2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins

Status
Not open for further replies.
Of course a bookie can be wrong, and I didn't say they can't. I just said they rarely are, when it comes to elections. And that's a fact. They're usually (without any historical data to back up my statements) more correct than the polls.
If you look at the "average last ten polls"-poll (excuse my horrible english on this one, I don't know what a poll like that is called. A meta-poll?), Clinton holds a massive lead there as well. And guess what, bookies tend to use stats'n'stuff when calculating the odds.
 
Raoul said:
Its interesting to me that bookies are even considered credible sources in contrast to say, mathematicians and statisticians who run polling models.
Click to expand...

When I saw that betting markets were inline with 538, one hypothesis for me was that: if bookies aren't taking risk, just offering odds that reflect the market, maybe the information that bettors are most relying on is 538 and others' models.
 
JarleA said:
Of course a bookie can be wrong, and I didn't say they can't. I just said they rarely are. And that's a fact. They're usually (without any historical data to back up my statements) more correct than the polls.
If you look at the "average last ten polls"-poll (excuse my horrible english on this one, I don't know what a poll like that is called. A meta-poll?), Clinton holds a massive lead there as well. And guess what, bookies tend to use stats'n'stuff when calculating the odds.
Click to expand...
Don't worry, the Brexit result is still a sore wound for many UK folk and betting markets let us down a lot there. I'd say that result in general is causing 90% of the anxiety, certainly is for me anyway.
 
berbatrick said:
@Ubik
I have no real intention to re-ignite the primary debates, but I know this debate will crop up randomly in the future, so just wanted to get these out of the way:

Instinctively saying that disrespecting Hillary supporters = disrespecting minorities and women isn't true; it is infact disrespecting old people. Age was best correlated with voting choice in that contest, in fact she lost hugely among young (18-30) women and young latinos and marginally even among young blacks. Overall both candidates were rougly tied counting 18-60 and she won with the senior vote. So the analogy would be with Brexit voters instead, who are not exactly seen as paragons of virtue on the caf...

Further, about racial campaigning in 2008, these are words not from a surrogate but from herself:
[my opponent's] support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think trying to pull out the minorities/women card when defending Hilary is a bit of a cheap one. The discussion as to who was the best choice is obviously long dead now, but I do think there's still some relevance in that the perhaps the only reason Trump remains in this race is because of Hilary's regular scandals and the general perception of her. Any halfway decent candidate would've beaten Trump by a distance. Maybe she still will, right enough.
 
Cheesy said:
Yeah, I think trying to pull out the minorities/women card when defending Hilary is a bit of a cheap one. The discussion as to who was the best choice is obviously long dead now, but I do think there's still some relevance in that the perhaps the only reason Trump remains in this race is because of Hilary's regular scandals and the general perception of her. Any halfway decent candidate would've beaten Trump by a distance. Maybe she still will, right enough.
Click to expand...
I like how I'm the one getting shit for saying it's low to call the nominee's voters idiots.
 
Ubik said:
Don't worry, the Brexit result is still a sore wound for many UK folk and betting markets let us down a lot there. I'd say that result in general is causing 90% of the anxiety, certainly is for me anyway.
Click to expand...

Personally I'd say the greatest source of anxiety right now is how much the forecasts seem to be fluctuating. Hilary's still ahead in most of the polls/forecasts and arguably even comfortably so...but this is probably the second time where we've had lots of people saying, "Oh, it's over now" only to then say a week or so later that, no, it actually isn't.

I think she'll just about get over the line, but at the pace this election has been moving at and with the constant changes it seems to be bringing, one more scandal or swing of the pendulum which goes in Trump's favour could tip it in his direction, or at least give him a strong chance.
 
Ubik said:
I like how I'm the one getting shit for saying it's low to call the nominee's voters idiots.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying I agreed with Kentonio's assertion at all that Clinton voters were idiots (because if I was in the US right now I'd be voting for Hilary myself, even if I'd not been on her side in the primaries), but I don't think the diversion of, "well, minorities and women supported her" is a useful one if we're debating the merits of who was originally chosen...even if he phrased it in a more hostile way than was necessary.

I mean...you've said yourself in the past (I think, might be wrong) that you think very, very lowly of Trump voters, and that you've got no time for them. Which I understand, considering the fairly awful nature of his campaign and personality. But couldn't the same apply there? Trump's certainly not winning (or doing remotely well) when it comes to winning the support of women or minorities...but considering the massive size of the US, he's still got plenty of supporters among them. So why is it offensive or wrong for someone who thinks Hilary's awful and corrupt to label her supporters in such a way, but when someone thinks the same about Trump it's alright? Isn't that part of where Trump's support, even if often nasty, is coming from? People who feel like they aren't listened to and are being written off as nasty and unimportant?

