politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
What's the latest on the Governor's race? I read Becerra surged forward due too crypto bros and righties, any truth? I was pretty supportive of Steyer
Give it until Tuesday or Wednesday, they’re still counting votes. Right now Becerra is first and Steyer is in third, but could catch up and make it to the general.
It’s not looking good.
(Becerra already resolved Yes)
Polling gamblers isn’t the same thing as polling voters 🤷♂️
True…. What’s your point?
Do you think Steyer has significantly more than a 4% chance of coming back when the outstanding votes are counted? If so, why? Or did you just see a screenshot and your lizard brain went “Betting markets bad!”?
Your comment was based entirely in treating gambling as a way of determining the likelihood of Steyer making it to the general, I don’t particularly feel like there should need to be a justification for my opinion when that’s essentially making stuff up, lol. But since you asked, I’m basing that on the fact that around 30% of the vote remains uncounted and actual news agencies haven’t called it yet, which means they think there’s still a possibility. This used to be how we thought about election results when they were being tallied in the distant year of 2024.
It’s not just made up. People placing bets are looking at the voting histories of the precincts with outstanding votes. A 4% chance is not a ~0% chance, so they haven’t called it. But neither is it a 50% chance.
No they aren't, their gamblers. They are gambling. Don't pretend they are making an informed decision. Maybe there are some who think they can data themselves into getting rich, but the vast majority, at best, read one article from a news source they like and take it as gospel.
Just look up some of the giant "failed" predictions these markets have had. That should make it pretty clear they aren't some sort of a source of truth, at best they are ways for insiders to exploit insider knowledge to make a buck on longshot odds.
Like, there is actual statistical analysis that proves what you are trying to say. It's literally what is weighing those bets anyway. You're gonna get downvoted for posting gambling sites data instead of the actual math. It's as simple as that mate.
The remaining votes are primarily from high density urban areas that are not voting Republican. So the distance is shrinking with every new dump. But the dumps are not trending in favor of Steyer enough to make up the gap if the trend continues as it is.
There are models that follow the current trend of data. There are models that weigh the trend per county based on previous voting patterns. There are models that weigh the trend based on the county and also take into account a weight based on very similar counties (similar vote distribution in previous elections) that have already been counted in this election. etc, etc. None of them have a very high probability of him making up that gap. That's why the markets are betting the way they are.
The models being used to place bets would be the actual probstats analysis you could show to prove your point. The betting markets ARE reflecting that data. Because it is a bet based on hard math. But there is no reason to ever cite a fucking gambling website as a source. Bets are rarely based so directly on hard math.
It's like citing an Etsy Witch for weather predictions from yesterday.
If you're gonna post a gambling website. At the very least, have the decency to explain what I just did on why you can actually use them to see trends for this specific case. Don't act like an asshole.
I’m not writing a paper, or “citing” a source. I’m just showing what the current betting odds are, because, as you said, they are a quick and easy snapshot of a synthesis of those other models. I assumed people understood this. You appear to understand, but then you also go on to compare betting odds to an Etsy Witch(?).
I don’t care what motivates people to downvote. I was the only one who contributed a substantive comment regarding Steyers’ actual odds of advancing, after one commenter made it sound like he still had a real chance. Whatever. Just “give it until Tuesday or Wednesday” then.
You assumed "everyone knew this" when the comment you responded to clearly didn't?
Also, I said any Etsy Witch predicting yesterdays weather. An Etsy witch can look at what the weather results were yesterday. That's the joke. I can't believe I have to explain this. The analogy is that that's what the betting markets are doing. They're reflecting the data in this specific case. But they don't have any meaningful addition to add apart from how much money people are willing to bet on an outcome. People with more money have STRONGER opinions on the weight of the outcome.
In the near future. Someone is going to spend a lot of money to weigh these predictions markets in favor of the outcome that they want. They will then point to that "bought" prediction market data as a reason for why "the election was stolen". And idiots like yourself that point to this data as meaningful will have done the work in everyone's mind enough to think "hmmm, that is weird. I was told these prediction markets are very reliable". No one will listen to the math that doesn't match that market prediction. They will listen to the betting markets data because they are constantly fed it as meaningful. It is not meaningful. The math is. This specific case just has the betting following the math.
You're being an asshole AND you're sewing unjustified confidence in the data from these websites. "Data" that can literally be changed by money.
Betting markets bad!
They are when they are being shown beside polling and election results. I don't know why people don't get this but it's painfully obvious what is being done here to me. I'm not sure how people keep underestimating the stupidity of the American public.
The betting markets are being treated as reliable data for predicting elections. Actually being treated as MORE reliable than polling. Wow. Amazing.
Once this is accepted in the mind of the average American. The prediction markets become a "source of truth". This means, with enough money, this "source of truth" can literally just be bought.
In the future we're gonna be listening to CNN say "something is very weird with these election results. This is the first time EVER that we've seen results that are so different from 'the markets'."
We have spent years listening to the conservatives lying about election results. We have spent years watching them implement voter suppression and redistricting. How are people not seeing the obvious future purpose of these "prediction markets".
It's to manufacture consent for stealing elections. It's really that simple. Stop treating these markets as anything but a future means to weigh public perception with money.
When the federal government "takes over" polling stations showing "suspicious results". They will point to the prediction markets as justification. Mark my words.
We are currently in the "these markets are really good at predicting public opinion" phase. This will quickly be changed to "these markets are really good at manipulating public opinion" once they are accepted as a "source of truth" by the American public.
Stop pointing to them as reliable. You're doing the work for billionaires to have the public put more faith in money than actual statistics.
The idea is that people won't be dishonest with their money even as they might with a pollster.
But the markets are shady, they shut down the University led non profit one, predict it, back around 2020 or so.
But I think the polls being more off now than before reflects not greater failure by polling places, but because the republicans are cheating every way they can.
Sorry, in case it wasn't clear, I do agree with you. I just didn't want to write all that out and instead reverted to the very easy statement previously mentioned.
Agreed. They should be illegal.