Howdy, Stranger!

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

Three days to go before election day and UK punters still rate Trump as a 34% chance – politicalbett

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited October 2020 in General
imageThree days to go before election day and UK punters still rate Trump as a 34% chance – politicalbetting.com

On the biggest political betting market of all time, as the Smarkets chart shows, Biden is rated as a 65% chance which given the polling and the other election predictors looks amazingly generous.

Read the full story here

«13456789

Comments

  • ClippPClippP Posts: 1,667
    First
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    edited October 2020
    1st

    Damn :smiley:
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,279
    3rd rate like Trump.
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    I think what's going on are the following beliefs:

    1. Normalcy bias.

    The belief is that because something happened in 2016 it will repeat again. There's no evidence for this. Not a scrap. But that doesn't stop people.

    2. That people lean to the Right

    Because some recent elections have produced surprise results on the Right, there is an assumption that when push comes to shove people generally veer that way. There's probably more truth in this.

    3. Personal preference

    I suspect a lot of punters are themselves right-leaning. Not all, obviously, but I think in many cases the money is coming from people who 'want' a Trump victory. This is a more theoretical explanation and I'm not wedded to it.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Good morning, everyone.

    Bettors have been wrong before.

    Off-topic, it's remarkable that the day after multiple terrorist attacks in France it doesn't appear anywhere (that I can see) on the BBC news homepage. They do, importantly, have headlines on Scarlett Johansson's marriage, Borat, and some hip hop awards.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,052
    The very large CCES poll is out, and looks good for Grandpa Joe. Not much evidence of Blacks swinging Trump, and only a slight trend in Hispanics. Bigger movement away from Trump in whites.

    https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/1321945814877556741?s=09
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,052
    From the CCES


  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Foxy said:

    The very large CCES poll is out, and looks good for Grandpa Joe. Not much evidence of Blacks swinging Trump, and only a slight trend in Hispanics. Bigger movement away from Trump in whites.

    https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/1321945814877556741?s=09

    Switch to "know someone who has had covid"
  • Four days, surely?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,715
    Good Morning everyone.
    This is getting to be like British elections were, apparently, before the secret ballot. Big poster up, men going up and putting a cross beside their favoured candidate and someone keeping a tally.

    IIRC, too at the beginning of the 20thC voting in UK was over several days, and some constituencies declared while others were still voting.

    What was that about a functioning democracy? Shall be very glad when (if ever) this is all over!
  • Scott_xP said:
    I love the sequence where she reacts to the number of sexual assault charges ("TWENTY-SIX!") and reaches for the hand sanitiser...
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080

    I think what's going on are the following beliefs:

    1. Normalcy bias.

    The belief is that because something happened in 2016 it will repeat again. There's no evidence for this. Not a scrap. But that doesn't stop people.

    2. That people lean to the Right

    Because some recent elections have produced surprise results on the Right, there is an assumption that when push comes to shove people generally veer that way. There's probably more truth in this.

    3. Personal preference

    I suspect a lot of punters are themselves right-leaning. Not all, obviously, but I think in many cases the money is coming from people who 'want' a Trump victory. This is a more theoretical explanation and I'm not wedded to it.

    I wish you’d stop using the phrase normalcy bias, especially where it’s not appropriate. Normally the favourite wins. It didn’t happen in 2016 (but did in 2019), and might not happen again. Favourites don’t always win. But this has nothing to do with normalcy.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,122
    NHS PLEASE NOTE:
    Popped into my local surgery to book a flu vaccine appointment. They gave me no appointment - the nurse just did it there and then. Now I have the rest of a blue sky day with 25 degrees to relax in!
    #Ilovealmeriaspain.
  • Good Morning everyone.
    This is getting to be like British elections were, apparently, before the secret ballot. Big poster up, men going up and putting a cross beside their favoured candidate and someone keeping a tally.

    IIRC, too at the beginning of the 20thC voting in UK was over several days, and some constituencies declared while others were still voting.

    What was that about a functioning democracy? Shall be very glad when (if ever) this is all over!

    This American system is stupid. TBH I agree with the GOP challenges that election day is the cut-off to ballots being accepted - how bloody long do people want to vote?
  • felix said:

    NHS PLEASE NOTE:
    Popped into my local surgery to book a flu vaccine appointment. They gave me no appointment - the nurse just did it there and then. Now I have the rest of a blue sky day with 25 degrees to relax in!
    #Ilovealmeriaspain.

    You mean it is too damn hot. I feel your pain.
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688

    Good Morning everyone.
    This is getting to be like British elections were, apparently, before the secret ballot. Big poster up, men going up and putting a cross beside their favoured candidate and someone keeping a tally.

    IIRC, too at the beginning of the 20thC voting in UK was over several days, and some constituencies declared while others were still voting.

    What was that about a functioning democracy? Shall be very glad when (if ever) this is all over!

    This American system is stupid. TBH I agree with the GOP challenges that election day is the cut-off to ballots being accepted - how bloody long do people want to vote?
    Actually, although I'm left-leaning I agree with you.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,715

    Good Morning everyone.
    This is getting to be like British elections were, apparently, before the secret ballot. Big poster up, men going up and putting a cross beside their favoured candidate and someone keeping a tally.

    IIRC, too at the beginning of the 20thC voting in UK was over several days, and some constituencies declared while others were still voting.

    What was that about a functioning democracy? Shall be very glad when (if ever) this is all over!

    This American system is stupid. TBH I agree with the GOP challenges that election day is the cut-off to ballots being accepted - how bloody long do people want to vote?
    Isn't the problem there with the US postal service?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,052
    Alistair said:

    Foxy said:

    The very large CCES poll is out, and looks good for Grandpa Joe. Not much evidence of Blacks swinging Trump, and only a slight trend in Hispanics. Bigger movement away from Trump in whites.

    https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/1321945814877556741?s=09

    Switch to "know someone who has had covid"
    It doesn't say what proportion know someone who has had it, and may be biased to city dwellers, which is also interesting.




  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080

    Good Morning everyone.
    This is getting to be like British elections were, apparently, before the secret ballot. Big poster up, men going up and putting a cross beside their favoured candidate and someone keeping a tally.

    IIRC, too at the beginning of the 20thC voting in UK was over several days, and some constituencies declared while others were still voting.

    What was that about a functioning democracy? Shall be very glad when (if ever) this is all over!

    This American system is stupid. TBH I agree with the GOP challenges that election day is the cut-off to ballots being accepted - how bloody long do people want to vote?
    Isn't the problem there with the US postal service?
    Yes, at root - although I'd be interested to know when postal votes arrive; how much time do people have?

    Nevertheless we know that California will still be counting in late November and maybe into December, and that is utterly ridiculous.
  • Good Morning everyone.
    This is getting to be like British elections were, apparently, before the secret ballot. Big poster up, men going up and putting a cross beside their favoured candidate and someone keeping a tally.

    IIRC, too at the beginning of the 20thC voting in UK was over several days, and some constituencies declared while others were still voting.

    What was that about a functioning democracy? Shall be very glad when (if ever) this is all over!

    This American system is stupid. TBH I agree with the GOP challenges that election day is the cut-off to ballots being accepted - how bloody long do people want to vote?
    Isn't the problem there with the US postal service?
    The problem is their entire system. If the leader of the Free World doesn't have a functioning postal service then set a post deadline early enough. Here if you don't post your postal vote by the date given - and its early to allow for delays - then likely it won't be counted. The idea that votes posted *on the day* should be counted whenever they arrive is bonkers.

    But it's America. Its a Zoo. Of course its bonkers.
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    edited October 2020
    IanB2 said:

    I think what's going on are the following beliefs:

    1. Normalcy bias.

    The belief is that because something happened in 2016 it will repeat again. There's no evidence for this. Not a scrap. But that doesn't stop people.

    2. That people lean to the Right

    Because some recent elections have produced surprise results on the Right, there is an assumption that when push comes to shove people generally veer that way. There's probably more truth in this.

    3. Personal preference

    I suspect a lot of punters are themselves right-leaning. Not all, obviously, but I think in many cases the money is coming from people who 'want' a Trump victory. This is a more theoretical explanation and I'm not wedded to it.

    I wish you’d stop using the phrase normalcy bias, especially where it’s not appropriate. Normally the favourite wins. It didn’t happen in 2016 (but did in 2019), and might not happen again. Favourites don’t always win. But this has nothing to do with normalcy.
    Well that just shows you don't comprehend the term.

    Normalcy bias is the psychological term for a cognitive bias: our tendency to expect that things will continue to occur in the future as the way they have typically occurred in the past (to continue to be “normal”).

    It tends to be applied to disasters but that's an application of the theory not its meaning.

    Ergo, people are expecting 2020 to repeat 2016. It's a cognitive psychological bias and it affects betting markets particularly. In this case that Trump will outperform the polls again and that Biden will repeat Clinton's 'surprise' loss. Normalcy bias.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080
    edited October 2020

    IanB2 said:

    I think what's going on are the following beliefs:

    1. Normalcy bias.

    The belief is that because something happened in 2016 it will repeat again. There's no evidence for this. Not a scrap. But that doesn't stop people.

    2. That people lean to the Right

    Because some recent elections have produced surprise results on the Right, there is an assumption that when push comes to shove people generally veer that way. There's probably more truth in this.

    3. Personal preference

    I suspect a lot of punters are themselves right-leaning. Not all, obviously, but I think in many cases the money is coming from people who 'want' a Trump victory. This is a more theoretical explanation and I'm not wedded to it.

    I wish you’d stop using the phrase normalcy bias, especially where it’s not appropriate. Normally the favourite wins. It didn’t happen in 2016 (but did in 2019), and might not happen again. Favourites don’t always win. But this has nothing to do with normalcy.
    Well that just shows you don't comprehend the term.

    Normalcy bias is the psychological term for a cognitive bias: our tendency to expect that things will continue to occur in the future as the way they have typically occurred in the past (to continue to be “normal”).

    It tends to be applied to disasters but that's an application of the theory not its meaning.

    Ergo, people are expecting 2020 to repeat 2016. It's a cognitive psychological bias and it affects betting markets particularly. Normalcy bias.
    You really aren't understanding this, are you?

    Normalcy bias is why people ignore warnings of unlikely events. Hence if I run down the High Street and shout "wolf", I doubt people will run for cover.

    It has nothing whatsoever to do with the likelihood - or belief - that an unlikely event may happen again. You can see this from your own definition - despite Trump winning as underdog last time, this very clearly is NOT the way things "have typically occurred in the past", nor was it "normal", nor does something exceptional become "normal" just because it happened once. Or even twice.

    The only way you could bring normalcy bias into play is if people are betting on the assumption that the sitting president (almost) always wins a second term. But that isn't what you said, or what you meant, and I doubt that is driving UK betting behaviour, especially during such patently exceptional circumstances as now.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,518

    Good Morning everyone.
    This is getting to be like British elections were, apparently, before the secret ballot. Big poster up, men going up and putting a cross beside their favoured candidate and someone keeping a tally.

    IIRC, too at the beginning of the 20thC voting in UK was over several days, and some constituencies declared while others were still voting.

    What was that about a functioning democracy? Shall be very glad when (if ever) this is all over!

    This American system is stupid. TBH I agree with the GOP challenges that election day is the cut-off to ballots being accepted - how bloody long do people want to vote?
    As long as it takes the US postal system to a) deliver their ballot to them and b) deliver the completed ballot back to the state authorities.
  • NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 3,346
    Very surprising graph in this BBC report regarding Age Standardised Mortality Rate. Despite us being in a pandemic the figures up to the end of August are similar to 2008 and less than every year in the 2000s before that.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54712917
  • theakestheakes Posts: 839
    Sorry to pour cold water. Trump is gaining and if Trafalgar is correct, they were more or less right last time, he will get in by the back door of hanging onto his crucial states whilst losing the popular vote. Other pollsters are producing a similar message of Trump moving forward. The only hope for the Democrats is that sufficent numbers of their people early voted, enough to just get him over the wire, but its a slim one.
    What a daft electoral system they have.
    It is possible that if Biden wins by say 4-5 million votes or more then some of the Electoral College in States he narrowly wins may not support Trump, there were a very small number of such instances last time.
    But the forecast looks gloomy, I fear an authoritarian regime will follow.
    Re Ballots after polling day, In Australia they are still counting two weeks or more after the event, outlying areas, late deliveries and the forces, so its nothing new.
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,340
    Alistair said:

    Foxy said:

    The very large CCES poll is out, and looks good for Grandpa Joe. Not much evidence of Blacks swinging Trump, and only a slight trend in Hispanics. Bigger movement away from Trump in whites.

    https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/1321945814877556741?s=09

    Switch to "know someone who has had covid"
    That movement in HIspanics could be very significant in FL and TX though.

    Good Morning everyone.
    This is getting to be like British elections were, apparently, before the secret ballot. Big poster up, men going up and putting a cross beside their favoured candidate and someone keeping a tally.

    IIRC, too at the beginning of the 20thC voting in UK was over several days, and some constituencies declared while others were still voting.

    What was that about a functioning democracy? Shall be very glad when (if ever) this is all over!

    This American system is stupid. TBH I agree with the GOP challenges that election day is the cut-off to ballots being accepted - how bloody long do people want to vote?
    The principle is that if you cast a ballot before the polls close, it should be counted. The extreme slowness of post in the US is the real issue here.

  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 14,772

    Good morning, everyone.

    Bettors have been wrong before.

    Off-topic, it's remarkable that the day after multiple terrorist attacks in France it doesn't appear anywhere (that I can see) on the BBC news homepage. They do, importantly, have headlines on Scarlett Johansson's marriage, Borat, and some hip hop awards.

    I don't use the BBC News website often, so I guess the BBC have no history from me with which to tailor their home page. This is what I get on the BBC News homepage.


  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    edited October 2020
    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    I think what's going on are the following beliefs:

    1. Normalcy bias.

    The belief is that because something happened in 2016 it will repeat again. There's no evidence for this. Not a scrap. But that doesn't stop people.

    2. That people lean to the Right

    Because some recent elections have produced surprise results on the Right, there is an assumption that when push comes to shove people generally veer that way. There's probably more truth in this.

    3. Personal preference

    I suspect a lot of punters are themselves right-leaning. Not all, obviously, but I think in many cases the money is coming from people who 'want' a Trump victory. This is a more theoretical explanation and I'm not wedded to it.

    I wish you’d stop using the phrase normalcy bias, especially where it’s not appropriate. Normally the favourite wins. It didn’t happen in 2016 (but did in 2019), and might not happen again. Favourites don’t always win. But this has nothing to do with normalcy.
    Well that just shows you don't comprehend the term.

    Normalcy bias is the psychological term for a cognitive bias: our tendency to expect that things will continue to occur in the future as the way they have typically occurred in the past (to continue to be “normal”).

    It tends to be applied to disasters but that's an application of the theory not its meaning.

    Ergo, people are expecting 2020 to repeat 2016. It's a cognitive psychological bias and it affects betting markets particularly. Normalcy bias.
    You really aren't understanding this, are you?

    Normalcy bias is why people ignore warnings of unlikely events.
    No that's an application not the meaning.

    You need to go back to the roots of the term which are in psychology (about which I know a fair deal). It's a cognitive term for a tendency to expect future events to repeat the pattern from the past. Taking into warnings about unlikely events is an application of the theory. The meaning of normalcy bias in psychology is that we expect future events to repeat patterns that have occurred in the past. If you don't believe me, go away and do some due diligence in the world of psychology and return here when you have learned something.

    In this case normalcy bias is affecting people's judgement. They are expecting 2020 to repeat 2016 because the latter has now become a normal cognitive expectation.

    I suspect your tetchiness with me previously is allowing you to rush rather breathlessly into any disagreement you can latch onto without stopping to engage your brain. Your own version of a normalcy bias.

    :smiley:
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,841

    Good Morning everyone.
    This is getting to be like British elections were, apparently, before the secret ballot. Big poster up, men going up and putting a cross beside their favoured candidate and someone keeping a tally.

    IIRC, too at the beginning of the 20thC voting in UK was over several days, and some constituencies declared while others were still voting.

    What was that about a functioning democracy? Shall be very glad when (if ever) this is all over!

    This American system is stupid. TBH I agree with the GOP challenges that election day is the cut-off to ballots being accepted - how bloody long do people want to vote?
    Challenging after the ballots are sent out with instructions that they only need to be postmarked Nov 3rd, 120 hours before the election whilst the administration deliberately cripples the postal service ?!
  • alex_ said:

    Good Morning everyone.
    This is getting to be like British elections were, apparently, before the secret ballot. Big poster up, men going up and putting a cross beside their favoured candidate and someone keeping a tally.

    IIRC, too at the beginning of the 20thC voting in UK was over several days, and some constituencies declared while others were still voting.

    What was that about a functioning democracy? Shall be very glad when (if ever) this is all over!

    This American system is stupid. TBH I agree with the GOP challenges that election day is the cut-off to ballots being accepted - how bloody long do people want to vote?
    As long as it takes the US postal system to a) deliver their ballot to them and b) deliver the completed ballot back to the state authorities.
    It can't be an infinite length of time. There is a hard deadline where the new President and Vice President have to be elected by the electoral college.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,164
    edited October 2020

    Very surprising graph in this BBC report regarding Age Standardised Mortality Rate. Despite us being in a pandemic the figures up to the end of August are similar to 2008 and less than every year in the 2000s before that.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54712917

    So the question is, what would the 2008 figures look like if COVID-19 had turned up back then?

    EDIT: That chart's quite interesting. There are clear dips in 2014 and 2019. I think that's due to the winters of 2013-14 and 2018-19 being mild.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 14,772

    IanB2 said:

    I think what's going on are the following beliefs:

    1. Normalcy bias.

    The belief is that because something happened in 2016 it will repeat again. There's no evidence for this. Not a scrap. But that doesn't stop people.

    2. That people lean to the Right

    Because some recent elections have produced surprise results on the Right, there is an assumption that when push comes to shove people generally veer that way. There's probably more truth in this.

    3. Personal preference

    I suspect a lot of punters are themselves right-leaning. Not all, obviously, but I think in many cases the money is coming from people who 'want' a Trump victory. This is a more theoretical explanation and I'm not wedded to it.

    I wish you’d stop using the phrase normalcy bias, especially where it’s not appropriate. Normally the favourite wins. It didn’t happen in 2016 (but did in 2019), and might not happen again. Favourites don’t always win. But this has nothing to do with normalcy.
    Well that just shows you don't comprehend the term.

    Normalcy bias is the psychological term for a cognitive bias: our tendency to expect that things will continue to occur in the future as the way they have typically occurred in the past (to continue to be “normal”).

    It tends to be applied to disasters but that's an application of the theory not its meaning.

    Ergo, people are expecting 2020 to repeat 2016. It's a cognitive psychological bias and it affects betting markets particularly. In this case that Trump will outperform the polls again and that Biden will repeat Clinton's 'surprise' loss. Normalcy bias.
    The point being that 2016 was not normal. There's a different psychological bias about overreacting to unusual events, but I'm not trying to bolster my argument by using fancy terms I don't understand properly (this time) so I won't Google to find out what it is.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080
    edited October 2020

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    I think what's going on are the following beliefs:

    1. Normalcy bias.

    The belief is that because something happened in 2016 it will repeat again. There's no evidence for this. Not a scrap. But that doesn't stop people.

    2. That people lean to the Right

    Because some recent elections have produced surprise results on the Right, there is an assumption that when push comes to shove people generally veer that way. There's probably more truth in this.

    3. Personal preference

    I suspect a lot of punters are themselves right-leaning. Not all, obviously, but I think in many cases the money is coming from people who 'want' a Trump victory. This is a more theoretical explanation and I'm not wedded to it.

    I wish you’d stop using the phrase normalcy bias, especially where it’s not appropriate. Normally the favourite wins. It didn’t happen in 2016 (but did in 2019), and might not happen again. Favourites don’t always win. But this has nothing to do with normalcy.
    Well that just shows you don't comprehend the term.

    Normalcy bias is the psychological term for a cognitive bias: our tendency to expect that things will continue to occur in the future as the way they have typically occurred in the past (to continue to be “normal”).

    It tends to be applied to disasters but that's an application of the theory not its meaning.

    Ergo, people are expecting 2020 to repeat 2016. It's a cognitive psychological bias and it affects betting markets particularly. Normalcy bias.
    You really aren't understanding this, are you?

    Normalcy bias is why people ignore warnings of unlikely events.
    No that's an application not the meaning.

    You need to go back to the roots of the term which are in psychology (about which I know a fair deal). It's a cognitive term for a tendency to expect future events to repeat the pattern from the past. Taking into warnings about unlikely events is an application of the theory. The meaning of normalcy bias in psychology is that we expect future events to repeat patterns that have occurred in the past. If you don't believe me, go away and do some due diligence in the world of psychology and return here when you have learned something.

    In this case normalcy bias is affecting people's judgement. They are expecting 2020 to repeat 2016 because the latter has now become a normal cognitive expectation.

    I suspect your tetchiness with me previously is allowing you to rush rather breathlessly into any disagreement you can latch onto without stopping to engage your brain. Your own version of a normalcy bias.

