Tea Leaves

[Kathianne]

Ok, I admit that this year I've been paying way more attention to the betting odds on the presidential race, than the polls. From the debate with Biden, Trump was leading by a lot, until Kamala. Then it got close. After their debate, she pulled ahead, the most was just over 5 pts.

They had gotten a bit closer recently, but since the VP debate, Trump has been closing. This morning she was ahead by 2, then Trump overtook by a tenth of a point after a tie. As I write now, he's ahead 3.5 .

Been a good day.

I think between the hurricanes and anti-Semitism, Harris may be on way down.

[SassyLady]

Ok, I admit that this year I've been paying way more attention to the betting odds on the presidential race, than the polls. From the debate with Biden, Trump was leading by a lot, until Kamala. Then it got close. After their debate, she pulled ahead, the most was just over 5 pts.

They had gotten a bit closer recently, but since the VP debate, Trump has been closing. This morning she was ahead by 2, then Trump overtook by a tenth of a point after a tie. As I write now, he's ahead 3.5 .

Been a good day.

I think between the hurricanes and anti-Semitism, Harris may be on way down.
Speaking of tea leaves ... they take Biden out with 25th. Put Harris in as president and then even if she loses she can claim to be first female president. A win for the Democrats.

[Kathianne]

Speaking of tea leaves ... they take Biden out with 25th. Put Harris in as president and then even if she loses she can claim to be first female president. A win for the Democrats.
Should have done it from get go.

[Kathianne]

Ok, I admit that this year I've been paying way more attention to the betting odds on the presidential race, than the polls. From the debate with Biden, Trump was leading by a lot, until Kamala. Then it got close. After their debate, she pulled ahead, the most was just over 5 pts.

They had gotten a bit closer recently, but since the VP debate, Trump has been closing. This morning she was ahead by 2, then Trump overtook by a tenth of a point after a tie. As I write now, he's ahead 3.5 .

Been a good day.

I think between the hurricanes and anti-Semitism, Harris may be on way down.
Just checked, Trump up +4.

[Gunny]

Just checked, Trump up +4.

As important, Cruz is up 3 on two-faced Allred. If I don't o to the polls to vote for anything else, it'll be to cast my vote for Cruz. The Republicans need to take the Senate. Don't see much hope for keeping the House.

[Gunny]

Poll: Harris holds slight national lead over Trump | National | thecentersquare.com (https://www.thecentersquare.com/national/article_6e0572a2-866e-11ef-9a5b-73f4bb67ae69.html)

[Kathianne]

Poll: Harris holds slight national lead over Trump | National | thecentersquare.com (https://www.thecentersquare.com/national/article_6e0572a2-866e-11ef-9a5b-73f4bb67ae69.html)

I think that is because the polls are always lagging. RCP has him with most of battlegrounds.

[Kathianne]

7.6

fyi

[fj1200]

:confused:

[Gunny]

I think that is because the polls are always lagging. RCP has him with most of battlegrounds.Don't know. Not a fan of polls. When I post them, it's FYI, assuming one knows the results are whatever the source wants us to see. There are so many anymore, who knows?

It'll probably come down again to battleground states and their authorized late ballots:rolleyes:

[Gunny]

More. I'm not Harris shopping, BTW. This article was on my home page.

Personally, it is my opinion that regardless the slanted polls themselves, the MSM lies to us either way. They'd like nothing better than to demoralize the right and get us to stay home with a "why bother?" attitude.

Exclusive-Harris overtakes Trump among suburban voters, Reuters/Ipsos polling shows (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/exclusive-harris-overtakes-trump-among-suburban-voters-reuters-ipsos-polling-shows/ar-AA1s357b?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=8080510373ed4a80be974555e76846c6&ei=17)

[Kathianne]

7.6

fyi

9.2 odds for Trump

[Kathianne]

More. I'm not Harris shopping, BTW. This article was on my home page.

Personally, it is my opinion that regardless the slanted polls themselves, the MSM lies to us either way. They'd like nothing better than to demoralize the right and get us to stay home with a "why bother?" attitude.

Exclusive-Harris overtakes Trump among suburban voters, Reuters/Ipsos polling shows (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/exclusive-harris-overtakes-trump-among-suburban-voters-reuters-ipsos-polling-shows/ar-AA1s357b?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=8080510373ed4a80be974555e76846c6&ei=17)

Exclusive? Give me a break. She's been leading with this group since at least the debate, if not from the moment Joe was gone. Suburban voters are college educated, which de facto means Dem voters for the past 20-30 years.

This is NOT news and changes nothing.

[Kathianne]

:confused:


Betting odds!

[Kathianne]

More. I'm not Harris shopping, BTW. This article was on my home page.

Personally, it is my opinion that regardless the slanted polls themselves, the MSM lies to us either way. They'd like nothing better than to demoralize the right and get us to stay home with a "why bother?" attitude.

Exclusive-Harris overtakes Trump among suburban voters, Reuters/Ipsos polling shows (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/exclusive-harris-overtakes-trump-among-suburban-voters-reuters-ipsos-polling-shows/ar-AA1s357b?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=8080510373ed4a80be974555e76846c6&ei=17)

Here is what I was addressing yesterday regarding 'suburban voters.' These are not 'deep thinkers' or even really interested in politics, rather they are posers. They consider themselves comfortable enough to vote on feelz. They may well be in for a huge awakening if their leaders take charge, because the only 'gentry' that will count are the very rich and very connected, which leaves 90% of suburban voters out in the cold.

https://hotair.com/david-strom/2024/10/11/this-harris-campaign-is-all-about-social-class-not-issues-n3795546


Presidential Race Is Not Actually About IssuesDavid Strom 1:00 PM | October 11, 2024



AP Photo/Matt Marton
THIS IS A REPRINT OF A VIP COLUMN FROM EARLIER IN THE WEEK. READERS (AND GENERALISSIMO DUANE) ASKED ME TO MAKE IT OPEN TO EVERYONE.


I was reading an interesting piece by Fred Bauer in UnHerd on the "reboot" of Kamala Harris' campaign strategy.


After months of avoiding the media almost entirely, she is now talking in less controlled settings, although so far, the only journalist she has actually sat down with is 60 Minutes' Bill Whitaker, who did a good job trying to pin down a slippery Kamala Harris. The interview did not go well.




Dana Bash isn't a good journalist, so I consider this Harris' first interview.


Bauer's piece crystallized something in my mind--something I have thought and said before, but I now see more clearly: Harris isn't just avoiding talking about policy because she is too radical for the electorate; rather, her campaign is about nothing but social class.


She is running to be the president of the gentry class, which in America is most college-educated voters.


Democrats have always run on class warfare to some extent, but until recently, they portrayed themselves as the champions of the working class. Not this time.




Harris doesn't talk about the issues because the issues don't matter much to college grads. I know that sounds odd, given that we tend to (wrongly) associate education with intellectual interest, but in modern America, college grads care more about social signaling than economics. They are, generally speaking, more insulated from social discord, economic chaos, crime, and the issues associated with border chaos.


The people hurt by Harris' policies tend to be more sensitive to these issues because of where they live, what they do for a living, and their need to pay close attention to bread-and-butter issues.


Harris’s 60 minutes interview has a wall-of-vibes dynamic. Policy details were scorned in favour of vague talking points. When asked about how she would pay for her expansive new spending programmes, she pivoted to claims about how the wealthy needed to pay their fair share. In a telling exchange, Harris refused three times to say whether or not it was a mistake for the Biden administration to loosen border controls as much as it did for the first three-and-a-half years in office. Where exactly Harris stood on many policy questions was no clearer by the end of the interview than at the beginning. Instead, viewers were treated to invocations of “consensus” — and a handy reminder that Liz Cheney is a Kamala Harris fan.


