Question for Obama backers (gambling wise)

[HinesWard86]

How can you bet on Obama to win the election at -170 when most polls have it as a virtual dead heat and there is systematic error FOR Obama in those polls?

For example, look at the NH Primary.....most polls and exit polls had Obama winning the state by 8-10% but Hillary actually won by 3%. Why? Because there are some people who don't want to be viewed as racist or pro-change that lie and tell people they have or they will vote Obama but then let their true colors show in the voting booth.

Speaking as a gambler who is also a political scientist, betting on McCain at these odds may be the find of the century (assuming no scandal happens). With the polls showing a virtual dead heat McCain at these odds is already phenomenal even before factoring in the systematic error when a candidate of race is thrown in there.

If any of you doubt that there is systematic error, please read a number of political science articles or if you want to save yourself the boredom read some of the points that Malcolm Gladwell made on racial views in Blink.

 

[durito]

Re: Question for Obama backers (gambling wise)

1) Markets are far better predictors than polls (why do you think most gamblers lose)

..most polls and exit polls had Obama winning the state by 8-10% but Hillary actually won by 3%. Why? Because there are some people who don't want to be viewed as racist or pro-change that lie and tell people they have or they will vote Obama but then let their true colors show in the voting booth.

Considering how often polls are wrong, that's just a guess you are marking as to why that happened. If the polls were consistently getting Obama wrong, you might have a point. But, what makes NH more racist than any other state? It's probably less.


2. If you want to look at polls, I would go here

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

It's run by the guy who invented PECOTA (if you bet baseball, i hope you know what that is)

The win% is the highest i've seen it today, probably from the post convention "bounce". I'm sure it will drop back down.

 

[Glenn Danzig]

Re: Question for Obama backers (gambling wise)

Because the polls are not based on electoral votes. That's why.

 

[HinesWard86]

Re: Question for Obama backers (gambling wise)

1) Markets are far better predictors than polls (why do you think most gamblers lose)



Considering how often polls are wrong, that's just a guess you are marking as to why that happened. If the polls were consistently getting Obama wrong, you might have a point. But, what makes NH more racist than any other state? It's probably less.


2. If you want to look at polls, I would go here

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

It's run by the guy who invented PECOTA (if you bet baseball, i hope you know what that is)

The win% is the highest i've seen it today, probably from the post convention "bounce". I'm sure it will drop back down.

I prefer a combination of Zogby and Rasmussen as the best political indicators.

The bolded portion is exactly my point. New Hampshire is seen as a very tolerant state and even there, they had massive change from predictions to results. Now to say that there will be an 11 point swing everywhere is ludicrous, but time and time again people's answers to questions involving minorities change based on a number of factors, especially when that minority issue or in this case the minority is seen in a positive light. It is a subsidiary of the Hawthorne effect, certain people don't want to be seen as racist or "against change" and are thus lying about their vote choice.

Trust me that when election day comes, you will see sizeable differences between exit poll data and which way people actually vote.

 

[HinesWard86]

Re: Question for Obama backers (gambling wise)

Because the polls are not based on electoral votes. That's why.

Correct, however, you will see more than the expected 'swing' states go to McCain because of the systematic error involved.

 

[soli]

Re: Question for Obama backers (gambling wise)

I prefer a combination of Zogby and Rasmussen as the best political indicators.

The bolded portion is exactly my point. New Hampshire is seen as a very tolerant state and even there, they had massive change from predictions to results. Now to say that there will be an 11 point swing everywhere is ludicrous, but time and time again people's answers to questions involving minorities change based on a number of factors, especially when that minority issue or in this case the minority is seen in a positive light. It is a subsidiary of the Hawthorne effect, certain people don't want to be seen as racist or "against change" and are thus lying about their vote choice.

Trust me that when election day comes, you will see sizeable differences between exit poll data and which way people actually vote.

I agree 100% on this. McCann could have picked a dog to run with him and it wouldn't make a difference. Just a bunch of smoke screens till election time and America will go back their old habits. I wish it wasn't that way but that's the way it is.

 

[HinesWard86]

Re: Question for Obama backers (gambling wise)

One week later and now many places have this race a lot closer. Getting McCain at over 2-1 was a fucking joke. Once again goes to show you that gamblers have no idea what they are talking about, by and large, when it comes to politics. Leave it to us political scientists please.