Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Who won the debate?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Combat Engineer
    replied
    Originally posted by ljadw View Post
    Latest Rasmussen polls :

    7 october : Clinton 43 % /Trump 42 %

    6 october : Clinton 41 % / Trump :43 %

    5 october : Clinton 41 % / Trump : 42 %

    3 october : Clinton : 43 % / Trump : 41 %


    Conclusions : the debate had no lasting results and it is still imposible to say who will win .


    Latest EV prediction:

    Clinton : 208

    Trump :162

    Toss-up : 168
    Your conclusion only holds if you use ONE poll.. a GOP leaning one....

    Leave a comment:


  • ljadw
    replied
    Latest Rasmussen polls :

    7 october : Clinton 43 % /Trump 42 %

    6 october : Clinton 41 % / Trump :43 %

    5 october : Clinton 41 % / Trump : 42 %

    3 october : Clinton : 43 % / Trump : 41 %


    Conclusions : the debate had no lasting results and it is still imposible to say who will win .


    Latest EV prediction:

    Clinton : 208

    Trump :162

    Toss-up : 168

    Leave a comment:


  • Escape2Victory
    replied
    Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
    The key in our case is that if your theory is correct we'd see that in the results of all the polling done for the 50+ primaries and caucuses that we've already had. So we have lots of data and your theory did not show up in any of them. I have to go with the data.
    We won't know the outcome of my theory until the election result. My theory is Trump will run about 5% points ahead of what he polls against Clinton. If Clinton can open the lead to 9-10 points I would admit she will probably win and Trump is screwed. Not at 5's though.

    Leave a comment:


  • Daemon of Decay
    replied
    Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post
    Did even a single US poster here on the ACG change his opinion on how he will vote on account of the debate ?
    There is a body of research that shows the more politically aware someone is, the less likely they are to be a "swing voter". It's ironic, but the people most likely to want to watch the debates are the least likely to be swayed.

    Leave a comment:


  • Snowygerry
    replied
    Did even a single US poster here on the ACG change his opinion on how he will vote on account of the debate ?

    Leave a comment:


  • Michele
    replied
    Originally posted by Escape2Victory View Post
    Since, from a huge back history of badly wrong pollster calls you picked out the one that makes the point you want to, I shall do the same with your data:

    Trump +4%
    This is laughable.

    I never referred to one poll;

    - in the case of the Trump vs. Clinton polls, I always referred to the Real Clear Politic's average of all polls over a given period of time;

    - in the case of the Brexit polls, I referred to the three last polls;

    - you, on the other time, by quoting a 55%-45% Brexit poll, were selecting one of those three last polls, the one you liked the most;

    - and now you accuse me of cherry-picking one poll?

    Really?

    Oh, as a side note, that average of recent polls is now saying Clinton +4.1%, and yes, it does include your cherry-picked one, Trump +4%.
    The polls that make up that average are now all taken after the debate, and they say:

    Clinton +5
    Trump +4
    Clinton +7
    Clinton +6
    Clinton +6
    Clinton +6
    Clinton +6
    Clinton +5
    Clinton +4
    Tie.

    Leave a comment:


  • Combat Engineer
    replied
    Originally posted by Escape2Victory View Post
    I did not. If you take a look a bit further down the FT link, it has the whole poll history, which reveals all the pollsters got it consistently wrong over a long period.

    We shall know soon enough how brilliant the American pollsters were. I think you are in for a surprise but will admit it if I am wrong.
    The key in our case is that if your theory is correct we'd see that in the results of all the polling done for the 50+ primaries and caucuses that we've already had. So we have lots of data and your theory did not show up in any of them. I have to go with the data.

    Leave a comment:


  • Escape2Victory
    replied
    Originally posted by Michele View Post
    You mean that that poll had some methodological error. It was the Populus online poll, and they went public exactly acknowledging a couple of mistakes.