In recent years, the electorate has become increasingly polarised along educational lines, with college-educated voters becoming a pillar of the Democratic Party. Recent polling analysis from CNN gives Harris a historic advantage with college-educated Americans, winning this group by 21 points. By way of comparison, Hillary Clinton won this group by 15 points, and Barack Obama won voters with a college degree by only two points in 2012.


Harris’s vibes-based strategy seems optimised to appeal to this group. Many college-educated suburbanites are repelled by Donald Trump’s pugnacious brand of politics, and are also sceptical of the adversarial tone that often accompanies populism of both the Left and the Right. In appearance, Harris seems distinctly non-threatening.


Barack Obama set the tone for this reversal of the role of the parties regarding social class. David Brooks' famous description of his first meeting with Obama reflected this perfectly. Brooks, a New York Times columnist and nominal "conservative" fell in love with Barack Obama because he just LOOKED and sounded so damn good.


"I remember distinctly an image of--we were sitting on his couches, and I was looking at his pant leg and his perfectly creased pant," Brooks says, "and I'm thinking, a) he's going to be president and b) he'll be a very good president." In the fall of 2006, two days after Obama's The Audacity of Hope hit bookstores, Brooks published a glowing Times column. The headline was "Run, Barack, Run."


Obama was far more liberal in policies than Brooks, but Brooks saw in him a fellow member of the gentry class. That PANT CREASE said it all. Brooks believes Obama was a good president not because he left the country better off but because he was classy.


The gentry class sees Donald Trump as crass, crude, and inarticulate. He repels them at a fundamental level because he is not one of them. I asked a liberal once about what Trump did as president that was so bad--his presidential actions and policies, and not what he said that offended them--and he couldn't think of a single issue.


Abraham Accords? He didn't even know about them. Abortion? He disapproved of the Supreme Court decision, but it was not an issue that motivated his votes. The economy? He had no complaints. Foreign policy bothered him, but again it was Trump's not being classier to our European allies rather than any policy changes he made.


It was about how Trump spoke, not what he did.


Overeducated people don't care about policy because it rarely affects them. They want welfare state programs, but more for social signaling than anything else. It's not like they work, and they know it. The overeducated are fine with permanent poverty as long as they can claim to care and pay penance with taxes.


Taxes are their absolution, and speech codes and woke policies their substitute for doing good for others, and Kamala Harris is an acceptable vehicle for their aspirations. They would prefer Obama, of course, but he is not available. Michelle Obama would be great, but again, that is because she is an avatar of their class. Nobody has any idea of what her actions as president would look like.


Trump's coalition, too, has an element of class warfare. He represents the revolt of the proletariat, but more than that. A lot of Democrats who care about policy have moved over to his side because he does have policy positions and a record of policy success. I doubt RFK, Jr. loves how Trump talks, or Tulsi Gabbard for that matter. They care about policy more than class.


The "experts" and the educated care about class and not much more. When they say that Trump is not fit for office, they mean he is too crude for their taste.


Harris, vapid as she is, doesn't appeal to their intellect. It's the "vibes" they care about.

[Kathianne]

Betting odds!

Right now: 11.1

[Kathianne]

Right now: 11.1
9:12pm MST

13.7 Up over 2 pts today. I think Elmer Fudd/Tim Walz is to thank. Tomorrow's Baier interview could change things, for better or worse.

[SassyLady]

9:12pm MST

13.7 Up over 2 pts today. I think Elmer Fudd/Tim Walz is to thank. Tomorrow's Baier interview could change things, for better or worse.
Maybe the plagiarism? Or Clinton talking about birth rate and replacement. Or Obama scolding black men.

Or could be all the non-MSM podcasts Trump is doing is reaching people who don't do MSM anymore. People getting to hear unedited versions of what Trump is saying.

Many factors in the soup.

[Kathianne]

This morning: 16.4

[Kathianne]

Here's a bit of discussion on odds v polls:

https://hotair.com/ed-morrissey/2024/10/16/nate-silver-20-20-20-is-n3795869


Nate Silver: 20, 20, 20 Shows The Race Changing


Ed Morrissey (https://hotair.com/author/ed-morrissey) 11:20 AM | October 16, 2024



https://media.townhall.com/cdn/hodl/2024/254/3b065762-1b1e-4761-964d-d1da3a4c2562-1052x615.jpgAP Photo/Alex Brandon
To paraphrase Al Pacino in The Movie That Shall Not Be Considered a Godfather: Just when I thought I was out of the poll-gazing business, they pull me back in.


Now that we are 20 days out from the election, polling gets a lot more attention, and for good reasons. Pollsters want to get their most accurate numbers published in order to score well after the results of the election are known to establish their credibility in the next cycle. Voters begin to reach decisions on candidates up and down the ballot. Early voting becomes a bigger and more conclusive part of the picture. To paraphrase Kamala Harris, it's a bigger deal at "20, 20, 20" than at "90, 90, 90."

How does one read the polls, though? Typically, I keep my eye on aggregations, where trends are generally more reliable. RealClearPolitics has unweighted aggregations, and those clearly show trendlines favoring Trump at both the national and battleground levels, as I wrote on Monday (https://hotair.com/ed-morrissey/2024/10/14/harvard-harris-poll-trumps-winning-in-the-battleground-states-n3795803). Nate Silver weights pollsters in his aggregation in an attempt to provide a more finely tuned predictive model, which has thus far shown Harris edging Donald Trump on the odds of victory.

Or at least that's what his model showed until yesterday afternoon. Now Silver calls it a true toss-up (https://www.natesilver.net/p/nate-silver-2024-president-election-polls-model):



Last update: 2:30 p.m., Tuesday, October 15. Well, we keep emphasizing that the forecast is really close. After another day of polls showing an essentially tied race in the Midwestern battlegrounds, it’s now literally 50/50. We’re just not seeing as many Harris +3 type numbers in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania as we did immediately after the debate. It hasn’t been a huge swing, but even a half point to a point makes a difference.



Frank Luntz followed it up (https://twitter.com/FrankLuntz/status/1846284283306221647?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5 Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1846284283306221647%7Ctwgr% 5Eb19c7ae41306be3dad73f3116da64bc3525e8874%7Ctwcon %5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftownhall.com%2Ftipsheet%2Fma ttvespa%2F2024%2F10%2F16%2Fthat-nate-silver-trendline-is-not-good-news-for-kamala-n2646265) with an observation not about the numbers but their direction. "The odds say 50/50," Luntz remarked, "but the trendlines tell a whole other story." And indeed they do, as Silver himself tweeted out:

RCP doesn't do these kinds of calculations, so they have no direct comparison to the odds based on polling. However, RCP does track seven betting markets and aggregates their odds for each candidate (https://www.realclearpolling.com/betting-odds/2024/president), and the trendlines are even starker there. As I've proposed before, this measure appears to be both predictive and prophetic about the direction of polling in the week ahead:


https://media.townhall.com/cdn/hodl/ha/images/2024/290/d4dd275c-bec3-4c36-b60b-46ba2d4900d0.jpg


Take a look at the trendlines in both this graph and Silver's. The Y-axis distortion gets created by the starting point for the RCP graph, which is eight days earlier than Silvers, but the pattern is otherwise similar --until about a week ago or so. On Silver's chart, the trendlines cross at the 50% mark yesterday, while it happened in the betting-market aggregate on October 6.

