2024 ELECTION THREAD
The next presidential race will be here soon! Please see current Bovada odds. Thoughts?
is there any way to preschedule a post in this thread for aug 23rd? just needs to contain the ORLY owl
It never ceases to amaze me how many times people from other countries know more about american politics than americans.
Project 2025’s plan to shift the country’s tax burden to the working class
Kamala now the betting favorite
More than ever people are not going to be truthful to pollsters what their true voting intentions are. It is much easier for the people who really are the undecideds or the swing voters to say Harris to go on the wave of her new candidacy than it is to say Trump even though at least for those swing states they would prefer Trump for the economy and immigration issues.
I'm factoring in a 4 to 5% margin of error in Trump's performance at the election vs the polls and I also think the pollsters wit
I don't think that's the case today more than in the past, but the selection bias of who decides to actually answer is the most extreme ever.
I don't know in which direction that skews polls tbh, i read a lot on the topic and nothing is truly convincing, but anecdotically i don't know a single person who would actually take the time to answer polls at all.
A lot of people i know have call-filters (google assistant or others) for example. A lot never answer any call from a phone number they don't have saved. Who is actually answering those calls is a mystery to me
Song opening Trump's rally - Titanic.
Trump's campaign is a sinking ship of fools.
This assessment was done by neither a bot nor someone for whom we have no idea of their credibility.
That assessment is done by a very well-known organization that reports on the credibility of media outlets, is very open about how they do this, and provides concrete examples to back up their assessment.
You can't just handwave that assessment away like that.
The fact that it is a very well known organization says something about its credibility? It provides concrete examples? Then shoot. I am excited to hear them.
I hope is not an "esteemed" organization like the BBC, or maybe like so many of the fact checkers that "curiously" sprung on the wake of covidism: the new ministries of truth. 1984 is not so far away after all.
https://corbettreport.com/factchecking/
https://corbettreport.substack.com/p/the...
https://corbettreport.com/episode-253-th...
https://corbettreport.com/interview-1587...
If you haven't saw it by now, we are talking about an awarded (which is not so relevant) investigative journalist that makes his analyses based on official information of various sorts, among them government documents, for which he always cites his sources, posting the links to it, so people can read for themselves and make up their minds, instead of waiting for someone to tell them what to think.
The fact that it is a very well known organization says something about its credibility?
Straw man. A well-known organization was simply to dispute your claim that "we know nothing about its credibility." It was not a demonstration of its credibility.
Is your google broken?
I hope is not an "esteemed" organization like the BBC, or maybe like so many of the fact checkers that "curiously" sprung on the wake of covidism: the new ministries of truth. 1984 is not so far away after all.
Save your hopes and dreams for your diary.
If you haven't saw it by now, we are talking about an awarded (which is not so relevant) investigative journalist that makes his analyses based on official information of various sorts, among them government documents, for which he always cites his sources, posting the links to it, so people can read for themselves and make up their minds, instead of waiting for someone to tell them what to think.
We're talking about a conspiracy theorists' blog. Enjoy it if that's your thing.
Yes trump ejected all the RINOs and some got threaten by hanging when u go against trump …
Is that what we call rallying behind a leader ?
Why not?
Yeah Trump did as well as Gore and HW Bush in their primaries. Which is effectively starting as the presumed nominee but going through the motions of a primary. Don’t think Dems hate primaries though. The 08 primary was one of the parties high points.
Dems hated the 16/20 primaries. What is an existential big tent gets fractured into factions.
It is good that the democrats rail and quarrel, and it is bad that the GOP is now in lock-step.
I like it when politicians are handicapped by having to garner support and be pragmatic. It stops the state and government from having too much power and it gives a voice to minority views.
And while it can at times be ineffective or water down idealism, it is also an effective barrier towards critical errors because it is harder to ignore criticism.
I agree with you. I don't think Dem operatives agree with us, though. I also agree that the 08/16 primaries were fantastic for discourse. And I don't actually believe the 16 primary hurt Clinton. I think the party largely does, though.
In FL Hilary was up by 0.6% and lost by 1.3%
In MI Hilary was up by 9.5% and lost by 0.3%
In PA Hillary was up by 5.4% and lost by 1.2%
In WI Hillary was up by 6.9% and lost by 1%
Your points are all true (I had thought the undecideds were less bad for Hillary but apparently I was wrong)...
However, Kamala is not Hillary. Hillary was basically hated by everyone and she motivated Trump voters by calling them Deplorable (in a private fundraiser much like Trump is now calling Kamala a b*tch at private
2016 was a weird year for polling. Trump's people kept saying that their metrics were saying different things. And this wasn't blowing smoke. Trump was attracting new voters. Untapped resources that polls were ignoring. And doing so pretty well in swing states, while HIllary's swing state strategy was pretty weak.
Trump's base might be capped this year, though. I'm not saying he will lose, but this is a more attainable election than 2016, for sure.
...
I agree with you. I don't think Dem operatives agree with us, though. I also agree that the 08/16 primaries were fantastic for discourse. And I don't actually believe the 16 primary hurt Clinton. I think the party largely does, though.
Why the 2016 primaries hurt Hillary Clinton was because Bernie Sanders did so well. Like with Obama many democrats did not like Hillary and didn't want her to be up against Trump.
What hurt Clinton was not taking advantage of the popularity that Sanders attained. Had she chosen him as her running mate I think she could have won. Something like 10% to 20% of Bernie's supporters ended up voting for Trump.
2016 was a weird year for polling. Trump's people kept saying that their metrics were saying different things. And this wasn't blowing smoke. Trump was attracting new voters. Untapped resources that polls were ignoring. And doing so pretty well in swing states, while Hillary's swing state strategy was pretty weak.
Trump's base might be capped this year, though. I'm not saying he will lose, but this is a more attainable election than 2016, for sure.
I hope you are right...
Awice is only laying down half a milly?
Divide that number by 2 roughly, that's what he stands to win including stake back (at least that's how I understand those numbers). From what I understand, you buy shares worth $1 each and the cost depends on the odds. So at dead evens vig free, a share would cost 50c. I assume the vig/overround is built into the odds/share price.
Divide that number by 2 roughly, that's what he stands to win including stake back (at least that's how I understand those numbers). From what I understand, you buy shares worth $1 each and the cost depends on the odds. So at dead evens, a share would cost 50c.
Isn't his net profit going to be ~$500,000 if he wins? (I never use Polymarket, idk)
Isn't his net profit going to be ~$500,000 if he wins? (I never use Polymarket, idk)
My understanding is that he bought 500k worth of "shares", which would have cost him around 250k if the odds were close to even. So he stands to win or lose around 250k. Could be mistaken, horsenut can correct me if I am, I'm sure.
Divide that number by 2 roughly, that's what he stands to win including stake back (at least that's how I understand those numbers).
correct. he has 543,903 shares. they pay out $1 each if correct.
he bought those shares at a price somewhere on this graph
actually you can look closer. at an average of 57c, so only 310k
Cheers.
