Election Betting
Trump is a very different kind of candidate now then he was in 2016 and 2020
I believe there is a lot of anger now towards him now - much more than in the other years
and I think that anger may motivate people who would not vote before to get out and vote against him
and that may be something that the polling and betting is somehow missing
.
Quote: lilredrooster.
Trump is a very different kind of candidate now then he was in 2016 and 2020
I believe there is a lot of anger now towards him now - much more than in the other years
and I think that anger may motivate people who would not vote before to get out and vote against him
and that may be something that the polling and betting is somehow missing
.
link to original post
I do not think the anger is any different. The angry remain angry. There are no "new angry." Hater groups are still the same.
He is a different kind of candidate. Far more personable. Just watch the McDonald's thing he worked. The guy is enjoying himself immensely and the crowd outside is huge.
Quote: lilredrooster.
Trump is a very different kind of candidate now then he was in 2016 and 2020
I believe there is a lot of anger now towards him now - much more than in the other years
and I think that anger may motivate people who would not vote before to get out and vote against him
and that may be something that the polling and betting is somehow missing
.
link to original post
I would have to agree that an article like this, for a normal candidate, would defeat his chances of election,
Trump said Hitler ‘did some good things’ and wanted generals like the Nazis, former chief of staff Kelly claims
but with someone like Trump the odds needle keeps moving unpredictably.
Quote: MDawgQuote: lilredrooster.
Trump is a very different kind of candidate now then he was in 2016 and 2020
I believe there is a lot of anger now towards him now - much more than in the other years
and I think that anger may motivate people who would not vote before to get out and vote against him
and that may be something that the polling and betting is somehow missing
.
link to original post
I would have to agree that an article like this, for a normal candidate, would defeat his chances of election,
Trump said Hitler ‘did some good things’ and wanted generals like the Nazis, former chief of staff Kelly claims
but with someone like Trump the odds needle keeps moving unpredictably.
link to original post
What a thing to say. Hitler's generals tried to kill him on at least three different occasions. The man knows nothing about history.
Quote: MDawgQuote: lilredrooster.
Trump is a very different kind of candidate now then he was in 2016 and 2020
I believe there is a lot of anger now towards him now - much more than in the other years
and I think that anger may motivate people who would not vote before to get out and vote against him
and that may be something that the polling and betting is somehow missing
.
link to original post
I would have to agree that an article like this, for a normal candidate, would defeat his chances of election,
Trump said Hitler ‘did some good things’ and wanted generals like the Nazis, former chief of staff Kelly claims
but with someone like Trump the odds needle keeps moving unpredictably.
link to original post
Story made by "The Atlantic" a rag that has been proven to not use any standards of journalism. Thus it should not be believed.
Republicans should remind themselves they thought they were going to win the midterms and the polling suggested that but they performed well below expectations. Could be because Trump wasn’t on the ballot but who knows. I wouldn’t get too comfortable if I was in those campaigns.
Quote: AZDuffmanQuote: lilredrooster.
Trump is a very different kind of candidate now then he was in 2016 and 2020
I believe there is a lot of anger now towards him now - much more than in the other years
and I think that anger may motivate people who would not vote before to get out and vote against him
and that may be something that the polling and betting is somehow missing
.
link to original post
I do not think the anger is any different. The angry remain angry. There are no "new angry." Hater groups are still the same.
He is a different kind of candidate. Far more personable. Just watch the McDonald's thing he worked. The guy is enjoying himself immensely and the crowd outside is huge.
link to original post
Political post.
Quote: AZDuffmanQuote: MDawgQuote: lilredrooster.
Trump is a very different kind of candidate now then he was in 2016 and 2020
I believe there is a lot of anger now towards him now - much more than in the other years
and I think that anger may motivate people who would not vote before to get out and vote against him
and that may be something that the polling and betting is somehow missing
.
link to original post
I would have to agree that an article like this, for a normal candidate, would defeat his chances of election,
Trump said Hitler ‘did some good things’ and wanted generals like the Nazis, former chief of staff Kelly claims
but with someone like Trump the odds needle keeps moving unpredictably.
link to original post
Story made by "The Atlantic" a rag that has been proven to not use any standards of journalism. Thus it should not be believed.
link to original post
Another political post.
