American Politics 3.0 - Back to Brunch

[MegaErtz]

I've been following the election betting odds very closely since about 2003. They've been bang on every time but once (2016), far more accurate than the polls. Hillary Clinton was about -900 to win about a week before the election in 2016.

I'm not saying that the odds will accurately predict the winner, but they are a heck of a lot more accurate than any poll.

And no, you can't parlay the betting election markets. Parlays are for suckers.

I'm a very far left leaning Democrat and voted for Harris myself, but I could see the odds starting to move in Trump direction a few weeks ago and placed a large bet on him to win. The odds have moved so far in his direction now that I could take a position on Harris to win and lock in some guaranteed profit. I'm anticipating Trump becoming a much larger favourite, and the price on Harris to win continuing to lengthen.

[Duruss]

Originally Posted by puffnstuff

Not all polls are created equal.

https://newrepublic.com/article/1874...averages-trump

There's articles about polls and articles about betting.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-b2631759.html

I agree with John Stewart, "Did we all die during covid?"

[activeStick]

Originally Posted by La Flames Fan

Maybe not anymore...Nate Silver left 538 in 2023 and took with him his forecasting model.

538, originally rendered as FiveThirtyEight, is an American website that focused on opinion poll analysis, politics, economics, and sports blogging in the United States.[2] Founder Nate Silver left in 2023, taking the rights to his forecasting model with him to his website Silver Bulletin.[3][4][5] 538's new owner Disney hired G. Elliott Morris to develop a new model.[3][4] On September 18, 2023, the original website domain at fivethirtyeight.com was closed, and web traffic became redirected to ABC News pages.[2] The logo was replaced, with the name 538 now used instead of FiveThirtyEight.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FiveThirtyEight

You're correct that the methodology used before is now gone, but most, not all, in this thread believe that Nate's methodology isn't good anymore now that he's left 538 and that it can't be trusted.

[direwolf]

Looks like I've stumbled into the gambling thread by mistake. Anyone know where the U.S. politics thread went?

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by direwolf

Looks like I've stumbled into the gambling thread by mistake. Anyone know where the U.S. politics thread went?

What you’re not fascinated by constant betting odds updates on a 50/50 scenario? It’s riveting.

[Fuzz]

I'm holding out for the frustrated posts about people's fantasy political league team. "I got chuckle#### on the first draft round, but it really hasn't worked out!"

[PepsiFree]

We taking this election to the moon or what you big dorks?

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

As if there aren't work arounds to it being illegal in the US. Especially since its crypto based.

Better make sure we keep close track of the betting habits of the handful of Americans using VPNs to illegally vote on their own election. Definitely capturing the suburban mom vote there.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

We taking this election to the moon or what you big dorks?

Interesting theory. I thought Spurs was moon, but maybe not.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by La Flames Fan

Maybe not anymore...Nate Silver left 538 in 2023 and took with him his forecasting model.

538, originally rendered as FiveThirtyEight, is an American website that focused on opinion poll analysis, politics, economics, and sports blogging in the United States.[2] Founder Nate Silver left in 2023, taking the rights to his forecasting model with him to his website Silver Bulletin.[3][4][5] 538's new owner Disney hired G. Elliott Morris to develop a new model.[3][4] On September 18, 2023, the original website domain at fivethirtyeight.com was closed, and web traffic became redirected to ABC News pages.[2] The logo was replaced, with the name 538 now used instead of FiveThirtyEight.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FiveThirtyEight

I was aware that he left. The current 538 model shows a quality value for each poll and weights it accordingly in their forecast.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by MegaErtz

I've been following the election betting odds very closely since about 2003. They've been bang on every time but once (2016), far more accurate than the polls. Hillary Clinton was about -900 to win about a week before the election in 2016.

I'm not saying that the odds will accurately predict the winner, but they are a heck of a lot more accurate than any poll.

And no, you can't parlay the betting election markets. Parlays are for suckers.

I'm a very far left leaning Democrat and voted for Harris myself, but I could see the odds starting to move in Trump direction a few weeks ago and placed a large bet on him to win. The odds have moved so far in his direction now that I could take a position on Harris to win and lock in some guaranteed profit. I'm anticipating Trump becoming a much larger favourite, and the price on Harris to win continuing to lengthen.

I don't think you can say the odds are more accurate than any poll. The polls are an input to the models that come up with initial betting odds. But remember all betting odds move based on where the money is going.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by MegaErtz

I've been following the election betting odds very closely since about 2003. They've been bang on every time but once (2016), far more accurate than the polls. Hillary Clinton was about -900 to win about a week before the election in 2016.

I'm not saying that the odds will accurately predict the winner, but they are a heck of a lot more accurate than any poll.

