Trending....

How will it look post RNC?



https://www.realclearpolitics.com/elections/betting_odds/2020_president/

This only came out because all the polls last week had shown Trump pulled ahead. They can't let that happen....

I still don't understand how with a binary outcome possibility (either Trump or Biden), you can make bets that don't add up to 1.

dBoy99 said:

---

This only came out because all the polls last week had shown Trump pulled ahead. They can't let that happen....

---

While there are certainly homers that bet because Orange Man Bad or KAGA!!!! most people that bet in prediction markets do so because they're trying to make a return on their money. As for "all of the polls," none of the polls have shown Trump pulling ahead nationally, but many of the swing state polls have tightened. Trump is still a slight dog in Florida, Arizona, and in the 2016 flipped Midwest swing states, and a small favorite in Ohio, Iowa, and North Carolina.

Markets can certainly move on big new information, continued tightening polls, or by individually compiled contrarian analysis that logically concludes that the information provided by the polls is systematically wrong.

zooguy96 said:

---

All the polls are BS. The only one that matters is the final one after the election.

---

2016 strongly agrees with you.

OldArmyBrent said:

---

I still don't understand how with a binary outcome possibility (either Trump or Biden), you can make bets that don't add up to 1.

---

You don't necessarily have to bet on either Biden or Trump. You are betting independently on one outcome. Right now on predictit the price to buy Yes Trump is 44, and No Trump is 56. Yes Biden 59, No Biden 41. As Biden Yes/No is an independent bet than Trump Yes/No, the prices of both markets will be set by free market principles of supply and demand.

What it means though is if during the right day if the price differential is big enough, you can bet on both outcomes and have a risk free return net of fees (arbitrage). PredictIt knows this, so they limit total purchases to ~$800 for any one bet (ie you can bet $800 on Yes/No Biden and $800 on Yes/No Trump).

OldArmyBrent said:

---

I still don't understand how with a binary outcome possibility (either Trump or Biden), you can make bets that don't add up to 1.

---

The house has to take their pound of flesh as well

That's helpful. I kept thinking I was misunderstanding how the bet worked if you could theoretically bet both sides and have a risk free return. I guess that also shows the inefficiency in these markets and that they could be influenced by an outside party if that was the goal.

Thank you for clarifying. Granted I oversimplified the polls, what I should have said was - there was good news in the polls for Trump last week which. The media can't allow that to happen so this came out. They work hard enough to skew the polls against Trump as it is...

dBoy99 said:

---

This only came out because all the polls last week had shown Trump pulled ahead. They can't let that happen....

---

1. This metric has been published by real clear politics for months. It didn't just come out.

2. All the polls don't show Trump in the lead, in fact nearly all of them show him trailing both nationally and in battle ground states.

SirLurksALot said:

---

dBoy99 said:

---

This only came out because all the polls last week had shown Trump pulled ahead. They can't let that happen....

---

1. This metric has been published by real clear politics for months. It didn't just come out.

2. All the polls don't show Trump in the lead, in fact nearly all of them show him trailing both nationally and in battle ground states.

---

1. Yes.

2. Not really; the caveat is that the polls prior to around now are not mostly LV polls at the state level, and weeding out the garbage polls or not, he's running ahead of where he was in 2016 at this point in the cycle. The bottom line is all of the polls that have any credibility have shown the battlegrounds roughly within the margin of error now, and if he's doing as well with independents as the most recent ones have shown...and tied in MN, well, draw your own conclusions...

Like most cases, it'll tighten and be within the margin of error the last month or two. Lol

OldArmyBrent said:

---

I still don't understand how with a binary outcome possibility (either Trump or Biden), you can make bets that don't add up to 1.

---

Because betting odds are not probabilities.

nortex97 said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

dBoy99 said:

---

This only came out because all the polls last week had shown Trump pulled ahead. They can't let that happen....

---

1. This metric has been published by real clear politics for months. It didn't just come out.

2. All the polls don't show Trump in the lead, in fact nearly all of them show him trailing both nationally and in battle ground states.

---

1. Yes.

2. Not really; the caveat is that the polls prior to around now are not mostly LV polls at the state level, and weeding out the garbage polls or not, he's running ahead of where he was in 2016 at this point in the cycle. The bottom line is all of the polls that have any credibility have shown the battlegrounds roughly within the margin of error now, and if he's doing as well with independents as the most recent ones have shown...and tied in MN, well, draw your own conclusions...

---

Credibility seems to be in the eye of the beholder. On this board credibility seems to be shorthand for "shows Trump doing well." The MN poll that showed a tie, for instance, was a Trafalgar poll where their own admission they adjust the totals to account for the "shy Trump voter" phenomena. In other words, they arbitrarily put their thumb on the scale to benefit Trump's totals. They could be geniuses that do so and are ahead of the curve at identifying large systematic polling biases, or they could have egg on their face on Nov 4th.

nortex97 said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

dBoy99 said:

---

This only came out because all the polls last week had shown Trump pulled ahead. They can't let that happen....

---

1. This metric has been published by real clear politics for months. It didn't just come out.

2. All the polls don't show Trump in the lead, in fact nearly all of them show him trailing both nationally and in battle ground states.

---

1. Yes.

2. Not really; the caveat is that the polls prior to around now are not mostly LV polls at the state level, and weeding out the garbage polls or not, he's running ahead of where he was in 2016 at this point in the cycle. The bottom line is all of the polls that have any credibility have shown the battlegrounds roughly within the margin of error now, and if he's doing as well with independents as the most recent ones have shown...and tied in MN, well, draw your own conclusions...

---

He's running ahead slightly in battleground states, but he's behind by 3 points in the National polls compared to 2016.

I wasn't asserting the accuracy of the polls, I was just pointing out the statements that " all the polls last week had shown Trump pulled ahead" was inaccurate.

Here's the polling average breakdown.

Oh good! A thread on how wrong polls are.

One reason that has been put forward that Trump is overperforming the 2016 swing state polls is that the polls themselves changed their methodolgies in swing states to better weight by education distribution among likely voters. In other words, they learned their lessons from 2016 and the polls should theoretically do a better job reflecting reality in swing states.

Malibu said:

---

One reason that has been put forward that Trump is overperforming the 2016 swing state polls is that the polls themselves changed their methodolgies in swing states to better weight by education distribution among likely voters. In other words, they learned their lessons from 2016 and the polls should theoretically do a better job reflecting reality in swing states.

---

It should also be noted that while Trump is currently doing better in battleground states than at this point in 2016, Biden still leads by 4.2 points. On Election Day in 2016 Hillary only had a 1.1 point lead over Trump in battleground states. He still has some ground to make up, and may not have something like the Comey announcement to help him this time.

Or maybe there are a lot of other people like me....intentionally answering the polling phone calls incorrectly

Malibu said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

dBoy99 said:

---

This only came out because all the polls last week had shown Trump pulled ahead. They can't let that happen....

---

1. This metric has been published by real clear politics for months. It didn't just come out.

2. All the polls don't show Trump in the lead, in fact nearly all of them show him trailing both nationally and in battle ground states.

---

1. Yes.

2. Not really; the caveat is that the polls prior to around now are not mostly LV polls at the state level, and weeding out the garbage polls or not, he's running ahead of where he was in 2016 at this point in the cycle. The bottom line is all of the polls that have any credibility have shown the battlegrounds roughly within the margin of error now, and if he's doing as well with independents as the most recent ones have shown...and tied in MN, well, draw your own conclusions...

---

Credibility seems to be in the eye of the beholder. On this board credibility seems to be shorthand for "shows Trump doing well." The MN poll that showed a tie, for instance, was a Trafalgar poll where their own admission they adjust the totals to account for the "shy Trump voter" phenomena. In other words, they arbitrarily put their thumb on the scale to benefit Trump's totals. They could be geniuses that do so and are ahead of the curve at identifying large systematic polling biases, or they could have egg on their face on Nov 4th.

---

Yes, credibility is always...a jury/trier of fact question.

Of course, Trafalgar was the most accurate pollster in 2016, and only ones to call Michigan correctly (they've also got Trump up in AZ), and given the violent hatred spewing from the left side of our spectrum to even passive Trump support/non-enthusiastic BLM endorsements, it would be essentially foolhardy, as Tom Bevan has stated to think a phone survey today would gather all of the Trump supporters true feelings/opinions/likely votes, but you're free to again think that is crazy talk/genius levels of analytics to propose that it is true.

SirLurksALot said:

---

Malibu said:

---

One reason that has been put forward that Trump is overperforming the 2016 swing state polls is that the polls themselves changed their methodolgies in swing states to better weight by education distribution among likely voters. In other words, they learned their lessons from 2016 and the polls should theoretically do a better job reflecting reality in swing states.

---

It should also be noted that while Trump is currently doing better in battleground states than at this point in 2016, Biden still leads by 4.2 points. On Election Day in 2016 Hillary only had a 1.1 point lead over Trump in battleground states. He still has some ground to make up, and may not have something like the Comey announcement to help him this time.

---

On the other hand, there could be some Russia-Comey-Mueller-McCabe related public announcements in Sept-Oct. Also, in 2016, the RNC convention was in July, so that 'bump' had already happened. (Trump briefly took the polling lead by 1.1 afterward). Finally, it's predicted that the economy is going to really start going quite well heading toward November, growing around 20 percent in Q3.

The Dem hope seems to be that America's middle looks to Portland/Minneapolis/Seattle/NYC as a road map of what we should do nationally. It's a pretty bold strategy, even for the CCP sympathizers.

SirLurksALot said:

---

Malibu said:

---

One reason that has been put forward that Trump is overperforming the 2016 swing state polls is that the polls themselves changed their methodolgies in swing states to better weight by education distribution among likely voters. In other words, they learned their lessons from 2016 and the polls should theoretically do a better job reflecting reality in swing states.

