politicalbetting
Home› General

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Sign In Register

Categories

Options

READING THE TEA LEAVES: A LOOK AT NORTH CAROLINA EARLY VOTING – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,006
edited October 2020 in General
imageREADING 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.

Read the full story here

«134567

Comments

  • Options
    bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,821
    edited October 2020
    1st like Trump with make believe pollster
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,938
    If Mitt Romney won North Carolina Trump certainly will and especially now African Americans have swung to him since 2016
  • Options
    Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,826
    Third like the lib dems....ooops sorry meant snp
  • Options
    bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,821
    edited October 2020
    Time for bed said Zebedee
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    U-Turn incoming....

    https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1320500007817093121?s=19
  • Options
    Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,826
    A serious question to pb bettors who have wagered money on the presidential election. The more we hear from the states the more we hear the election being rigged via voter suppression and gerrymandering....how do you figure that into your odds assessments?
  • Options
    SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 15,489
    HYUFD said:

    If Mitt Romney won North Carolina Trump certainly will and especially now African Americans have swung to him since 2016

    Which is somewhat akin to saying, if the French Army held Verdun 1914-18, then they MUST have held it from 1940-1944.

    In other words, you are correct IF history repeats itself. But, strangely, sometimes (indeed often) it simply does NOT.
  • Options
    brokenwheelbrokenwheel Posts: 3,352
    edited October 2020
    But there’s a big difference: in 2016, the total early vote was much smaller (2.8 million in total)
    Are you sure about that? I don't have my old figures, but everything I read says it was 3.1 million total in 2016.
  • Options
    rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,787
    HYUFD said:

    If Mitt Romney won North Carolina Trump certainly will and especially now African Americans have swung to him since 2016

    Since 2012 NC has seen a lot of immigration of younger, often liberal-leaning people in STEM-sector jobs. That by no means guarantees a Biden win of course, but the NC that voted for Romney in 2012 is not the NC of 2020.
  • Options
    Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,826
    rpjs said:

    HYUFD said:

    If Mitt Romney won North Carolina Trump certainly will and especially now African Americans have swung to him since 2016

    Since 2012 NC has seen a lot of immigration of younger, often liberal-leaning people in STEM-sector jobs. That by no means guarantees a Biden win of course, but the NC that voted for Romney in 2012 is not the NC of 2020.
    while not american I am a liberal (classical sense) leaning stem sector job holder and I cant see an attraction to either I would probably abstain. In 2016 I would have voted trump purely because i detest hilary with a personal passion due to her getting a friend killed in benghazi
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,940
    rpjs said:

    HYUFD said:

    If Mitt Romney won North Carolina Trump certainly will and especially now African Americans have swung to him since 2016

    Since 2012 NC has seen a lot of immigration of younger, often liberal-leaning people in STEM-sector jobs. That by no means guarantees a Biden win of course, but the NC that voted for Romney in 2012 is not the NC of 2020.
    This is true of many competitive States. Fla., Nev., Ariz., Tx.
    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.
  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,141
    Pagan2 said:

    A serious question to pb bettors who have wagered money on the presidential election. The more we hear from the states the more we hear the election being rigged via voter suppression and gerrymandering....how do you figure that into your odds assessments?

    There's no new gerrymandering, the electoral maps are the same as 2016.

    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.
  • Options
    SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 15,489
    rpjs said:

    HYUFD said:

    If Mitt Romney won North Carolina Trump certainly will and especially now African Americans have swung to him since 2016

    Since 2012 NC has seen a lot of immigration of younger, often liberal-leaning people in STEM-sector jobs. That by no means guarantees a Biden win of course, but the NC that voted for Romney in 2012 is not the NC of 2020.
    Good example of why history does NOT always repeat - because some basic factors have changed.

    Like the old Greek said about the river - you can't stick your stick into the same stream twice.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,938
    rpjs said:

    HYUFD said:

    If Mitt Romney won North Carolina Trump certainly will and especially now African Americans have swung to him since 2016

    Since 2012 NC has seen a lot of immigration of younger, often liberal-leaning people in STEM-sector jobs. That by no means guarantees a Biden win of course, but the NC that voted for Romney in 2012 is not the NC of 2020.
    Did not stop Trump increasing the GOP vote from 2.2 million votes in 2012 to 2.3 million in 2016 in NC
  • Options
    SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 15,489
    dixiedean said:

    rpjs said:

    HYUFD said:

    If Mitt Romney won North Carolina Trump certainly will and especially now African Americans have swung to him since 2016

    Since 2012 NC has seen a lot of immigration of younger, often liberal-leaning people in STEM-sector jobs. That by no means guarantees a Biden win of course, but the NC that voted for Romney in 2012 is not the NC of 2020.
    This is true of many competitive States. Fla., Nev., Ariz., Tx.
    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.
    Conversely, it is outflow of residents - disproportionately younger and better educated - from Rust Belt states such as Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania that was among key factors moving them into Trumpsky's orbit in 2016.

