Harris 2024. Fuck the republican traitor filth.
Yeah, don’t stop the massacre in Palestine. Things are great right now, don’t change a thing. Wtf is wrong with people…
Well, some people are utter fucktards who don’t understand that we’re living a trolley problem, wherein the only choice is the death of many, or the death of many more.
Yeah, are all those camps full of kids that keep getting bombed really a massive threat? Have they really got you so brainwashed that you are actually thinking that since Palestinian babies may grow up to be terrorists we have to kill them in the name of the almighty trolley?
Bruh are you stupid? Trump would probably go kill some Palestinians himself for fun, both options don’t give a fuck about Palestine. One option is just way worse for Americans.
Tell me that time that Trump dropped bombs on anyone. I’ll wait. It will be much harder then if you try to do this for bush or Regan or Clinton or biden or Obama or any other president you or your parents lived through. Let that sink in. The super evil viole t fascist is the only president who didn’t drop bombs on any innocent civilians. Does that really add up for you?
Trump literally used the word Palestinian as a derogatory insult in the debate, if that’s not enough for you to get the hint you are beyond help my guy
The fact is that all you have is that people told you that Trump used “Palestinian” as a derogatory term and that on the other side, biden has been mercilessly providing bombs to blow the hell out of Palestinians for almost a year. For me, I would much rather my name be used as a slander than have my whole family turned into applesauce. I guess some people really care more about supposed name-calling, though.
https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/afghan
Relaxed rules in 2017 resulting in increased civilian casualties liar
I didn’t lie about shit. Work on reading comprehension. He supported way fewer bombs ings and war than almost any president in the last 100 years. This is easily checked. The evil fascist murdering president so ehow has a more peaceful track record than any you can find. The only response you have is to make up arguments to fight against. That should tell you something. It won’t, but it should.
What the fucking hell are you babbling about? No one is saying this irrelevant shit.
Edit: see the thread below if you’re interested in seeing how dedicated they are to lying to help trump. But I wouldn’t recommend it, it’s depressing
There was just some idiot saying we gotta bomb homel3ss children because of the “trolley problem”, if that wasn’t you, then don’t worry about it.
That is not even remotely what they said and you know it. Stop discouraging Democratic voters if you care an iota about Palestine. I suspect you don’t though
I have absolutely no faith that Harris will stop the free money and bombs to Israel. At least Trump says he wants to stop giving them money and make it be loans. A step up is a step up. He’s still rubbish though, just less so than the current hypocritical dems. Giving endless blank checks to someone you say you oppose is utter trash.
Fuck polls. Go vote!
Seriously, polls mean nothing. If you want to know what people actually think, then look at the money. Betting odds everywhere still have trump destroying her. That’s what people actually think.
Betting odds are influenced by other factors beyond the underlying probability, including behaviour of betters and where bets are placed.
Take horse racing. If a horse was given a 40% chance to win but lots of people start piling money on that horse rather than any others, this creates unbalanced risk for the bookmaker as bets on one outcome need to be balanced by bets on another to ensure the bookmaker makes money.
The bookmaker will respond to this by adjusting the odds of the popular horse upward to a higher probability, e.g. 60% And that can happen purely through market behaviour, even though nothing about the horse or the track or the race itself has changed!
So it could be that Trump is the genuine statistical favourite. But it could also be that Republicans are just more likely to gamble and place bets on their candidate than Democrats are.
Then it’s easy free money, go take it from the degenerates. Nearly all sites are offering double your money if she wins. The rates are usually dynamic, so get it while it’s hot, it may not last at such a discount once the clever betters see this steal.
On lots of these sites, Harris has been paying half of Biden for the last 3 weeks, well before Biden even announced his retirement. Maybe the betters knew something others didn’t, maybe it was just chance…
I would, except I am not a degenerate gambler
There’s some misunderstanding of definitions going on here. A degenerate gambler is someone who repeatedly makes bad bets. According to you, you would be betting against the people making bad bets. This is what nearly all successful business is, betting against people you think you are smarter than. The real issue here is that you don’t actually believe your own comment. That’s fine, I don’t believe it either.
Wtf… No. Don’t replace polls with a weird poll proxy. Ignore all that shit and vote.
Yeah, don’t go to the places people are actually willing to risk their money. Go to the people with agendas and no evidence of who they even asked. Good one.
Ah yes, because the wealthy gambling their wealth for the adrenaline high has never happened in the history of ever.
Ever heard of a card game called chemin de fer?
This has nothing to do with the wealthy. It’s an interesting observation that the markets called biden dropping out a month before biden announced it.
Actually fuck both. Your idea is far worse than even polls though
And yet 3 weeks ago, a bet on Harris would have paid half as much as a bet on biden. That was well before even biden announced he was stopping. People’s money says something.
Holy shit am I really reading an argument about using bets to forecast an election?
The part of my brain doing math just spontaneously combusted.
