Let's talk polls and betting odds
- Thread starter leetp
- Start date
So about half way through it...
Come on man, this is a partisan hack video. You got a dude lecturing me about low early vote turnout for the Republicans with a bookshelf full of leftist books behind him. You only need to Google "Republican early voting turnout" to see that it is wildly better than it has ever been.
The other guy is talking about the Democrat party as "we". Do you really expect objective analysis here?
Wrong, Cade Otton just caught a touchdown so I just won my fantasy matchup.
Betting odds continue to show volatility, but all show a decided pro Trump trend
| 9:45 AM Mon | | 10:00 PM Mon | |
| Trump | Harris | Trump | Harris |
BetOnline | 59.8 | 43.7 | 60.8 | 42.7 |
Betfair | 58.2 | 42.0 | 59.5 | 41.0 |
Betsson | 58.8 | 45.5 | 60.6 | 43.5 |
Bovada | 58.3 | 45.5 | 60.0 | 43.5 |
Bwin | 59.2 | 45.5 | 61.5 | 41.7 |
Points Bet | 60.6 | 44.4 | 62.5 | 42.6 |
Polymarket | 58.7 | 41.4 | 58.9 | 41.1 |
Smarkets | 57.5 | 42.7 | 58.1 | 42.0 |
Average | 58.9 | 43.8 | 60.3 | 42.3 |
Guess we will find out soon
And the trump boys are using this stuff to protest the vote . Maybe you see this and just don't care? The betting thing you keep referring to is worthless for polling
Last edited:
Last poll drop. I combined this list with the earlier one. The ONLY places showing a Harris lead are Mich, Minnesota (by TWO! Yeah, okay, its Atlas 
) and National. I don't know that I have seen single poll that has Harris at +4 as NPR/PBS/Marist has her. Still, all of these are within MOE, so can't put too much stock into any supposed lead--but you'd clearly rather have Trump's number here, right?
) and National. I don't know that I have seen single poll that has Harris at +4 as NPR/PBS/Marist has her. Still, all of these are within MOE, so can't put too much stock into any supposed lead--but you'd clearly rather have Trump's number here, right?Race | Results | Trump | Harris | |
Pennsylvania | Atlas Intel | 50 | 49 | Trump+1 |
Pennsylvania | The Hill/Emerson | 49 | 48 | Trump+1 |
Michigan | Atlas Intel | 50 | 48 | Trump+2 |
Michigan | The Hill/Emerson | 48 | 50 | Harris+2 |
Wisconsin | Atlas Intel | 50 | 49 | Trump+1 |
Wisconsin | The Hill/Emerson | 49 | 49 | Tie |
Minnesota | Atlas Intel | 47 | 49 | Harris+2 |
North Carolina | Atlas Intel | 50 | 48 | Trump+2 |
North Carolina | The Hill/Emerson | 49 | 48 | Trump+1 |
North Carolina | East Carolina U. | 50 | 48 | Trump+2 |
Georgia | Atlas Intel | 50 | 48 | Trump+2 |
Georgia | The Hill/Emerson | 50 | 49 | Trump+1 |
Georgia | East Carolina U. | 50 | 49 | Trump+1 |
Nevada | Atlas Intel | 50 | 47 | Trump+3 |
Nevada | The Hill/Emerson | 48 | 48 | Tie |
Arizona | Atlas Intel | 52 | 47 | Trump+5 |
Arizona | The Hill/Emerson | 50 | 48 | Trump+2 |
Arizona | Trafalgar Group (R) | 49 | 47 | Trump+2 |
Iowa | InsiderAdvantage | 52 | 46 | Trump+6 |
National | Atlas Intel | 50 | 49 | Trump+1 |
National | TIPP | 48 | 48 | Tie |
National | Forbes/HarrisX | 49 | 51 | Harris+2 |
National | Ipsos | 48 | 50 | Harris+2 |
National | NPR/PBS/Marist | 47 | 51 | Harris+4 |
Harris will be declared the winner before most people wake up Wednesday morning.
