Political Betting Thread

[longway]

let me clarify, the polls were not off, but merely wrong, that's why they were right

polls don't just do that, they try and predict who will win using models that anticipate turnout. not all polls use generic all american samples, they use likely voter models, their models were off.

and you have no way of knowing that they were sampling representative populations as they were wrong. there is also non response bias and the shy trumper hypothesis. all this blah blah blah and all you keep on saying even though the polls were wrong they were actually right. i got to give you credit for that.

the polls were well outside the margin of errors in many states and these all went towards trump.

the error margin only applies if the poll is a representative sample of the population they wish to sample.

 

[waiguoren]

Well for the most part, I agree that independents and dems (and maybe most republicans at this point) don't care. Gay marriage clearly has majority support in the country right now and debate on that issue is pretty much done for. My issue is that there still are holdouts and people uncomfortable with the idea, and we don't even have to worry about that issue with any other candidate. The potential voting base for Pete has to get over the sexuality issue before they even consider his policy platform. I guess you could say the same for minority+female candidates, but there's no real religious objection to gender or skin color, and you can't underestimate the political power of religious groups even in this day and age.

Of course I'm not saying it's a non-issue for 100% of voters. I'm saying Buttigieg has huge strengths as a candidate (38 y.o. among geezers, only war zone vet in the race, extremely articulate, has "the look", ideologically acceptable to almost everyone except the Sanders wing, only rustbelt candidate in the top five) that vastly overwhelm this small liability.

 

[TrueAscension]

Chuckle. Just days ago President Trump spoke in front of a packed Dallas stadium (20,000+). I find it absolutely hilarious that people like you still exist in 2019. Mainstream media = Fake news. I understand that you want to cling to your illusions & that no amount of facts will motivate you to accept reality. Speaking of reality. Here is footage of Presidents Trumps rally in Dallas, Texas.

"Mainstream media is fake news."
Posts link to very obviously biased media.

 

[rev0lver]

polls don't just do that, they try and predict who will win using models that anticipate turnout. not all polls use generic all american samples, they use likely voter models, their models were off.

That's literally not what they do. That's what election models do. Polls show you the political attitudes of the typical voter. They normally translate to election results within a range, but there are always other factors depending on the circumstances of an election. Which are why there were different election models.

For example, polls are generally inaccurate to the results for states that are more firmly blue or red. This happens in most elections, including 2016, with both sides. It's a known phenomenon. It doesn't mean that the polls were inaccurate in representing the populace's political feelings, it's just that there's usually more apathy among the expected losing side on election day.

and you have no way of knowing that they were sampling representative populations as they were wrong. there is also non response bias and the shy trumper hypothesis. .

We do, because we know their methodology. There's no reason to believe their methodology was improper. Non response bias is a thing, but if polling shows a clear D advantage, it's probably right. The election results have more to do with turnout.

Touching on the secret trump voter theory - this has never really held up to scrutiny. Online vs call polls should've shown a clear difference if it were true, but that wasn't the case.

 

[longway]

That's literally not what they do. That's what election models do. Polls show you the political attitudes of the typical voter. They normally translate to election results within a range, but there are always other factors depending on the circumstances of an election. Which are why there were different election models.

For example, polls are generally inaccurate to the results for states that are more firmly blue or red. This happens in most elections, including 2016, with both sides. It's a known phenomenon. It doesn't mean that the polls were inaccurate in representing the populace's political feelings, it's just that there's usually more apathy among the expected losing side on election day.



We do, because we know their methodology. There's no reason to believe their methodology was improper. Non response bias is a thing, but if polling shows a clear D advantage, it's probably right. The election results have more to do with turnout.

Touching on the secret trump voter theory - this has never really held up to scrutiny. Online vs call polls should've shown a clear difference if it were true, but that wasn't the case.

I should have given up a while back.

The entire point of lv polls is to predict election results. Their lv models were wrong or flawed. i have no idea what you mean by 'improper'.

Imagining lv polls showing high d being right when the results went 3-7% the opposite way in 10 of 17 swing states, and another 5 underestimating r support within moe, and two underestimating d support being well within the moe, is a feat i can only envy.

The vast majority of ems based on these polls had it as a virtual lock for killary. Five thirty eight model doesnt rely solely on the polls, which is why it stood out. It runs simulations based on polls being wrong as well.

Also not sure that the shy trumper phenomenom was a wash, most late deciders went for trump, that sounds very much like they were hiding in there.

