June 27th US Presidential Debate Watch-Along

karolus said:

Oh really?

How does that jive with this forecast that was updated November 8, 2016?

71.4 (Clinton) to 28.6 (Trump) looks pretty compelling.

Edit to add: Am personally shocked at that figure. Even at the time, felt that the margin would be much closer.

Click to expand...

Others have pointed it out, but I think it is worth mentioning: 538 specifically reports a probability, not a margin.

Overall the probability seems to be a better metric, although it isn’t without flaws, like I’ve never really understood if it’s supposed to be:

* given typical poling errors what would be odds of a given outcome if the election were run today, (seems like not what we actually want), or

* what is the probability that <candidate> will win on Election Day (seems dependent on some pretty intangible and hard to model stuff).

xoa said:

Yes really.

FFS. I literally cannot understand how someone can look at a 70/30 split with a 30% chance of utter catastrophe and just go "oh, 1/3 of a chance a total fascist monster is elected basically means it's impossible!!!" It means in 100 parallel universes, we'd expect to see Clinton win in 70 of them and Trump win in 30 of them. That's a lot! It also jives pretty well with the uncertainty the Electoral College system introduces. Clinton won the popular vote easily. Her margin of loss came down to a very, very tiny percentage in a few states. And as 538 made repeatedly clear, over and over again, the way models work and polling error meant this was all easily, easily within expected, normal margin of error. On November 4, 2016, they literally had a post "Trump Is Just A Normal Polling Error Behind Clinton":

Like, if you didn't pay any attention to any of that, well that's on you. 538 was the only one I remember who tried really hard to convey the risk, even if Clinton was genuinely favored statistically. And people were angry at them for giving Trump a 1/3 chance!

Click to expand...

UWSalt said:

It seems you’re misunderstanding? The 71% chance of winning that 538 assigned to Clinton is precisely why Silver (and 538 at the time) was saying Trump had a real chance of winning. Because, well, 1/4 or 1/3 is a very real chance, whereas most other poll aggregators and analysts were saying 1/50, 1/100, or statistically zero.

Silver himself wrote several contemporaneous articles explaining this very point in considerable detail. You can find them without too much effort.

Click to expand...

Thank you for this. It explains a lot—and mea culpa.

Why the big discrepancy between the poll aggregators?

UWSalt said:

Chicago Sun-Times, which has a vested interest in this because the August DNC will take place in Chicago, reported the same on June 21, and says that the virtual roll call will take place on July 9: “Democratic Convention in Chicago will have a prime-time roll call even with Biden already nominated”

And again, the Democratic Party itself said back at the end of May that they were going to go ahead with the virtual convention (apparently because it was so popular and well received in 2020), notwithstanding the news that Ohio would be making a timing accommodation. So all of this tracks.

In most recent elections, the televised live roll-call has been more for show, as the outcome was usually known and expected beforehand. But prior to 2020, it did have a substantive effect, even if the procedure largely a formality. But this year, the live roll call really will be for pure show — the actual roll call and nomination will have happened more than a month prior.

It’s a bit like people who elope and then decide to have a later public wedding ceremony. The ceremony is all there, but the legal result — marriage — already occurred.

Click to expand...

In reality they are going with the virtual roll call because they didn't want to run the chance of Palestine peace protesters ruining the event and making a spectacle.

Commie64 said:

JFC. That Sun-Times article does not say what the prior assertions was (DNC held a vote last week to have virtual convention), and repeats the now false assertion that the nomination must be done before Aug 7 because of Ohio. (Ohio changed their law.)

The article states "The Platform Committee — some 200 Democrats from 57 states and territories — will hold a virtual hearing on July 9."

That's the virtual meeting that will happen.

C'mon.

Let's agree to check back on July 10 and see if Biden has already been nominated. Or if those sources are untrustworthy.

Click to expand...

Sure, fine.

But I don’t understand why you’re so incredulous about this, given that the party itself announced weeks ago that they’d proceed with the virtual convention regardless of any changes made to Ohio’s voting laws. In light of that, shouldn’t you be the one finding a source or report that the party has since reversed on that (whether due to Ohio’s now-enacted changes or otherwise)?

