Bettors strongly back Conservative win, despite a Liberal polling lead

[CdnFox]

Bettors strongly back Conservative win, despite a Liberal polling lead | National Post

A recent Postmedia-Leger poll last week found that the Liberals are hanging onto the lead in the federal election with 43 per cent of support nationally, five points ahead of the Conservatives who are at 38 per cent support.

But the sports betting site FanDuel, which only operates in Ontario and carries odds for political events, says that 70 per cent of the bets placed on the winner of the federal election are on the Conservative party, with only 28 per cent of bettors wagering on the Liberals. The company says that more than 80 per cent of the bets on the Conservatives were placed after March 25, when the election was underway and the Liberals were pulling away as favourites.

 

I just don't get this election anymore. Usually the bedding is a pretty good indicate of how things are:. Every time I turn around there's another indicator that conflicts with every other indicator which conflicts with every other indicator.

I'm usually pretty good at reading the tea leaves, but this is like reading the tea leaves while wearing a blindfold inside a tornado.

I'm just going to stick with what I originally said at the beginning when and everyone's going to be surprised.

[SpankyMcFarland]

If the Tories win then a lot of pollsters need to hang up their boots or fundamentally change their methodology. Although it is a fairly close election, they’ve been generally forecasting a Liberal win all through it.

Edited yesterday at 01:57 AM by SpankyMcFarland

[CdnFox]

31 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

If the Tories win then a lot of pollsters need to hang up their boots or fundamentally change their methodology. Although it is a fairly close election, they’ve been generally forecasting a Liberal win all through it.

And not just a win but a strong majority. It is painfully obvious that some posters were deliberately faking their results. There can be no doubt that ekos Deliberately lied. Has their owner said they would sometime ago

But others that are normally considered relatively reliable are also way off if a conservative victory happens. In fact they will have much explaining to do, it will be difficult to dismiss this as simply being an error and methodology

[Moonlight Graham]

The gamblers will show us the way...

[SpankyMcFarland]

People may be backing the Tories but from what I can make out the actual odds quoted still favour the Liberals with both US and British bookies. They are also heavily favoured to win a majority:

Quote

 

Canadian election odds continue to see Mark Carney's Liberals as massive favorites over the once-favored Conservatives. The Liberals' odds have shifted firmly in the Liberals' favor to -600 from -334 two days ago at bet365.

Those commanding odds could see them win a surprising majority with -175 odds.

https://www.oddsshark.com/politics/canadian-federal-election-odds

Gamblers must feel the long odds given on a Tory win are generous, ie a Tory win is more likely than the odds suggest.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited yesterday at 04:20 AM by SpankyMcFarland

[WestCanMan]

37 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

The gamblers will show us the way...

Gamblers lose money when they're wrong.

Pollsters make money when they're wrong. 

Edited yesterday at 04:51 AM by WestCanMan

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

People may be backing the Tories but from what I can make out the actual odds quoted still favour the Liberals with both US and British bookies. They are also heavily favoured to win a majority:

https://www.oddsshark.com/politics/canadian-federal-election-odds

Gamblers must feel the long odds given on a Tory win are generous, ie a Tory win is more likely than the odds suggest.

Well obviously, the question is why? They obviously feel that the conservative chances of winning are significantly better than vegas is letting on which is the exact opposite of what you'd expect looking at the polls. Like I said this election just baffles me

[Moonlight Graham]

3 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Gamblers lose money when they're wrong.

Pollsters make money when they're wrong. 

You think it's more likely there's a conspiracy theory amongst the vast majority of pollsters to misrepresent the CPC?  LOL, far more likely the polls are accurate.

Pollsters don't make money if they're inaccurate and people stop believing them.  This is just copium.  The CPC is probably going to lose, even though I'd prefer they win.  The 2021 election results matched the polls within the margin of error, with the exception of the NDP because NDP supporters often vote strategically and give votes to the Liberals on election day to prevent a CPC win.

If the polls are wrong then what are the gamblers basing their bets on?  Their gut feelings?  Sports-loving men tend to bet far more than any other group, and that demographic isn't exactly the NDP or Liberal type.

Edited yesterday at 08:01 AM by Moonlight Graham

[Nationalist]

Interesting.

People now know that the carney is a liar and a thief. Regardless of the polls.

Get out and vote conservative or have the carney sell Canada out.

[WestCanMan]

6 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

You think it's more likely there's a conspiracy theory amongst the vast majority of pollsters to misrepresent the CPC?  LOL, far more likely the polls are accurate.

Pollsters don't make money if they're inaccurate and people stop believing them.  This is just copium.  The CPC is probably going to lose, even though I'd prefer they win.  The 2021 election results matched the polls within the margin of error, with the exception of the NDP because NDP supporters often vote strategically and give votes to the Liberals on election day to prevent a CPC win.

If the polls are wrong then what are the gamblers basing their bets on?  Their gut feelings?  Sports-loving men tend to bet far more than any other group, and that demographic isn't exactly the NDP or Liberal type.

"Within the margin of error the day before the election" doesn't mean anything MG.

All they have to do is dial up the accuracy in the last few days and they end up with a perfect score.

Look at how far Kamala was theoretically ahead in the months before the election... And Hillary... And then right at the end they say that the polls are getting closer, so that they look accurate on election day.

 

The point of having the polls isn't to inform the voter... Giving you information is of no use to CBC. The point of polls is to give false credibility to their narratives.

"Everyone likes this guy, just look at the polls." 

"Everyone believes this guy, just look at the polls." 

"No one cares about that 'scandal', it wasn't a big deal, just look at the polls." 

 

You have no reason to vote for Carney. No one does.

It's the same party, he's barely a Canadian, he's far too cozy with China, his party has been colluding with them, his party got caught handing out buttons at a CPC event to make them look like they were using MAGA slogans, he's lying about his role in the '08 recession, his economic plan is to "punish big polluters (industry) which will drive away jobs and he's hamstringing the economy as well (anti-pipeline bill), and he has been caught telling major lies on several occasions.

The only thing that he really has going for him is that at the end of every sentence CBC says "HE'S WAY AHEAD IN THE POLLS!!!!"

"He ran over a kindergarten class BUT HE'S STILL WAY AHEAD IN THE POLLS!!!!!"

[SpankyMcFarland]

7 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

You think it's more likely there's a conspiracy theory amongst the vast majority of pollsters to misrepresent the CPC?  LOL, far more likely the polls are accurate.

Pollsters don't make money if they're inaccurate and people stop believing them. 

This wouldn’t be like Trump or Brexit where there was a neck and neck race and the polled lead went back and forth. The polls have consistently predicted a Liberal win. If they get this wrong I’ll lose faith in them, which is not to say there’s something nefarious going on here. I believe that, like scientists, pollsters want to be right above all things but they’ve had a problem with polling right-wing voters for at least a decade now. They seem harder to reach and more reluctant to give their candid opinion. 

[WestCanMan]

36 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

I believe that, like scientists, pollsters want to be right above all things

"I just got my degree and I need a job. I'm drowning in debt over here."

"OK, do some research that comes to this conclusion or grab a broom."

The funny thing about leftists who believe in "the science", like for example "Fauci's science" or "AGW science", is that when accredited scientists come out and state contrary opinions on camera, leftists just plug their ears and cling to their favourite "CNN scientific consensus story". 

Fauci's "objective scientific theory" about the origin of the covid virus was sliiiightly tainted by the fact that he had funded the creation of his own covid virus just two blocks away from the wetmarket. Then TNI went apeshit on anyone who said BSL4 lab...

Quote

but they’ve had a problem with polling right-wing voters for at least a decade now. They seem harder to reach and more reluctant to give their candid opinion. 

I gave them the benefit of myself before. But not a second, third, fourth, fifth time. Now the pattern is too obvious. The leftists are always way ahead in polling until the week of the election, then the polls suddenly get tighter for some miraculous reason right at the end, then they end up within the margin of error, but still favouring the left. 

CBC and CNN lean on polling to say "Kamala/Trudau/Carney is doing GREAT". There's no way on God's green earth that the polling we see on those stations is legitimate in any way.

[CdnFox]

9 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

You think it's more likely there's a conspiracy theory amongst the vast majority of pollsters to misrepresent the CPC?  LOL, far more likely the polls are accurate.

It doesn't need to be a conspiracy. There are a couple of reasons why bolsters would intentionally or inadvertently put their thumb on the scale. There can be absolutely no doubt that ekos did, And Frank Greaves said he was going to when Poilievre got elected. He said he would do anything within his power to make sure that Poilievre never got elected and he doesn't make idle threats! See you later walked it back but he has said similar things since and his polling is way out of whack and includes questions which are basically asking how terrible people think the conservatives are before going on to say who will you vote for. 

Alternate polling such as donut polls or taxi polls or burger polls Etc are not scientific but they are often strangely accurate. And once again as I have said there are maybe a dozen indicators of how the election is: That you can get an idea of how things sit, polling Being one of them, and this election they all seem to be in conflict.

Honestly if you're looking at the polls and all of the other indicators the indicators of this election could very easily be argued to be pointing towards a strong conservative minority to a liberal majority and everything in between. That is absolutely rare. Election results can be surprising but usually everyone is equally surprised, this is kind of nuts. 

Reminds me a little of trump's election where things just weren't adding up to what the polls were saying. we'll see if that happens here. 

[Moonlight Graham]

9 hours ago, CdnFox said:

It doesn't need to be a conspiracy. There are a couple of reasons why bolsters would intentionally or inadvertently put their thumb on the scale. There can be absolutely no doubt that ekos did, And Frank Greaves said he was going to when Poilievre got elected. He said he would do anything within his power to make sure that Poilievre never got elected and he doesn't make idle threats! See you later walked it back but he has said similar things since and his polling is way out of whack and includes questions which are basically asking how terrible people think the conservatives are before going on to say who will you vote for. 

Alternate polling such as donut polls or taxi polls or burger polls Etc are not scientific but they are often strangely accurate. And once again as I have said there are maybe a dozen indicators of how the election is: That you can get an idea of how things sit, polling Being one of them, and this election they all seem to be in conflict.

Honestly if you're looking at the polls and all of the other indicators the indicators of this election could very easily be argued to be pointing towards a strong conservative minority to a liberal majority and everything in between. That is absolutely rare. Election results can be surprising but usually everyone is equally surprised, this is kind of nuts. 

Reminds me a little of trump's election where things just weren't adding up to what the polls were saying. we'll see if that happens here. 

Yes EKOS probably did.  But otherwise there's no evidence for it.  They all have similar numbers.

[CdnFox]

46 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Yes EKOS probably did.  But otherwise there's no evidence for it.  They all have similar numbers.

They absolutely do not have similar numbers.  In fact I don't think I have ever seen such a wide variety of numbers in an election campaign in my entire life. At various points the pollsters were showing about a 15% spread in their numbers which is absolutely that crap crazy. Even if you take out the super highs like ecos the number spread is nuts, usually you talk about a three or four percent spread

Now that doesn't mean they are deliberately putting a thumb on a scale. There has been speculation as to why various different methodologies may produce less than accurate results in the specific setting of this election.But there's no doubt it is insanely all over the map

[Moonlight Graham]

51 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

They absolutely do not have similar numbers.  In fact I don't think I have ever seen such a wide variety of numbers in an election campaign in my entire life. At various points the pollsters were showing about a 15% spread in their numbers which is absolutely that crap crazy. Even if you take out the super highs like ecos the number spread is nuts, usually you talk about a three or four percent spread

Now that doesn't mean they are deliberately putting a thumb on a scale. There has been speculation as to why various different methodologies may produce less than accurate results in the specific setting of this election.But there's no doubt it is insanely all over the map

You're in copium territory.  338 shows the Liberals are dominating in Ontario and Quebec over the CPC.  It's not even close.  Unless something dramatic changes or there's some super weird turnout the Liberals are going to win.

The CPC won the popular vote the last 2 elections and still lost both elections.

[cougar]

2 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

The CPC won the popular vote the last 2 elections and still lost both elections.

Who would be considering voting for madmen with no plan for protecting the environment and all the ideas to quickly continue to destroy it?

I know who......Blackbird, CdnFox and Taxme .

[CdnFox]

11 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

You're in copium territory.  338 shows the Liberals are dominating in Ontario and Quebec over the CPC.  It's not even close.  Unless something dramatic changes or there's some super weird turnout the Liberals are going to win.

The CPC won the popular vote the last 2 elections and still lost both elections.

338 is usually a couple of days behind.  And 338 aggregates sources such as Ekos whom we both agree is off, probably deliberately so. 

Nanos for example has much tigher numbers

Canada election polls 2025: Liberals ahead by 3 points

But the bottom line is you're not listening.   If anyone is coping here it appears to be you. I'm not making a statement about who will or will not win. You seem desperate to defend that the liberals are going to win guaranteed absolutely oh my god how could it be anything else I'm so scared   But I didn't say they were going to lose or the conservatives are going to win

What I said is that the indicators that one would normally turn to are all over the map. Polling is all over the map and fluctuating in a way that doesn't make sense. Numerous other indicators directly seem to contradict each other. And it goes in both directions. 

Calm your little self down, trying to sort through the muck and smoke it still looks like a liberal minority gov't come tuesday morning.  But that doesn't change anything about what i said. This election is beyond bizarre in that respect.  And if the cpc did win or even took a majority, there are signs you could point to in retrospect that showed that was a strong possibility despite the large number that also show a possible liberal majority and you just normally never get that.