[ad_1]
New Wednesday of New Times by Peter Uj.
I’m interested
While Joe Biden, the average Democratic presidential nominee in national polls, is still well above the margin of error, leading by seven percentage points over current Republican nominee Donald Trump, the trend in betting markets has been suddenly reversed in recent days:
By now, those who risk their money already consider Donald Trump to be a hair more likely, and money has proven to be a better predictor in opinion polls in most cases. Additionally, we have cited above-average national measurements, which are of limited importance in the US electoral system based on electoral votes. Take the 2016 election, for example, quickly dispelling one of the most stubborn misconceptions about how horribly bad the polls were.
In 2016, these nationwide measurements predicted that Hillary Clinton would have about a 3 percent advantage over Donald Trump. This prediction turned out almost perfectly accurate, with Clinton receiving a total of nearly three million more votes across the country, receiving 48.2 percent of all votes cast, while Donald Trump received 46.1 percent.
It was not the surveys that were the problem, but the visual representation of the results of the complex multi-question investigation. In 2016, every media company in the US invented that they expressed their choice with an easy-to-interpret indicator, but it is difficult to condense this information into a single indicator. Especially if the election depends on a few thousand votes in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan, not millions in California. Meanwhile, from the analysis of the investigation, one could even infer Trump’s victory, in my last article on probabilities on Election Day, I also described a couple of scenarios in which Trump wins. Looking back, it appears that pollsters actually only made big mistakes in Wisconsin, but also only because in the traditionally stable Democratic state, where Barack Obama won by a 13.9 percent margin in 2008, for example, they barely made measurements.
Greater advantage, less possibilities
So in 2016, it wasn’t really the polls, but those who interpreted them who really got it wrong. The most restrained of all the data wizards was Nate Silver, the most acclaimed figure in the profession, and his team, who at the time gave Clinton a 72 percent chance of winning, arguing that with the data available, Trump should win at least once in four cases. Clinton was then about the margin of error, with a three percent advantage over Trump. Biden’s lead is still seven percentage points on average in current polls, but his current 538 odds are still characterized as a slight favorite, giving him only a 69 percent chance of winning even after running forty thousand simulations. .
This may sound like a lot, of course, but it actually means that Donald Trump wins three simulations at once. Based on this, Biden’s victory may no longer be worth building the house, but it is worth putting a few tens of thousands on Donald Trump. This can also explain the trend change in the betting market.
Why Biden’s chances of winning are so low despite his seven percentage point lead is the key to the electoral system. In the United States, on presidential election day, in practice, not one but fifty elections are held in which, with the exception of two states (Maine and Nebraska), the winner of that state wins all of the electoral votes in that state. It is a great disgrace for Democrats that a significant proportion of their voters live in two major states, California, which has the most electoral votes, and New York, which has the third-highest number of electoral votes in the tie. But to no avail, 4.27 more people voted for Clinton in California and 1.74 million in New York, if that meant exactly the same number of electoral votes as if they had won just one vote in both states. Meanwhile, Trump won 44,000 votes (out of 6.17 million) in Pennsylvania, 23,000 (out of 2.98 million) in Pennsylvania and 11,000 (out of 4.8 million) in Michigan.
These disproportions still exist. In California, Biden leads by an average of 31.5 percentage points in very rare polls due to election inactivity, and 26.9 percentage points in New York.
By comparison, average polls show a Biden lead of just 4.8 percent in Pennsylvania, 6.3 percent in Wisconsin and 6.5 percent in Michigan. Here are two quick comments:
- Republican support in all three states is concentrated in rural areas. These voters are more likely to be left out of the polls, meaning they tend to underestimate Trump’s support in the demographic groups that favor him;
- In 2016, Trump’s support for the investigation was underestimated in all three states.
In these rusty and Midwestern states, such as the once decisive and now stable Republican, Ohio, where Trump currently leads by 1.9 points, or the last one that still voted for Clinton but leaned increasingly toward the Republicans, and this year’s turn to Minnesota: the white working class (middle class in American terminology) who has wavered in status means a large voting margin for Republicans. This layer is competing for jobs even with African Americans and lower-status immigrants, and this may feel like the lmbtq coalition is threatening their culture as well. That is, only groups that have found representation in the Democrats pose a threat to their status.
The Trump campaign plays on that sentiment, too. The coded messages were spoken one after another at the Republican Nominating Assembly. The star guests on the first day of the nomination meeting were Patricia and Mark McCloskey, a St. Louis lawyer couple who threatened Black Lives Matters activists at a retreat outside their home on June 28. Seizing the opportunity, Patricia McCloskey scared her audience that “Radical Democrats” would alleviate crime and anarchy in the suburbs by rewriting the rules of residential construction with “shoddy rental housing” and not just “spreading chaos and chaos. violence “but also” eliminate it entirely. ” suburbs “.
Of course, this strategy also has risks. There are also demographic trends favorable to the Democrats. Traditionally Republican Virginia, or the pendulum state of Colorado, has become a stable Democratic majority as the proportion of graduates has risen during the last election. And since the 1960s, the Republican South has been challenged by rising black and Hispanic populations, though perhaps this year alone will be enough for Democrats to compete more closely in Georgia and Texas, though in the latter Democrats They have embarked on a major electoral registration campaign, hoping to be able to translate the second most populous state. That would spell the defeat of Commissioner Trump.
Be racist, but don’t look like that
Whites whispers and minority voter registration are underway for grassroots votes. However, the group that can decide the election is not them, but the white women of the suburbs who still supported Trump in 2016 but rejected him en masse, according to an investigation. Apparently Republicans know this too, so at their nomination meeting in late August, in addition to the chaos with chaos, crime, and dishonest neighbors (of color), there was a strong emphasis on proving that voting for Trump did not it is racism. From there came unfortunate phrases such as Mike Pence’s explanation that “Americans know we can deal with the police and our African-American neighbors at the same time.” And Nikki Haley, a former UN ambassador and governor of South Carolina, tried to suggest the same, telling a rather moving story about how a consensual decision was made to remove the Confederate flag, silencing that the decision was still preceded by an attack. racist terrorist against blacks.
You may think the two strategies are extinguishing each other, but they could actually work well together. Sociological and psychological experiments show that if white voters feel their status is in jeopardy, they are more likely to vote for the Republican Party. Thomas B. Edsall, a great elder in the New York Times column, cites several of these in his pro-democracy article, perhaps the most interesting of which is one in which a group of white voters were informed that there are so many Spaniards in the country as blacks, another group. and that there is already a minority of non-Hispanic whites in California.
Those in the first group then identified themselves as Democratic voters at a ratio of 40:23. On the other hand, those who learned of California’s white minority status declared themselves Republicans at a ratio of 45:35 (.pdf).
In other words, rioting by white voters, who still make up 70 percent of the total electorate, can be a rewarding tactic with the overthrow of the status quo, protests in larger than average cities, typically peaceful, but more spectacular and exciting, not without media riots. with the target audience that all this threatens their status.
[ad_2]