Why do you not believe that the party is doing and will do exactly what it said it would do as of a few weeks ago? And why is it somehow my job to find sources demonstrating that they are in fact doing so? The fact that more recent articles reporting that the party is indeed proceeding as mis-attributing that decision to the now-obviated issue of Ohio's voting deadline merely demonstrates what we all know: journalists are lazy and clueless about details outside their limited area of expertise (writing at a fifth grade reading level).

UWSalt said:

the party itself announced weeks ago that they’d proceed with the virtual convention regardless of any changes made to Ohio’s voting laws.

Click to expand...

Citation after June 1 (when Ohio changed law)?

C'mon, man, give some actual citations.

karolus said:

Thank you for this. It explains a lot—and mea culpa.

Why the big discrepancy between the poll aggregators?

Click to expand...

They have different ways of coming up with their models.

I can’t answer for exactly the numbers in the quote. But good models, there are a bunch of nitty-gritty details, for example poll results in one state might influence your guess about the outcome of another state if they have similar demographics, that sort of thing.

There were also just models that were terribly done, they are journalists after all, not mathematicians.

poochyena said:

The post that shows he had Trump with a high chance of winning? What about it? 28% is like flipping a coin twice and calling it right twice.

Click to expand...

Scifigod said:

I wish you all luck enduring this event, I'll just have to get the highlights when I get home from d&d tonight.

Click to expand...

Or rolling a 15 in D&D.

Soriak said:

At some point, this is a question seriously worth asking. To what extent is Biden now deferring to the people around him? If he’s incapable of making the decisions required of a president and others are making them, then that’s a silent coup. There’s a reason for the 25th amendment.

Click to expand...

No, that isn't some kind of coup not is it quite why we have the 25th. Realistically, when we elect the president, we are simultaneously, by the same act, electing the voice president and the president's advisors. If the president were to suddenly become a bump on a log, the people we elected would still be running things, and, in this regard, Biden beats the hell out of Trump. In short, so long as the President isn't shooting the wheels off his team, they are legitimate holders of most of his powers. As for the 25th, its purpose is for when a President's refusal to stand aside or inability to communicate is somehow preventing his team from doing the job.

Now a couple other thoughts: It strikes me that the debate format was particularly poorly chosen, especially for someone with a stutter. With 2 minute answers and 1 minute responses, that seems pretty well designed to screw up someone who has a stutter. After all, a short counting down clock is the last thing someone with a stutter wants to speak against. Moreover, when you have a minute's worth of things to say and the timer only gives you 10 seconds, it's really easy to sound like you don't know what you want to say.

I have never said people can not discuss or have an opinion on any topic in here.

I agree and disagree with some of those opinions but I will not tell anyone that they have no say.

karolus said:

Thank you for this. It explains a lot—and mea culpa.

Why the big discrepancy between the poll aggregators?

Click to expand...

NS/538 had a few in depth posts on that too IIRC, I think as part of explaining how they assigned their pollster reliability grades. A lot of it had to do with details of how the polls were conducted, like online only vs telephone or the like, question quality, and the kind of audience and responses that could be reached that way, with weighting considerations. And there is changing technology that throws all sorts of wrenches, phone polls now are probably going to get a different response curve then in 2016 let alone 2008 or 2000. Changing factors like cell phones vs landlines, the avalanche of spam calling, all result in uncertainty vs history. I guess pollsters try to correct for that too, but do different jobs, and are operating somewhat blind themselves. Flat aggregation is going to produce different results then weighted, but weighting is also another wrinkle.

Honestly it's kind of astonishing re-reading that how historically they would be within 2%? I mean really think through all the factors there, of who just hangs up or wouldn't even answer an unrecognized caller ID, how that affects rural vs urban response and in turn feeds into the EC, voting propensity, so so many factors! I think 538 also at one point had a "paths to EC majority" thing where it showed how models could generate a variety of different paths to reach the magical 270 and trying to reason about resulting likelihoods based on where bases of support were more likely to be located.

