25 Oct
2:09pm, 25 Oct 2024
22,306 posts
|
Chrisull
Apparently Hispanic men are very under-represented in the early voting (doesn't mean it won't change). White women less so. Betting markets for this election aren't very interesting as the odds are low for both sides, as no-one knows who will win. Having said that they are beginning to move towards Trump in a way that is more than the polls would indicate, suggesting a little gap. I will keep an eye, but suspect they won't move much further that way. |
|
25 Oct
2:13pm, 25 Oct 2024
22,307 posts
|
Chrisull
Latest NYT polls: Harris cut Trump’s lead on the economy **in half** since last month Among the 15% of voters still not fully decided, Harris is up by 10. Two weeks ago, Trump led them by 1. (This backs up the Emerson poll I mentioned a few days ago). Polls aren't great at capturing late swings as we've seen before. Also some pure copium here Marist early voting in state polls: Marist polling of early voters: AZ: Harris 55 Trump 44 NC: Harris 55 Trump 43 GA: Harris 54 Trump 45. All sorts of caveats here apply, you don't need to tell me again. BUT - BUT it does hint that indies might be breaking Harris's way in nont insignificant numbers. |
25 Oct
2:19pm, 25 Oct 2024
23,303 posts
|
rf_fozzy
Chrisull wrote: Apparently Hispanic men are very under-represented in the early voting (doesn't mean it won't change). White women less so. Stop looking at early voting and trying to glean any information from it! It tells you nothing. You have no way of knowing if people who vote early would/wouldn't have voted on election day. Nor do you know who they vote for. I think we all clearly rightly mocked Kussenberg when she posted on Xitter (without evidence and without the ballots even starting to be counted...) that because the postal vote turnout was greater/less than Tory HQ was expecting in some wards and so it was going to be super close in the London Mayoral election. Result - Khan won with an increased majority. And for those who say betting markets>polls - we have had this argument before - betting markets are easily skewed by wealthy individuals. I don't generally look at it, but I saw an analysis that showed if the betting markets were correct, either Trump gets 300+ EV or Harris gets 300+ EV (i.e. all the swing states go one way or the other). Which if you look at the data, whilst a possible outcome, is less likely than a much closer one. Bad predictors. And simbil - saying that professional pollsters don't know what they're doing is armchair quarterbacking of the highest degree. It's like saying you trust your mate down the pub to diagnose a disease better than a doctor. Unless your mate down the pub is also a doctor, which should you trust? Do pollsters make mistakes? Yes. Could there be an error in the polls? Yes. Is their data the best window into what is likely to happen? Yes. |
25 Oct
2:21pm, 25 Oct 2024
6,787 posts
|
paulcook
Chrisull wrote: Having said that they are beginning to move towards Trump in a way that is more than the polls would indicate, suggesting a little gap. I will keep an eye, but suspect they won't move much further that way. Trump was 66% chance of winning; Harris 33% chance when I looked earlier. It was 50:50 not too long ago, so the markets are shifting pro-Trump. Two thoughts there though, Trump has been shorter a fair while ago, (vs then Biden) at touching 75%. And secondly on your final point, Trump's current chance hit a ceiling and rebounding a little - whether that's noise, uncertainty or just any possible market manipulation. And all depends how much you care / think of the betting markets. |
25 Oct
2:22pm, 25 Oct 2024
472 posts
|
DaveG
larkim wrote: The only reason I asked is that I saw a tweet about votes being counted and being in favour of trump etc. Which felt odd. Maybe they were just making a presumption about the "normal" split of mail in ballots in that particular state. Can't find the tweet now! This will be similar to the issue Laura Kuennssberg once got in trouble for. They won't count who was voted for, but will be counting how many votes are received in as they come in. Counting that makes it easier on election day to know how many votes were cast. If you know the areas the votes came in from, it gives you an idea of turnout in that area. So if there's a high number in an area the pollsters say will vote Trump but with a low turnout for Trump supporters, you can predict that Trump is getting lots of postal votes and his supporters are motivated to vote. If there's an area like that with much lower than expected postal votes, you can assume the opposite. It will be much smaller areas that the state overall they will be getting this information about. I would imagine local campaign people will be collecting these numbers (of votes received in total), and doing things in their campaign to react to that information. So you don't know whose voting for whom, but can make some assumptions about what might be happening. |
|
25 Oct
2:24pm, 25 Oct 2024
23,304 posts
|
rf_fozzy
DaveG wrote: They won't count who was voted for, but will be counting how many votes are received in as they come in. Counting that makes it easier on election day to know how many votes were cast. Some states - PA being one IIRC - won't even allow this. They cannot touch early voting ballots until election day and after all on the day votes are counted. |
|
25 Oct
2:27pm, 25 Oct 2024
23,305 posts
|
rf_fozzy
Here we are: "Pennsylvania is one of seven states that does not allow election workers to begin processing absentee or mail ballots until 7 a.m. Election Day. This means workers across the commonwealth must deal with these ballots at the same time the polls are open, functionally running two elections at once, which can cause delays in unofficial results being available." eu.goerie.com |
|
25 Oct
2:28pm, 25 Oct 2024
23,306 posts
|
rf_fozzy
Here's a more complete summary: ncsl.org
|
25 Oct
2:31pm, 25 Oct 2024
33,308 posts
|
Johnny Blaze
What would make a white woman vote for Trump, I wonder, given he has all the markers of a coercive, abusive male? See also JD Vance with his creepy Gilead nonsense. And why would a Hispanic male feel unable to vote for Harris? My questions would only lead to assumptions about their motivations (anti-immigrant, addicted to cruelty, alpha male hogwash, anti-women inclinations) so I shan't indulge in innuendoes. Although I just did. |
|
25 Oct
2:32pm, 25 Oct 2024
6,788 posts
|
paulcook
If we're talking individual states then the betting markets currently have the swing states as: Trump: Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin Harris: Michigan But they'll all tight, some a coin flip. |
Useful Links
FE accepts no responsibility for external links. Or anything, really.Related Threads
-
Fantasy General Election
Jul 2024
-
EU Referendum - In or Out? Vote here
Aug 2018
-
March to Parliament Against Brexit - Sat 2nd July
Jun 2016
-
EU Referendum
Feb 2016
-
Ads on Fetch - anyone else getting Leave and Remain?!
Feb 2017
-
The Environment Thread :-)
Oct 2024
-
Economics
Aug 2023
-
Dear Scottish Fetchies
Jan 2023
-
Any economists out there - question
Oct 2022
-
Power and exploitation - please check my sanity
Oct 2018
