Topic: 2024 U.S. Presidential Election Bets! - page 21. (Read 15310 times)

Okay, thank you. I understand it now and here in our country in the PH, I can compare that with what we call 'survey'. But just as you've said, many of us don't believe with it anymore because they can be manipulated and even the trusted organization that will conduct that can get paid by pretty much hefty amount of money just to mind condition the people. It's also important in our country who will be elected there in the US because of the tension in our seas against China.

Trump posted this ad today on Twitter and I feel it's a very good attack ad against Harris. He attacks her on the very points he's strong on, which is bringing peace through foreign policy and not by force, which he managed to achieve in several regions.

Funnily though, he turns the Democrat peddled Russia conspiracy that wants Trump to be colluding with Russia right on its head and says that Kamala is worse. Quite funny. Will people eat it up though? From what I understand people are quite willing to believe trump on foreign policy issues given how bad the Biden administration has been at keeping peace.

I just wish Trump would bring more spotlight to the Ukraine issue like this specifically attacking Biden's bad decision and how they are affecting Americans and the whole world with food inflation that is directly tied to grain, fuel and fertilizer from Russia that we now can't get.

https://x.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1841155924133617918

It really is quite surprising to me that Kamala Harris is doing so well in the polls (according to the media), but I can't really believe these polls, especially now that the biggest newspapers in the US have decided to support the current vice president. But since it's an election, absolutely anything can happen, I'm still betting on Donald Trump, the polls will speak for themselves, I hope to make some money from this lol

You should also know that Kamala Harris will also make history as the first Female President of the United States. So both of them are gunning for history, as everything is on the line. And so far looking at the Stake line, it seems that Trump is ahead? I thought that there is already a swing bet on Kamala Harris as this is what the media portrays (although we all know that this media's have their own intentions as to who they want to report as the leader). So far it's Trump 1.95 and Harris at 2.00. So probably this could also be one of the closest Presidential election that we might see. And it's going to be interesting as well for non-US members here to see who is going to win, as Bitcoin or crypto in general is only on the center.

Interestingly, in history I have found only one president who became president twice, but not for a second term (not in a row). This is very rare. It was Grover Cleveland. Will Trump be able to repeat such a rare event? It is very doubtful, because on the opposite side the candidate is younger, and the main thing is that she is a woman. There has not been a female president yet. That's a big trump card. People love something new, something that happens for the first time. And who of them is saying and promising what now - it's all empty. Promising is one thing, but keeping a promise is another. In reality, people choose someone they like, not someone who talks a lot.

Interesting tidbit about the vice presidential debate. Polls came out about performance of each VP pick and...



Well the good news for the Trump campaign are that Vance didn't do as bad as Trump in comparison. Nearing a tie is good when your running mate had lost by a mile. But still it was unimpressive.

Nothing worthy of applause, nothing new or exciting was said by either candidate.
The worst for me:
Vance outright denying climate change. And while we're on the subject on climate change, how hypocritical of the Democrats to say they're the best for dealing with climate change while they are also responsible for increasing the US's oil and gas production to record levels.

The worse of all for me was Walz and Vance both reiterating that the Harris administration isn't going to give two Fs about pushing Israel to accept a ceasefire. So neither party gives a frick about causing a genocide it seems.

Also Vance was asked to demonstrate how they would act to protect people with pre-existing conditions, especially since RFK had made this a big point of his campaign before joining Trump, this is quite important. Vance essentially said they won't cancel existing regulation? I mean wow, how generous, after Trump wanted to cancel Obamacare...

Similarly, if I remember correctly, in the 2016 election, most polls showed that Hillary Clinton would win, but the final result was completely opposite. Polls are unreliable.

Polls are never highly accurate and do not represent the final outcome of election. In my opinion, polling is just a part of the election campaign of the two candidates, they create polls and modify the results to manipulate the crowd psychology to their advantage. Additionally, vote share will change daily until the election is over and there are still more than 30 days until the election, so relying solely on current polls is not enough data to draw any conclusions.

