, as evidenced by your posting on PB, extremely stupid.
I am not criticising people for panic buying. I am explaining to dickheads such as yourself that the circumstances which lead people to panic buy are now established. People will panic buy if they perceive there is a risk to supply. This happened recently in March-May and appears to be happening now, albeit in a more limited way.
Whenever anyone has advanced the idea of empty shelves on account of Brexit, complete arseholes such as yourself have said this is Project Fear.
But it has happened before and might be happening now and if you think the merest hint of supply problems come the end of the transition period will not result in it happening again then, frankly, you really need someone to put you out of your misery.
My prudent buying ‘because of the risk to supply‘ has positioned me so well that I have enough bog roll to last well into next year and have no need to worry about the panic buying of bog roll second time around. Good planning, I think!
Surely all well run households are already topping up their rolling supply of 25+ bog rolls per person so have no need to panic. Just in time bog roll procurement is so 2019.
No room left in this house for panic buying of paper products. The guest room closet has been full to overflowing since early March. Will top up on dog food and chicken stock though. Otherwise, the emergency reserves have been maintained in good shape.
From the first panic - I actually talked to a few people working in supermarkets. They weren't seeing many of the 10 trolleys of bog roll types. Instead they were seeing many more people doing a "full shop"
They reckoned that a lot of people lived with nothing in the cupboard. Bought for tonights dinner etc.... And then they suddenly decided to fill the kitchen cabinets.....
Which is entirely rational behaviour. Add to that everyone who does a weekly "big shop", doing it this weekend, and buying even 25% more than usual, again, eminently sensible, and you have empty shelves without the slightest hint of anyone panicking at all.
Another way to think of it - most big supermarkets stick directly onto the shelves. So what you see, is quite often what they have,
How many big packs of bog roll can they stock? - 100 customers later......
On COVID - this Slovakia initiative is going to be really interesting to watch. 3.5m+ antigen tests done on a weekend - identified 38k positives. Mass testing at scale covering more than half of population. Tests are voluntary and free, but you need one to get out of lockdown.
Netherlands also moving in this direction and has order 9.2m tests, expected to be fulfilled by June 2021.
I appreciate that it's not always easy to understand written English at a basic level so I will spell it out for you as you are, as evidenced by your posting on PB, extremely stupid.
I am not criticising people for panic buying. I am explaining to dickheads such as yourself that the circumstances which lead people to panic buy are now established. People will panic buy if they perceive there is a risk to supply. This happened recently in March-May and appears to be happening now, albeit in a more limited way.
Whenever anyone has advanced the idea of empty shelves on account of Brexit, complete arseholes such as yourself have said this is Project Fear.
But it has happened before and might be happening now and if you think the merest hint of supply problems come the end of the transition period will not result in it happening again then, frankly, you really need someone to put you out of your misery.
My prudent buying ‘because of the risk to supply‘ has positioned me so well that I have enough bog roll to last well into next year and have no need to worry about the panic buying of bog roll second time around. Good planning, I think!
Surely all well run households are already topping up their rolling supply of 25+ bog rolls per person so have no need to panic. Just in time bog roll procurement is so 2019.
No room left in this house for panic buying of paper products. The guest room closet has been full to overflowing since early March. Will top up on dog food and chicken stock though. Otherwise, the emergency reserves have been maintained in good shape.
From the first panic - I actually talked to a few people working in supermarkets. They weren't seeing many of the 10 trolleys of bog roll types. Instead they were seeing many more people doing a "full shop"
They reckoned that a lot of people lived with nothing in the cupboard. Bought for tonights dinner etc.... And then they suddenly decided to fill the kitchen cabinets.....
I would say that there was no real general panic, and the stories back in March were media shitstirring, as much of the coverage of COVID has been.
Weekly UK grocery sales are approx £4 billion. So just 1-1.5% extra.
Another example is when the R-range was 0.7-1.0, the headlines across the media were around "R may have reached one". In reality the probability of that was more like 1-2% with that range.
There's been another one today - BBC maundering about "Govt Minister confirms that lockdown may go beyond Dec 2nd". It was Gove on Marr and what I heard was him refusing to speculate one way or the other, and fake headlines from the BBC.
Blaming the Rothschilds Blaming the 'gnomes of Zurich' Blaming George Soros Blaming short-sellers Blaming Hedge Funds
It's the same silly story, almost always from a position of great ignorance.
(There was also some anti-Semitism mixed in with some of these, but that's not true of the most recent couple, except on the loonier fringes of Corbynism).
Thank you. Comments like this are helpful in distinguishing between reasoned disagreement, which is worth engaging with, and blinkered ideology, which is not.
Why are people quoting pulling from 2016 when there is a more recent national election available for comparison. At the midterms in 2018 the pollsters, apart from Rasmussen, got it pretty right.
I believe the answer given is pollsters such as Trafalgar are nothing special when Trump isn't on the ticket but great when he is, the other pollsters are the opposite. This is of course using a sample of 1 to make this claim.
Debate starting in the Commons. The Speaker makes a pointed and rather angry statement about the "discourtesy" of the leaks over the weekend. PM requested to ensure updates to his leak enquiry are given to the House and that the leaker be brought to the house to give an apology
What if it wasn't a politician?
Seems to strongly imply that there are some hefty suspicions about. Know who my money would be on.
Why are people quoting pulling from 2016 when there is a more recent national election available for comparison. At the midterms in 2018 the pollsters, apart from Rasmussen, got it pretty right.
In 2018 Trump was not on the ballot, there was no shy GOP vote in 2018 or 2014 and there was no shy Romney vote in 2012 either, there was a shy Trump vote in 2016 and a surge of white working class voters for Trump in 2016 in the rustbelt, voters who did not bother to vote in 2018.
In 2018 the Democrats got 60 million votes ie only 5 million less than the 65 million Hillary got in 2016, the GOP only got 50 million votes in 2018 though, a huge 12 million fewer than the 62 million who voted for Trump in 2016.
Clinton wasn't on the ballot in 2018 either. have you factored that in?
Obama got 65 million in 2012 too, same as Hillary in 2016, Trump however got 62 million in 2016, 2 million more than the 60 million who voted for Romney in 2012
How much did the voting age population increase by?
If it was nothing, good show. If it was 10 million, that's pretty unimpressive.