Huh. That must have been the part that could apply base logic.
Well, it isn’t fool proof, but somehow, most major prediction markets were saying a harris win was twice as likely as a biden win almost a month ago. If you were asked a month ago who was more likely to win in 2024, would you have said biden or Harris? Probably biden, right? So maybe there is something to them. It’s just an interesting thing. You don’t have to think they are 100%, the world is never that absolute.
With a straight face, you say if someone bets on something it’s inherently more true. Betting. An entire industry powered by the mathematical fact that most betters lose. enjoy Putin’s smegma
Prediction markets. Google it. Check out their successes. Nothing is 100%. The prediction markets have been saying for almost a month th that Harris as president is twice as likely as Biden. Think about it.
*that’s what people with money that bet think
**that’s what people with gambling addiction think
*That’s what people who’s entire profession is establishing likelihood of outcomes think.
Oddsmakers are often wrong, but over the long term, they’re more often right, it’s the entire basis of how they make money.
Polls are just polls. Oddsmakers literally are putting thier money where their mouth is. If you’re confident they’re wrong, take the bet. They WANT you to.
Edit: after reading the great responses, I think I’m sorely underestimating the volume of bets and how keeping both sides betting against eachother in this case is the strongest factor in the current odds.
I don’t think that’s how that works.
If people predominantly bet for one side, the odds have to lower so the house still wins in either case. Basically, there has to be enough taken in on all other options to cover the payout of any winning option.
If there’s no selection bias in betting skill level of the players, then the betting odds should roughly reflect the actual probability. But if one side’s bet has no basis in reality, then the odds can get very skewed.
And in those cases, it’s not the oddsmakers that are wrong, it’s the betters. The house always wins.
Exactly.
In a horse race, punters tend to spread bets across horses with no bias or favouritism - they place the bet because they want to make money, not because they are invested in the outcome.
In a political race, people bet for one team because they are ideologically aligned and want to show support.
If Republicans are much more likely than Democrats to gamble and place bets on their candidate, this creates market pressure and the odds for a Republican win will increase (I.e. get more likely) as a result of that.
You’re right, but I noticed that the odds have been shifting in Kamala’s favour. She was around +250 just a few days ago, and now she’s about +160.
Trump is still the favourite to win (-188), but a couple debates might turn that around.
According to the latest data from Reuters/Ipsos, Harris is leading Trump in support, 44% to 42%, which falls within the survey’s three point margin of error, the latest suggestion the race between the vice president and former president will be close.
Means nothing outside of the fact that democrats are going to democrat mostly and fascists are going to fascist.
And with things being basically even, remember that fascists are much better about getting out the vote and consistently voting and most of our votes don’t matter only a handful of states do.
Means nothing outside of the fact that democrats are going to democrat mostly and fascists are going to fascist.
Kamala is pulling younger voters and votes of color out of the “undecided” bracket and away from third-party candidates. This is a big swing from the Biden low watermark of 37% last month.
fascists are much better about getting out the vote and consistently voting
Historically, fascists tend to win elections by launching paramilitary campaigns of harassment, hyper-policing, and mass disenfranchisement during election seasons. Mass disenfranchisement has played a big roll in flipping states like Wisconsin, Ohio, and Florida red. Most famously, the Brooks Brothers Riot was critical in shutting down the recount process during the 2000 Florida election that elevated Bush to the presidency.
I would be less worried about Republicans simply turning out in droves than I am of Dem districts subjected to domestic terrorism and red state interference and intimidation of local poll workers.
Kamala is pulling younger voters and votes of color out of the “undecided” bracket and away from third-party candidates.
This is going to be the real question. Can Harris pull in black men? They trend more conservative overall. Can she pull in gen Z people that are voting age? If she can get her performance up with those two groups, in PA, MI, and AZ, then she’ll likely win.
BTW - note that you talk about Biden as Biden, rather than Joe, but you refer to Harris as Kamela. This is a consistent problem with and for female politicians. Clinton get referred to as Hillary (when it is contextually clear that it’s not referring to Bill). Just something to think about.
This is going to be the real question. Can Harris pull in black men?
That’s not a real question. Dems regularly pull 70-90% of black male voters.
It is in fact a real question, because Trump has made significant inroads into that demographic. Given how tight the margins are, Dems need to be pulling in all of the black, male voters.
Anecdotally, I’ve known a handful of black men in my area that support Trump. All of them also smoke a ton of weed, so there’s a lot of cognitive dissonance there.
Trump has made significant inroads into that demographic.
From approximately 0% during the Obama presidency to the low 20s against Hillary.
But right in line with what Republicans have normally received going back to the 70s.
All of them also smoke a ton of weed, so there’s a lot of cognitive dissonance there.
No, that tracks.
Polls are meaningless
Impossible! I’ve been repeatedly informed that Joe Biden is the only one who could possibly stop Trump. Are you telling me that the party has a better chance without him?! The Russian bots were right all along??