I'm partly playing devils advocate, because as I say I didn't necessarily agree with all of the original assessment, but if Trump somehow manages to win this then I can sort of understand where some annoyed people would be coming from on the Dem side...because there's really no reason any halfway Dem candidate should even be coming close to losing to a non-politician who's a terrible speaker, has fared terribly when defending his policies, has often employed poor campaign tactics, who has disillusioned certain demographics in the country to an extent, and who has probably sexually assaulted a number of women. That's along with losing support from numerous prominent figures within his party, as well. I can see why someone would pissed off at Hilary, and by extension those who supported her initially, if she fails to win. Even if I don't completely agree.
 


Reassuring on one hand, depressing on the other.
 
After conversing with a handful on facebook, I do wonder about the real motives of some pro-Trumpers. They don't seem to like women much, in the "women shouldn't be in power" way.
 
golden_blunder said:
After conversing with a handful on facebook, I do wonder about the real motives of some pro-Trumpers. They don't seem to like women much, in the "women shouldn't be in power" way.
Click to expand...

It's definitely there as a sort of constant undertone. It's often less overtly, "we don't like women and all women are bad", but seems to begin with this sort of general idea that things like feminism no longer hold any value whatsoever, so as a result of that women have it fine now and don't need to complain about anything. The same often applies in a racial context: it's not always outright racism, but more a sort of annoyance that these (valid) problems still exist. As a result you get people not in minorities who look back to past eras and glorify them, because they were the ones not being discriminated against. What they fail to acknowledge is that, like now, people who weren't in minority groups would've faced plenty of their own problems and that it wasn't some paradise where life was always fantastic and wonderful.

It then starts to manifest itself in more blatant, obvious ways though when you see the actions of Trump excused...as if the people complaining about Trump discriminating against them or demeaning them just need to grow a thicker skin and ignore it, when it actually highlights the existence of certain societal problems.
 
golden_blunder said:
After conversing with a handful on facebook, I do wonder about the real motives of some pro-Trumpers. They don't seem to like women much, in the "women shouldn't be in power" way.
Click to expand...

There was a time when I thought he was getting a significant "protest vote" People who were voting for him just because he was not a politician, not from "inside the beltway", not a Bush or Clinton, etc etc etc. I suppose there are probably some who fall into that category. There are those who just hate Hillary (and some of them would probably hate any woman candidate). But there is no denying a large number are just hateful assholes.
 
rpitroda said:
That's a lot more than I would say is comfortable. And I can only see it tightening unless there is a hidden gem about Trump to be revealed.
Click to expand...

I think things will tighten a lot between now and next Tuesday, but Hillary still clearly has the advantage.

Also, the fact that Trump is coming back to Arizona on Saturday leads me to believe his internal polling shows he is in trouble, which makes sense given that Hillary is here tomorrow and Kaine is in Tucson later this week and is giving a speech in full Spanish there.
 
Can Clinton set a 4th debate against Trump. Those are bonus points for the democrats
 
Raoul said:
But not if she loses CO ? She's significantly more likely to lose NV than CO.
Click to expand...

That too, but NV early vote takes up the bulk of their result, are closely tracked with probably the best journalistic insider regarding state politics in the US (Jon Ralston) and has a smaller voting population, which diminishes the chances for a surprise.

They are on pace for a 2012 level win, based on vote tracker there.
 
golden_blunder said:
After conversing with a handful on facebook, I do wonder about the real motives of some pro-Trumpers. They don't seem to like women much, in the "women shouldn't be in power" way.
Click to expand...
It will shock you, the amount of women who believe that.
 
It's nearly 70-30 on 538 now..
A turd that just wont flush... Has to be too late now though..
 
JarleA said:
Of course a bookie can be wrong, and I didn't say they can't. I just said they rarely are, when it comes to elections. And that's a fact. They're usually (without any historical data to back up my statements) more correct than the polls.
If you look at the "average last ten polls"-poll (excuse my horrible english on this one, I don't know what a poll like that is called. A meta-poll?), Clinton holds a massive lead there as well. And guess what, bookies tend to use stats'n'stuff when calculating the odds.
Click to expand...

Mostly though bookies move the odds to try and shift money between people betting on certain outcomes so that no matter what happens they make money.
 
On 538...now gone 50.2% Trump in Florida. First time in a long time he's ahead there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.