Blaming the Rothschilds Blaming the 'gnomes of Zurich' Blaming George Soros Blaming short-sellers Blaming Hedge Funds
It's the same silly story, almost always from a position of great ignorance.
(There was also some anti-Semitism mixed in with some of these, but that's not true of the most recent couple, except on the loonier fringes of Corbynism).
When people blame the likes of short sellers and hedge funds, I ask them a simple question.
'Can you explain to me exactly what a hedge fund or short seller does?'
The silence is golden.
The best recent example was the German authorities trying to ban short-selling of Wirecard, even going to the extent of starting a prosecution against those saying that Wirecard looked dodgy.
In about 48h time we will see who is right and who is wrong about Trafalgar and actual real pollsters etc
I wonder if those who are wrong whomever they may be will acknowledge they were and contemplate why. If Trump wins now I will certainly be wrong.
I couldn't disagree more.
It won't matter if Trafalgar is fifty points out or gets it spot on to three decimal places. They are not pollsters in any meaningful sense and I doubt they ever will be. Their views are therefore about as relevant and helpful as anybody else who guesses from somebody else's data, tweaking in accordance with their gut feeling or personal preferences.
If anyone apologises as you suggest, it would only indicate that they have missed the point entirely.
Blaming the Rothschilds Blaming the 'gnomes of Zurich' Blaming George Soros Blaming short-sellers Blaming Hedge Funds
It's the same silly story, almost always from a position of great ignorance.
(There was also some anti-Semitism mixed in with some of these, but that's not true of the most recent couple, except on the loonier fringes of Corbynism).
When people blame the likes of short sellers and hedge funds, I ask them a simple question.
'Can you explain to me exactly what a hedge fund or short seller does?'
The silence is golden.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't read the preceding discussion, from which it is clear who was and was not being reasonable. For what it's worth, I rejected the notions either that hedge funds "caused" the crisis or were innocent bystanders to it. Is that loony left? And I can certainly give an explanation of those, albeit doubtless an imperfect one. Do their unflinching defenders have no similar obligation to understand the subject matter?
Why are people quoting pulling from 2016 when there is a more recent national election available for comparison. At the midterms in 2018 the pollsters, apart from Rasmussen, got it pretty right.
I believe the answer given is pollsters such as Trafalgar are nothing special when Trump isn't on the ticket but great when he is, the other pollsters are the opposite. This is of course using a sample of 1 to make this claim.
Except of course pollsters like Trafalgar were absolutely awful in many states in 2016 like Nevada where Cahaly claimed Trump would win by 2. He lost it by 5.
Some people get around this by ignoring Nevada and any other states that don't fit the narrative.
The issue is Trafalgar are like a pollster who predicted a six on every single dice across multiple rolls ... Then people disregard everything that wasn't a six and look at only those that the six came in and say "behold".
Blaming the Rothschilds Blaming the 'gnomes of Zurich' Blaming George Soros Blaming short-sellers Blaming Hedge Funds
It's the same silly story, almost always from a position of great ignorance.
(There was also some anti-Semitism mixed in with some of these, but that's not true of the most recent couple, except on the loonier fringes of Corbynism).
When people blame the likes of short sellers and hedge funds, I ask them a simple question.
'Can you explain to me exactly what a hedge fund or short seller does?'
The silence is golden.
The best recent example was the German authorities trying to ban short-selling of Wirecard, even going to the extent of starting a prosecution against those saying that Wirecard looked dodgy.
Another brilliant one was in the wake of 2008.
There was a concerted attempt to crack down on... the venture capital market, in the US
Except VC was nothing to do with what happened. But rich people investing must be bad or something.
I have a strong suspicion that this was a "look squirrel" by certain banks, who also wanted to stop money flowing directly into investments, rather than going through them (the banks)
Look at that 50,000 strong Trump rally in Butler Pennsylvania.
Hiow many of those people do you honestly think have been reached and polled by democrat-leaning pollsters trying to assess the state.
How many would give those pollsters the time of day?
What would they have against a pollster phoning them, or participating in an online panel?
Sorry where have you been in the last four years?
Democrat institutions and the mainstream media have demonised and vilified Trump supporters to an enormous extent. To Dems, they are openly just racist redneck scum Openly supporting Trump can be a career decision.
Pollsters who are honest will tell you some republican people are extremely cagey, especially when anonymity is not continually stressed and guaranteed.
I got this from a pollster who does a two hour show every day on his results and experiences.
So shy that some will stick flags on their cars and attempt to run Democratic campaigners off the road. Did he tell you about the shy Democrat voters in Texas ?
Sounds rather like the classic "I want a discount or we go to law" thing.
That didn't end well for Foxtons guy. Ha!
Given his predisposition for legal action, if I was a tradesman I think I might give working for him a miss.
The guy who owned Foxtons found that out....
He was so famous for suing people, he couldn't;t get anyone to do the mega project on his house. No builder would touch it. So he tried hiring all the contractors himself. Who proceeded to take him to the cleaners......
If you like 538's model... then the states with the biggest discrepancy between the odds and 538's predictions are: FL, PA and OH (I think - some states I didn't check, someone better at coding than me could do this automatically I'm sure).
FL: 538 says 68% chance vs. betfair on 44%. PA: 538 says 87% chance vs. betfair on 65%. OH: 538 says 49% chance vs. betfair on 31%.
To my mind, that makes Florida and PA excellent value.
I have to say, and despite respecting 538 greatly, I have to say the Betfair % look closer to me for sure for FL and PA
I've been trying to work out what the best value bet is at the moment. My only position is a £10 buy of Biden ECVs at 285 which I'm very happy with. Wish I'd risked a bigger stake.
I think the best value bet is probably Biden to be President.
Biden POTUS: 538 says 90% vs betfair on 66%
The relative value in backing Biden to be POTUS doesn't look as good as backing Biden to win Florida say. But the probability of the bet landing is, of course, significantly more likely.
The thing is with a decent position already on Biden I'm reluctant to stump up a big stake at short odds to make the additional bet worth winning. But Biden to be POTUS at current odds does look huge value.
