Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Who do you tip to win the US presidential election

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    I trust betting markets more than polls. Money where your mouth is form of polling.
    One day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry.

    Comment


    • #17
      Betting odds have Biden ahead by double digits. Trump lost a solid lead when he used military force to fire on unarmed protesters.

      He’s fighting on 3 fronts now to hold office and keeps offering up more blood for sharks to pounce on.

      I have never seen people this outraged and motivated, there is constant conversation about it and the protests are bigger than ever.

      https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...ing_odds.html#!

      Trump betrayed the Constitution. Oaths are sworn to defend the Constitution, not this POS.

      Vote his treasonous, corrupt azz out.
      We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution. - Abraham Lincoln

      Comment


      • #18
        You can see June 1st they were tied, after that Trump has nosed dived. People are hurt and livid.

        Moderate right wingers are defecting due to Constitutional abuses.

        Apathetic left wingers have finally gotten off their butts and have been called to action are responding en masse.

        Click image for larger version  Name:	elections.jpg Views:	1 Size:	84.1 KB ID:	9391975
        We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution. - Abraham Lincoln

        Comment


      • #19
        Originally posted by Dinner View Post

        The polls do say that. That said, I suspect the polls are not accurate just like they were not accurate on 2016. Why they are not accurate I am not sure but I suspect a combination of things like bad modeling of who is a likely voter, bad sampling methods, and perhaps even people who support Trump being ashamed to say so and simply saying they are undecided or independent just like happened in 2016. It is worth remembering Hillary also tried the hide and hope the other guy self destructs method in 2016 (she did it for 1.5 of the last three months before Nov, 2016 calling she was too sick to campaign) and that ended up backfiring.

        Eventually Biden won’t be able to hide any more and then the gaffs will come out hurting him. I also suspect the vast majority of Americans really dislike the riots, looting, and arson of the protesters as well as the clear double standards many Dem politicians have shown. That is going to help Trump and the longer the riots go on the more it will help him. Lastly, Trump is actually starting to campaign again while Biden continues to hide in the basement and that is going to harm Biden.
        According to 538 and I was watching at the time, the polls were accurate for 2016... it was just that the pundits were not (They seemed to all be looking at the popular vote or something, which did go Hillary's way by about 2%) and some of the states that Hillary needed to at or better than poll average instead came out a sigma (~2%) below.

        Basically the lesson is that 2-3% lead in a state is not a sure thing.

        Currently Biden needs 3 out of 4 states where he is leading by 4-10%. (Arizona 4%, Pennsylvania 5%, Wisconsin 7%, Michigan 10%) If the vote was next week I expect that it would be Biden at 95% or something.

        Another thing is that Biden's support is often near or even above 50%, this means that the election is not nearly as sensitive to how the undecideds break as 2016 was.

        JM
        Jon Miller-
        I AM.CANADIAN
        GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

        Comment


        • #20
          Originally posted by Dauphin View Post
          I trust betting markets more than polls. Money where your mouth is form of polling.
          Betting markets are who you think will win (based on your expectations/etc) while polls are who you will vote for.

          While betting markets might be better at predicting who will win, that is just because the priors and expectations are good. If the priors go wrong (as they did to some extant in 2016) then the polls will be better predictor than the betting markets.

          JM
          Jon Miller-
          I AM.CANADIAN
          GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

          Comment


          • #21
            So, what were the betting markets saying about Trump 4 years ago?
            Apolyton's Grim Reaper 2008, 2010 & 2011
            RIP lest we forget... SG (2) and LaFayette -- Civ2 Succession Games Brothers-in-Arms

            Comment


            • #22
              https://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/07/bett...-election.html

              According to that article, a day before the election, Trump betting odds were about 5-1 or 83% Clinton, consistent across betting sites. The polling showed a 5-point Clinton lead.

              https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...-forecast.html

              NYT, on election day itself had a variety of polling statistics, with only one having a higher chance for Trump (Clinton prediction based on mid-point of poll: 85%, 71%, 98%, 89%, >99%, 92%).
              One day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry.

              Comment


              • #23
                82% is not a sure thing. And the forecasts are not polls, they include priors which for a lot of people (notably the >99% by Sam Wang) was heavily pro Hillary. So you are strongly mixing polls and priors (while favoring as an alternative another source, betting market, that is heavily priors). Note that 538, which has a very sophisticated model and is very poll based, was the 71%.