That can be explained by the immediacy of betting markets and the non-immediacy of polling. Polls use scientific sampling to capture the public mood at that moment in time, but it usually takes a couple of days or more to collate and calculate responses for publication. For instance, four of the seven national polls that Silver uses for his model had collected responses only as late as October 8 or earlier. Only two had any responses from Sunday, and only one from Monday. That's not Silver's fault, but it shows how polling usually paints a picture that lags by a few days and sometimes longer than that. (One of Silver's polls in his national model comes from data collected October 2-3.)


Betting markets may be more speculative than reliable by nature, but they have shown predictive value in this cycle when it comes to trending. Luntz warns his followers to watch trends rather than numbers for polling because voters are running out of time to make their decisions, and candidates are running out of time for reboots. That sharp split starting on October 6 and crescendoing to this day suggests that the next iteration of polling will trend sharply toward Trump at both state and national levels.

Furthermore, we can look no further than the Harris campaign for corroboration. For more than two months, they kept Harris and Walz as far from reporters and tough questions as possible. Neither have yet done a press conference, for that matter. They did a few local TV interviews and friendly podcasts, but those ended up backfiring on Harris. (Both trendlines show they did her no good at all, at the very least.) This week, they suddenly want Harris to do an interview with Fox News and are publicly teasing interest in Joe Rogan, two environments that they would have vetoed out of hand a couple of weeks ago. In fact, Trump arranged a debate on Fox for September 4 that Harris refused to consider -- because the trendlines still looked good for her at that time.


The strategy from Team Kamala has changed because the race has changed, and now they are having to take a lot more risks. That tells us that the trendlines showing Trump moving ahead are not limited to the RCP and Silver models.

[NightTrain]

Trump always performs 5 to 8 points better than the polls indicate. No one has figured out why that is with him; it drives them crazy.

My suspicion is that the polls are deliberately skewed to demoralize Republicans up to about 2 weeks before the election, and if the true numbers don't come around to where the pollsters would like to see them by then, they bring them into line. Two days and less we're seeing the true polling numbers - which are still 5 to 8 points shy of actual.

[Kathianne]

Trump always performs 5 to 8 points better than the polls indicate. No one has figured out why that is with him; it drives them crazy.

My suspicion is that the polls are deliberately skewed to demoralize Republicans up to about 2 weeks before the election, and if the true numbers don't come around to where the pollsters would like to see them by then, they bring them into line. Two days and less we're seeing the true polling numbers - which are still 5 to 8 points shy of actual.

I think there's overreporting of Dems. For the first time in like 35 years, there are now more registered Rs than Ds, (I'm not one of them). There are lots of folks that are still not wanting to say aloud they are going to vote Trump-maybe even more that are leaning, but not ready to self-admit that they are.

The big change in odds I think is the candidates themselves. Harris and Walz keep stepping in it-through ads and appearances. Meanwhile Trump is making no mistakes and the media keeps jumping on him. There's still the talk of 'lawsuits pending.' Vance keeps knocking 'journalists' about with regularity. All these occurrences are signposts of the future and bets are that Trump comes out ahead.

[NightTrain]

I think there's overreporting of Dems. For the first time in like 35 years, there are now more registered Rs than Ds, (I'm not one of them). There are lots of folks that are still not wanting to say aloud they are going to vote Trump-maybe even more that are leaning, but not ready to self-admit that they are.

The big change in odds I think is the candidates themselves. Harris and Walz keep stepping in it-through ads and appearances. Meanwhile Trump is making no mistakes and the media keeps jumping on him. There's still the talk of 'lawsuits pending.' Vance keeps knocking 'journalists' about with regularity. All these occurrences are signposts of the future and bets are that Trump comes out ahead.


Yeah, they keep oversampling dems. It's definitely not a one-off, it's very consistent.

Agree with Harris & Walz destroying themselves. The polling showed that running a basement campaign like Biden pulled off during covid wasn't going to work and now they have to run a more traditional campaign - the problem with that is the more people hear how remarkably stupid both of them are, the less support they get.

Still, they have no choice and out of desperation they're going to continue to try and score a homerun somewhere to turn things around. It's not going to happen.

KamKam is about to get mauled on Fox tonight with Bret Baier. This will be the first time she's wandered into an interview with an actual Journalist from the opposing camp. It won't go well for her, but she's got to do it and hope she doesn't destroy herself like Biden did in July.

[Kathianne]

Yeah, they keep oversampling dems. It's definitely not a one-off, it's very consistent.

Agree with Harris & Walz destroying themselves. The polling showed that running a basement campaign like Biden pulled off during covid wasn't going to work and now they have to run a more traditional campaign - the problem with that is the more people hear how remarkably stupid both of them are, the less support they get.

Still, they have no choice and out of desperation they're going to continue to try and score a homerun somewhere to turn things around. It's not going to happen.

KamKam is about to get mauled on Fox tonight with Bret Baier. This will be the first time she's wandered into an interview with an actual Journalist from the opposing camp. It won't go well for her, but she's got to do it and hope she doesn't destroy herself like Biden did in July.

I doubt Bret will be aggressive with her the way the dem networks have been with Trump or Vance, but I am guessing his questions will be as on point or moreso then the 60 Minutes interviewer and there will be no content editing.

[NightTrain]

I doubt Bret will be aggressive with her the way the dem networks have been with Trump or Vance, but I am guessing his questions will be as on point or moreso then the 60 Minutes interviewer and there will be no content editing.


I hope he brutalizes her. It's his moment to really win a lot of people over, it would be silly to pass this golden opportunity up.

He's definitely smart & eloquent enough to make her cackle and stupidly deflect, the only question is if he's willing to swing for the bleachers.

[Kathianne]

I hope he brutalizes her. It's his moment to really win a lot of people over, it would be silly to pass this golden opportunity up.

He's definitely smart & eloquent enough to make her cackle and stupidly deflect, the only question is if he's willing to swing for the bleachers.

I couldn't tell you if he's R or D. I think he'll give her tough questions, just as he would Trump. Honestly, that's why I like him.

[Gunny]

I hope he brutalizes her. It's his moment to really win a lot of people over, it would be silly to pass this golden opportunity up.

He's definitely smart & eloquent enough to make her cackle and stupidly deflect, the only question is if he's willing to swing for the bleachers.

Disagree. Bearing in mind their rule of thumb it doesn't matter what they do to Trump, if he hammers her the wailing and gnashing of teeth victim narrative on the left/MSM will begin. He doesn't need to play into it by giving them fodder.

He needs to be a professional journalist, if there is even such a thing anymore, and let Kamala be Kamala. That latter point is killing her better than anything the right has done so far.

[Gunny]

I couldn't tell you if he's R or D. I think he'll give her tough questions, just as he would Trump. Honestly, that's why I like him.Tough questions like: So, what is your stance on ....?:laugh:

[NightTrain]

Disagree. Bearing in mind their rule of thumb it doesn't matter what they do to Trump, if he hammers her the wailing and gnashing of teeth victim narrative on the left/MSM will begin. He doesn't need to play into it by giving them fodder.

He needs to be a professional journalist, if there is even such a thing anymore, and let Kamala be Kamala. That latter point is killing her better than anything the right has done so far.


By 'brutalize' I mean ask her hard questions and don't allow her to cackle and vomit out a word salad that is deliberately meaningless. After the cackles and salad, ask her the same question. On the 3rd attempt, point out clearly that she's dodging like she always does and ask again for an actual answer.

