State of the Race: 63 Days Left

[vcczar 1,224]

vcczar @Reagan04 @Actinguy @Patine @Conservative Elector 2 @TheMiddlePolitical @WVProgressive @SilentLiberty @pilight @admin_270 @Hestia11 @Herbert Hoover @mlcorcoran @Leuser @upandaway @jvikings1 @Rodja @Edouard @jnewt @Nentomat @Kingthero @Sunnymentoaddict @RFK/JFKfan @Mr.Blood @Zenobiyl @Wiw @MBDemSoc @ThePotatoWalrus @Alxeu @Allyn @Cenzonico @CentristGuy @Ishan @billay @wolves @RI Democrat @lizarraba @lizphairphreak @TheLiberalKitten @MysteryKnight @avatarmushi @servo75

As usual, Blue trends for Biden and Red trends for Trump. 

As expected, the race has tightened somewhat as we officially enter the General Election. Biden still is +8, however. The map somewhat revers back to pre-bounce Biden, but you can tell from the "week ago" column that it didn't completely revert it. 

On the map, GA flips back to Red. MO flips to safe Red (huge poll for Trump here). 

Trump and Clinton were tied in the polls this time last year. 

Categories	63	A Week Ago	100 Days Left
Gen Avg	Biden 8.0 (-1.1)	Biden -0.2	Biden 0
AZ avg	Biden 3.8 (-0.5)	Biden +0.1	Biden +0.9
FL avg	Biden 5.2 (-0.4)	Biden +0.1	Biden -2.4
GA avg	Trump 0.7 (+0.3)	Trump -0.1	Trump -0.6
IA avg	Trump 1.3 (+0.3)	Trump -0.1	Trump +1.0
MI Avg	Biden 6.9 (-0.3)	Biden -0.7	Biden -0.5
MN avg	Biden 5.3 (-0.4)	Biden +0.2	Biden -5.8
MO avg	Trump 7.0 (+2.1)	Trump +2.4	Trump +1.5
NV avg	Biden +7.3 (-0.6)	Biden -0.3	Biden +0.6
NH Avg	Biden +8.7 (-0.4)	Biden +0.2	Biden +2.2
NC avg	Biden +1.5 (-0.3)	Biden +0.1	Biden -0.7
OH avg	Trump +0.6 (+0.3)	Trump -0.1	Trump +2.7
PA Avg	Biden 5.4 (-0.3)	Biden -0.1	Biden -1.4
SC avg	Trump 6.2 (+0.2)	Trump -0.1	Trump -0.4
TX avg	Trump 1.4 (+0.4)	Trump -0.4	Trump 1.4
WI Avg	Biden 5.9 (-0.3)	Biden +0.1	Biden -1.2
Trump Approval	42.1 (-0.1)	-0.1	1.9
Trump Disapproval	54.1 (+0.1)	-0.1	-1.6
Favorability	Biden 13.2 (0)	Biden 0	Biden +1.5
Direction of the Country		-42.8 (+1.2)	-45.5
Generic Ballot		Dem 6.0 (-0.6)	Democrats +8.6
Betting Markets	Biden 51.1 (-1.7)	Biden -3.3	Biden -9.6
Clinton vs. Trump 2016 GE	0
Biden vs Clinton GE Polls	8

 

[admin_270 834]

Thought this RCP betting odds graph is interesting.

The betting markets are way tighter than the polls. Biden's advantage here is basically back to what it was in early June.

[admin_270 834]

If Trump flips the 4 light blue on the map, it's 269-269. 

Is there a way to bet on that outcome? 

[Actinguy 862]

30 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Thought this RCP betting odds graph is interesting.

The betting markets are way tighter than the polls. Biden's advantage here is basically back to what it was in early June.

As a bettor myself, don't listen to us.  We are idiots.  ;c)

[vcczar 1,224]

31 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Thought this RCP betting odds graph is interesting.

The betting markets are way tighter than the polls. Biden's advantage here is basically back to what it was in early June.

I was reading something Nate Silver was saying about how unreliable or the betting market was this election. I didn’t read the whole tweet string because I’m not interested in betting. I only include the betting in the graph for anyone interested in that. 

[admin_270 834]

7 minutes ago, vcczar said:

about how unreliable or the betting market was this election

Interested in reading that.