Quote: SandybestdogPerhaps this has already been mentioned. Since traditionally the republican vote and more specifically the Trump vote has been underrepresented in polls and he performed better than expected the past 2 elections, if the polling companies are perhaps adjusting their methods to account for that this year? So maybe they are actually showing him leading or tied but realistically he’s down 2-3 points.
Republicans should remind themselves they thought they were going to win the midterms and the polling suggested that but they performed well below expectations. Could be because Trump wasn’t on the ballot but who knows. I wouldn’t get too comfortable if I was in those campaigns.
link to original post
I don't think they have changed their methodology. Polls these days push an agenda in most cases. Listen to Rasmussen on YouTube and how they describe how hard it is to get accurate numbers. How you have to poll day after day to make sure you eliminate "noise." Few polls take the time to do this. Most want to get a desired result to make news instead of reporting it.
Yes, it's possible that they're overcompensating, but polls in most of the swing states were so dead on the money last time that I'm guessing they'll be pretty accurate this time as well.Quote: SandybestdogPerhaps this has already been mentioned. Since traditionally the republican vote and more specifically the Trump vote has been underrepresented in polls and he performed better than expected the past 2 elections, if the polling companies are perhaps adjusting their methods to account for that this year? So maybe they are actually showing him leading or tied but realistically he’s down 2-3 points. link to original post
Kind of makes you think what's really the point of polls anymore? Why can't we just have campaigns and then vote and who wins wins. We don't really need to know what the polls are.Quote: AZDuffmanQuote: SandybestdogPerhaps this has already been mentioned. Since traditionally the republican vote and more specifically the Trump vote has been underrepresented in polls and he performed better than expected the past 2 elections, if the polling companies are perhaps adjusting their methods to account for that this year? So maybe they are actually showing him leading or tied but realistically he’s down 2-3 points.
Republicans should remind themselves they thought they were going to win the midterms and the polling suggested that but they performed well below expectations. Could be because Trump wasn’t on the ballot but who knows. I wouldn’t get too comfortable if I was in those campaigns.
link to original post
I don't think they have changed their methodology. Polls these days push an agenda in most cases. Listen to Rasmussen on YouTube and how they describe how hard it is to get accurate numbers. How you have to poll day after day to make sure you eliminate "noise." Few polls take the time to do this. Most want to get a desired result to make news instead of reporting it.
link to original post
As usual, it's money. Private pollsters don't make any money from the public polls they conduct, they do that for name recognition, so they can get hired by campaigns to do (secret) internal polls, so the campaigns can see where they need to campaign and how well their messaging is working.Quote: SandybestdogKind of makes you think what's really the point of polls anymore? Why can't we just have campaigns and then vote and who wins wins. We don't really need to know what the polls are. link to original post
There are also university polls, done as academic research.
If these didn't exist, then I imagine big sports books would hire pollsters so they could set odds.
Link pleaseQuote: billryanBusiness Week has the breakdown.
link to original post
is that a real money betting site? or just some fake money site?
Quote: AxelWolfCan someone help me? polymarket.com
is that a real money betting site? or just some fake money site?
link to original post
https://learn.polymarket.com/docs/guides/get-started/what-is-polymarket/
Quote: AxelWolfLink pleaseQuote: billryanBusiness Week has the breakdown.
link to original post
link to original post
https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=business+week+election+betting+market+%2430+million
"The results of the survey come as a national poll conducted by AtlastIntel, conducted between October 12-17, 2024, which surveyed 4,180 likely voters, found that Trump received 50.8 percent of support, while Harris received 48.1 percent from likely voters."
Quote: SandybestdogPerhaps this has already been mentioned. Since traditionally the republican vote and more specifically the Trump vote has been underrepresented in polls and he performed better than expected the past 2 elections, if the polling companies are perhaps adjusting their methods to account for that this year? So maybe they are actually showing him leading or tied but realistically he’s down 2-3 points.
Republicans should remind themselves they thought they were going to win the midterms and the polling suggested that but they performed well below expectations. Could be because Trump wasn’t on the ballot but who knows. I wouldn’t get too comfortable if I was in those campaigns.
link to original post
Many things can be attributed to changes (sometimes very unexpected changes) in vote distribution.
For example, we have our red states and blue states, but there are no large states that vote Republican by the same margins as California and New York have voted Democrat for the last several cycles. So polls that attempt to sample the "popular vote" do not consider that everyone in the state of California could vote for their preferred party and it would not change a thing in the outcome. Wyoming and Idaho vote Republican by the same margins but with a much lower population.