---

It should also be noted that while Trump is currently doing better in battleground states than at this point in 2016, Biden still leads by 4.2 points. On Election Day in 2016 Hillary only had a 1.1 point lead over Trump in battleground states. He still has some ground to make up, and may not have something like the Comey announcement to help him this time.

---

And people tuning in to find out Joe Biden is a vegetable.

nortex97 said:

---

Malibu said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

dBoy99 said:

---

This only came out because all the polls last week had shown Trump pulled ahead. They can't let that happen....

---

1. This metric has been published by real clear politics for months. It didn't just come out.

2. All the polls don't show Trump in the lead, in fact nearly all of them show him trailing both nationally and in battle ground states.

---

1. Yes.

2. Not really; the caveat is that the polls prior to around now are not mostly LV polls at the state level, and weeding out the garbage polls or not, he's running ahead of where he was in 2016 at this point in the cycle. The bottom line is all of the polls that have any credibility have shown the battlegrounds roughly within the margin of error now, and if he's doing as well with independents as the most recent ones have shown...and tied in MN, well, draw your own conclusions...

---

Credibility seems to be in the eye of the beholder. On this board credibility seems to be shorthand for "shows Trump doing well." The MN poll that showed a tie, for instance, was a Trafalgar poll where their own admission they adjust the totals to account for the "shy Trump voter" phenomena. In other words, they arbitrarily put their thumb on the scale to benefit Trump's totals. They could be geniuses that do so and are ahead of the curve at identifying large systematic polling biases, or they could have egg on their face on Nov 4th.

---

Yes, credibility is always...a jury/trier of fact question.

Of course, Trafalgar was the most accurate pollster in 2016, and only ones to call Michigan correctly (they've also got Trump up in AZ), and given the violent hatred spewing from the left side of our spectrum to even passive Trump support/non-enthusiastic BLM endorsements, it would be essentially foolhardy, as Tom Bevan has stated to think a phone survey today would gather all of the Trump supporters true feelings/opinions/likely votes, but you're free to again think that is crazy talk/genius levels of analytics to propose that it is true.

---

They also whiffed on 2018. It's entirely possible that Presidential elections are a different beast and they're much better suited to 2020 / Trump on the ballot than midterms. But they're not batting 1.000.

I personally look at all the data. I do bet with my money, and I think the most prudent bet today would be a Biden victory. That said, one is foolhardy to only look at 1 source of data at the exclusion of all others, or to project one's personal hopes and wishes onto the electorate.

If this election becomes about the economy and jobs then Biden is the underdog.

barnyard1996 said:

---

If this election becomes about the economy and jobs then Biden is the underdog.

---

It'll be about that, Corona, BLM vs Antifa, Twitter fatigue vs dementia, which candidate makes me seem cool to vote for them, and everything else.

The maxim "The best argument against Democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter" is probably true, and if you expect our citizens to all participate in a sober analysis of policy proposals to select the candidate they most rationally project will move the country most positively forward, you'll be disappointed.

Malibu said:

---

barnyard1996 said:

---

If this election becomes about the economy and jobs then Biden is the underdog.

---

It'll be about that, Corona, BLM vs Antifa, Twitter fatigue vs dementia, which candidate makes me seem cool to vote for them, and everything else.

The maxim "The best argument against Democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter" is probably true, and if you expect our citizens to all participate in a sober analysis of policy proposals to select the candidate they most rationally project will move the country most positively forward, you'll be disappointed.

---

My expectations of the average vote are pretty low, but I would apply your points towards voter enthusiasm and consider who holds the edge there.

Important .... because the RCP poll was so accurate in 2016.

benchmark said:

---

Important .... because the RCP pole was so accurate in 2016.

---

Very important. We can completely expect that pollsters and betters learned no lessons from 2016 and bet the farm on a yuge Trump win. Double max Trump Yes, Biden No in the main and make that sweet sweet profit.

Very Accurate

Malibu said:

---

benchmark said:

---

Important .... because the RCP pole was so accurate in 2016.

---

Very important. We can completely expect that pollsters and betters learned no lessons from 2016 and bet the farm on a yuge Trump win. Double max Trump Yes, Biden No in the main and make that sweet sweet profit.

---

Nate Silver et al still claim the polls were good, it was just a 20 percent likelihood event that just happened to come true. Just weird luck.

Certainly, most of the polls in the RCP average are still vastly over-sampling Dems vs. turnout in 2016. Yougov, and the furthest outliers showing Biden up 9 or so? Laughable.

Currently Biden is -140. That's not a good bet right now. If it was -110 I would say Biden is the better bet but at -140 it's not.

backintexas2013 said:

---

Currently Biden is -140. That's not a good bet right now. If it was -110 I would say Biden is the better bet but at -140 it's not.

---

https://bookies.com/news/presidential-election-odds-daily-tracker

benchmark said:

---

Important .... because the RCP poll was so accurate in 2016.

---

FOr starters, this is not a poll. It is betting odds.

agsalaska said:

---

FOr starters, this is not a poll. It is betting odds.

---