Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 311: Ye says Nay

(+) Yeah! (+)

iiaattgg posted...

One could argue that every republican one is a racist

Democrat, Republican, Democrat-Republican, Whig, you name it
---

Why is there so little polling going on? A lot of these Senate races don't have a single poll yet.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Collins won her last 2 elections by 20 and 30 points respectfully, and the only recent poll besides a Democrat poll (which has Gideon 4 points ahead) is a gravis poll with Collins 14 points ahead.

uh

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/senate/maine/

538 has Gideon ahead in every poll conducted in 2020 except a R pollster at the beginning of the month. Gideon has a D pollster in May at +9 but Gideon has the lead in every non-partisan poll conducted in 2020 and by the highest rated pollster in that period, PPP, twice.

As for those ratings, I gave them off the top of my head.

But I mean, 270 is on something if it has CO listed as a tossup. You want to talk polls, Hickenlooper has been up double digits in every poll conducted since October 2019 lol. To put that in perspective, that polling puts Gardner in a considerably worse position than Jones's polling in AL.

270's default is "Consensus" which IIRC takes the weakest rating of all its possible modes and applies that.

So if a race is rated Lean D by 2 models, Likely D by 4 other models, but Toss Up by just one, the default Consensus view will show the race as toss-up because that's the "strongest" characterization that all the models agree on.

---

https://www.forbes.com/sites/sarahhansen/2020/07/22/mark-meadows-walks-back-possibility-of-short-term-unemployment-extension/amp/

Does anyone know what is going on at this point


---

xp1337 posted...

uh

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/senate/maine/

538 has Gideon ahead in every poll conducted in 2020 except a R pollster at the beginning of the month. Gideon has a D pollster in May at +9 but Gideon has the lead in every non-partisan poll conducted in 2020 and by the highest rated pollster in that period, PPP, twice.

Uh...

Polls marked with an asterisk are partisan polls. Partisanship is determined by who sponsors the poll, rather than who conducts it. Polls are considered partisan if theyre conducted on behalf of a candidate, party, campaign committee, or PAC, super PAC, 501(c)(4), 501(c)(5) or 501(c)(6) organization that conducts a large majority of its political activity on behalf of one political party.

That eliminates 3 polls, Moore information and the 2 victory geeks.

Then...

Public Policy Polling is a U.S. Democratic polling firm based in Raleigh, North Carolina. PPP was founded in 2001 by businessman Dean Debnam, the firm's current president and chief executive officer.

What are you talking about???

That's the good thing about RCP, it labels the Republican and Democrat polling outfits with (R) and (D) respectfully so you know to take their polls with a grain of salt.

---

Corrik7 posted...

How close is the GOP to losing the Senate because they seem to be trying to lose it.

There are gambling sites for this, right? I'd seriously consider a 3-way parlay of Biden/Dem House/Dem Senate if the GOP strings along unemployment benefits and allows millions of middle class suburban voters to actually suffer financially.

---

Corrik, can I just ask what you think the GOP is doing differently from their usual behavior?

---

CaptainOfCrush posted...

There are gambling sites for this, right? I'd seriously consider a 3-way parlay of Biden/Dem House/Dem Senate if the GOP strings along unemployment benefits and allows millions of middle class suburban voters to actually suffer financially.

With Biden and the house being a lock, I can't imagine getting too much money on this besides the Senate odds driving it up

---

Yeah, Senate odds are what I'd be banking on. My uneducated guess is that bookies would still favor a Republican Senate at the moment.

---

IIRC, I saw someone mention you could still bet against things like "Hillary becomes the 2020 nominee" at like -1000 which if true kind of tanks the credibility of said sites imo. (or the people using them i suppose)

like lmao

---

Corrik7 posted...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/sarahhansen/2020/07/22/mark-meadows-walks-back-possibility-of-short-term-unemployment-extension/amp/

Does anyone know what is going on at this point

They've backed themselves into a corner

The facts say it's necessary

But their narrative is that an unemployment boost of any kind is unnecessary because things are opened back up/need to open back up and it'll all just correct itself.