 

[rev0lver]

I should have given up a while back.

The entire point of lv polls is to predict election results. Their lv models were wrong or flawed. i have no idea what you mean by 'improper'.

Imagining lv polls showing high d being right when the results went 3-7% the opposite way in 10 of 17 swing states, and another 5 underestimating r support within moe, and two underestimating d support being well within the moe, is a feat i can only envy.

The vast majority of ems based on these polls had it as a virtual lock for killary. Five thirty eight model doesnt rely solely on the polls, which is why it stood out. It runs simulations based on polls being wrong as well.

Also not sure that the shy trumper phenomenom was a wash, most late deciders went for trump, that sounds very much like they were hiding in there.

Polls are used as a basis for predicting election results. But that's not what they are in themselves. I don't know how else I can explain that. Again, lots of non-swing states are commonly-accepted to have much different results than the polls, but not because the polls are incorrect. Would you call those polls "wrong", even though the methodology is generally consistent with ones that line up better?

There was definitely a change in polling within the last couple weeks before the election that swung in Trump's favor. This coincided with events that hurt Hillary. I don't think it makes sense that it aligns with that theory. More anonymity in online polling should've controlled for that better if it were a factor, but it didn't show anything. Now, there is evidence of secret Trump supporters, as in people who supported Trump but did not want to tell friends/family. But this is much less likely to translate in anonymous polling.

 

[longway]

^Lv polls are for predicting election results, thats their entire point. Thats why they are used in election models.

Yes, the polls in non swing states can be wrong bc their methodologies are incorrect, depends. What you are referring is variance. It wasnt variance in the swing states.

The swing state polling was wrong, bc you can see the bias in one direction. If it had been a mixture then prob not a sampling issue.

I understand your point re online/anonymous, but as so many undecideds went with trump, its a possibility they would not admit to being secret trump supporters even online.

When i came out as liking trump, it caused a minor rift in my family, and i still cant admit to some of my acquaintances, one cousin even cried. Tds is real and weird. Tbh i cant see why people hate him so much.

 

[Joedaman55]

^Lv polls are for predicting election results, thats their entire point. Thats why they are used in election models.

Yes, the polls in non swing states can be wrong bc their methodologies are incorrect, depends. What you are referring is variance. It wasnt variance in the swing states.

The swing state polling was wrong, bc you can see the bias in one direction. If it had been a mixture then prob not a sampling issue.

I understand your point re online/anonymous, but as so many undecideds went with trump, its a possibility they would not admit to being secret trump supporters even online.

When i came out as liking trump, it caused a minor rift in my family, and i still cant admit to some of my acquaintances, one cousin even cried. Tds is real and weird. Tbh i cant see why people hate him so much.

This is correct and the statistical skew is very similar to the “rule of seven” when measuring results. Within the margin error can be argued when things are close to evenly distributed over a whole sample, when most of the samples are off to one side, it means your prediction model is way off.

Most models I saw at the time had Hillary at a 90% or higher probability to win the election prior to results rolling in. I don’t think I saw anyone besides avid Trump fans predict better results than what Trump achieved. I think I had him around 290 but based on polling, no way I had him winning Penn.

The prediction models and data were way off and the reputation of pollsters took a huge hit last presidential election.

 

[rev0lver]

Yes, the polls in non swing states can be wrong bc their methodologies are incorrect, depends. What you are referring is variance. It wasnt variance in the swing states.

This is the point I want to emphasize the most here that's causing confusion. Polls are polls, not election models. "Likely voter" is meant to help show the right data, but is not ultimately a firm descriptor like a demographic of race or income, or even a registered voter demo, and can have major variance. The polls in non swing states are not "wrong", that's a pointless and irrelevant description, even though they tend to far exceed the discrepancies we saw in swing states. They're polling appropriate representative samples and showing their conclusions. They just can't tell you whether people are going to bother or not on election day because that's not what political polls do. If a poll tried to say X percent of people are supporting Y candidate, but we want to increase X by 10% to represent election-day trends or a predictor in this election, that wouldn't be a poll it would be a model. Polls are showing exactly what they're showing.

We know the political attitudes were generally unfavorable to Trump from the polls. What you seem to be talking about is the effort to pin down the "likely voter" to better predict results. These are two different things. And "likely voter" just comes with so many variables that can change from election to election.

