[shyams]

Winstonm, on 2023-November-09, 12:03, said:

Understand please that I am not faulting you. But also understand that not voting Biden will be a de facto vote for Trump.

Isn't this firmly held belief that somehow has got lodged into you an example of the great PR done by your party?

It is so effective that, as you are read the previous sentence, you remain convinced(*) that "not voting = voting for Trump" was entirely your derivation & not affected by Dem PR.



(*) I am guessing here, and I could well be wrong in my guess. If so, my apologies for being presumptive.
Having said that, I use the word "convinced" because my guess is a >75% chance that you believe it was your own derivation.

[Winstonm]

shyams, on 2023-November-09, 12:35, said:

Isn't this firmly held belief that somehow has got lodged into you an example of the great PR done by your party?

It is so effective that, as you are read the previous sentence, you remain convinced(*) that "not voting = voting for Trump" was entirely your derivation & not affected by Dem PR.



(*) I am guessing here, and I could well be wrong in my guess. If so, my apologies for being presumptive.
Having said that, I use the word "convinced" because my guess is a >75% chance that you believe it was your own derivation.

I can’t say. I am human and susceptible as my species; however, I haven’t heard or read anyone else make this type of statement. I acknowledge I have heard or read that a large voter turnout tends to be good for Democratic candidates so as far as I know it was my own reasoning that led to my conclusion. Can you show me how that conclusion is wrong?
To be clear I’ll restate: A vote for someone other than Biden or decision not to vote at all is a de facto vote for Trump, i.e., a benefit for Trump.

When it came to getting my license, I had to take a nationally standardized test where there weren’t always “right” answers only answers less bad than others. That seems the case here. It is important to choose the better answer even if it smells bad to you in order to prevent the known rot to succeed.

[kenberg]

Wait! If a person decides to not vote instead of voting for Biden, that benefits Trump. If a person decides to not vote instead of voting for Trump, that benefits Biden.I think it is highly likely both types exist. That is, some people will not vote, but if they were required by law to do so and their only options were Trump or Biden (just pretend) then some who would prefer not to vote at all would vote for Biden, some for Trump.
\\As laws stand, some might vote but vote for neither Trump nor Biden. That can be a statement of "Look guys, I am willing to come out and vote, perhaps you would like to put up a candidate I will vote for".

As mentioned, I do plan to vote for Biden Trump is truly awful. But the Dem strategists might want to ask themselves why, when the Reps run an awful candidate, the Dem candidate will not be winning in a landslide. They could try for a more substantial answer than "Voters are stupid, nothing I can do".
I knew a guy whose marriage was in trouble, they went to a marriage counselor, the counselor gave each of them an assignment: Each was to think carefully and come up with something that they themselves could do to make their marriage better. The guy told me he gave this considerable thought and could not think of anything he could do, all changes would have to come from his wife.

Ok, he could be right. But probably he isn't.

[barmar]

PrecisionL, on 2023-November-09, 08:57, said:

I will NOT vote for Trump in 2024,

but then again I will NOT vote for Biden either.

Charity (compassion) for all.

So you're planning on voting for Kennedy?

[barmar]

Winstonm, on 2023-November-09, 14:35, said:

To be clear I’ll restate: A vote for someone other than Biden or decision not to vote at all is a de facto vote for Trump, i.e., a benefit for Trump.

Only if you're in a swing state.

In most states it's unlikely that a few less votes for Biden will make any difference at all, the result is foregone.

[PrecisionL]

barmar, on 2023-November-09, 15:39, said:

So you're planning on voting for Kennedy?

Nikki Haley looks promising.

WSJ 11/9/23: Voters Want Anyone but Trump or Biden.

[shyams]

Winstonm, on 2023-November-09, 14:35, said:

I can’t say. I am human and susceptible as my species; however, I haven’t heard or read anyone else make this type of statement. I acknowledge I have heard or read that a large voter turnout tends to be good for Democratic candidates so as far as I know it was my own reasoning that led to my conclusion. Can you show me how that conclusion is wrong?

1. The Electoral College system ensures that all votes are not equal.
Nothing wrong with that, BTW. I live in a Parliamentary constituency where approx. 60% of the voters will always vote Labour. Even if I disagree with Labour, my vote won't change the outcome.

