2024 ELECTION THREAD
The next presidential race will be here soon! Please see current Bovada odds. Thoughts?
housenuts
most gamblers are inherently socially liberal because gambling has a lot of social stigma attached to that. on top of that, we tend to be from big cities, which skew liberal. then we tend to see the dregs of society which might make us feel empathy. lastly we see a lot that people don’t always have great decisionmaking skills and questionably can enter certain states where free will is completely absent like gambling addicts.
Have you ever played live poker before?
socially liberal yes but for ex why care about roe v Wade as long as you can fly your gf or daughter to get an easy abortion.
I mean the median pro gambler I interacted with all my life was the typical socially liberal, economic conservative type, at least in Europe (where it is actually rarer to find those types).
people who make a living out of gambling do so exploiting human weakness in others to their benefit, that's very hard to conjugate with being in favor of a welfare state for example. th
So people that make a killing in gambling are less empathetic? Sounds like the government should reduce gambling at all costs so that this disease doesn’t spread to the general population
So people that make a killing in gambling are less empathetic? Sounds like the government should reduce gambling at all costs so that this disease doesn’t spread to the general population
in my experience, obviously yes, same as traders.
you very probably have cause-effect reversed though with the second comment.
You also seem to imply that being low in empathy for complete strangers is a bad thing, which isn't obvious at all
I have a status as of 10/21/23 basically (I waited a few days so late polls would come in and a few did). It is a avg of all polls in the past 3 weeks starting the day after the VP debate.
I decided to do some research on the 2020 polls (which are available at 538.com) to see if the same pollsters, who were hired by Republicans in 2024, were also doing the 2020 polling. The reason is to see who is right. The Republican hired pollsters are skewed towards Trump winning while all the other pollsters aren't. And there are basically no Democratic paid pollsters in 2024. Those that did do polls did them right after Kamala was declared the candidate (so just after 7/21). My opinion is that they were looking to see what states she had a chance in and to help decide where to campaign. The Republican paid pollsters are doing their polls all the time. My thoughts on that are that they are trying to lay the groundwork for a defense of "cheating" if Trump loses. Basically every Republican paid pollster has Trump winning in the 7 swing states. In just about all of their polls.
So what I found in 2020 was that there were 5 or so pollsters who did the exact same thing they are doing this year (2024). In PA in 2020 AtlasIntel, InsiderAdvantage, Susquehana, Trafalgar, and Wick all had Trump winning in PA by 1% to 2% (in the last 21 days before election). Biden won by 1.2%. The irony was that everyone else except for Rasmussen (who I believe is a Republican based pollster) had Biden winning by 5% to 10%. So everyone else wasn't exactly right or even close to being right. Rasmussen had Biden winning by 3%. But the crazy part is that no pollster had it as a tie, or a 1% or 2% win for Biden. Lol. In AZ similar thing happened. Every Rep paid pollster had Trump winning (Susq had it as a 0.3% win so that was very close but Atlas, Rasm, Traf were 2% to 4% for Trump). The other pollsters had it as 0% to 6% for Biden some being very close. In GA it was also similar. Atlas, Insider, Traf, & Wick had Trump winning by 2% to 4% where everyone else had it as 0% to 5% Biden except for Emerson who had Trump by ~0.75%. There were 2 Dem paid pollsters who were at 2% and 5% for Biden. And one Rep paid pollster, Opinion Insight that had Biden winning by 4% but they did no other state and did none in 2024. NV was similar. There were only 5 pollsters in the last 21 days and Traf was the only Rep paid pollster and had Trump winning by 1%. The others all had Biden by 2%, 6% and 9%. Now Biden won NV by 3.4%. So even the 6% guess by the NY Times was closer than Traf. MI was also crazy because Biden won by 2.8% and the Rep paid pollsters gave Trump a lot more than the other pollsters but they were actually very close to the outcome. Atlas and Insider had Biden winning by 2%, Traf had Trump winning by ~2.75% and Wick had it as a tie. All other pollsters were between 7% and 13% for the Biden win (so they weren't as close as most Rep paid pollsters).