Decisions, decisions ......
stjohn - I'm with Richard Nabavi and the Hat Tipper kinabulu in backing Trump to secure >70 million votes, helped no doubt by the fine weather forecast. I'm further encouraged by Jack_W's forecast of there being a total of 160 million + votes cast. Half an hour ago Betfair's back price was 1.75 decimal, but I asked for and obtained 1.80 decimal, i.e. 4/5 less 5% commission. A likely winner in my view, although you may have to wait a few weeks for your money. In typical fashion, Betfair probably won't pay out until every last vote has been officially certified, even if the 70 million total has been comfortably exceeded.
Is that right? I thought the error was in the methodology, not missing a late swing.
No, there was a genuine late swing. It was identified in the official post mortems such as the Kennedy Report.
It wasn't the only factor contributing to the so-called polling failure (which wasn't actually all that bad) but it was a material one.
Ah, thanks! I wasn't aware they had a report looking into the previous failings.
Yes there were a few, Kennedy being one of the briefer and more readable.
Exec summary is that the National polling was ok, and the State polling got it wrong largely because it weighted inadequately for early school leavers, who turned out in much larger numbers than anticipated.
Blaming the Rothschilds Blaming the 'gnomes of Zurich' Blaming George Soros Blaming short-sellers Blaming Hedge Funds
It's the same silly story, almost always from a position of great ignorance.
(There was also some anti-Semitism mixed in with some of these, but that's not true of the most recent couple, except on the loonier fringes of Corbynism).
When people blame the likes of short sellers and hedge funds, I ask them a simple question.
'Can you explain to me exactly what a hedge fund or short seller does?'
The silence is golden.
The best recent example was the German authorities trying to ban short-selling of Wirecard, even going to the extent of starting a prosecution against those saying that Wirecard looked dodgy.
Another brilliant one was in the wake of 2008.
There was a concerted attempt to crack down on... the venture capital market, in the US
Except VC was nothing to do with what happened. But rich people investing must be bad or something.
I have a strong suspicion that this was a "look squirrel" by certain banks, who also wanted to stop money flowing directly into investments, rather than going through them (the banks)
I also liked the fact that everyone was blaming the 'casino banks' for the crash, totally ignoring the fact that incredibly boring banks who did little or no speculative trading were amongst some of the worst hit (Lloyds, HBOS, Northern Rock, the German landesbanks, the Spanish mortgage banks, the Irish property lenders...). To a large extent the crisis was a simple old-fashioned banking crash caused by over-reach on property. (Not just that, obv, but that was a large component).
Debate starting in the Commons. The Speaker makes a pointed and rather angry statement about the "discourtesy" of the leaks over the weekend. PM requested to ensure updates to his leak enquiry are given to the House and that the leaker be brought to the house to give an apology
What if it wasn't a politician?
Lots of non-politicians appear before Select Committees etc.
Blaming the Rothschilds Blaming the 'gnomes of Zurich' Blaming George Soros Blaming short-sellers Blaming Hedge Funds
It's the same silly story, almost always from a position of great ignorance.
(There was also some anti-Semitism mixed in with some of these, but that's not true of the most recent couple, except on the loonier fringes of Corbynism).
When people blame the likes of short sellers and hedge funds, I ask them a simple question.
'Can you explain to me exactly what a hedge fund or short seller does?'
The silence is golden.
The best recent example was the German authorities trying to ban short-selling of Wirecard, even going to the extent of starting a prosecution against those saying that Wirecard looked dodgy.
Another brilliant one was in the wake of 2008.
There was a concerted attempt to crack down on... the venture capital market, in the US
Except VC was nothing to do with what happened. But rich people investing must be bad or something.
I have a strong suspicion that this was a "look squirrel" by certain banks, who also wanted to stop money flowing directly into investments, rather than going through them (the banks)
I also liked the fact that everyone was blaming the 'casino banks' for the crash, totally ignoring the fact that incredibly boring banks who did little or no speculative trading were amongst some of the worst hit (Lloyds, HBOS, Northern Rock, the German landesbanks, the Spanish mortgage banks, the Irish property lenders...). To a large extent the crisis was a simple old-fashioned banking crash caused by over-reach on property. (Not just that, obv, but that was a large component).
The other one was when some loonies were trying to claim that anyone who had more than 30k *on deposit* at a build society was some kind of evil speculator and deserved to be wiped out....
In about 48h time we will see who is right and who is wrong about Trafalgar and actual real pollsters etc
I wonder if those who are wrong whomever they may be will acknowledge they were and contemplate why. If Trump wins now I will certainly be wrong.
You also said about 2 Months ago that the Dems taking control of the Senate was very unlikely. What is your view on that now? 538 has "dems controlling the Senate" at 76%.
Is that right? I thought the error was in the methodology, not missing a late swing.
No, there was a genuine late swing. It was identified in the official post mortems such as the Kennedy Report.
It wasn't the only factor contributing to the so-called polling failure (which wasn't actually all that bad) but it was a material one.
Ah, thanks! I wasn't aware they had a report looking into the previous failings.
Yes there were a few, Kennedy being one of the briefer and more readable.
Exec summary is that the National polling was ok, and the State polling got it wrong largely because it weighted inadequately for early school leavers, who turned out in much larger numbers than anticipated.
Why are people quoting pulling from 2016 when there is a more recent national election available for comparison. At the midterms in 2018 the pollsters, apart from Rasmussen, got it pretty right.
I believe the answer given is pollsters such as Trafalgar are nothing special when Trump isn't on the ticket but great when he is, the other pollsters are the opposite. This is of course using a sample of 1 to make this claim.
Except of course pollsters like Trafalgar were absolutely awful in many states in 2016 like Nevada where Cahaly claimed Trump would win by 2. He lost it by 5.
Some people get around this by ignoring Nevada and any other states that don't fit the narrative.
The issue is Trafalgar are like a pollster who predicted a six on every single dice across multiple rolls ... Then people disregard everything that wasn't a six and look at only those that the six came in and say "behold".
They have Biden ahead in Nevada now as well as in Wisconsin
Fun Fact: If turnout exceeds 165m or so, high but far from inconceivable, then it will be the first US election in history where turnover as a % of the entire population is over 50%.
Blaming the Rothschilds Blaming the 'gnomes of Zurich' Blaming George Soros Blaming short-sellers Blaming Hedge Funds
It's the same silly story, almost always from a position of great ignorance.
(There was also some anti-Semitism mixed in with some of these, but that's not true of the most recent couple, except on the loonier fringes of Corbynism).
When people blame the likes of short sellers and hedge funds, I ask them a simple question.