Now in 2022 the same thing happened but on a level of Congressional districts rather than states. Historically a "safe seat" for Democrats was an urban district that votes 85-90% Democrat and the Republicans put up only token opposition. And a rural seat that was safe for Republicans might be 65% or so Republican. Now what happened was a seat that Republicans historically would lose by 20-25% they only lost by 5%, so the big advantage on the generic ballot (which historically had favored Democrats because of all the lopsided urban districts) did not translate to an equivalent performance as the sum total of individual districts won.
We also saw large interstate population shifts from 2020-2022, so the sampling data of the pollsters was all screwed up and they had no idea how to get a representative sample from many areas because it's all different people living there now. Florida had a Gold Rush population increase while the Northeastern states had a Dust Bowl population decline. This problem would effect both the public polling they do for whatever, and the private polling they do for the campaigns and parties.
Republicans are largely diverting most of their campaign money towards the house and senate. Election winners always come down to money and who has the most donors. This is a basically a meaningless presidential election for republicans since they already accomplished most of their goals during Trump’s first term. (Stacking the Supreme Court, and overturning Roe v Wade) Even if Kamala is elected a bill establishing abortion rights will never be passed for her to sign.
Lastly, Trump’s comments about Hitler are basically the nail in the coffin. He is not only alienating Jewish voters but people whose family fought the nazis and died during WW2 and our country as a whole.
The real odds should be:
Trump 3-1
Kamala 1-3
The only way she loses is if some kind of leak happens that alters her image and credibility.
Quote: Slotenthusiast
Lastly, Trump’s comments about Hitler are basically the nail in the coffin. He is not only alienating Jewish voters but people whose family fought the nazis and died during WW2 and our country as a whole.
link to original post
Any verification that Trump actually said that, and that it wasn't just something made up by some guy who was promised a position by the other party if he made the claim? The kind of noise we have heard repeated ad nauseam since 2016, and that the public is very bored with and not in the least bit influenced by?
Quote: SlotenthusiastI placed my wager on Kamala and here is why:
Republicans are largely diverting most of their campaign money towards the house and senate. Election winners always come down to money and who has the most donors. This is a basically a meaningless presidential election for republicans since they already accomplished most of their goals during Trump’s first term. (Stacking the Supreme Court, and overturning Roe v Wade) Even if Kamala is elected a bill establishing abortion rights will never be passed for her to sign.
Lastly, Trump’s comments about Hitler are basically the nail in the coffin. He is not only alienating Jewish voters but people whose family fought the nazis and died during WW2 and our country as a whole.
The real odds should be:
Trump 3-1
Kamala 1-3
The only way she loses is if some kind of leak happens that alters her image and credibility.
link to original post
The Hitler comments have already been proven to be fake. In the end that whole thing might hurt Kamala as it shows what ends some will go to to make Trump look bad.
The comments Kelly made about Trump wanting Nazi generals and that Hitler did some good things were made in interviews with both the New York Times and the Atlantic. These have not been “proven to be fake” though it is interesting if AZDuffman is a Trump supporter if this sort of perception is typical of Trump voters to try to come up with some reason - false or not - to overlook yet another bad headline.
Of course team Trump has denied the comments the same way they have denied all the negative and unhinged things Trump has been reported as saying such as “military are losers’ but these go along the lines of denials of sexual assault and criminal activity where juries have already determined otherwise.
The end result of the criminal defendant who keeps saying that everyone else is a liar is a conviction. It’s hard to believe that deny deny deny is leading to convincing people to vote for a candidate but we will know in a couple of weeks.
What I’m interested in seeing is if this latest Trump Hitler gaffe will affect the polls.
Quote: MDawgElon Musk produced a fake Atlantic headline comparing Trump to Hitler in satire. That was refuted by the Atlantic.
The comments Kelly made about Trump wanting Nazi generals and that Hitler did some good things were made in interviews with both the New York Times and the Atlantic. These have not been “proven to be fake” though it is interesting if AZDuffman is a Trump supporter if this sort of perception is typical of Trump voters to try to come up with some reason - false or not - to overlook yet another bad headline.
Of course team Trump has denied the comments the same way they have denied all the negative and unhinged things Trump has been reported as saying such as “military are losers’ but these go along the lines of denials of sexual assault and criminal activity where juries have already determined otherwise.
