- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Individual State Election Odds via 5dimes
Posted on 6/3/20 at 2:23 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
Posted on 6/3/20 at 2:23 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:These states represent 146 EC votes. Assuming the other states end up as expected and are given, then that means Biden has 209 EC votes and Trump has 183 votes before considering these 146.
On what planet is that heavy in Biden’s Favor?
Using the implied probabilities of these odds (accounting for the vig) for each state (e.g., equal odds in AZ results in an expected value of 5.5 EC votes for both), the expected value of those 146 votes is 74 for Biden and 72 for Trump and 283 EC votes in total for Biden and 255 for Trump.
In addition, if we just give whoever has favored all EC votes for that particular state, and with AZ as a complete toss up and with we get 69 to 80 EC votes for Biden and 66 to 77 EC votes for Trump and 278 to 289 total EC votes for Biden and 249 to 260 EC votes for Trump.
So altogether, these odds indicate the largest advantage for Biden is 289 to 249, which means anywhere from 1 to 3 close states flipping could be the difference. That hardly implies that Biden is a heavy favorite, IMO.
0
Posted on 6/3/20 at 2:27 pm to boogiewoogie1978
quote:
I can read spreads and the states that will decide the election are HEAVY democrat favorites according to those lines.
and people who know what they are looking at know the numbers are to get the same money on each side, not a prediction
Do tell us how gamblers degenerate enough to bet on politics are expert on the subject.
Posted on 6/3/20 at 2:27 pm to zzgobucky
quote:
Pennsylvania: D -155 R+115
Nice trending bigly in Trumps favor. I got Trump +170 in PA a couple months ago
Posted on 6/3/20 at 2:30 pm to zzgobucky
quote:
Actually Biden is only a slight favorite for overall election -120
Trump was -150 on my site before COVID. Now he is +100 on my site. Funny since 2015 study showed that riots made electorate more conservative, but lines are moving opposite that.
Posted on 6/3/20 at 2:38 pm to BigJim
quote:-120 is an implied probability of 54.5% (120/220); however, as with any moneyline (or the spread) the combined probabilities are greater than 100%, in this case 109%; however, the probability for each is 50% (implied probability of one candidate/combined probability of both).
Arizona: D -120 R -120
Whuh? Maybe I don't bet enough, but seems like some bookies are cooking this particular book.
Both sides favored to win?
The extra 9% is called vig (or juice), and that's essentially a betting "fee" given to the bookmaker which is why they make a profit and which is why that lines/spread move as the bookmakers try to get roughly an equal amount on both sides as 50/50 would mean a guarantee profit margin equal to the vig margin and as the closer to 50/50 it gets, the lower the risk for the bookmakers.
Interstingly 5Dimes has some of the smallest vigs (provided bets are of a smaller value) on the market (e.g., -105 on sports spreads that are usually -110), but my guess is they are far less certain about the odds of an election than say an NFL game, especially given the timing and cirucmstances around the election and at the state level on top of that, which is why the vig is much larger than usual.
Posted on 6/3/20 at 2:47 pm to Who_Dat_Tiger
quote:I think that interpretation of that study has a major confounder in that it's hard to determine whether the voting changes in 1968 was a result of changes in political ideology or a result of changes in views of the president/party who was in power at the time of the riot as it reflects more poorly (right or wrong) on the leadership at that time.
Funny since 2015 study showed that riots made electorate more conservative, but lines are moving opposite that.
In other words, the study does support the idea that Nixon got more votes as a result of the riots, but it's hard to determine whether that was because people's ideological views changed and became more congruent with Nixon's and the GOP platform OR if people viewed that as a leadership failure of those who were in power at the time.
Just like the leader/party in power gets blame when there is economic unrest/problems, whether they deserve it or not (usually most of it is outside any individual's control), I would think that civil unrest would be viewed similarly. Add a pandemic and economic recession on top of that, and even though they were probably all inevitable regardless of who was in power, those in power are more at risk for blame (although I think the federal government does deserve blame for its response to the pandemic, particularly the FDA and CDC botching the testing and recommendations).
This post was edited on 6/3/20 at 2:54 pm
Posted on 6/3/20 at 3:02 pm to buckeye_vol
I'm offering my 4 employees a bonus if they vote for Trump. 3 of them are going to. The other has never voted and doesn't give a Frick. Me doing something like that isn't illegal, is it?
I'm anonymous on here, that's why I'm asking.
I'm anonymous on here, that's why I'm asking.
Posted on 6/3/20 at 3:12 pm to PrattvilleTiger
Illegal for trump legal for Biden 
Posted on 6/3/20 at 3:49 pm to PrattvilleTiger
quote:I couldn't find a specific example, but this sure would seem to fall under bribery/fraud both federally:
I'm offering my 4 employees a bonus if they vote for Trump. 3 of them are going to. The other has never voted and doesn't give a Frick. Me doing something like that isn't illegal, is it?
I'm anonymous on here, that's why I'm asking.
18 U.S. Code §?597.Expenditures to influence voting
quote:And in Louisiana (assuming that's where you are):
Whoever makes or offers to make an expenditure to any person, either to vote or withhold his vote, or to vote for or against any candidate; and
Whoever solicits, accepts, or receives any such expenditure in consideration of his vote or the withholding of his vote—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if the violation was willful, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
TITLE 18 Louisiana election code :: RS 18:1461 Bribery of voters
quote:And I can't think of a harder way to hide a paper trail than through a payroll contribution, and if you offer it under the table, then you're violating some other laws instead.
A. No person shall knowingly, willfully, or intentionally:
(4) Offer, promise, solicit, or accept money or anything of present or prospective value to secure or influence a vote or registration of a person.
In addition, since Citizens United, employers appear to have a lot of leeway in their expression of political speech, with the ability to say who/what the company supports and why they support it (i.e., implications for employees).
But actually paying employees to vote for a specific candidate seems likely to be illegal, definitely unethical, and likely has little/no impact on the election since you're probably paying employees to do what they already were planning on doing, and especially in a non-competitive state anyone who voted otherwise would likely have little impact in swinging the election. Not to mention, if that is illegal, then the employees who accepted it likely broke the law, and since you would be the bigger fish, they would be more likely plea deal candidates to catch the bigger fish.
And I would be concerned with the employee who doesn’t accept it if he truly doesn’t care who wins since it makes little sense to not vote given it’s little effort for extra pay, it pleases the boss, and minimizes any social ostracism from you and the other employee who obviously care more about it.
That is, UNLESS he knows it’s wrong/illegal and/or if he doesn’t know may find out if the relationship sours (or you terminate him). That would seem to put you in a precarious situation, and frankly, I don’t think it’s very fair to him either.
Edit: I see from your profile that you appear to be in Alabama. They have a similar law as Louisiana (and federal), although there are a few different statues that could be applicable:
Chapter 17 - ELECTION OFFENSES
quote:
It shall be unlawful for any person to pay or offer to pay, or for any person to accept such payment, either to vote or withhold his or her vote, or to vote for or against any candidate. Any person who violates this section shall be guilty, upon conviction, of a Class C misdemeanor.
quote:
Any person who, by bribery or offering to bribe, or by any other corrupt means, attempts to influence any elector in giving his or her vote, deter the elector from giving the same, or disturb or hinder the elector in the free exercise of the right of suffrage, at any election, shall be guilty, upon conviction, of a Class C misdemeanor.
quote:
Any person who buys or offers to buy any vote of any qualified elector at any election by the payment of money or the promise to pay the same at any future time, or by the gift of intoxicating liquors or other thing of value, shall be guilty, upon conviction, of a Class C misdemeanor.
This post was edited on 6/3/20 at 4:40 pm
Posted on 6/3/20 at 4:27 pm to PrattvilleTiger
Also, while you are a small business, imagine if Amazon, Wal-Mart, Apple, etc., did the same thing with hundreds of thousands of employees across states. I'm sure Trump supporters would be calling for Bezos to be prosecuted if he offered a pay bonus for voting for Biden for all Amazon, WaPo, etc. employees. And they could go even further and say I'm going to invest and buy X amount of shares in companies' X, Y, Z stock for every employee who votes for Biden (or sell if they vote for Trump in companies they are invested in) and choose companies with more employees in the most competitive states.
I mean between Bezos (who Trump feuds with), Buffett (D-leaning), Gates (D-leaning), Zuckerberg (silicon valley), Walton family (supported Clinton), and Charles Koch (pretty anti-Trump libertarian), that is over a half a trillion in wealth and in positions (or past positions) to exerted quite a bit of monetary incentives over a lot of employees.
So imagine if they all teamed up and offered a few thousand dollars for any employee who voted for Biden. That could easily be millions of voters.
I mean between Bezos (who Trump feuds with), Buffett (D-leaning), Gates (D-leaning), Zuckerberg (silicon valley), Walton family (supported Clinton), and Charles Koch (pretty anti-Trump libertarian), that is over a half a trillion in wealth and in positions (or past positions) to exerted quite a bit of monetary incentives over a lot of employees.
So imagine if they all teamed up and offered a few thousand dollars for any employee who voted for Biden. That could easily be millions of voters.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News