For example, according to Polymarket's survey, Trump's support in Pennsylvania has dropped compared to a few weeks ago, and Harris has surpassed him according to the latest results on September 27.



https://x.com/Polymarket/status/1839693448217010316

There's always the possibility of some sort of bias being introduced, like for example in 2016 when Trump supporters were far less likely to respond to polls (after being told they were rigged).  But potential biases aside, Polls do equal political reality at the time they are taken, but it seems like people often ignore the margin of error, and judge them by comparing who was ahead to who won the election.  Both of these are the wrong way to read polling data.

Example 1:

Candidate A is polling at 51%, B at 48%. Margin of error is 4.5%

Result:  A wins with 57%

This would be a polling miss because the difference between 57% and 51% is more than the 4.5% MoE .  It means the method the used to select people to poll was more likely to get a response from people that supported candidate B.  But many people would assume the poll was correct because it had A as the most likely winner, and A ended up winning.

If the same scenario resulted in candidate B winning with 50%, many people would think the poll was off because B polled less favorable than A, but ended up winning.  But that's wrong.  

If a poll shows 51% - 48% with a 4.5% MoE, it means that they expect candidate A to get between 46.5% and 55.5% of the vote, and B will get 43.5% - 52.5% of the vote.  

When you look at it this way, 2022 actually had some of the most accurate polling in history.  And they really haven't been nearly as bad as you'd think by all the complaining over the last 10 years.

Polls do not equal the political reality of the United States whatsoever. That is something one needs to understand from the first move one does when getting into geopolitics also the inner politics of the United States. Those polls are made with a sample of the population, which means the poll could be biased or inaccurate, depending on the team behind them.
Look for example what happened during the midterm elections of 2022, according to polls the Republican party was supposed to gain advantage over the Democrat party both in the Senate and in the House of Representatives, it did not happen.

So if you are new at betting and American politics, I would recommend you to be skeptical of pols and see a little bit more how betting markets react to the actions of both candidates.

I have a question, that this means that Pennsylvania has already won by Trump and opinion polls like this usually are the same during the election day? How accurate usually these opinion polls are? Pardon me as I am starting to follow this.

0.2 is in no way clear enough to consider a state a non-swing state so Trump shouldn't rest easy at night over winning Pennsylvania. Now he did a whole new fuckup with Florida. Instead of ordering Republican senators to fast track aid to Florida after it was major affected by the recent hurricane, almost all republican congressmen voted against the aid bills... Meanwhile Trump was saying Biden wasn't sending help and the Florida REPUBLICAN governor came out to say he was lying essentially.

Surely this isn't going to sit well with Georgians, which is neighboring by Florida is a battleground state and was also the recipient of a lot of damage from hurricane Helene. If Georgia goes to Kamala things are gonna be tough for Trump for sure. So hopefully he stops the fuckups and shows some humanity this time otherwise he'll keep getting humbled.

There really is no such thing.  The only two politicians of any time recently that I felt actually gave a shit about the people is both Benrie Sanders and AOC.  Now many dislike the two, and I myself don't necessarily love their politics, as they both are a bit too far left for my liking, but they seem to truly care.  I don't get this same feeling from Kamala.  I think Kamala just and Donald is, are both corrupt. 

That's what makes betting in this so difficult.  You don't know which one is being more honest than that other.  I'm still not sure who I'm betting on.

Inflation could be important to exist, but not this much, when you have high inflation, that is something that you can't deal with, it's too much and price of everything goes up. Another point to discuss is that you can have things going up 100% higher, and government telling you inflation is only 10% or less, how could people trust the government after that, they won't believe the government, not that they did before, but not believe after that neither.

That is important because things you buy goes up 100% higher, and because government shows inflation 10%, the salary goes up 10% so you make 10% more but pay 100% more and that makes you even poorer, that is why people hate the government lying about inflation.