 

[Joedaman55]

State poll out in Arizona, it looks like it’s going t be close again there. I haven’t followed things too closely lately but it looks like state polling is starting to come out. Below is a good link to an article awhile ago to help people predict the accuracy of the different polls:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/fivethirtyeight.com/features/which-pollsters-to-trust-in-2018/amp/

 

[waiguoren]

State poll out in Arizona, it looks like it’s going t be close again there. I haven’t followed things too closely lately but it looks like state polling is starting to come out. Below is a good link to an article awhile ago to help people predict the accuracy of the different polls:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/fivethirtyeight.com/features/which-pollsters-to-trust-in-2018/amp/

I would not trust state polls of rarely-polled states, particularly this far out. I have my eye on the Iowa/NH/SC polls though. Let's see if some of the recent shifts continue.




My Current bets:


April 15 Bernard Sanders +410 $2439.02
May 19 Peter Buttigieg +550 $1818.18
August 31 Peter Buttigieg +2000 $500
September 20 Peter Buttigieg +2026 $493.58
September 25 Elizabeth Warren +123 $4268

 

[waiguoren]

No. They were.

It was a prerequisite, prior to this, that to be credible, the whistleblower had to have firsthand knowledge. The IG would not even consider any second or third-hand reports. The forms were written in such a way that it assumed the whistleblower had fh knowledge, the forms were re-written to allow SH/TH info to be submitted, prior to this you could not even submit SH/TH info as the layout of the form did not allow it.

The FH requirement/rule/standard was suddenly changed. It goes well beyond a ‘revision’ to the form.

Yes, there is no law that states whistleblower must have fh info.

It was a change in regulations/rules rather than law, so its just a semantic game being played to obsfucate the significance of the change.

Btw even though i said i dont want to go into political discussions that are not betting relsted, please call me out if you think i have got something wrong.

@rev0lver
I like the arguments you guys are having but you should really take them to the War Room.

=====================

Miscellaneous thoughts:

It is now fashionable to crap on Kamala Harris. See for example CNN polling analyst Harry Enten's tweet from today:



As anyone who has been reading this thread knows, I have been bearish on her since before she even declared her candidacy. I do not think she has a chance to win or even to finish in the top 3.

However, people predicting her impending dropout are probably wrong, and I think she still has a decent shot at a modest rebound:

1) She raised $11.7 million in Q3 and still has $10 million on hand. That's more than Biden!

2) She does have the ability to generate A-level soundbites, has that prosecutor's approach that many Democrats are looking to "prosecute Trump" if she can find a message.

3) Identity politics.

4) If Biden continues to decline, those voters have to go somewhere and Harris is a natural choice for some of them.




Second miscellaneous thought: who would Sanders choose as his running mate? Really hard for me to figure out.

 

[Papi]

The dems only chance of winning is if trump gets impeached and they know it. Trump is a virtual lock otherwise. The dems running are so weak anyone who doesnt agree is just listening to the echo chamber. If at this point you dont believe mainstream media = fake news i dont know what to say. If your a working man with even 1 ounce of testoterone in you your going to like trump to some degree. Not trying to sound trolly. I know i havent posted in here and this is betting thread so i will add i believe there is value on trump

 

[waiguoren]

@Joedaman55

I remember that you like Scott Adams. He finally (as of last week) is starting to see the race as I called it back in April/May.

In Episode 703 of his podcast, he says he started paying attention to Buttigieg and realized that "he's good!" and "I can say with some confidence that among the Democrats, Buttigieg is clearly the best campaigner. Does anybody disagree with that?"

Adams still has some ideas about the direction of the race which I think are way off. For example, he is predicting that Sanders will drop out fairly early and endorse Elizabeth Warren. He also thinks a Harris+Buttigieg ticket is likely. I think both ideas are obviously wrong. He also thinks a Harris (P) Buttigieg (VP) ticket would be "by far" the best combination to take on Trump, and I think he's dramatically overestimating Harris's potential as a general election candidate.



My Current bets:


April 15 Bernard Sanders +410 $2439.02
May 19 Peter Buttigieg +550 $1818.18
August 31 Peter Buttigieg +2000 $500
September 20 Peter Buttigieg +2026 $493.58
September 25 Elizabeth Warren +123 $4268

 

[rev0lver]

As anyone who has been reading this thread knows, I have been bearish on her since before she even declared her candidacy. I do not think she has a chance to win or even to finish in the top 3.

However, people predicting her impending dropout are probably wrong, and I think she still has a decent shot at a modest rebound:

1) She raised $11.7 million in Q3 and still has $10 million on hand. That's more than Biden!