[vcczar 1,224]

1 hour ago, admin_270 said:

Interested in reading that.

It must have been someone other than Silver, because all I'm finding now is just one comment. He might have deleted the thread. 

This is basically what was said, but it was longer and with more specifics:

"Political betting markets have become so dumb as to perhaps be a contrarian indicator at this point."

[admin_270 834]

26 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Political betting markets have become so dumb as to perhaps be a contrarian indicator at this point

I think sometimes they are a leading indicator vis a vis polls, other times (and usually) a lagging indicator. However, my guess is they're more responsive to poll trajectory and other non-poll factors that might be relevant. So caveat emptor, for sure. But caveat emptor for paying too much attention to current polls, listening to 'experts' in election prediction (including Silver), and so on.

Regardless, if they continue in this direction much longer (and of course they might not - they could change on a dime and never get back to being close), it will be the first time since Biden basically sewed up the Dem nomination that they favour Trump. There is *something* important in that, although echoing Actingguy, I wouldn't put too much into it.

 

[vcczar 1,224]

28 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

I think sometimes they are a leading indicator vis a vis polls, other times (and usually) a lagging indicator. However, my guess is they're more responsive to poll trajectory and other non-poll factors that might be relevant. So caveat emptor, for sure. But caveat emptor for paying too much attention to current polls, listening to 'experts' in election prediction (including Silver), and so on.

Regardless, if they continue in this direction much longer (and of course they might not - they could change on a dime and never get back to being close), it will be the first time since Biden basically sewed up the Dem nomination that they favour Trump. There is *something* important in that, although echoing Actingguy, I wouldn't put too much into it.

 

I’m not totally sure how betting markets work. Would it be in a betting markets interest to contrive a tight betting race to get more bets? 

This actually leads me to something else I read on Twitter by one of many pundits/analysts I follow. This person, I forget whom, stated that pundits/analysts are talking of a tightening election and a predicted close election mainly because it keeps them relevant. If they were to say, Biden is winning at a landslide right now and the undecideds are so low to make it improbable that Trump can get close to coming back, then people would stop keeping up with their posts and articles. 

[admin_270 834]

16 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I’m not totally sure how betting markets work. Would it be in a betting markets interest to contrive a tight betting race to get more bets? 

This actually leads me to something else I read on Twitter by one of many pundits/analysts I follow. This person, I forget whom, stated that pundits/analysts are talking of a tightening election and a predicted close election mainly because it keeps them relevant. If they were to say, Biden is winning at a landslide right now and the undecideds are so low to make it improbable that Trump can get close to coming back, then people would stop keeping up with their posts and articles. 

I believe most of these markets work like a stock market. So it is based on who is willing to buy-sell at a certain price. So prices reflect sentiment among the users of the betting market. Happy to be corrected if wrong.

"pundits/analysts are talking of a tightening election and a predicted close election mainly because it keeps them relevant"

Ya, definitely some of this.

[billay 163]

Emerson has it 49-47 Biden.

 

No wonder he came out of his basement and finally denounced the rioters. 

[vcczar 1,224]

1 hour ago, admin_270 said:

I believe most of these markets work like a stock market. So it is based on who is willing to buy-sell at a certain price. So prices reflect sentiment among the users of the betting market. Happy to be corrected if wrong.

"pundits/analysts are talking of a tightening election and a predicted close election mainly because it keeps them relevant"

Ya, definitely some of this.

That might be correct then since polls show that most voters think Trump will win the election even though Biden is landsliding him right now. Most voters must have 2016 PTSD like @Actinguyhas, and which I have to a smaller degree. That might account for why the betting markets show a tighter race than the pundits do.

[billay 163]

1 minute ago, vcczar said:

That might be correct then since polls show that most voters think Trump will win the election even though Biden is landsliding him right now. Most voters must have 2016 PTSD like @Actinguyhas, and which I have to a smaller degree. That might account for why the betting markets show a tighter race than the pundits do.

 Hes not landsliding him hes only open 2 per Emerson and has an average lead in battleground states of 2.7 lol you are a Biden bot.

[admin_270 834]

10 minutes ago, vcczar said:

even though Biden is landsliding him right now

What's relevant is the EC, not national polls, though. So perhaps it's part PTSD (Post Trump Stress Disorder), but perhaps it's also people looking at how the EC map could change relatively quickly, as it did in 2016?

[vcczar 1,224]

1 minute ago, admin_270 said:

What's relevant is the EC, not national polls, though. So perhaps it's part PTSD (Post Trump Stress Disorder), but perhaps it's also people looking at how the EC map could change relatively quickly, as it did in 2016?

Here's some interesting figures I was looking at as you posted this. Last time Trump led in the following battleground states in the average poll vs Biden:

• AZ: March 7
• FL: April 3
• MI: Never
• MN: Never
• NV: Never
• NH: Never
• NC: Never
• PA: Never
• WI: April 14

I think it will be difficult for Trump to switch states that have been mostly opposed to him for the entire election. Note: NC has been close several time, but the other Nevers have been clear Biden. Basically, the EC poll would also look bad for Trump. This wouldn't be so much the case if it wasn't believed that undecideds are low for this election. People have mostly made up their minds. I also doubt anyone jumps from Trump-to-Biden or vice versa that hasn't done so already. 

In regards to national, Trump's best is -3.4. By this point in 2016, Trump had a few days in which he was averaging a lead over Clinton. I'm also wondering at what point does a national poll reflecting how battleground states will vote? For instance, how likely is it that Biden would win the PV by 8% (how he's polling now) and then not get 270 EVs. That seems unlikely, since a popular or unpopular candidate generally is also relatively so in the battleground states.

[admin_270 834]

21 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I think it will be difficult for Trump to switch states that have been mostly opposed to him for the entire election

Perhaps. Here's the RCP battleground graph.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/elections/trump-vs-biden-top-battleground-states/

You can see that the gap has narrowed significantly since July 1st. Biden +5.5 -> Biden +2.7 as of August 31st.

[vcczar 1,224]

12 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Perhaps. Here's the RCP battleground graph.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/elections/trump-vs-biden-top-battleground-states/

You can see that the gap has narrowed significantly since July 1st. Biden +5.5 -> Biden +2.7 as of August 31st.

That's probably almost all FL and OH, which are the only BG states Biden has seen any significant drop. 

[admin_270 834]

21 minutes ago, vcczar said:

That's probably almost all FL and OH, which are the only BG states Biden has seen any significant drop. 

No. All battleground states they are including (WI, NC, FL, PA, MI, AZ) have narrowed significantly in that time frame.

[Actinguy 862]

5 hours ago, admin_270 said:

I think sometimes they are a leading indicator vis a vis polls, other times (and usually) a lagging indicator. However, my guess is they're more responsive to poll trajectory and other non-poll factors that might be relevant. So caveat emptor, for sure. But caveat emptor for paying too much attention to current polls, listening to 'experts' in election prediction (including Silver), and so on.

Regardless, if they continue in this direction much longer (and of course they might not - they could change on a dime and never get back to being close), it will be the first time since Biden basically sewed up the Dem nomination that they favour Trump. There is *something* important in that, although echoing Actingguy, I wouldn't put too much into it.

 

 

5 hours ago, vcczar said:

I’m not totally sure how betting markets work. Would it be in a betting markets interest to contrive a tight betting race to get more bets? 

This actually leads me to something else I read on Twitter by one of many pundits/analysts I follow. This person, I forget whom, stated that pundits/analysts are talking of a tightening election and a predicted close election mainly because it keeps them relevant. If they were to say, Biden is winning at a landslide right now and the undecideds are so low to make it improbable that Trump can get close to coming back, then people would stop keeping up with their posts and articles. 

 

3 hours ago, vcczar said:

That might be correct then since polls show that most voters think Trump will win the election even though Biden is landsliding him right now. Most voters must have 2016 PTSD like @Actinguyhas, and which I have to a smaller degree. That might account for why the betting markets show a tighter race than the pundits do.

 

5 hours ago, admin_270 said:

I believe most of these markets work like a stock market. So it is based on who is willing to buy-sell at a certain price. So prices reflect sentiment among the users of the betting market. Happy to be corrected if wrong.

"pundits/analysts are talking of a tightening election and a predicted close election mainly because it keeps them relevant"

Ya, definitely some of this.