    :smiley:
    You can redefine it as many times as you like, but you're still using the term incorrectly.

    Trump winning in 2016 against the odds is not "a pattern of events from the past". It's something that happened once, and was viewed as exceptional both at the time and subsequently. People thinking that a freak event might happen again is not normalcy bias. It remains a freak event that happened once. Nor is it a "normal cognitive expectation" - if it were, he'd be favourite. And, as far as election betting is (and UK bettors are) concerned, the favourite does, still, normally win.
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,340

    alex_ said:

    Good Morning everyone.
    This is getting to be like British elections were, apparently, before the secret ballot. Big poster up, men going up and putting a cross beside their favoured candidate and someone keeping a tally.

    IIRC, too at the beginning of the 20thC voting in UK was over several days, and some constituencies declared while others were still voting.

    What was that about a functioning democracy? Shall be very glad when (if ever) this is all over!

    This American system is stupid. TBH I agree with the GOP challenges that election day is the cut-off to ballots being accepted - how bloody long do people want to vote?
    As long as it takes the US postal system to a) deliver their ballot to them and b) deliver the completed ballot back to the state authorities.
    It can't be an infinite length of time. There is a hard deadline where the new President and Vice President have to be elected by the electoral college.
    No, but it doesn’t have to be the night of the election; especially when the ballots say otherwise.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,052

    Alistair said:

    Foxy said:

    The very large CCES poll is out, and looks good for Grandpa Joe. Not much evidence of Blacks swinging Trump, and only a slight trend in Hispanics. Bigger movement away from Trump in whites.

    https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/1321945814877556741?s=09

    Switch to "know someone who has had covid"
    That movement in HIspanics could be very significant in FL and TX though.

    Good Morning everyone.
    This is getting to be like British elections were, apparently, before the secret ballot. Big poster up, men going up and putting a cross beside their favoured candidate and someone keeping a tally.

    IIRC, too at the beginning of the 20thC voting in UK was over several days, and some constituencies declared while others were still voting.

    What was that about a functioning democracy? Shall be very glad when (if ever) this is all over!

    This American system is stupid. TBH I agree with the GOP challenges that election day is the cut-off to ballots being accepted - how bloody long do people want to vote?
    The principle is that if you cast a ballot before the polls close, it should be counted. The extreme slowness of post in the US is the real issue here.

    Though the shift in Whites to Biden will be bigger in both States.

    US elections are quite bizarre in many ways, but as the Electoral College doesn't meet until Dec, and the new POTUS gets sworn in in Jan, counting late postmarked ballots is not the issue it would be in the UK.

    This is an interesting chart on the percentage of late counting by State.



    I recall Kentucky and Indiana tend to report first, as polls close early there, and with few late ballots should give a good idea of Swing. Both will stay red of course.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,733
    theakes said:

    It is possible that if Biden wins by say 4-5 million votes or more then some of the Electoral College in States he narrowly wins may not support Trump, there were a very small number of such instances last time.

    No electors form states Biden narrowly wins should be supporting Trump.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,733

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    I think what's going on are the following beliefs:

    1. Normalcy bias.

    The belief is that because something happened in 2016 it will repeat again. There's no evidence for this. Not a scrap. But that doesn't stop people.

    2. That people lean to the Right

    Because some recent elections have produced surprise results on the Right, there is an assumption that when push comes to shove people generally veer that way. There's probably more truth in this.

    3. Personal preference

    I suspect a lot of punters are themselves right-leaning. Not all, obviously, but I think in many cases the money is coming from people who 'want' a Trump victory. This is a more theoretical explanation and I'm not wedded to it.

    I wish you’d stop using the phrase normalcy bias, especially where it’s not appropriate. Normally the favourite wins. It didn’t happen in 2016 (but did in 2019), and might not happen again. Favourites don’t always win. But this has nothing to do with normalcy.
    Well that just shows you don't comprehend the term.

    Normalcy bias is the psychological term for a cognitive bias: our tendency to expect that things will continue to occur in the future as the way they have typically occurred in the past (to continue to be “normal”).

    It tends to be applied to disasters but that's an application of the theory not its meaning.

    Ergo, people are expecting 2020 to repeat 2016. It's a cognitive psychological bias and it affects betting markets particularly. Normalcy bias.
    You really aren't understanding this, are you?

    Normalcy bias is why people ignore warnings of unlikely events.
    No that's an application not the meaning.

    You need to go back to the roots of the term which are in psychology (about which I know a fair deal). It's a cognitive term for a tendency to expect future events to repeat the pattern from the past. Taking into warnings about unlikely events is an application of the theory. The meaning of normalcy bias in psychology is that we expect future events to repeat patterns that have occurred in the past. If you don't believe me, go away and do some due diligence in the world of psychology and return here when you have learned something.

    In this case normalcy bias is affecting people's judgement. They are expecting 2020 to repeat 2016 because the latter has now become a normal cognitive expectation.

    I suspect your tetchiness with me previously is allowing you to rush rather breathlessly into any disagreement you can latch onto without stopping to engage your brain. Your own version of a normalcy bias.

    :smiley:
    We had another poster a few months ago who was obsessed with the term ‘normalcy bias’ as well.

    Not sure if you met him when you were in Penarth? His name is Sean Thomas.
  • alex_ said:

    Good Morning everyone.
    This is getting to be like British elections were, apparently, before the secret ballot. Big poster up, men going up and putting a cross beside their favoured candidate and someone keeping a tally.

    IIRC, too at the beginning of the 20thC voting in UK was over several days, and some constituencies declared while others were still voting.

    What was that about a functioning democracy? Shall be very glad when (if ever) this is all over!

    This American system is stupid. TBH I agree with the GOP challenges that election day is the cut-off to ballots being accepted - how bloody long do people want to vote?
    As long as it takes the US postal system to a) deliver their ballot to them and b) deliver the completed ballot back to the state authorities.
    It can't be an infinite length of time. There is a hard deadline where the new President and Vice President have to be elected by the electoral college.
    A postmarked ballot is a ballot that has been cast on time according to the law in the USA. A postmark in the USA is considered a legally binding proof that something was sent on time - however long it takes the Federal Government's USPS to process it isn't the voters fault.

    That's like saying that there's just too many votes in the ballot box for us to bother counting them all so we'll stop when the results say what we want them to at an arbitrary count without bothering to count them all.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,279
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    I think what's going on are the following beliefs:

    1. Normalcy bias.

    The belief is that because something happened in 2016 it will repeat again. There's no evidence for this. Not a scrap. But that doesn't stop people.

    2. That people lean to the Right

    Because some recent elections have produced surprise results on the Right, there is an assumption that when push comes to shove people generally veer that way. There's probably more truth in this.

    3. Personal preference

    I suspect a lot of punters are themselves right-leaning. Not all, obviously, but I think in many cases the money is coming from people who 'want' a Trump victory. This is a more theoretical explanation and I'm not wedded to it.

    I wish you’d stop using the phrase normalcy bias, especially where it’s not appropriate. Normally the favourite wins. It didn’t happen in 2016 (but did in 2019), and might not happen again. Favourites don’t always win. But this has nothing to do with normalcy.
    Well that just shows you don't comprehend the term.

    Normalcy bias is the psychological term for a cognitive bias: our tendency to expect that things will continue to occur in the future as the way they have typically occurred in the past (to continue to be “normal”).

    It tends to be applied to disasters but that's an application of the theory not its meaning.

    Ergo, people are expecting 2020 to repeat 2016. It's a cognitive psychological bias and it affects betting markets particularly. Normalcy bias.
    You really aren't understanding this, are you?

    Normalcy bias is why people ignore warnings of unlikely events.
    No that's an application not the meaning.

    You need to go back to the roots of the term which are in psychology (about which I know a fair deal). It's a cognitive term for a tendency to expect future events to repeat the pattern from the past. Taking into warnings about unlikely events is an application of the theory. The meaning of normalcy bias in psychology is that we expect future events to repeat patterns that have occurred in the past. If you don't believe me, go away and do some due diligence in the world of psychology and return here when you have learned something.

    In this case normalcy bias is affecting people's judgement. They are expecting 2020 to repeat 2016 because the latter has now become a normal cognitive expectation.

    I suspect your tetchiness with me previously is allowing you to rush rather breathlessly into any disagreement you can latch onto without stopping to engage your brain. Your own version of a normalcy bias.

    :smiley:
    We had another poster a few months ago who was obsessed with the term ‘normalcy bias’ as well.

    Not sure if you met him when you were in Penarth? His name is Sean Thomas.
    MR is a wannabe, not part of the authorised canon. A fanfic construct.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,880
    Scott_xP said:
    JM is wasting his time. Nobody gives a fuck about this sort of thing any more. Even the tories get that. Identity trumps (ahem) any conventional notion of probity. This is post truth politics.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483
    theakes said:

    Sorry to pour cold water. Trump is gaining and if Trafalgar is correct, they were more or less right last time, he will get in by the back door of hanging onto his crucial states whilst losing the popular vote. Other pollsters are producing a similar message of Trump moving forward. The only hope for the Democrats is that sufficent numbers of their people early voted, enough to just get him over the wire, but its a slim one.
    What a daft electoral system they have.
    It is possible that if Biden wins by say 4-5 million votes or more then some of the Electoral College in States he narrowly wins may not support Trump, there were a very small number of such instances last time.
    But the forecast looks gloomy, I fear an authoritarian regime will follow.
    Re Ballots after polling day, In Australia they are still counting two weeks or more after the event, outlying areas, late deliveries and the forces, so its nothing new.

    Any evidence to support your claims without trafalgar?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080

    alex_ said:

    Good Morning everyone.
    This is getting to be like British elections were, apparently, before the secret ballot. Big poster up, men going up and putting a cross beside their favoured candidate and someone keeping a tally.

    IIRC, too at the beginning of the 20thC voting in UK was over several days, and some constituencies declared while others were still voting.

    What was that about a functioning democracy? Shall be very glad when (if ever) this is all over!

    This American system is stupid. TBH I agree with the GOP challenges that election day is the cut-off to ballots being accepted - how bloody long do people want to vote?
    As long as it takes the US postal system to a) deliver their ballot to them and b) deliver the completed ballot back to the state authorities.
    It can't be an infinite length of time. There is a hard deadline where the new President and Vice President have to be elected by the electoral college.
    A postmarked ballot is a ballot that has been cast on time according to the law in the USA. A postmark in the USA is considered a legally binding proof that something was sent on time - however long it takes the Federal Government's USPS to process it isn't the voters fault.

    That's like saying that there's just too many votes in the ballot box for us to bother counting them all so we'll stop when the results say what we want them to at an arbitrary count without bothering to count them all.
    AIUI it was in the UK, a long time ago, until some postmen came up with a cunning scheme to win the football pools....
  • kamskikamski Posts: 4,199
    theakes said:

    Sorry to pour cold water. Trump is gaining and if Trafalgar is correct, they were more or less right last time, he will get in by the back door of hanging onto his crucial states whilst losing the popular vote. Other pollsters are producing a similar message of Trump moving forward. The only hope for the Democrats is that sufficent numbers of their people early voted, enough to just get him over the wire, but its a slim one.
    What a daft electoral system they have.
    It is possible that if Biden wins by say 4-5 million votes or more then some of the Electoral College in States he narrowly wins may not support Trump, there were a very small number of such instances last time.
    But the forecast looks gloomy, I fear an authoritarian regime will follow.
    Re Ballots after polling day, In Australia they are still counting two weeks or more after the event, outlying areas, late deliveries and the forces, so its nothing new.

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-battleground-states-where-weve-seen-some-movement-in-the-polls/

    says not much movement, just a little - some towards Trump, some towards Biden.

    Of course, it's possible that Trump could win, but to all the posters saying or implying that he is more likely than Biden to win just do this thought experiment:

    If a few days before the election Trump was ahead in the national polls, and was 5% ahead (on average) in the most likely tipping point state - Pennsylvania.
    But people were arguing that the Biden is still favorite because the polls are rubbish, except (find a pollster that was close in a couple of states in 2016, and this time is an outlier for Biden).
    And finding clues in, say, gun sales, or claiming that the fact that the Trump campaign is advertising in swing states shows the campaign knows that they are losing, how would that sound to you?

    It would sound like desperate clutching at straws. Of course Biden might still win in that role-reversal situation, but no way would he be favourite.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080
    Dura_Ace said:

    Scott_xP said:
    JM is wasting his time. Nobody gives a fuck about this sort of thing any more. Even the tories get that. Identity trumps (ahem) any conventional notion of probity. This is post truth politics.
    We can only hope for a return to conventional notions, then. Meanwhile plugging away at such stories, even if people are currently disinclined to worry about them, is noble work.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    I think what's going on are the following beliefs:

    1. Normalcy bias.

    The belief is that because something happened in 2016 it will repeat again. There's no evidence for this. Not a scrap. But that doesn't stop people.

    2. That people lean to the Right

    Because some recent elections have produced surprise results on the Right, there is an assumption that when push comes to shove people generally veer that way. There's probably more truth in this.

    3. Personal preference

    I suspect a lot of punters are themselves right-leaning. Not all, obviously, but I think in many cases the money is coming from people who 'want' a Trump victory. This is a more theoretical explanation and I'm not wedded to it.

    I wish you’d stop using the phrase normalcy bias, especially where it’s not appropriate. Normally the favourite wins. It didn’t happen in 2016 (but did in 2019), and might not happen again. Favourites don’t always win. But this has nothing to do with normalcy.
    Well that just shows you don't comprehend the term.

    Normalcy bias is the psychological term for a cognitive bias: our tendency to expect that things will continue to occur in the future as the way they have typically occurred in the past (to continue to be “normal”).

    It tends to be applied to disasters but that's an application of the theory not its meaning.

    Ergo, people are expecting 2020 to repeat 2016. It's a cognitive psychological bias and it affects betting markets particularly. Normalcy bias.
    You really aren't understanding this, are you?

    Normalcy bias is why people ignore warnings of unlikely events.
    No that's an application not the meaning.

    You need to go back to the roots of the term which are in psychology (about which I know a fair deal). It's a cognitive term for a tendency to expect future events to repeat the pattern from the past. Taking into warnings about unlikely events is an application of the theory. The meaning of normalcy bias in psychology is that we expect future events to repeat patterns that have occurred in the past. If you don't believe me, go away and do some due diligence in the world of psychology and return here when you have learned something.

    In this case normalcy bias is affecting people's judgement. They are expecting 2020 to repeat 2016 because the latter has now become a normal cognitive expectation.

    I suspect your tetchiness with me previously is allowing you to rush rather breathlessly into any disagreement you can latch onto without stopping to engage your brain. Your own version of a normalcy bias.

    :smiley:
    You can redefine it as many times as you like, but you're still using the term incorrectly.

    Trump winning in 2016 against the odds is not "a pattern of events from the past". It's something that happened once, and was viewed as exceptional both at the time and subsequently. People thinking that a freak event might happen again is not normalcy bias. It remains a freak event that happened once. Nor is it a "normal cognitive expectation" - if it were, he'd be favourite. And, as far as election betting is (and UK bettors are) concerned, the favourite does, still, normally win.
    What s/he means is the opposite, recency bias - preferring the evidence of the recent outlier to the normal sequence ending 2008, 2012 because it looks bigger in the rear view mirror.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,733
    IanB2 said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Scott_xP said:
    JM is wasting his time. Nobody gives a fuck about this sort of thing any more. Even the tories get that. Identity trumps (ahem) any conventional notion of probity. This is post truth politics.
    We can only hope for a return to conventional notions, then. Meanwhile plugging away at such stories, even if people are currently disinclined to worry about them, is noble work.
    What happened to him over kimonogate? Does anyone know?
  • Pulpstar said:

    Good Morning everyone.
    This is getting to be like British elections were, apparently, before the secret ballot. Big poster up, men going up and putting a cross beside their favoured candidate and someone keeping a tally.

    IIRC, too at the beginning of the 20thC voting in UK was over several days, and some constituencies declared while others were still voting.

    What was that about a functioning democracy? Shall be very glad when (if ever) this is all over!

    This American system is stupid. TBH I agree with the GOP challenges that election day is the cut-off to ballots being accepted - how bloody long do people want to vote?
    Challenging after the ballots are sent out with instructions that they only need to be postmarked Nov 3rd, 120 hours before the election whilst the administration deliberately cripples the postal service ?!
    On the deliberate slowing of the US Postal Service by Trump-appointee Louis DeJoy, here is a video by a non-Trump lawyer about the court's latest (attempt to) reverse the damage.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3POW9Buw8Ww
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,340
    nichomar said:

    theakes said:

    Sorry to pour cold water. Trump is gaining and if Trafalgar is correct, they were more or less right last time, he will get in by the back door of hanging onto his crucial states whilst losing the popular vote. Other pollsters are producing a similar message of Trump moving forward. The only hope for the Democrats is that sufficent numbers of their people early voted, enough to just get him over the wire, but its a slim one.
    What a daft electoral system they have.
    It is possible that if Biden wins by say 4-5 million votes or more then some of the Electoral College in States he narrowly wins may not support Trump, there were a very small number of such instances last time.
    But the forecast looks gloomy, I fear an authoritarian regime will follow.
    Re Ballots after polling day, In Australia they are still counting two weeks or more after the event, outlying areas, late deliveries and the forces, so its nothing new.

    Any evidence to support your claims without trafalgar?
    Or even the claim that Trump is gaining? No movement in any of the 538 averages in the swing states
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080
    edited October 2020
    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    I think what's going on are the following beliefs:

    1. Normalcy bias.

    The belief is that because something happened in 2016 it will repeat again. There's no evidence for this. Not a scrap. But that doesn't stop people.

    2. That people lean to the Right

    Because some recent elections have produced surprise results on the Right, there is an assumption that when push comes to shove people generally veer that way. There's probably more truth in this.

    3. Personal preference

    I suspect a lot of punters are themselves right-leaning. Not all, obviously, but I think in many cases the money is coming from people who 'want' a Trump victory. This is a more theoretical explanation and I'm not wedded to it.

    I wish you’d stop using the phrase normalcy bias, especially where it’s not appropriate. Normally the favourite wins. It didn’t happen in 2016 (but did in 2019), and might not happen again. Favourites don’t always win. But this has nothing to do with normalcy.
    Well that just shows you don't comprehend the term.

    Normalcy bias is the psychological term for a cognitive bias: our tendency to expect that things will continue to occur in the future as the way they have typically occurred in the past (to continue to be “normal”).

    It tends to be applied to disasters but that's an application of the theory not its meaning.

    Ergo, people are expecting 2020 to repeat 2016. It's a cognitive psychological bias and it affects betting markets particularly. Normalcy bias.
    You really aren't understanding this, are you?

    Normalcy bias is why people ignore warnings of unlikely events.
    No that's an application not the meaning.

    You need to go back to the roots of the term which are in psychology (about which I know a fair deal). It's a cognitive term for a tendency to expect future events to repeat the pattern from the past. Taking into warnings about unlikely events is an application of the theory. The meaning of normalcy bias in psychology is that we expect future events to repeat patterns that have occurred in the past. If you don't believe me, go away and do some due diligence in the world of psychology and return here when you have learned something.

    In this case normalcy bias is affecting people's judgement. They are expecting 2020 to repeat 2016 because the latter has now become a normal cognitive expectation.

    I suspect your tetchiness with me previously is allowing you to rush rather breathlessly into any disagreement you can latch onto without stopping to engage your brain. Your own version of a normalcy bias.

    :smiley:
    We had another poster a few months ago who was obsessed with the term ‘normalcy bias’ as well.

    Not sure if you met him when you were in Penarth? His name is Sean Thomas.
    Indeed we did. He used it in the correct context of the oncoming pandemic, which is so exceptional that people tended not to believe things would change as much as they have.

    Interestingly, most of our discussions back then focussed on the medical consequences - with the wilder predictions of millions of British deaths and a collapsing NHS proving, so far at least, way off the mark.

    What I don't recall any of us expecting was quite this level (breadth, depth and duration) of change to the economy and our lifestyles.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483
    The sooner Len is thrown out of the Labour Party the better and kicked out of unite, drain the swamp now or they will never do it.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,052
    tlg86 said:

    Very surprising graph in this BBC report regarding Age Standardised Mortality Rate. Despite us being in a pandemic the figures up to the end of August are similar to 2008 and less than every year in the 2000s before that.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54712917

    So the question is, what would the 2008 figures look like if COVID-19 had turned up back then?

    EDIT: That chart's quite interesting. There are clear dips in 2014 and 2019. I think that's due to the winters of 2013-14 and 2018-19 being mild.
    I think that chart just reflects how life expectancy was increasing until 2008, then stalled. This was a phenomenon in the UK, and USA, but life expectancy continued to rise in many other countries. The stalling of growth in life expectancy reached the point of absolute declines in some population subgroups, and was particularly marked in Purple Wall areas.

    2020 looks like it may show a decline in life expectancy.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080
    nichomar said:

    The sooner Len is thrown out of the Labour Party the better and kicked out of unite, drain the swamp now or they will never do it.

    Labour would be better off breaking the formal and institutional ties with the unions. Not least because that is decreasingly their core constituency nowadays.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,861

    Very surprising graph in this BBC report regarding Age Standardised Mortality Rate. Despite us being in a pandemic the figures up to the end of August are similar to 2008 and less than every year in the 2000s before that.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54712917

    That graph shows that the mortality rate was dropping year on year until 2008. Since then it has been steady but with quite a bit of variability. The 2020 value is clearly above all the values in the 2010'S, and because we are heading into a strong second covid wave, the end of year motality rate will be even higher than the current rate.
  • brokenwheelbrokenwheel Posts: 3,352
    Alistair said:
    This year you can register to vote on election day in Nevada.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    If the polls were reversed Trump would be 1.05 right now.
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,340
    ydoethur said:

    theakes said:

    It is possible that if Biden wins by say 4-5 million votes or more then some of the Electoral College in States he narrowly wins may not support Trump, there were a very small number of such instances last time.

    No electors form states Biden narrowly wins should be supporting Trump.
    With the notable exception of ME-2 of course../
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,052
    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Scott_xP said:
    JM is wasting his time. Nobody gives a fuck about this sort of thing any more. Even the tories get that. Identity trumps (ahem) any conventional notion of probity. This is post truth politics.
    We can only hope for a return to conventional notions, then. Meanwhile plugging away at such stories, even if people are currently disinclined to worry about them, is noble work.
    What happened to him over kimonogate? Does anyone know?
    As I recall, killing the trapped fox was deemed a mercy killing by the authorities.

    I wonder how he will mark Boxing Day this year...
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483
    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Scott_xP said:
    JM is wasting his time. Nobody gives a fuck about this sort of thing any more. Even the tories get that. Identity trumps (ahem) any conventional notion of probity. This is post truth politics.
    We can only hope for a return to conventional notions, then. Meanwhile plugging away at such stories, even if people are currently disinclined to worry about them, is noble work.
    What happened to him over kimonogate? Does anyone know?
    As I recall, killing the trapped fox was deemed a mercy killing by the authorities.

    I wonder how he will mark Boxing Day this year...
    Was that one of the council supported hunts using covid money?
  • IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    I think what's going on are the following beliefs:

    1. Normalcy bias.

    The belief is that because something happened in 2016 it will repeat again. There's no evidence for this. Not a scrap. But that doesn't stop people.

    2. That people lean to the Right

    Because some recent elections have produced surprise results on the Right, there is an assumption that when push comes to shove people generally veer that way. There's probably more truth in this.

    3. Personal preference

    I suspect a lot of punters are themselves right-leaning. Not all, obviously, but I think in many cases the money is coming from people who 'want' a Trump victory. This is a more theoretical explanation and I'm not wedded to it.

    I wish you’d stop using the phrase normalcy bias, especially where it’s not appropriate. Normally the favourite wins. It didn’t happen in 2016 (but did in 2019), and might not happen again. Favourites don’t always win. But this has nothing to do with normalcy.
    Well that just shows you don't comprehend the term.

    Normalcy bias is the psychological term for a cognitive bias: our tendency to expect that things will continue to occur in the future as the way they have typically occurred in the past (to continue to be “normal”).

    It tends to be applied to disasters but that's an application of the theory not its meaning.

    Ergo, people are expecting 2020 to repeat 2016. It's a cognitive psychological bias and it affects betting markets particularly. Normalcy bias.
    You really aren't understanding this, are you?

    Normalcy bias is why people ignore warnings of unlikely events.
    No that's an application not the meaning.

    You need to go back to the roots of the term which are in psychology (about which I know a fair deal). It's a cognitive term for a tendency to expect future events to repeat the pattern from the past. Taking into warnings about unlikely events is an application of the theory. The meaning of normalcy bias in psychology is that we expect future events to repeat patterns that have occurred in the past. If you don't believe me, go away and do some due diligence in the world of psychology and return here when you have learned something.

    In this case normalcy bias is affecting people's judgement. They are expecting 2020 to repeat 2016 because the latter has now become a normal cognitive expectation.

    I suspect your tetchiness with me previously is allowing you to rush rather breathlessly into any disagreement you can latch onto without stopping to engage your brain. Your own version of a normalcy bias.

    :smiley:
    You can redefine it as many times as you like, but you're still using the term incorrectly.

    Trump winning in 2016 against the odds is not "a pattern of events from the past". It's something that happened once, and was viewed as exceptional both at the time and subsequently. People thinking that a freak event might happen again is not normalcy bias. It remains a freak event that happened once. Nor is it a "normal cognitive expectation" - if it were, he'd be favourite. And, as far as election betting is (and UK bettors are) concerned, the favourite does, still, normally win.
    I'm not convinced that Mysticrose's use of the term is incorrect. In this case, the normal state of things is that Trump tends to overcome his detractors and win/survive in the end, and so this the normal that they expect to continue. It doesn't make him favourite, but it makes his odds of winning higher than they would otherwise be.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136
    edited October 2020
    Just gonna do a quick podcast roundup, sorry for the repeated posts but these are all just so great if you're trying to work out what the markets are doing:

    Star Spangled Gamblers: The very sharp and funny US Predict It podcast presenters talk to people betting on Trump. I wasn't convinced by any of them but the first one, Boris_G, a Bernie stan, made the most persuasive case I've heard so far.
    https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-maga-special-trump-bettors-speak/id1437934639?i=1000496445968

    Same people the week before, talking to Shadsy of Ladbrokes and Paul Krishnamurty of Betfair. This is fun and fascinating, absolutely do not miss this.
    https://starspangledgamblers.com/2020/10/26/the-top-sharks-in-the-uk-weigh-in-on-the-us-election/

    Another US betting podcast, also with Paul Krishnamurty. The interviewer isn't as great as the SSG guys but there's some interesting stuff in here, especially about how Betfair has loads of teensy Trump bets, eagerly gobbled up by a small number of Biden whales.
    https://www.pscp.tv/w/cmoMTjFlUkt4cXZ3ck5Wand8MW1ueGVsZ3lua1BKWPYKctEm58tQPU6kPCih_VaNoHj8vVrs0ckXa2FIFsWt
  • IanB2 said:

    nichomar said:

    The sooner Len is thrown out of the Labour Party the better and kicked out of unite, drain the swamp now or they will never do it.

    Labour would be better off breaking the formal and institutional ties with the unions. Not least because that is decreasingly their core constituency nowadays.
    Then who pays for the party? Reliance on a few deep-pocketed donors brings the danger of corrupt and even hostile influence. Cash for honours; cash for planning permission; cash for exemption from tobacco sponsorship rules.

    The Conservatives will not approve state funded parties so what is the alternative?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,052
    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    I think what's going on are the following beliefs:

    1. Normalcy bias.

    The belief is that because something happened in 2016 it will repeat again. There's no evidence for this. Not a scrap. But that doesn't stop people.

    2. That people lean to the Right

    Because some recent elections have produced surprise results on the Right, there is an assumption that when push comes to shove people generally veer that way. There's probably more truth in this.

    3. Personal preference

    I suspect a lot of punters are themselves right-leaning. Not all, obviously, but I think in many cases the money is coming from people who 'want' a Trump victory. This is a more theoretical explanation and I'm not wedded to it.

    I wish you’d stop using the phrase normalcy bias, especially where it’s not appropriate. Normally the favourite wins. It didn’t happen in 2016 (but did in 2019), and might not happen again. Favourites don’t always win. But this has nothing to do with normalcy.
    Well that just shows you don't comprehend the term.

    Normalcy bias is the psychological term for a cognitive bias: our tendency to expect that things will continue to occur in the future as the way they have typically occurred in the past (to continue to be “normal”).

    It tends to be applied to disasters but that's an application of the theory not its meaning.

    Ergo, people are expecting 2020 to repeat 2016. It's a cognitive psychological bias and it affects betting markets particularly. Normalcy bias.
    You really aren't understanding this, are you?

    Normalcy bias is why people ignore warnings of unlikely events.
    No that's an application not the meaning.

    You need to go back to the roots of the term which are in psychology (about which I know a fair deal). It's a cognitive term for a tendency to expect future events to repeat the pattern from the past. Taking into warnings about unlikely events is an application of the theory. The meaning of normalcy bias in psychology is that we expect future events to repeat patterns that have occurred in the past. If you don't believe me, go away and do some due diligence in the world of psychology and return here when you have learned something.

    In this case normalcy bias is affecting people's judgement. They are expecting 2020 to repeat 2016 because the latter has now become a normal cognitive expectation.

    I suspect your tetchiness with me previously is allowing you to rush rather breathlessly into any disagreement you can latch onto without stopping to engage your brain. Your own version of a normalcy bias.

    :smiley:
    We had another poster a few months ago who was obsessed with the term ‘normalcy bias’ as well.

    Not sure if you met him when you were in Penarth? His name is Sean Thomas.
    I think that was @Byronic , @SeanT hasn't posted here for years. 🤥
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,583
    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    I think what's going on are the following beliefs:

    1. Normalcy bias.

    The belief is that because something happened in 2016 it will repeat again. There's no evidence for this. Not a scrap. But that doesn't stop people.

    2. That people lean to the Right

    Because some recent elections have produced surprise results on the Right, there is an assumption that when push comes to shove people generally veer that way. There's probably more truth in this.

    3. Personal preference

    I suspect a lot of punters are themselves right-leaning. Not all, obviously, but I think in many cases the money is coming from people who 'want' a Trump victory. This is a more theoretical explanation and I'm not wedded to it.

    I wish you’d stop using the phrase normalcy bias, especially where it’s not appropriate. Normally the favourite wins. It didn’t happen in 2016 (but did in 2019), and might not happen again. Favourites don’t always win. But this has nothing to do with normalcy.
    Well that just shows you don't comprehend the term.

    Normalcy bias is the psychological term for a cognitive bias: our tendency to expect that things will continue to occur in the future as the way they have typically occurred in the past (to continue to be “normal”).

    It tends to be applied to disasters but that's an application of the theory not its meaning.

    Ergo, people are expecting 2020 to repeat 2016. It's a cognitive psychological bias and it affects betting markets particularly. Normalcy bias.
    You really aren't understanding this, are you?

    Normalcy bias is why people ignore warnings of unlikely events.
    No that's an application not the meaning.

    You need to go back to the roots of the term which are in psychology (about which I know a fair deal). It's a cognitive term for a tendency to expect future events to repeat the pattern from the past. Taking into warnings about unlikely events is an application of the theory. The meaning of normalcy bias in psychology is that we expect future events to repeat patterns that have occurred in the past. If you don't believe me, go away and do some due diligence in the world of psychology and return here when you have learned something.

    In this case normalcy bias is affecting people's judgement. They are expecting 2020 to repeat 2016 because the latter has now become a normal cognitive expectation.