2. I believe it is propaganda that entrenched this notion in the US population's psyche "organically", maybe in 2016. Even a layperson registered in DC --- where the chance of a Dem win are 99.9999% --- got told off for declaring that he/she will not vote for Hillary or Joe or whoever Blue at every election since.

3. Somehow, PR has made the equation flip around. Instead of Politicians courting you for your vote --- through policies, promises, speeches etc --- you are now brainwashed into courting votes on behalf of uncaring politicians. The typical argument used is that the other side is full of "Nazis" (if you are Dem) or "socialists" / "woke libbies" (if you are Rep).

4. At the risk of distraction, there was a "Two and a Half Men" episode called The Devil's Lube. To me, an outsider, this is the best representation of US Presidential elections for the past many elections --- you are, in essence, voting for lube vs. no lube.

barmar, on 2023-November-09, 15:45, said:

Winstonm, on 2023-November-09, 14:35, said:

To be clear I’ll restate: A vote for someone other than Biden or decision not to vote at all is a de facto vote for Trump, i.e., a benefit for Trump.

Only if you're in a swing state.In most states it's unlikely that a few less votes for Biden will make any difference at all, the result is foregone.

Barmar says it in far fewer words than I just did.

[Winstonm]

shyams, on 2023-November-09, 21:25, said:

1. The Electoral College system ensures that all votes are not equal.
Nothing wrong with that, BTW. I live in a Parliamentary constituency where approx. 60% of the voters will always vote Labour. Even if I disagree with Labour, my vote won't change the outcome.

2. I believe it is propaganda that entrenched this notion in the US population's psyche "organically", maybe in 2016. Even a layperson registered in DC --- where the chance of a Dem win are 99.9999% --- got told off for declaring that he/she will not vote for Hillary or Joe or whoever Blue at every election since.

3. Somehow, PR has made the equation flip around. Instead of Politicians courting you for your vote --- through policies, promises, speeches etc --- you are now brainwashed into courting votes on behalf of uncaring politicians. The typical argument used is that the other side is full of "Nazis" (if you are Dem) or "socialists" / "woke libbies" (if you are Rep).

4. At the risk of distraction, there was a "Two and a Half Men" episode called The Devil's Lube. To me, an outsider, this is the best representation of US Presidential elections for the past many elections --- you are, in essence, voting for lube vs. no lube.





Barmar says it in far fewer words than I just did.

Without writing a book all I care to say is your impressions are wrong. Republicans began to become unhinged earlier than 2016 with the Tea Party.

And your point about the swing/non-swing state has no bearing on my claim that a non-vote for Biden is a de facto Trump vote.

I am not propagandized. Propaganda is designed to make the irrational seem rational. I am a witness. I have seen what the Republican party has become. I didn’t need anyone to tell me the party has become an enemy of liberal democracy

[Winstonm]

barmar, on 2023-November-09, 15:45, said:

Only if you're in a swing state.

In most states it's unlikely that a few less votes for Biden will make any difference at all, the result is foregone.

Anything other than a total repudiation of Trump is a win for Trump, whether he is elected or not. It is what he stands for that needs to be wiped out.

[shyams]

shyams, on 2023-September-26, 06:26, said:

... 1. Trump (34.7%); 2. Biden (29.4%); 3. Newsom (8.7%); 4= Michelle Obama (4.5%); 4= R F Kennedy Jr (4.5%)

A further two months have elapsed since the above. The latest money line predictions...

1. Trump (37.5%)
2. Biden (26.3%)
3. Newsom (11.4%)
4. Nikki Haley (6.1%)
5. RFK Jr (3.8%)
--- It's clear that the betting money is chasing Trump & Newsom and abandoning Biden!

[pilowsky]

I'm predicting an American diaspora.

[johnu]

shyams, on 2023-November-20, 13:31, said:

A further two months have elapsed since the above. The latest money line predictions...

1. Trump (37.5%)
2. Biden (26.3%)
3. Newsom (11.4%)
4. Nikki Haley (6.1%)
5. RFK Jr (3.8%)
--- It's clear that the betting money is chasing Trump & Newsom and abandoning Biden!