I think the take home though was that polls are valuable and accurate rough tools, in the sense of how the wind is blowing. Major margins wash out error bars, but tight ones need to be closely considered in the details.

poochyena said:

The post that shows he had Trump with a high chance of winning? What about it? 28% is like flipping a coin twice and calling it right twice.

Click to expand...

Thanks. Get it now—as @breze points out, 538 uses a probability, not margin model. It may also explain the general public shock at the results, since they were expecting margins.

If we were modeling life-critical applications, for example, 30% would be unacceptably high.

If Biden had announced at the beginning that he had a cold and his nose was all stuffed up... There might be a very different reaction to the repetitive image of Biden staring off into space with his mouth half-open.

Damn. If the cold was that bad, re-schedule the debate.

Commie64 said:

If the cold was that bad, re-schedule the debate.

Click to expand...

Yeah. To me, like complaining about moderation or lack there of, this itself is a meta-bad point for Team Biden. If they'd stuck with the traditional format they could more credibly (as candidates have done) point the finger at the debate commission and "inflexible history" etc. But they were the ones initiating changing the historical format as part of their gambit for Biden. So it should have been on them to set the conditions up as well as possible. These are old men, they should have had an "if either candidate is ill, the debate will be rescheduled" clause that both sides would agree to upfront like all the rest. I mean, there must have for sure been some criteria for cancellation/rescheduling anyway, one of the debaters is active POTUS, what if war had broken out the day of and he literally just needed to do his job? Surely that must have been considered, so no excuses not to consider whatever else they could anticipate needing to give their guy the best shot.

Also, one really frustrating bit: Trump hardly made a true statement throughout, but, now, rather than talking about how Trump is a lying liar who lies, the conversation is still going to be about Biden's pro performance. Because that's apparently what balance means in news coverage these days, ten articles about Biden's poor performance for every one about Trump's performance which was realistically no better.

Lt_Storm said:

Also, one really frustrating bit: Trump hardly made a true statement throughout, but, now, rather than talking about how Trump is a lying liar who lies, the conversation is still going to be about Biden's pro performance. Because that's apparently what balance means in news coverage these days, ten articles about Biden's poor performance for every one about Trump's performance which was realistically no better.

Click to expand...

Yes, and that is basically why people are worried. Biden didn't even try.

Lt_Storm said:

Also, one really frustrating bit: Trump hardly made a true statement throughout, but, now, rather than talking about how Trump is a lying liar who lies, the conversation is still going to be about Biden's pro performance. Because that's apparently what balance means in news coverage these days, ten articles about Biden's poor performance for every one about Trump's performance which was realistically no better.

Click to expand...

And in a similar vein... It's not a new phenomena, but it's infuriating that the time spent in the media discussing what was actually said is going to be virtually nonexistent versus discussing how they perceive people are perceiving it.

It's all vapid narrative construction and horse racing, and it's all self-reinforcing. It reinforces the superficial nature of the contest because if you spend all of your time discussing how people are reacting to things instead of critiquing the things being reacting to, you're denying your audience the information they need to react to the thing on more than a superficial level. It reinforces the narrative being constructed because if you tell everyone that everyone is reacting to something in a certain way and then ask them how they think that thing is perceived, you just told them the answer to the question you just asked and will get it reflected back at you.

We should care about the polls are saying, but the way they're presented in American media coverage of politics is deeply unhealthy.

Lt_Storm said:

Because that's apparently what balance means in news coverage these days, ten articles about Biden's poor performance for every one about Trump's performance which was realistically no better.

Click to expand...

Yeah? Seriously, as came up earlier in thread, how was Trump's performance there news? Trump was Trump. He's a narcissistic pathological liar convicted felon with ever more authoritarian tendencies light on substance and heavy on bluster. He led a coup against US democracy. The best hint he's lying to us is his mouth being open. It has been covered extensively. It's not new information. I suppose sure, of course there are some people who are young and just tuning in for the first time, and maybe it'd make some difference at the margins if the media went over that.