Printing money part is true, you need to do that, but USA printed more money in the last ten years than the previous 250+ years, that is not normal. I am not against printing money, but I am against printing that much money, that's too much. For what? To give PPP to congressman and their loved ones and the companies that bribe them, not just for people, not even half goes to people, rest all goes to these rich folks anyway. That is why economy was an issue under both Trump and Biden and didn't help the normal people.

According to the RealClearPolling no-Tossup map, Pennsylvania has once again swung to Donald Trump, after Kamala was ahead for almost two weeks. Trump now holds a razor-thin lead of 0.2% in this state in aggregate of polls. And this means that Trump/Vance is now ahead in electoral college by a margin of 281 vs 257. We have just around 5-6 weeks to go for the elections and if the opinion polls are correct this time (they were horribly wrong in both 2016 and 2020), then the winner of the election may not be announced immediately due to several close contests.

https://www.realclearpolling.com/maps/president/2024/no-toss-up/electoral-college

Yes.  If the candidate you support lies every single time he speaks, has been a known scammer for decades, etc...etc.... then "all politicians are liars" (which really means, "don't count all that lying/cheating/scamming/crime against Trump, every other politician has done or said at least one thing misleading or dishonest, so just consider all politicians, including Trump, equally dishonest")...I guess that's the nature of politics. 

But you're basically becoming as dishonest as the politician by repeating the irrational dishonest argument. 

That's the nature of politics, not just in the United States, politics in every other country is like that. Lying, cheating, cruelty...they have almost become political culture all over the world. You can try asking non-Americans, is there anyone who would praise and be proud of their country's politicians? I believe they all have the same answer.


As for voting and supporting any candidate, it means that we are also looking for benefits for ourselves, we are looking to exchange benefits with them. Would you vote for a candidate whose policies you believe would harm you and your business? We all and politicians are the same, all only care about our own interests, no one is good here.

Betting on trump makes it easier again. The battleground states are way too close, and the reality is that there is about 229 EC votes Kamala will get without a doubt, it's almost guaranteed, I can't see that changing unless there is a shocking unexpected turn of events, and Trump will get at least 216, that is hardcore and destined.

The middle is where things go, some of them are a bit more closer to one side, like 3-4 points, some are very close and flips each poll, and we can say that it is going to be quite tough.

New York and California and similar democrat places losing EC vote, and Texas type of red places gaining makes it very difficult for Kamala, but I think it's going to be very very close. I am suspecting it is going to be either one state or two states that will be the deciding factor. This should mean that betting on this is very hard, we are going to definitely face a lot of tough decisions on this but while Trump could still lose, betting on him looks quite profitable for now.

Normally odds should be looking very close, even look like it's equals, but Trump has worse odds, meaning odds show that he should be losing, for something this close, I think it's clear to vote for trump for now.

Vance is definitely going to try to take advantage of his age against Walz, because that is the only thing he has in his favor. Unlike Walz, to me it seems Vance is almost completely unappealing when comes to personally and when he has tried to relate to voters, visiting them at their jobs and try to create sympathy for himself, has most of the times failed and backfired in a quite substantial way against him and Trump. Actually, I have this personal theory Trump is already regretting his choose for running mate, he could have taken much more advantage of the hard core of the Maga base had he chosen to run together with Tucker Carlson, for example. The wackiest option would have been Alex Jones, but may be Trump understood he still needs some moderate voters to win key states.

Honestly, I don't think many people care about the vice presidential debate , everything will focus on the two presidential candidates because if they don't win, there will be no vice president after that .

The outcome of the debate is not very meaningful, which may be a plus but does not guarantee the final outcome of the election . Furthermore, opinion polls are a means of manipulation by parties because they are based on the popular vote while election results depend entirely on the electoral votes. Polls are intended solely for crowd manipulation and as a means for casinos to attract bets, nothing more and nothing less 

The vice presidential debate is interesting, for sure, but it is nowhere near as important as the previous debate.

I think there will be many other things as well happening that we are still not even aware of.

A couple of months is a huge amount of time for politicians.