American Politics 3.0 - Back to Brunch

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Cause we're bored lol. But in somewhat seriousness this is kind of like saying we shouldn't pay attention to regular season sports cause only the postseason matters. Functionally true, but the regular season offers clues has to how the postseason could go. Betting markets, polling models, they are just part of the dialogue. So are early voting numbers. Sure, you might think that benefits the Dems, but it's effectively an incumbent election and high turnout is usually bad for the incumbent (Harris, in this case). So without knowing for sure the vote breakdown, it's all guesswork on what that means too.

I don't know who it benefits, there's no way to know without knowing the demographics of the places where the increases actually happened. Just that it's the only real indicator of anything. The way someone bets doesn't reflect their vote, not to mention the relatively small demographic of people that would even use online betting to bet on an election. Polling data is also IMO incredibly flawed with tiny samples and rarely even go outside of the margin error anyways so it's almost meaningless unless someone starts showing 10%+ differences. Polling data that was 49/51 last week is 51/49 this week or even smaller, and people go on like that is even statistically significant or something interesting to base a 10 minute news segment around.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Looks like Undertaker will be hosting Trump on his podcast.

Don't think Rogan will have Harris, and it would be a mistake to go on after seeing that Fox debacle yesterday.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Coach

I don't know who it benefits, there's no way to know without knowing the demographics of the places where the increases actually happened. Just that it's the only real indicator of anything. The way someone bets doesn't reflect their vote, not to mention the relatively small demographic of people that would even use online betting to bet on an election. Polling data is also IMO incredibly flawed with tiny samples and rarely even go outside of the margin error anyways so it's almost meaningless unless someone starts showing 10%+ differences. Polling data that was 49/51 last week is 51/49 this week or even smaller, and people go on like that is even statistically significant or something interesting to base a 10 minute news segment around.

But all it indicates is that people are voting. If early voting spikes 1M votes and day of voting drops 1M then the notion that early voting means anything is wiped out. I fully agree that the betting markets don't matter, nothing degenerate gamblers do matters. But polling data is useful and that almost all of the swings recently have been MOE swings is perfectly normal. This is why there is a MOE to begin with. This has been a very close race since the start of September, and remains so. Swings within the MOE is what you'd expect. And yeah people overreact to even a one tenth of 1% swings, it's the social media era, people overreact to everything now.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

But all it indicates is that people are voting. If early voting spikes 1M votes and day of voting drops 1M then the notion that early voting means anything is wiped out. I fully agree that the betting markets don't matter, nothing degenerate gamblers do matters. But polling data is useful and that almost all of the swings recently have been MOE swings is perfectly normal. This is why there is a MOE to begin with. This has been a very close race since the start of September, and remains so. Swings within the MOE is what you'd expect. And yeah people overreact to even a one tenth of 1% swings, it's the social media era, people overreact to everything now.

Yes totally. And there are a bunch of other factors that makes something on the surface look significant, but may end up ultimately irrelevant. Including people answer questions in a way that they actually may not vote. No one knows what decision happens for each person until theyre looking at the piece of paper.

I really don't think the polling matters, particularly polling that is so close. With the way some of these voting blocks are, 100 people changing their mind somewhere, or voting that didn't last time, or couldn't last time, could make the total EC vote difference. There's just absolutely no way to account for that narrow of variance unless you polled everyone in those counties one by one, which is what the vote is. So it brings me back to my first point.

[cral12]

Originally Posted by direwolf

Just checked 538 and they have Harris in the lead, but not by much.

Two that I follow:
(recognizing all these models with limitations, flaws...)

