Topic: 2024 U.S. Presidential Election Bets! - page 13. (Read 15310 times)

Anyway, Bitcoin is not one of the most important topics during this year's election. And even more, most of the crypto-coin enthusiasts are residing in states such as New York, New Jersey, Florida and Texas, where the outcome is already known to all. But by supporting Bitcoin, Trump's reputation among the younger voters would have got better. And this is one of the few topics where the younger voters maybe influenced by Trump's views. BTW, Trump is still maintaining a 20% lead in Polymarket against Harris (60% vs 40%).

Kamala had a very bad interview in Fox News.
Props on her for going there. I don't think it'll affect her voters much because who the hell watches Fox anymore other than already decided Republicans.

The issue that still irks me is the fact that Democrats tried to tout a perfect hurricane response while failing to acknowledge some really popular issues.
Like for instance, the President was perfectly happy to bypass congress for money to Ukraine and Israel, but didn't do so for hurricane victims and blamed the congress republicans. Which might be partly true, but even if that's the issue, acknowledge this and try to fix this.

When there's need for DOMESTIC aid to be sent quickly, just do it for fuck's sake. Biden said we gave them (Georgia, Florida and North Carolina) everything, which may have been true, but failed to say that the system is faulty. Kamala failed to say she'd try to fix it too. Maybe they realized that if they were to touch this subject they'd admit partial defeat on the matter. Anyway, I think these actions cost them Georgia and North Carolina which were supposed to be swing states. Now the people there want to punish democrats and Kamala will have a very hard time getting elected.

The other day, I've seen an article that its headline says that Kamala is not an anti-crypto any longer. I'm not sure if things are still doing fine with these campaigns using the media.

Or someone who's a supporter of her is just doing his own thing to help convince people that she's for crypto.

I agree with you, obviously those numbers are not shown because they are Actually the ones that would harm the site , however there is the most legal and that everyone Knows as the house advantage , you can say a probability and statistic only in Trading that for me is more than 95% of people who lose and that in trading , now in the game the statistics must be 99% of those who lose , so in this case they do leave a margin for some Winners , but in itself I am sure that any Casino if it wants to manipulate it will do so and it is very difficult to discover ,  you just have to trust in the ethics and in the reputation and confidence of the major casinos.

Polls are getting incredibly thin, like more than anything else I have seen. I do believe we have seen close races before, and the whole nation is based on being nearly evenly divided in EC calculations. Bush one was the first thing came to my mind, that dude won BARELY and some still say he didn't win but took that election illegally basically.

In any case, I believe we are going to see another one like that, I do not know who will win, but I bet you that the difference will be just a couple tens of thousands, like 20-30 thousand people will make all the difference yet again.

This shows, elections this weird totally illogical way, actually works. I dislike EC a lot, but you can't deny it makes all the elections very close, even when Democrats get 10 more million votes, the elections are always close, which is fun to watch as foreigners. I mean if one of them won by 70%+ votes and 300+ EC, then there would be no fun and nothing to bet on, so I like this close gap between them.

All presidents have to make decisions daily that will lead to deaths or not.   Even just natural disaster or mass economics, at some point you are talking about people starving or not.   In a country this size despite being wealthy in parts, that constant choice is inevitable.

Add in that USA is by far the largest army etc. involved in many conflicts at least indirectly its true of all in politics that they have blood on their hands and I dont mean they are to blame exactly but all actions have consequences at that level.

Im thinking every president since Nixon has broken the law in some regard.  The problem is the law like people is not perfect, the supreme court decision recently may have mystified people in somehow covering Trump from charges but Im not that surprised and I think all recent presidents have faced legal challenges serious and involving life or death in many cases.
   We've all heard many times President is a war criminal, so I do think its naive to believe one party is superior to the other in their worst failures in policy, in actions both deliberate and mistakes made.   

I do keep hearing Trump has a lead in this race and that is a surprise to me, I've said for most of this year this election is the Democrats to lose they have the strong bias of being mid way in what should be at least a 2 term tenure.  I know we have Harris now and the poll lead she had is being described as slipping, quite surprising though she would be the first women etc.

Before, I saw the polls as very reliable, talking about 10 or 15 years ago, but in reality things are not that way anymore I think that now the polls from any provider are not reliable, and that is slaog that can be seen from a mile away. However, the polarization that exists in the USA is too great, each of the candidates has their followers, their fans, but in this case there are many things that favor Trump, for example, the blatant measure of the government powers trying to silence him through accusations, attempting assassinations, everything indicates that they are afraid of Trump. So if they were not afraid of him, would they do all that?

This is practically wrong, everything about election and candidacy is subjective, so what voter A is voting for could be different from reason why voter B is voting for a particular candidate. Some will just love Trump or the Republican party without any good reason and vote for him/it, the same thing goes for the opponent. No matter the good you do in the sight of such people, it doesn't count.

Division is in the US and Trump is leveraging on that. There's division in race, international policies and responses, immigration, cryptocurrency and many others. Whether Biden's administration did best or not, for the fact that there are divisions, it will always separate voters, it's not about your performance alone.

