- Messages
- 307
I'm from Richmond County bro. I think you're just trying to get triggered over something. I know what I see there and it's not tolerance.
Welcome to our community
Be apart of something great, join today!
2024 Pre-Election Political Polls | POLL - Trump would have had 7 point lead over Biden
- Thread starter nycfan
- Start date
- Replies: 6K
- Views: 183K
- Politics
I'm from Richmond County bro. I think you're just trying to get triggered over something. I know what I see there and it's not tolerance.
superrific
Legend of ZZL
- Messages
- 8,513
Are you guys even arguing about anything? It is unquestionably correct that people in rural areas, especially in the south, are far more likely to be intolerant of different religions, ethnicities, genders, etc. than people in urban areas. This point is so well established that it's incontrovertible, even if it wasn't obvious to everyone who looks.
But at the same time, not all people in rural areas are intolerant. If a county has 50K people and 20% of them are tolerant, that's still 10K tolerant people and if that county is like other places in the U.S., the tolerant people are more likely to socialize with other tolerant people, and probably live near them too. There are few places in the U.S. where you couldn't have a liberal friend circle if you really want one. That doesn't change the fact that rural voters see themselves as the "real Americans" and that their old-fashioned ways are somehow sacrosanct and the way the world ought to be.
gtyellowjacket
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 2,034
Yep. Completely refusing to provide any evidence to an easily researchable and pretty well established claim.
No. In other words, let me Google that for you.
superrific
Legend of ZZL
- Messages
- 8,513
So here's the thing. You and I can't imagine that. In related news, we would never consider voting for Trump.
I mean, I say the same thing quite often. "I can't imagine that doing a photo op at McD is going to improve his standing with voters." So I'm not chiding you. It's how we operate as humans. We take our own intuitions and perspectives; if we are open-minded and empathetic, we try to inform those perspectives with the thought processes of other people to understand how they think and feel, and then we make our decisions. But always, we can only really know our own minds. Everything else is an attempt at reconstruction, or perhaps modeling if you'd like to think along those terms.
The last few years of American politics has taught me that I just don't understand Trump voters at all. I cannot understand what goes on in their minds. The things that should make them doubt their fealty -- you know, things like Trump being indicted and convicted and begging the Supreme Court for immunity to his non-stop firehose of lies -- turn out to strengthen their devotion to that cause. Can you imagine wanting to vote for your guy even more because he was indicted under RICO to steal the election?
So while I still sometimes predict whether a Trump stunt will end up helping Trump, the reality is that liberals are bad prognosticators of MAGA sentiment.
Paine
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 2,238
Yep, you got me.
superrific
Legend of ZZL
- Messages
- 8,513
Well, I've googled plenty and also read some things that aren't popping off google. Because, you know, there are other sources of information even if you don't use them.
Political prediction markets were pretty good in the late 20th century. But they were also obscure, and those two qualities were related. Back when the only people betting on markets were political nerds and data journalists, they did a pretty good job of incorporating and processing the opinions of those knowledgeable people. And they had pretty good predictions.
But the problem is that the prediction market tends to reflect the average opinion of the bettors, not the marginal opinion. That's a hugely important difference. Stock markets reflect the marginal opinion; someone truly convinced that a stock is undervalued can keep buying more. That's not true of political markets, which often have a bet limit, and in the case of Polymarket, weird access rules. And if the markets reflect average opinion instead of marginal opinion, then basically they are just aggregators of the opinions of the people who take the trouble to bet with them. So that makes them incredibly susceptible to bias.
So as prediction markets have become more widely known, the average trader isn't a politics nerd, but a partisan. And since Pubs use these tools way more than Dems right now, they will give biased results. The betting markets were awful in 2022.
Comparing markets to polls is not the right way to do it. You would want to compare markets to forecasts, which aren't at all the same as polls (polls are the basis for forecasts). And my understanding is that forecasts beat polls quite handily, for the reasons cited above (and others).
Here are two links.
Are betting markets the best way to predict an election?
Prediction markets have closely tracked Biden’s fate, but they have a long way to go as reliable indicators.
www.vox.com
CallMeTyler
Esteemed Member
- Messages
- 603
You've spent more time replying to requests asking for a single link than just actually providing one. Why even bother making a claim without showing your work?
I mean we get the laziness and lack of transparency, but still, put forth a little effort.
I agree that the rationales of MAGA voters are unknowable. However, I suspect that many truly "undecided voters" at this point are likely electoral cicadas who pay little attention to politics until the month before a presidential election. Opining on the length and circumference of Arnold's love club is unlikely to sway most of these once-every-four-years voters (unless, of course, they're into that kind of "locker talk").
aGDevil2k
Inconceivable Member
- Messages
- 3,341
treblkickd
Member
- Messages
- 11
I did just google this and the published research that came up contradicts the claim that betting markets are better predictors than polls.
superrific
Legend of ZZL
- Messages
- 8,513
Back to turnout. So far, turnout looks good for liberals, I think. Here are the three points that stand out to me:
1. Turnout among black voters is so far at 12.5%; among whites it's 14.5%. In 2020, white voters turned out 11 points more than black voters (79-68). I don't think it's useful to compare early returns with early returns in 2020 because of the pandemic.