The Virtual Tout:
Most movement in October has been in the direction of the Republican ticket:

September 30: Harris/Walz (308), Trump/Vance (230)
October 1: Harris/Walz (302), Trump/Vance (236) VP Debate
October 2: Harris/Walz (292), Trump/Vance (246)
October 3: Harris/Walz (298), Trump/Vance (240)
October 4: Harris/Walz (288), Trump/Vance (250)
October 5: Harris/Walz (283), Trump/Vance (255)
October 6: Harris/Walz (283), Trump/Vance (255)
October 7: Harris/Walz (268), Trump/Vance (270)
October 8: Harris/Walz (268), Trump/Vance (270)
October 9: Harris/Walz (263), Trump/Vance (275)
October 10: Harris/Walz (234), Trump/Vance (304)
October 11: Harris/Walz (234), Trump/Vance (304)
October 12: Harris/Walz (233), Trump/Vance (305)
October 13: Harris/Walz (233), Trump/Vance (305)
October 14: Harris/Walz (238), Trump/Vance (300)
October 15: Harris/Walz (243), Trump/Vance (295)
October 16: Harris/Walz (248), Trump/Vance (290)
https://virtualtout.com/

Tom Miller is the person behind The Virtual Tout®. He is faculty director of the graduate data science program at Northwestern University. Tom holds a doctorate in psychometrics and master’s degree in statistics from the University of Minnesota, as well as master’s degrees in economics and business from the University of Oregon.

***

https://twitter.com/user/status/1847025653906133434

from https://www.whoisgoingto.win/

highlights 6 sources including 538 & Nate's Silver Bulletin + betting odds (which we know is a super weak indicator)

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Coach

Yes totally. And there are a bunch of other factors that makes something on the surface look significant, but may end up ultimately irrelevant. Including people answer questions in a way that they actually may not vote. No one knows what decision happens for each person until theyre looking at the piece of paper.

I really don't think the polling matters, particularly polling that is so close. With the way some of these voting blocks are, 100 people changing their mind somewhere, or voting that didn't last time, or couldn't last time, could make the total EC vote difference. There's just absolutely no way to account for that narrow of variance unless you polled everyone in those counties one by one, which is what the vote is. So it brings me back to my first point.

If it didn't matter than campaigns wouldn't do internals. It still matters. Is it more difficult than ever to do? Absolutely, but it's not worthless. What I think is impossible to believe in polling these days is there is such a thing as undecideds. Things are way to hyper-polarized for there to be many undecideds.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

Looks like Undertaker will be hosting Trump on his podcast.

Don't think Rogan will have Harris, and it would be a mistake to go on after seeing that Fox debacle yesterday.

What was the debacle part?

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

What was the debacle part?

She was set up by Trumps buddy.

Talking over her the entire time, not allowing her to answer questions. It was an obvious set up by a trash broadcaster.

Not to mention Baier looks absolutely ridiculous like he was just electrocuted before going on.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

She was set up by Trumps buddy.

Talking over her the entire time, not allowing her to answer questions. It was an obvious set up by a trash broadcaster.

Not to mention Baier looks absolutely ridiculous like he was just electrocuted before going on.

I think his questions were completely fair. That's what an actual interview is, not the softballs from Stephen Colbert.

Was there a particular line of questioning you found inappropriate?

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

I think his questions were completely fair. That's what an actual interview is, not the softballs from Stephen Colbert.

Was there a particular line of questioning you found inappropriate?

Yes, the entire interview was a joke, it's not about the questions.

If you can't let someone answer a question and interrupt them every single time you shouldn't have a job.

Obviously, its Fox so having trash like Baier, Hannity, Ingram it was to be expected.

Maybe Baier should spend more time learning how to be a journalist and less time getting Botox injections to look like a clown.

[rubecube]

Has anyone tracked how advance voting/mail-in ballots could affect the polls? Is it possible that the bumps Trump is getting in the last couple of weeks could be because there are more Republicans who have yet to vote?

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

Yes, the entire interview was a joke, it's not about the questions.

If you can't let someone answer a question and interrupt them every single time you shouldn't have a job.

Obviously, its Fox so having trash like Baier, Hannity, Ingram it was to be expected.

Maybe Baier should spend more time learning how to be a journalist and less time getting Botox injections to look like a clown.