They don't want to abandon that narrative because it means they'd have to walk back a bunch of other things.

But they also know they're fucked otherwise

---

xp1337 posted...

IIRC, I saw someone mention you could still bet against things like "Hillary becomes the 2020 nominee" at like -1000 which if true kind of tanks the credibility of said sites imo. (or the people using them i suppose)

like lmao

They hold your money the whole time, make interest off it that possibly is worth than what you would even cash out. And if a true miraculous thing happened and it did happen, they make tons of money.

---

StealThisSheen posted...

They've backed themselves into a corner

The facts say it's necessary

But their narrative is that an unemployment boost of any kind is unnecessary because things are opened back up/need to open back up and it'll all just correct itself.

They don't want to abandon that narrative because it means they'd have to walk back a bunch of other things.

But they also know they're fucked otherwise

Well, Democrats were against the short extension. Republicans wanted it to negotiate. So, I assume Democrats won that one.

Apparently Trump himself wants a long term extension and not a short one.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Well, Democrats were against the short extension. Republicans wanted it to negotiate. So, I assume Democrats won that one.

Apparently Trump himself wants a long term extension and not a short one.

Well, right. Republicans want a short extension to use as a starting point to argue for a much lower amount going forward.

And that's on top of Republican in-fighting on the extension as is.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Well, Democrats were against the short extension. Republicans wanted it to negotiate. So, I assume Democrats won that one.

Apparently Trump himself wants a long term extension and not a short one.

Uh, you do realize this whole fight so far is an internal GOP one, right? They aren't negotiating with the Dems yet, they're negotiating with themselves.

Some GOP Senators wanted the short term extension. WH didn't.
WH wants payroll tax holiday. Most GOP Senators don't.

Which is why this whole endeavor is especially stupid. Again, it doesn't matter what the Senate GOP comes out with, the end result is going to be whatever Pelosi and Mnuchin work out. Just like it has been at every previous step in this process. But they're wasting everyone's time with this solipsistic nonsense instead.

---

xp1337 posted...

IIRC, I saw someone mention you could still bet against things like "Hillary becomes the 2020 nominee" at like -1000 which if true kind of tanks the credibility of said sites imo. (or the people using them i suppose)

like lmao

I wrote a longer post that got deleted, but tl;dr their credibility has nothing to do with it, sites like PredictIt create their odds by a combo of factors, not the least of which is people betting something.

So the reason you can bet Hillary wont be the nominee is because people are betting that she will. Nothing more, nothing less.


---

Democrats came out against short term extensions and said they wouldn't do one which made it unlikely. So, I mean, they had their lines drawn on that one.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Democrats came out against short term extensions and said they wouldn't do one which made it unlikely. So, I mean, they had their lines drawn on that one.

They're against a short term extension being used to put off anything else. Especially since Republicans have been fighting over lowering the amount for the extension in the first place.

But the point is it doesn't really matter at this point because it hasn't even reached Democrats. They can't actually take a stand because they don't know what they're taking a stand for or against since there's so much internal fighting on the other side. Some just want to extend the $600, some want to lower it to $400, some want to lower it to $200 or even $100, and some don't want it at all.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

So the reason you can bet Hillary wont be the nominee is because people are betting that she will. Nothing more, nothing less.

That's why I added the paraenthetical "or the people who use them" there. Says a lot about the people betting if the odds are that favorable for Clinton!

Corrik7 posted...

Democrats came out against short term extensions and said they wouldn't do one which made it unlikely. So, I mean, they had their lines drawn on that one.