    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.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,938
    dixiedean said:

    rpjs said:

    HYUFD said:

    If Mitt Romney won North Carolina Trump certainly will and especially now African Americans have swung to him since 2016

    Since 2012 NC has seen a lot of immigration of younger, often liberal-leaning people in STEM-sector jobs. That by no means guarantees a Biden win of course, but the NC that voted for Romney in 2012 is not the NC of 2020.
    This is true of many competitive States. Fla., Nev., Ariz., Tx.
    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.
    That is the same here too in some parts, especially in inner city and suburban areas, however the core socio economic demographic of the area is unlikely to change much, certainly not within 10 years
  • Options
    Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,446
    Using 538's current projections, to win the election Trump needs a swing of:

    1.1% in North Carolina
    1.2% in Arizona
    1.2% in Florida
    2.8% in Pennsylvania

    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,938
    https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1320487566752305160?s=20
  • Options
    brokenwheelbrokenwheel Posts: 3,352
    HYUFD said:

    https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1320487566752305160?s=20

    Literally her fault.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,938
    https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1320404365790879749?s=20
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,938
    https://twitter.com/RobertCahaly/status/1320516124044382208?s=20
  • Options
    Rob_downunderRob_downunder Posts: 128
    Also of note - Trumps approval rating has leveled off at the 42/43 percent range. Earlier in the month i think Mike picked up that it was heading North, but there's since been very little movement.

    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.
  • Options
    MangoMango Posts: 1,013
    HYUFD said:

    If Mitt Romney won North Carolina Trump certainly will and especially now African Americans have swung to him since 2016

    You want it so bad.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,938
    Rob_downunder said:

    Also of note - Trumps approval rating has leveled off at the 42/43 percent range. Earlier in the month i think Mike picked up that it was heading North, but there's since been very little movement.

    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.

    That would be the same Nate Silver who forecast Hillary would win over 300 EC votes on eve of poll 2016 while Trafalgar forecast Trump would win Michigan and Pennsylvania and the EC?
  • Options
    Rob_downunderRob_downunder Posts: 128
    HYUFD said:

    Rob_downunder said:

    Also of note - Trumps approval rating has leveled off at the 42/43 percent range. Earlier in the month i think Mike picked up that it was heading North, but there's since been very little movement.

    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.

    That would be the same Nate Silver who forecast Hillary would win over 300 EC votes on eve of poll 2016 while Trafalgar forecast Trump would win Michigan and Pennsylvania and the EC?
    Honestly you're a broken record. Others have tried to educate you on probability before this, i'm not going to try again.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,011
    HYUFD said:

    https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1320404365790879749?s=20

    Do you have the crosstabs?
  • Options
    nico679nico679 Posts: 4,727
    HYUFD said:

    If Mitt Romney won North Carolina Trump certainly will and especially now African Americans have swung to him since 2016

    You mean he might have gone from 8% to 10% ! That’s easily outnumbered by older people who have moved to Biden .
  • Options
    SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 15,489
    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    rpjs said:

    HYUFD said:

    If Mitt Romney won North Carolina Trump certainly will and especially now African Americans have swung to him since 2016

    Since 2012 NC has seen a lot of immigration of younger, often liberal-leaning people in STEM-sector jobs. That by no means guarantees a Biden win of course, but the NC that voted for Romney in 2012 is not the NC of 2020.
    This is true of many competitive States. Fla., Nev., Ariz., Tx.
    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.
    That is the same here too in some parts, especially in inner city and suburban areas, however the core socio economic demographic of the area is unlikely to change much, certainly not within 10 years
    Check out how much change occurs between each decennial census, state-versus-state (for example, congressional apportionments & related EVs) AND within states.

    As has been note, demographics (like plenty of other things) can change with impressive rapidity here in the good old USA.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,938
    SeaShantyIrish2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    rpjs said:

    HYUFD said:

    If Mitt Romney won North Carolina Trump certainly will and especially now African Americans have swung to him since 2016

    Since 2012 NC has seen a lot of immigration of younger, often liberal-leaning people in STEM-sector jobs. That by no means guarantees a Biden win of course, but the NC that voted for Romney in 2012 is not the NC of 2020.
    This is true of many competitive States. Fla., Nev., Ariz., Tx.
    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.
    That is the same here too in some parts, especially in inner city and suburban areas, however the core socio economic demographic of the area is unlikely to change much, certainly not within 10 years
    Check out how much change occurs between each decennial census, state-versus-state (for example, congressional apportionments & related EVs) AND within states.

    As has been note, demographics (like plenty of other things) can change with impressive rapidity here in the good old USA.
    Yet Texas has still voted GOP in every presidential election since 1976, New York has voted Democrat in every presidential election since 1984 and California has voted Democrat in every presidential election since 1992 and they are 3/4 of the largest states in the Union
  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,141
    HYUFD said:

    https://twitter.com/RobertCahaly/status/1320516124044382208?s=20

    This is weird seems to be a subtweet of Nate Silver who saying what was posted as their crosstabs was hinky, but last night he was tweeting what seemed to be a defence of the said crosstabs, so WTF???
  • Options
    Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,446
    "Opinion
    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
  • Options
    SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 15,489
    HYUFD said:

    SeaShantyIrish2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    rpjs said:

    HYUFD said:

    If Mitt Romney won North Carolina Trump certainly will and especially now African Americans have swung to him since 2016

    Since 2012 NC has seen a lot of immigration of younger, often liberal-leaning people in STEM-sector jobs. That by no means guarantees a Biden win of course, but the NC that voted for Romney in 2012 is not the NC of 2020.
    This is true of many competitive States. Fla., Nev., Ariz., Tx.
    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.
    That is the same here too in some parts, especially in inner city and suburban areas, however the core socio economic demographic of the area is unlikely to change much, certainly not within 10 years
    Check out how much change occurs between each decennial census, state-versus-state (for example, congressional apportionments & related EVs) AND within states.