                Here is the 538 article from November 4 (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...ehind-clinton/) and of course Trump did lose the popular vote to Clinton by 2%. He won the electoral college by over performing by more than 1% in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania (he also over performed a few other states).

                I like the new Economist prediction, which would have given Hillary a 71% chance in 2016 and which gives Biden an 82% chance in 2020 (https://projects.economist.com/us-20...how-this-works) based on fundamentals (priors) now and polls. We will see if it is able to handle the polls in a sophisticated manner the closer we get to the election.

                JM
                (Note that glancing at Huffpost I am not sure where they got 98% if they were doing poll based as they claimed.)
                Jon Miller-
                I AM.CANADIAN
                GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

                Comment


                • #24
                  Betting markets are based on collective knowledge and confidences. A liquid market of that kind will factor in all publicly available information, including polls.

                  Argue against the efficient market hypothesis if you want to, but if a polling model were superior, you would be able to beat the market over multiple elections. Which is very unlikely.
                  Last edited by Dauphin; June 21, 2020, 17:24.
                  One day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry.

                  Comment


                  • #25
                    Polling techniques may have improved in the past decade, but some points noted from Cornell University:

                    In a paper published in the International Journal of Forecasting, professors Berg, Nelson and Rietz of the Tippie College of Business, University of Iowa argue that prediction markets are notably more accurate than polls at predicting presidential election outcomes. The authors compared the Iowa Electronic Market predictions to 964 polls over five presidential elections. They had four major findings. First, the prediction market gives a noticeably different picture of the race as a whole, and is often significantly different from polls for long periods of time. During these periods, the market tends to be much closer to the final outcome than polls. Second, the prediction market does not experience “convention bounce,” where one party rises in the polls during its convention and falls after it ends. Third, the market tends to predict outcomes better than polls. Finally, polls are significantly more volatile than the prediction market, and much more subject to day-to-day shifts in voter sentiment.

                    The third point above is perhaps the most significant. Analyzing this data, the authors found that the prediction market is closer to the actual outcome than are polls 74% of the time.
                    One day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry.

                    Comment


                    • #26
                      If you could predict how the betting average will fluctuate up and down before the election, you could make even more money

                      Comment


                      • #27
                        The USC/LA Times poll actually got it right.

                        Even it’s creator thought Hillary would win but his numbers showed Trump as the victor:

                        https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-...109-story.html

                        He also got the Obama re-election right. Will see if they are doing it again this year.
                        We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution. - Abraham Lincoln

                        Comment


                        • #28
                          Originally posted by giblets View Post
                          If you could predict how the betting average will fluctuate up and down before the election, you could make even more money
                          Yes, you can, if the polling data is not yet public.

                          https://www.theguardian.com/politics...under-scrutiny
                          One day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry.

                          Comment


                          • #29
                            Originally posted by Dauphin View Post
                            Betting markets are based on collective knowledge and confidences. A liquid market of that kind will factor in all publicly available information, including polls.

                            Argue against the efficient market hypothesis if you want to, but if a polling model were superior, you would be able to beat the market over multiple elections. Which is very unlikely.
                            It seems to me that in the analogy that the better markets would be one part of the market which would not contain the big players, either those that use their skill (Buffet and Sam Wang) or those who use algorithms and are new to the scene ( Bridgewater? and 538 ). Of course this market will be less successful generally than the 'expert' market.

                            The polls without analysis/algorithms and picking the winner based on those is the 'betting against the efficient market hypothesis'.

                            JM
                            Jon Miller-
                            I AM.CANADIAN
                            GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

                            Comment


                            • #30
                              Originally posted by Ted Striker View Post
                              The USC/LA Times poll actually got it right.

                              Even it’s creator thought Hillary would win but his numbers showed Trump as the victor:

                              https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-...109-story.html

                              He also got the Obama re-election right. Will see if they are doing it again this year.
                              Trump was a very close winner and a clear loser of the popular vote, if you (LA Times) predicted Trump as having a clear and strong win I would suggest that you got things as wrong as 538 did.

                              JM
                              (I can't read it, is it just one poll or was it an analysis based on the polls? if it was just one poll then that article is both stupid and wrong.)
                              Jon Miller-
                              I AM.CANADIAN
                              GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X