But the primary person who should be leading the charge against an awful presidential candidate is, like, his opponent? The other guy after the job, who is at the core of trying to ensure Trump loses. Right? It was a verbal duel. Biden needed to be landing blows and parrying crap. He was the one people expected something from, and in turn were surprised by. It was his gambit to have that now. Of course that is going to dominate the cycle, Team Biden wanted to dominate the new cycle! Of course, they wanted to do so in a "Biden deftly debates Trump, voters consider he won over Trump 60/40, concerns about his ability shown overblown once again like with his SotU" way. But thems the breaks if you set yourself up for attention and can't deliver.

Also, Biden's poor performance is literally more important IMO, in that most basic fundamental of ways: it is still potentially actionable. No one expects anything Trump does at all to result in his cult of personality switching to someone else. But Biden could yet change course. It's a genuine debate, for real. So it's completely natural that would get the most coverage right now, and I think the media news coverage has it right. It's June 28 not September 28. I have no idea if anything will come of it, but "Trump is an awful liar" is an issue for the next ~4 months, not time sensitive, whereas this is do or die right now.

Fingolfin said:

I have never said people can not discuss or have an opinion on any topic in here.

I agree and disagree with some of those opinions but I will not tell anyone that they have no say.

Click to expand...

Asking people if they're going to vote for Trump because they criticized Biden is kind of a discussion stopper. If you didn't mean it that way, I apologize.

Made in Hurry said:

Yes, and that is basically why people are worried. Biden didn't even try.

Click to expand...

Huh? Biden isn't the media, and that he didn't point out that Trump simply told a pack of lies doesn't improve Trump's performance.

xoa said:

Also, Biden's poor performance is literally more important IMO, in that most basic fundamental of ways: it is still potentially actionable. No one expects anything Trump does at all to result in his cult of personality switching to someone else. But Biden could yet change course. It's a genuine debate, for real. So it's completely natural that would get the most coverage right now, and I think the media news coverage has it right. It's June 28 not September 28. I have no idea if anything will come of it, but "Trump is an awful liar" is an issue for the next ~4 months, not time sensitive, whereas this is do or die right now.

Click to expand...

And so the national story becomes "Biden is terrible while Trump is basically fine", which goes a long way to explain why undecided voters don't have a clear preference. Which is ultimately the fucking problem: Trump is an awful liar is never new enough, time sensitive enough, or important enough to be included in the story, so it becomes lost context, irrelevant detail, and not part of people's decision making.

Realistically, both parties performed poorly in the debate. Sure, Biden's performance sucked, but Trumps was no better. Arguably, it was worse. But, because of how we cover news and decide what's important, that story never gets told and that's a problem because it means that unless you already understand all the context to understand why things are the way they are, nobody is helping you figure things out. Which, ultimately, means that there is little way for increased understanding to develop, and ensures that the lack-of-context problems in our society are always perpetuated.


Edit: or to put this another way, the idea that Trump, somehow, won this debate is lunacy. And, yet, because of the particular bits of context we habitually file off, that seems to be the going narrative.

I don't know how else to explain to you that to the vast majority of Americans, particularly those who are at this point undecided voters, it's more about showing strength and charisma than intelligently articulating stances on issues or communicating effectively. And if there is one thing we've learned in the last decade, there is no reasoning your way through this or getting people to understand that competency is more important than showmanship and bluster.


So yes, Biden may have been one participating in good faith with actual policy arguments. But he looked "weak", and for all his rambling and lying and obvious incompetency Trump was more confident and made for better television. Hence, he "won." Welcome to America in 2024.

Commie64 said:

If Biden had announced at the beginning that he had a cold and his nose was all stuffed up... There might be a very different reaction to the repetitive image of Biden staring off into space with his mouth half-open.

Damn. If the cold was that bad, re-schedule the debate.

Click to expand...

Doing so might have also been strategic. Isn't Trump a noted germaphobe? it could have set him off-balance from the beginning.

Lt_Storm said:

And so the national story becomes "Biden is terrible while Trump is basically fine"

Click to expand...