What exactly do those numbers mean? Presumably there are odds involved, because nobody is betting that RFK Jr. is even odds to win the election. And Newsom at 11%? He's not even running at this time, and almost certainly won't enter the race as long as Biden is still running. So maybe RFK Jr is getting 200 to 1 odds, Newson is getting 150 to 1 odds, etc etc.

As I have noted before, betting odds may not have a good correlation with actual odds of winning. The odds are adjusted so that the bookie does not have a large adverse exposure if a result ends up paying out a lot more money than was taken in on bets. Trump has a lot of fanatical followers who will bet on him to win no matter what the actual odds are. How fanatical? In 2020, they ignored Covid warnings and precautions (unlike Biden who had no large scale old fashioned rallies) and showed up in droves at in person rallies, people like Herman Cain who got Covid at a Trump rally, and died after being hospitalized less than 2 weeks later. They also donate money to a self proclaimed multi billionaire to pay for personal legal expenses and other non campaign related expenses which should be pocket change for a billionaire, even if they are on limited fixed incomes. I'm sure Trump supporters figure it is a done deal that Trump is winning in 2024.

[shyams]

johnu, on 2023-November-20, 18:57, said:

What exactly do those numbers mean? Presumably there are odds involved, because nobody is betting that RFK Jr. is even odds to win the election. And Newsom at 11%? He's not even running at this time, and almost certainly won't enter the race as long as Biden is still running. So maybe RFK Jr is getting 200 to 1 odds, Newson is getting 150 to 1 odds, etc etc.

Each percentage quoted is a ratio of 1/odds.

If Newsom is 11.4%, then (1.00/0.114) is 8.77. So a $100 bet will return $877 if Newsom wins ($777 profit + $100 stake). I believe that US bookies would quote Newsom as +777 (if they offered a fair price without a vigorish).

RFK Jr is not getting 200 to 1 odds, he is getting roughly 26 to 1 odds of winning 2024!!

johnu, on 2023-November-20, 18:57, said:

As I have noted before, betting odds may not have a good correlation with actual odds of winning. The odds are adjusted so that the bookie does not have a large adverse exposure if a result ends up paying out a lot more money than was taken in on bets.

1. Think of it like a stock market. If a gambler believes that the odds are too rich (win %s too high), then he/she can short sell a candidate. If I were convinced that Newsom has 150 to 1 odds, I could risk $7,777 on Newsom not to win and when Biden wins a second term in Nov 2024, I make a profit of $1,000.
2. As with stock markets, one can close one's position midway. So when Newsom's odds worsen, I can lock in the profits by buying a Newsom win.
3. The odds I quote are from markets that have commissions applied only on net winnings --- not on each position. There is no real bookie here --- it's people vs. people.

[Gilithin]

If I were into betting, getting 3-1 on a Biden win looks pretty tempting.

[kenberg]

Gilithin, on 2023-November-21, 15:53, said:

If I were into betting, getting 3-1 on a Biden win looks pretty tempting.

As Pescetom notes, I have botched up item 1 (the easy part!). I have to get the lingo straight. But I think I am right about item 2. Suppose candidate X gets 25 percent of the bets. Then if that candidate wins, we can give back 4 dollars on the dollar for a 3 dollar profit, right? If 1000 people bet, there is 1000 dollars in the pot, 250 people have to be paid off, each gets 4 dollars, but they put in 1 dollar, so the profit is 3 dollars. Is this called 3 to 1 odds or 4 to 1 odds? Calling it 3 to 1 makes sense to me, you either win 3 or you lose 1. But then we can't say that the odds are the reciprocal of the percentages. The reciprocal of 0.25 is 4, but I think the odds are called 3 to 1.

As I mentioned, I don't really know much about betting.

I still think I have the payoff structure right. If 25% of the people bet on Biden and you place a dollar bet on Biden, then if Biden wins you get $4, which is the $1 you bet and your $3 profit. Is that much right?

I have left item 1 as I wrote it, but I agree I said it wrong.

I also am not a better and yes, 3 to 1 sounds good. But I want to comment further, others can correct me if I misunderstand. For simplicity let's say the bets are a dollar each.