Well, Dems passed a bill back in May and the GOP just hasn't bothered to come up with a counter-proposal until this week so yeah, I wouldn't expect them to be for it but their position on that was almost certainly not the deciding factor on this. GOP just can't even come up with their own COVID plan at all because they went all-in on "one day it will disappear like a miracle" and "everybody (read: just trump's cult if you watched public polling on COVID) thought we'd be re-opening everyone by now so who could have known wasting months not thinking about this could come back to bite us?"

---

Like, this basically says it all

What a short-term extension would look like was still under discussion by GOP senators Wednesday.
The discussions come down to the duration, how long and at what price point, said Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.).

They literally have no fucking idea what they want, so it can't go anywhere, even on just a short-term extension.

---

I can't believe they allowed a headline to hit of wanting $400. When you open it, it says per month not per week as people would assume.

Like, those kind of headlines so close to elections are mind boggling. If anything, you would think they would be fighting to give everyone more right now, not less. This was the thinking just a month ago regarding Trump and Dems. It's mind boggling


---

Well, they want only $100 a week, if anything, and I'm starting to honestly believe at this point that they don't think it matters what they do or say, all they have to say is "MAGA 2020" and they'll win.

---

Yeah, if you feel Hillary being the nominee is so impossible, go ahead and bet against it. Most likely you're right and the people betting on her to be the nominee are wrong, but you'll lose a lot if you're wrong.

---

Corrik7 posted...

With Biden and the house being a lock, I can't imagine getting too much money on this besides the Senate odds driving it up

Biden is only at 63% on PredictIt. Trump is at 40% BTW - the spread is where PredictIt makes money presumably.

---

red sox 777 posted...

Yeah, if you feel Hillary being the nominee is so impossible, go ahead and bet against it. Most likely you're right and the people betting on her to be the nominee are wrong, but you'll lose a lot if you're wrong.

Arent there transaction costs that would make you lose money regardless of the outcome given the extremely low payout?

---

I have a dude who wanted to bet me 10k trump wins. I told him I felt too bad cuz he is a friend, and I hoped he decided against betting that lol

---

Lot of people around me that are convinced Trump winning is alrdy in the bag. And that him losing would mean their jobs would shut down the day after.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Lot of people around me that are convinced Trump winning is alrdy in the bag. And that him losing would mean their jobs would shut down the day after.

What would YOU put the odds of Trump winning PA at?
---

Jakyl25 posted...

What would YOU put the odds of Trump winning PA at?

2-5%

---

Corrik7 posted...

2-5%

Wow why are they so convinced? A conservative bubble?
---

Betting markets currently have Trump at a 29% chance of winning PA
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Wow why are they so convinced? A conservative bubble?

Convinced that polls are all wrong and lied by Democrats. Bubble also helps a lot. And, of course, believing what they want to believe.


---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Arent there transaction costs that would make you lose money regardless of the outcome given the extremely low payout?

I don't think so. Unless you mean that the 1:1000 payout is worse than putting the money in a high yield savings account. But hey, given that we're only a little over 3 months away, it's not much worse, and if you put it in a savings account the bank could go under. And the FDIC. Is that less likely, or is Hillary being the nominee less likely? That's for you to decide.

---

Edit: I misread it. It wasn't 1:1000 odds, I think they meant bet $1000 to win $100. In that case, it's not a bad bet at all.

I'm looking at PredictIt now, and they have Hillary at 5% to win the nomination and Biden at 93%. Best offer for betting against Hillary is 96 cents. So yeah, if you are feeling confident, you can put up $96 to win $4. Or put up $93 to win $7 with Biden.

I think a big part of those odds involve the chance of Biden dying or having serious health problems. He's gonna be the oldest nominee ever and there's a pandemic going around so I wouldn't say the odds are unreasonable. Don't see much of an advantage in playing those odds myself.

---

CaptainOfCrush posted...

There are gambling sites for this, right? I'd seriously consider a 3-way parlay of Biden/Dem House/Dem Senate if the GOP strings along unemployment benefits and allows millions of middle class suburban voters to actually suffer financially.

So you won't be able to get a parlay like this to work in a prediction market (or regular financial market) anything like they do in sports. That's because those things are not independent events. They are highly correlated, and the market knows it. My guess is the 3-way parlay, if it's offered, will pay barely better than Dem Senate alone.

---

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/22/entertainment/kim-kardashian-kanye-west-mental-health-statement/index.html

I guess ye is out again.

---

There was a raft of polls showing improvement for Trump today. Biden's lead on the 538 polling average is down to 7.7% after being over 9% for ages. Based on last time, the popular vote breakeven point is around 4%.

---

red sox 777 posted...

There was a raft of polls showing improvement for Trump today. Biden's lead on the 538 polling average is down to 7.7% after being over 9% for ages. Based on last time, the popular vote breakeven point is around 4%.

That's with 3rd party sapping support also.

---

Everyone was convinced that Trump wouldnt win last time either.

Well, my father is personally convinced Trump can't lose because "at some point Biden is gonna have to talk and people are going to realize he is senile".

---

I still feel Trump is the favorite for the same reason. Biden can't run this stay invisible campaign forever. Democrats need someone to vote for, Republicans just need someone to vote against.

---

Biden is exactly the kind of candidate that appeals to republicans and moderates though.

Hes generic comfy old white dude.

---

Biden is the perfect COVID climate candidate as long as he sits back the next two months. Bernie would have been a great one too due to how on-brand his message is for the times, but he would be taking Trump to task basically every day, and it would make conservatives want to 'fight back'. Biden sitting back allows conservatives to be forced to observe Trump self-destructive entirely on his own. Essentially, Biden Wins By Doing Absolutely Nothing.

---

KamikazePotato posted...

Biden is the perfect COVID climate candidate as long as he sits back the next two months. Bernie would have been a great one too due to how on-brand his message is for the times, but he would be taking Trump to task basically every day, and it would make conservatives want to 'fight back'. Biden sitting back allows conservatives to be forced to observe Trump self-destructive entirely on his own. Essentially, Biden Wins By Doing Absolutely Nothing.

That was exactly Hillary's strategy.

---

Sitting back and doing absolutely as little as possible was also the Clinton's strategy. It took until the last few days for that strategy to fall apart. A lot of voters actually don't even make up their minds until they are in the voting booth, and while Americans have the brains of goldfish, they can be very easily influenced by something that even a week from now they won't even think about. If there are effective attacks that can be levied at Biden by Trump, and he deploys them at the last minute when voters don't have time to forgive or accept those flaws before they vote, it could have an effect like the FBI investigation did for Hillary. I still think Biden winning is the most likely outcome, but I think it is a bit naive to expect him to just coast in no problem without having to do anything. He needs voters to both see and accept that he is cognitively declining now, rather than have that thrust upon them only at the last minute when it will be the most concerning to them.

Never interrupt an opponent when they're imploding.

Besides, Trump has set the bar so low with all the ridiculous "Biden is senile, he doesn't even know where he is" talk that it's going to backfire when Biden gets on the debate stage and is fine. Contrary to what some might tell you he's still going around and doing events and stuff it just the media doesn't give it the time of day and surprise he's not some barely coherent mess falling apart before our very eyes.

---

Biden's giving speeches (and from the little I've heard, I like em for the most part) and running ads. He's not being invisible, but it's not like he can run a traditional campaign right now.

---

I know this topic frowns upon the "trump bad" tweets and clips but I very much enjoyed this particular ramble. Surely this is among his best work

https://twitter.com/bad_takes/status/1286098645910159360

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

I know this topic frowns upon the "trump bad" tweets and clips but I very much enjoyed this particular ramble. Surely this is among his best work

https://twitter.com/bad_takes/status/1286098645910159360

If it's 5 objects it's actually much harder than it sounds.

---

tbqh I think a lot of people would miss that one (unless they knew ahead of time that they were going to have to repeat it later).

---