2) She does have the ability to generate A-level soundbites, has that prosecutor's approach that many Democrats are looking to "prosecute Trump" if she can find a message.

3) Identity politics.

4) If Biden continues to decline, those voters have to go somewhere and Harris is a natural choice for some of them.




Second miscellaneous thought: who would Sanders choose as his running mate? Really hard for me to figure out.

Harris has raised a respectable amount but still lags well behind the leading candidates in that area. I know Biden had issues with cash on hand, but he actually raised $15mil in Q3. (Side note: Pete even outraised Biden in Q3. There's glaring issues here with Biden that's not getting the attention it deserves in the press)

Identity politics definitely come into play with Harris, but it's not as strong as it should be. Biden has a significant lead with elderly black voters, while Sanders has a significant lead with young black voters. Her history is a lot more problematic than a relatively clean politician like Obama, as a prosecutor who made questionable decisions affecting demographics she identifies with. I think Warren commands more of the female vote than her, too.

I think Biden voters will migrate to other camps before her. She might benefit a small amount, but I don't see it being enough. Pete seems like a more natural choice. But there are still a good number of Biden supporters who like Sanders and Warren despite the ideological differences.

Sanders running mate is a very good question. I could potentially see a Sanders-Warren ticket, though it's harder for me to imagine Sanders taking a VP role to Warren if she's nominated. Considering there's probably no one else in the primary pool who would align with Sanders, I think Andrew Gillum (who's had talks with the Warren campaign) and Stacey Abrams would be solid choices for him. I'd imagine he'd love someone like Rashida Tlaib, but I think that would be a comparatively poor strategic move when there are others who can get behind his platform. I also don't think it would be totally out of the question for him to run with a more establishment VP like Pete or Booker for a better sense of unity, though I wouldn't bet on it.

 

[Joedaman55]

@Joedaman55

I remember that you like Scott Adams. He finally (as of last week) is starting to see the race as I called it back in April/May.

In Episode 703 of his podcast, he says he started paying attention to Buttigieg and realized that "he's good!" and "I can say with some confidence that among the Democrats, Buttigieg is clearly the best campaigner. Does anybody disagree with that?"

Adams still has some ideas about the direction of the race which I think are way off. For example, he is predicting that Sanders will drop out fairly early and endorse Elizabeth Warren. He also thinks a Harris+Buttigieg ticket is likely. I think both ideas are obviously wrong. He also thinks a Harris (P) Buttigieg (VP) ticket would be "by far" the best combination to take on Trump, and I think he's dramatically overestimating Harris's potential as a general election candidate.



My Current bets:


April 15 Bernard Sanders +410 $2439.02
May 19 Peter Buttigieg +550 $1818.18
August 31 Peter Buttigieg +2000 $500
September 20 Peter Buttigieg +2026 $493.58
September 25 Elizabeth Warren +123 $4268

Adams stance on Pete was that he was a smart and witty candidate but lacks the charisma and people will not vote for him as a leader (watch his earlier podcasts to see that prediction). He doesn’t think he’ll win but will say smart stuff (think he said he reminded him of Rubio). That prediction seems accurate.

Kamala was his prediction because it was a weak field, she’s a black female in the Democratic race where the Democrats prefer a minority, and she was a good speaker. Her weakness as stated was that she has zero charisma and he thought she could change that. She’s gone backwards and he’s not confident at all in that bet anymore.

Scott’s usually wrong on his VP picks do you’re good there (he picked Cuban or the Florida senator for Trump).

Don’t think any of these candidates can beat Trump, Oprah has the best shot but she’s out. It’s a really poor field of candidates (worst I’ve ever seen).

 

[waiguoren]

Harris has raised a respectable amount but still lags well behind the leading candidates in that area. I know Biden had issues with cash on hand, but he actually raised $15mil in Q3. (Side note: Pete even outraised Biden in Q3. There's glaring issues here with Biden that's not getting the attention it deserves in the press)

Identity politics definitely come into play with Harris, but it's not as strong as it should be. Biden has a significant lead with elderly black voters, while Sanders has a significant lead with young black voters. Her history is a lot more problematic than a relatively clean politician like Obama, as a prosecutor who made questionable decisions affecting demographics she identifies with. I think Warren commands more of the female vote than her, too.

I think Biden voters will migrate to other camps before her. She might benefit a small amount, but I don't see it being enough. Pete seems like a more natural choice. But there are still a good number of Biden supporters who like Sanders and Warren despite the ideological differences.