WI in 2020 was a bit different. Biden won WI by 0.6% and the 3 Rep paid pollsters gave Trump a lot more than the other pollsters. Traf was at ~0.25% for Biden and Atlas and Susq were at 2% & 3% for Biden. All other pollsters in the last 21 days were between 5% and 17% for Biden! So everyone was off in WI. The Rep paid pollsters were far closer than anyone else and 2 had it wrong in favor of Biden not Trump like they usually did. This makes me think that WI is the wildcard in this 2024 election. It will be the hardest to predict in the right direction.
What I am seeing in 2024 is a lot more Republican paid pollsters than in 2020. Mostly paid by Super Pacs which is another word for Billionaires who want Trump to win. In most of the swing states in 2024 Rep paid pollsters represent about 33% of all polls that are done. In every state the Rep paid pollsters are skewed towards Trump vs all of the other pollsters so I created an adjustment average to move the % of each of the Rep paid pollsters (and I removed the few Dem paid pollsters from the avgs in states where they were above the overall avg of all pollsters). The adjustment ranges from -0.4% in GA (!!!) and 0.2% in AZ to 2% in MI and 2.3% in PA. So in 2024 Rep paid pollsters are under avg in GA.
So here we go for 2024 in the swing states from 10/2 on to about 10/21:
AZ: I have Kamala trailing by 1.9% (2.2% Un) same as 538 and NS is at 2% (with only 0.8% Un). 5 of 13 polls are by Rep paid pollsters all with Trump winning except SoCal at 1% Kamala.
GA: I have Kamala trailing by 1.9% (3% Un), 538 is at 1.5% and NS is at 1.4%. 5 of 14 polls are by Rep paid pollsters all with Trump winning except TIPP at 0.75% Kamala.
MI: I have Kamala up by 1.7% (4.8% Un), 538 is at 0.7% and NS is at 0.8%. I would have been at 1.1% without adjustments. 5 of 17 polls are by Rep paid pollsters. Fabrizio has it at a tie and SoCal has Kamala up by 1%. The rest are at 2% and 3% for Trump.
NC: I have Kamala trailing by 0.3% (4.4% Un), 538 is at 0.8% and NS is at 1%. I would have been at 0.8% without adjustments. 6 of 13 polls are by Rep paid pollsters! All but one having Trump ahead ~0.75% to ~2.25% (Atlas has Kamala up by 1%). Only 3 other pollsters have Kamala ahead (by 1% or 2%)
NV: I have Kamala up by 0.8% (5.2% Un), 538 is at 0.3% and NS is at 0.4%. I would have been at 0.4% without adjustments. 8 of 20 polls are by Rep paid pollsters (2 ties one up by 1% one down by 1%). Other pollsters: one has Trump up by 1%, two have ties, and one has Kamala up by 1% and one has Kamala up by 4%.
PA: I have Kamala up by 0.6% (4% Un), 538 has Trump up by 0.2% and NS has it as a tie I would have been at Trump ahead by 0.3% without adjustments. 7 of 19 polls are by Rep paid pollsters all having Trump ahead by 1% to 3%. Other pollsters: two have Trump up by 1%, three have ties, and the rest are between 1% and 4% Kamala leads. This is where the Rep paid pollsters went wrong in 2020 in exactly this way. It will be close but unless something else happens I believe Kamala wins PA. My son registered to vote there on the last possible day...
WI: I have Kamala up by 0.6% (4% Un), 538 is at 0.4% and NS is at 0.6%. I would have been at 0.3% without adjustments. 4 of 14 polls are by Rep paid pollsters (2 ties one up by 1% one down by 1% same as NV...) Other pollsters: five have Trump up by 1%, one has a tie, and four have Kamala up between 1% and 3%. So this is the state I think Kamala might lose. I don't get why yet but I was just in Milwaukee for a wedding. And every single person I met who lives in Milwaukee is for Kamala. And they told me that every single person they know in rural parts of WI will vote for Trump. Its going to be about turnout and who knows what else. Maybe Covid deaths of old anti-vaxxers will be a contributing and/or deciding factor.