The end result of the criminal defendant who keeps saying that everyone else is a liar is a conviction. It’s hard to believe that deny deny deny is leading to convincing people to vote for a candidate but we will know in a couple of weeks.
What I’m interested in seeing is if this latest Trump Hitler gaffe will affect the polls.
link to original post
They do not have a second source same as they didn’t for the military are losers comment. Same as there was no proof of Trump calling the White House “a dump.”
To believe the quote is true you have to believe someone would be stupid enough to say this out loud in front of a group of people.
You also have to believe the guy claiming it was not bothered by it until a month before an election.
Nothing about it stands up to scrutiny. Even the National Inquirer had higher standards than this.
Quote: AZDuffmanQuote: SlotenthusiastI placed my wager on Kamala and here is why:
Republicans are largely diverting most of their campaign money towards the house and senate. Election winners always come down to money and who has the most donors. This is a basically a meaningless presidential election for republicans since they already accomplished most of their goals during Trump’s first term. (Stacking the Supreme Court, and overturning Roe v Wade) Even if Kamala is elected a bill establishing abortion rights will never be passed for her to sign.
Lastly, Trump’s comments about Hitler are basically the nail in the coffin. He is not only alienating Jewish voters but people whose family fought the nazis and died during WW2 and our country as a whole.
The real odds should be:
Trump 3-1
Kamala 1-3
The only way she loses is if some kind of leak happens that alters her image and credibility.
link to original post
The Hitler comments have already been proven to be fake. In the end that whole thing might hurt Kamala as it shows what ends some will go to to make Trump look bad.
link to original post
False. They weren’t “proven to be fake.”
Where have you been bro?Quote: AZDuffmanno proof of Trump calling the White House “a dump.”
To believe the quote is true you have to believe someone would be stupid enough to say this out loud in front of a group of people.
True or not IDK/IDC, but that argument is a terrible one.
Quote: AxelWolfWhere have you been bro?Quote: AZDuffmanno proof of Trump calling the White House “a dump.”
To believe the quote is true you have to believe someone would be stupid enough to say this out loud in front of a group of people.
True or not IDK/IDC, but that argument is a terrible one.
link to original post
I’ve been in reality.
In reality a news editor would hear a quote on Hitler and realize nobody would say that so demand another source before printing such garbage. At least if they took a journalism class in college. Even more when one counts up all the Trump rumors proven false over the years.
Quote: EvenBobThis is what we're going to see the closer we get to the election. In the latest poll by AtlasIntel which was the most accurate pollster in the 2020 election, Trump leads Harris by three points nationally. This combined with Trump leading in every Battleground state is why Trump is 30 points ahead on some of the betting sites.
"The results of the survey come as a national poll conducted by AtlastIntel, conducted between October 12-17, 2024, which surveyed 4,180 likely voters, found that Trump received 50.8 percent of support, while Harris received 48.1 percent from likely voters."
link to original post
This poll, if true, would lead to an Electoral College rout by Trump.
I’ll lay 2-1 odds on Harris winning the popular vote. I don’t actually believe there is anyone on this board stupid enough to take Trump to win the popular vote. But I’m putting it out there.
Heck, according to the poll EB just posted I should be getting 2-1……
Quote: SOOPOOQuote: EvenBobThis is what we're going to see the closer we get to the election. In the latest poll by AtlasIntel which was the most accurate pollster in the 2020 election, Trump leads Harris by three points nationally. This combined with Trump leading in every Battleground state is why Trump is 30 points ahead on some of the betting sites.
"The results of the survey come as a national poll conducted by AtlastIntel, conducted between October 12-17, 2024, which surveyed 4,180 likely voters, found that Trump received 50.8 percent of support, while Harris received 48.1 percent from likely voters."
link to original post
This poll, if true, would lead to an Electoral College rout by Trump.
I’ll lay 2-1 odds on Harris winning the popular vote. I don’t actually believe there is anyone on this board stupid enough to take Trump to win the popular vote. But I’m putting it out there.
Heck, according to the poll EB just posted I should be getting 2-1……
link to original post
Most polls are done via phone. The only people who usually answer random phone calls or texts are baby boomers whom overwhelmingly lean Trump or are republicans.
Also If you do a deep dive into that WSJ poll you will see only 33 percent of respondents are registered democrats, with 36 percent being republicans and the remaining 31 percent being independents or unaffiliated. Those independents and unaffiliated usually lean republican as well.