    As has been note, demographics (like plenty of other things) can change with impressive rapidity here in the good old USA.
    Yet Texas has still voted GOP in every presidential election since 1976, New York has voted Democrat in every presidential election since 1984 and California has voted Democrat in every presidential election since 1992 and they are 3/4 of the largest states in the Union
    You said in-state demographic don't change much in 10 years. Census numbers say they can and frequently do.

    What you say about TX, NY, CA does NOT rebut my rebuttal. Just ignores it.

  • Options
    SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 15,489
    edmundintokyo said:

    HYUFD said:

    https://twitter.com/RobertCahaly/status/1320516124044382208?s=20

    This is weird seems to be a subtweet of Nate Silver who saying what was posted as their crosstabs was hinky, but last night he was tweeting what seemed to be a defence of the said crosstabs, so WTF???
    Have you begun to discern some of the method behind the madness? Lee Atwater meets John le Carre.
  • Options
    GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,077
    So Trump will “certainly” win North Carolina, says @HYUFD. Looking forward to testing that one on election night.
  • Options
    TimTTimT Posts: 6,328
    brokenwheel said:

    But there’s a big difference: in 2016, the total early vote was much smaller (2.8 million in total)
    Are you sure about that? I don't have my old figures, but everything I read says it was 3.1 million total in 2016.
    Yep, if you add up the 2016 daily totals it is 3.1m

    https://www.ncsbe.gov/results-data/election-results/voter-turnout-statistics
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,920
    edited October 2020
    brokenwheel said:

    But there’s a big difference: in 2016, the total early vote was much smaller (2.8 million in total)
    Are you sure about that? I don't have my old figures, but everything I read says it was 3.1 million total in 2016.
    You are correct, I will change the header.
  • Options
    SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 15,489
    edited October 2020
    Gallowgate said:

    So Trump will “certainly” win North Carolina, says @HYUFD. Looking forward to testing that one on election night.

    Beware because NC most definitely has the potential for breaking your heart on EDay - just ask opponents of the late Jesse Helms!

    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!
  • Options
    TimTTimT Posts: 6,328
    HYUFD said:

    SeaShantyIrish2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    rpjs said:

    HYUFD said:

    If Mitt Romney won North Carolina Trump certainly will and especially now African Americans have swung to him since 2016

    Since 2012 NC has seen a lot of immigration of younger, often liberal-leaning people in STEM-sector jobs. That by no means guarantees a Biden win of course, but the NC that voted for Romney in 2012 is not the NC of 2020.
    This is true of many competitive States. Fla., Nev., Ariz., Tx.
    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.
    That is the same here too in some parts, especially in inner city and suburban areas, however the core socio economic demographic of the area is unlikely to change much, certainly not within 10 years
    Check out how much change occurs between each decennial census, state-versus-state (for example, congressional apportionments & related EVs) AND within states.

    As has been note, demographics (like plenty of other things) can change with impressive rapidity here in the good old USA.
    Yet Texas has still voted GOP in every presidential election since 1976, New York has voted Democrat in every presidential election since 1984 and California has voted Democrat in every presidential election since 1992 and they are 3/4 of the largest states in the Union
    First, the demographic changes in CA, TX and NY have no bearing on what was being discussed, which was NC, where the demographic changes around the Research Triangle are changing the nature of the electorate mightily in the same manner as the changes in northern VA swung that state from solid red to comfortable blue. If not this cycle, in the next one or two, NC will be distinctly purple and thereafter blue.

    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.
  • Options
    SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 15,489
    TimT said:

    HYUFD said:

    SeaShantyIrish2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    rpjs said:

    HYUFD said:

    If Mitt Romney won North Carolina Trump certainly will and especially now African Americans have swung to him since 2016

    Since 2012 NC has seen a lot of immigration of younger, often liberal-leaning people in STEM-sector jobs. That by no means guarantees a Biden win of course, but the NC that voted for Romney in 2012 is not the NC of 2020.
    This is true of many competitive States. Fla., Nev., Ariz., Tx.
    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.
    That is the same here too in some parts, especially in inner city and suburban areas, however the core socio economic demographic of the area is unlikely to change much, certainly not within 10 years
    Check out how much change occurs between each decennial census, state-versus-state (for example, congressional apportionments & related EVs) AND within states.

    As has been note, demographics (like plenty of other things) can change with impressive rapidity here in the good old USA.
    Yet Texas has still voted GOP in every presidential election since 1976, New York has voted Democrat in every presidential election since 1984 and California has voted Democrat in every presidential election since 1992 and they are 3/4 of the largest states in the Union
    First, the demographic changes in CA, TX and NY have no bearing on what was being discussed, which was NC, where the demographic changes around the Research Triangle are changing the nature of the electorate mightily in the same manner as the changes in northern VA swung that state from solid red to comfortable blue. If not this cycle, in the next one or two, NC will be distinctly purple and thereafter blue.