Continued improvement for Trump in the betting markets:
| 10:00 PM Mon | | 8:15 AM Tue | |
| Trump | Harris | Trump | Harris |
BetOnline | 60.9 | 42.6 | 63.9 | 39.2 |
Betfair | 59.5 | 41.0 | 61.4 | 39.1 |
Betsson | 60.6 | 43.5 | 60.6 | 42.7 |
Bovada | 60.0 | 43.5 | 61.5 | 41.7 |
Bwin | 61.5 | 41.7 | 62.3 | 42.6 |
Points Bet | 62.5 | 42.6 | 64.5 | 40.8 |
Polymarket | 58.9 | 41.1 | 61.1 | 39.1 |
Smarkets | 58.1 | 42.0 | 60.2 | 39.7 |
Average | 60.3 | 42.2 | 61.9 | 40.6 |
Nate Silver in his Silver Bulletin Blog said it's a coin flip in his final model...like, literally... if you modeled a coin flip it would look the same...except that a true coin comes up head 50.5% of the time and his model has Kamala at 50.015%. He did firmly admonish that he is not picking Kamala based on 0.015%. He is, I guess, officially calling it 50/50. ***sad trombone***
In the end, it seems even the great Nate Silver is hedging (he said he wasn't, so of course than means he is, right?
ABC/538, who still use Nate Silver's method, but whom ABC/Disney parted ways with in 2023. went ahead and gave Harris the whole percentage point to call it 51/49...because why wouldn't they? They're ABC/Disney.
In the end, it seems even the great Nate Silver is hedging (he said he wasn't, so of course than means he is, right?
ABC/538, who still use Nate Silver's method, but whom ABC/Disney parted ways with in 2023. went ahead and gave Harris the whole percentage point to call it 51/49...because why wouldn't they? They're ABC/Disney.
Last edited:
It’s gong to take longer than that I think. Likely until Friday. But she will win.
Trump will claim falsely that he is the winner some time today in an effort to get his uneducated supporters to believe he was robbed.
Betting markets are not a good place to understand whats going to happen in an election. Just fyi. Even if Trump wins, this is still true due to the market capital effect on the odds.
Man you can’t call any poll you don’t like or that isn’t from a right wing org “leftist”. Marist is a highly respected pollster
Atlas Intel had Tim Kaine running for senate in Wisconsin lol. They’re a garbage pollster. Going to get an F rating after this electionLast poll drop. I combined this list with the earlier one. The ONLY places showing a Harris lead are Mich, Minnesota (by TWO! Yeah, okay, its Atlas
I just don't get all the "setting up to protest/contest the vote" stuff some of the fringe Dems are so stuck on....
Anyway, this is a polling and betting market thread. I post the latest polls and betting averages, and we talk about them. What else did you expect? Is there another pollster you'd like to see me add to the list or another sports book? I am seriously interested to know. I'll add them.
For the record, polls have historically picked the winner within its stated margin of error around 77% of the time. Betting markets have accurately picked the winners slightly less at around 76% of the time--but betting markets don't get to hedge with a margin for error. They are either right or wrong. So, no, neither guarantees success, but 3/4 odds are pretty good. More still, every key swing state is within MOE...the polls are effectively NOT picking a winner. As long as none of the swing states are a blow out, pollsters get to claim victory either way.
Ultimately, there is plenty of shade to throw around at anyone who dares issue a prognostication of the election results, but a 3:4 track record is not worthless.
Did they though? Did you pull their actual survey results or are you looking at a third party's representation of the results?
Anyway, they use a wildly different methodology, and methodology diversity is a good thing. We'll see soon enough if it turns out to be garbage.
But accurate.
It is a little sad. As an American this election is a lose lose. If Trump wins, we lose. If Trump loses, we will have to endure more violence from magas.
If you think I am making this all up in my head you would be wrong. Proud boy’s are already saying there will be Collette if trump loses. And you and I both know Trump will never admit defeat.
2014-2022* | | | | |
Pollster | Average Error | States Polled | Error Favored Republicans | Error Favored Democrats |
NBC News/WSJ/Marist | 5.2 | 33 | 26% | 74% |
Here's just 2020:
2020 | | | | |
Pollster | Average Error | States Polled | Error Favored Republicans | Error Favored Democrats |
NBC News/WSJ/Marist | 5.7 | 4 | 17% | 83% |
What trends stand out to you?
Even polls that tend to land within the MOE have more to tell. Errors favoring one side is a statistical anomaly in itself. The error distribution should be close to even.