You are as crazy as the Magas you hate. He pressed her when she tried to deflect, again, it's what an interview looks like. Most of her responses "I'd like to talk about Donald Trump..." which wasn't the question. She's the current administration and Americans are pissed off about the state of their country, he's giving her an opportunity to say why she should be president and her response "Trump is crazy". That's true, but it's not an answer to the question Baier was asking.

https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts...ew-on-fox-news

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

You are as crazy as the Magas you hate. He pressed her when she tried to deflect, again, it's what an interview looks like.

https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts...ew-on-fox-news

Well at least she can show up and go to the enemy and do these interviews unlike like your boy.

Trump is dodging real interviews and debates like its military service.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

But all it indicates is that people are voting. If early voting spikes 1M votes and day of voting drops 1M then the notion that early voting means anything is wiped out. I fully agree that the betting markets don't matter, nothing degenerate gamblers do matters. But polling data is useful and that almost all of the swings recently have been MOE swings is perfectly normal. This is why there is a MOE to begin with. This has been a very close race since the start of September, and remains so. Swings within the MOE is what you'd expect. And yeah people overreact to even a one tenth of 1% swings, it's the social media era, people overreact to everything now.

This is wrong though...an early vote is a guaranteed vote
a lot can happen on election day (weather, sickness, car breaks down, long lines, work, ect.) High early voting signals a high overall turnout which traditionally will help democrats.

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

[dino7c]

The Oilers are the overwhelming favorite to win the cup despite not being the best roster on paper. Mouth breather cult like fans, propaganda network, ect.

sound familiar?

Election odds are irrelevant
Polls have major flaws the biggest of which is new voters not being properly represented

I mean Red wave in 2022 guys

I won't deny the election is close, the electoral college pretty much ensures it will be. To say there have been any major changes in the last week or so is kinda silly though. As I have said before I think tight polls get more people out anyway so tight poll will equal record turnout IMO.

Allan Lichtman is out there defending his Harris prediction...he hasn't be wrong yet, including 2016

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by dino7c

This is wrong though...an early vote is a guaranteed vote
a lot can happen on election day (weather, sickness, car breaks down, long lines, work, ect.) High early voting signals a high overall turnout which traditionally will help democrats.

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

My point was early voting doesn't necessarily mean overall turnout will be up. It could net out to no increase at all. It could net out to a decline. Until election day it's just a number. But even if it is up, as mentioned, high turnout in an incumbent election historically is bad for the incumbent (in this case that would be Harris).

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

You are as crazy as the Magas you hate. He pressed her when she tried to deflect, again, it's what an interview looks like. Most of her responses "I'd like to talk about Donald Trump..." which wasn't the question. She's the current administration and Americans are pissed off about the state of their country, he's giving her an opportunity to say why she should be president and her response "Trump is crazy". That's true, but it's not an answer to the question Baier was asking.

https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts...ew-on-fox-news

Can you link an example of Trump giving a straight answer without deflecting when asked a tough question? I'll wait...

I always love when people light their hair on fire over every little thing that Harris says, yet constantly give Trump free passes on all his unhinged nonsense, lies, and Hitlerean rhetoric he's been using over the past 9 years.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

Can you link an example of Trump giving a straight answer without deflecting when asked a tough question? I'll wait...

I always love when people light their hair on fire over every little thing that Harris says, yet constantly give Trump free passes on all his unhinged nonsense, lies, and Hitlerean rhetoric he's been using over the past 9 years.

He can't even give an answer during debates. He has concepts of a plan.

The closet Trumpers are interesting.

Just look at DoubleK gaslights and runs away. Can't even vote. Yet he/she voted UCP on their way out of Alberta. Disgusting behaviour.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

Can you link an example of Trump giving a straight answer without deflecting when asked a tough question? I'll wait...

I always love when people light their hair on fire over every little thing that Harris says, yet constantly give Trump free passes on all his unhinged nonsense, lies, and Hitlerean rhetoric he's been using over the past 9 years.

I'm not sure what Trump has to do with an interview between Bret Baier and Kamala Harris.

The original post claimed the Fox News interview was a debacle. I challenged that statement and asked for back up. None was provided.

[Senator Clay Davis]

The Baier interview was a debacle if you support Trump, a homerun if you support Harris, an utter waste of time to most of us.