She has no answers that she hasn't memorized from her staff's prep, so deviations from the standard questions on his part will absolutely trip her up and expose her for the fraud she is. She can't think on her feet and has never had to. Baier can end her campaign with tough, actual journalism instead of the coddling this vapid beast has had her whole life based on her skin color and gender.

It's really appalling that we no longer celebrate and promote meritocracy. I don't give a damn what color you are or what's between your legs, if you're the best person for the job then you should be hired. This entire woke trainwreck is destroying our country.

[Gunny]

By 'brutalize' I mean ask her hard questions and don't allow her to cackle and vomit out a word salad that is deliberately meaningless. After the cackles and salad, ask her the same question. On the 3rd attempt, point out clearly that she's dodging like she always does and ask again for an actual answer.

She has no answers that she hasn't memorized from her staff's prep, so deviations from the standard questions on his part will absolutely trip her up and expose her for the fraud she is. She can't think on her feet and has never had to. Baier can end her campaign with tough, actual journalism instead of the coddling this vapid beast has had her whole life based on her skin color and gender.

It's really appalling that we no longer celebrate and promote meritocracy. I don't give a damn what color you are or what's between your legs, if you're the best person for the job then you should be hired. This entire woke trainwreck is destroying our country.

That.

[Gunny]

:)

Cruz extends lead in Texas Senate race, new poll shows (thehill.com) (https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4936634-texas-senate-race-cruz-lead/)

[Kathianne]

This morning: 16.4


This morning: 17.2

[Kathianne]

18.1

[Kathianne]

18.1

17.7

[Kathianne]

https://www.realclearpolling.com/betting-odds/2024/president

Betting Odds - 2024 U.S. President
2020 U.S. President Betting Odds (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/elections/betting_odds/2020_president/)
RCP Betting Average: U.S. President (https://www.realclearpolling.com/betting-odds/2024/president/) | GOP Nomination (https://www.realclearpolling.com/betting-odds/2024/republican-nomination/) | Dem Nomination (https://www.realclearpolling.com/betting-odds/2024/democratic-nomination/)
Betting Odds Data





Betting Odds
Trump
Harris


RCP Average
58.1
40.4


BetOnline
59
39


Betfair
56
39


Betsson
58
43


Bovada
59
40


Bwin
59
42


Points Bet
60
43


Polymarket
58
37


Smarkets
56
40

[Gunny]

https://www.realclearpolling.com/betting-odds/2024/president

Betting Odds - 2024 U.S. President
2020 U.S. President Betting Odds (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/elections/betting_odds/2020_president/)
RCP Betting Average: U.S. President (https://www.realclearpolling.com/betting-odds/2024/president/) | GOP Nomination (https://www.realclearpolling.com/betting-odds/2024/republican-nomination/) | Dem Nomination (https://www.realclearpolling.com/betting-odds/2024/democratic-nomination/)
Betting Odds Data





Betting Odds
Trump
Harris


RCP Average
58.1
40.4


BetOnline
59
39


Betfair
56
39


Betsson
58
43


Bovada
59
40


Bwin
59
42


Points Bet
60
43


Polymarket
58
37


Smarkets
56
40





Have you seen anyone about this gambling addiction?:laugh:

[Kathianne]

Have you seen anyone about this gambling addiction?:laugh:

I like the immediacy. The polls have a lag-first people gotta process. Then be willing to answer phone or in person. Then the data needs to be compiled. Then you get the results. By that time, things change.

[Kathianne]

17.7

17.1

[Kathianne]

17.1
16.9

[Kathianne]

still 16.9

[Kathianne]

still 16.9
17.2

[Kathianne]

17.2

19.2

[Kathianne]

19.2

Woah! 21.4

[Kathianne]

21.7

It seems that the McDs, football games, Harris's meanness/pettiness is coming home.

[Kathianne]

21.7

It seems that the McDs, football games, Harris's meanness/pettiness is coming home.

23.4

When it rains, it pours?

[Kathianne]

18.9

Not sure why the drop, but we'll see.

[Kathianne]

I tend to think that folks are exhausted by all the personal attacks, including the hoaxes against Trump over the past 10 years, but maybe I'm wrong?

https://x.com/RobertMSterling/status/1849282082318504301

Psyops...

[Kathianne]

I tend to think that folks are exhausted by all the personal attacks, including the hoaxes against Trump over the past 10 years, but maybe I'm wrong?

https://x.com/RobertMSterling/status/1849282082318504301

Psyops...


Related? Lots here, hidden from c & p

https://hotair.com/david-strom/2024/10/24/general-kelly-if-you-knew-trump-admired-hitler-why-did-you-not-resign-n3796180


General Kelly, If You 'Knew' Trump Admired Hitler Why Didn't You Resign?David Strom 8:00 AM | October 24, 2024



AP Photo/Sebastian Scheiner, File
General John Kelly worked for Donald Trump for nearly two years. He ran the Department of Homeland Security and soon after became the White House Chief of Staff--a job he did for a year and a half.


During that time, tensions between the general and Trump escalated, and Trump finally forced him out. Technically, he was not "fired," but for all intents and purposes, he was. Few people actually get "fired" in politics; they "spend more time with their family."




It has been nearly six years since Trump and Kelly worked together, and during that time, both men have been highly critical of each other. Kelly has also been the source of some of the more scurrilous attacks on the former president. Trump has called Kelly dumb, which seems unlikely but very Trump, and Kelly has said a lot of very nasty things about Trump's attitude toward the military.


In a post Truth Social post last year, Trump called Kelly "the dumbest of my Military people," adding that Kelly was "incapable of doing a good job, it was too much for him, and I couldn't stand the guy, so I fired him like a 'dog.'"


As far as I know, the nastiest things Trump really has said about the military have been directed at Kelly himself, for whom Trump obviously has contempt. By all accounts, Trump treats rank-and-file military members well, just as he treats all working-class people well.




It's the elites toward which he aims his fire. And it is the elites who aim their fire at him, often using hoaxes. The Steele Dossier, the RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA hoax, the "fine people" hoax, the inject bleach hoax, the 51 intelligence agents hoax... It has been hoaxes all the way down. All day, every day the transnational elites perpetrate hoaxes aimed at discrediting Donald Trump. It is what they do.




What Kelly has said about Trump's admiration for Hitler is an obvious hoax. Beyond question, it is a hoax, and here is how both you and I can know that:


John Kelly, a general, worked for Donald Trump for two years. If Trump had ever said such a thing, he would have immediately resigned. If he stayed after hearing such despicable things he would perhaps be even worse than he seems right now.




Are we to believe that General Kelly, a man who served as a Marine for 45 years, was perfectly OK working with a man who admired Hitler? That he was so unalarmed that he kept this secret for 5 years and finally, after all that time, just decided to drop that tidbit two weeks from an election?




Really?




Or, perhaps, we might believe that a man who rose to the heights of power and prestige is angry at being disparaged by a man who he considers beneath him socially and intellectually. He has aligned himself with people who are determined, no matter what the cost, to stop Donald Trump. Is it possible that this is just one more hoax to achieve that goal?


I know what I think. And I know what everybody who is honest with themselves should think.




It is a desperate play. A hoax. A new Steele Dossier.




After all, your evidence for this slander is thin and self-contradictory: one man says this when EVERYBODY around Trump denies it wholeheartedly.


Either that man is lying, or he is a moral monster who knowingly worked for a Nazi.


So your star witness is a man who admits he would work for a Nazi. Good luck with that.


If you believe his story, you are a sucker and a loser.

[Kathianne]

20.5

[fj1200]

Not the first to notice this but...

A microcosm of the campaign. harris shows up with BO and Springsteen and I see a headline that she will enlist Beyonce vs. a headline that trump is going to show up on Rogan's podcast. Interesting that someone is attempting connecting with the people indirectly vs directly. Directly is more likely to win the day at least this time around if the odds are any indication.

[Kathianne]

21.2

[Kathianne]

22.4

[Kathianne]

Why the tea leaves are going Red?

https://hotair.com/tree-hugging-sister/2024/10/25/republicans-are-beatin-feet-to-ballots-and-dems-feelin-a-leetle-sickly-n3796271


Republicans Are Beatin' Feet to Ballots and Dems Feelin' a Leetle Sickly UPDATEBeege Welborn 6:40 PM | October 25, 2024



AP Photo/Alex Brandon
We weren't supposed to be able to do this. Time-honored wisdom was that the GOP and its voters were stodgy stuck in the traditionalist mud types, incapable of rapid transformation of any sort, particularly when it came to the sacred ballot box and their ingrained habits and superstitions.


Election Day or bust was the GOP mantra. Everyone knew it, and Democrats exploited it for decades. Never more so than in the havey-cavey days of COVID election rule rejiggering and loosey-goosey mail-in statues.


Republicans faithfully followed the exhortations of their leaders to present themselves in person on the first Tuesday in November and would get their clocks cleaned in the wee hours of the night for all the good standing in line did them.


Democrats snickered all the way to their new offices, secure in the knowledge that Republicans and Election Day voting were the inseparable Siamese twins' trump card in their hand.


A funny thing happened on the way to smug.


Lara Trump and her Republican National Committee take-over. I am the first to admit I groaned when I heard about it, thinking, here we go, installing family members for busy work and vanity jobs. As if the RNC hadn't sucked bad enough already under Mittens' worthless niece.


Oh, my Lord, was I EVER wrong, and I grovel happily.


One of the first things she and her team did was reach out personally to the dynamic Scott Presler. Scott had been a one-man GOP voter registration machine and enthusiasm machine, completely ignored and marginalized at every turn by Ronna McDaniels sclerotic RNC. Once he had the national organization's blessing and backing, Pressler was off to the races. I swear to God, I think the guy's flipped the registration of at least half of Pennsylvania's blue counties to red all by himself.


It's been a phenomenal turnaround. All it took was support for people willing to work their tookusses off for the party. Imagine that?


Lara Trump's RNC has also completely revitalized the pathetic RNC Get Out the Vote (GOTV) effort, something Dems have always excelled at. And, much to Dem skeptical amusement, the RNC emphasized banking votes early - no more waiting for that first week of November to roll around. If you need an absentee ballot, go get it, fill it out, and get it turned in. If your state had early voting, get in line the second you had a chance.


The message was clear - BANK THOSE VOTES EARLY.


Democrats, confident in the resounding and repeated successes of their own battle-tested GOTV efforts, settled in to watch the GOP struggle to shake old habits and bump stubborn Republicans off their couches to the polls.


Remember yesterday when I said something's in the air?


Oh, yeah, it is.


And the first whiffs of a real "change" in the season are making Democrats look mighty green around the gills.


It might just be possible to teach an old pachyderm new tricks.


Who knew?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Gav4ZJkbcAAHQX3?format=jpg&name=small


In Nevada, the GOP has a lead in the early ballot count for the first time ever.


...GOP has a 24K ballot lead statewide, or 5 percent, and it is having a trickle-down effect on down-ballot races. Whether this is all about a frontloaded GOP vote and the Dems will begin to change the mix is a question we can't answer yet. (Clark is only 67 percent of the vote while it has 73 percent of the registration.)


Hare-core Democrats in Clark County, a constituency they take for granted, not showing up to vote is really starting to worry the Harry Reid wing of the blue machine out there.




Florida early voting has started, and, of course, we're red, but what's been astonishing is watching the blue southern counties flip to red, too.




Virginia - it's an early GOP voting hotbed. Democrats there are running so far behind their 2020 numbers they are begging their voters to come out.




The Trump campaign has noticed.


Guess who's going to VA?




Fani Willis's vindictive and very messy hissy fit didn't seem to have too much of an effect on Trump in Georgia. Early voters are primarily GOP there, too.




"Monster" turnout.


Black voters, not so much.




That's mucho ominous for blue hopes and dreams of holding the state if their GOTV remains deflated.


Even hurricane-ravaged North Carolina has the GOP up over Democrats.




It's an astonishing turnout no matter where you look and outright leads in the most amazing places. Worse for Democrats, where Republicans are surging, their voters just aren't showing up or requesting ballots in anywhere near the numbers they need for the self-described "firewalls" they figure they have to build/bank to hold Trump off.


They're being ghosted.


All this Trumpian enthusiasm and Democrat lack confuses once-confident Democrats. It makes them have the #sadz and has them doing the cope.





Republican voters have so far cast more early ballots than Democrats in three of the key swing states, giving the party a potential ray of optimism with less than two weeks before Election Day.


More registered Republicans have voted in Arizona, Nevada and North Carolina than Democrats, according to publicly available state data. The party affiliation doesn't mean that voters have to vote for their party's candidate, so there's no way to definitively know whether the early voters supported the person that their party is aligned with.


But...but...but...how could they when everyone knows TRUMP'S A FASCIST!!!




Stuff a sock in it, Stephanie.


We've got more work to do here.


It's really cheerful knowing that it might just all pay off when everyone's doing their part by VOTING.


We can do this.


FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT


BEEGE UPDATE: Alrighty, Trump has announced a rally in Virginia on Saturday, November 2:




AND one of the big Democratic PACs has canceled their ALL ad buys in Nevada. They're pulling up stakes and leaving town.




Ho, boy.


PEDAL TO THE METAL AND GET OUT THE VOTE!


But, damn - this feels good.

[Gunny]

Why the tea leaves are going Red?

https://hotair.com/tree-hugging-sister/2024/10/25/republicans-are-beatin-feet-to-ballots-and-dems-feelin-a-leetle-sickly-n3796271Certainly sounds like a happy person :)

[Kathianne]

23.

[Kathianne]

23.6

[Kathianne]

24.9

[Black Diamond]

Trump media stock went up 20 percent today.

[SassyLady]

Wonder what odds are tomorrow after that stupid comedian BS.

[Kathianne]

26.7

[Kathianne]

28.9

[Kathianne]

26.8

I expected a jump with brilliant garbage trump.

[Kathianne]

22.8

[Black Diamond]

22.8

What's going on?

[Kathianne]

What's going on?

I'm stumped. Might think they became over confident and pulling back?

[fj1200]

trump says something dumb?

[Gunny]

trump says something dumb?Like this?

Trump Says 'War Hawk' Liz Cheney Should Have 'Guns Trained On Her Face' - Newsweek (https://www.newsweek.com/trump-war-hawk-liz-cheney-should-have-guns-trained-her-face-1978432)

[Kathianne]

trump says something dumb?
No, the past few days the stupid sayings have been D's. So confusing.

[fj1200]

Like this?

Trump Says 'War Hawk' Liz Cheney Should Have 'Guns Trained On Her Face' - Newsweek (https://www.newsweek.com/trump-war-hawk-liz-cheney-should-have-guns-trained-her-face-1978432)

Yeah, like that.


No, the past few days the stupid sayings have been D's. So confusing.

Stupid for them is baked in. Off message for trump is short-term damage before the rebound and at this point there's little time for the rebound. I still think he wins fairly easily and things get called Tuesday night but... trump. :eek:

[Kathianne]

Yeah, like that.



