Political Betting Thread

[rev0lver]

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.

Those states are electing those people because of a decades-old mantra that's based in issues they don't care about anymore. We're fed a narrative about it. Do you think West Virginia likes Joe Manchin because he's really tight with financial executives and just says "I support coal" without really doing anything? You think that's more appealing to coal miners than someone offering to guarantee them union rights and basic needs if they get laid off? That's not realistic. Their strategy doesn't work as much as they think it does. Progressive and far-left candidates have been either winning or heavily out-performing their establishment peers in red areas over the past few years, with little money from the DNC to back them. The midwest, rust-belt type areas are the biggest benefactors of their policies and they're not against that.

All these states except Ohio, which Trump STILL might lose, are shifting blue. And the furthest-left person in the race is currently winning or a point away from Biden in these states. I don't know why that should be ignored. A moderate's either gonna win or lose these places by 1-2%. A populist progressive can win by a good chunk more. I'd feel very confident on these swing states going D if someone like Bernie were the candidate.

Also if Trump loses Texas, which is extremely possible considering how bad he's doing... rip lol

 

[rev0lver]

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.
.

If you're taking averages over time, possibly. In polls from the last week or 2 before the election, that's not true and there were only a couple real surprises from that data.

Secondly, even though cankles is an idiot, she was a far stronger candidate than warren, sanders or biden.

Strongly disagree. MAYBE stronger than Biden, but was still more hated than 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.

And that would be an extremely bad sign for Trump if he's already losing to himself. For an incumbent, these numbers typically don't reverse course and it'll only get worse for him.

Any other situation with any republican or democrat and we'd all be on the same page that they're in major trouble and are probably going to lose.

 

[Joedaman55]

Those states are electing those people because of a decades-old mantra that's based in issues they don't care about anymore. We're fed a narrative about it. Do you think West Virginia likes Joe Manchin because he's really tight with financial executives and just says "I support coal" without really doing anything? You think that's more appealing to coal miners than someone offering to guarantee them union rights and basic needs if they get laid off? That's not realistic. Their strategy doesn't work as much as they think it does. Progressive and far-left candidates have been either winning or heavily out-performing their establishment peers in red areas over the past few years, with little money from the DNC to back them. The midwest, rust-belt type areas are the biggest benefactors of their policies and they're not against that.

All these states except Ohio, which Trump STILL might lose, are shifting blue. And the furthest-left person in the race is currently winning or a point away from Biden in these states. I don't know why that should be ignored. A moderate's either gonna win or lose these places by 1-2%. A populist progressive can win by a good chunk more. I'd feel very confident on these swing states going D if someone like Bernie were the candidate.

Also if Trump loses Texas, which is extremely possible considering how bad he's doing... rip lol

You can think a progressive will do better but if you look at results, they’re not. Joe Manchin would be the strongest candidate in this pool if he currently ran and he wins in West Virginia because he’s the most moderate Democrat. No way in hell a progressive Democrat wins in West Virginia.

I don’t see how you see all these states shifting blue. The only ones I can think of is Nevada and maybe Arizona. Florida has just went red for the last two Senate races and the presidential election, how on earth do you see that as shifting blue?

 

[rev0lver]

You can think a progressive will do better but if you look at results, they’re not. Joe Manchin would be the strongest candidate in this pool if he currently ran and he wins in West Virginia because he’s the most moderate Democrat. No way in hell a progressive Democrat wins in West Virginia.

I don’t see how you see all these states shifting blue. The only ones I can think of is Nevada and maybe Arizona. Florida has just went red for the last two Senate races and the presidential election, how on earth do you see that as shifting blue?

Joe Manchin would be the worst candidate we could possibly run. I don't know how you could inspire less excitement in the democratic base than putting up Joe Manchin. He lost over 30% of his primary vote to a grassroots progressive activist, then proceeded to edge his re-election by doing 10% worse than he did 6 years before. Holy shit this strategy is so bad. The left keeps letting the right go further to the right and think the strategy is to go center-right rather than responding with the left wing's generally popular ideas. I've mentioned before how a centrist democratic senator got bodied in the Missouri election while the state overwhelmingly voted to raise the minimum wage in the same election. Progressive policy ideas seem to be more popular than the centrist dems are themselves, especially in these purple/red working-class areas. The candidates backing them just don't get the same DNC/media support.

Florida nearly elected an insanely progressive democratic governor by only a 30,000 vote margin in the last election. Their elections are extremely hard to predict, but their new felon voting rights could actually have a significant impact if the implementation works out as intended. They had the biggest disenfranchised population in the country with 10% of their voting-aged population.

 

[longway]

May I ask what you mean by "deep state?"
Just curious.

Permanent and powerful government bureaucratic class out of control from any accountability for anything. aka military industrial complex.

 

[longway]

If you're taking averages over time, possibly. In polls from the last week or 2 before the election, that's not true and there were only a couple real surprises from that data.

On the other points we can agree to disagree, but this is simply not true and easy to verify. eg

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/e...rump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5976.html

National polling was reasonably accurate, but state polling in many states was way off. This was a supposed to be a safe state for cankles.

 

[rev0lver]

On the other points we can agree to disagree, but this is simply not true and easy to verify. eg

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/e...rump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5976.html

National polling was reasonably accurate, but state polling in many states was way off. This was a supposed to be a safe state for cankles.

Yeah I mentioned Wisconsin as the only real surprise out of the ones we're talking about. Would only really add Minnesota to that as clearly being a tighter margin than it should've, even though Hillary won. The last few polls showed close races in PA and MI, which Trump won by <1%. Same with Florida, won by slightly over 1%. There was nothing else outside the reaches of the data we saw in the last week or two of polling, which had some major events that might've hurt Hillary. The big surprise in the election was how many votes went to the third party candidates when they usually get significantly less votes than the polling, which is why two-way polling was factored more heavily in pre-election analysis and would've showed a clear Hillary win.

The reason why I'm talking about polling mattering so much right now is the incumbency advantage. The only incumbent to poll this poorly in early polling and still win is Barack Obama, who was still ahead of every republican but Romney by a wide margin, and was doing much better than Trump in national polls. Every other incumbent winner was well ahead of Trump at this point in time. If an election was held tomorrow, I'd give dems an edge, and without some major event in Trump's favor over the next year it's extremely unlikely to see Trump's numbers get better rather than worse. Obama, for example, had the economic recovery take more of an effect in 2012. Trump is facing impeachment and, despite a steady economic situation, still shows deep unpopularity.

 

[longway]

^ im not going argue with about the meaning of the early polling, its a matter of judgement.

But you are kidding yourself when it comes to state polling 2016.

 

[rev0lver]

^ im not going argue with about the meaning of the early polling, its a matter of judgement.

But you are kidding yourself when it comes to state polling 2016.

I'll average the last 5 polls in each of the other swing states, along with their result.

Florida
Last 5: D+0.5
Result: R+1

Pennsylvania
Last 5: D+2
Result: R+1

Michigan
Last 5: D+2
Result: R+1

Nevada
Last 5: Tie
Result: D+2

Arizona
Last 5: R+4
Result: R+4

North Carolina
Last 5: D+1
Result: R+4

Ohio
Last 5: R+3
Result: R+8

Other than NC and Ohio being a slightly wider margin of victory, there is no real surprise from this data that Trump got the states that he did. Results usually vary a couple points one way or the other from the polling. If you want to ignore polling moving forward because you bought into the Trump side's narrative of polls being fake (probably one of the dumbest things I've heard), go ahead, but it's a really bad idea not to take the data seriously.

 

[longway]

I'll average the last 5 polls in each of the other swing states, along with their result.

Florida
Last 5: D+0.5
Result: R+1

Pennsylvania
Last 5: D+2
Result: R+1

Michigan
Last 5: D+2
Result: R+1

Nevada
Last 5: Tie
Result: D+2

Arizona
Last 5: R+4
Result: R+4

North Carolina
Last 5: D+1
Result: R+4

Ohio
Last 5: R+3
Result: R+8

Other than NC and Ohio being a slightly wider margin of victory, there is no real surprise from this data that Trump got the states that he did. Results usually vary a couple points one way or the other from the polling. If you want to ignore polling moving forward because you bought into the Trump side's narrative of polls being fake (probably one of the dumbest things I've heard), go ahead, but it's a really bad idea not to take the data seriously.

All the error in the polling (save one) was in favour of the dems. This shows a systemic underpolling of Trump support in the swing states. You are not proving your case here, you are showing the opposite.

You have left out Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, and Maine which all showed significant underpolling of Trump support.

The narrative? The pollsters themselves were shocked at the time, its you who is dreaming up a narrative, even though the data shows exactly the opposite of what you think.

Trump out performed the polls in the vast majority of the swing states, that is not a narrative, but exactly what happened. There is nothing to argue here; its getting bizarre.

I am not ignoring the head to head match-ups bc of the polling in swing states in 2016. Where did you dream this up? I just don't think they tell you all that much at this stage. You disagree; that's ok, I told you my reasons (and I never brought up 2016 polling), but there is no point in me repeating myself.

You twist things and make things up in your head.

 

[waiguoren]

Uhhhhh wanna say that first part again?

I checked the other day and President Obama was at 43.5% approval at this stage in 2011. Also, we don't decide the president based on the national popular vote.

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.

I compared RCP average to the actual outcome. Again, correlated polling errors throughout all of the rustbelt---the RCP average underestimated Trump is all rustbelt states, but polling in WI, OH and IA was particularly bad.

 

[rev0lver]

All the error in the polling (save one) was in favour of the dems. This shows a systemic underpolling of Trump support in the swing states. You are not proving your case here, you are showing the opposite.

You have left out Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, and Maine which all showed significant underpolling of Trump support.

The narrative? The pollsters themselves were shocked at the time, its you who is dreaming up a narrative, even though the data shows exactly the opposite of what you think.

Trump out performed the polls in the vast majority of the swing states, that is not a narrative, but exactly what happened. There is nothing to argue here; its getting bizarre.

I am not ignoring the head to head match-ups bc of the polling in swing states in 2016. Where did you dream this up? I just don't think they tell you all that much at this stage. You disagree; that's ok, I told you my reasons (and I never brought up 2016 polling), but there is no point in me repeating myself.

You twist things and make things up in your head.

The margin of error in polling like this is usually +/- 3 to 4 points. If a candidate is averaging +2, for example, you'd give them the edge to win but shouldn't be surprised if they lose. Actual results usually aren't the exact reflection of the polls, but within that 3 to 4 point range, which is generally what we saw here.

I talked about Wisconsin and Minnesota already as exceptions to this that were surprises. Also, states that are more red or blue are hard to accurately poll with their bigger gap due to apathy from the likely losing party. Trump outperformed polls in some red states while Hillary outperformed polls in some blue states. That's normal.

Pollsters were shocked because two-way polling typically predicts better in presidential elections. That's why I brought the four-way polling up. Third party candidates usually underperform in elections, relative to the polls. Hillary had a much more clear advantage in two-way polling. This shows that the general feeling was anti-Trump, but a portion refused to cast a vote for Hillary in the end. They also underestimated a clear swing that happened within the final two weeks (which is why I brought up the last 5 instead of a longer-term average) where there were significant events that affected Hillary's public opinion.

Trump outperformed but not by a very significant amount. The polls were decently accurate to the final result. But if trends continue from now, we'd expect to see the dems head into the 2020 election with a larger advantage that will translate to a win.

 

[rev0lver]

I checked the other day and President Obama was at 43.5% approval at this stage in 2011. Also, we don't decide the president based on the national popular vote.