Haven't be polls also been right every time except for 2016? For betting markets to be more predictive, they need to get it right when the polls don't, and so far they haven't.

And didn't they get 2022 wrong? I recall betting market odds giving the Republicans a 70-75% chance of controlling the Senate, whereas polling aggregates were showing it as a toss up.

[SutterBrother]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

As if there aren't work arounds to it being illegal in the US. Especially since its crypto based.

So now it's the crypto illegal workaround crowd in the US and foreign interests?

[Muta]

Just an opinion, but I have a hunch that there will be voters who may change their minds right at the polling stations; a 'realization' moment that their vote counts, this is for real, and they need to make the right choice going forward for the next four years. Probably not a ton of people, but ones who will decide to remove the emotion and populist sentiment from the campaign trail out of it. I'm hinting that people may say they will vote for Trump, but know long-term in their voting booth that Harris is probably the better choice once they have a pen in their hand and in the moment.

[Nufy]

Approximately 2 weeks out...

Doesn't all the real juicy stuff get released now ?

[Senator Clay Davis]

Unless it's against Harris, ain't nothing changing this race. If something came out that Trump raped and murdered 10 women, probably gets a poll bump.

[puffnstuff]

Is the 'I want generals like Hitler had' quotes changing any of maga minds? No.
Independents or the undecided (that they exist at this point if mind boggling)...maybe, I truly dont know.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Perhaps the Democratic Party should try to do a better job of reaching those people, no? Instead of just calling them irresponsible and shrugging their shoulders?

The comment has nothing to do with sides. It’s a statement that applies to all voters. “They’re not doing it so why should I” is a genuinely terrible approach.

This has been explained to you. It’s not the legitimacy of the danger that dictates what is or isn’t fear mongering, it’s the methodology behind how you make people aware of it.

Over-reliance on the most dramatic dangers, real or not, can be counterintuitive because it makes the danger seem abstract and hard to imagine.

I used to believe this kind of thing, too, and I still struggle with it sometimes. I get the need to blame everybody else for not doing what you think is the best thing, but in the end, especially when it comes to politics, you can’t absolve the parties of actually having to earn votes and you can lean into your own fear and anger and just blame everyone who didn’t do exactly what you want for you not getting it. People who vote Trump will have active ownership of Trump being in power, they literally voted for him. Lumping undecideds and people who just don’t vote for any number of reasons in with them? That’s just a weak scare/shame tactic to get people to do something. And guess what? It doesn’t work, and may even work against you.

And yet much of America disagrees with you, which is the problem that needs solving. And it literally is party’s fault. Their job during a campaign is to get elected. They’ve lost momentum, they’re falling at the worst possible time.

Should make for a quick debrief if they lose, though. The plan for 2028? “More of the same and we’ll see how it goes! They’ll come around.”

I do. Why complain about putting words in your mouth and then do the same? We’re not talking about the difference between them.

This has literally nothing to do with them moving further left or not, so I’m not sure what you’re accomplishing by trying to talk down to “the left.” Hell, if the Democrats want to appeal to the center-right Republicans at the expense of some votes on the left, go wild, but LOL if you’re going to sit there and say “the left” should just vote for them anyway.

Here’s a “hard truth” you don’t “seem willing to admit”: If people wanted the message the Democrats are offering to the extent you imagine they do, they’d be in blowout territory.

But, you know, they ain’t. And I understand it’s easier to look down on people who disagree with you or try to use shame or fear to make people do what you expect them to do, but where do you go from there when it doesn’t make a difference?

Against a very very beatable opponent, the Democrats are in danger of losing. Yet your position is that they’re inspiring, meeting voters where they are, and presenting good policy, and it’s not their fault they’re in danger of losing, it’s everyone else?

If they lose, that attitude is going to be a giant contributor.

Maybe the reason why they aren't in blowout territory is because of billionaires such as Elon pouring ungodly amounts of money to superPACs, to blast the swing states with ungodly amounts of deceptive propaganda. In addition to using X to massively signal-boost pro-Trump messaging...

Let me ask you something, what specifically should Harris and the Democrats be doing differently to win over more voters? Is this just a Gaza thing, or are there more things you're upset about?

[activeStick]

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that the Harris campaign has destroyed the Trump campaign in terms of fundraising for both millionaire donations and small donations and the spending in PA to date, I'd assume won't even be close.

[direwolf]

Originally Posted by activeStick

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that the Harris campaign has destroyed the Trump campaign in terms of fundraising for both millionaire donations and small donations and the spending in PA to date, I'd assume won't even be close.

I’ve also been reading that the GOP has all but abandoned their ground game and have poured most of their focus and resources into Trump’s Nazi rallies. And that the Harris ground effort has been far superior.