Forum Index
»
Political Discussion
2024 POTUS - polling only
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Anonymous
|
Isn't it also betting that's only payable using crypto? If I heard that right, that would add another layer of bias to the model. |
Anonymous
|
I’m not a gambler so I may have thought this through incorrectly. But if the odds of Harris winning are low, and you bet on her and she wins, then you get more money, right? What interest does a betting organization have in publishing accurate polls? Wouldn’t they want to mislead and have insiders win big? |
Anonymous
Anonymous
| Love that in this country, it all boils down to what some uninformed working class people in Pennsylvania believe |
Anonymous
Anonymous
It probably actually boils down to how many registered Democrats the GOP can throw off the voter rolls. |
Anonymous
Anonymous
| In reality I wonder what this means for polling. Does that mean that Harris is blowing Trump out of the water in multiple states but the GOP really doesn’t want to see it (all the better for legal shenanigans post November, “the polls said!”) or what? |
Anonymous
Polls are as fine as they’ve always been, the polling aggregators, particularly Silver and RCP, are subjective AF. |
Anonymous
A profit for the betting organization can be almost 100% certain if the organization accurately calculates the odds, leading to a balance of bets for Harris and bets for Trump. Ideally, the betting organization will make money regardless of who is elected. But without fairly-assessed odds, the betting will be unbalanced, and the gambling institution could therefore be at financial risk depending on who wins and who loses. |
Anonymous
I think it means that Harris is up (but likely within or close to the margin of error) in the high quality swing state polls with less/little bias (vs Rasmussen and 2 HS kids doing a politics project, which both amount to the same thing). And if you had to guess a winner based on information available today, Harris wins. I do think *high quality* *unbiased* pollsters learned from the mistakes of 2016. And are better. But polling is a statistically weighted guess, not a crystal ball. I also think the great pollsters, fairly or not, got beaten up, after 2016 and have a small red bias as a result. If the err, they don’t want it to be on the side of missing a red wave. That said, Trump was bright, shiny and new in 2016 and polling models didn’t capture him well. 8 years later, we know exactly who will vote for him and where. And there is nothing new or special that polling should miss. If polling misses anything, it will be the size of the Dobbs wave. I also think debates only help Harris. You can call her stupid all you want. She is, in fact, very articulate. And Trump is..not. Also, the Vance-Walz debate only helps Harris because Trump is so old. And Vance is such a train wreck/ joke, I think it draws a large audience. And, at some point, Rs have to own the fact that Trump isn’t immortal, and if Trump doesn’t make it 4 years, Vance is who we are stuck with. And Vance is incredibly weird, off putting, unlikable, etc. So, I like Harris’s headwinds. But, in a 65% vs 35% chance of winning way. Which is good. But not rest on your laurels or stop pushing good. After the HRC had a 70% chance of winning, what went wrong thing, all I could do was think was nothing— race was within the margin of error in the 3 states that decided the results. The polls were okay. People just can’t read polls. Plus, would I get on a plane with a 30% chance of crashing? Of course not. So, not taking a victory lap at, say, a 65% chance of winning/ 35% chance of crashing. Every door knocked on. Every voter registered. Leave it all on the field and celebrate (hopefully) after Trump loses his 9,000th lawsuit contesting the election January. |