2024 Pre-Election Political Polls | POLL - Trump would have had 7 point lead over Biden

[gtyellowjacket]

You are aware that China and Russia are the US's enemy even if not Trump's ,aren't you? They have both proven that they will do anything to disrupt our country. Are you really so gullible as to think the Irish would actually give a shit where the money comes from? Are you really this gullible or do you just play that role here?

I'm making the argument that the Irish betting market isn't the place to put your resources if you are hoping to manipulate the US electorate. And they are lining up with the US betting markets.

 

[gtyellowjacket]

"In terms of the 2024 election odds, they, like the polls, are effectively predicting a toss up, which only underscores that we are in for a close election."

Not even your own quoted article aligns with your position on this election

My position is at those betting markets have been more accurate than polls and they aren't looking so great for Kamala right now.

 

[aGDevil2k]

My position is at those betting markets have been more accurate than polls and they aren't looking so great for Kamala right now.

So the greatest experts in the world say it's a toss up and slight lean to her at best.... And you think those things are the real experts?

 

[finesse]

I'm making the argument that the Irish betting market isn't the place to put your resources if you are hoping to manipulate the US electorate. And they are lining up with the US betting markets.

How much do you think that betting there costs split between superpowers? The price of a single fighter plane?

Biggest point of failure with your argument is that you're comparing it to a market we know has been manipulated. For the two of those to line up suggests almost exactly the opposite of what you are arguing.

 

[gtyellowjacket]

So the greatest experts in the world say it's a toss up and slight lean to her at best.... And you think those things are the real experts?

No. I'm saying the greatest experts in the world favor Trump. There are plenty of things that could prevent a Trump win including the betting markets changing, the bettors being wrong, etc. But right now the betting markets favor Trump.

But what I wouldn't do is simply dismiss the results outright because they don't line up with what I hope is the case. It's a thread discussing polls and I'm simply pointing out that betting markets are typically better than polls but I'd also say that they're not perfect.

 

[gtyellowjacket]

How much do you think that betting there costs split between superpowers? The price of a single fighter plane?

Biggest point of failure with your argument is that you're comparing it the a market we know has been manipulated. For the two of those to line up suggests almost exactly the opposite of what you are arguing.

Sure. The Russians and the Chinese could possibly spend enough money to manipulate the worldwide betting markets but is that really realistic? Other than some hardcore political dorks, who even looks at the Serbian betting market on the US presidential election? No one. Why would Russia or China spend their money to do that If their goal is to manipulate the US electorate to vote for Trump or at least stay home on election Day?

So in my opinion it's unlikely that they would spend that money and if they didn't spend that money and yet the overseas betting markets still favor Trump, then there's probably some truth to those markets.

 

[finesse]

Not a belts and suspenders guy, huh. I'm saying it's a negligible investment for them to move enough money into this to help push the line in the way the US line has already gone. That means that all lot of people are going to follow what looks like the smart money without knowing a damned thing about the actual situation. I doubt that takes much money and scarcely any effort. If they didn't, the question is "Why didn't they?" instead of" Why would they?'. It's a cheap easy way to undermine us.

To personify this, you got to remember what that cheap shot at every opportunity did did to Hillary's reputation and ,ultimately, to her as a person.

 

[superrific]

I’ll say it again. 2022 was a much worse position for Democrats. And they out performed every poll. Everyone was expecting a red wave that didn’t happen.

You have to pay attention to early voting and campaign contributions. Signs point to a record turnout, which favors Democrats. We show up, we win.

1. Dems didn't outperform polls, to my knowledge. They outperformed expectations. But it doesn't really matter. 2022 is a different polling universe.
2. A record turnout doesn't necessarily favor Dems. It used to favor Dems, back when the Pubs had relatively more support from affluent voters who are high propensity voters. Thus could Dems only win by turning out lower propensity voters. But now the high propensity voters are Dems. The lower propensity voters tend to support Trump, for obvious reasons.

I'm not saying that a record turnout will hurt Dems or won't help them. I don't know about that. But the days of "record turnout always helps Dems" are over, at least for now.

 

[aGDevil2k]

There are plenty of things that could prevent a Trump win including the betting markets changing, the bettors being wrong, etc

How the hell does any of that PREVENT a trump win?

Good grief do you read what you write? Go play with some crypto and doom scroll Twitter

 

[theel4life]

Are you doing this annoying manic thing you sometimes do?

 

[aGDevil2k]

1. Dems didn't outperform polls, to my knowledge. They outperformed expectations. But it doesn't really matter. 2022 is a different polling universe.
2. A record turnout doesn't necessarily favor Dems. It used to favor Dems, back when the Pubs had relatively more support from affluent voters who are high propensity voters. Thus could Dems only win by turning out lower propensity voters. But now the high propensity voters are Dems. The lower propensity voters tend to support Trump, for obvious reasons.

I'm not saying that a record turnout will hurt Dems or won't help them. I don't know about that. But the days of "record turnout always helps Dems" are over, at least for now.

You think it's over just for now. That's all based on the polls of voter information.

And totally disagree on 22. Red wave polls are a term because of that

 

[theel4life]

Take a deep breath. Go outside and water the dog or walk the yard.

 

[Icky Mettle]

1. Dems didn't outperform polls, to my knowledge. They outperformed expectations. But it doesn't really matter. 2022 is a different polling universe.
2. A record turnout doesn't necessarily favor Dems. It used to favor Dems, back when the Pubs had relatively more support from affluent voters who are high propensity voters. Thus could Dems only win by turning out lower propensity voters. But now the high propensity voters are Dems. The lower propensity voters tend to support Trump, for obvious reasons.