This is what I am seeing:
1) If the election was held today and the results are what we see in my poll analysis then Kamala would win 276 to 262 assuming Kamala wins NE2 and loses ME2. But she would barely lose in the 538 polls (they have Trump as a 51% favorite right now) and it would be unknown in the NS analysis (though he might have Trump as the favorite still).
2) The polls are politically skewed. But in states like AZ and GA I actually trust the polls and it doesn't look great for Kamala. In MI and PA I think the polls are acting like they did in 2020 with non-Rep paid pollsters actually doing a better job. In WI it is going to be up in the air. The pollsters all blew 2020 and there is no way of knowing if they are adjusting by too much or too little. But they have adjusted (even Rep paid pollsters).
3) NC is way up in the air as well. The hurricane and the Governor election will both be major factors especially because voting has already started.
4) The Undecided % is now hard to gauge. In some states it is much lower than in 2020 but it seems like some like MI and NV may be close. And how they go will likely decide things. Kamala has lost ground since 10/1 but in some states it is more than undecideds moving to Trump.
5) The biggest unknown factor is how Trump's behavior will affect the outcome especially among undecideds. He is now acting in ways that are so mentally unstable that it is unclear if his acting ability will compensate. Dancing at a rally for like 40 minutes while Kristi Noem looks on like it is a car wreck. Making Nazi like statements. Accusing Kamala of being lazy and then having people make claims that he isn't racist. Not sure how black men who are undecided or leaning towards Trump won't get fed up with it and either not vote or vote for Kamala. Not debating. Not interviewing with 60 minutes (and then accusing them as the cause). Not doing town halls that are scheduled. Basically acting like Biden did as a 78 year old man which had people ranting that Biden can't be functional for the next 4 years.
CNN: McConnell says ‘MAGA movement is completely wrong’ and Reagan ‘wouldn’t recognize’ Trump’s GOP
“Trump is appealing to people who haven’t been as successful as other people and providing an excuse for that, that these more successful people have somehow been cheated, and you don’t deserve to think of yourself as less successful because things haven’t been fair,” he said.
Source:
In other words, Trump is appealing to losers.
There is going to be the most heated exchanges ever among these talking head shows in the next two weeks, for sure, including some epic, unforgettable stuff.
Kamala is now denigrating Trump bc he didnt build enough border wall.
does anyone else remember when the Dems and the media were just apoplectic about the prospect of a wall?
Kamala is now denigrating Trump bc he didnt build enough border wall.
does anyone else remember when the Dems and the media were just apoplectic about the prospect of a wall?
Not sure what point you're trying to make. She's denigrating Trump for not fulfilling one of his main campaign promises, regardless of whether Democrats agreed with the prospect of it.
Not sure what point you're trying to make. She's denigrating Trump for not fulfilling one of his main campaign promises, regardless of whether Democrats agreed with the prospect of it.
point is democrats obsessively described the wall as a disastrous mistake and a racist idea, now they brag Obama built some parts of it.
it's obvious, it's reasonable because every polls in swing state shows democrats need to be perceived more anti illegal immigration to win, why can't you acknowledge the pivot is the only unclear part.
the Dems do agree with the prospect of the wall. they just want to be the ones who do it. hence why she throws in the Obama part. and ofc why Biden has built a ton of wall and bragged about it and why she is campaigning on border security.
the Dems do agree with the prospect of the wall. they just want to be the ones who do it. hence why she throws in the Obama part. and ofc why Biden has built a ton of wall and bragged about it and why she is campaigning on border security.
We live in a democracy, and most people across party lines want a wall; so if they didn't want a wall that would indicate they weren't representing the people. So we should view it as a positive they want a wall.