Obama had a lower approval rating in 2011 due to it being just over the height of the recession. These numbers steadily climbed back toward 50% from the end of that year through 2012, due to the effects of the recovery and rapidly improving unemployment rates/growth. Trump's sitting in a steady economy and still sees very low approval, which doesn't seem like it'll improve without some big event or policy initiative by him over the next year.

 

[longway]

The margin of error in polling like this is usually +/- 3 to 4 points. If a candidate is averaging +2, for example, you'd give them the edge to win but shouldn't be surprised if they lose. Actual results usually aren't the exact reflection of the polls, but within that 3 to 4 point range, which is generally what we saw here.

I talked about Wisconsin and Minnesota already as exceptions to this that were surprises. Also, states that are more red or blue are hard to accurately poll with their bigger gap due to apathy from the likely losing party. Trump outperformed polls in some red states while Hillary outperformed polls in some blue states. That's normal.

Pollsters were shocked because two-way polling typically predicts better in presidential elections. That's why I brought the four-way polling up. Third party candidates usually underperform in elections, relative to the polls. Hillary had a much more clear advantage in two-way polling. This shows that the general feeling was anti-Trump, but a portion refused to cast a vote for Hillary in the end. They also underestimated a clear swing that happened within the final two weeks (which is why I brought up the last 5 instead of a longer-term average) where there were significant events that affected Hillary's public opinion.

Trump outperformed but not by a very significant amount. The polls were decently accurate to the final result. But if trends continue from now, we'd expect to see the dems head into the 2020 election with a larger advantage that will translate to a win.

+/-3-4% yes, but its almost all in one direction over multiple states and multiple polls. Its not simply variance.

15 of 17 swing states polls undercounted trump's support.

I cant carry on with this now, you are lying to yourself.

All on one page. If this doesn't change your mind, nothing will.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-polls-missed-trump-we-asked-pollsters-why/

 

[waiguoren]

Obama had a lower approval rating in 2011 due to it being just over the height of the recession. These numbers steadily climbed back toward 50% from the end of that year through 2012, due to the effects of the recovery and rapidly improving unemployment rates/growth. Trump's sitting in a steady economy and still sees very low approval, which doesn't seem like it'll improve without some big event or policy initiative by him over the next year.

I agree with that. My point is that Trump's current approval rating is very close to his favorability rating on election day 2016. He won that election. Now he has a stronger economy, the benefit of incumbency, a $300+ million propaganda operation and the prospect of running against another weak candidate in "Sleepy Joe". He has a lot going for him.

As an anti-Trump person, I think you should be focused on making sure the Democrats do not nominate Biden. That is a train wreck waiting to happen.


@Oblivian have you been following these developments?

 

[rev0lver]

+/-3-4% yes, but its almost all in one direction over multiple states and multiple polls. Its not simply variance.

15 of 17 swing states polls undercounted trump's support.

I cant carry on with this now, you are lying to yourself.

All on one page. If this doesn't change your mind, nothing will.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-polls-missed-trump-we-asked-pollsters-why/

For a good chunk of them, it really is variance. I'll reiterate that Trump won some of these states by less than 1%, a few thousand votes. I think the factor of enthusiasm and apathy toward Hillary absolutely came into play on election day and it's why it pushed Trump to a win in these states, though generally within reasonable margins. I've mentioned before that I predicted a Trump win in 2016 (though I didn't have the bankroll to win that much at the time :/ ), and this is the exact data I was looking at to inform that decision.

I'm talking about all this because I see BOTH the opposite effect happening in 2020, with more enthusiastic support against Trump and possibly for a populist democrat, and a data trend toward democrats gaining a bigger lead in the swing states where an underestimated pro-Trump turnout wouldn't even be a concern.