    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.
    TimT, feeling bit sorry for you. Here in WA we at least have a hot race for Secretary of State. But as far as I can tell, in the great Free State of Maryland you've got diddly squat.
  • Options
    TimTTimT Posts: 6,328
    SeaShantyIrish2 said:

    TimT said:

    HYUFD said:

    SeaShantyIrish2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    rpjs said:

    HYUFD said:

    If Mitt Romney won North Carolina Trump certainly will and especially now African Americans have swung to him since 2016

    Since 2012 NC has seen a lot of immigration of younger, often liberal-leaning people in STEM-sector jobs. That by no means guarantees a Biden win of course, but the NC that voted for Romney in 2012 is not the NC of 2020.
    This is true of many competitive States. Fla., Nev., Ariz., Tx.
    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.
    That is the same here too in some parts, especially in inner city and suburban areas, however the core socio economic demographic of the area is unlikely to change much, certainly not within 10 years
    Check out how much change occurs between each decennial census, state-versus-state (for example, congressional apportionments & related EVs) AND within states.

    As has been note, demographics (like plenty of other things) can change with impressive rapidity here in the good old USA.
    Yet Texas has still voted GOP in every presidential election since 1976, New York has voted Democrat in every presidential election since 1984 and California has voted Democrat in every presidential election since 1992 and they are 3/4 of the largest states in the Union
    First, the demographic changes in CA, TX and NY have no bearing on what was being discussed, which was NC, where the demographic changes around the Research Triangle are changing the nature of the electorate mightily in the same manner as the changes in northern VA swung that state from solid red to comfortable blue. If not this cycle, in the next one or two, NC will be distinctly purple and thereafter blue.

    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.
    TimT, feeling bit sorry for you. Here in WA we at least have a hot race for Secretary of State. But as far as I can tell, in the great Free State of Maryland you've got diddly squat.
    Nope. One of the most gerrymandered of all states. No competitive races, save Governor from time to time. The real races are the primaries.
  • Options
    Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,446
    "DOMINIC LAWSON
    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
  • Options
    brokenwheelbrokenwheel Posts: 3,352
    edited October 2020
    Oh dear,
    https://twitter.com/kerpen/status/1320566384754130944
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,216
    I think the Dems will take NC, but I don’t think this data is telling us nearly as much as the lead suggests. People are voting early for fear of the virus risk on the day, and the prevalence of virus-fear is unevenly distributed both demographically and politically.
  • Options
    Kevin_McCandlessKevin_McCandless Posts: 392
    IanB2 said:

    I think the Dems will take NC, but I don’t think this data is telling us nearly as much as the lead suggests. People are voting early for fear of the virus risk on the day, and the prevalence of virus-fear is unevenly distributed both demographically and politically.

    Particularly up north, if they haven't voted by now, a lot of senior citizens are going to stay home on Election Day. Lousy weather + Covid = "Eh, not really worth the risk,"

    Except for the really committed, I suspect an enthusiasm gap for both sides. Maybe less for the Dems, but still.
  • Options
    brokenwheelbrokenwheel Posts: 3,352
    Um...there are rumours of news breaking this morning that could have a big impact on the election.
  • Options
    DAlexanderDAlexander Posts: 815
    brokenwheel said:

    Um...there are rumours of news breaking this morning that could have a big impact on the election.

    Do tell.
  • Options
    brokenwheelbrokenwheel Posts: 3,352
    DAlexander said:

    brokenwheel said:

    Um...there are rumours of news breaking this morning that could have a big impact on the election.

    Do tell.
    Doesn't seem to be what I thought it was, which would be pretty wild, so i'll hold off for now.
  • Options
    Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,978
    brokenwheel said:

    DAlexander said:

    brokenwheel said:

    Um...there are rumours of news breaking this morning that could have a big impact on the election.

    Do tell.
    Doesn't seem to be what I thought it was, which would be pretty wild, so i'll hold off for now.
    Mate, you are full of fucking shit.
  • Options
    MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    Great post Robert.

    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)
  • Options
    MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    SeaShantyIrish2 said:

    Gallowgate said:

    So Trump will “certainly” win North Carolina, says @HYUFD. Looking forward to testing that one on election night.

    Beware because NC most definitely has the potential for breaking your heart on EDay - just ask opponents of the late Jesse Helms!

    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!
    As an alternative to both how about what IS happening.

    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.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,349
    edmundintokyo said:

    Pagan2 said:

    A serious question to pb bettors who have wagered money on the presidential election. The more we hear from the states the more we hear the election being rigged via voter suppression and gerrymandering....how do you figure that into your odds assessments?

    There's no new gerrymandering, the electoral maps are the same as 2016.

    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.
    Roberts is a GOP hack. He just has occasional bouts of either conscience or pragmatism.
  • Options
    MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    brokenwheel said:

    DAlexander said:

    brokenwheel said:

    Um...there are rumours of news breaking this morning that could have a big impact on the election.