I don’t put much stock in polls. Maybe I should since even a poll where 67 percent of respondents lean republican Trump is only leading by 3 percent. Going to be a landslide for the Veep.
Quote: Slotenthusiast
Most polls are done via phone.
I never ever answer the phone if I don't know the caller.
I have to imagine that most tech savvy people have developed that habit due to all the fraud out there.
A key metric that I assume all pollsters never reveal is how many calls did they make and what % answered the call. Everybody I know let's unknown callers go to voice mail. Republicans do skew older and I think the older you are, the less tech savvy you are and will answer an unknown caller. Younger voters tend to be more tech savvy, aware of phone fraud, lean left and dont answer unknown callers. I think most land line phones are in homes are in rural areas that lean right and will answer the call because they don't use the tech to identify a caller
Due to all this, I just don't trust these phone polls.
Does any pollster reveal what % of their calls go unanswered????
Quote: terapinedQuote: Slotenthusiast
Most polls are done via phone.
I never ever answer the phone if I don't know the caller.
I have to imagine that most tech savvy people have developed that habit due to all the fraud out there.
A key metric that I assume all pollsters never reveal is how many calls did they make and what % answered the call. Everybody I know let's unknown callers go to voice mail. Republicans do skew older and I think the older you are, the less tech savvy you are and will answer an unknown caller. Younger voters tend to be more tech savvy, aware of phone fraud, lean left and dont answer unknown callers. I think most land line phones are in homes are in rural areas that lean right and will answer the call because they don't use the tech to identify a caller
Due to all this, I just don't trust these phone polls.
Does any pollster reveal what % of their calls go unanswered????
link to original post
https://prod-i.a.dj.com/public/resources/documents/WSJ_partial_results_late_Oct_2024.pdf That’s the link to the poll. Maybe it’s in there somewhere.
But the people who do these polls at least imply there is a ‘science’ to the polls, and their interpretation of them. That these pollsters should be aware of who answers phones, and who does not. Who has land lines, and who does not. Who will not be forthright, and who will be. How many people will just lie and say they will vote when they know they really won’t?
Quote: SlotenthusiastQuote: terapinedQuote: Slotenthusiast
Most polls are done via phone.
I never ever answer the phone if I don't know the caller.
I have to imagine that most tech savvy people have developed that habit due to all the fraud out there.
A key metric that I assume all pollsters never reveal is how many calls did they make and what % answered the call. Everybody I know let's unknown callers go to voice mail. Republicans do skew older and I think the older you are, the less tech savvy you are and will answer an unknown caller. Younger voters tend to be more tech savvy, aware of phone fraud, lean left and dont answer unknown callers. I think most land line phones are in homes are in rural areas that lean right and will answer the call because they don't use the tech to identify a caller
Due to all this, I just don't trust these phone polls.
Does any pollster reveal what % of their calls go unanswered????
link to original post
https://prod-i.a.dj.com/public/resources/documents/WSJ_partial_results_late_Oct_2024.pdf That’s the link to the poll. Maybe it’s in there somewhere.
link to original post
I looked through it. No information on methods. I don't even know if this is a phone poll. They got 1500 to respond is the ONLY info they provide. Who knows , maybe this is an internet poll lol. Maybe this is an employee poll lol. Who knows. I think pollsters are embarrassed on how many calls it takes to get 1500 people to answer. It's probably all automated till somebody answers.
I think exit polling would be far more accurate then a phone poll. Anybody doing any early voting exit polls?
Of note was the instructions that my vote would count if received up to a week after Election Day, if it was mailed by Election Day. So I’m guessing under NO circumstances can the NY election be declared final until a full week after Election Day. I’m wondering what (if any) states allow votes to be counted even later than that?
What odds would you give on the election being decided by exactly ONE vote in one of the swing states? Imagine the scene in the recount room!
Quote: SOOPOOI filled out my absentee ballot. There was not a lot of space to write in my name for President, wife for VP, but I squeezed them in.
Of note was the instructions that my vote would count if received up to a week after Election Day, if it was mailed by Election Day. So I’m guessing under NO circumstances can the NY election be declared final until a full week after Election Day. I’m wondering what (if any) states allow votes to be counted even later than that?
What odds would you give on the election being decided by exactly ONE vote in one of the swing states? Imagine the scene in the recount room!
link to original post
That is insane that they will count late ballots. I say lock the mailbox the day before the election. Ballots not received by then go to the trash. Too much room for fraud.