 

[Oblivian]

I agree with that. My point is that Trump's current approval rating is very close to his favorability rating on election day 2016. He won that election. Now he has a stronger economy, the benefit of incumbency, a $300+ million propaganda operation and the prospect of running against another weak candidate in "Sleepy Joe". He has a lot going for him.

As an anti-Trump person, I think you should be focused on making sure the Democrats do not nominate Biden. That is a train wreck waiting to happen.


@Oblivian have you been following these developments?

Not much at all honestly. I don't know if it is just me being older or more busy, but I really don't have much patience for it. Strong supporters of each side just come off as obnoxious to me. Most coverage of it comes off the same way as well.

 

[rev0lver]

I agree with that. My point is that Trump's current approval rating is very close to his favorability rating on election day 2016. He won that election. Now he has a stronger economy, the benefit of incumbency, a $300+ million propaganda operation and the prospect of running against another weak candidate in "Sleepy Joe". He has a lot going for him.

As an anti-Trump person, I think you should be focused on making sure the Democrats do not nominate Biden. That is a train wreck waiting to happen.


@Oblivian have you been following these developments?

I do think the democrats shouldn't nominate Biden lol.

Favorability ratings weren't a great predictor in 2016 due to Hillary's comparably low favorability. She was a deeply disliked candidate, one of the most hated people in the democratic party. What's becoming clear here is that Trump doesn't have an incumbency advantage and his performance as president is pretty poorly received by most of the population. All this despite relative normalcy in our economic situation and no major conflicts. That's a very bad sign. Trump has no comeback factor within sight to win people over here.

I can give you the four most recent people who showed comparable situations to Trump at this point in time: Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, George HW Bush, and Barack Obama. Obama's numbers improved for the reasons I mentioned. Anyone with confidence in Trump is fooling themselves.

 

[waiguoren]

What's becoming clear here is that Trump doesn't have an incumbency advantage

I don't think this is clear at all, and I struggle to imagine what evidence you could marshal to support this claim.

Favorability ratings weren't a great predictor in 2016 due to Hillary's comparably low favorability.

The Democrats should run someone who will make it to election day 2020 with a significantly higher approval rating than Trump. I believe Sanders and Buttigieg are the two candidates with the best chance in that area.

Anyone with confidence in Trump is fooling themselves.

I think that's a rash thing to write. There are many factors that decide these races and it's conceivable that we are missing an angle. My current view is that the outcome of the 2020 election is highly sensitive to the choice of Democratic nominee. For example, I do not believe that Kamala Harris can compete with Trump. Choose wisely, Mr. Rev.

 

[rev0lver]

I don't think this is clear at all, and I struggle to imagine what evidence you could marshal to support this claim.

Low 40's approval, looming impeachment, deeply unpopular policy decisions, endorsed candidates underperforming, generally acting like an idiot (though that's not new). The historical data on presidents with comparable numbers points toward a loss. There's virtually no data giving positive signs for him here. Improving economic situations are usually a boon for incumbents. But the already steady economic situation tells us that there's little Trump can do, save for a major shift in policy or behavior, that's going to improve his numbers.

The Democrats should run someone who will make it to election day 2020 with a significantly higher approval rating than Trump. I believe Sanders and Buttigieg are the two candidates with the best chance in that area.

I agree. The latest polls I looked at showed Biden and Sanders with higher favorability ratings than both Trump and Hillary. Not enough data yet on the other candidates due to lower name recognition, but I'd expect most of them to end up with similar numbers.

I am still curious about people's takes on Buttigieg, though. I read an article recently about South Carolina's democrats' opinions on him in the primary. Even with those democrats, particularly among black voters, there's a lot of apprehension on his sexuality. That's not my issue with him at all (I'm a gay man myself), I dislike him due to his policy platform and strategy, but I'm not sold on America being ready for an openly gay president. Homophobia is still a thing, particularly among swing states that still have heavy religious influence, and we can't pretend there aren't people who really are that superficial. As much as I wish it weren't an issue, I'd be worried about taking that risk in an election like this.