    Do tell.
    Doesn't seem to be what I thought it was, which would be pretty wild, so i'll hold off for now.
    The main time I see this kind of post is just before election results when people are trying to retrieve their betting losses.
  • Options
    MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    HYUFD said:

    SeaShantyIrish2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    rpjs said:

    HYUFD said:

    If Mitt Romney won North Carolina Trump certainly will and especially now African Americans have swung to him since 2016

    Since 2012 NC has seen a lot of immigration of younger, often liberal-leaning people in STEM-sector jobs. That by no means guarantees a Biden win of course, but the NC that voted for Romney in 2012 is not the NC of 2020.
    This is true of many competitive States. Fla., Nev., Ariz., Tx.
    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.
    That is the same here too in some parts, especially in inner city and suburban areas, however the core socio economic demographic of the area is unlikely to change much, certainly not within 10 years
    Check out how much change occurs between each decennial census, state-versus-state (for example, congressional apportionments & related EVs) AND within states.

    As has been note, demographics (like plenty of other things) can change with impressive rapidity here in the good old USA.
    Yet Texas has still voted GOP in every presidential election since 1976, New York has voted Democrat in every presidential election since 1984 and California has voted Democrat in every presidential election since 1992 and they are 3/4 of the largest states in the Union
    Precedent is a complete irrelevance in this election more than ever before. Those betting based on previous outcomes are making a huge financial error.

    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.
  • Options
    brokenwheelbrokenwheel Posts: 3,352
    Mysticrose said:

    brokenwheel said:

    DAlexander said:

    brokenwheel said:

    Um...there are rumours of news breaking this morning that could have a big impact on the election.

    Do tell.
    Doesn't seem to be what I thought it was, which would be pretty wild, so i'll hold off for now.
    The main time I see this kind of post is just before election results when people are trying to retrieve their betting losses.
    Ha, no it's nothing like that. Besides half 5 in the morning wouldn't be the time for that. I'm just not going to spread a rumour doing the rounds that I couldn't confirm.
  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,141
    A consequence if the degree of early voting this cycle is that you can be sure that any more oppo that drops between now and the election is bullshit. Anything real would already have been dropped, what's left is left because it doesn't hold up.
  • Options
    MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    By the way, I have thought for the past fortnight that the single most important task now for Joe Biden is to stay alive.

    That's pretty much all he has to do but it's an important thing to do.
  • Options
    partypoliticalorphanpartypoliticalorphan Posts: 308
    brokenwheel said:

    Oh dear,
    https://twitter.com/kerpen/status/1320566384754130944

    He confused Donald Trump for Abraham Lincoln in the prsidential debate last week. He does show very early signs of cognitive decline. This is a Trump vs Harris election.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,349
    williamglenn said:

    HYUFD said:

    https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1320404365790879749?s=20

    Do you have the crosstabs?
    Of course not.
    Why would Trafalgar give away the secrets of their superior method ?
    And anyway they’re now denying those were their crosstabs. :smile:
  • Options
    MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    edited October 2020
    brokenwheel said:

    Mysticrose said:

    brokenwheel said:

    DAlexander said:

    brokenwheel said:

    Um...there are rumours of news breaking this morning that could have a big impact on the election.

    Do tell.
    Doesn't seem to be what I thought it was, which would be pretty wild, so i'll hold off for now.
    The main time I see this kind of post is just before election results when people are trying to retrieve their betting losses.
    Ha, no it's nothing like that. Besides half 5 in the morning wouldn't be the time for that. I'm just not going to spread a rumour doing the rounds that I couldn't confirm.
    No you really are, as said below, almost certainly in danger of pushing something that is bullshit. The 5 am time is meaningless since we live in an internet age and the time right now is 11pm in LA.

    This kind of thing happens when people on betting exchanges realise they are about to make losses.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,349
    brokenwheel said:

    Um...there are rumours of news breaking this morning that could have a big impact on the election.

    If you follow the right folk on facebook, there have been every morning for the last few months.
    And they always seem to be what I thought they were.
  • Options
    GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,077
    edited October 2020
    DAlexander said:

    brokenwheel said:

    Um...there are rumours of news breaking this morning that could have a big impact on the election.

    Do tell.
    Just type the name of Joe Biden’s controversial son into Twitter and click “Latest”. Sounds like total rubbish to me though.
  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,141
    partypoliticalorphan said:


    He confused Donald Trump for Abraham Lincoln in the prsidential debate last week.
    What's the point in doing this? Who do you think you're convincing? Hardly anyone here has a vote in the US election, and anyone who does has decided. And in any case, we saw the debate...
  • Options
    brokenwheelbrokenwheel Posts: 3,352
    Mysticrose said:

    brokenwheel said:

    Mysticrose said:

    brokenwheel said:

    DAlexander said:

    brokenwheel said:

    Um...there are rumours of news breaking this morning that could have a big impact on the election.

    Do tell.
    Doesn't seem to be what I thought it was, which would be pretty wild, so i'll hold off for now.
    The main time I see this kind of post is just before election results when people are trying to retrieve their betting losses.
    Ha, no it's nothing like that. Besides half 5 in the morning wouldn't be the time for that. I'm just not going to spread a rumour doing the rounds that I couldn't confirm.
    No you really are, as said below, almost certainly in danger of pushing something that is bullshit. The 5 am time is meaningless since we live in an internet age and the time right now is 11pm in LA.

    This kind of thing happens when people on betting exchanges realise they are about to make losses.
    I'm not pushing anything, that's why I said to ignore what I was saying.