I think if people were given the choice of a moat lots would go that option.
point is democrats obsessively described the wall as a disastrous mistake and a racist idea, now they brag Obama built some parts of it.
it's obvious, it's reasonable because every polls in swing state shows democrats need to be perceived more anti illegal immigration to win, why can't you acknowledge the pivot is the only unclear part.
The notion we could build a 2,000 mile wall (and that Mexico would pay for it) is what was ridiculed. Obama built a section years before that. What pivot are you speaking about?
We live in a democracy, and most people across party lines want a wall; so if they didn't want a wall that would indicate they weren't representing the people. So we should view it as a positive they want a wall.
most people probably do want a wall in the current media climate. but 4 through 8 years ago Dems thought a wall was one of the worst things ever and proof of how bad Trump and the Repubs were. now they are like, "well if you just let us build the wall then we would do it right!"
Building a wall separating countries is ridiculous. I don't know of a single democrat who wants the complete wall built. Its like everyone is forgetting about the Berlin wall and how great it was when that came down.
And for the record during Trump's term there were over 5,000 successful attempts at scaling the small piece of wall Trump built with basically rope and a ladder. Trump's wall construction sucked. Also it was going to be for free because Mexico was going to pay for it and even then (not that we believed him) it seemed ludicrous.
What Kamala was doing was mocking Trump for standing at a part of the wall to brag when he had nothing to do with that part of the wall.
In response to Victor's point Kamala wasn't denigrating Trump because he didn't build enough wall (only 2%). She was mocking Trump because he said he was going to build a wall and he only built 2% of what he said he was going to do.
Everyone is happy about it. Including all the Republicans in congress and the Senate who from 2016 until 2018 could have included all the money to build a full wall in any finance bill because they had a majority in both the House and the Senate. But for some reason they didn't fund the building of the wall. In part because Trump said that Mexico was going to pay for it. But in part because Republicans don't like spending money. Especially on stupid things.
Building a wall separating countries is ridiculous. I don't know of a single democrat who wants the complete wall built. Its like everyone is forgetting about the Berlin wall and how great it was when that came down.
Not quite the same set of circumstances between East and West Germany and the US and Mexico fwiw.
most people probably do want a wall in the current media climate. but 4 through 8 years ago Dems thought a wall was one of the worst things ever and proof of how bad Trump and the Repubs were. now they are like, "well if you just let us build the wall then we would do it right!"
No, the concept of 1200 mile wall on a desolate border we share with a major trading partner is just stupid. Walls and gates near entry points makes sense. A wall between the US and Canada would be just as ****ing stupid. Less racist but just as dumb.
Although, the floating walls required to split the Great Lakes may actually be dumber than separating the desert and cactus with a wall.
housenuts
most gamblers are inherently socially liberal because gambling has a lot of social stigma attached to that. on top of that, we tend to be from big cities, which skew liberal. then we tend to see the dregs of society which might make us feel empathy. lastly we see a lot that people don’t always have great decisionmaking skills and questionably can enter certain states where free will is completely absent like gambling addicts.
Socially liberal to talk about people as dregs.
We live in a democracy, and most people across party lines want a wall; so if they didn't want a wall that would indicate they weren't representing the people. So we should view it as a positive they want a wall.
Today I learned that 41% is "most people across party lines"
Maybe its just a raging "my team vs their team" thing
One scumbag vs another, both assuming that the American public is as hateful of their fellow humans as they are.
Right, both sides, totally the same, etc etc
The notion we could build a 2,000 mile wall (and that Mexico would pay for it) is what was ridiculed. Obama built a section years before that. What pivot are you speaking about?
2023
On Wednesday, the Biden administration announced it would build an approximately 20-mile (32km) section of border wall in the area, an announcement that stood in stark contrast to then-candidate Joe Biden's 2020 declaration that he would not build "another foot of wall" as president. He halted construction on his first day in office.
This pivot.