2. Turnout among women and men are running about equal, with women slightly in the lead. In 2020, women turned out about 3 points better than men. But there are so many more female voters. In 2020, women cast 50.1% of the votes against 42% of men (with 8% "undesignated" -- I'm going to guess that a big chunk of undesignated are trans and God I hope they are voting for Kamala). IOW, it's better in NC to be winning with women.
3. Turnout among Dems so far is slightly better than Pubs. Since there are more registered Dems than Pubs, that leads to a 20K lead for Dems at the moment. And independents are turning out considerably worse than either (only 10%).
That said, we don't know how many of those Dems are votes for Trump. My guess is that if Trump is doing better with black voters, he's doing better with Dem voters than in the past. And of course indies are still the biggest overall group.
So from a top-level perspective, it seems to me that early voting is favoring Kamala ever so slightly -- but it's also true that these numbers are pretty close to meaningless. I've said they were completely meaningless; with over 13% turnout already, they now have a non-zero salience in my view. But not very much salience.
1. Turnout among black voters is so far at 12.5%; among whites it's 14.5%. In 2020, white voters turned out 11 points more than black voters (79-68). I don't think it's useful to compare early returns with early returns in 2020 because of the pandemic.
2. Turnout among women and men are running about equal, with women slightly in the lead. In 2020, women turned out about 3 points better than men. But there are so many more female voters. In 2020, women cast 50.1% of the votes against 42% of men (with 8% "undesignated" -- I'm going to guess that a big chunk of undesignated are trans and God I hope they are voting for Kamala). IOW, it's better in NC to be winning with women.
3. Turnout among Dems so far is slightly better than Pubs. Since there are more registered Dems than Pubs, that leads to a 20K lead for Dems at the moment. And independents are turning out considerably worse than either (only 10%).
That said, we don't know how many of those Dems are votes for Trump. My guess is that if Trump is doing better with black voters, he's doing better with Dem voters than in the past. And of course indies are still the biggest overall group.
So from a top-level perspective, it seems to me that early voting is favoring Kamala ever so slightly -- but it's also true that these numbers are pretty close to meaningless. I've said they were completely meaningless; with over 13% turnout already, they now have a non-zero salience in my view. But not very much salience.
superrific
Legend of ZZL
- Messages
- 8,513
While that's true, it's also to be expected during a partial realignment. There are probably also a lot of Dems voting for Trump (esp if the polls about black voters are to be believed). I'm not sure this means very much.
superrific
Legend of ZZL
- Messages
- 8,513
He doesn't put forward any efforts in forming opinions, so why should he when broadcasting them?
CFordUNC
Inconceivable Member
- Messages
- 4,804
The next time that gtyellowjacket is right about anything- quite literally anything- will be a first and will certainly be an occasion worthy of celebration.
Another for what it's worth to add to that. Black males traditionally have the lowest turnout of any group. I think that might be numbers and percentage. A big percentage gain is not a big numerical gain.
gtyellowjacket
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 2,034
I'm going to need to see the study. Here is one of the studies that folks weren't able to find.
"Here, we present evidence that prediction markets outperform polls for longer
horizons. .. The market is closer to the eventual outcome 74% of the time. Further, the market significantly outperforms
the polls in every election when forecasting more than 100 days in advance. "
Seriously? 2008? In modern politics and polling that is ancient history. The media is nothing like it was then nor the malignancy of the Magats.
gtyellowjacket
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 2,034
And that's why I didn't post any studies. There was never going to an be applicable study. People don't want to hear anything if they already disagree with it. I've played this game before.
Do you see that little line at the top of your computer screen that says www .zzlpolitics.com/...? Go ahead and click on that twice really fast. Then type in www.google.com. You'll see this amazing tool come up on your computer screen and in the middle there'll be a place where you can type any question you have. Go ahead and type in accuracy of polling versus prediction markets and you can click on any of those links to your heart's content to determine if you think prediction markets are better than polling data.
If you have any trouble, reach out to your granddaughter.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 21,657
As it happens, I was looking at gender demographics in US presidential elections early this morning during breakfast. Turnout of registered women voters has pretty consistently been 3-4 points higher form women than men this decade — i.e. when 70% of female registered voters vote, about 66-67% of male registered voters vote.
FTR, women represent about 50.5% of the US population.
Gender Differences in Voter Turnout
Voter turnout refers to the proportion of eligible voters who cast a ballot in an election. Women have registered and voted at higher rates than men in every presidential election since 1980, with the turnout gap between women and men growing slightly larger with each successive presidential...
I suspect that the movement in this turnout plot a few tenths of a point up or down could be the difference in the election, but just theorizing.