I don't agree with your take on this an iota. There is lots of coverage of Trump's many, many problems. At the same time as this. But when even very and unashamedly left leaning outlets like Vox were simultaneously running front page "Donald Trump is getting away with it" excoriating his lies and ongoing massive thread but still also "Democrats can and should replace Joe Biden" even while starting off with the first sentence as "A comatose Joe Biden would make a better president than Donald Trump" it's past time to acknowledge this is a big important issue right this instant.

which goes a long way to explain why undecided voters don't have a clear preference.

Click to expand...

I don't think so. I do not think you can lay this at the feet of the media. Every POTUS has always faced the media. Biden did in beating Trump in the first place. Voters have told whoever asked, repeatedly and consistently, about core concerns, including Biden's age.

Which is ultimately the fucking problem: Trump is an awful liar is never new enough, time sensitive enough, or important enough to be included in the story, so it becomes lost context, irrelevant detail, and not part of people's decision making.

Click to expand...

What are you watching where it has not been covered, repeatedly, and extensively? Fox?

Realistically, both parties performed poorly in the debate. Sure, Biden's performance sucked, but Trumps was no better. Arguably, it was worse. But, because of how we cover news and decide what's important, that story never gets told and that's a problem because it means that unless you already understand all the context to understand why things are the way they are, nobody is helping you figure things out. Which, ultimately, means that there is little way for increased understanding to develop, and ensures that the lack-of-context problems in our society are always perpetuated.

Click to expand...

Biden's failure was indeed more important though, and more newsworthy. And I don't think you can lay the problems of society at the feet of media not just ignoring that even while doing lots and lots of fact checking from what I can see here:
I don't think it's reasonable to claim the story is not being told, or that someone who wanted to know couldn't find out.

Lt_Storm said:

Huh? Biden isn't the media, and that he didn't point out that Trump simply told a pack of lies doesn't improve Trump's performance.


And so the national story becomes "Biden is terrible while Trump is basically fine", which goes a long way to explain why undecided voters don't have a clear preference. Which is ultimately the fucking problem: Trump is an awful liar is never new enough, time sensitive enough, or important enough to be included in the story, so it becomes lost context, irrelevant detail, and not part of people's decision making.

Realistically, both parties performed poorly in the debate. Sure, Biden's performance sucked, but Trumps was no better. Arguably, it was worse. But, because of how we cover news and decide what's important, that story never gets told and that's a problem because it means that unless you already understand all the context to understand why things are the way they are, nobody is helping you figure things out. Which, ultimately, means that there is little way for increased understanding to develop, and ensures that the lack-of-context problems in our society are always perpetuated.


Edit: or to put this another way, the idea that Trump, somehow, won this debate is lunacy. And, yet, because of the particular bits of context we habitually file off, that seems to be the going narrative.

Click to expand...

As I linked in a reply last night, that lunacy would appear to encompass the whole of The NY Times Editorial Board. Not exactly a bastion of Trump supporters. Make of that what you will.

UWSalt said:

As I linked in a reply last night, that lunacy would appear to encompass the whole of The NY Times Editorial Board. Not exactly a bastion of Trump supporters. Make of that what you will.

Click to expand...

I don't know if the NYT Editorial board is emblematic of anything specific. For some reason, they've had beef with the Biden campaign for months. And not just normal journalism stuff.

I think that is generally the problem with most of the citizenry of the USA: they don't actually want to know. They want to feel like they know things, but they don't want to make the effort to actually learn things if it takes more than a brief scroll through facebook/tiktok/instagram, etc. They want a slow drip of 'news' (actually commentary, false information that meets their bias, and product placement) that takes no effort to ingest or understand and does not challenge their pre-conceived ideas of how the world works. They want a simple version of everything: Other Team is BAD, Your Team is Good. Vote for your team, no matter what. Ignore that they actually use you for money and then turn around and step on you at the earliest convenience.