'Can you explain to me exactly what a hedge fund or short seller does?'
The silence is golden.
The best recent example was the German authorities trying to ban short-selling of Wirecard, even going to the extent of starting a prosecution against those saying that Wirecard looked dodgy.
Another brilliant one was in the wake of 2008.
There was a concerted attempt to crack down on... the venture capital market, in the US
Except VC was nothing to do with what happened. But rich people investing must be bad or something.
I have a strong suspicion that this was a "look squirrel" by certain banks, who also wanted to stop money flowing directly into investments, rather than going through them (the banks)
I also liked the fact that everyone was blaming the 'casino banks' for the crash, totally ignoring the fact that incredibly boring banks who did little or no speculative trading were amongst some of the worst hit (Lloyds, HBOS, Northern Rock, the German landesbanks, the Spanish mortgage banks, the Irish property lenders...). To a large extent the crisis was a simple old-fashioned banking crash caused by over-reach on property. (Not just that, obv, but that was a large component).
Tbf, it was in the US. Not here, though the spill over from the crash in the US hurt investment banking in this country.
In about 48h time we will see who is right and who is wrong about Trafalgar and actual real pollsters etc
I wonder if those who are wrong whomever they may be will acknowledge they were and contemplate why. If Trump wins now I will certainly be wrong.
You also said about 2 Months ago that the Dems taking control of the Senate was very unlikely. What is your view on that now? 538 has "dems controlling the Senate" at 76%.
I said that on Betfair terms not actual terms. Ie it should be NOC which is Democratic controlled but Betfair wouldn't pay out.
I'd probably say odds on now for a slim Democratic majority. Massive favourites for at least NOC Democratic controlled.
If Betfair wasn't so weird it would have been easier to predict a Democrat win sooner. Does 538 class Sanders and the other one as a Democrat?
The polls have gone if anything more to the Democrats rather than against them and there's been no swingback whatsoever to the Republicans.
In about 48h time we will see who is right and who is wrong about Trafalgar and actual real pollsters etc
I wonder if those who are wrong whomever they may be will acknowledge they were and contemplate why. If Trump wins now I will certainly be wrong.
You also said about 2 Months ago that the Dems taking control of the Senate was very unlikely. What is your view on that now? 538 has "dems controlling the Senate" at 76%.
I said that on Betfair terms not actual terms. Ie it should be NOC which is Democratic controlled but Betfair wouldn't pay out.
I'd probably say odds on now for a slim Democratic majority. Massive favourites for at least NOC Democratic controlled.
If Betfair wasn't so weird it would have been easier to predict a Democrat win sooner. Does 538 class Sanders and the other one as a Democrat?
No, it classes Sanders and Angus King of Maine as Ind, so 'Dem Majority' on their senate market means 53 Dems (including Sanders/King).
What's the saying, it's not how big it is.. it's what you do with it? Seems appropriate here.
That has been some of the problem - how to get results through in timely fashion was an afterthought, test and trace was conceived during a game of Numberwang.
In about 48h time we will see who is right and who is wrong about Trafalgar and actual real pollsters etc
I wonder if those who are wrong whomever they may be will acknowledge they were and contemplate why. If Trump wins now I will certainly be wrong.
You also said about 2 Months ago that the Dems taking control of the Senate was very unlikely. What is your view on that now? 538 has "dems controlling the Senate" at 76%.
I said that on Betfair terms not actual terms. Ie it should be NOC which is Democratic controlled but Betfair wouldn't pay out.
I'd probably say odds on now for a slim Democratic majority. Massive favourites for at least NOC Democratic controlled.
If Betfair wasn't so weird it would have been easier to predict a Democrat win sooner. Does 538 class Sanders and the other one as a Democrat?
No, it classes Sanders and Angus King of Maine as Ind, so 'Dem Majority' on their senate market means 53 Dems (including Sanders/King).
Good to know. I agree with 538. There's little guarantee there but it's more likely than not ... And the odds have moved IMO in the Democrats favour over the past two months.
Frankly the Republicans have ran a terrible campaign this year.
In about 48h time we will see who is right and who is wrong about Trafalgar and actual real pollsters etc
I wonder if those who are wrong whomever they may be will acknowledge they were and contemplate why. If Trump wins now I will certainly be wrong.
You also said about 2 Months ago that the Dems taking control of the Senate was very unlikely. What is your view on that now? 538 has "dems controlling the Senate" at 76%.
I said that on Betfair terms not actual terms. Ie it should be NOC which is Democratic controlled but Betfair wouldn't pay out.
I'd probably say odds on now for a slim Democratic majority. Massive favourites for at least NOC Democratic controlled.
If Betfair wasn't so weird it would have been easier to predict a Democrat win sooner. Does 538 class Sanders and the other one as a Democrat?
The polls have gone if anything more to the Democrats rather than against them and there's been no swingback whatsoever to the Republicans.
That BF market needs a massive warning sign plastered on top of the odds.
In about 48h time we will see who is right and who is wrong about Trafalgar and actual real pollsters etc
I wonder if those who are wrong whomever they may be will acknowledge they were and contemplate why. If Trump wins now I will certainly be wrong.
You also said about 2 Months ago that the Dems taking control of the Senate was very unlikely. What is your view on that now? 538 has "dems controlling the Senate" at 76%.
I said that on Betfair terms not actual terms. Ie it should be NOC which is Democratic controlled but Betfair wouldn't pay out.
I'd probably say odds on now for a slim Democratic majority. Massive favourites for at least NOC Democratic controlled.
If Betfair wasn't so weird it would have been easier to predict a Democrat win sooner. Does 538 class Sanders and the other one as a Democrat?
The polls have gone if anything more to the Democrats rather than against them and there's been no swingback whatsoever to the Republicans.
That BF market needs a massive warning sign plastered on top of the odds.
The way it’s presented isn’t good enough, IMO
I agree. Their Rules are very clear on this, but you have to click on a link to get to them and there is no indication on the market page other than the surprising odds that you should bother checking.
Why are people quoting pulling from 2016 when there is a more recent national election available for comparison. At the midterms in 2018 the pollsters, apart from Rasmussen, got it pretty right.
I believe the answer given is pollsters such as Trafalgar are nothing special when Trump isn't on the ticket but great when he is, the other pollsters are the opposite. This is of course using a sample of 1 to make this claim.