That's an interesting analogy which I definitely won't agree. A parking ticket versus a series of murders? That's a bit too much of a difference. Trump may be better than Kamala in one way or another, but it doesn't make him a world different than her. Of course, Kamala is also better than Trump in other ways, but they are of the same feathers. At the end of the day, they're both politicians who are merely after power even if what it takes to grab it is to lie and lie and make false promises.

Right, we have seen what Biden and potentially Kamala Harris will do if she is elected as the next US president. I mean their party is anti-crypto to the point that everything that relates to win, they wage war on them. So yes, Bitcoin can't be stop by any government, not even the US, however, the bull run might have to be delayed if the elected US president will somewhat be anti-crypto. IMHO.

Of course, we can bet on who we want, if might or might not reflect the right odds, but it's up to the US voters as to who they wanted to get elected, or at least who is the lesser of two evil for them?

Putting Trump in the same category as literally any other politician when it comes to honesty is like comparing someone with a parking ticket to a convicted serial killer saying 'meh, they both broke the law'.  Works out great for the serial killer every time.

Almost all politics is very close to lying or spinning the facts, very few retain some principles hence why some of the promises given out seem so ridiculously untrue.   Trump but also the other side often get carried away with their claims and end up leaving the realms of any reasonable credibility.   Most people recognize the constant spin and bias put on everything but a few actually believe politics is genuine which is dangerously naive imo.      I dont favor either side, the main problem is the sheer size of government and also then the amounts wasted to only burden people and business its unsustainable.

A couple of times now I hear big business is starting to assume a 'Red sweep' or that Trump is most likely coming back into power.   Why that should be especially certain I dont know, I believe they are assuming far too much.   Business apparently favors the Republican win for the possible tax breaks rather then a continuation or escalation in a higher tax regime.   Business cant vote no matter how much they donate, I dont know that bias is reflected with working people especially in swing states.   Despite some better economic figures, lower inflation people are still struggling so the idea people want to switch is quite feasible but Im not sure to what extent that might be a rising trend bring support to Republican votes.

It isn’t just about the price rising though. If Kamala decides to continue going to war with crypto, she could make it very difficult to operate a Bitcoin business or even convert funds. Exchanges could be sued or regulated to the point they can’t stay in business. Sure, Bitcoin will be fine, but using Bitcoin will be different between the two candidates.

Bitcoin will rise either way, regardless of who is elected as US president. The simple fact is that if Trump wins, it may happen a little faster, but it is not a fact at all, because he may win in November, but he will become president only in January, so there is no difference for Bitcoin who will be president. This is just a small circumstantial reason, nothing more.

In fact, you are right that all politicians do this, on one side and on the other. It just so happens that the latest example that comes to mind is Obama calling black voters sexist if they don't elect Kamala. I don't know why he hasn't called them racists by the way, anyway. I imagine he hasn't because it would be harder to sneak in.

I guess people are relying on the data Polymartket provides and I am also a Trump supporter. But to be fair, that data is unreliable even if only American voters use it to bet on their candidates. Everything remains unknown until the final results of the election are announced as the outcome will depend on the electoral votes, whereas surveys or polls are based only on popular votes. Polls and data provided by gambling sites do not represent the final outcome of the election, we should be realistic and wait and see who will be the final winner.

But not all gamblers are US voters so this statistics is irrelevant since provably that there are lots of people outside US could able to bet for Trump and with that the percentage or the odds will provably goes in favor with him.

Although I didn't say that we should believe on polls but one thing is for sure that we can see who's strong candidate here when November month came. I'm rooting for politician who support bitcoin to win. Since somehow if the will commit to what he promise to people during in campaign then provably that we as bitcoin  or crypto users would provably benefit for his adaptive attitude.

So things got more exciting as election day is near to happen.

This is quite true, and not just true between Kamala and Trump, and not just Trump and Biden, or anything this is why I believe we are going to see this in other nations as well. I do not think anyone who votes for anyone at the current world situation ends up voting because we are going to see a great situation when a good candidate ever comes up but even the greatest gets hatred from most people. This is why I believe we can see in Germany, in France, or in UK or wherever else in the world.

This is why I believe we are going to end up with people voting for the terrible people because they fear the other side even worse. I believe we are going to see this election to be exactly like that, we can definitely see people voting for less.

I think that just shows most bettors believe Trump will win. Sure, the majority of voters aren't placing bets, but these gambling platforms usually have a better pulse on things than the average voter. So, I don't know what you believe, but I’m leaning towards Trump taking this win.

But which countries will support him when most people know that he is a man who always puts the interests of the United States first and the dominance of the US dollar is always his top priority? In my opinion, most countries are worried that he will win the election, not many countries will support him.

Recently, he once again emphasized that he will impose 100% tariffs on any country that intends to abandon the USD or not use the USD as a reserve. This is not what BRICS members expected. Not to mention, close US allies like NATO will also not be happy if he is elected because of how he treated them during his term in 2016. But that doesn't mean he doesn't have support because according to polymarket, he has a huge advantage over the Democratic candidate in this year's election.

It's really hard to know why he is so pro-crypto, maybe there is some kind of deal between him and crypto companies. But I don't think he accepts foreign donations via crypto because it would be unwise for the Democrats to exploit that. Cryptocurrency transactions are difficult to trace but not all are untraceable.