US Presidential Election 2024

[vikingTON]

On 20/01/2024 at 02:49, TxRover said:

Interesting dive into polling numbers shows something strange going on. Asked on an individual level, 75%+ of respondents called their personal economic situation as good or very good. 85% expect to improve their position this year. Now, when you phrase the questions a bit differently and ask about national outlook, it turns more negative. The thing is, the national situation is comprised of all the individual situations together, so it suggests there is a built in polling bias on the national polls, perhaps because of all the media stories suggesting the economy is in trouble.

Nothing underlines a Corbyn-esque clutching at straws exercise quite like bleating about polling bias (not demonstrated in reality) and the big bad media agenda.

[10menwent2mow]

Trump is going to win. Then spend the next 4 years righting the wrongs that he perceives he's had done against him while dragging the US even further towards the gutter. He will also definitely seek to repeal the 22nd amendment so he can stand again. If he doesn't get his way with that he will just wreak even further havoc. God bless Murica. 

[TxRover]

2 hours ago, 10menwent2mow said:

Trump is going to win. Then spend the next 4 years righting the wrongs that he perceives he's had done against him while dragging the US even further towards the gutter. He will also definitely seek to repeal the 22nd amendment so he can stand again. If he doesn't get his way with that he will just wreak even further havoc. God bless Murica. 

Not buying that overall. The New Hampshire results have already caused concern in the Republican ranks due to the confirmation of the basic problem…can’t win the Primary without Trump, can’t win the General with Trump. The Republican base is insufficient to elect a candidate, much as the Democratic base is too. Once again, Independent voters turned out and supported Haley, and were very clear they rejected Trump. Trump’s inability to at least maintain his base and attract Independents suggests a very difficult route to the Presidency. Biden is a poor choice for the Democrats, but data suggests that the immediate move by Trump and the Republicans to scaremonger about Harris shows they understand that Biden is more appealing to Independents than Trump.

If he regains the Presidency, the good news is repeal of the 22nd would face several issues. The first is the need to get 3/4’s of the States to back it, with Republican leans in only 31 of 50, and Trump being overall viewed favorably in 5 or so. The second would be that Amendments are crafted in a manner that doesn’t impact existing Office Holders without a new election…that is, a repeal of the 22nd would face immediate challenge under that principle despite being a repeal versus an imposition of new limits. The arguments on this one are arcane, and very much undecided, with a running for a third term for Trump likely to be only allowed non-consecutively to the second. The third is the length of time required to propose, finalize, Congressionally approve, gain 38 State approval and then gain final status of a repeal, especially with a polarizing figure like Donald involved.

As for the dragging toward the gutter, Trump’s twitter faction, the Freedom Caucus, has been sidelined by Johnson already due to their unwillingness to govern. I’d expect little better from Trump, and thus suspect his second term would likely be more impotent than the first, with his attempts being so bound in legal actions and reactions that little would actually occur. If he did begin with the House and Senate under Republican control, it’s likely the current dysfunction would increase and hamstring legislative efforts, and thus result in a standard mid-term rebuke that would take at least one House from Republican control.

[TxRover]

5 hours ago, virginton said:

Nothing underlines a Corbyn-esque clutching at straws exercise quite like bleating about polling bias (not demonstrated in reality) and the big bad media agenda.

Show your work, explicitly. Provide clear data showing that polling bias doesn’t exist (it does, and is shown often). With regard to “media agenda”, provide explicit, concrete examples of such an agenda and its operation. Can’t do it, I thought not.

[10menwent2mow]

21 minutes ago, TxRover said:

Not buying that overall. The New Hampshire results have already caused concern in the Republican ranks due to the confirmation of the basic problem…can’t win the Primary without Trump, can’t win the General with Trump. The Republican base is insufficient to elect a candidate, much as the Democratic base is too. Once again, Independent voters turned out and supported Haley, and were very clear they rejected Trump. Trump’s inability to at least maintain his base and attract Independents suggests a very difficult route to the Presidency. Biden is a poor choice for the Democrats, but data suggests that the immediate move by Trump and the Republicans to scaremonger about Harris shows they understand that Biden is more appealing to Independents than Trump.

If he regains the Presidency, the good news is repeal of the 22nd would face several issues. The first is the need to get 3/4’s of the States to back it, with Republican leans in only 31 of 50, and Trump being overall viewed favorably in 5 or so. The second would be that Amendments are crafted in a manner that doesn’t impact existing Office Holders without a new election…that is, a repeal of the 22nd would face immediate challenge under that principle despite being a repeal versus an imposition of new limits. The arguments on this one are arcane, and very much undecided, with a running for a third term for Trump likely to be only allowed non-consecutively to the second. The third is the length of time required to propose, finalize, Congressionally approve, gain 38 State approval and then gain final status of a repeal, especially with a polarizing figure like Donald involved.

As for the dragging toward the gutter, Trump’s twitter faction, the Freedom Caucus, has been sidelined by Johnson already due to their unwillingness to govern. I’d expect little better from Trump, and thus suspect his second term would likely be more impotent than the first, with his attempts being so bound in legal actions and reactions that little would actually occur. If he did begin with the House and Senate under Republican control, it’s likely the current dysfunction would increase and hamstring legislative efforts, and thus result in a standard mid-term rebuke that would take at least one House from Republican control.

I just think that moderate Americans are sleepwalking their way towards a 2nd Trump term. The Republicans are 4/5 to win the election (Dems 11/10) and Trump is 1/33 to be their candidate. 

Trump is 5/6 to be president (Biden 15/8). Now I know the bookies aren't always correct but this whole 'It won't happen' shtick didn't go too well in 2016 and can see it being the same again this time round. 

[BFTD]

1 hour ago, 10menwent2mow said:

I just think that moderate Americans are sleepwalking their way towards a 2nd Trump term. The Republicans are 4/5 to win the election (Dems 11/10) and Trump is 1/33 to be their candidate. 

Trump is 5/6 to be president (Biden 15/8). Now I know the bookies aren't always correct but this whole 'It won't happen' shtick didn't go too well in 2016 and can see it being the same again this time round. 

I bet there's a lot of "he'll be barred from the presidency anyway" going around now. Most of the Americans I know are moderate right-leaners (so Democrats) and really aren't keen on talking politics these days. It must be very depressing to be powerless and see your country cheerfully marching towards fascism; almost as bad as seeing the country that runs your country chasing them.

I wonder if Nikki Haley is gambling that not conceding now will see her as the candidate by default. RonD presumably hoping that bowing to daddy will work out for him further down the pike, once he's had more lessons in appearing human in public.

[O'Kelly Isley III]

2 hours ago, 10menwent2mow said:

I just think that moderate Americans are sleepwalking their way towards a 2nd Trump term. The Republicans are 4/5 to win the election (Dems 11/10) and Trump is 1/33 to be their candidate. 

Trump is 5/6 to be president (Biden 15/8). Now I know the bookies aren't always correct but this whole 'It won't happen' shtick didn't go too well in 2016 and can see it being the same again this time round. 

If these figures are holding in the last week of October there will be genuine grounds for concern, but we're nine months out from that and a lot can yet happen.  God might even die before then.

[doulikefish]

Trump telling Hayley to withdraw or he will release the dirt on her now,going down his usual route of starting a rumour and the batshits start putting all sorts on social media,so sometime today she will be an illegal/pedo/release the emails etc etc 

 

https://twitter.com/kaitlancollins/status/1750029530650100110?t=bJrwDkd-q_P2cyIXFHxLOw&s=19

Edited January 24 by doulikefish

[TxRover]

2 hours ago, 10menwent2mow said:

I just think that moderate Americans are sleepwalking their way towards a 2nd Trump term. The Republicans are 4/5 to win the election (Dems 11/10) and Trump is 1/33 to be their candidate. 

Trump is 5/6 to be president (Biden 15/8). Now I know the bookies aren't always correct but this whole 'It won't happen' shtick didn't go too well in 2016 and can see it being the same again this time round. 

The odds reflect businesses wanting to make money, and the shortness of the odds for Trump reflects his MAGA base willing to bet he'll win while thinking its a sure thing. Thus, you offer the shortest odds possible so if he does win...

Again, the biggest determinant for the election will be turnout. A higher turnout is likely to favor Democrats, hence the weirdness where Republicans are trying to put abortion on the ballot in some States.

42 minutes ago, BFTD said:

I bet there's a lot of "he'll be barred from the presidency anyway" going around now. Most of the Americans I know are moderate right-leaners (so Democrats) and really aren't keen on talking politics these days. It must be very depressing to be powerless and see your country cheerfully marching towards fascism; almost as bad as seeing the country that runs your country chasing them.

I wonder if Nikki Haley is gambling that not conceding now will see her as the candidate by default. RonD presumably hoping that bowing to daddy will work out for him further down the pike, once he's had more lessons in appearing human in public.