I don't see any significant disagreements here. I'm just noticing that it's becoming fashionable to crap on Harris (the same thing I have been doing for nine months) but I think we might be entering a stage where a lot of people thing she's just going to drop out immediately. I'm saying she has plenty of staying power for now.

Sanders running mate is a very good question. I could potentially see a Sanders-Warren ticket, though it's harder for me to imagine Sanders taking a VP role to Warren if she's nominated. Considering there's probably no one else in the primary pool who would align with Sanders, I think Andrew Gillum (who's had talks with the Warren campaign) and Stacey Abrams would be solid choices for him. I'd imagine he'd love someone like Rashida Tlaib, but I think that would be a comparatively poor strategic move when there are others who can get behind his platform. I also don't think it would be totally out of the question for him to run with a more establishment VP like Pete or Booker for a better sense of unity, though I wouldn't bet on it.

The central problem is he's trying to smash the "Democratic establishment" yet needs their voters in the general. I guess Elizabeth Warren is actually a decent pick comparatively speaking. If he picks Buttigieg or Booker then he could lose some of the diehard "anti-establishment "people he needs to beat Trump.

 

[waiguoren]

Adams stance on Pete was that he was a smart and witty candidate but lacks the charisma and people will not vote for him as a leader (watch his earlier podcasts to see that prediction). He doesn’t think he’ll win but will say smart stuff (think he said he reminded him of Rubio). That prediction seems accurate.

In the new podcast I referenced, he seems to be coming around to the idea that Buttigieg is a top contender. That was not his position in the past. I think as the months go on, you'll see Adams change his prediction again to upgrade Buttigieg's standing.

Kamala was his prediction because it was a weak field, she’s a black female in the Democratic race where the Democrats prefer a minority, and she was a good speaker. Her weakness as stated was that she has zero charisma and he thought she could change that. She’s gone backwards and he’s not confident at all in that bet anymore.

Yeah I think that's a fair assessment of his position and I think it's really shallow and inaccurate. There is a lot more to the psychology of Democratic voters than just "oooh, sassy black female prosecutor! vote!" As I outlined the other day, a candidate needs to actually convince voters that she has plans to solve their perceived problems that she believes in and that can be implemented. Harris has never shown this ability. Adams says Harris's problems are "the easiest to fix", because he thinks Harris's problems are just surface features like her body language and laughing at her own jokes. I'm saying Harris's problems are a lot deeper than that.

 

[waiguoren]

Boom.

New York Times/Siena was the top pollster in the 2018 midterms.

Today brings us a New York Times/Siena poll of the Iowa Democratic caucus. This is their inaugural poll, so no movement can be detected:

Warren 22
Sanders 19
Buttigieg 18
Biden 17
Klobuchar 4
Harris 3
Yang 3
Steyer 2
Gabbard 2
Booker 2
O'Rourke 0
Bennet 0

=========

Four-way heat at the top, and more yet evidence that the "experts" have been underestimating Buttigieg for the past year.

Buttigieg is now in 2nd place in the Iowa RCP average.

Also notable that Sanders is significantly overperforming his RCP average in this poll.

 

[waiguoren]

Biden raises $5.3M in online donations in October




Joe Biden’s presidential campaign announced Friday that it raised $5.3 million in online donations last month as the former vice president seeks to reassure voters as to the vitality of his White House bid.
.....

The campaign confirmed to The Hill that it had 182,000 online donations last month, the most since its launch, and that the average contribution was $28.29.

The fundraising boost comes amid Democratic hand-wringing over the Biden campaign’s finances — while it reported a $15.2 million haul in the third quarter of 2019, that total fell millions of dollars behind the third-quarter hauls of Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).

The former vice president also finished the third quarter with just under $9 million cash on hand, while Sanders, Warren, South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) had $33.7 million, $25.7 million, $23.4 million and $10.5 million, respectively.
=============


How are these online contributions regulated? It seems it would be very, very, very, very easy to circumvent individual contribution limits using this method.

Zooming out: with this news and the Super PAC flip-flop, Biden is making big moves to turn things around in the money game.

Three months ago, I wrote that I expected a 10% or greater decline in Biden's national RCP average over the next fourth months. From the time of that post to now he has declined 5.5%. With a month left for my prediction to come true, I am somewhat concerned Biden might be able to buy his way out of his problems with massive ad operations in low-information markets.