Topic: 2024 U.S. Presidential Election Bets! - page 8. (Read 15349 times)

Yes celebrity endorsement still relevant, They can get a lot of support since those famous personalities have huge following and lots of them would follow what those famous celebrities says. But that's not automatically could give them a win. Since for sure there are lots of thinking voters that those shows made by celebrities is just endorsement which they are benefiting.

Now both candidates do all what they can to attract lots of voters November is about to come on next few days that's why expect that maybe they do more aggressive campaigning since to possibly get more votes and sympathy from their target people.

For me, Polymarket is a much more reliable source than all the electoral polls that are happening out there, which as we all know are extremely manipulated to try to change public opinion regarding the favorites to win the elections. Even though they say that there is manipulation in polymarket, it is quite difficult to prove it, but now in the traditional media we are practically certain of the points of view and political spectrum of the people who organize them.

The real answer was that she was good with the top leads of democrat party, otherwise she wasn't what the democrat party members or voters wanted neither. This is the reason why she will lose if she loses this race as well.

This is exactly the reason why Hillary lost as well, she wasn't liked by many people, but superintendents or whatever they are called, overrode what people wanted and gave Hillary the candidacy, which they lost. There hasn't been an election in nearly 20 years where the democrat voters picked a candidate and then lost, only losses were from party officials picking someone.

So all in all, I would say it is going to be similar, the top politicians at democratic party has no idea about what their voters want.

To be fair, before Trump, republicans were similar to that as well, if Trump never got into elections, I think 2016 could have been won, there were very few people in the world that could win against Hillary and her army of politicians and power, Trump is definitely a terrible human being, I hate his personality, but there is absolutely no doubt he is an amazing politician, maybe the best "politician" USA has ever seen, he knows how to play the game very well, hate him all you want, I hate him too, but you can't deny how great he is at what he does, if not then how could he win one and almost near winning another one?

There is a speculation beginning to occur where Polymarket's rating on Trump is being doubted already because there are only 4 accounts that owns most of the inflows that is betting on the Donald Trump. This might either be a manipulation operation or this might be a group of people who might be insiders or have a source on information from insiders.

The Kamala supporters will certainly like the argument that this is only a manipulation on Polymarket's ratings on Trump and the Trump supporters certainly will wish that this is a smart money bet on the Donald hehehehe.



The lead Trump has built up over Kamala Harris on Polymarket is almost surely noise. I cannot completely rule out that the four Polymarket accounts that made up the lion’s share of the bets in favour of Trump may have colluded with one another. (There’s also speculation the accounts are controlled by one entity.)

They may have had inside information. Maybe they have access to a better poll than the rest of us. That would invalidate my mug’s game hypothesis to some extent. But can there be such information?

Read in full https://www.dlnews.com/articles/markets/even-polymarket-punters-are-subject-to-wishful-thinking/

The Harris campaign is a bit desperate to get celebrity endorsement these days.
Are celebrities still relevant? Don't know, I personally would have never cared. But it seems as though they overdid it so much this time that probably nobody is going to pay attention.

I believe the issue here largely is about more serious matters like income and peace, which Trump finally realized is a good idea to bring to the forefront. Ironically Trump even realized the Muslim vote could play a deciding factor and brought some Muslim figures on stage to endorse him. Them saying Trump is going to bring peace to the middle east is just make believe, but with Kamala being the war monger that she is, expectations are high on Trump. At this point I'd be surprised if he loses unless something terrible happens.

Actually, it pretty much depends on the nationality of migrants as I have already mentioned in other posts. Venezuelans and Cubans are more likely to vote Republican than Democrat, because Cuba and Venezuela are regimen which openly identify with the political left. I am talking about citizens of the USA with double nationality of course, immigrants cannot vote, unless they get nationalized.
Still the presence of immigrants could impact on the political color of a state, in Texas the local population  deals a lot with the negative consequences of irregular immigration, like drug trafficking and smuggling of people, so the governor and the local government of that state has reasons to demonize immigrants and irregular immigration as a whole.
I wonder though what makes California and other blue states to be pro-democrat, since they also deal with the negative size of immigration and still choose to stay blue as years pass by...

