I'll stick with Math Jesus in any case. I mean, if you want to talk about a founder with a dog in the race, I can't imagine HuffPo being all that much better.

I've heard you work there, so if you stop trading paychecks for pies you'd be good😁



Isn't huff post extremely liberal? I always thought of rcp as being less biased

Plus I could still steal pizza boxes to make furniture with. It's a win win!

But then there's the other problem, where then I'm not getting as many dicks in my butt. Still doesn't seem worth it.

I don't keep track of Huffington Post editorials or reporting, the aggregate is completely separate from it and is the only public feature that I'd suggest people use. It gives the user full domain over inputs and is incredibly transparent about its methodology (especially with which firms it includes and why) -- and crucially, you have the option of deselecting firms if you want, in order to create a customizable aggregate of your own.

The RCP aggregate by comparison isn't transparent, and isn't unbiased. It deliberately chooses arbitrary survey date cutoffs in order to skew the numbers towards Republicans, if a polling firm publishes multiple data sets (like numbers among All Adults, Registered Voters, and Likely Voters) it will deliberately pick the one most favorable to Republicans, and it deliberately includes Republican polling firms without doing the same for the Democratic equivalent. It also just includes fraudulent firms that should be excluded. Now that the HuffPo product is available, the RCP aggregate really is an incredibly-shoddy product.



If you're referring to Nate Silver then that's really a separate issue. People are free to trust his commentary, his modeling. I would even recommend him with some caveats. But what he provides is a model, and commentary based off of that model; the HuffPo Pollster and RCP averages are simple aggregates. They're directly comparable, and HuffPo simply has the far superior product. People have gotten use to RCP, I suspect it will eventually become outdated.

Just in case anyone needs an education, let me take this 15 seconds to (in a non savaging way) explain that Huffpost is indeed left leaning.

IMO Vegas odds are the most reliable metric, not polls.

In sports and politics, there are a handful of methodologies that outperform Vegas (probably not because Vegas' forecasting is wrong, but because their lines are not actually probability predictions, they are shaded by bet popularity and money), but Vegas is usually a good baseline.

Clinton has moved back up to -200, Trump at +175.



I'll leave that to the people who think they can beat Vegas. Go for it yourself if you're confident!

This post was edited by Voyaging on Sep 13 2016 11:53am

All of my betting related to the presidential election was locked in long ago, months before the convention. It's considered a professional courtesy.

Clinton is at +400 to drop out or be forced out of the election lol



But it's not illegal for you?

This post was edited by Voyaging on Sep 13 2016 01:05pm

So Clinton being at +400 to drop out or be forced out is obviously the primary cause of the tightening in the race, due to her health. Basically if she makes it through the election, her odds are really good, but there's a chance she might have to drop out.