    Back off mate.
  • Options
    MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    brokenwheel said:

    Mysticrose said:

    brokenwheel said:

    Mysticrose said:

    brokenwheel said:

    DAlexander said:

    brokenwheel said:

    Um...there are rumours of news breaking this morning that could have a big impact on the election.

    Do tell.
    Doesn't seem to be what I thought it was, which would be pretty wild, so i'll hold off for now.
    The main time I see this kind of post is just before election results when people are trying to retrieve their betting losses.
    Ha, no it's nothing like that. Besides half 5 in the morning wouldn't be the time for that. I'm just not going to spread a rumour doing the rounds that I couldn't confirm.
    No you really are, as said below, almost certainly in danger of pushing something that is bullshit. The 5 am time is meaningless since we live in an internet age and the time right now is 11pm in LA.

    This kind of thing happens when people on betting exchanges realise they are about to make losses.
    I'm not pushing anything, that's why I said to ignore what I was saying.

    Back off mate.
    Wrong gender.

    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
  • Options
    MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    Gallowgate said:

    DAlexander said:

    brokenwheel said:

    Um...there are rumours of news breaking this morning that could have a big impact on the election.

    Do tell.
    Just type the name of Joe Biden’s controversial son into Twitter and click “Latest”. Sounds like total rubbish to me though.
    Alister, I think it was, described this as the greatest scandal of the millennium the other day.

    So hyperbolic it's hilarious. But we should expect the QAnon & Far Right to be trying everything they can.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,515
    HYUFD said:

    Rob_downunder said:

    Also of note - Trumps approval rating has leveled off at the 42/43 percent range. Earlier in the month i think Mike picked up that it was heading North, but there's since been very little movement.

    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.

    That would be the same Nate Silver who forecast Hillary would win over 300 EC votes on eve of poll 2016 while Trafalgar forecast Trump would win Michigan and Pennsylvania and the EC?
    Worth reading this article from 1 Nov 2016. 538 clearly and accurately described how Trump could win:

    https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/793306268152766464?s=09
  • Options
    brokenwheelbrokenwheel Posts: 3,352
    edited October 2020
    Mysticrose said:

    brokenwheel said:

    Mysticrose said:

    brokenwheel said:

    Mysticrose said:

    brokenwheel said:

    DAlexander said:

    brokenwheel said:

    Um...there are rumours of news breaking this morning that could have a big impact on the election.

    Do tell.
    Doesn't seem to be what I thought it was, which would be pretty wild, so i'll hold off for now.
    The main time I see this kind of post is just before election results when people are trying to retrieve their betting losses.
    Ha, no it's nothing like that. Besides half 5 in the morning wouldn't be the time for that. I'm just not going to spread a rumour doing the rounds that I couldn't confirm.
    No you really are, as said below, almost certainly in danger of pushing something that is bullshit. The 5 am time is meaningless since we live in an internet age and the time right now is 11pm in LA.

    This kind of thing happens when people on betting exchanges realise they are about to make losses.
    I'm not pushing anything, that's why I said to ignore what I was saying.

    Back off mate.
    Wrong gender.

    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
    After the "tips" you have given, like Florida for Biden, It's a really bad idea to accuse me of trying to manipulate anything for financial gain.

    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?
  • Options
    MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    This is not 2016.

    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.

  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,349
    Republicans closely resemble autocratic parties in Hungary and Turkey - study
    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/26/republican-party-autocratic-hungary-turkey-study-trump
  • Options
    MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    brokenwheel said:

    Mysticrose said:

    brokenwheel said:

    Mysticrose said:

    brokenwheel said:

    Mysticrose said:

    brokenwheel said:

    DAlexander said:

    brokenwheel said:

    Um...there are rumours of news breaking this morning that could have a big impact on the election.

    Do tell.
    Doesn't seem to be what I thought it was, which would be pretty wild, so i'll hold off for now.
    The main time I see this kind of post is just before election results when people are trying to retrieve their betting losses.
    Ha, no it's nothing like that. Besides half 5 in the morning wouldn't be the time for that. I'm just not going to spread a rumour doing the rounds that I couldn't confirm.
    No you really are, as said below, almost certainly in danger of pushing something that is bullshit. The 5 am time is meaningless since we live in an internet age and the time right now is 11pm in LA.

    This kind of thing happens when people on betting exchanges realise they are about to make losses.
    I'm not pushing anything, that's why I said to ignore what I was saying.

    Back off mate.
    Wrong gender.

    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
    After the "tips" you have given, like Florida for Biden, It's a really bad idea to accuse me of trying to manipulate anything for financial gain.

    I'm confident Biden will take Florida so not sure what your point is? All reliable opinion polling points that way as do all on the ground reports. The very latest CBS/YouGov out yesterday has Biden ahead +2. Other reliable pollsters have a wider margin still.

    If you study Florida with even a modicum of attention to detail you will see why Trump is losing it.
  • Options
    alex_alex_ Posts: 7,518
    brokenwheel said:

    Mysticrose said:

    brokenwheel said:

    Mysticrose said:

    brokenwheel said:

    Mysticrose said:

    brokenwheel said:

    DAlexander said:

    brokenwheel said:

    Um...there are rumours of news breaking this morning that could have a big impact on the election.

