Welcome home, fellow Gator.

The Gator Nation's oldest and most active insider community
Join today!

Trump vs. Harris - Please put all new polls here.

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by rivergator, Jul 24, 2024.

  1. GatorRade

    GatorRade Rad Scientist

    8,614
    1,605
    1,478
    Apr 3, 2007
    It is not easy done, but it is possible that some bettors are trying move prices to get better odds. However,
    as long as the goal is to make money, this manipulation has nothing to do with the election. For this betting approach to be a money making scheme, you are absolutely correct that these bettors must actually believe in the bet they are making.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  2. oragator1

    oragator1 Premium Member

    22,885
    5,578
    3,488
    Apr 3, 2007
    His final prediction is coming today, I think he is waiting for the next mail drop, one didn’t come in over the weekend. The drop today could be a large number that will give a clearer picture.
    The one thing that’s not accounted for in his numbers though (by his own admission) is crossovers. Even if that ends up being 1-2 percent for her, her odds of winning go up dramatically. A 2 percent crossover advantage for example nets her over upwards of 18k votes, and in most of his likelier scenarios she wins. If Trump wins that, the race is already over.
    But I have noticed a pattern across most analytics folks where they are assuming an even crossover in how they view the early returns. If she does win (or even win big), this is going to be the number that people got most wrong I think. If crossovers are in fact dead even, I think Trumps is 60-40 or better to win.
     
  3. citygator

    citygator VIP Member

    11,170
    2,507
    3,303
    Apr 3, 2007
    Charlotte
    Nope. He is reacting to the close polls, not turnout.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  4. GatorJMDZ

    GatorJMDZ gatorjack VIP Member

    24,752
    2,579
    1,868
    Apr 3, 2007
    You crack me up sometimes, thanks for the chuckle. You try so hard to walk the middle line on everything you can't see what is directly in front of your face.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Fistbump/Thanks! Fistbump/Thanks! x 1
  5. CaptUSMCNole

    CaptUSMCNole Premium Member

    2,979
    179
    343
    May 23, 2007
    NCR
    Democrats are worried about turnout. Dan speaks about it specifically, starting at the 17:30 minute mark.
     
  6. CaptUSMCNole

    CaptUSMCNole Premium Member

    2,979
    179
    343
    May 23, 2007
    NCR
    Funny, Halprin said today that Axelrod loves to trash any Democratic campaign that he is not working on.
     
  7. okeechobee

    okeechobee GC Hall of Fame

    9,339
    1,183
    328
    Sep 11, 2022
    Spicer's point which follows is also very valid. The improvement in early voting for GOP doesn't make it harder for Dems to vote early and they haven't been, even though they have a tradition of doing so. This goes along with what I've been saying here for the past two weeks or so. The issue is not the slightly higher than normal turnout by GOP voters. The issue for Harris is the lack of turnout by Dem voters.
     
  8. okeechobee

    okeechobee GC Hall of Fame

    9,339
    1,183
    328
    Sep 11, 2022
    I don't think Axelrod is looking to be a torpedo this close to an election. It sounds more like a plea to get Democrat voters to turn out, because he knows they have not been, compared to previous cycles.
     
  9. VAg8r1

    VAg8r1 GC Hall of Fame

    20,702
    1,703
    1,763
    Apr 8, 2007
    The assumption is that all registered Rs will be voting for Trump. Obvious speculation my guess is roughly ten percent of Republican women will be voting for Harris and also keep in mind that the Culinary Union does a remarkable job of turning out its members who vote overwhelmingly Democratic. Personally I still think it's too close to call.
    From 538, all polls in which sampling was completed Nov. 1 or later. AltlasIntel seems to be an outlier.
    upload_2024-11-4_12-20-26.png
     
  10. oragator1

    oragator1 Premium Member

    22,885
    5,578
    3,488
    Apr 3, 2007
    Guess this was the last emotional turn I was talking about the other day. Dems are back to freaking out. It really is funny to watch.
     
    • Fistbump/Thanks! Fistbump/Thanks! x 1
  11. citygator

    citygator VIP Member

    11,170
    2,507
    3,303
    Apr 3, 2007
    Charlotte
    Great. That’s not what polling and early returns show. You can worry about anything. This will likely be historic turnout. Who knows until it’s over though?
     
  12. CaptUSMCNole

    CaptUSMCNole Premium Member

    2,979
    179
    343
    May 23, 2007
    NCR
    Ralston is assuming both candidates hold on to 90% of their voters and lost 10%. Which way Indies are breaking is probably the biggest question right now.
     
  13. citygator

    citygator VIP Member

    11,170
    2,507
    3,303
    Apr 3, 2007
    Charlotte
    That is untrue.
     
  14. VAg8r1

    VAg8r1 GC Hall of Fame

    20,702
    1,703
    1,763
    Apr 8, 2007
    Actually, I prefer freaking out to overconfidence. Anyone remember 2016 when the Dems were absolutely certain that Hillary Clinton would be elected. During the general election campaign she didn't visit Wisconsin once and only campaigned in Michigan a couple of times.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  15. CaptUSMCNole

    CaptUSMCNole Premium Member

    2,979
    179
    343
    May 23, 2007
    NCR
    What early returns in which states are you referring to?
     
  16. mrhansduck

    mrhansduck GC Hall of Fame

    4,754
    990
    1,788
    Nov 23, 2021
    Yeah, since the polls seem to reflect that the election is a statistical toss up, it would be weird to me if either side were not worried about getting their voters out tomorrow.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  17. GatorRade

    GatorRade Rad Scientist

    8,614
    1,605
    1,478
    Apr 3, 2007
    I would likely be less embarrassed to intentionally entertain you, JMDZ, but I guess I can be happy to have accomplished this at all. :)

    You are correct that I intentionally try to see things from different perspectives, but here I don’t think I’m trying to tow some middle line. I just think claims require evidence, and the complexities of the price system are often vastly underestimated. (Eg this is explained well in this NPR article on price gouging).

    But I am happy to come to your side JMDZ. I just need to see the reasoning. What evidence do we have that shows the prediction markets have been manipulated? And if they were, what US would law would that manipulation have broken?
     
  18. okeechobee

    okeechobee GC Hall of Fame

    9,339
    1,183
    328
    Sep 11, 2022
    Prepared to be blown away by his data.
     
  19. oragator1

    oragator1 Premium Member

    22,885
    5,578
    3,488
    Apr 3, 2007
    I did a Quick Look and saw AAs are underperforming by about 2 percent of the overall electorate in GA and NC compared to how the NYT sampled them in their last poll (she led by 1 and 2 there). If they are voting 85-15 for her, that’s around a 90k vote loss (if the white vote that would fill that sample void voted 60-40 Trump) in a state with 5 million votes. Or 1.8 percent of the vote. So if they didn’t make anything up on ED it would cost her GA and she might still squeak out NC in those NYT polls.
    So if they don’t turn out it is relevant, but way early when there’s still Election Day to make it up, as well probably some of the late mail ins and in persons to be counted, from what I saw AAs closed strong the last few days to make up some ground. Not to mention other groups could overperform as he stated. Women, crossovers, indies, seniors (that was the big takeaway from the Selzer poll, women over 65 for her), etc.
    It’s mostly just normal last minute hand wringing that could mean something on Wednesday, but might not. Just like the Trump campaign freaking out about seniors.