The trials certainly play into this. Also, given his showings so far (mixing up Nancy and Nikki, weird Iron Dome antics, misnaming leaders, etc), there's a clear chance for a monumental fuckup at a rally. Nikki knows there are multiple routes that Donald could be knocked out, she just needs to hang in.

31 minutes ago, doulikefish said:

Trump telling Hayley to withdraw or he will release the dirt on her now,going down his usual route of starting a rumour and the batshits start putting all sorts on social media,so sometime today she will be an illegal/pedo/release the emails etc etc 

This could be a monumental mistake by Trump. Attacking Nancy Pelosi was popular with all Republican's, but attacking Haley risks alienating the Republican's that voted for her over Trump, and certainly won't appeal to the Independents she drew. He's simply be narrowing his support base, at a time when it's already too small and needs expanded. 

Edited January 24 by TxRover

[vikingTON]

2 hours ago, TxRover said:

Show your work, explicitly. Provide clear data showing that polling bias doesn’t exist (it does, and is shown often).

A) You clearly don't understand what 'bias' means in a statistical sample. 

B) There's no evidence of an anti-Biden or anti-Democrat bias in the polls, based on your hare-brained 'analysis'. 

The onus is actually on you to support your claim - not on anyone else to clean up your latest pile of horseshit. Nice try though. 

Quote

With regard to “media agenda”, provide explicit, concrete examples of such an agenda and its operation. Can’t do it, I thought not.

Err that's the 'logic' underpinning your argument. 

The biggest village idiot in Texas strikes again! 

[TxRover]

4 minutes ago, virginton said:

A) You clearly don't understand what 'bias' means in a statistical sample. 

B) There's no evidence of an anti-Biden or anti-Democrat bias in the polls, based on your hare-brained 'analysis'. 

The onus is actually on you to support your claim - not on anyone else to clean up your latest pile of horseshit. Nice try though. 

Err that's the 'logic' underpinning your argument. 

The biggest village idiot in Texas strikes again! 

No, you absolute buffoon of a poster. I use the language you attack other with and you argue that language isn't appropriate. Well then, thanks for proving the point that your responses are simply the senseless rantings of an old man at the clouds.

[10menwent2mow]

36 minutes ago, TxRover said:

The odds reflect businesses wanting to make money, and the shortness of the odds for Trump reflects his MAGA base willing to bet he'll win while thinking its a sure thing. Thus, you offer the shortest odds possible so if he does win...

 

I think that you are miles wide of the mark with this comment. While that may be the case in the US, the market for the UK based bookies will not attract a huge amount of cash and I doubt there are many MAGA types in the UK who will be rushing out to invest their cash on a Trump win. Hence, I'd suggest that UK bookies odds accurately reflect the chances of any of the candidates winning. The UK general election market hugely suggests a Labour victory, does that mean that they are trying to entice lefties into lumping on Labour or is it just an accurate reflection of what will happen were there to be an election tomorrow. 

If betting companies priced up in this way then they would get stung more often than not. Let me offer you a football based example. The season that Rangers got to the UEFA Cup final against Zenit, they had a huge fixture pile up towards the end of the season and ended up playing their last league game at Pittodrie on a Thursday having played Zenit the previous Wednesday, Motherwell on the Saturday and St Mirren on the Monday. Rangers needed to win the game to have any chance of winning the league, they were far shorter a price than they should have been, which prevented many from backing them and thus Aberdeen were an artificially bigger price that they should have been (along with all the associated outcomes to do with an Aberdeen win). 

Lee Miller scored 1st at 16/1, 2-0 Aberdeen was 28/1. Draw HT/Aberdeen FT was 14/1. The Aberdeen win on its own was something like 8/1. There is no way that those odds suggested the likelihood of an Aberdeen victory and having worked at Pittodrie for Ladbrokes that night, they got battered. There is no way that the stakes invested on a Rangers win, considering the unique circumstances, would have covered the losses. 

Betting companies don't price up on trying to entice people into betting on a certain outcome, especially in a two horse race, they price it as they expect it to pan out. 

[vikingTON]

19 minutes ago, TxRover said:

No, you absolute buffoon of a poster. I use the language you attack other with and you argue that language isn't appropriate. Well then, thanks for proving the point that your responses are simply the senseless rantings of an old man at the clouds.

That'll be confirmation that you don't actually understand what 'polling bias' means, rendering your latest, flailing tantrum completely irrelevant. 

Thanks for playing anyway. 

[SandyCromarty]

Mad Trump hasn't had to do a thing to raise his voting power as the Democrats, Establishment and East Coast media have done it all for him.