Yes, if you bother to look, there is a decent amount of factual information and nuanced discussion about it out there but that is not what makes the rounds on social media or in most personal conversations. People who want to hear and understand the difficult factors involved in things like immigration, taxes, corporate subsidies and tarriffs and stuff are rare and usually considered not great company at parties.

Happysin said:

I don't know if the NYT Editorial board is emblematic of anything specific. For some reason, they've had beef with the Biden campaign for months. And not just normal journalism stuff.

Click to expand...

Are you thinking of the much-publicized issue with Sulzberger because Biden didn't want to sit down for an interview with them, as presidents have traditionally done?

UWSalt said:

As I linked in a reply last night, that lunacy would appear to encompass the whole of The NY Times Editorial Board. Not exactly a bastion of Trump supporters. Make of that what you will.

Click to expand...

There is a reason that the NYT no longer gets any of my money. It's largely because they are the worst offender in this kind of context-free news which serves to subtly imply (among many other things) that, somehow, Biden's age is a huge problem while Trump's similar age is irrelevant.

karolus said:

Are you thinking of the much-publicized issue with Sulzberger because Biden didn't want to sit down for an interview with them, as presidents have traditionally done?

Click to expand...

Probably, I don't remember the details, I just remember hearing about the beef.

Lt_Storm said:

There is a reason that the NYT no longer gets any of my money. It's largely because they are the worst offender in this kind of context-free news which serves to subtly imply (among many other things) that, somehow, Biden's age is a huge problem while Trump's similar age is irrelevant.

Click to expand...

Don't want to pile on, but it seems that the lead-up to the Afghanistan and Iraq wars after 9/11 was when lowering of standards in mainstream American media became impossible to ignore. Know the industry has lost its way since the decline of print and the rise of social media, but it's sometimes inexcusably awful. A functioning media that speaks truth to power is a vital component of democracy. Without it, we are lost.

Speaking of the NYT: https://arstechnica.com/civis/threa...on-oops-we-did-it-again.1499331/post-42950573

A report on Biden's rally.

edit: the NYT spilled a lot more ink after I posted this link, the article is now quite long and earlier it was 4 paragraphs.

KobayashiSaru said:

I don't know how else to explain to you that to the vast majority of Americans, particularly those who are at this point undecided voters, it's more about showing strength and charisma than intelligently articulating stances on issues or communicating effectively. And if there is one thing we've learned in the last decade, there is no reasoning your way through this or getting people to understand that competency is more important than showmanship and bluster.


So yes, Biden may have been one participating in good faith with actual policy arguments. But he looked "weak", and for all his rambling and lying and obvious incompetency Trump was more confident and made for better television. Hence, he "won." Welcome to America in 2024.

Click to expand...

This is the perfect point. No one remembers anything the candidates say regarding policy or what their answers are in addressing questions. People remember how they perceived the person, did they seem charismatic and energetic. People won't remember Trump's blatant lies, there is too may to keep count of, but they will remember the meme moment when Trump said "I don't know what he said and I don't think he knows either." People and the media love sound bites and unfortunately Biden gave Republican's a lot of sound bit and meme material. It's possible to spin the image in the next 4 months, but it's a big uphill battle and the media can't resist the "if it bleeds, It leads" mentality.

This is Time's cover today on social media.

And, given our complaints about NYT, here's the coverage from WaPost

Lt_Storm said:

And, given our complaints about NYT, here's the coverage from WaPost

Click to expand...

Having finished reading both, the difference is stark.

I think one of the most frustrating things about that debate was that all Biden had to really do was show up, look alert and reply to the moderator's questions with simplified, truthful answers inviting follow up or even inviting speculation but not using up all the time allotted and then basically ignore Trump except to reply to his claims with what amounts to essentially, "Prove it, criminal." Biden came in to the debate with everything to lose and a very simple way to win, and Trump came in with nothing to lose because he has no real credibility anymore yet somehow Biden managed to toss his chance for witty, accusatory replies for the most part, and to miss the chance for simple, honest answers about the actual issues. Most of the issues the country faces boil down to: "Yes, that is a very serious problem and as an administration, we are trying very hard to address it in a humane and effective manner." The details follow the situation in question; Housing, Israel/Gaza, Ukraine, Crime, Border, Economy, etc. They all require nuanced and careful, planned response, not grandstanding, pointless moralizing, or partisan bickering intended to garner reelection rather than progress and solutions.