    I suspect your tetchiness with me previously is allowing you to rush rather breathlessly into any disagreement you can latch onto without stopping to engage your brain. Your own version of a normalcy bias.

    :smiley:
    We had another poster a few months ago who was obsessed with the term ‘normalcy bias’ as well.

    Not sure if you met him when you were in Penarth? His name is Sean Thomas.
    I think that was @Byronic , @SeanT hasn't posted here for years. 🤥
    @eadric?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    I think what's going on are the following beliefs:

    1. Normalcy bias.

    The belief is that because something happened in 2016 it will repeat again. There's no evidence for this. Not a scrap. But that doesn't stop people.

    2. That people lean to the Right

    Because some recent elections have produced surprise results on the Right, there is an assumption that when push comes to shove people generally veer that way. There's probably more truth in this.

    3. Personal preference

    I suspect a lot of punters are themselves right-leaning. Not all, obviously, but I think in many cases the money is coming from people who 'want' a Trump victory. This is a more theoretical explanation and I'm not wedded to it.

    I wish you’d stop using the phrase normalcy bias, especially where it’s not appropriate. Normally the favourite wins. It didn’t happen in 2016 (but did in 2019), and might not happen again. Favourites don’t always win. But this has nothing to do with normalcy.
    Well that just shows you don't comprehend the term.

    Normalcy bias is the psychological term for a cognitive bias: our tendency to expect that things will continue to occur in the future as the way they have typically occurred in the past (to continue to be “normal”).

    It tends to be applied to disasters but that's an application of the theory not its meaning.

    Ergo, people are expecting 2020 to repeat 2016. It's a cognitive psychological bias and it affects betting markets particularly. Normalcy bias.
    You really aren't understanding this, are you?

    Normalcy bias is why people ignore warnings of unlikely events.
    No that's an application not the meaning.

    You need to go back to the roots of the term which are in psychology (about which I know a fair deal). It's a cognitive term for a tendency to expect future events to repeat the pattern from the past. Taking into warnings about unlikely events is an application of the theory. The meaning of normalcy bias in psychology is that we expect future events to repeat patterns that have occurred in the past. If you don't believe me, go away and do some due diligence in the world of psychology and return here when you have learned something.

    In this case normalcy bias is affecting people's judgement. They are expecting 2020 to repeat 2016 because the latter has now become a normal cognitive expectation.

    I suspect your tetchiness with me previously is allowing you to rush rather breathlessly into any disagreement you can latch onto without stopping to engage your brain. Your own version of a normalcy bias.

    :smiley:
    You can redefine it as many times as you like, but you're still using the term incorrectly.

    Trump winning in 2016 against the odds is not "a pattern of events from the past". It's something that happened once, and was viewed as exceptional both at the time and subsequently. People thinking that a freak event might happen again is not normalcy bias. It remains a freak event that happened once. Nor is it a "normal cognitive expectation" - if it were, he'd be favourite. And, as far as election betting is (and UK bettors are) concerned, the favourite does, still, normally win.
    I'm not convinced that Mysticrose's use of the term is incorrect. In this case, the normal state of things is that Trump tends to overcome his detractors and win/survive in the end, and so this the normal that they expect to continue. It doesn't make him favourite, but it makes his odds of winning higher than they would otherwise be.
    Which is akin to my suggestion for an appropriate usage, in the context that presidents always get re-elected for a second term. But they weren't the context of the OP, which didn't refer to Trump always winning through.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 14,772

    ... Betfair has loads of teensy Trump bets, eagerly gobbled up by a small number of Biden whales.

    Is there a normal tendency for small bets to favour the outsider and large bets to go for the favourite?
  • theenglishborntheenglishborn Posts: 162
    edited October 2020
    theakes said:

    Sorry to pour cold water. Trump is gaining and if Trafalgar is correct, they were more or less right last time, he will get in by the back door of hanging onto his crucial states whilst losing the popular vote. Other pollsters are producing a similar message of Trump moving forward. The only hope for the Democrats is that sufficent numbers of their people early voted, enough to just get him over the wire, but its a slim one.
    What a daft electoral system they have.
    It is possible that if Biden wins by say 4-5 million votes or more then some of the Electoral College in States he narrowly wins may not support Trump, there were a very small number of such instances last time.
    But the forecast looks gloomy, I fear an authoritarian regime will follow.
    Re Ballots after polling day, In Australia they are still counting two weeks or more after the event, outlying areas, late deliveries and the forces, so its nothing new.

    Looking at the polls I fail to see any real movement. WI,MI and PA are all pretty steady or even seen slight movement towards Biden. The lowest for the 3 States is PA which depending where you look is averaging 4.5-5 points ahead, at this point Clinton was only 2 points ahead, and the District polling suggests this is under reporting Biden's lead, in fact in all 3 states the district polling show better Biden figures. In fact district polling shows Biden leading almost across the board.

    https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=700FD6570D12A4C1!6780&ithint=file,xlsx&authkey=!ANJLy-VxPT-0lnk

    In 2016 Trafalgar was supported by the other polls showing a distinct and fairly rapid decline in Clinton's lead over the last 2 weeks, the district polling was showing even worse figures for her suggesting her statewide polls were being generous to her.

    This time round that is not happening, Trafalgar have again shown Trump to be heading to a narrow victory in 2 of the 3, however this time there is no narrowing and the district polls are not leaning Trump either. So in order for Trafalgar to be correct this time round they need the average polling to be even further out with their error AND for the district polling to be even further out than the state polling.

    So far the only things that seem to allow Trump to win are the pollsters being wrong by over twice that of 2016 or truly massive vote rigging/fraud, or by some miracle a very fast and steep narrowing of the polls.

    To put it simply National, State and District polling are all currently showing no narrowing and point to a Biden victory. So far only republican leaning or commissioned polls show even being close.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080
    edited October 2020
    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    I think what's going on are the following beliefs:

    1. Normalcy bias.

    The belief is that because something happened in 2016 it will repeat again. There's no evidence for this. Not a scrap. But that doesn't stop people.

    2. That people lean to the Right

    Because some recent elections have produced surprise results on the Right, there is an assumption that when push comes to shove people generally veer that way. There's probably more truth in this.

    3. Personal preference

    I suspect a lot of punters are themselves right-leaning. Not all, obviously, but I think in many cases the money is coming from people who 'want' a Trump victory. This is a more theoretical explanation and I'm not wedded to it.

    I wish you’d stop using the phrase normalcy bias, especially where it’s not appropriate. Normally the favourite wins. It didn’t happen in 2016 (but did in 2019), and might not happen again. Favourites don’t always win. But this has nothing to do with normalcy.
    Well that just shows you don't comprehend the term.

    Normalcy bias is the psychological term for a cognitive bias: our tendency to expect that things will continue to occur in the future as the way they have typically occurred in the past (to continue to be “normal”).

    It tends to be applied to disasters but that's an application of the theory not its meaning.

    Ergo, people are expecting 2020 to repeat 2016. It's a cognitive psychological bias and it affects betting markets particularly. Normalcy bias.
    You really aren't understanding this, are you?

    Normalcy bias is why people ignore warnings of unlikely events.
    No that's an application not the meaning.

    You need to go back to the roots of the term which are in psychology (about which I know a fair deal). It's a cognitive term for a tendency to expect future events to repeat the pattern from the past. Taking into warnings about unlikely events is an application of the theory. The meaning of normalcy bias in psychology is that we expect future events to repeat patterns that have occurred in the past. If you don't believe me, go away and do some due diligence in the world of psychology and return here when you have learned something.

    In this case normalcy bias is affecting people's judgement. They are expecting 2020 to repeat 2016 because the latter has now become a normal cognitive expectation.

    I suspect your tetchiness with me previously is allowing you to rush rather breathlessly into any disagreement you can latch onto without stopping to engage your brain. Your own version of a normalcy bias.

    :smiley:
    We had another poster a few months ago who was obsessed with the term ‘normalcy bias’ as well.

    Not sure if you met him when you were in Penarth? His name is Sean Thomas.
    I think that was @Byronic , @SeanT hasn't posted here for years. 🤥
    Actually he has, by pure coincidence minutes after, and for the period that, either Byronic or Eadric, I forget which, was banned.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,733
    edited October 2020
    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    I think what's going on are the following beliefs:

    1. Normalcy bias.

    The belief is that because something happened in 2016 it will repeat again. There's no evidence for this. Not a scrap. But that doesn't stop people.

    2. That people lean to the Right

    Because some recent elections have produced surprise results on the Right, there is an assumption that when push comes to shove people generally veer that way. There's probably more truth in this.

    3. Personal preference

    I suspect a lot of punters are themselves right-leaning. Not all, obviously, but I think in many cases the money is coming from people who 'want' a Trump victory. This is a more theoretical explanation and I'm not wedded to it.

    I wish you’d stop using the phrase normalcy bias, especially where it’s not appropriate. Normally the favourite wins. It didn’t happen in 2016 (but did in 2019), and might not happen again. Favourites don’t always win. But this has nothing to do with normalcy.
    Well that just shows you don't comprehend the term.

    Normalcy bias is the psychological term for a cognitive bias: our tendency to expect that things will continue to occur in the future as the way they have typically occurred in the past (to continue to be “normal”).

    It tends to be applied to disasters but that's an application of the theory not its meaning.

    Ergo, people are expecting 2020 to repeat 2016. It's a cognitive psychological bias and it affects betting markets particularly. Normalcy bias.
    You really aren't understanding this, are you?

    Normalcy bias is why people ignore warnings of unlikely events.
    No that's an application not the meaning.

    You need to go back to the roots of the term which are in psychology (about which I know a fair deal). It's a cognitive term for a tendency to expect future events to repeat the pattern from the past. Taking into warnings about unlikely events is an application of the theory. The meaning of normalcy bias in psychology is that we expect future events to repeat patterns that have occurred in the past. If you don't believe me, go away and do some due diligence in the world of psychology and return here when you have learned something.

    In this case normalcy bias is affecting people's judgement. They are expecting 2020 to repeat 2016 because the latter has now become a normal cognitive expectation.

    I suspect your tetchiness with me previously is allowing you to rush rather breathlessly into any disagreement you can latch onto without stopping to engage your brain. Your own version of a normalcy bias.

    :smiley:
    We had another poster a few months ago who was obsessed with the term ‘normalcy bias’ as well.

    Not sure if you met him when you were in Penarth? His name is Sean Thomas.
    I think that was @Byronic , @SeanT hasn't posted here for years. 🤥
    Sean T was on here in his own name a few months back for one day when Eadric got banned.

    I’m disappointed he hasn’t channelled Terry Pratchett to come up with an ID of Altogether Andrews.

    Maybe he feels it would be Ron.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,052

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    I think what's going on are the following beliefs:

    1. Normalcy bias.

    The belief is that because something happened in 2016 it will repeat again. There's no evidence for this. Not a scrap. But that doesn't stop people.

    2. That people lean to the Right

    Because some recent elections have produced surprise results on the Right, there is an assumption that when push comes to shove people generally veer that way. There's probably more truth in this.

    3. Personal preference

    I suspect a lot of punters are themselves right-leaning. Not all, obviously, but I think in many cases the money is coming from people who 'want' a Trump victory. This is a more theoretical explanation and I'm not wedded to it.

    I wish you’d stop using the phrase normalcy bias, especially where it’s not appropriate. Normally the favourite wins. It didn’t happen in 2016 (but did in 2019), and might not happen again. Favourites don’t always win. But this has nothing to do with normalcy.
    Well that just shows you don't comprehend the term.

    Normalcy bias is the psychological term for a cognitive bias: our tendency to expect that things will continue to occur in the future as the way they have typically occurred in the past (to continue to be “normal”).

    It tends to be applied to disasters but that's an application of the theory not its meaning.

    Ergo, people are expecting 2020 to repeat 2016. It's a cognitive psychological bias and it affects betting markets particularly. Normalcy bias.
    You really aren't understanding this, are you?

    Normalcy bias is why people ignore warnings of unlikely events.
    No that's an application not the meaning.

    You need to go back to the roots of the term which are in psychology (about which I know a fair deal). It's a cognitive term for a tendency to expect future events to repeat the pattern from the past. Taking into warnings about unlikely events is an application of the theory. The meaning of normalcy bias in psychology is that we expect future events to repeat patterns that have occurred in the past. If you don't believe me, go away and do some due diligence in the world of psychology and return here when you have learned something.

    In this case normalcy bias is affecting people's judgement. They are expecting 2020 to repeat 2016 because the latter has now become a normal cognitive expectation.

    I suspect your tetchiness with me previously is allowing you to rush rather breathlessly into any disagreement you can latch onto without stopping to engage your brain. Your own version of a normalcy bias.

    :smiley:
    We had another poster a few months ago who was obsessed with the term ‘normalcy bias’ as well.

    Not sure if you met him when you were in Penarth? His name is Sean Thomas.
    I think that was @Byronic , @SeanT hasn't posted here for years. 🤥
    @eadric?
    Was he/she/preferred pronoun the transitioning International male model? It is hard to keep up...
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,670
    Scott_xP said:
    Tories always on the make and yet the sheeple vote for them and then whinge for years and rinse and repeat.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,558

    Good Morning everyone.
    This is getting to be like British elections were, apparently, before the secret ballot. Big poster up, men going up and putting a cross beside their favoured candidate and someone keeping a tally.

    IIRC, too at the beginning of the 20thC voting in UK was over several days, and some constituencies declared while others were still voting.

    What was that about a functioning democracy? Shall be very glad when (if ever) this is all over!

    This American system is stupid. TBH I agree with the GOP challenges that election day is the cut-off to ballots being accepted - how bloody long do people want to vote?
    Bit late in the day to change that (as happened with a court ruling in Minnesota yesterday) when it's printed on the postal ballot that it will be counted if returned, postmarked by election day.

    The point about all these arguments is that they're not conducted in a vacuum. If there were plentiful polling places for everyone on or before election day, and provision for absentee voting which wasn't actively hampered, then you would be right.

    I have little doubt that a Democratic administration with control of both houses will bring in legislation to try to bring in rational rules across the nation. And no doubt that Republicans will try to stop it.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,670
    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    I think what's going on are the following beliefs:

    1. Normalcy bias.

    The belief is that because something happened in 2016 it will repeat again. There's no evidence for this. Not a scrap. But that doesn't stop people.

    2. That people lean to the Right

    Because some recent elections have produced surprise results on the Right, there is an assumption that when push comes to shove people generally veer that way. There's probably more truth in this.

    3. Personal preference

    I suspect a lot of punters are themselves right-leaning. Not all, obviously, but I think in many cases the money is coming from people who 'want' a Trump victory. This is a more theoretical explanation and I'm not wedded to it.

    I wish you’d stop using the phrase normalcy bias, especially where it’s not appropriate. Normally the favourite wins. It didn’t happen in 2016 (but did in 2019), and might not happen again. Favourites don’t always win. But this has nothing to do with normalcy.
    Well that just shows you don't comprehend the term.

    Normalcy bias is the psychological term for a cognitive bias: our tendency to expect that things will continue to occur in the future as the way they have typically occurred in the past (to continue to be “normal”).

    It tends to be applied to disasters but that's an application of the theory not its meaning.

    Ergo, people are expecting 2020 to repeat 2016. It's a cognitive psychological bias and it affects betting markets particularly. Normalcy bias.
    You really aren't understanding this, are you?

    Normalcy bias is why people ignore warnings of unlikely events.
    No that's an application not the meaning.

    You need to go back to the roots of the term which are in psychology (about which I know a fair deal). It's a cognitive term for a tendency to expect future events to repeat the pattern from the past. Taking into warnings about unlikely events is an application of the theory. The meaning of normalcy bias in psychology is that we expect future events to repeat patterns that have occurred in the past. If you don't believe me, go away and do some due diligence in the world of psychology and return here when you have learned something.

    In this case normalcy bias is affecting people's judgement. They are expecting 2020 to repeat 2016 because the latter has now become a normal cognitive expectation.

    I suspect your tetchiness with me previously is allowing you to rush rather breathlessly into any disagreement you can latch onto without stopping to engage your brain. Your own version of a normalcy bias.

    :smiley:
    We had another poster a few months ago who was obsessed with the term ‘normalcy bias’ as well.

    Not sure if you met him when you were in Penarth? His name is Sean Thomas.
    I think that was @Byronic , @SeanT hasn't posted here for years. 🤥
    Or LadyG or Mysticross or ................. take your pick
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    Dura_Ace said:

    Scott_xP said:
    JM is wasting his time. Nobody gives a fuck about this sort of thing any more. Even the tories get that. Identity trumps (ahem) any conventional notion of probity. This is post truth politics.
    Not so sure. It was sleaze that did for the Cons in 97, as much as Cons Rule Fatigue.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,733
    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    I think what's going on are the following beliefs:

    1. Normalcy bias.

    The belief is that because something happened in 2016 it will repeat again. There's no evidence for this. Not a scrap. But that doesn't stop people.

    2. That people lean to the Right

    Because some recent elections have produced surprise results on the Right, there is an assumption that when push comes to shove people generally veer that way. There's probably more truth in this.

    3. Personal preference

    I suspect a lot of punters are themselves right-leaning. Not all, obviously, but I think in many cases the money is coming from people who 'want' a Trump victory. This is a more theoretical explanation and I'm not wedded to it.

    I wish you’d stop using the phrase normalcy bias, especially where it’s not appropriate. Normally the favourite wins. It didn’t happen in 2016 (but did in 2019), and might not happen again. Favourites don’t always win. But this has nothing to do with normalcy.
    Well that just shows you don't comprehend the term.

    Normalcy bias is the psychological term for a cognitive bias: our tendency to expect that things will continue to occur in the future as the way they have typically occurred in the past (to continue to be “normal”).

    It tends to be applied to disasters but that's an application of the theory not its meaning.

    Ergo, people are expecting 2020 to repeat 2016. It's a cognitive psychological bias and it affects betting markets particularly. Normalcy bias.
    You really aren't understanding this, are you?

    Normalcy bias is why people ignore warnings of unlikely events.
    No that's an application not the meaning.

    You need to go back to the roots of the term which are in psychology (about which I know a fair deal). It's a cognitive term for a tendency to expect future events to repeat the pattern from the past. Taking into warnings about unlikely events is an application of the theory. The meaning of normalcy bias in psychology is that we expect future events to repeat patterns that have occurred in the past. If you don't believe me, go away and do some due diligence in the world of psychology and return here when you have learned something.

    In this case normalcy bias is affecting people's judgement. They are expecting 2020 to repeat 2016 because the latter has now become a normal cognitive expectation.

    I suspect your tetchiness with me previously is allowing you to rush rather breathlessly into any disagreement you can latch onto without stopping to engage your brain. Your own version of a normalcy bias.

    :smiley:
    We had another poster a few months ago who was obsessed with the term ‘normalcy bias’ as well.

    Not sure if you met him when you were in Penarth? His name is Sean Thomas.
    I think that was @Byronic , @SeanT hasn't posted here for years. 🤥
    Actually he has, by pure coincidence minutes after, and for the period that, either Byronic or Eadric, I forget which, was banned.
    Set your mind at rest.

    It was both of them.

    https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/2909294#Comment_2909294

    https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/2699655#Comment_2699655
  • Am I missing something?

    Republican voters vote on average later than Democrat ones, so why are the Rs talking about not counting late postal votes?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,733
    Vanilla is once again slower and more unreliable than Cummings’ thought processes.

    However, if it does get stuck, just click ‘stop’ and it will load, without tweets.
  • Foxy said:

    theakes said:

    Sorry to pour cold water. Trump is gaining and if Trafalgar is correct, they were more or less right last time, he will get in by the back door of hanging onto his crucial states whilst losing the popular vote. Other pollsters are producing a similar message of Trump moving forward. The only hope for the Democrats is that sufficent numbers of their people early voted, enough to just get him over the wire, but its a slim one.
    What a daft electoral system they have.
    It is possible that if Biden wins by say 4-5 million votes or more then some of the Electoral College in States he narrowly wins may not support Trump, there were a very small number of such instances last time.
    But the forecast looks gloomy, I fear an authoritarian regime will follow.
    Re Ballots after polling day, In Australia they are still counting two weeks or more after the event, outlying areas, late deliveries and the forces, so its nothing new.

    Looking at the polls I fail to see any real movement. WI,MI and PA are all pretty steady or even seen slight movement towards Biden. The lowest for the 3 States is PA which depending where you look is averaging 4.5-5 points ahead, at this point Clinton was only 2 points ahead, and the District polling suggests this is under reporting Biden's lead, in fact in all 3 states the district polling show better Biden figures. In fact district polling shows Biden leading almost across the board.

    https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=700FD6570D12A4C1!6780&ithint=file,xlsx&authkey=!ANJLy-VxPT-0lnk

    In 2016 Trafalgar was supported by the other polls showing a distinct and fairly rapid decline in Clinton's lead over the last 2 weeks, the district polling was showing even worse figures for her suggesting her statewide polls were being generous to her.

    This time round that is not happening, Trafalgar have again shown Trump to be heading to a narrow victory in 2 of the 3, however this time there is no narrowing and the district polls are not leaning Trump either. So in order for Trafalgar to be correct this time round they need the average polling to be even further out with their error AND for the district polling to be even further out than the state polling.