[TxRover]

3 hours ago, virginton said:

That'll be confirmation that you don't actually understand what 'polling bias' means, rendering your latest, flailing tantrum completely irrelevant. 

Thanks for playing anyway. 

[TxRover]

3 hours ago, 10menwent2mow said:

I think that you are miles wide of the mark with this comment. While that may be the case in the US, the market for the UK based bookies will not attract a huge amount of cash and I doubt there are many MAGA types in the UK who will be rushing out to invest their cash on a Trump win. Hence, I'd suggest that UK bookies odds accurately reflect the chances of any of the candidates winning. The UK general election market hugely suggests a Labour victory, does that mean that they are trying to entice lefties into lumping on Labour or is it just an accurate reflection of what will happen were there to be an election tomorrow. 

If betting companies priced up in this way then they would get stung more often than not. Let me offer you a football based example. The season that Rangers got to the UEFA Cup final against Zenit, they had a huge fixture pile up towards the end of the season and ended up playing their last league game at Pittodrie on a Thursday having played Zenit the previous Wednesday, Motherwell on the Saturday and St Mirren on the Monday. Rangers needed to win the game to have any chance of winning the league, they were far shorter a price than they should have been, which prevented many from backing them and thus Aberdeen were an artificially bigger price that they should have been (along with all the associated outcomes to do with an Aberdeen win). 

Lee Miller scored 1st at 16/1, 2-0 Aberdeen was 28/1. Draw HT/Aberdeen FT was 14/1. The Aberdeen win on its own was something like 8/1. There is no way that those odds suggested the likelihood of an Aberdeen victory and having worked at Pittodrie for Ladbrokes that night, they got battered. There is no way that the stakes invested on a Rangers win, considering the unique circumstances, would have covered the losses. 

Betting companies don't price up on trying to entice people into betting on a certain outcome, especially in a two horse race, they price it as they expect it to pan out. 

Here’s the problem with your analysis in this case, you’re talking football, where there are huge databases of results, comparatives, etc. In politics it’s a lot different world. Polling error or bias, to use VikingWangs latest word of the day, is an inherent problem, as is data set size and turnout variables. As such, in a field such as politics, the odds are always going to be priced more defensively than in sports. The current odds, in the U.S., place Trump at 45% and Biden at 35%, which is significantly different than the UK odds I’ve seen on this election. The UK odds are shorter on Trump, reducing exposure, and longer on Biden, increasing exposure. This suggests that the oddsmakers would prefer to attract Biden money more than Trump money, which is rational if you are listening to the mass media suggestions that the economy is a shambles and Trumps gonna walk it. The problem is for the last couple of months every significant economic indicator suggests a recovery without a recession, the markets are at record highs, and local/regional polling shows consumer sentiment significantly higher than the national reports.

The national reports are, of course, a lagging indicator, and some of the more prominent recent neutral/negative ones have had high inherent interests from the agency creating and taking the poll to get particular results. On the other hand, for instance, a University of Michigan consumer sentiment poll just showed the highest uptick in the last 2 months since 1991. So we look at the pollsters typical bias/slant in their polling and find about +2% D in political polls, but a pretty solid on the nose ranking for economic data and polls, less than 0.3% D. So I’ll be interested to see how the UK odds react to the improving U.S. economy.

[10menwent2mow]

Well not really a huge difference, except on Trump. Odds of 5/6 on Trump suggest a 55% chance whereas 15/8 suggests a 35% chance for Biden. 

So UK bookies are reducing exposure on Trump because they think he's more likely to win but are not increasing exposure to Biden because they have him the same odds as in the States. 

As I say, bookies in the UK tend to not price up much on what they want to take money on, more what they think will happen and also in making sure there us liquidity in the market. 

The fact that Trump and Biden only make up 90% of the market in the UK surprises me slightly and suggests that they believe there's a chance that Biden will either step down or Trump will be put in the slammer or denied being able to run. At Bet365's current odds, if you are certain it will be a Trump vs Biden election then you can guarantee yourself a 10% profit by backing both outcomes although they have Biden as big as 2/9 to be the Dem candidate. 

[bigmarv]

The boy here cracks me up, he does both Trump and Biden impressions

 

 

[Mark Connolly]

Plenty of these sorts of tweets going round this week, given that it's 31 years since Clinton took office

Nikki Haley is also now promoting herself as the yoof candidate

[Wee-Bey]

Tbf Bill was fond of hanging around with younger folk.