I hear you, but they historically get it right about 75% of the time...so.... 🫣
And nobody's jumping up and down in celebration.... It's 60/40 and lines are moving constantly.
Still waiting for Hillary's full-throated concession from 2016..... Or Al Gore's from 2020...
They both conceded in speeches. Gore certified Dubya from his seat of power in the senate as VP. Trump demanded Pence not certify the election. Trump demanded people march on the capital to protest. Trump, to this day, denies losing. If he loses today, he will say it was stolen. The correlation you are trying to draw is lazy and bad.
I was hedging a little myself...
Quote from the article: posted below:
How accurate are betting odds at predicting elections?
Betting odds can influence people's expectations about the result of the 2024 election, but how accurate have they been in the past?
www.newsweek.com
In their announced results they had Tim Kaine as the senator from Wisconsin. They also had Trump winning the black vote in a midwest swing state by 30+ but barely winning the state. Their methodology is awful
Trump's behavior was ridiculous. I've said that. Repeatedly. Both Hilary and Gore contested their respective elections--with Hillary helping to sponsor the Russia collusion hoax. So let's not act like Trump is the only one out there contesting elections.
He's the only failed candidate to lead a march on the capital in protest of the election results. He's the only losting candidate to not concede.
Let's not act like you are even being remotely honest with the facts here.
But you also can't act like either of them were remotely similar to Trump and how he has denied his loss.
Hilary- complained that the FBI reporting cost her votes and was timed poorly. She never claimed any illegal voting or that the election wasn't secure. Conceded to him and was at the inauguration.
Gore- wanted ever vote counted, lol oked for every angle, Never claimed cheating or willful election stealing. Conceded and attended the Inauguration.
Did you dive down in the numbers? How much of that state's population is black and how much would it actually affect the vote? Could that be why they ignored the 30% anomaly because it wouldn't drive the results? Did they apply any tuning to anomalous results?
I'm not saying any of these things are true, I'm just saying there's always more to the data. Diving into a single poll can take days worth of work.
This is why I don't point to any single pole, but instead look for errors and biases to cancel one another out in a straight average of the polls....precisely what RCP does.
I will concede Trump was worse, but do you really think the Russia collusion hoax was a non-event? Trump's was a product of his own impetuousness, Hillary's was the product of a broader support across government institutions for a patently false narrative. They both ought to shake us to our core.
Last edited:
One additional point... Trump wasn't exonerated, they just didn't prosecute because he was a sitting President. He/his campaign staff absolutely tried to clollude with Russia,but failed laughably at it. They had a meeting in Trump tower to get dirt on their enemy.
Is said "full-throated". While they both eventually conceded, they each behaved as if they didn't...doing everything they could to undermine the incoming president to the detriment of the Republic. Yes, I'll say again, I find Trump's behavior on this score WORSE, but the Dems cornered this market long before Trump.
WHAT!!!! No, what they found was that Flynn was in communication with Russia during the transition--effectively engaging in non-sanctioned diplomacy. The Trump dossier was FALSE. The Trump-asking-Russia-to-hack-the-DNC narrative was false as well. Recall this is when Hillary was running her private email server, apparently exchanging information classified as high as TS/SCI and SAP. As this information was coming out, Hillary's camp destroyed the evidence. Later, it was also said that Russian actors had likely breached her mail server. Trump, in a stump speech mockingly implied that if the FBI could not find the missing emails, then maybe Russia would provide them, saying: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing, I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”
Last edited:
Trump literally requested Russia hack Hillary during a speech in front of millions.
Weather in PA good
DJT stock - up 2 days in a a row
Stock market higher
early voting numbers
It's all looking good for the don.
As of right now, wall street is expecting a Trump wins. Big sell off coming if it looks like Harris may win.
DJT stock - up 2 days in a a row
Stock market higher
early voting numbers
It's all looking good for the don.
As of right now, wall street is expecting a Trump wins. Big sell off coming if it looks like Harris may win.
Well, this should about seal it. Its going to be a tie!
They had a meeting in Trump tower with someone who was a Russian Agent who claimed to have dirt on Clinton.
That is completely factual and true and honestly plenty of reason to investigate.
The Russian stuff was overplayed and went way too far, but to act as if Trump was completely without any guilt is dishonest and against the report that Mueller released.
sigh...I literally copy and pasted the quote from the speech you are referring to.