Except of course pollsters like Trafalgar were absolutely awful in many states in 2016 like Nevada where Cahaly claimed Trump would win by 2. He lost it by 5.
Some people get around this by ignoring Nevada and any other states that don't fit the narrative.
The issue is Trafalgar are like a pollster who predicted a six on every single dice across multiple rolls ... Then people disregard everything that wasn't a six and look at only those that the six came in and say "behold".
They have Biden ahead in Nevada now as well as in Wisconsin
If the daily case data is representative we may actually be seeing infection rates falling faster than expected in England, Scotland and NI, by the time lockdown starts the R might be below 0.9 in all three.
If the daily case data is representative we may actually be seeing infection rates falling faster than expected in England, Scotland and NI, by the time lockdown starts the R might be below 0.9 in all three.
Now is not the time for logic (as my old granny used to say).
If the daily case data is representative we may actually be seeing infection rates falling faster than expected in England, Scotland and NI, by the time lockdown starts the R might be below 0.9 in all three.
That's good. Hopefully that's across all age profiles and not just the young.
How low do you expect R will go for the next 4 weeks? How low does it have to go to get case numbers back down in just 4 weeks time?
Shagger keeps saying the new non lockdown national not national lockdown will lapse on 2nd December. "What are the objectives for the lockdown" he keeps being asked - and answers that the R rate will come down and the measures will end on 2nd December.
Yes, but what if the R rate doesn't come down sufficiently?
If the daily case data is representative we may actually be seeing infection rates falling faster than expected in England, Scotland and NI, by the time lockdown starts the R might be below 0.9 in all three.
Do you think it is representative, as I thought you were previously worried it was not.
Mr. D, it is shocking that the Government has no interest in funding the space cannon, solar death ray, trebuchet-based criminal justice system or the other sensible policies I've advocated for many years.
And with that, I must be off. This chocolate isn't going to eat itself.
All the polls point to Biden, but I have a feeling Trump might just edge it in the swing states.
I think turnout will be much higher than expected and that there are a few shy middle class Trump voters.
There will need to be more than "a few shy middle-class Trump voters" They don't need to be middle class, but probably need to number something like 4-6 million to seriously impact on the result. Of course, they might just be out there, like they were four years ago, we'll find out soon enough.
If you like 538's model... then the states with the biggest discrepancy between the odds and 538's predictions are: FL, PA and OH (I think - some states I didn't check, someone better at coding than me could do this automatically I'm sure).
FL: 538 says 68% chance vs. betfair on 44%. PA: 538 says 87% chance vs. betfair on 65%. OH: 538 says 49% chance vs. betfair on 31%.
To my mind, that makes Florida and PA excellent value.
I have to say, and despite respecting 538 greatly, I have to say the Betfair % look closer to me for sure for FL and PA
I've been trying to work out what the best value bet is at the moment. My only position is a £10 buy of Biden ECVs at 285 which I'm very happy with. Wish I'd risked a bigger stake.
I think the best value bet is probably Biden to be President.
Biden POTUS: 538 says 90% vs betfair on 66%
The relative value in backing Biden to be POTUS doesn't look as good as backing Biden to win Florida say. But the probability of the bet landing is, of course, significantly more likely.
The thing is with a decent position already on Biden I'm reluctant to stump up a big stake at short odds to make the additional bet worth winning. But Biden to be POTUS at current odds does look huge value.
Decisions, decisions ......
stjohn - I'm with Richard Nabavi and the Hat Tipper kinabulu in backing Trump to secure >70 million votes, helped no doubt by the fine weather forecast. I'm further encouraged by Jack_W's forecast of there being a total of 160 million + votes cast. Half an hour ago Betfair's back price was 1.75 decimal, but I asked for and obtained 1.80 decimal, i.e. 4/5 less 5% commission. A likely winner in my view, although you may have to wait a few weeks for your money. In typical fashion, Betfair probably won't pay out until every last vote has been officially certified, even if the 70 million total has been comfortably exceeded.
Peter,
I think the previous highest total vote was 131 million in 2008. For Jack W to be correct in predicting 160 million + requires an increase in total votes of over 22% on the highest previous number. Now I know there has been an unprecedented amount of votes already cast. Over 90 million I think. But who wouldn't vote early given the Covid crisis? I'm far from sure that an additional 30 million votes, over and above the previous record, will be cast, counted and allowed in this election. So I'm not tempted to back Trump securing over 70 million votes as odds on.
Shagger keeps saying the new non lockdown national not national lockdown will lapse on 2nd December. "What are the objectives for the lockdown" he keeps being asked - and answers that the R rate will come down and the measures will end on 2nd December.
Yes, but what if the R rate doesn't come down sufficiently?
Clearly it will be replaced with a new national lockdown, not the extension of this national lockdown. He doesnt say there wont be a national lockdown in December, he says this one ends then and what happens after is up to the house.
If you like 538's model... then the states with the biggest discrepancy between the odds and 538's predictions are: FL, PA and OH (I think - some states I didn't check, someone better at coding than me could do this automatically I'm sure).
FL: 538 says 68% chance vs. betfair on 44%. PA: 538 says 87% chance vs. betfair on 65%. OH: 538 says 49% chance vs. betfair on 31%.
To my mind, that makes Florida and PA excellent value.
I have to say, and despite respecting 538 greatly, I have to say the Betfair % look closer to me for sure for FL and PA
I've been trying to work out what the best value bet is at the moment. My only position is a £10 buy of Biden ECVs at 285 which I'm very happy with. Wish I'd risked a bigger stake.
I think the best value bet is probably Biden to be President.
Biden POTUS: 538 says 90% vs betfair on 66%
The relative value in backing Biden to be POTUS doesn't look as good as backing Biden to win Florida say. But the probability of the bet landing is, of course, significantly more likely.
The thing is with a decent position already on Biden I'm reluctant to stump up a big stake at short odds to make the additional bet worth winning. But Biden to be POTUS at current odds does look huge value.
While it may be over-simplistic to say they caused the crisis, it's just incorrect to suggest that hedge funds were merely passive beneficiaries. Not only did they provide a positive feedback in the collapse itself, they also contributed to the underlying instability by feeding the bubble.
Really? I'm pretty sure that's nonsense. Obviously they weren't all doing the same thing, but it was hedge funds most of all who were improving economic stability by betting against the bubble. They would have lost their shirts if they'd been feeding the bubble.
In about 48h time we will see who is right and who is wrong about Trafalgar and actual real pollsters etc
I wonder if those who are wrong whomever they may be will acknowledge they were and contemplate why. If Trump wins now I will certainly be wrong.
In about 35 hours we'll have a pretty good idea; at the very least we'll know whether it's a close run thing, or if one candidate has run away with it.
The moment we start getting serious numbers from Florida, we'll start getting useful information on how key demographics such as the suburbs, older voters, rural America etc., are voting. Pretty much the only information we won't start getting in reasonable quantity is how Hispanic (non-Cuban) Americans will vote, because Florida's Hispanics don't look like the rest of the US.
What time do I have to get up on Wednesday morning UK time?
Ideally I'd like to get some sleep first when not much is happening.
Mr. D, it is shocking that the Government has no interest in funding the space cannon, solar death ray, trebuchet-based criminal justice system or the other sensible policies I've advocated for many years.
And with that, I must be off. This chocolate isn't going to eat itself.
Nor my plan to eliminate COVID, all violence and truancy in all schools.....
By the simple expedient of placing all pupils in Zorb balls with a HEPA filter, made of knife proof plastic.
Why are people quoting pulling from 2016 when there is a more recent national election available for comparison. At the midterms in 2018 the pollsters, apart from Rasmussen, got it pretty right.
I believe the answer given is pollsters such as Trafalgar are nothing special when Trump isn't on the ticket but great when he is, the other pollsters are the opposite. This is of course using a sample of 1 to make this claim.
Except of course pollsters like Trafalgar were absolutely awful in many states in 2016 like Nevada where Cahaly claimed Trump would win by 2. He lost it by 5.
Some people get around this by ignoring Nevada and any other states that don't fit the narrative.
The issue is Trafalgar are like a pollster who predicted a six on every single dice across multiple rolls ... Then people disregard everything that wasn't a six and look at only those that the six came in and say "behold".
They have Biden ahead in Nevada now as well as in Wisconsin
In answer to Mike's question I have Presidential election bets on Biden in Florida, Texas and Pennsylvania.
I've got a raft of Senate bets, including 2/1 twice with Betfair on Ossoff in Georgia. My most outlandish bet is Barbara Bollier in Kansas but I'm also on the likes of Cunningham over Tillis which looks a good bet from here. My worst bet might turn out to be Jaime Harrison which I think I'm going to lose but it was a small stake.
I've got some interesting bets for EV share and I 'think' I'm well covered.
The latest polling is very mixed but I'm still confident that Biden is going to take the White House comfortably and the Democrats the Senate.
Many of the large counties are going to start releasing mail in ballot results from as early as 8.30 pm local time . Those are all Democrat strongholds .
If the daily case data is representative we may actually be seeing infection rates falling faster than expected in England, Scotland and NI, by the time lockdown starts the R might be below 0.9 in all three.
Do you think it is representative, as I thought you were previously worried it was not.
This Party Monday, to be followed by Murder Tuesday, after all...
I think the previous highest total vote was 131 million in 2008. For Jack W to be correct in predicting 160 million + requires an increase in total votes of over 22% on the highest previous number. Now I know there has been an unprecedented amount of votes already cast. Over 90 million I think. But who wouldn't vote early given the Covid crisis? I'm far from sure that an additional 30 million votes, over and above the previous record, will be cast, counted and allowed in this election. So I'm not tempted to back Trump securing over 70 million votes as odds on.
Whilst you might be right, I see it as a hedge against Trump doing better than expected. Given that Biden has such a huge advantage in early- and mail-voting, the only way Trump can win is by a historically huge turnout tomorrow. If that doesn't materialise and I lose the over 70 million bet, I hope to be more than compensated by my spread bet buy of Biden.
Is it just me or have the Govt/NHS removed the R figures that it was previously showing on the dashboard. Growing eveidence that the Tier system was working and we’re past a peak (England hospital numbers DOWN) whilst meanwhile locked down Wales is soaring ahead (compare respective case number growth over the last few weeks)
Is it just me or have the Govt/NHS removed the R figures that it was previously showing on the dashboard. Growing eveidence that the Tier system was working and we’re past a peak (England hospital numbers DOWN) whilst meanwhile locked down Wales is soaring ahead (compare respective case number growth over the last few weeks)
- Trump to get over 70m votes (hat-tip @kinabalu on the previous thread) @ 1.81 Betfair Exchange - Trump to win North Carolina @ 2.1 (SpreadEx, now shortened to Evens)
In both cases I'm trying to balance my risk a bit since I've got an open Buy on Biden at SPIN at an effective 284.
- thanks for the mention.
My better one was Biden > 75m at even money a few days ago (now 1.33). Hope some people did that one.
We are both long of Joe supremacy at 28, aren't we? That is looking SWELL from where I'm standing.
Many of the large counties are going to start releasing mail in ballot results from as early as 8.30 pm local time . Those are all Democrat strongholds .
Is that 1.30am UK time?
That will just be the results of some ballots as they go along not all of them won't it?
Can someone please explain how the US release results as they go along? Because they aren't like us waiting for all results to be in are they, how does it work? Do they release intermittently or when a precinct is completed or something else?
Many of the large counties are going to start releasing mail in ballot results from as early as 8.30 pm local time . Those are all Democrat strongholds .
I think the previous highest total vote was 131 million in 2008. For Jack W to be correct in predicting 160 million + requires an increase in total votes of over 22% on the highest previous number. Now I know there has been an unprecedented amount of votes already cast. Over 90 million I think. But who wouldn't vote early given the Covid crisis? I'm far from sure that an additional 30 million votes, over and above the previous record, will be cast, counted and allowed in this election. So I'm not tempted to back Trump securing over 70 million votes as odds on.
Whilst you might be right, I see it as a hedge against Trump doing better than expected. Given that Biden has such a huge advantage in early- and mail-voting, the only way Trump can win is by a historically huge turnout tomorrow. If that doesn't materialise and I lose the over 70 million bet, I hope to be more than compensated by my spread bet buy of Biden.
Richard. How do we know or why do we think Biden is doing so much better that Trump in votes already cast? Is this from polling data?
On topic, my view is Trump would have won again had it not been for Covid-19. Also, the latter probably turbocharged the George Floyd protests and their counter-reaction/ aftermath which wouldn't have been quite so destructive if people hadn't been so frustrated.
Covid-19 is the shit stick for anyone fighting an election this year, unless they utterly pwn it like Jacinda in NZ.
If the daily case data is representative we may actually be seeing infection rates falling faster than expected in England, Scotland and NI, by the time lockdown starts the R might be below 0.9 in all three.
That's good. Hopefully that's across all age profiles and not just the young.
How low do you expect R will go for the next 4 weeks? How low does it have to go to get case numbers back down in just 4 weeks time?
I think the age breakdown is favourable from a first glance.
If the daily case data is representative we may actually be seeing infection rates falling faster than expected in England, Scotland and NI, by the time lockdown starts the R might be below 0.9 in all three.
Do you think it is representative, as I thought you were previously worried it was not.
I'm not sure that it is, we'll need to wait for the ONS on Friday.
Why are people quoting pulling from 2016 when there is a more recent national election available for comparison. At the midterms in 2018 the pollsters, apart from Rasmussen, got it pretty right.
I believe the answer given is pollsters such as Trafalgar are nothing special when Trump isn't on the ticket but great when he is, the other pollsters are the opposite. This is of course using a sample of 1 to make this claim.
Except of course pollsters like Trafalgar were absolutely awful in many states in 2016 like Nevada where Cahaly claimed Trump would win by 2. He lost it by 5.
Some people get around this by ignoring Nevada and any other states that don't fit the narrative.
The issue is Trafalgar are like a pollster who predicted a six on every single dice across multiple rolls ... Then people disregard everything that wasn't a six and look at only those that the six came in and say "behold".
They have Biden ahead in Nevada now as well as in Wisconsin
So 28-29/10, Biden @ +2.3 Vs 25/10, Biden @ +0.4 is a shrinking lead?
More Numberwang.
Are you comparing two different states polls to each other?
Not that Trafalgar are a pollster of course.
Interesting that Trafalgar describe Biden's lead as shrinking in Nevada - according to 538 (and even RCP) this is the *only* poll Traf have done of Nevada. So, shrinking compared to a number in Cahaly's head?
Why are people quoting pulling from 2016 when there is a more recent national election available for comparison. At the midterms in 2018 the pollsters, apart from Rasmussen, got it pretty right.
I believe the answer given is pollsters such as Trafalgar are nothing special when Trump isn't on the ticket but great when he is, the other pollsters are the opposite. This is of course using a sample of 1 to make this claim.
Except of course pollsters like Trafalgar were absolutely awful in many states in 2016 like Nevada where Cahaly claimed Trump would win by 2. He lost it by 5.
Some people get around this by ignoring Nevada and any other states that don't fit the narrative.
The issue is Trafalgar are like a pollster who predicted a six on every single dice across multiple rolls ... Then people disregard everything that wasn't a six and look at only those that the six came in and say "behold".
They have Biden ahead in Nevada now as well as in Wisconsin
So 28-29/10, Biden @ +2.3 Vs 25/10, Biden @ +0.4 is a shrinking lead?
More Numberwang.
Are you comparing two different states polls to each other?
Not that Trafalgar are a pollster of course.
It must have been very hard for Cahaly to put out that tiny WI Biden lead, but as hes most likely 7-10% up I guess putting Trump up would have been a stretch even for Trafalgar. One thing for sure IF Trafalgar are right again, I will never distrust a man in a bow tie again.
If the daily case data is representative we may actually be seeing infection rates falling faster than expected in England, Scotland and NI, by the time lockdown starts the R might be below 0.9 in all three.
Do you think it is representative, as I thought you were previously worried it was not.
I'm not sure that it is, we'll need to wait for the ONS on Friday.
And even that is a bit lagged. It is quite frustrating.
Is it just me or have the Govt/NHS removed the R figures that it was previously showing on the dashboard. Growing eveidence that the Tier system was working and we’re past a peak (England hospital numbers DOWN) whilst meanwhile locked down Wales is soaring ahead (compare respective case number growth over the last few weeks)
It's there but it's based on the ONS study rather than case data.
While it may be over-simplistic to say they caused the crisis, it's just incorrect to suggest that hedge funds were merely passive beneficiaries. Not only did they provide a positive feedback in the collapse itself, they also contributed to the underlying instability by feeding the bubble.
Really? I'm pretty sure that's nonsense. Obviously they weren't all doing the same thing, but it was hedge funds most of all who were improving economic stability by betting against the bubble. They would have lost their shirts if they'd been feeding the bubble.
Plenty of them did, and did.
I'm trying to remember the chap's name, but he actually lost everything to the point he was living in a room in the house he'd bought for his mother at the height of his career.
I think the previous highest total vote was 131 million in 2008. For Jack W to be correct in predicting 160 million + requires an increase in total votes of over 22% on the highest previous number. Now I know there has been an unprecedented amount of votes already cast. Over 90 million I think. But who wouldn't vote early given the Covid crisis? I'm far from sure that an additional 30 million votes, over and above the previous record, will be cast, counted and allowed in this election. So I'm not tempted to back Trump securing over 70 million votes as odds on.
Whilst you might be right, I see it as a hedge against Trump doing better than expected. Given that Biden has such a huge advantage in early- and mail-voting, the only way Trump can win is by a historically huge turnout tomorrow. If that doesn't materialise and I lose the over 70 million bet, I hope to be more than compensated by my spread bet buy of Biden.
Richard. How do we know or why do we think Biden is doing so much better that Trump in votes already cast? Is this from polling data?
Polling data and registered voter data.
Americans are weird with their registered voter data transparency.
Comments
https://twitter.com/RishiSunak/status/1323289338793385994?s=20
How many big packs of bog roll can they stock? - 100 customers later......
The pollster I follow is Richard Baris at the People's Pundit.com. He runs big data poll. He's all over youtube too.
3.5m+ antigen tests done on a weekend - identified 38k positives. Mass testing at scale covering more than half of population. Tests are voluntary and free, but you need one to get out of lockdown.
Netherlands also moving in this direction and has order 9.2m tests, expected to be fulfilled by June 2021.
This headline is from the Sun in a peak week - 1st week in March: "60 millions extra".
https://www.thesun.co.uk/money/11214803/panic-buying-shoppers-60million-march-coronavirus/
Weekly UK grocery sales are approx £4 billion. So just 1-1.5% extra.