Yeah, the one I use at least (Predictit) is indeed like a stock market, where buy and sell have to match.  Check out the comments on those sites (you don't have to register/put money in) and you'll see it's the same cesspool you can find anywhere else, including here. ;c)  Ton of people saying "This poll says this!"  "That insider tweeted that!"  Etc.  

I was active on there the day Kamala was announced as VP.  I was specifically watching the VP market.  It had largely settled to 50/50 between Kamala and Rice.  Suddenly it was 80/20 Kamala.  Everyone claimed Kamala had been notified even though that wasn't official anywhere.  Then others said it was just some jackass trying to run up the price so he could sell (you don't have to wait for the VP to be announced, you can sell your bet at any price to any willing buyer at any time), and sure enough the market plummeted to like 30/70 Kamala.  I was sitting happy with my Rice shares, but thought maybe Kamala was underpriced now, and was ready to make the switch...but I was too late on the trigger.  Kamala shot right back up to 100 and she was officially announced two seconds later.

All of this happened in the course of about 40 minutes.  It can be crazy in there sometimes.  ;c)

But the point is it's all just idiots on there trying to trick other idiots and make a quick buck.

In 2016, the betting HEAVILY favored Clinton just like everywhere else did.  Those few who took a flyer on Trump got paaaaaaid.

 

[wolves 29]

3 hours ago, vcczar said:

That's probably almost all FL and OH, which are the only BG states Biden has seen any significant drop. 

According to RCP, Michigan and Wisconsin are closer than Florida is. I am not surprised. Florida has a large pensioner population. Ages 60+ have turned against Trump due to COVID.

[ThePotatoWalrus 471]

9 hours ago, admin_270 said:

Thought this RCP betting odds graph is interesting.

The betting markets are way tighter than the polls. Biden's advantage here is basically back to what it was in early June.

Might throw a couple hundred at Biden now that his odds tanked again. If he wins I win, if Trump wins I'll save that much in taxes at least anyways. Win win. Just like how I was gonna take out a fatass student loan if Bernie won and short firearms stock bc he'd pay it off if it tanked.

[ThePotatoWalrus 471]

7 hours ago, admin_270 said:

I think sometimes they are a leading indicator vis a vis polls, other times (and usually) a lagging indicator. However, my guess is they're more responsive to poll trajectory and other non-poll factors that might be relevant. So caveat emptor, for sure. But caveat emptor for paying too much attention to current polls, listening to 'experts' in election prediction (including Silver), and so on.

Regardless, if they continue in this direction much longer (and of course they might not - they could change on a dime and never get back to being close), it will be the first time since Biden basically sewed up the Dem nomination that they favour Trump. There is *something* important in that, although echoing Actingguy, I wouldn't put too much into it.

 

I actually use FiveThirtyEight shit a lot as a sports better. If FiveThirtyEight gives a win chance of like 66% for a team and the odds are like 58% or something I'll take them. I'm up about a hundred bucks, but I also put $700 on Cerrone in his fight against McGregor so I would be up $800 if I didn't do that dumbass bet.

[ThePotatoWalrus 471]

6 hours ago, admin_270 said:

I believe most of these markets work like a stock market. So it is based on who is willing to buy-sell at a certain price. So prices reflect sentiment among the users of the betting market. Happy to be corrected if wrong.

"pundits/analysts are talking of a tightening election and a predicted close election mainly because it keeps them relevant"

Ya, definitely some of this.

This is basically how it works, yes, very accurate. And instead of having a 'spread' like in stock markets, there's a 'rake'

[billay 163]

8 minutes ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

I actually use FiveThirtyEight shit a lot as a sports better. If FiveThirtyEight gives a win chance of like 66% for a team and the odds are like 58% or something I'll take them. I'm up about a hundred bucks, but I also put $700 on Cerrone in his fight against McGregor so I would be up $800 if I didn't do that dumbass bet.

Why on earth did you make that bet lol

[ThePotatoWalrus 471]

14 minutes ago, billay said:

Why on earth did you make that bet lol

Because I would have made like 3 grand if he won. But yeah totally dumb in hindsight, but Cerrone is a great fighter with a good record and McGregor didn't fight for a while so at the time it seemed like a high risk high reward balance.