    Do tell.
    Doesn't seem to be what I thought it was, which would be pretty wild, so i'll hold off for now.
    The main time I see this kind of post is just before election results when people are trying to retrieve their betting losses.
    Ha, no it's nothing like that. Besides half 5 in the morning wouldn't be the time for that. I'm just not going to spread a rumour doing the rounds that I couldn't confirm.
    No you really are, as said below, almost certainly in danger of pushing something that is bullshit. The 5 am time is meaningless since we live in an internet age and the time right now is 11pm in LA.

    This kind of thing happens when people on betting exchanges realise they are about to make losses.
    I'm not pushing anything, that's why I said to ignore what I was saying.

    Back off mate.
    Wrong gender.

    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
    After the "tips" you have given, like Florida for Biden, It's a really bad idea to accuse me of trying to manipulate anything for financial gain.

    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?
    Florida, where Biden has been ahead in 7 of the last 8 published polls? And where there’s no senatorial race to drag some of his more ambivalent potential GOP support to the polling station?
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    HYUFD said:

    https://twitter.com/RobertCahaly/status/1320516124044382208?s=20

    WTAF? He was defending those polls yesterday.
  • Options
    Rob_downunderRob_downunder Posts: 128
    DougSeal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Rob_downunder said:

    Also of note - Trumps approval rating has leveled off at the 42/43 percent range. Earlier in the month i think Mike picked up that it was heading North, but there's since been very little movement.

    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.

    That would be the same Nate Silver who forecast Hillary would win over 300 EC votes on eve of poll 2016 while Trafalgar forecast Trump would win Michigan and Pennsylvania and the EC?
    I'm sorry @HYUFD I have to pick you up here. This site, and Nate Silver, deals in probability, odds. Nate Silver put the probability of Trump winning at 30% - 1 in 3. Not impossible odds. Even this time he puts it at about 1 in 6. You, however, deal in certainty. There is no such thing. Nate Silver's expertese in probability made him a a good income in online poker before starting his current career as a pundit. Your focus is currenly on bin collection in Epping Forest.

    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
    Well said.
  • Options
    theenglishborntheenglishborn Posts: 162
    Alistair said:

    HYUFD said:

    https://twitter.com/RobertCahaly/status/1320516124044382208?s=20

    WTAF? He was defending those polls yesterday.
    It does seem a classic example of getting caught red handed.
    Accidentally release something you didn't want others to see.
    Defend it (optional)
    Delete the evidence
    Claim you got hacked or fake news
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Nigelb said:

    edmundintokyo said:

    Pagan2 said:

    A serious question to pb bettors who have wagered money on the presidential election. The more we hear from the states the more we hear the election being rigged via voter suppression and gerrymandering....how do you figure that into your odds assessments?

    There's no new gerrymandering, the electoral maps are the same as 2016.

    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.
    Roberts is a GOP hack. He just has occasional bouts of either conscience or pragmatism.
    Roberts has spent his professional life trying to destroy voting rights and overturn the VRA via judicial activism.

    He's an utter turd.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,899
    https://twitter.com/pollinganalysis/status/1320550586727673856

    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.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,349
    https://twitter.com/ASlavitt/status/1320567512845688838
  • Options
    nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483
    Which channel to watch the results on? Weren’t the UK channels accused of talking more than reporting the results last time?
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,918
    Nigelb said:

    Republicans closely resemble autocratic parties in Hungary and Turkey - study
    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/26/republican-party-autocratic-hungary-turkey-study-trump

    It's a more dispassionate study of what several posters have claimed on here in the recent past.One wonders whether, should Johnson and Cummings remain in 10 Downing St for much longer, the same will be written about the Conservative party.

    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.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,515
    Pulpstar said:

    https://twitter.com/pollinganalysis/status/1320550586727673856

    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.

    Are there many Dixicrats left? It seems not.

    Not much sign of shy Trumpers, indeed the contrary...
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,349
    Turning on the charm.

    https://twitter.com/JeremyKonyndyk/status/1320566108877967362
  • Options
    MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    By the way, that latest Florida poll echoes what Robert has written about North Carolina. Amongst those who have already voted Biden is leading 61% to 37% according to opinion polling. CNN has that figure at 71% Biden to 27% Trump. Trump holds a significant lead amongst those still to vote but with c. 35% + of ballots already cast the options for Trump look to be getting squeezed.

    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
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,918
    Pulpstar said:

    https://twitter.com/pollinganalysis/status/1320550586727673856

    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.

    What sort of Dem votes for Trump? Registered 50 years ago I suppose, and never bothered to change. Incidentally, I've often wondered why in the US one does register publicly as voting Rep or Dem. I'm sure I've seen a reason, but I can't recall a good one.
  • Options
    MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    edited October 2020
    Foxy's data puts it better than I have.

    Florida looks bleak for Trump to me. Certainly no justification for brokenwheel to mock it as a good betting tip.
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,849

  • Options
    MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    nichomar said:

    Which channel to watch the results on? Weren’t the UK channels accused of talking more than reporting the results last time?

    Last post from me for the day but it's a perennial problem with US elections. With only 50 states and in different time zones there can be long gaps between results.
  • Options
    nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483
    OldKingCole said:

    Pulpstar said:

    https://twitter.com/pollinganalysis/status/1320550586727673856

    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.