Why did they choose Harris as a candidate from the Democratic Party, in addition to being experienced in occupying a government seat, he also had an electability that was in society so that the Democrats chose him as a candidate, I thought that every political party was like that, where he would raise people who had more electability high to be appointed as a candidate.

I am also the case, because women do have some weaknesses, very rarely women have the courage like men in general, so if I am a US citizen, of course, with an economy and a country that is that I think we are not suitable to lead the US.

It's the naked truth according to people like you and not everyone which is why your generalistion in this case is nonsensical. People are primarily voting for Harris because they don't want to see Trump return to power.

She is a lot younger than him too which helps her case quite a bit. If her sex was a big problem, the odds between them wouldn't be evenly split at all. Think!

If everything is as you say, then Republicans should not waste their time on this state. Moreover, there is not much time left, it is necessary to concentrate on those for which you can fight and make the final dash on the home stretch.

I think that in those states where there are many immigrants, they usually vote for the blue, because the red ones create much stricter laws for them. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that there are a lot of immigrants in Miami and probably this state will be more red than blue in these elections.

As you said, just because Biden is president, he is still their preferred choice, they are willing to ignore other factors to choose a candidate, Harris is also the preferred candidate because she is the incumbent vice president. In my opinion, the Democrats do not have the best options and as they wish, they are clearly making reluctant choices.

Honestly, I have never appreciated a female presidential candidate, perhaps many people will say that is sexist but that is the naked truth. As we can see around the world, from politics to business leadership, there are not too many women holding those important positions, just a few. So nominating a female candidate was a failure for the Democratic Party as Hispo said.

This is true. As a matter behind Trump are solely  two puppeteers which are Elon Musk ^{(who is obsessed with idea to implant his chips into  all Americans' heads , and chances are Trump would help him in this should he be elected)} and Peter Thiel who angled him with a silver hook of  JD Vance ^{(Thiel is known to be the hard militant gay his relation with  Vance is very intriguing stuff)}.

In your very honest speculation. How much should be the ratings on each of these candidates? The prediction markets appear to be in fomo behind Trump, however, the media polls and surveys report that Kamala has the lead but this is small.

I honestly agree with the surveys and the polls because this would be very difficult to believe that the Donald will win by 65% of all electoral votes? The democrats have the machinery. If Trump will win, it will only be 52% or 53%.

Alaska is so unique it'd take alot for it to switch over, its the only state Ive heard of you get a commodity based dividend for being a permanent resident.  They got to have an extremely strong bias towards republicans and a free energy policy because of that.    Im only thinking of Norway for a similar sort of commodity fund setup in the peoples name that is of benefit to them in some way though Norway has encouraged oil drilling it also wants to develop a future without oil and is rich enough to do so now. 
  USA is large enough to be part of OPEC if they wanted but often play with one hand behind their back compared to the production amounts possible, pipelines not built that should be etc.  There is a deliberate policy on the table to move away to more direct electric production not involving the old commodities so voting has an ongoing bias imo.

Its a good bellwether if polls really showed broad Democrat support, it could be fair to assume other states might reflect that swing also.

I read 91% or 44 of Trump's former cabinet refused to endorse his reelection.  Thats going to include people who wish to stay neutral but its quite conclusive as a negative take from the professionals in the game even if the main party has broad support for him.

Mainly people with morbid curiosity watched that train wreck of a trump interview.

And what is this projection? Kamala isn't the one making issue of her identity, you are doing that. Joe himself told that they would probably have a decent discussion with kamala, trump was laughed on his face, by last podcaster when he says he is truthful, and he really stumbled on answering to anything.

And why exactly aren't you using same standards for both candidates? Trump regularly uses teleprompters and still has a hard time forming full sentences. Harris has already stated her plans several times, while on the other hand trump said he had concepts of a plan, which is same as no plans.