    So far the only things that seem to allow Trump to win are the pollsters being wrong by over twice that of 2016 or truly massive vote rigging/fraud, or by some miracle a very fast and steep narrowing of the polls.
    It is a weird election, what with covid, voter suppression and a dozen different types of Trump related insanity.

    I do think that everyone is watching the one side of the MoE curve, for a Trump victory, and ignoring the other side, for an equally likely Biden Landslide. I think the latter is where the value is.
    Well indeed. A Biden victory of over 400 Electoral College votes is more probable than a Trump EC victory.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,715
    IanB2 said:

    nichomar said:

    The sooner Len is thrown out of the Labour Party the better and kicked out of unite, drain the swamp now or they will never do it.

    Labour would be better off breaking the formal and institutional ties with the unions. Not least because that is decreasingly their core constituency nowadays.
    Quite glad I left 'my' Union when I retired from the NHS. Was one of those which joined together to form Unite. Or something like that.
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,340
    Nigelb said:

    Good Morning everyone.
    This is getting to be like British elections were, apparently, before the secret ballot. Big poster up, men going up and putting a cross beside their favoured candidate and someone keeping a tally.

    IIRC, too at the beginning of the 20thC voting in UK was over several days, and some constituencies declared while others were still voting.

    What was that about a functioning democracy? Shall be very glad when (if ever) this is all over!

    This American system is stupid. TBH I agree with the GOP challenges that election day is the cut-off to ballots being accepted - how bloody long do people want to vote?
    Bit late in the day to change that (as happened with a court ruling in Minnesota yesterday) when it's printed on the postal ballot that it will be counted if returned, postmarked by election day.

    The point about all these arguments is that they're not conducted in a vacuum. If there were plentiful polling places for everyone on or before election day, and provision for absentee voting which wasn't actively hampered, then you would be right.

    I have little doubt that a Democratic administration with control of both houses will bring in legislation to try to bring in rational rules across the nation. And no doubt that Republicans will try to stop it.
    The GOP will use their 6-3 SCOTUS majority to get any laws to improve elections thrown out
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,558
    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    I think what's going on are the following beliefs:

    1. Normalcy bias.

    The belief is that because something happened in 2016 it will repeat again. There's no evidence for this. Not a scrap. But that doesn't stop people.

    2. That people lean to the Right

    Because some recent elections have produced surprise results on the Right, there is an assumption that when push comes to shove people generally veer that way. There's probably more truth in this.

    3. Personal preference

    I suspect a lot of punters are themselves right-leaning. Not all, obviously, but I think in many cases the money is coming from people who 'want' a Trump victory. This is a more theoretical explanation and I'm not wedded to it.

    I wish you’d stop using the phrase normalcy bias, especially where it’s not appropriate. Normally the favourite wins. It didn’t happen in 2016 (but did in 2019), and might not happen again. Favourites don’t always win. But this has nothing to do with normalcy.
    Well that just shows you don't comprehend the term.

    Normalcy bias is the psychological term for a cognitive bias: our tendency to expect that things will continue to occur in the future as the way they have typically occurred in the past (to continue to be “normal”).

    It tends to be applied to disasters but that's an application of the theory not its meaning.

    Ergo, people are expecting 2020 to repeat 2016. It's a cognitive psychological bias and it affects betting markets particularly. Normalcy bias.
    You really aren't understanding this, are you?

    Normalcy bias is why people ignore warnings of unlikely events.
    No that's an application not the meaning.

    You need to go back to the roots of the term which are in psychology (about which I know a fair deal). It's a cognitive term for a tendency to expect future events to repeat the pattern from the past. Taking into warnings about unlikely events is an application of the theory. The meaning of normalcy bias in psychology is that we expect future events to repeat patterns that have occurred in the past. If you don't believe me, go away and do some due diligence in the world of psychology and return here when you have learned something.

    In this case normalcy bias is affecting people's judgement. They are expecting 2020 to repeat 2016 because the latter has now become a normal cognitive expectation.

    I suspect your tetchiness with me previously is allowing you to rush rather breathlessly into any disagreement you can latch onto without stopping to engage your brain. Your own version of a normalcy bias.

    :smiley:
    You can redefine it as many times as you like, but you're still using the term incorrectly.

    Trump winning in 2016 against the odds is not "a pattern of events from the past". It's something that happened once, and was viewed as exceptional both at the time and subsequently. People thinking that a freak event might happen again is not normalcy bias. It remains a freak event that happened once. Nor is it a "normal cognitive expectation" - if it were, he'd be favourite. And, as far as election betting is (and UK bettors are) concerned, the favourite does, still, normally win.
    In this case, I think it's abnormalcy bias.

    Trump has so regularly confounded what were long established norms and got away with his crap found four years now. Understandable how some might think it will just carry on.
  • brokenwheelbrokenwheel Posts: 3,352

    Am I missing something?

    Republican voters vote on average later than Democrat ones, so why are the Rs talking about not counting late postal votes?

    Rs are considerably more likely to request a mail ballot and drop it off on in person either early or on election day (state laws permitting), especially this year.

    Late-arriving mail is far more likely to be Dem, and the place where voter fraud is most likely to occur, because campaigns know who has voted and how many votes they need.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,733
    edited October 2020

    Foxy said:

    theakes said:

    Sorry to pour cold water. Trump is gaining and if Trafalgar is correct, they were more or less right last time, he will get in by the back door of hanging onto his crucial states whilst losing the popular vote. Other pollsters are producing a similar message of Trump moving forward. The only hope for the Democrats is that sufficent numbers of their people early voted, enough to just get him over the wire, but its a slim one.
    What a daft electoral system they have.
    It is possible that if Biden wins by say 4-5 million votes or more then some of the Electoral College in States he narrowly wins may not support Trump, there were a very small number of such instances last time.
    But the forecast looks gloomy, I fear an authoritarian regime will follow.
    Re Ballots after polling day, In Australia they are still counting two weeks or more after the event, outlying areas, late deliveries and the forces, so its nothing new.

    Looking at the polls I fail to see any real movement. WI,MI and PA are all pretty steady or even seen slight movement towards Biden. The lowest for the 3 States is PA which depending where you look is averaging 4.5-5 points ahead, at this point Clinton was only 2 points ahead, and the District polling suggests this is under reporting Biden's lead, in fact in all 3 states the district polling show better Biden figures. In fact district polling shows Biden leading almost across the board.

    https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=700FD6570D12A4C1!6780&ithint=file,xlsx&authkey=!ANJLy-VxPT-0lnk

    In 2016 Trafalgar was supported by the other polls showing a distinct and fairly rapid decline in Clinton's lead over the last 2 weeks, the district polling was showing even worse figures for her suggesting her statewide polls were being generous to her.

    This time round that is not happening, Trafalgar have again shown Trump to be heading to a narrow victory in 2 of the 3, however this time there is no narrowing and the district polls are not leaning Trump either. So in order for Trafalgar to be correct this time round they need the average polling to be even further out with their error AND for the district polling to be even further out than the state polling.

    So far the only things that seem to allow Trump to win are the pollsters being wrong by over twice that of 2016 or truly massive vote rigging/fraud, or by some miracle a very fast and steep narrowing of the polls.
    It is a weird election, what with covid, voter suppression and a dozen different types of Trump related insanity.

    I do think that everyone is watching the one side of the MoE curve, for a Trump victory, and ignoring the other side, for an equally likely Biden Landslide. I think the latter is where the value is.
    Well indeed. A Biden victory of over 400 Electoral College votes is more probable than a Trump EC victory.
    The only reason anyone thinks otherwise is that, as MysticRose (for once) correctly points out, he amazed us all in 2016 when victory looked impossible to many shrewd pundits right up until Pennsylvania went red.

    Can he do again? Yes. Only a fool would write off Trump entirely. He has a fairly long history of winning electoral contests that according to the normal rules of politics are unwinnable.

    Is he likely to? No. He has to do at least as well as last time and all the evidence we have suggests he’s doing worse.

    He also has a number of headwinds to contend with - early voting suggesting higher turnout, a lack of an explanation for the shambolic way he’s handled Covid, a track record of not so much of draining the swamp as swamping the drain, and ultimately no track record of achievement despite four years in office to point to. None of those applied last time.

    Plus, he’s up against a candidate who may be wet and ineffectual but isn’t openly divisive and nasty, or deliberately alienating the Democratic base by threatening to put them all out of work.

    I’d say he has a 10-15% chance of winning. That’s not no hope, but it is low hope. Last time it was put at 25-30%, so his chances have halved.

    He’s not Truman, he’s a crazier more depraved version of Heath.
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,340

    Am I missing something?

    Republican voters vote on average later than Democrat ones, so why are the Rs talking about not counting late postal votes?

    Rs are considerably more likely to request a mail ballot and drop it off on in person either early or on election day (state laws permitting), especially this year.

    Late-arriving mail is far more likely to be Dem, and the place where voter fraud is most likely to occur, because campaigns know who has voted and how many votes they need.
    There. Is. No. Meaningful. Voter. Fraud.

    (There was election fraud by the Republicans in NC in 2018 through...)
  • RazedabodeRazedabode Posts: 2,973
    "Boris Johnson is not the leader I want to have for my country."

    That is a sentiment 79 percent of Scottish swing voters agree with, making it the biggest factor driving those on the fence in Scotland towards backing independence.
    https://t.co/fWHpqCpRCU

    Re.this new indy poll - surely the most simple conclusion here is that Johnson needs to go sooner rather than later? Whether that's quite twigged in the Tory party yet..
  • Am I missing something?

    Republican voters vote on average later than Democrat ones, so why are the Rs talking about not counting late postal votes?

    Rs are considerably more likely to request a mail ballot and drop it off on in person either early or on election day (state laws permitting), especially this year.

    Late-arriving mail is far more likely to be Dem, and the place where voter fraud is most likely to occur, because campaigns know who has voted and how many votes they need.
    Ah that makes sense and I can see why they want to ban it now.

    I've not seen a plausible reason that the Democrats get so many more votes by post than in person.
  • JACK_WJACK_W Posts: 651
    Geoffrey Skeller of 538 looks at the marginal movements in the battleground states of PA FL OH and GA that are slowly trending to Biden. Georgia of particular note :

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-battleground-states-where-weve-seen-some-movement-in-the-polls/
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Oh, oh, the Minesota decision is even more enraging than I first thought

    https://twitter.com/Dan_F_Jacobson/status/1321952979927343104?s=19
  • GaussianGaussian Posts: 793
    Alistair said:

    If the polls were reversed Trump would be 1.05 right now.

    And probably rightly so, due to to his 3% electoral college bonus.
This discussion has been closed.