    What sort of Dem votes for Trump? Registered 50 years ago I suppose, and never bothered to change. Incidentally, I've often wondered why in the US one does register publicly as voting Rep or Dem. I'm sure I've seen a reason, but I can't recall a good one.
    Primaries?
  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,141
    OldKingCole said:

    Pulpstar said:

    https://twitter.com/pollinganalysis/status/1320550586727673856

    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.

    What sort of Dem votes for Trump? Registered 50 years ago I suppose, and never bothered to change. Incidentally, I've often wondered why in the US one does register publicly as voting Rep or Dem. I'm sure I've seen a reason, but I can't recall a good one.
    So they know which primary to let you vote in (although some of them are still open to non-members).
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,899
    Pulpstar said:

    https://twitter.com/pollinganalysis/status/1320550586727673856

    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.

    Now obviously that 1% will probably all be in the panhandle (And thats a best case scenario for Trump) so it is perhaps up to 4% or so ? But still it means he is getting paltry numbers of Democrat votes in places like Talahassee, Jacksonville, Pensacola ; and furthermore the GOP registration gains were all simply Democrats who voted Trump in 2016.
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    OldKingCole said:

    Pulpstar said:

    https://twitter.com/pollinganalysis/status/1320550586727673856

    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.

    What sort of Dem votes for Trump? Registered 50 years ago I suppose, and never bothered to change. Incidentally, I've often wondered why in the US one does register publicly as voting Rep or Dem. I'm sure I've seen a reason, but I can't recall a good one.
    Voting in Party Primary
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    edited October 2020
    theenglishborn said:

    Alistair said:

    HYUFD said:

    https://twitter.com/RobertCahaly/status/1320516124044382208?s=20

    WTAF? He was defending those polls yesterday.
    It does seem a classic example of getting caught red handed.
    Accidentally release something you didn't want others to see.
    Defend it (optional)
    Delete the evidence
    Claim you got hacked or fake news
    Here he is defending the polls just in case there was any doubt

    https://twitter.com/RobertCahaly/status/1320396164286586882

    https://twitter.com/RobertCahaly/status/1320397640849362945
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    The Economist election model guy is going to be interviewing Cahaly today. I wonder if Cahaly can keep his story straight between him and @rcs1000
  • Options
    brokenwheelbrokenwheel Posts: 3,352
    edited October 2020
    Pulpstar said:

    https://twitter.com/pollinganalysis/status/1320550586727673856

    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.

    ...Florida is a state where we know how people are voting by party ID!

    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.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,918
    Alistair said:

    OldKingCole said:

    Pulpstar said:

    https://twitter.com/pollinganalysis/status/1320550586727673856

    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.

    What sort of Dem votes for Trump? Registered 50 years ago I suppose, and never bothered to change. Incidentally, I've often wondered why in the US one does register publicly as voting Rep or Dem. I'm sure I've seen a reason, but I can't recall a good one.
    Voting in Party Primary
    Thanks, and to 'nichomar'. Don't entirely see why it's any business of the State's though, but if that's the system they've developed, and the ballot is secret, fair enough.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,216
    HYUFD said:

    Rob_downunder said:

    Also of note - Trumps approval rating has leveled off at the 42/43 percent range. Earlier in the month i think Mike picked up that it was heading North, but there's since been very little movement.

    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.

    That would be the same Nate Silver who forecast Hillary would win over 300 EC votes on eve of poll 2016 while Trafalgar forecast Trump would win Michigan and Pennsylvania and the EC?
    You keep peddling this line that people who got it wrong last time can be ignored the next time.

    Brave of you, really.
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,811
    Mysticrose said:

    brokenwheel said:

    Mysticrose said:

    brokenwheel said:

    Mysticrose said:

    brokenwheel said:

    Mysticrose said:

    brokenwheel said:

    DAlexander said:

    brokenwheel said:

    Um...there are rumours of news breaking this morning that could have a big impact on the election.

    Do tell.
    Doesn't seem to be what I thought it was, which would be pretty wild, so i'll hold off for now.
    The main time I see this kind of post is just before election results when people are trying to retrieve their betting losses.
    Ha, no it's nothing like that. Besides half 5 in the morning wouldn't be the time for that. I'm just not going to spread a rumour doing the rounds that I couldn't confirm.
    No you really are, as said below, almost certainly in danger of pushing something that is bullshit. The 5 am time is meaningless since we live in an internet age and the time right now is 11pm in LA.

    This kind of thing happens when people on betting exchanges realise they are about to make losses.
    I'm not pushing anything, that's why I said to ignore what I was saying.

    Back off mate.
    Wrong gender.

    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
    After the "tips" you have given, like Florida for Biden, It's a really bad idea to accuse me of trying to manipulate anything for financial gain.

    I'm confident Biden will take Florida so not sure what your point is? All reliable opinion polling points that way as do all on the ground reports. The very latest CBS/YouGov out yesterday has Biden ahead +2. Other reliable pollsters have a wider margin still.

    If you study Florida with even a modicum of attention to detail you will see why Trump is losing it.
    Point is he is saying you are likely losing your butt on Florida and ramping so you cut your losses , exactly what you accused him of you pompous ass.
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,811
    Mysticrose said:

    Foxy's data puts it better than I have.

    Florida looks bleak for Trump to me. Certainly no justification for brokenwheel to mock it as a good betting tip.

    Irony meter disappears off the scale
This discussion has been closed.