Alaska going blue is not impossible, but it is still very far away from happening, in my opinion for it to happen it would be required and important demographic change within the state for it to go blue. It is similar to what happened to Florida, it used to be a blue state until people started to get more conservative, driven my the experience Venezuelan and Cuban immigrants told to local American voters and also those Venezuelans and Cuba immigrant who ended up naturalized and are not willing to give their trust to democrats, which have ideas similar to those who make both Cuba and Venezuela to go down a path of misery and economical insolvency (disregarding the USA has access to unlimited credit thanks to it's state as a super power in the West).
If Alaska starts to give some of the first alerts of losing its leaning in favor of the Republican party, then candidates will feel more compelled to hold political rallies there and try to win back the trust of population. It will be a matter to another election, though, not this one.

Regarding Alaska, you are right to assume that it cannot be ignored, because if in theory we calculate that this state will vote and we don’t need to show up there, it could completely turn blue at one point. But on the other hand, it is clear that the team advises candidates to join the fight in the swing states, everything is logical. Probably, a better strategy would be to concentrate on the points that each state can bring, however, I think these teams with high salaries understand better than us what to do.

This will be one of the most interesting moments when we find out which states turned away from candidates in favor of opponents, although everyone thought that he would vote as always.

Even so, Trump had gotten of his way to host some rallies in California and other states which he know he has almost a zero chance to flip to Red, so makes me wonder whether he is doing so for the sake of still getting his presence in as many states as possible or it is part of an inflammatory way to poke Kamala Harris in his home State and show the world Trump has supporters even in the bluest counties of California to this day, we could only speculate.
Another thing which catches my attention is who Trump dont see to have any interest in visiting Alaska, which is a usually red state and easy win for Republicans. If I was Trump I would have spent some time there at least for the sake of courtesy and showing respect to the voting base of that far away state.

Trump's battle for Georgia is going to be specially messy, as the same Secretary of State continues holding his position  there and he pretty much stopped trump's corruption on "finding votes" for him to flip the state red when he knew he had lost...

So you are defending Trump because... he tells the truth? Are you sure you know who Trump is, are we talking about the same person? The Donald Trump that was the president for 4 years between 2016-2020, you know who he is right? I mean I am asking to make sure because nobody who has seen him in the last 9 years has ever claimed he is a truthful person, he has lied so many times with proof of him lying that it's incredible to think he can finish a sentence without pushing a lie about himself.

I mean literally the entire McDonalds thing he did was a full on lie, that McDonalds was a closed shop and the customers were fans and voters, are we sure you know about that? And this isn't even like some hidden conspiracy, this is a known fact that everyone has agreed on so far, dude has been lying from day one and you are claiming he is invited to podcasts because he tells the truth? Or maybe he is invited because Joe Rogan is a republican? That might sound like a bigger possibility?

Which is the right thing to do, he needs to win just a few states to win the entire election. I mean most of the USA is already decided, you know which states will be republican and which states will be democrat, there is really no reason to go for those states.

There is about maybe 7 states that has a chance to flip, and if you win 4 of them, then you win the election, so if you focus on those 4, then you are going to win the election. So out of 50 states that USA has, you only focus on 4, and ignore the other 46, or you can do a bit on the other 3 as well if you want. What was he suppose to do, focus on California? Obviously that is not going to be mean much and he would lose the elections. Plus, if someone wins the entire population of California and New York, but lose all the other states, that person would have the about 70 million votes and lose 48 states, that doesn't make sense right? So, this is why they are doing alright with focusing just few key states instead.

Biden is former President so he would still be their first choice especially if the old man showing some interest to run for the position again. But things didn't came up with their side as the popularity or trust rating of Biden goes down. That's why somehow they made a good choice for picking a girl candidate like Harris since they have now strong chance to defeat Trump is they do more stronger campaigns and wise decision to highlight her strength.

Election in US became more exciting and for sure gamblers now are also excited towards possible result and which of these candidate would win this year.