Betting data parallels EU referendum and favours Trump.

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 68196.html

It is news that will strike fear into the hearts of perhaps half of America and large chunks of the world outside of it.

Despite a calamitous week of campaigning, betting markets on the US election are almost a mirror image of those on Britain’s EU referendum at this stage. And they could be pointing to a victory for Donald Trump.

Bookmaker William Hill says 71 per cent of the money so far staked is for Democrat Hillary Clinton. But 65 per cent of the bets by number are for the controversial Republican.

That means a lot more punters are putting smaller bets on Trump, almost exactly the same pattern as was seen in the run up to the Brexit vote when the money was for Remain but the majority of bets were for Leave.

The bookie has cut the odds on a Trump victory from 11-2 to 4-1 over the past two days in response to a surge in bets for the reality TV star and businessman turned politician.

That is unequivocally the ugliest photoshop from whichever generic horror... and, if it's 65% it's not a majority then.

I thought you'd like it Mootoo.

Erm.... What definition of "majority" are you working with, Mootoo?

Well, majority as in more than one's rival... also, these aren't two options like in the referendum; party loyalty also didn't hold true there, whereas it's strong in the states besides other factors.

I'm no expert in betting data, but from my interpretation I'm not sure at all what 'favours' him... it seems like smaller bets were made, but not more overall.

Polling data>betting data.

Polling data gives more chance of Clinton winning Missouri than Trump winning the Presidency. Nothing to worry about. It would take a monumental effort from Trump to turn it around at this point.

Are those the same pollsters who in the primaries claimed Trump would not win? Also after reading this if the author is correct one should not place too much fate in polls claiming the democrat candidate will win.

There are lots of polls with democrat oversampling and high independent/undecided.
CNN viewer panel felt Trump won that debate 10-5. And that's CNN, where they normally ensure it will be in Hillary's favour.

I really wouldn't base any hope on the polls because many have been proven to be biased polls in their sampling. And almost every time Trump was stated to be down in the polls during the primary he came out on top or at least a close 2nd.

I was quite surprised by this debate and think both candidates did not hit all the notes they wanted to, leaving any winner only a marginal victory. I was expecting Hillary to drop a bombshell due to her being absent from rallies and press for a while. But it was a very similar performance to the 2nd.

The parallels between the Brexit vote and the Trump campaign are undeniable as populists win more and more across the globe, something is happening and it's not just here. Europe is going to have a very interesting 2017, I am 100% sure that another country besides the UK will leave the dying EU before 2020 and I think any of these countries leaving could result in more wanting to leave.

You don't need betting and polling data, just good ole eyes and ears. The same people that said Brexit was not possible were saying Trump could never win the nomination, obviously there already existed a bias in polling and I don't think it's been corrected as these polls are all over the place. Remember how far ahead they said Stay was the day or so before?

Also another total polling failure was the referendum on the peace deal with FARC in Colombia, now I'm not sure how reliable polls are out of that country usually but they had the referendum passing by an overwhelming 2 to 1 margin in literally every poll but they still lost the actual vote. The only poll that really matters is the official one on election day, everything else is just noise. These people are not real scientists, election polling is a total arbitrary pseudoscience if there ever was one even if they do guess the result because guesswork is at best what they do.

Here's an article on why Gallup decided to sit out this election with their horse race poll

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/g ... ers-214493

I don't know where this myth that polling showed that Remain was going to win comfortably has come from. The polling was all over the place. A better example would be the 2015 General Election where polls suggested a hung parliament with Conservative losses to Labour.

Additionally, we had absolutely no idea about house effects in the Brexit referendum because there was no precedent. British elections are better but not great. We do know about house effects in Presidential elections and those have been used to accurately predict the results of the last two elections.

Polling also consistently showed Trump ahead in the Republican nominations. Punditry suggested he'd lose as candidates dropped out and narrowed the field, but he didn't. That's a success for the polling data, not a failure.

FiveThirtyEight's models include uncertainty like third party votes and undecided voters. Those have reduced a lot in the last month, to the extent that their "now-cast" (if everyone had to vote today) almost matches their "polls-only" forecast. The exception is Utah, of course, where McMullin seems to be in the ascendancy. I prefer the "polls-plus" model, which factors in other things, and is slightly better for Trump (it assumes Arizona will lean back to the Republicans). You can view the forecasts here - note that they've got 99/100 states right over the last two elections.

I am very worried for the Trump supporters. At this point it's obvious that they're almost certainly going to lose, but they deny simple facts. They are probably going to be very upset when Trump loses despite their strong groundless feelings that he's winning.

Very much this^. I was on another Web forum a few days ago and americans were talking about their election and repeatedly referring to Brexit as the precedent for polling etc. I was all wtf?? History as been very much rewritten around the Brexit polling in the U.S as that narrative fits for many people arguing there. It's quite odd to hear people overseas claiming such things about the Brexit polling.

The best I can offer at this stage is this polling pattern over the course of 9 months:
https://ig.ft.com/sites/brexit-polling/

Though I did see some stats on Twitter that showed the daily tracker polling Remain on +8 the day before. I will see if I can fish this out again. It was an equally reputable source.

The odds most definitely were overwhelmingly in Remains favor, the polls all gave it a lead so I think is comparable. Now if you thought differently then maybe as citizens of the UK you folks had a better understanding of what was happening on the ground and had your own interpretations about the polls just as I have These polls with Hillary up a ton are outliers with most others being much closer, I know enough about American politics that I can make my own opinions about their methodologies so it's not simply just denying everything as I've been saying this about polls for a long time including when Trump was leading.

The polls certainly didn't all give it a lead. There were several front-page articles about polls which had given Leave the lead. For example. This was the Independent's preview:



Here are the adjusted polls for the Presidential race. Yes, if you disagree that some of those might lean Republican then there are a few which are close, but you're still looking at a consistent pattern of Clinton being up comfortably (and ofc 538's poll weightings have proven reliable in the past). Trump hasn't been close in PA for a long time, and Florida is also looking like a comfortable Clinton win, particularly with her stronger ground game.

I think Trump will win Georgia, Arizona and probably Iowa, but Ohio is going to be difficult and North Carolina looks like a safer and safer bet for Clinton.

There is a lot of reasons to doubt the polls and you are putting much too much emphasis about what it says now and what will happen on election does as the polls are not predictive but rather a snapshot within whatever chosen perimeters.

Trump is leading in several polls, no one knows how turnout will be this year, there are a lot of independents and potential third party supporters, and these revelations about the culture of criminality in the the entire DNC it seems with have to get heard eventually.