Will Trump be re-elected?

Will trump be re-elected?

  • Yes

    Votes: 28 14.5%

  • No

    Votes: 80 41.5%

  • Don't know, but I hope not

    Votes: 82 42.5%

  • Don't know, but I hope he does

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • Total voters
    193
I’ve read that last time the polls were mostly wrong, but according to the bookmakers Trump was going to win. Apparently betting is in favour of Trump this time around, too. :(
 
zooterkin said:
I’ve read that last time the polls were mostly wrong, but according to the bookmakers Trump was going to win. Apparently betting is in favour of Trump this time around, too. :(
Click to expand...

Betting markets in 2016 actually expected Clinton to win.

So much that one bookmaker payed out $1 million of bets on Clinton in October 2016 because they were certain Clinton would beat Trump.

https://money.cnn.com/2016/10/18/news/paddypower-pays-hillary-clinton-bettors/index.html

This year too, Biden is favoured by the betting markets, though less then Clinton was in 2016; 66/41 now on PredictIt, for example.

https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/3698/Who-will-win-the-2020-US-presidential-election
 
Last edited:
zooterkin said:
I’ve read that last time the polls were mostly wrong, but according to the bookmakers Trump was going to win. Apparently betting is in favour of Trump this time around, too. :(
Click to expand...

Last time out the polls predicted the popular vote mostly within the margin of error. They just got a couple of swing states wrong, and then not by much.
 
Minoosh said:
The RNC/Trump have called my house 4 times for money today and it's not even noon. But they're greedy bastards, they may just be trying to line their pockets.
Click to expand...


Did you keep them on the line to waste their time?
 
jeremyp said:
Last time out the polls predicted the popular vote mostly within the margin of error. They just got a couple of swing states wrong, and then not by much.
Click to expand...

That is what I was seeing too. I was wondering why so many were confident that Clinton would win. The polls narrowed quite a bit up to the election.

This time the poll lead seems to be more stable and the swing states are actually moving Biden's way.

On paper that looks like a Biden victory, but I am still going with the prediction that Trump will win the EC and Biden will win the popular vote.
 
Firestone said:
Betting markets in 2016 actually expected Clinton to win.

So much that one bookmaker payed out $1 million of bets on Clinton in October 2016 because they were certain Clinton would beat Trump.

https://money.cnn.com/2016/10/18/news/paddypower-pays-hillary-clinton-bettors/index.html

This year too, Biden is favoured by the betting markets, though less then Clinton was in 2016; 66/41 now on PredictIt, for example.

https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/3698/Who-will-win-the-2020-US-presidential-election
Click to expand...

Paying out early is something that Paddy Power does regularly, its very good publicity for them.

Then again, for those of us who really want President Trump to lose, this is
worrying news.

Robin said:
That is what I was seeing too. I was wondering why so many were confident that Clinton would win. The polls narrowed quite a bit up to the election.

This time the poll lead seems to be more stable and the swing states are actually moving Biden's way.

On paper that looks like a Biden victory, but I am still going with the prediction that Trump will win the EC and Biden will win the popular vote.
Click to expand...

I don't think that there has been significant doubt about Biden winning the popular vote.

OTOH I was convinced that President Trump would win the EC by about the same margin as last time around but I now think that Biden will edge the EC after the initial results but that will subsequently be overturned. :(
 
The Don said:
Paying out early is something that Paddy Power does regularly, its very good publicity for them.

Then again, for those of us who really want President Trump to lose, this is
worrying news.
Click to expand...
Not trying to be contrarian here, but I think it is good news.

One of the big differences between 2020 and 2016 is that, while pundits and betting markets overestimated the Clinton chances relative to the actual poll numbers, this year it's reversed. And that's where you want to be: pundits going against the data. ;)

Obviously I'm talking about the actual results with all votes counted, not the possible "results" after Trump's expected legal shenanigans.
 
There’s a decent chance that pollsters are over correcting for Trump voters also.
 
Upchurch said:
Does that mean giving more or less wait to Trump voters?
Click to expand...