    Two other polls OTOH gave figures like 52-48 (MORI, published on polling day so certainly qualifying as a "last poll") or 51-49 (YouGov). Still in the wrong direction, yes, but it's a pretty thin gap.
    Since, from a huge back history of badly wrong pollster calls you picked out the one that makes the point you want to, I shall do the same with your data:

    Trump +4%

    Leave a comment:


  • Escape2Victory
    replied
    Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
    Never pay attention to a single poll. Simple lesson to learn.
    I did not. If you take a look a bit further down the FT link, it has the whole poll history, which reveals all the pollsters got it consistently wrong over a long period.

    We shall know soon enough how brilliant the American pollsters were. I think you are in for a surprise but will admit it if I am wrong.

    Leave a comment:


  • Combat Engineer
    replied
    Originally posted by Escape2Victory View Post
    Margin of error was the defence the pollsters used. All well and good but the reality is their last poll called a Leave defeat with 45% where the result was a Leave victory with 52%. They screwed up big time and obviously have a flawed methodology as evidenced by the reality of the figures.

    Anyhow, I've made my point and we shall see what the future debates bring and their impact on the polls.
    Never pay attention to a single poll. Simple lesson to learn.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michele
    replied
    Originally posted by Escape2Victory View Post
    Margin of error was the defence the pollsters used. All well and good but the reality is their last poll called a Leave defeat with 45% where the result was a Leave victory with 52%. They screwed up big time and obviously have a flawed methodology as evidenced by the reality of the figures.
    You mean that that poll had some methodological error. It was the Populus online poll, and they went public exactly acknowledging a couple of mistakes.

    Two other polls OTOH gave figures like 52-48 (MORI, published on polling day so certainly qualifying as a "last poll") or 51-49 (YouGov). Still in the wrong direction, yes, but it's a pretty thin gap.

    Leave a comment:


  • Escape2Victory
    replied
    Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
    The Brexit results were well within the margin of error of the polls. They were were on target, that is why there are margins of error.

    Once again, the polls were 90+% on concerning everyone one of Trumps primary races. When they were actually "wrong" it was usually in the other direction, Trump under performed.
    Margin of error was the defence the pollsters used. All well and good but the reality is their last poll called a Leave defeat with 45% where the result was a Leave victory with 52%. They screwed up big time and obviously have a flawed methodology as evidenced by the reality of the figures.

    Anyhow, I've made my point and we shall see what the future debates bring and their impact on the polls.

    Leave a comment:


  • Salinator
    replied
    Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
    But that's just what I meant - they're there to predict the middle point, which is functionally the same as predicting the winner of a poll: both results are the "success" state for their prediction.

    Imagine how successful a bookie would be if he was routinely off the mark by 40 points... in soccer.
    They do not predict. They manipulate.

    NFL example:

    Let's say the Saints are to play the Ravens this coming Sunday. It is the job of the bookie to figure out not who is likely to win, but which way the gamblers will bet.

    Let's say that the bookies all reasoned it out that the betters think that the Saints would win by a field goal. Mandalay Bay and Bellagio will open their lines at Saints-3.5, MGM Grand will open at Saints-3, and Mirage will open at Saints-2.5. All four are owned by same owners and are hedging the odds as a group. If the betting is still all in one direction at each casino, they as a group will all begin to move their lines to encourage betting in the other direction.

    In a score bet (not a parley), you have to bet $110 in order to win $100.

    Any type of betting that involves "betting lines" are not gambler vs house wagers, but gambler vs gambler wagers with the casinos making their mandatory 10% or more on juice as the middleman. It just comes down to which betting side is paying the juice.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Well, I know who lost the debate... The public... That was 90 minutes of my life I'll never get back...

    Leave a comment:


  • Daemon of Decay
    replied
    Originally posted by Salinator View Post
    That is not how bookies work.

    Their job is not to guess who will win and/or by how much, but rather to set the odds at a point that would entice the most evened out betting. The gamblers are not betting against the house, but rather against each other. The house is the middleman that collects juice. The betting lines are manipulated back and both to change the direction of betting as needed. It is high volume of "action", and the the risks that casinos seek.
    But that's just what I meant - they're there to predict the middle point, which is functionally the same as predicting the winner of a poll: both results are the "success" state for their prediction.

    Imagine how successful a bookie would be if he was routinely off the mark by 40 points... in soccer.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X