This is the story line for a movie with Kevin Costner about 15 years ago. It was actually a nice little movie.Quote: SOOPOOI filled out my absentee ballot. There was not a lot of space to write in my name for President, wife for VP, but I squeezed them in.
Of note was the instructions that my vote would count if received up to a week after Election Day, if it was mailed by Election Day. So I’m guessing under NO circumstances can the NY election be declared final until a full week after Election Day. I’m wondering what (if any) states allow votes to be counted even later than that?
What odds would you give on the election being decided by exactly ONE vote in one of the swing states? Imagine the scene in the recount room!
link to original post
Quote: SandybestdogI remember it must have been 2 years ago I got a call on my cell from what appeared to be a legitimate polling operation. I believe they mostly asked me about my states governor race. So I would imagine by this time polling company's can obtain cell numbers that they can call on, not just land lines.
link to original post
They have been doing so for years. They have to be careful on that. I kept my WNY phone number since I left almost 20 years ago. People thought that was weird back then now everyone does it. This area codes are useless.
Quote: AZDuffmanQuote: SOOPOOI filled out my absentee ballot. There was not a lot of space to write in my name for President, wife for VP, but I squeezed them in.
Of note was the instructions that my vote would count if received up to a week after Election Day, if it was mailed by Election Day. So I’m guessing under NO circumstances can the NY election be declared final until a full week after Election Day. I’m wondering what (if any) states allow votes to be counted even later than that?
What odds would you give on the election being decided by exactly ONE vote in one of the swing states? Imagine the scene in the recount room!
link to original post
That is insane that they will count late ballots. I say lock the mailbox the day before the election. Ballots not received by then go to the trash. Too much room for fraud.
link to original post
This is the election betting thread.
No one cares what you think about when ballots are allowed to be counted.
Quote: SOOPOO
Of note was the instructions that my vote would count if received up to a week after Election Day, if it was mailed by Election Day. So I’m guessing under NO circumstances can the NY election be declared final until a full week after Election Day.
link to original post
(snipped)
I expect that if the margin of victory on a race significiantly exceeds the number of absentee ballots issued, they can declare it.
Quote: SlotenthusiastI placed my wager on Kamala and here is why:
Republicans are largely diverting most of their campaign money towards the house and senate. Election winners always come down to money and who has the most donors. This is a basically a meaningless presidential election for republicans since they already accomplished most of their goals during Trump’s first term. (Stacking the Supreme Court, and overturning Roe v Wade) Even if Kamala is elected a bill establishing abortion rights will never be passed for her to sign.
Lastly, Trump’s comments about Hitler are basically the nail in the coffin. He is not only alienating Jewish voters but people whose family fought the nazis and died during WW2 and our country as a whole.
The real odds should be:
Trump 3-1
Kamala 1-3
The only way she loses is if some kind of leak happens that alters her image and credibility.
link to original post
I’m willing to accept your odds of 3-1 on Trump how much are you willing to wager.
They are betting or have bet on Kamala Harris.
Quote: MDawgElon Musk produced a fake Atlantic headline comparing Trump to Hitler in satire. That was refuted by the Atlantic.
The comments Kelly made about Trump wanting Nazi generals and that Hitler did some good things were made in interviews with both the New York Times and the Atlantic. These have not been “proven to be fake” though it is interesting if AZDuffman is a Trump supporter if this sort of perception is typical of Trump voters to try to come up with some reason - false or not - to overlook yet another bad headline.
Of course team Trump has denied the comments the same way they have denied all the negative and unhinged things Trump has been reported as saying such as “military are losers’ but these go along the lines of denials of sexual assault and criminal activity where juries have already determined otherwise.
The end result of the criminal defendant who keeps saying that everyone else is a liar is a conviction. It’s hard to believe that deny deny deny is leading to convincing people to vote for a candidate but we will know in a couple of weeks.
What I’m interested in seeing is if this latest Trump Hitler gaffe will affect the polls.
link to original post
This all falls under a general rubric of bad-faith argumentation. In any kind of reasonable analysis, no one is asked to prove a negative. It leads to logical absurdities. I can't prove I don't support Hitler either. If somebody got stabbed out on the Strip last night I can't prove I didn't do it, and if accused, my only defense would be the principle that I don't have to prove a negative. I know, sounds weak, doesn't it? But sorry to tell you- but unless you can prove you were somewhere else at the time it's the only defense you have too.