I'm not saying that a record turnout will hurt Dems or won't help them. I don't know about that. But the days of "record turnout always helps Dems" are over, at least for now.

#2 is a good point. I was certainly shocked when Trump won the 2016 election, and I was at least equally as shocked when he managed to get more votes in 2020 than he did in 2016. While it would make no sense to me that he could possibly get more votes in 2024 than he did in 2020, perhaps I should no longer be shocked.

 

[superrific]

That sounds like a little bit of hopium to me. Its the US presidential election. There are enough people following it to provide the accuracy.

And there's money to be made. If those markets were manipulated, a bettor would be getting some very good odds to bet for Harris.

1. The total amount of money bet on those sites is something like $2B. That's nothing. It's not nearly enough liquidity to capture the wisdom of crowds.
2. Do you understand hedging? I doubt it, so I will explain. People sometimes buy securities to protect against unfavorable outcomes, regardless of their probability.

For instance, I've thought about trying to get into sports betting in order to bet against Carolina. Why? Because that way, if Carolina loses, I will be sad but at least I will make some money. And if I lose the bet because Carolina wins, that's fine. It would be like paying $100 to guarantee a Carolina victory. For most basketball games, that would be worth it for me.

Anyway, people are almost certainly using these betting sites to hedge. I would if it were legal in the US.

3. You are familiar with DJT,. yes? The stock markets have become incredibly irrational (game stop is another example). Their predictive power, especially for meme stocks, is considerably less than in years past. The betting markets have a total cap less than DJT. If you think DJT is priced correctly, then your position on the betting markets would be consistent. If, however, you admit that DJT is a vastly overvalued stock, then there's no reason to think prediction markets are any better.

4. One of the sites has an $850 position limit. While that discourages large bets from moving the market, it also dramatically caps the upside for anyone to profit from those Kamala odds. In other words, the position limit impedes price discovery by eliminating the mechanism by which price discovery can proceed. The whole reason that the stock market "works" as a predictor is that the pool of capital is unlimited. Someone who makes a big bet can make a bigger bet if the stock continues to trend away from that trader's predictions. That's not so for these markets.

5. Again, there is no substitute for understanding. If you don't know how any of this stuff works -- including the wisdom of crowds theory -- then you probably should sit this out. But you wouldn't be you if you let your ignorance get in the way of your posting.

 

[aGDevil2k]

#2 is a good point. I was certainly shocked when Trump won the 2016 election, and I was at least equally as shocked when he managed to get more votes in 2020 than he did in 2016. While it would make no sense to me that he could possibly get more votes in 2024 than he did in 2020, perhaps I should no longer be shocked.

I think he will get more votes. I think he does better in some blue states... Because also folks there the votes don't really matter... Not as much gravity.

I still think he's in trouble in Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada and NC

 

[aGDevil2k]

The crowd size phenomenon is interesting. That's what I ignorantly discounted in 2016.

If it still has merit, why are his crowds so sparse (Pitt yesterday) where hers are more packed? We just don't know but it's interesting.

And the small dollar donations used to be a bigger GOP thing and now she's crushing that.

 

[superrific]

You think it's over just for now. That's all based on the polls of voter information.

And totally disagree on 22. Red wave polls are a term because of that

It's not only based on polls of voter information. It's also based on history. The constituencies that were most likely to vote now support Dems in great numbers. If turnout is low in this election, and turnout patterns stay the same, the Dems would win.

I haven't actually looked at the 22 polling. I've read in multiple places that the 22 polls were quite good. Normally I look to the source when possible, but I haven't cared enough to do it about that. I also know that the forecast models, by the end, predicted a tight house race and I think they were predicting the Dems to hold the Senate or at least to have very good odds to hold the Senate.

 

[aGDevil2k]

My point is demographics that don't vote as much are not necessarily Trump favorable. So maybe he is better with Black voters, he still gets crushed. And Black turnout is usually very very poor

 

[superrific]

The crowd size phenomenon is interesting. That's what I ignorantly discounted in 2016.

If it still has merit, why are his crowds so sparse (Pitt yesterday) where hers are more packed? We just don't know but it's interesting.

And the small dollar donations used to be a bigger GOP thing and now she's crushing that.

It wasn't ignorant. There was no recent evidence of crowd sizes as having a strong predictive role. And let's be honest, we still don't know that. The 2016 election was turned on its head by an October surprise (Comey) and vote suppression efforts (to a lesser extent). Trump was getting huge crowds when the polls said he was losing badly.

 

[aGDevil2k]

It wasn't ignorant. There was no recent evidence of crowd sizes as having a strong predictive role. And let's be honest, we still don't know that. The 2016 election was turned on its head by an October surprise (Comey) and vote suppression efforts (to a lesser extent). Trump was getting huge crowds when the polls said he was losing badly.

But in short they are indicative of enthusiasm. And that is a metric that can usually give some doubt that polls could be slightly off to one side. That's one thing she's got more of this cycle

All in all, polls could well just be in more trouble than they even were in 2020 and 16.

Phone Spam detection and flagging is way better for calls and texts in just 4 years and definitely 8. I have to imagine people engaging in phone calls is down. Texts from random #s way down and responding to unknown email in the phishing day and age? Absolutely plummeted. That's one I know from work and it's way way way worse to get engagement via email than 4 years ago