- Joined
- Jul 9, 2017
- Messages
- 744
- Reaction score
- 25
Yeah, not sure, I’ve never seen a pool this weak without some sort of standout candidate.
Political Betting Thread
- Thread starter GearSolidMetal
- Start date
Yeah, not sure, I’ve never seen a pool this weak without some sort of standout candidate.
Real interesting night tonight. Some standouts to me -
Sanders - great night, one of his best so far. No more raspy voice, and was animated and sharp with his deliveries. Considering the questions about his viability going forward in this race, I don't think he could've done any better to quell that here.
Warren - really struggled at times when she was put on the defensive. I don't like the way she answered questions, and at times her careful use of words and methodology in doing so sounded way too politician-y. The points she had to defend had relatively easy answers she could've given, but it's almost like she's trying to appease the moderates more by refusing to say some things. She definitely had it better in the second half of the debate and had good moments, so I'm not sure if it's going to halt her momentum, but she didn't deliver in the way she should as a new frontrunner.
Buttigieg - If he hasn't established himself as an ultra moderate before, he sure has now. He's now trying to steal the Biden voters by putting himself out there as a young, intelligent version of Biden with a lot less baggage. Imo, it's a good strategy, and probably the only way he's going to have a chance moving forward. He was aggressive and a lot more active on stage this time around. But I've also seen a lot of people, even on the moderate side, saying he came off as sort of a dickhead. It'll be interesting to see how this translates in polling.
Biden - Actually didn't do that bad in general. Unfortunately for him, he got overshadowed by everyone else and did absolutely nothing to reclaim the voters he's losing. And that's an L
Klobuchar - Probably her best night so far. But it's going to mean nothing, because no one cares about her still.
Gabbard - Noticeably poor performance. I'm not an anti-Gabbard guy, but if she was going to break out on stage after an absence, this absolutely wasn't it. She's probably done.
Sanders - great night, one of his best so far. No more raspy voice, and was animated and sharp with his deliveries. Considering the questions about his viability going forward in this race, I don't think he could've done any better to quell that here.
Warren - really struggled at times when she was put on the defensive. I don't like the way she answered questions, and at times her careful use of words and methodology in doing so sounded way too politician-y. The points she had to defend had relatively easy answers she could've given, but it's almost like she's trying to appease the moderates more by refusing to say some things. She definitely had it better in the second half of the debate and had good moments, so I'm not sure if it's going to halt her momentum, but she didn't deliver in the way she should as a new frontrunner.
Buttigieg - If he hasn't established himself as an ultra moderate before, he sure has now. He's now trying to steal the Biden voters by putting himself out there as a young, intelligent version of Biden with a lot less baggage. Imo, it's a good strategy, and probably the only way he's going to have a chance moving forward. He was aggressive and a lot more active on stage this time around. But I've also seen a lot of people, even on the moderate side, saying he came off as sort of a dickhead. It'll be interesting to see how this translates in polling.
Biden - Actually didn't do that bad in general. Unfortunately for him, he got overshadowed by everyone else and did absolutely nothing to reclaim the voters he's losing. And that's an L
Klobuchar - Probably her best night so far. But it's going to mean nothing, because no one cares about her still.
Gabbard - Noticeably poor performance. I'm not an anti-Gabbard guy, but if she was going to break out on stage after an absence, this absolutely wasn't it. She's probably done.
So there are already 8 candidates qualified for the November debates. This is an absolute joke. They only need 3% in four polls plus the donor criteria. There's no reason the qualifications should be so low 5 debates in. It almost seems like the DNC is hoping for a contested primary so they can pick their own nominee. Most of these guys should be dropping out so we can see where the voters migrate. There are only 4-5 people in the entire field who even have a fighting chance at the nomination, but the DNC wants another huge debate stage 3 months from Iowa.
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2018
- Messages
- 3,316
- Reaction score
- 2,442
Alright so I've seen a lot of talk (here and elsewhere) that Trump has this grand winning strategy and all these moves he makes are calculated for his favor. My receptionist at work is convinced Trump will win 2020 in a landslide. Let's just step back and look at this from a betting perspective. What has Trump done to show us he'll win in 2020? Every piece of data I'm seeing is showing the opposite result. Since 2016, we've seen Trump barely hovering over a 40% approval for most of his presidency, and the republicans lost more house seats in the midterms than they have since Watergate. Republicans holding their seats are sometimes barely edging them out or winning by historically low margins. Polling shows him consistently losing battleground states to the leading dem candidates, when incumbents typically get a polling bump, as well as consistently losing national polls. He's even showing shaky numbers in previously safer R states like Iowa and Texas. And now he's about to be impeached.
This should logically scream that he's going to lose, yet people cling to 2016 polls being off, which they weren't nearly off as much as people think. And now we have even more stuff to go on with the midterm/special election results and approval ratings. The 2016 results were a lot closer than people seem to understand, too. MI, PA, and WI were all won by less than 1%. A few thousand votes the other way in those states and we'd be talking about president Clinton. We're looking at those states (plus more) going democrat this time. Purple states are only increasingly becoming more blue, not the other way around, and 2020 could be the start of the electoral college FAVORING dems as much as the popular vote does.
Pundits are being cautious because they don't want a surprise to happen again. Which is probably the right move. Candidates shouldn't run their campaigns as if they have it in the bag. Dems winning is still a small favorite, and the smart money should be on that. It's a very good line.
This should logically scream that he's going to lose, yet people cling to 2016 polls being off, which they weren't nearly off as much as people think. And now we have even more stuff to go on with the midterm/special election results and approval ratings. The 2016 results were a lot closer than people seem to understand, too. MI, PA, and WI were all won by less than 1%. A few thousand votes the other way in those states and we'd be talking about president Clinton. We're looking at those states (plus more) going democrat this time. Purple states are only increasingly becoming more blue, not the other way around, and 2020 could be the start of the electoral college FAVORING dems as much as the popular vote does.
Pundits are being cautious because they don't want a surprise to happen again. Which is probably the right move. Candidates shouldn't run their campaigns as if they have it in the bag. Dems winning is still a small favorite, and the smart money should be on that. It's a very good line.
I don't need to convince myself lol. I'm saying that if you took an outsider who hasn't been corrupted by any of the political rhetoric and gave them all the relevant data, there's no way they wouldn't be throwing money on the dems and it would be one of the easiest bets in the world. It's like catching Khabib at -120 vs a mid tier LW. Puncher's chance sure but all signs should point to the obvious if you're not emotionally invested toward the other side.
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2017
- Messages
- 744
- Reaction score
- 25
I think your putting too much value on national polls. The electoral college wins the presidency not the popular vote so national poll data isn’t that valuable. In the electoral college, battleground states win. So, which candidate do you see doing better in battleground states than Hillary? Maybe Biden in NH, Pennsylvania, and Michigan although he’ll be less popular in Arizona, Florida, and Nevada. Everyone else on the ticket does worse than Hillary nearly everywhere.
A healthy Biden gives him a run but Trump still probably wins by a decent amount. Trump’s policy stances really reasonate with many battleground states and many of the Democratic candidates moved so far left on things in this primary that it will be impossible to get those voters (besides Biden and Gabbard).
I'm talking about the state polls too though. From the polls, dems are likely going to win Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin at an absolute minimum. And this is all they'd need to win + Hillary's states. I also see them winning Ohio, North Carolina, and Florida. Texas, Iowa, and Arizona are also possibilities that shouldn't be slept on. All of these states become more blue the more time goes on.
Yes there are some polls in some of these states that show Trump ahead, but generally puts the dems ahead to what they'd need. The important thing here too is that an incumbent being in a tight or losing race this far from election day is a really bad sign. Incumbents usually expect a bump in their polling, but Trump clearly does not have that, and someone like him would have a VERY difficult time winning over people who haven't stuck by his side. He has little to no comeback factor if he falls behind. If an incumbent is averaging +2 in a state, they should be campaigning like they're at -5, and Trump could be in a worse position than that with the states he needs.
I'd heavily disagree that either Trump or Biden's policies really resonate in the battleground states. These are the working class places that stand to benefit most from the progressive policies. They're not against those ideas at all, they're only seen as more conservative-ish due to their stance on social issues with their heavier religious influence. Bernie Sanders, the furthest left candidate in the race, is neck-and-neck with Biden in the general election polls for these states despite the media not wanting to give him any attention.
Also want to point out that you shouldn't put that much stock in Biden outperforming the others in polls vs Trump. A large amount of the country still isn't paying very close attention and only knows Biden from his name. Whenever a candidate gets more attention (which they of course will if a non-Biden wins the primary), their numbers typically go up. As a minimum, the mid-level candidates are just showing a strong anybody-but-Trump support. If Biden wins the primary, I expect him to win by standard strategy. If Warren or Sanders win the primary, I expect them to do better with an increased turnout of youth and more apathetic voters.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2009
- Messages
- 15,112
- Reaction score
- 0
42% approval + incumbency + $300+ million war chest + strong economy
Hard to beat unless the Democrats run their best (Sanders or Buttigieg)
There were large correlated polling errors in the rustbelt relative to polling average, all of which underestimated Trump's chances: Ohio (6% error) , Wisconsin (7.2% error) , Michigan (4% error), Iowa (6.5% error).
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2017
- Messages
- 744
- Reaction score
- 25
So there is very little state data right now because the Democratic Primary’s are going on and state polling usually doesn’t start occurring until two candidates are selected. A good way to predict how things will work out in the presidential election is to look at the Senate/Governor to see who’s winning lately (also to see how far left/right candidates getting elected are). Usually more moderate candidates are the ones being elected in battleground or states that are flipped (I.e Rubio, Walker, Joe from WV, Colorado senators, etc). Choosing a candidate too far left or right is a good signal you’ll lose those states because those states aren’t electing people to the extreme of either side.
Based on that data, Ohio is pretty red, Florida has been shifting red, Arizona shifting blue although really close, Nevada sways, NC is red, NH is blue but close with a moderate like Trump, Michigan is blue but loves Trump policies, Pennsylvania is blue but loves Trump energy/trade policies, Iowa is red based on religion issues, Wisconsin sways, and those are the major battleground states. Georgia and Texas are getting closer to shifting there but are prolly still years away based on the voting results I’ve seen. A moderate has the best shot to win these states and if a progressive runs, Democrats likely lose big. Everyone but Biden has been shifting left which is why many Democrats are worried and why Republicans are getting more confident.
I mean think about it, if your state economy is primarily run off fossil fuels and green energy won’t work in your location, why the hell would you vote for someone who plans to tax the shit out of it which will hurt you as a consumer for a policy that isn’t needed in your state.
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2017
- Messages
- 744
- Reaction score
- 25
Sanders might win in Michigan but struggles in a lot of other battlegrounds like Florida and Arizona.
I think Pete gets killed in battleground states outside of the religious ones but will succeed in Iowa and Wisconsin.
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2017
- Messages
- 2,366
- Reaction score
- 776
Well, you are emotionally invested too.
The other posters have made the points i would have made. I checked, and your assertion that the 4 ways polls were accurate is wrong. They were upto 7% wrong.
Secondly, even though cankles is an idiot, she was a far stronger candidate than warren, sanders or biden.
Thirdly, you are making vast assumptions based in these insert dnc candidate v trump polls. If even harris can beat trump in these match ups, they are not voting for any of them, they are voting against trump in a shallow way. Voting intention could change significantly once voters dig into what they are voting for.
Personally, at plus odds i am loving the trump line.
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2017
- Messages
- 2,366
- Reaction score
- 776
Dnc clusterfcuk they call primaries. Missed the line movement on biden and buttigieg. Tempted to jump on still as warren is over bought, but i think line will soften again. Its a weak field, so room for an outsider to bust it all wide open.
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2018
- Messages
- 3,316
- Reaction score
- 2,442
Clinton is going to run again and will get the nod. I don't know how you people don't see this. The field is too thin and her grip on the democratic party is too strong.
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2017
- Messages
- 2,366
- Reaction score
- 776
^ thats what i am hinting at. I dont know if she will run again, or some other, but its clear with this lot the dimocrats are fcuked.
The deep state propaganda rags, nyt and wapo, have simutaneously run stories about cankles running again, something going on behind the scenes.
The deep state propaganda rags, nyt and wapo, have simutaneously run stories about cankles running again, something going on behind the scenes.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2018
- Messages
- 3,316
- Reaction score
- 2,442
May I ask what you mean by "deep state?"
Just curious.
Just curious.
Uhhhhh wanna say that first part again?
Ohio's polls all had Trump winning, with the last one I'm seeing showing a 7% margin of victory. Michigan's last few polls showed a much closer race. Not sure where you got that Iowa number from when he was consistently polling well ahead. The only big surprise relative to the data is Wisconsin. Polling's rarely going to represent an exact result, but it gives you a good idea of what's going to happen.