Yes, the USA needs new and younger/more dynamic leadership but more than that, it needs effective and cooperative leadership that behaves as a professional organization instead of childish and selfish. Given the current choices, we have to pick the lesser or 2 declining and compromised individuals but it is pretty clear that one at least wants to try to retain some level of professionalism and what amounts to the modern version of honor in the role of government. The other wants to line his pockets (via the pockets of his business cronies, family, etc.) and stroke his own ego at any expense.

I wish we had better options but that has to start from the ground up, really. We need to boot the scum that is getting elected across the system instead of thinking that it's funny to see people like Bobert, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Al Franken, and others who have made a mockery of the legislative system. We need to push that new legislative body and the press to require/pressure the Supreme Court to clean up its act (bribery, etc.) to come inline with protecting the actual Constitution instead of just the bits their favorite friends and donors like, or the parts that align with their own religious and political views.

I think, basically that I am saying that our current and recent selection of presidential candidates are a result of the American people in general having gamified the election on all levels, turning it into 'I want my person to win rather than I want the whole country to win.'

@Paladin, how exactly did Al Franken make a mockery of the legislative system to the degree of Boebert or MTG? Show your work.

xcodemustdie said:

Betting Odds	Trump	Biden	Newsom	Harris	Obama	Whitmer	Kennedy	Clinton	Haley
RCP Average	54.8	19.2	10.8	4.5	4.0	2.3	2.0	1.5	0.8

Latest betting Odds of the next POTUS, Biden lost ~15 points overnight, big jump for Newsom
BTW Obama is Michele not barrack like I initially thought.
Obviously some numbers are irrational but still

Click to expand...

Betting odds are usually based on bets taken. I.e. if more people put a bet on Trump winning, the payout for the win drops. Same time a long-shot like Michelle Obama gets higher simply because there are fewer takers.

Basically after a horse race, er, Presidential election....wait I got that right the first time... The pot of money of all bets placed gets divvied up to the winners. Therefore if it's the popular choice the payout is pretty small because it's split by the most people.

If you've been to Vegas any time in recent memory you'll see that the folks at casinos and particularly sports betting venues are probably more than a little right wing. I'd imagine they have a strong predisposition to bet on their man Trump regardless of what reality might be. Granted the debate probably did swing the odds in Trump's favor, but Vegas odds (despite popular culture's ideas) do not equal actual odds.

Paladin said:

I think one of the most frustrating things about that debate was that all Biden had to really do was show up, look alert

Click to expand...

This is the crazy thing isn’t it. This is true. All he had to do for 90 minutes was to not look or act like he was actively having or just recently had a stroke. That’s really it. Appear lucid, alert, and engaged. Full stop.

That is how low the bar was set, and it didn’t come remotely close to being cleared. The insane thing here is being told, one way or another, that even that pitifully meager expectation was an unreasonable one to have.

This whole Presidential race has turned into a race to the bottom of lowered expectations across the board.

I will say Biden's performance today at a campaign rally in NC was really very good! Where the hell was that energy and charisma last night??? If he had handled the debate with that same emotion, we would all be talking about how Trump is cooked. He can turn it around, but it's going to be very uphill.

Thank You and Best of Luck! said:

This is the crazy thing isn’t it. This is true. All he had to do for 90 minutes was to not look or act like he was actively having or just recently had a stroke. That’s really it. Appear lucid, alert, and engaged. Full stop.

That is how low the bar was set, and it didn’t come remotely close to being cleared. The insane thing here is being told, one way or another, that even that pitifully meager expectation was an unreasonable one to have.

This whole Presidential race has turned into a race to the bottom of lowered expectations across the board.

Click to expand...

He looks and sounds completely different today. Either they found the missing super-soldier drugs, or he's recovered from an illness.