Another example is when the R-range was 0.7-1.0, the headlines across the media were around "R may have reached one". In reality the probability of that was more like 1-2% with that range.
There's been another one today - BBC maundering about "Govt Minister confirms that lockdown may go beyond Dec 2nd". It was Gove on Marr and what I heard was him refusing to speculate one way or the other, and fake headlines from the BBC.
Media reporting is usually shit. Ignore it.
That didn't end well for Foxtons guy. Ha!
Yep. Its absolutely not the PM's fault. Not at all.
If it was nothing, good show.
If it was 10 million, that's pretty unimpressive.
It won't matter if Trafalgar is fifty points out or gets it spot on to three decimal places. They are not pollsters in any meaningful sense and I doubt they ever will be. Their views are therefore about as relevant and helpful as anybody else who guesses from somebody else's data, tweaking in accordance with their gut feeling or personal preferences.
If anyone apologises as you suggest, it would only indicate that they have missed the point entirely.
All the polls point to Biden, but I have a feeling Trump might just edge it in the swing states.
I think turnout will be much higher than expected and that there are a few shy middle class Trump voters.
PS If your argument is about the candidate's abilities or character, I think it is even more readily proven false.
Some people get around this by ignoring Nevada and any other states that don't fit the narrative.
The issue is Trafalgar are like a pollster who predicted a six on every single dice across multiple rolls ... Then people disregard everything that wasn't a six and look at only those that the six came in and say "behold".
Twitter tagged the video, which included fake Florida signs as Joe Biden addressed Minnesota, as ‘manipulated media’
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/02/joe-biden-manipulated-video-mixing-up-states-twitter-removed
There was a concerted attempt to crack down on... the venture capital market, in the US
Except VC was nothing to do with what happened. But rich people investing must be bad or something.
I have a strong suspicion that this was a "look squirrel" by certain banks, who also wanted to stop money flowing directly into investments, rather than going through them (the banks)
Thanks Jack. Looking forward to the final ARSE predictions.
Did he tell you about the shy Democrat voters in Texas ?
Meanwhile Sammy Wilson says Johnson is more like Lord Halifax than Churchill...
It's a view I suppose.
He was so famous for suing people, he couldn't;t get anyone to do the mega project on his house. No builder would touch it. So he tried hiring all the contractors himself. Who proceeded to take him to the cleaners......
I will give vote predictions to two decimal places for Trump and Biden.
I will issue both a classic and deluxe model predictions for each state.
Exec summary is that the National polling was ok, and the State polling got it wrong largely because it weighted inadequately for early school leavers, who turned out in much larger numbers than anticipated.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8903785/Biden-tells-Philadelphia-rally-hes-wearing-Eagles-jacket-sporting-Delaware-Blue-Hens-logo.html
https://twitter.com/RobertCahaly/status/1323269722939527170?s=20
https://twitter.com/RobertCahaly/status/1323116080085278720?s=20
I was trading like crazy throughout 2016 and built up a massive green on betfair.
This time around I mostly kept my powder dry & my current book is +-£0
Positions:
Biden4potus @1.51
Trump NV @6.0
Do the state ones this time?
https://twitter.com/RobertCahaly/status/1322004085298614272?s=20
https://twitter.com/RobertCahaly/status/1321499914141052928?s=20
I'd probably say odds on now for a slim Democratic majority. Massive favourites for at least NOC Democratic controlled.
If Betfair wasn't so weird it would have been easier to predict a Democrat win sooner. Does 538 class Sanders and the other one as a Democrat?
The polls have gone if anything more to the Democrats rather than against them and there's been no swingback whatsoever to the Republicans.
I work from home anyway, so haven't asked for any cash, of course, but thought it worth mentioning. The letters were sent without any prompting.
Are you planning a late splurge of bets tonight/tomorrow based on the final opinion polls, or maybe you're simply bored this time?
Frankly the Republicans have ran a terrible campaign this year.
The way it’s presented isn’t good enough, IMO
The reputable pollsters but there's not many of those.
Should help the UK come out of the second wave much better placed than France.
More Numberwang.
How low do you expect R will go for the next 4 weeks? How low does it have to go to get case numbers back down in just 4 weeks time?
Yes, but what if the R rate doesn't come down sufficiently?
And with that, I must be off. This chocolate isn't going to eat itself.
I think the previous highest total vote was 131 million in 2008. For Jack W to be correct in predicting 160 million + requires an increase in total votes of over 22% on the highest previous number. Now I know there has been an unprecedented amount of votes already cast. Over 90 million I think. But who wouldn't vote early given the Covid crisis? I'm far from sure that an additional 30 million votes, over and above the previous record, will be cast, counted and allowed in this election. So I'm not tempted to back Trump securing over 70 million votes as odds on.
What a Parliament...
Ideally I'd like to get some sleep first when not much is happening.
By the simple expedient of placing all pupils in Zorb balls with a HEPA filter, made of knife proof plastic.
Not that Trafalgar are a pollster of course.
I've got a raft of Senate bets, including 2/1 twice with Betfair on Ossoff in Georgia. My most outlandish bet is Barbara Bollier in Kansas but I'm also on the likes of Cunningham over Tillis which looks a good bet from here. My worst bet might turn out to be Jaime Harrison which I think I'm going to lose but it was a small stake.
I've got some interesting bets for EV share and I 'think' I'm well covered.
The latest polling is very mixed but I'm still confident that Biden is going to take the White House comfortably and the Democrats the Senate.
Many of the large counties are going to start releasing mail in ballot results from as early as 8.30 pm local time . Those are all Democrat strongholds .
https://coronavirus-staging.data.gov.uk/
My better one was Biden > 75m at even money a few days ago (now 1.33). Hope some people did that one.
We are both long of Joe supremacy at 28, aren't we? That is looking SWELL from where I'm standing.
That will just be the results of some ballots as they go along not all of them won't it?
Can someone please explain how the US release results as they go along? Because they aren't like us waiting for all results to be in are they, how does it work? Do they release intermittently or when a precinct is completed or something else?
Covid-19 is the shit stick for anyone fighting an election this year, unless they utterly pwn it like Jacinda in NZ.
Americans are weird with their registered voter data transparency.