Categories
Options
At the 2018 midterms, the last time US pollsters were tested in national elections, the Democrat mar
At the 2018 midterms, the last time US pollsters were tested in national elections, the Democrat margin was 1.1% better than predicted – politicalbetting.com
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/21/upshot/polls-2018-midterms-accuracy.html
There's still a bias in favour of Dem, but it's very small, only 0.4 points. However, the regional bias from 2016 doesn't appear to have been entirely fixed at that point:
I'm not sure their poll aggregation is even biased now, it's just shite.
I put down more money on Florida yesterday. The odds, whilst not as zinging as Texas, make it a fantastic bet in my opinion.
This is a case of normalcy bias outmatching the polling and other evidence. There's money to be made even now on an election just 11 days away.
I repeat what Mike has been attempting to get through to people: 2020 is not 2016. Everything about it is different. Bet for now not for then.
Biden is a candidate with many flaws.
Hillary Clinton gave the air of a privileged member of the Washington elite at a time when parts of America were on their knees and ripe for Trump's 'drain the swamp' meme. Clinton had the political air of someone who walks around with a nasty smell under her nose.
Of course there are some men who couldn't abide the idea of a woman in leadership, just as there were some whites who couldn't abide the idea of an African-American President. But to reduce the former defeat or the latter victory to those single issues is over simplistic and deeply flawed. There were many reasons why Hillary Clinton lost. She never 'got' the problems in the rust belt, just as Remainers never clued up to the disaffection in white working class areas that weren't part of the metropolitan elite Brussels gravy train.
The main point right now is that this is 2020 not 2016. Circumstances are very different. Bet accordingly.
AND if you think there has EVER been a candidate for President of the United State without "many flaws" then buddy would LOVE to give you a real deal on some of the finest beachfront property in the State of Wyoming.
As for Hillary, she was an acquired taste that I and millions of others, including many Democrats, never acquired.
Thing that REALLY made me allergic was the way she screwed up health care reform in the US, thanks in large measure by her gross political ineptitude. Which turned out to be serial, chronic and HIGHLY adverse.
One of the unlikeliest battles is taking place for the US Senate in, wait for it, Kansas. Yep. Kansas. It looks to be on a knife-edge with latest polls and certainly fundraising suggesting that Democrat Barbara Bollier might pull off one of the biggest shocks of the night. The latest reliable poll had the candidates neck and neck.
You can get 11/5 with Betfair on her taking the seat. Worth a flutter. I'm on her to win.
https://www.protectourcare.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Health-Care-Could-Be-Deciding-Factor-in-Close-Kansas-Senate-Race.pdf
You're right: 12 or even 13. I picked up '11' from one of the American newswires.
Mind you, with 1/4 of votes already cast there's another issue about how we phrase 'voting day.'
Mind you, the Pope has thrown a stone into the millpond on another matter which seems to vex Christians nearly as much.
And while her GOP opponent is not a right-winger, he's pretty much a lightweight, at least a a potential US Senator. So Bollier has a path to victory, based on:
> Democrats energized to vote against Trump are also enthusiastically voting for her.
> Swing Independents AND moderate Republicans voting for her as best qualified personally to be US Senator
> Conservative Republicans pissed off by defeat in primary who either vote for her out of spite or (more likely) just skip the race
> Anti-Trump momentum that is boosting turnout AND could - potentially - maybe - perhaps - possibly - help float a LOT of boats for deserving Democrats, including in unlikely locales such as Kansas.
As for juvenile (and adult) delinquent Donald, on the other hand, no problemo - fire up the blowtorch!!
I reckon "render unto Caesar" means confiscatory levels of taxation too.
https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1319072235454402561?s=19
Open corruption. They don't even try to hide it any more
Nate Silver's site goes 345/193 so similar ballpark but a bit less blue. Note though where the 'front line' is. There are five States where the average polling shows the candidates to be within 3 points of each other - NC/Ga/Iowa/Ohio/Texas. This is not where Trump wants to be fighting the battle. He wants it down around Pa but Biden is 6points clear there and it gets much worse for him as you go on down the line of States where he wants to be attacking - in Wisconsin he is also down 6, and in Nev/Min/Mich it's down 8. NH he's down 10 and out of it.
It's going to take a huge effort, probably some luck or a mighty fickle electorate for Trump to get the front line down where it needs to be for him. By contrast, a ripple of three points in Biden's favour picks up five juicy targets and takes his ECV vote well over 400.
Now that would be a wave!