"But it appeared in not just one, but TWO sources known for extreme partisan bias and putting themselves in service of one political party! Refute THAT, now!"
A grotesquely illustrative example of this bad-faith tactic was shown during the Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court hearings. They trotted out this woman, sounded like a nut, to accuse Kavanaugh of raping her at a party when they were teens. No evidence that she had ever even met Kavanaugh or been at the same place at the same time he was, just a lurid story.
"Ah, but can you prove you DIDN'T assault her?
Then after she laid an egg up there, nobody was buying it, they came up with a bunch more accusers, each one telling a story worse than the last, we were supposed to accept that as "mounting evidence."
"They can't ALL be lying, now!
Why yes, yes they can be. And apparently were.
The neverending snow job. It appears to date back to a time when people of one particular political orientation were taught by their perfessers that they were smarter than everyone else. You've read the right books, you've correctly recited the right ideas, you laugh at the right jokes, have the right friends, and everybody else is an idiot. It's natural for people to like believing those things about themselves, and a belief that people like will be sincerely held. The result of that is a form of communication intended to deceive people who have been deemed just not bright enough to make their own decisions.
So I hear a story like this, and I'm expected to say: "Well golly gee whiz Mabel, says right here in the New York Times that Trump is for Hitler! Says he's a Russian agent too. Why, that's against the Good Book, I ain't subjecting myself to e-ternal damnation by voting for no Russian agent who's for Hitler!" Needless to say it hasn't been very effective, and the rejection of the bad-faith rhetoric that we weren't supposed to be smart enough to figure out leads to people who uttered the rhetoric to doubt themselves, that maybe their dearly held beliefs about who is smart and who is not are reversed, and it becomes personal. This is why the unprecedented venom and vituperation directed by the establishment media against one political figure extends well beyond that figure to anyone who supports him- the fact that they continue to support him and it is only this establishment that has lost credibility shatters their illusions of themselves as brilliant patricians capable of hoodwinking and herding the ignorant plebs.
Quote: DieterQuote: SOOPOO
Of note was the instructions that my vote would count if received up to a week after Election Day, if it was mailed by Election Day. So I’m guessing under NO circumstances can the NY election be declared final until a full week after Election Day.
link to original post
(snipped)
I expect that if the margin of victory on a race significiantly exceeds the number of absentee ballots issued, they can declare it.
link to original post
The States don't call elections until they are certified. Networks call elections based on their projections. The networks will almost certainly call NY on Election Night.
I said sure and she asked me if I was the resident. She asked me if I was registered to vote and I said only since 1968 have I been registered at the same place. And yes I was voting. She said she gets paid by the hour but if I answer a bunch of other questions she gets more money so I did that. She asked me which party I was voting for and a bunch of other questions. She was very nice but very businesslike and not once during her entire visit of about 7 or 8 minutes did she ever make eye contact with me. I tried joking around, I tried asking her questions, and she never once looked me in the eye. That has to be some kind of acquired skill and it was damn weird.
When it was over she gave me a bunch of different political papers and they took off to the next house. First time in my entire life I've ever been polled. Has to be costing somebody a fortune to pay people to go door to door like this.
Quote: EvenBobToday's RCP has the national poll absolutely tied. At this point in 2020 Biden led by eight points and in 2016 Hillary led by five points. The guy from RCP was there in the studio and he said the recent polls from the last few days are what's changing everything and the old polls from a week ago and 10 days ago seem to be totally irrelevant now and he expects this to go in Trump's favor within the next two or three days as more recent polls come in. As somebody said earlier if Trump wins the national vote this is going to be a blowout for the Republicans. Because the private polls in both parties are probably showing this already they are well aware of where they stand and that explains why we've been seeing some of the things we've been seeing. I can't go into detail because it's too political but everybody knows what I'm talking about.
link to original post
Trump totally won the news cycle last week and seems to be on the same path this week. That is moving the conversation polls for sure as regular people just now tune in.
per MichaelBluejay's report of polls in the states - see link
Trump has only a 0.1% lead in Pennsylvania - 19 electoral votes
currently per the poll Trump has 281 and Harris 257
not very likely, but certainly possible - if everything else stayed the same and Harris won PA she would win
just sayin'
anyway we can't talk one of them into winning here - as the song says "que sera sera - whatever will be will be - the future's not ours to see"
.
https://michaelbluejay.com/election/
.