Stupid for them is baked in. Off message for trump is short-term damage before the rebound and at this point there's little time for the rebound. I still think he wins fairly easily and things get called Tuesday night but... trump. :eek:


Funny thing, I didn't find the Cheney thing all that bad and my foreign policy stances aren't all that different, though I think she's been a proven liar regarding Trump.

His point was 'warmonger.' 'neo-con.'

[SassyLady]

https://youtube.com/shorts/h48Ov1RtkUU?si=t8AYxuWxFaXdJ0Zq

[Kathianne]

Funny thing, I didn't find the Cheney thing all that bad and my foreign policy stances aren't all that different, though I think she's been a proven liar regarding Trump.

His point was 'warmonger.' 'neo-con.'

Some Dems and anti-Trumpers are not going with the execution narrative:

https://www.foxnews.com/media/liberals-trump-critics-blast-medias-coverage-liz-cheney-comments-bald-faced-lie

[Black Diamond]

Betting odds were coming down before Cheney comment. And Cheneys " this is how dictstors talk" line is tired.

[Kathianne]

Betting odds were coming down before Cheney comment. And Cheneys " this is how dictstors talk" line is tired.

Yep, that's what I said too. I'm unsure what's going on, but still think Trump is ahead.

[Kathianne]

17.5

Now maybe the Cheney thing in play.

[Kathianne]

Possible explanation seems it may be manipulation:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/graphics/2024/10/31/presidential-election-odds-2024-polls-betting/75628466007/

[Kathianne]

Like this?

Trump Says 'War Hawk' Liz Cheney Should Have 'Guns Trained On Her Face' - Newsweek (https://www.newsweek.com/trump-war-hawk-liz-cheney-should-have-guns-trained-her-face-1978432)


Thought this was appropriate. Lots and lots of links at site:

https://thefederalist.com/2024/11/01/heres-a-list-of-every-garbage-journalist-who-lied-about-trumps-liz-cheney-chickenhawk-comments/


Here’s A List Of Every Garbage Journalist Who Lied About Trump’s Liz Cheney Chickenhawk CommentsBy: Kylee Griswold and Beth Brelje
November 01, 2024


Jonah Goldberg may have been the worst offender, but he was hardly the only one.


Kylee Griswold and Beth Brelje


Democrats’ propaganda press is completely lying about comments Trump made about neocon and former Rep. Liz Cheney in an interview with Tucker Carlson.


Trump called Cheney a “radical war hawk” and pointed out how easy it is to make decisions about the lives of American troops when you are sitting in a cozy, insulated office and have no sense of how it feels on the field of battle to face the life and death consequences of decisions made in Washington.


“Let’s put her with a rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her. Let’s see how she feels about it, you know, when the guns are trained on her face,” Trump said. “You know, they’re all war hawks when they’re sitting in Washington, in a nice building saying, ‘Oh, gee, well, let’s send — let’s send 10,000 troops right into the mouth of the enemy.’”


Anyone with a basic grasp of English and a bit of context understands what Trump was conveying. But you don’t have to imagine how brazenly the lying dog-faced pony-soldier media massaged that sentiment — that we should be careful with the precious lives of our troops — into something sinister.


“He’s saying quite explicitly and unambiguously that Liz Cheney should be shot, should be executed by firing squad,” Jonah Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Dispatch, said in a CNN interview. “Let’s execute a political opponent, who happens to be a woman, because I don’t like her. … Does that pull more low-propensity voters in his coalition to the polls? I honestly don’t think so.”


Goldberg later wrote on X that he was “wrong” — while being sure to further denigrate Trump and Trump’s defenders, adding, “[I]t’s worth noting that a lot of the criticism about my inaccuracy is itself somewhat inaccurate, or at least incomplete, given my correction.”


Oh, boohoo. Goldberg may have been the worst offender, but he was hardly the only one.


CNN anchor Kasie Hunt said Trump is “escalating his violent rhetoric, suggesting one of his most prominent critics, former Congresswoman Liz Cheney, should be fired upon.” The network’s homepage blared, “Trump rages that ‘war hawk’ Liz Cheney should be fired upon.”


Here’s another fake news headline from CNN’s Eric Bradner: “Trump says ‘war hawk’ Liz Cheney should be fired upon in escalation of violent rhetoric against his opponents.”


CNN’s Jim Acosta said Trump’s comment “obviously evokes images of a firing squad. It evokes images of an execution” during a segment with the chyron: “Trump: Liz Cheney Should Be Shot With ‘Guns Trained On Her Face.'” With a different panel, Acosta’s lies got more fantastical: “So Donald Trump talking about executing Liz Cheney — and let’s just be clear, when you talk about nine barrels, I’m sorry, for all the folks out there who want to dance on the head of a pin, that is what he is talking about, an execution fantasy.”




Politico’s Andrew Howard went with this for his headline: “Suggesting ‘nine barrels shooting’ at Cheney, Trump reverts to violent rhetoric.”


After airing just part of the soundbite on MSNBC Friday morning, network host and Politico bureau chief Jonathan Lemire called Trump’s comments “dangerous” and said Trump’s Cheney critiques employed “violent war imagery.”


When CNN’s Kate Sullivan dishonestly posted a partial, noncontextualized clip of Trump’s comments on X, The Washington Post’s Aaron Blake piled on to lie: “Republicans have spent >2 weeks assuring that Trump wasn’t talking about using violence against his political opponents. Now he paints just such a scene.”


“Trump draws outrage after saying Cheney should have guns ‘trained on her face,'” lied Reuters propagandists Andy Sullivan and Susan Heavey.


Rather than fighting against the lying corporate media, National Review’s Jim Geraghty shared the aforementioned Reuters article on X, disparaging Trump and his supporters by writing, “If Trump loses _again_, the GOP is done with him, right? We’re not gonna waste the 2028 cycle on another round with Captain-Says-Stupid-S***, right?”


“Trump gonna call for Liz Cheney to face a firing squad,” Politico Senior Political Columnist Jonathan Martin wrote on X, adding, “And, man, if you think Donald Trump’s actual beef w Liz Cheney is her foreign policy, you’re clearly not tired of rationalizing!”


“Trump Fantasizes About Guns Pointed at Liz Cheney’s Face,” read the headline from Nikki McCann Ramirez, a “politics reporter” for Rolling Stone.


Her article was tagged with the category “Deranged.” How fitting. That’s how you could describe all of this unhinged propaganda.

[NightTrain]

The reason for it going down is pure market manipulation. Right before the 4th we'll see it skyrocket in Trump's favor. The Big Boys are looking to maximize their huge bets.

Read a couple of stories about the French citizen who already placed $30 million on Trump... that's some disposable income he's playing with. It'll be interesting to see how much he clears when the dust settles.

[Kathianne]

Trump always performs 5 to 8 points better than the polls indicate. No one has figured out why that is with him; it drives them crazy.

My suspicion is that the polls are deliberately skewed to demoralize Republicans up to about 2 weeks before the election, and if the true numbers don't come around to where the pollsters would like to see them by then, they bring them into line. Two days and less we're seeing the true polling numbers - which are still 5 to 8 points shy of actual.

More explanation:

https://hotair.com/david-strom/2024/11/02/nate-silver-pollsters-are-rigging-their-numbers-n3796594


Nate Silver: Pollsters Are Rigging their NumbersDavid Strom 2:30 PM | November 02, 2024



AP Photo/Charles Krupa
Nate Silver, love him or hate him, is a numbers geek.


We all know him because he rose to prominence as an elections guy, but his passion is numbers. Statistics make him happy. Gambling is his passion.


The odds matter to him because he makes his living calculating them and betting real money based on those odds.




It's much easier to call the odds on sports or cards than elections for a lot of reasons. The data you are dealing with are real, for one thing, and there is lots more of it than elections, which occur relatively rarely.


Most of the "election" data we think of comes not from results but from the numerous polls put out. However, polls are only quasi-data, not real statistics you can use with any certainty. Polls are based on a magical combination of actual data collected in non-random ways, testing questions that may or may not skew the results, and then mashed through a black box formula that tries to turn this rather dirty nonrandom "data" into something that more closely resembles the real world.


That doesn't make polls USELESS. If they were, campaigns wouldn't waste resources on them. It just means they aren't what we are told they are.




A poll that shows a 10-15 point gap between two candidates a week out from the election tells you that the candidate who is down will most certainly lose. Not always, but it's a pretty good indicator. The closer you get to tied the less informative they become because the answer is generated not by the data but by the "black box" or model. Any errors in that model that skew results away from the real electorate will introduce systematic errors that are invisible.


Sometimes the skew is because the pollster's model is innocently wrong. Sometimes not.


Nate Silver has been watching this process at work for years, and he concludes that pollsters are skewing the results--intentionally--to show a race that is closer than it is. They are "herding," or covering their asses because they are scared to look like an outlier.


It’s obviously a really close race. But for some pollsters, it’s a little too close.


Take, for example, this afternoon’s polling release from the British firm Redfield & Wilton. They polled all seven of the core battleground states. And in all seven, Kamala Harris and Donald Trump each received between 47 and 48 percent of the vote:


Isn’t this a little convenient? Whatever happens, Redfield & Wilton — not a firm with a well-established reputation in the US — will be able to throw up their hands and say “well, we projected a tie, so don’t blame us!”. And since all of these states are also close in the polling averages, they’ll also ensure that they won’t rank at the bottom of the table of the most and least accurate pollsters — although unless the race really is that close, and it probably won’t be, they also won’t rank toward the top.


Now granted, our forecast is close too. But it’s based on polling averages: dozens of polls have been released in each of these states over the past month. That greatly increases the sample size. Collectively, they’ve surveyed about 230,000 voters.


By contrast, the median sample size in individual polls in these states is 800 voters. In a 49-49 race in a poll of 800 people — assuming 2 percent goes to third parties — the theoretical margin of error for the difference between Trump and Harris is ±6 points. If that sounds higher than you’re expecting, that’s because the margin of error that’s usually reported in polls is only for one candidate’s vote share. For instance, in a poll of 800 people, Trump’s margin of error is about ±3 points, as is Harris’s. However, basically every vote that isn’t a vote for Trump is a vote for Harris. If Trump gets 52 percent of the vote instead of 49, that implies Harris will receive 46 percent.1 So the margin of error on the difference separating Trump and Harris is ±6.


What this means is that if pollsters are doing honest work, we should see a lot more “outliers” than we do — even if people love to complain about them on Twitter.


What he is saying, dumbed down, is this: even if the race is really close in all these states, no one pollster should produce 6 or 7 polls saying the same thing. It is statistically impossible, because even perfect polling has a random margin of error. This is like flipping a coin a thousand times and getting heads all the time.


Not very plausible.


Actually, according to Silver, the odds of the polls looking the way they do are infinitesimally small. Outrageously so, in fact:


There’s more detail on this in the table below. Using this margin of error formula, I calculated the likelihood that a poll should show the race within ±2.5 points. This depends greatly on the sample size. For a poll of 400 people, the smallest sample size in our October swing state database, the chances that it will hit this close to the mark are only about 40 percent. For the largest sample, 5686 voters, it’s almost 95 percent instead. But most state polls are toward the lower end of this range, surveying between 600 and 1200 voters. All told, we’d expect 55 percent of the polls to show a result within 2.5 points in a tied race. Instead, almost 80 percent of them did. How unlikely is that?


Based on a binomial distribution — which assumes that all polls are independent of one another, which theoretically they should be — it’s realllllllllllllly unlikely. Specifically, the odds are 1 in 9.5 trillion against at least this many polls showing such a close margin.


The problems are most acute in Wisconsin, where there have been major polling errors in the past and pollsters seem terrified of going out on a limb. There, 33 of 36 polls — more than 90 percent — have had the race within 2.5 points. In theory, there’s just a 1 in 2.8 million chance that so many polls would show the Badger State so close.


I can't check his math, but the point he is making is sound: if the polling were done right, there is no way that so many polls would say pretty much the same thing. The randomness of error precludes it. Something shady is going on, and it doesn't have to be anything as sinister as rigging the election.


Pollsters have an incentive to be right--it can bring them business--but they also have a strong incentive to not be too wrong and stand out as horrible. So the sensible business thing to do is hedge your bets by sticking with the herd and hoping that by luck you look better than everybody else out of pure chance. Stay close to the norm but a bit off one way or another so you can crow if you hit the jackpot by accident.


Nobody can point their finger at you if you were wrong--after all, so many others were too and said similar things!


That seems to be as good a reason as any for the way polls look right now, clustered together so much. Since you expect it to be close, predict it will be close. What we are seeing is not data but ass-covering.


Don't get me wrong--if these pollsters were seeing something DRAMATICALLY different, they would adjust things to ensure they don't look too far off. That may be why polls drifted toward Trump in recent weeks--tweak to make the polls look more like the reality they think they see.


In this election, the incentives are doubly bad, because the polling averages in the swing states are close to zero — so a pollster can both herd toward the consensus and avoid taking a stand that there’s a ~50/50 chance they’ll later be criticized for by publishing a steady stream of Harris +1s, Trump +1s and ties. Lately, a lot of national polls have also shown near-ties after usually showing Harris leads earlier in the race. We wonder if there’s been an increasing amount of herding there too, perhaps involving the use and abuse of likely voter models4 — national polls have tightened and moved toward Trump considerably more than state polls have become Trumpier over the past month, except in Nevada and Florida:


This explains why internal polls are, reportedly, quite different than what the public polls say. Their incentive is to get it right for their clients because it matters. Nobody cares what their pollster rating on 538 or RCP is; they need a client to come back next time.


Does this mean Trump is doing better than the public polls indicate? Not at all. It could be the opposite for all I know. It just means that the polls you see are garbage if you want to predict anything.


All of this herding — and hedging — increases my concern about another systematic polling error. It might be an error in Trump’s favor again, but it won’t necessarily be: pollsters may be terrified of showing Harris leads after two cycles of missing low on Trump, and they probably won’t be criticized too much for a Harris +1 or even a Trump +1 if she wins in Michigan by, say, 3 or 4 points.


Or there could be errors that run in both directions. Crosstabs show sharp moves away from Democrats among Black and Hispanic voters, and to some extent corresponding gains among white ones. If those crosstabs are real, you’d expect to see some bigger shifts on the map — Georgia being a really rough state for Harris, for instance.


We are all glued to the polls but beware: all the polls are glued to each other because the incentives are high not to look too off and lose your bet.


We are all on tenterhooks right now, but the only polling I would take seriously at all would be internal polls, and even those are irrelevant by now. It all comes down to turnout operations, not persuading voters.

[NightTrain]

More explanation:

https://hotair.com/david-strom/2024/11/02/nate-silver-pollsters-are-rigging-their-numbers-n3796594


Yeah, Nate Silver is a leftist, but he has integrity and you have to respect that about him. When he's calling out those pollsters & their dishonest polls designed to GOTV for democrats, you know it's real. He knows about friendly fire, so he's got to be pretty disgusted to engage in it.

Atlas, the most accurate pollsters of 2020, released their poll from like July - Now, and it's been extremely consistent : Trump with a 1 - 3% lead which is much more reasonable than the constant whiplash back and forth.

My theory is the pollsters are drumming up business by the back-and-forth polling, making the campaigns react by ordering MORE polls to see how they're doing this week. Or after that last interview. Or after that big rally. Or after the latest gaffe.

Oh, shit! Trump's up 0.7%! We'll do another interview and commission another poll! Kamala's now 0.2% up. Do another rally and commission another poll! Multiple polls!

I think they're simply banking as much money as they can to grab those hundreds of millions being spent, and that includes the internal pollsters. They make more money the closer the race is because everyone is frantic on both sides of the aisle wanting more information.

[Kathianne]

18.0

[Kathianne]

9.0

[Kathianne]

Polls seem to be leaning Harris, supposedly because the late votes are breaking for her. It's counterintuitive from past, momentum, and internal polls from the campaigns. If Harris's team thought Iowa was in play they'd have been there. Suddenly she's up 3?

[Kathianne]

This sounds positive:

https://nypost.com/2024/11/02/us-news/new-york-republicans-coming-out-to-vote-early-in-record-numbers/?utm_campaign=nypost&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social

[Kathianne]

what do you think of this?

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/11/01/shy-kamala-harris-voters-polling-00186653

[Kathianne]

As the post says, bookmark it!

https://pjmedia.com/matt-margolis/2024/11/03/nyt-pollster-admits-support-for-trump-could-be-undercounted-n4933903


Here's Why Trump May Indeed Outperform the Polls Again This YearMatt Margolis | 8:09 AM on November 03, 2024



AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson
Are the polls underestimating Donald Trump's support this year? Not according to CNN's Harry Enten. Last week, he dismissed the idea that the same political party would beat polling expectations in three consecutive presidential cycles across key battleground states. “It’s never happened. Zero times since 1972,” he said. “What normally happens is the pollsters catch on… they make adjustments.”


Why do I bring this up? Well, the final New York Times/Siena poll was released Sunday, and it’s another doozy. “Usually, the final polls point toward a relatively clear favorite, even if that candidate doesn’t go on to win,” notes New York Times chief political analyst Nate Cohn. “This will not be one of those elections.”


According to the poll, Kamala Harris and Donald Trump are locked in a virtual tie across seven critical battleground states, where neither candidate holds a decisive lead. Trump leads in Arizona by four points, while Harris holds a slight one-point edge in Georgia. In Michigan, Trump has a narrow one-point advantage, while Harris is up by three in both Nevada and North Carolina. Pennsylvania remains evenly split, and Harris leads by three in Wisconsin.


If you can’t do the math in your head, let me tell you what this poll claims. According to this poll, Kamala Harris would win the presidency without winning Pennsylvania. In fact, she wouldn’t need Michigan either.




Democrats certainly would love to see this pan out. But Nate Cohn actually put a rather significant disclaimer on these results.


“Four years ago, the polls were thought to underestimate Mr. Trump because of nonresponse bias — in which his supporters were less likely to take surveys than demographically similar Biden supporters,” he explained.


“It’s hard to measure nonresponse bias — after all, we couldn’t reach these demographically similar voters — but one measure I track from time to time is the proportion of Democrats or Republicans who respond to a survey, after considering other factors,” he continued. “Across these final polls, white Democrats were 16 percent likelier to respond than white Republicans. That’s a larger disparity than our earlier polls this year, and it’s not much better than our final polls in 2020 — even with the pandemic over. It raises the possibility that the polls could underestimate Mr. Trump yet again.”


Cohn notes that they do try to account for non-response bias, “but in the end there are no guarantees.”


That's a rather stunning admission for two reasons. First, it tells us that he's not particularly confident in the poll results. Frankly, I wouldn't be either. Are Georgia and North Carolina really going to vote to the left of Pennsylvania? I'm not buying that. In light of early voting numbers showing strong showings for Trump in Nevada, Georgia, and North Carolina, something seems wrong about these states all going blue.


More often than not, you would expect a pollster to stand behind their poll results, not put a big, fat asterisk on their results.


But Cohn's admission brings up another issue entirely. If he is observing nonresponse bias in his polling, then you can bet that he's not the only one. So, it stands to reason that other pollsters must be experiencing it as well, which means there's a very good chance Trump will outperform the polls this year.


(https://x.com/TomBevanRCP)
Tom Bevan

(https://x.com/TomBevanRCP)Based on NYT polls, Harris wins the Electoral College even without PA and MI. Feel free to bookmark this.




https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GbdU7IuaMAAnHxj?format=jpg&name=900x900


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GbdUcbVbMAAKHCG?format=png&name=small

(https://x.com/TomBevanRCP)

[Kathianne]

Ok, a different take. Much cannot c & p:

https://twitchy.com/samj/2024/11/03/nyt-admits-polls-may-be-underestimating-trump-again-n2403176


HUGE. No, Wait ... YUGE! What the NYT Just Admitted About Trump's Poll Numbers Will PANIC Team KamalaSam J.


9:15 AM on November 03, 2024



Awwww the polls. If you pay any attention to them whatsoever you may very well have motion sickness at this point. This editor feels that way. Up, down, up, down, sideways, backwards, diagonal ... it could happen. In other words, they have been all over the place but the one consistency has been Trump's lead in most of them, and the ones he's not leading in he's either tied with the walking suck bag aka Kamala OR he's trailing her in a state by a point or two where she should be up double digits.


Overall, they've looked good for Trump (even that ridiculous poll from the Des Moines Register, what a crock).


So this from New York Times' Nate Cohen is pretty huge ... or you know, YUGE.




Underestimating.


Trump.


Again.


Ya' don't say? Polls are traditionally Leftist biased? Get outta town.




THIS. ^


VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE.


Did we mention you should get out and vote? Heh.




Hrm.




Recommended


Can't Even Get Her Own BIT! Kamala's SNL Skit BOMBS and Gosh Golly Gee, It Looks REALLY Familiar (Watch)
Sam J.
His post continues:


They missed outside the MoE in nearly 60% of their final polls and 90.4% of the time in favor of Biden/Democrats. On average, they were off by 4.5% and missed by over 3% in 71% of their polls.


Anyone who pretends they are some sort of "gold standard" or "A" rated pollster is a fool, lying to you, or both.


They stink.


They are in the propaganda, not polling business.


There never has been a Kamala surge, not even in July.


Democrats are lagging in turnout across the nation, and this is a last ditch/Hail Mary effort to depress GOP turnout and rally some of their lunatic supporters to the polls.


Instead of falling for it, call them out and, most importantly, VOTE!


What he said.




Also what HE said.


When we vote, we win.


GET OUT AND VOTE!

[Kathianne]

8.5

[NightTrain]

Monday is where the real numbers hit.

Elon is mildly autistic and it's interesting to see how his mind picks a number and he obsesses with it. He wants the betting numbers to hit 69.420% :laugh:

He's said this probably a dozen times on Twitter.

[Kathianne]

Monday is where the real numbers hit.

Elon is mildly autistic and it's interesting to see how his mind picks a number and he obsesses with it. He wants the betting numbers to hit 69.420% :laugh:

He's said this probably a dozen times on Twitter.

That would be a huge jump now, was likely about a week ago. I don't know that anipulation is causing folks to just get out or what.

[Kathianne]

13.1

[Kathianne]

17.4

[Kathianne]

19.9

Lots of changes in short time. I'm working a few hours earlier, I'll check in when I can.

[Kathianne]

20.8