I do like 538's snake. It is one of the best visual aids as to where the fight is that I have seen I think that our constituencies are probably too numerous and too small (with dodgy constituency polling) but I would like to see someone have a go. As you say, the current battleground is well above the 270 winning line for Biden. When NC, Georgia and Texas are the TCTC states Trump has lost bigly.
Their averages are much more reliable as a result.
https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1319095503771045889
As I said i'm more interested in how people are actually voting, plenty of evidence the polling may be...a bit off.
Not to mention the Biden campaign has pulled ads from TX, and have sent not just Obama but also Bernie to "safe" PA.
*taking their best poll for Trump ignoring the possibility of MoE and disregarding any that don’t quite get him over the line...
Still where hasn’t Trump pulled ads from?
More generally, I’d be interested to hear what are the constitutional principles which the conservative justices claim to espouse that justify their constant activist tinkering with the electoral process.
https://twitter.com/jonmladd/status/1319096538736582657
A wholesale change of strategy must surely be on the cards."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/10/21/manchester-should-mark-beginning-theend-senseless-lockdown-mania/
Biden's lead is currently only about 6 points. That's not overly comfortable, as Hillary could tell you.
There is of course a problem in proving what was said, but if that is not in dispute I believe the contract is binding.
My money is on Biden. I'm not worried about Pa - Florida yes, Michigan at a pinch but Biden's home state? I'm sure he'll win that, and the Presidency. The margin could be anything from a whisker to a landslide though.
Though oral contracts are made all the time (even wordless ones where you buy a newspaper with cash managing not to exchange a single word with the vendor - quite easy early in the morning at a busy place) in transactions of any magnitude or complexity courts are very slow to believe the evidence that a contract has been so made.
In particular cultures - farming, the City of London, it is easy to envisage a genuine habit of large oral contracts.
Even more sick is that the Scottish Tory MP's voted against hungry English children getting a hot meal, it is just unbelievable.
It's how that stacks up in the states where the uncertainty is for me - I could see anything from a narrow win to a landslide 400+ ECVs, and there isn't necessarily much in it.
I'm spreading my betting far and wide on those, with a decent spread buy on 285-ups so I can capitalise/not lose very much.
https://twitter.com/ThatTimWalker/status/1319183754297069568?s=20
In 2010 for example the GOP won the House by 7%, Obama was then re elected in 2012 by 3%.
In 1994 the GOP won the House by 7%, in 1996 Clinton was re elected by 8%.
In 1982 the Democrats won the House by 12%, in 1984 Reagan was re elected by 18%.
The only time recently there was any correlation was when the GOP won in 2002 the midterms and Bush was re elected in 2004 but that was distorted by 9/11.
Trump was also not on the ballot in 2018 and while there was a shy Trump vote in 2016 in the rustbelt swing states and almost certainly will be again next month there was no shy GOP vote in 2014 or 2018 and no shy Romney vote in 2012
It strikes me as remarkable that Trump is still heading for somewhere between 40-45% of the vote - despite his blatant unfitness to be President. What makes me nervous is that it wouldn't take that huge a shift to get him to, say, 47/48% where the EC begins to work in his favour. As days go by, that seems less likely, but could still happen - Biden really puts his foot in it, an unexpected event, very effective Dem voter suppression, blatant cheating, or whatever. Who knows? At least Covid won't help Trump out - the data in the USA now seems to be getting worse rather than better.
So, I think Biden will win - but the margins still make me a little nervous. I would be in utter despair for the global future if Trump won again.
It seems most on here have learnt nothing from 2016, then the final Wisconsin average had Hillary up by 7% but Trump won the state by 0.7% for example
Mind you, I wouldn't place too much faith in them even now. Some pollsters are still distinctly flaky.
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1319051322319114241?s=20
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1319130285745852416?s=20
This really shouldn't be a party political issue, but a moral conscience issue. Hungry children is not a good look for any political party. Scapegoating idle and feckless adults is fair game, but deliberately voting to malnourish children doesn't go down well with the mums.
Until then, its just basic decency. We can afford big bungs to Tory donors, we can afford to feed hungry kids, but we're chosing not to because fuck you. Are the Tories sure that is the message they want to give people?
But people do need to seek to understand it more than gnashing their teeth at it or concluding voters are stupid. OK, let's say that's the case, why are they stupid, how to enlighten them or appeal to the stupid?
So, assuming some other cases are not been picked up, about the total the UK is believed to have peaked at in March.
Trump put himself out there and got beat. Trump's spirit was on the ballot if not actually Trump himself.
Just one example from the last 4 years