1. If you bet on Biden at 3 to 1, you place a dollar in the pot and if Biden wins you get 3 dollars from the pot so the profit is 2 dollars not 3 dollars. At even odds, 1 to 1, you put a dollar in and if your choice wins you get 2 dollars back for a 1 dollar profit. Ok, I suppose everyone knows this but I thought I would mention it.

2. Here is where I am uncertain. I think when you place a bet in this sort of scheme you do not actually know what the return will be if you win, the odds change as the game goes on and your return depends on the final odds. this would fit in with Shyams description of the percentages as being a reciprocal of the odds. Let's say that the final odds are as Shyam quotes, that these numbers give the payoff. And let's say Biden wins and that 1000 people have placed a bet, with 263 bets on Biden. The payoff for a dollar bet is then to be (1/0.263) of a dollar, and there are 263 such bets, so the total payoiff is (263) times (1/0.263) which is exactly the 1000 dollars in that was placed in the pot.

Of course whoever is running the game skims off something, I dunno, maybe 10%, so maybe the actual payoff is only (0.9) times (1/0.263) per dollar bet.

Am I basically right about this? At some point the betting closes, at the close of betting the payoff odds are determined by the percentage of bets that were placed on each candidate then the betting window closed. The percentages when you placed the bet, maybe long before the betting window closed, do not determine the payoff.

I am happy to go through life understanding little or nothing about betting, but since it came up I thought I would check my understanding with those who know this stuff

[pescetom]

kenberg, on 2023-November-22, 09:35, said:

1. If you bet on Biden at 3 to 1, you place a dollar in the pot and if Biden wins you get 3 dollars from the pot so the profit is 2 dollars not 3 dollars. At even odds, 1 to 1, you put a dollar in and if your choice wins you get 2 dollars back for a 1 dollar profit. Ok, I suppose everyone knows this but I thought I would mention it

And at 2 to 1 your profit is 1.5 dollars?
I think not.

[kenberg]

pescetom, on 2023-November-22, 09:52, said:

And at 2 to 1 your profit is 1.5 dollars?
I think not.

Yes, I was just sipping coffee and realized I misstated it. I guess I need to ask: When the odds are even, that is, when you lose the dollar you bet your bet is wrong but profit a dollar when your bet is right, is that called 1 to one or is that called 2 to 1? With my reasoning it should be called 2 to 1 since you put in a dollar and when you win you get back 2 dollars for a 1 dollar profit.
But I don't think that's how the language works. Oh well.

I posted welcoming corrections.

[pescetom]

kenberg, on 2023-November-22, 10:32, said:

Yes, I was just sipping coffee and realized I misstated it. I guess I need to ask: When the odds are even, that is, when you lose the dollar you bet your bet is wrong but profit a dollar when your bet is right, is that called 1 to one or is that called 2 to 1? With my reasoning it should be called 2 to 1 since you put in a dollar and when you win you get back 2 dollars for a 1 dollar profit.
But I don't think that's how the language works. Oh well.

I don't bet, but imagine it is the ratio of the profit to the stake (so you get 3 back if you staked 1 at 2 to 1).

[kenberg]

With regard to the percentages Shyams quotes, I now guess it goes like this. The reciprocal of the percentage is the ratio of what a winner gets back to what he put in. Odds describe not that ratio, but rather the ratio of (what the winner gets back minus what he put in) to what he put in.

And then I still think this has to be modified. The guy running the show skims something off the top, decreasing the payoff, and the percentages of course change over time, it is only the percentages at the close of betting that determine the payoff.

Maybe I have it right this time. Well, maybe. There is a reason, or lots of reasons, why I stay away from betting windows..

[johnu]

kenberg, on 2023-November-22, 09:35, said:

If 1000 people bet, there is 1000 dollars in the pot, 250 people have to be paid off, each gets 4 dollars, but they put in 1 dollar, so the profit is 3 dollars. Is this called 3 to 1 odds or 4 to 1 odds? Calling it 3 to 1 makes sense to me, you either win 3 or you lose 1. But then we can't say that the odds are the reciprocal of the percentages. The reciprocal of 0.25 is 4, but I think the odds are called 3 to 1.

When I was learning gambling odds, 3 to 1, and 4 "for" 1 were used equivalently. 4 for 1, bet 1 unit, get 4 units back including your original 1 unit bet.