There's always this assumption that if there's any polling error it will be in Trump's favor, and that Biden's lead isn't actually as big as the polls indicate. I believe it's possible that, in an overabundance of caution of repeating 2016, they've adjusted their polling methods to overestimate the support for Trump.

Same thing with the shy Trump voter. Maybe there's a shy Biden voter that don't want to say that to the maniac Trump friends and family. It's just as likely to me either way.
 
538 has dropped Trump's chances into the single digits for the first time, putting in at 9 in 100 compared to Biden's 89 and that 1 off tie scenario that keeps popping in and out of their simulations.

But again from my vantage point the discussion has largely shifted from "Can Trump win" to "Will Trump accept that he lost."
 
JoeMorgue said:
538 has dropped Trump's chances into the single digits for the first time, putting in at 9 in 100 compared to Biden's 89 and that 1 off tie scenario that keeps popping in and out of their simulations.

But again from my vantage point the discussion has largely shifted from "Can Trump win" to "Will Trump accept that he lost."
Click to expand...
If Trump loses Biden needs to beg Obama to head up the transition team, not because of Obama's capability or experience just to rub it into Trump!
 
This for me is pretty much the definition of a crisis. A hugely influential event is about to happen and I have no clue as to which way it's going to go.

A few other things I would place in that category:

Job interview callback
Doctor's results
Y2K
Tax audit decision
VA Health care eligibility (and reimbursement for previous services) decision

I'm actually waiting on that last one as well. Stressful week.
 
theprestige said:
I love me some testable predictions. Wanna make an avatar bet?
Click to expand...

No. Because you'd just go "Oh no you see Trump didn't technically steal the election because of B.S. reason I'm just now making up so it doesn't count..."

Just like how you acted after he actually started putting people in camps.

You love "testable predictions" because you'll just deny the results of the test if they don't go your way.
 
Nova Land said:
You need to read more carefully (or I need to write more briefly, so that you can pay better attention to what I actually say.)

My comment advocates having voters cast their ballots and counting those ballots correctly. That often necessitates doing a recount where the ballots are examined carefully rather than trusting simply to machines. Machines often make mistakes, as exemplified in Florida 2000 when machines automatically discarded a large number of valid ballots.

We can, however, get a sense of whether there were problems with the vote counting which need to be addressed by talking with voters after the election. That's useful. It may indicate a need for a recount. It may also indicate problems worth fixing in future elections. That happened in Florida in regard to the butterfly ballots, in regard to the poorly written ballot instructions which led to overvotes, and a number of other problems.

I did not advocate using a system other than counting the ballots people cast for determining the outcome of the election (as in who gets to take office). But often there are problems with the counting -- such as, for instance, in some recent elections in Russia and Belarus -- and it's often wiser to rely on what external evidence shows us about these election outcomes rather than simply saying Well, if that's what they say the count shows it must be correct. If it's possible to do an honest recount (i.e. if the real ballots are still available for counting correctly) that's worth fighting to see done; if, as is sometimes the case in countries like those, it's not possible to do an honest recount, then it's worth speaking out against the dishonesty and working to help see that future elections are run more honestly run.

In Florida there were a number of strong indications the original count was not correct -- indications which good investigative reporting since the elections have shown to be correct. But what I see as the correct solution to the problem, which I thought was reasonably clear in my comment, was for there to be careful and accurate counting in a recount if there are indications that one is needed. And a key problem in 2000 is that attempts to have that recount were squelched -- leading to a result which we can now be reasonably sure was inaccurate.
Click to expand...

Mark my words: The polls have Biden up and Trump down. If Trump somehow wins tomorrow, it will be argued - and not on the fringes - that the polls were right and the ballots were wrong.
 
theprestige said:
Mark my words: The polls have Biden up and Trump down. If Trump somehow wins tomorrow, it will be argued - and not on the fringes - that the polls were right and the ballots were wrong.
Click to expand...

which is the sensible approach: it is just not likely that millions of voters suddenly changed their mind or managed to hide their true voting intentions.

There would need to be a very credibly, utterly transparent explanation how Trump won.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom