• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The myth of Romney's momentum

AdamT said:
Personally I think Romney does better when you don't look at his ever-shifting positions on the issues. Be that as it may, the fact remains that Obama is still a better than 2:1 favorite and I don't see much changing between now and Nov. 6.

Economic news out today is a minor plus for Obama, with GDP growth coming in at a better than expected 2%. Economists say that it would be close to 2.5% but for the midwest drought, and if the idiots in Congress would quit their sniveling and do something about the fiscal cliff it would probably be at a pretty healthy 3-3.5% growth.
Click to expand...

2%, driven in large part by a 9% increase in government spending.

Besides the fact that 2% annual growth sucks, growth driven by government spending sucks even more.
 
Fisher said:
In direct response to the Romney Hate Machine that has been here since I have (probably because there isn't anything much to love about Obama that can be explained to those who don't want Obamaphones or do not suffer from white-guilt over crap 50 years ago that had nothing to do with them).
Click to expand...

Thanks for proving my point.
 
AdamT said:
Don't delude yourself. You may think he SHOULDN'T be that big a favorite, but the fact is that he IS that big of a favorite (actually even bigger) on the betting sites. US Presidential Election Winner Betting Odds | Politics and Election Betting

Maybe you should put some money on Romney? ;)
Click to expand...

How many people are betting to make these odds? A minuscule % of our population, I can assure you. "Betting odds" mean nothing. They might be right, but they might be wrong. If ever there was an unscientific poll? You've nailed it.
 
MaggieD said:
How many people are betting to make these odds? A minuscule % of our population, I can assure you. "Betting odds" mean nothing. They might be right, but they might be wrong. If ever there was an unscientific poll? You've nailed it.
Click to expand...

You're right, it is not a scientific poll. That said, the oddsmakers have sometimes been more accurate than the professional pollsters. The other caveat is that they usually overstate the chances of the underdog (Romney in this case).

Oct. 23: The Virtues and Vices of Election Prediction Markets - NYTimes.com
 
Last edited:
MaggieD said:
And vice-versa. Such is our political system. Illinois is Democratic to the core, so we aren't getting many Romney/Obama ads -- but we are getting them for the senate/house races. It's pathetic. Not one positive ad among 'em. Just attacks on the other guy. I do feel your pain and have probably been as guilty as the next guy on DP. You're right.
Click to expand...

Well.....I'm guessing those ads are just trying to sway uninformed voters. The thing is if you can't make a short ad touting policy to win over uninformed voters. Negative is the only thing they remember. Those ads are more an indication of the American voter than anything else.
 
AdamT said:
You're right, it is not a scientific poll. That said, the oddsmakers have sometimes been more accurate than the professional pollsters. The other caveat is that they usually overstate the chances of the underdog (Romney in this case).
Click to expand...

No, odds makers would NEVER overstate the chances of the underdog. Their goal is to split their bets so they always win, either way. Your way, they'd be making a bet themselves. That's not how they work.
 
Adam, this is what I was hoping you already understood about 'betting book management' that I questioned you about previously:

MaggieD said:
No, odds makers would NEVER overstate the chances of the underdog. Their goal is to split their bets so they always win, either way. Your way, they'd be making a bet themselves. That's not how they work.
Click to expand...

Don't evade the FACT that the book's ONLY goal is to WIN regardless of who wins the election. Considering this the odds makers manipulate the odds to guarantee this goal...period.
 
Dickieboy said:
Adam, this is what I was hoping you already understood about 'betting book management' that I questioned you about previously:



Don't evade the FACT that the book's ONLY goal is to WIN regardless of who wins the election. Considering this the odds makers manipulate the odds to guarantee this goal...period.
Click to expand...

The oddsmaker's goal is to come as close to possible to the actual result so as to avoid big win/loss swings. In sports/political betting, the house makes its money on transaction fees, and on bettors who place wagers based on emotion rather than an objective view of reality (see, conservative response to this thread).
 
AdamT said:
The oddsmaker's goal is to come as close to possible to the actual result so as to avoid big win/loss swings. In sports/political betting, the house makes its money on transaction fees, and on bettors who place wagers based on emotion rather than an objective view of reality (see, conservative response to this thread).
Click to expand...

Sorry, can't follow your link (blocked on account of it's a "gambling" site), but I do generally agree with you on market-based assessments of people's beliefs. my understanding of how this "odds" game works for the inertrades of the world is not that "the house" sets the odds but that you treat the bet like an option or a set of reciprocal options. 1000 units, which are worth $10 if your guy wins and $0 if the other guy wins. Allowing for trading of these instruments causes prices to be set in a wat that accounts for people's perceptions of risk, in the same way that options prices with a strike price of $10 vary higher and lower depending on how much people think they will be worth at the end of the day.

So here, a "Romney wins" option would be worth $10 if he wins. If some people own these options and others want to buy them, what would be the price. If everyone knows with certainty Romney will win, the price would be $10. If everyone knows he will lose with certainty, the price would be $0. If the perceived odds were a pure coin flip, the price would be $5. So a price under $5 indicates the market believes he has less than a 50/50 chance.

Of course, the accuracy of the price in reflecting real likelihoods is the quality of information in the marketplace being internalized (whether that information is true or not, etc).

But I do like this model for understanding the population's perceived odds of future events, and I think they show a lot of promise if they can be spread to a wider population base (different groups may have different perceptions of risk).
 
AdamT said:
RCP is certainly relevant, but you're only talking about their average of national polls. The sites that take into account national AND state polls all give Obama a significant advantage. And in fact RCP gives Obama the advantage on their no-toss-up electoral map.
Click to expand...
The no-toss-up advantage would go to Romney if Ohio flipped. There's a 2% difference there with 6.5% undecided. In 2004 and 2008, the Republican candidate gained +2% of the vote from where we are now. I have a very, very hard time believing Obama has a 70%+ chance of winning there - this is/will be a very close election.

[I have no doubt that Nate Silver is trying to be accurate, but could his 70/30 prediction have a negative impact on turnout among Democrats? Though I've also heard some claim the opposite - that his prediction is one of the only things keeping Democrats optimistic after a tough few weeks for Obama.]
 
Last edited:
Taylor said:
The no-toss-up advantage would go to Romney if Ohio flipped. There's a 2% difference there with 6.5% undecided. In 2004 and 2008, the Republican candidate gained +2% of the vote from where we are now. I have a very, very hard time believing Obama has a 70%+ chance of winning there - this is/will be a very close election.

[I have no doubt that Nate Silver is trying to be accurate, but could his 70/30 prediction have a negative impact on turnout among Democrats? Though I've also heard some claim the opposite - that his prediction is one of the only things keeping Democrats optimistic after a tough few weeks for Obama.]
Click to expand...

According to RCP, Romney has never lead in Ohio. Not once.
 
Dickieboy said:
Dang...look at that:

Election 2012 Likely Voters Trial Heat: Obama vs. Romney

Momentum myth indeed...non-feigned desperation anyone?
Click to expand...


Thoughts AdamT:

Election 2012: Wisconsin President - Rasmussen Reports™

Exerpts:

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Wisconsin Voters shows the president and his Republican challenger each earning 49% support. One percent (1%) likes another candidate, and two percent (2%) are undecided.

Ninety-six percent (96%) of Badger State voters say they are sure to vote in this election. Romney leads 51% to 47% among these voters.
Among the 90% who say they’ve already made up their minds whom they will vote for, it’s Romney 51%, Obama 48%.

Romney has a six-point lead over Obama – 50% to 44% - among all voters in the state when they are asked which candidate they trust more to handle the economy. When it comes to national security, the candidates are almost tied: 48% trust Obama more, while 47% have more faith in Romney.


Nothing in this would give me comfort if I was a democrat.
 
Fisher said:
Then neither does your original point :lamo
Click to expand...

You proved my point by bashing Obama supporters rather than talking up Romney. So, if you can show me where you are somehow "paying me back", then your comment would have a purpose.
 
MaggieD said:
It's very difficult for me to believe that Obama is a 2:1 favorite. I think it's going to be a close race.
Click to expand...

Only those so far down in their partisan hack hole that they can't see the light of day would ever think such a thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom