I don't know how people expected to get any real substance out of that interview when she was given maybe 5-10 seconds to answer before being interrupted.
I saw one clip where Baer showed the 79% wrong track poll and asked why would Americans want that to continue.
It's such a bullshit question. That number is NEVER positive, it certainly wasn't positive when Trump was in office. If you asked me right now if we are on the wrong track, my answer is yes. But I'm answering yes due to dissatisfaction with the House and Judiciary, not because of the admin. Baer knows this. I wish Harris would have called him out on such a nonsense stat.
This is why the betting markets cannot be trusted. My guess is these anonymous accounts are, along with the right wing pollsters flooding the zone to make the race appear closer like in '22 and '20, part of Trump's plan to say the election was stolen from him again.
"I was ahead in the polls! I was ahead in the betting markets! It was rigged yet again! I won again!"
The chances of a victory by Donald Trump have surged on Polymarket, a crypto-based prediction market. PHOTO: KEVIN DIETSCH/GETTY IMAGES
Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump are neck and neck in the polls. But in one popular betting market, the odds have skewed heavily in Trump’s favor, raising questions about a recent flurry of wagers and who is behind them.
Over the past two weeks, the chances of a Trump victory in the November election have surged on Polymarket, a crypto-based prediction market. Its bettors were giving Trump a 62% chance of winning on Thursday, while Harris’s chances were 38%. The candidates were in a dead heat at the start of October.
Trump’s gains on Polymarket have cheered his supporters, and they have been followed by the odds shifting in Trump’s favor in other betting markets. Elon Musk flagged Trump’s growing lead on Polymarket to his 200 million X followers on Oct. 6, praising the concept of betting markets. “More accurate than polls, as actual money is on the line,” Musk posted.
But the surge might be a mirage manufactured by a group of four Polymarket accounts that have collectively pumped about $30 million of crypto into bets that Trump will win.
“There’s strong reason to believe they are the same entity,” said Miguel Morel, chief executive of Arkham Intelligence, a blockchain analysis firm that examined the accounts.
The big bets on Trump aren’t necessarily nefarious. Some observers have suggested that they were simply placed by a large bettor convinced that Trump will win and looking for a big payday. Others, however, see the bets as an influence campaign designed to fuel social-media buzz for the former president.
Polymarket is investigating the activity in its presidential-election markets with the assistance of outside experts, a person familiar with the matter said.
Prediction markets allow bettors to wager on various future events, with prices that reflect how the market assesses the probabilities of different outcomes. Although prediction markets have a mixed record of forecasting election results, Polymarket has scored some recent successes, such as its users’ early bets that President Biden would drop out of the race.
Polymarket users place bets using stablecoins, a type of cryptocurrency for which each coin is worth $1. For each contract purchased—an answer to a yes or no question such as “Will Trump win the 2024 presidential election?”—users get $1 if their bet turns out to be correct, and nothing if they were wrong. They can also sell contracts without waiting for the question to be resolved, allowing them to exit a bet for a profit or a loss.
The accounts betting big on Trump—Fredi9999, Theo4, PrincessCaro and Michie—were all funded by deposits from Kraken, a U.S.-based crypto exchange, according to Arkham. They behave in a similar fashion, systematically placing frequent bets on Trump and stepping up the size of their bets at the same time, Arkham found. The oldest of the accounts was created in June, while the newest was created this month.
The accounts have plowed most of their money into straightforward bets on Trump’s winning the presidency, but they have also put millions of dollars into bets that he will win such swing states as Pennsylvania, as well as long-shot bets on Trump’s winning the popular vote—smaller side markets also available on Polymarket.
Even many die-hard Trump fans consider it unlikely that he will win the majority of votes cast. Trump lost the popular vote in 2016 and 2020, winning the presidency in 2016 by capturing enough swing states to triumph in the Electoral College.
Adam Cochran, a veteran crypto investor who has monitored the activity on Polymarket, said the betting spree appears to be an attempt to generate a sense of momentum for Trump going into Election Day. If Trump loses, his favorable odds in the betting markets could bolster arguments that the election was stolen from him, said Cochran, who described himself as a right-of-center voter backing Harris.
While $30 millon might seem costly, it is sufficient to swing the odds on Polymarket and not a large outlay for a deep-pocketed individual seeking to influence the election, added Cochran, managing partner of the venture-capital firm Cinneamhain Ventures.
Trump addressed the Bitcoin 2024 conference in Nashville, Tenn., in July. PHOTO: BRETT CARLSEN/BLOOMBERG NEWS
“It is by far the most efficient political advertising one can buy,” Cochran said.
Harry Crane, a professor of statistics at Rutgers University, said that other betting markets, such as the U.K.’s Betfair, also show Trump with an edge in the race. There are plausible reasons why bettors might favor Trump, and it is common for a few big accounts on betting markets to swing the odds with their wagers, according to Crane.
“Purchasing a large number of shares on one outcome does not require any ulterior motive or effort to manipulate the market,” Crane said.
SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS
How reliable do you think predictions on Polymarket are? Join the conversation below.
The betting spree has echoes of the “Romney Whale,” an unknown trader who placed a flurry of bets on a Mitt Romney victory during the closing weeks of the 2012 election, using Intrade, a now-defunct prediction market. The trader lost nearly $7 million, according to a 2015 paper by a pair of economists from Microsoft and Barnard College. The authors concluded that the bets had characteristics of manipulation, potentially aimed at shaping public perceptions.
Rajiv Sethi, one of the paper’s co-authors, said the recent bets on Polymarket followed a similar pattern: steady accumulation of a huge wager that gradually lifted Trump’s chances of success. The simplest explanation is a giant bettor who expects Trump to win—but the possibility of manipulation can’t be ruled out, according to Sethi, a professor at Barnard.
“If I were trying to manipulate a market, this is exactly how I would do it,” Sethi said.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I don't know how people expected to get any real substance out of that interview when she was given maybe 5-10 seconds to answer before being interrupted.
I saw one clip where Baer showed the 79% wrong track poll and asked why would Americans want that to continue.
It's such a bullshit question. That number is NEVER positive, it certainly wasn't positive when Trump was in office. If you asked me right now if we are on the wrong track, my answer is yes. But I'm answering yes due to dissatisfaction with the House and Judiciary, not because of the admin. Baer knows this. I wish Harris would have called him out on such a nonsense stat.
You are absolutely correct and that would be a fucking great answer to that question. Pivot to the fact that the house lets you get nothing meaningful accomplished, pivot to Trump killing meaningful immigration reform, pivot to the supreme court killing Roe..........and then say that is why not only does she need to be elected but that's why they need to reclaim both the house and senate to make real changes/progress for the American people.
Yeah that should be the stock answer. How do we get in touch with her campaign advisors? lol
It will all come down to turnout. And that, I predict, will mean a Harris-Walz victory.
By
October 17, 2024
Andrew Harnik/Getty Images.
In these waning stages of the late Trump era, everything and nothing is a surprise. We’ve become immune. I mean, when you have the nominee of a major political party mentally unplugging during a town hall, stopping answering questions, and swaying along to his own Spotify playlist for 39 interminable minutes—and no one seems to blink—we’re out of surprises.
There’s no big last debate. No tentpole events likely to shake up the race in these dwindling days. Yes, a full-on war could break out in the Middle East. Or another hurricane could blow ashore, wreaking havoc—and Category 5 conspiracy theories. But the reality is that if nothing or everything happens between now and November 5, it’s unlikely to change the outcome.
Advertisement
This sucker is baked.
I’m going to make a bold prediction. Kamala Harris is going to win. Maybe easily.
Hive
Where Wall Street, Washington, and Silicon Valley meet.
And what does that mean? Well, first of all, there aren’t really any undecided voters. If you haven’t figured this one out by now, chances are you’re sitting it out.
In effect, the oldest cliché is the oldest cliché for a reason: It all comes down to turnout. Turnout with a capital T. In other words: This election will be decided in favor of the candidate whose troops can get the most folks in the key counties in the seven swing states to actually go to the polls.
I’m going to make a bold prediction here because I just don’t give a shit if I’m wrong, even if this lives on the internet forever. Kamala Harris is going to win. Maybe easily.
Hear me out for a minute. I’m not saying this because some of the polls we are seeing are flawed. All polling is flawed these days. I mean, how many of you have answered a political poll in the last 5 or 10 years? Right? So to whom are they talking? What’s more, everyone in the political establishment realizes that many of the polls come from dubiously partisan polling firms—“expert” hired guns who put their thumbs on the scales by simply publishing a flurry of inaccurate but nonetheless credible tallies designed to create the perception of an advantage and in some way trigger a bandwagon effect, believing their theoretical say-so helps sway the actual electorate. Good luck with that.
Even if you give professional pollsters the benefit of the doubt—that they are going above and beyond, and paying the extra dime to find voters, and balancing or weighting their work appropriately—they are still modeling their numbers based on past races. So the most recent presidential election model was 2020. And people might have voted for Donald Trump or Joe Biden with conviction, but there weren’t a ton of people excited about it.
Here’s why I say it’s Harris’s to lose.
Trump voters may be committed, but Harris voters are excited and enthusiastic. In August, the Harris–Tim Walz ticket enjoyed an eight-point lead when it came to voter enthusiasm. And there is a big difference in the ground game. Democrats are largely paying their field workers, while Republicans are mostly relying on volunteers. These are factors not being picked up on the radar of the head-to-head polling.
In addition, Trump suddenly seems not just lazy, weak (by dodging another debate, for instance), and old, but also truly out of it. Some days he makes it seem like the “25” in Project 2025 is a secret plan to execute the 25th Amendment if he actually gets elected, paving the way for—Lord help us—President JD Vance.
Some days Trump makes it seem like the “25” in Project 2025 is a secret plan to execute the 25th Amendment if he actually gets elected.
Meanwhile, Harris looks strong and confident. She’s demanding another debate. She’s marching into the lion’s den of Fox News and perhaps Joe Rogan’s podcast. She’s running clips of Dictatorial Donald at her rallies—to cheers and jeers. On the campaign trail, she’s enlisting the help of a raft of ready-for-prime-time players, including Barack Obama, other top Democrats, and a number of anti-Trump Republicans.
By
Advertisement
Finally, there is the gender gap. Yes, Trump has an advantage with men. But I believe that in the end, the Harris gender gap with women will shatter all previous records and be determinative. I just feel, in my bones—from talks with voters of all stripes, Gen Z to the senior set—that enough women have sufficient outrage from the Supreme Court’s Dobbsdecision, and PTSD from 2016, that they are going to crawl over broken glass to break the glass ceiling.
So yes, it’s going to come down to turnout, of course. And while conventional wisdom may dictate that women are more enthusiastic about voting, check out any of Turning Point chief Charlie Kirk’s campus rally videos and take a look at the sea of young men in red hats. Believe me, it will get your attention, and have you second-guessing all of the political wizards.
Kirk, to be fair, has the right message when he says: “I don’t care about polls. I don’t care about betting markets. I don’t care about vibes. I care about how many ballots are in the box. If we turnout, we win. Do the work.”
But when it all comes out in the wash, I think women are going to do the work and save our ass and our democracy. They’ve been doing it for centuries, so it shouldn’t be a surprise.
As the Eurythmics and Aretha Franklin liked to say: “Sisters are doin’ it for themselves.”
I don't know how people expected to get any real substance out of that interview when she was given maybe 5-10 seconds to answer before being interrupted.
I saw one clip where Baer showed the 79% wrong track poll and asked why would Americans want that to continue.
It's such a bullshit question. That number is NEVER positive, it certainly wasn't positive when Trump was in office. If you asked me right now if we are on the wrong track, my answer is yes. But I'm answering yes due to dissatisfaction with the House and Judiciary, not because of the admin. Baer knows this. I wish Harris would have called him out on such a nonsense stat.
You are absolutely correct and that would be a fucking great answer to that question. Pivot to the fact that the house lets you get nothing meaningful accomplished, pivot to Trump killing meaningful immigration reform, pivot to the supreme court killing Roe..........and then say that is why not only does she need to be elected but that's why they need to reclaim both the house and senate to make real changes/progress for the American people.
Yeah that should be the stock answer. How do we get in touch with her campaign advisors? lol
Regarding her response to Brett and his question about knowing when Brandon was unfit to lead, her answer should have been,
“well Brett, as you well know, 95% of politics is Optics and not policy, sad as that is. Also, you and I both know that Brandon has a life long stutter and that he is still challenged by it and unfortunately, it makes him appear, optics, too old, slow and unfit. However, I can attest, as god is my witness, that Brandon is fully capable and adept when it comes to policies that make life better for average Americans. He works hard, he understands the issues and he knows how to navigate Congress. I’m proud of Brandon’s and my accomplishments and you should be as well, considering where we were when we took office, and where we are today. And that is the fundamental question, are you better off today than you were four years ago, optics aside? Now, I can rattle off all of our accomplishments but I’m sure you’re aware of them, let me finish please, but there are still challenges that lie ahead and why we need an opposition party that is willing to work with us to solve these complex policy issues, like we had done with the border bill, the first piece of major immigration legislation since 1986, or preferably a democratic house and senate so we can continue to help all Americans have a better life and continue to be that beacon of hope, that shining light on the hill, for the rest of the world.”
There was some really disturbing commercial on our local ABC channel during the evening news last night. I'm not even going to search for it to show, but it involved aborted babies of color saying Kamala supported it and was so...disgusting?...the channel had to follow it up with "the FCC made us accept and play this commercial to be fair to all political parties."
It wasn't "sponsored" by trump, just some rando with a website that I'm CERTAIN could be traced back to trump or melon.
You know I always thought some Dem billionaire should make a website for a 3rd party candidate explaining they will make America great for white people or yadayada, to draw some of the maga votes. Guess I'm not into "going high" - lol.
Spectrum 10/27/09; New Orleans JazzFest 5/1/10; Made in America 9/2/12; WF Center 10/21/13; WF Center 10/22/13; Baltimore 10/27/13; WF Center 4/28/16; WF Center 4/29/16; Fenway Park 8/7/16; Fenway Park 9/2/18; Asbury Park 9/18/21; Camden 9/14/22; Las Vegas 5/16/24; Las Vegas 5/18/24; WF Center 9/7/24; WF Center 9/9/24; Baltimore Arena 9/12/24
Tres Mtns - TLA 3/23/11; EV - Tower Theatre 6/25/11; Temple of the Dog - Tower Theatre 11/5/16
On my good days I have similar feelings to that prognosticator above that Harris will surprise with a relatively easy victory, with all the enthusiasm (2008 levels), so many volunteers, postcards, the whole deal. Then other days I'm breathing into a paper bag pouring over poll crosstabs. Very productive!
Spectrum 10/27/09; New Orleans JazzFest 5/1/10; Made in America 9/2/12; WF Center 10/21/13; WF Center 10/22/13; Baltimore 10/27/13; WF Center 4/28/16; WF Center 4/29/16; Fenway Park 8/7/16; Fenway Park 9/2/18; Asbury Park 9/18/21; Camden 9/14/22; Las Vegas 5/16/24; Las Vegas 5/18/24; WF Center 9/7/24; WF Center 9/9/24; Baltimore Arena 9/12/24
Tres Mtns - TLA 3/23/11; EV - Tower Theatre 6/25/11; Temple of the Dog - Tower Theatre 11/5/16
On my good days I have similar feelings to that prognosticator above that Harris will surprise with a relatively easy victory, with all the enthusiasm (2008 levels), so many volunteers, postcards, the whole deal. Then other days I'm breathing into a paper bag pouring over poll crosstabs. Very productive!
Personally, I am more confident than I was in 2016 and less confident than I was in 2020.
I don't know how anyone could've watched that rude-ass mansplainer constantly and disrespectfully talking over the Vice President and refusing to allow her to answer, and come out and criticize Kamala Harris. FFS what interview hasn't she done at this point?
Want more details? Did you want her to spend 90 minutes explaining every little detail of her plans, even though we have NFI who will be in charge of the House and the Senate and there's a crooked as fuck Supreme Court waiting to overturn anything that is useful to regular people.
These poor women haven't moved past 1950 yet. Amazing that this type of thinking still exists.
Some women interviewed by The Post did indeed express skepticism about a female president. Diana Arvizu, 34, a real estate agent in Yuma, Ariz., said she just doesn’t believe women have the skills needed to run the country.
“A male should be the head of the home and of the family and of society,” she said. “It takes a really good man to really step up and be a good role model for society and to protect us and provide for us.”
Lynn LaVerdi, a 60-year-old lifelong Republican, brought up her opposition to a woman president unprompted while chatting with a Post reporter as she waited in line with her family to attend Trump’s August rally in Wilkes-Barre, Pa. “I don’t think a woman should hold the presidency,” she said. “Women are more moody. … We get rights and stuff, but I wouldn’t want to be on the front lines in a war.”
LaVerdi’s niece, Alea Scarantino, was standing nearby in a shirt attacking Harris with a gendered slur: “Say No to the Hoe.” Scarantino, who is in her mid-30s, said she agreed that women should not be president. “When I sleep at night, I want a man running our country,” she said. “Men are stronger. Women are hormonal.”
These poor women haven't moved past 1950 yet. Amazing that this type of thinking still exists.
Some women interviewed by The Post did indeed express skepticism about a female president. Diana Arvizu, 34, a real estate agent in Yuma, Ariz., said she just doesn’t believe women have the skills needed to run the country.
“A male should be the head of the home and of the family and of society,” she said. “It takes a really good man to really step up and be a good role model for society and to protect us and provide for us.”
Lynn LaVerdi, a 60-year-old lifelong Republican, brought up her opposition to a woman president unprompted while chatting with a Post reporter as she waited in line with her family to attend Trump’s August rally in Wilkes-Barre, Pa. “I don’t think a woman should hold the presidency,” she said. “Women are more moody. … We get rights and stuff, but I wouldn’t want to be on the front lines in a war.”
LaVerdi’s niece, Alea Scarantino, was standing nearby in a shirt attacking Harris with a gendered slur: “Say No to the Hoe.” Scarantino, who is in her mid-30s, said she agreed that women should not be president. “When I sleep at night, I want a man running our country,” she said. “Men are stronger. Women are hormonal.”
Because Trump is so rational and stable as a leader and decision maker without all those emotions and hormones 🙄.
Hence, yet another reason why I think POOTWH becomes COOTWH. The women’s vote is overestimated in that there are suburban women beyond child bearing age who are more concerned about crime than abortion and women like these two who are sticking with their religious patriarchy and staying in their place.
Someone please turn out the lights on your way out.
These poor women haven't moved past 1950 yet. Amazing that this type of thinking still exists.
Some women interviewed by The Post did indeed express skepticism about a female president. Diana Arvizu, 34, a real estate agent in Yuma, Ariz., said she just doesn’t believe women have the skills needed to run the country.
“A male should be the head of the home and of the family and of society,” she said. “It takes a really good man to really step up and be a good role model for society and to protect us and provide for us.”
Lynn LaVerdi, a 60-year-old lifelong Republican, brought up her opposition to a woman president unprompted while chatting with a Post reporter as she waited in line with her family to attend Trump’s August rally in Wilkes-Barre, Pa. “I don’t think a woman should hold the presidency,” she said. “Women are more moody. … We get rights and stuff, but I wouldn’t want to be on the front lines in a war.”
LaVerdi’s niece, Alea Scarantino, was standing nearby in a shirt attacking Harris with a gendered slur: “Say No to the Hoe.” Scarantino, who is in her mid-30s, said she agreed that women should not be president. “When I sleep at night, I want a man running our country,” she said. “Men are stronger. Women are hormonal.”
Because Trump is so rational and stable as a leader and decision maker without all those emotions and hormones 🙄.
Hence, yet another reason why I think POOTWH becomes COOTWH. The women’s vote is overestimated in that there are suburban women beyond child bearing age who are more concerned about crime than abortion and women like these two who are sticking with their religious patriarchy and staying in their place.
Someone please turn out the lights on your way out.
sooo, you think that subset of voter overwhelms the newly registered since 22 cycle?
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
These poor women haven't moved past 1950 yet. Amazing that this type of thinking still exists.
Some women interviewed by The Post did indeed express skepticism about a female president. Diana Arvizu, 34, a real estate agent in Yuma, Ariz., said she just doesn’t believe women have the skills needed to run the country.
“A male should be the head of the home and of the family and of society,” she said. “It takes a really good man to really step up and be a good role model for society and to protect us and provide for us.”
Lynn LaVerdi, a 60-year-old lifelong Republican, brought up her opposition to a woman president unprompted while chatting with a Post reporter as she waited in line with her family to attend Trump’s August rally in Wilkes-Barre, Pa. “I don’t think a woman should hold the presidency,” she said. “Women are more moody. … We get rights and stuff, but I wouldn’t want to be on the front lines in a war.”
LaVerdi’s niece, Alea Scarantino, was standing nearby in a shirt attacking Harris with a gendered slur: “Say No to the Hoe.” Scarantino, who is in her mid-30s, said she agreed that women should not be president. “When I sleep at night, I want a man running our country,” she said. “Men are stronger. Women are hormonal.”
Because Trump is so rational and stable as a leader and decision maker without all those emotions and hormones 🙄.
Hence, yet another reason why I think POOTWH becomes COOTWH. The women’s vote is overestimated in that there are suburban women beyond child bearing age who are more concerned about crime than abortion and women like these two who are sticking with their religious patriarchy and staying in their place.
Someone please turn out the lights on your way out.
sooo, you think that subset of voter overwhelms the newly registered since 22 cycle?
I think it’s one of many subsets that’ll be peeled away or overestimated.
Her answers were fine. She wasn’t gonna win you guys over anyway.
Win me over? I'm voting for her regardless. I was watching hoping for something that would win whatever few undecideds there are over, and frankly didn't see anything.
Bingo. I and everyone I know voting for her aren't voting for her. We are voting against Trump. Be happy another candidate isn't running, she wouldn't have a chance.
Her answers were fine. She wasn’t gonna win you guys over anyway.
Win me over? I'm voting for her regardless. I was watching hoping for something that would win whatever few undecideds there are over, and frankly didn't see anything.
Bingo. I and everyone I know voting for her aren't voting for her. We are voting against Trump. Be happy another candidate isn't running, she wouldn't have a chance.
If someone other than trump was running we likely would not care. The problem is trump.
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
Unfortunately, it still comes down to gender for many voters and couple that with her mixed race and she loses those voters for no legitimate reason. Even some of the comments by posters here about voting against Trump like there's something about her that is so terrible.
Sexism is gross, but it's still very prevalent, especially in suburbia and with minority men. Just look at the report WaPo just did on college athletes and the disparate amounts of money women are getting compared to their less talented male counterparts.
Unfortunately, it still comes down to gender for many voters and couple that with her mixed race and she loses those voters for no legitimate reason. Even some of the comments by posters here about voting against Trump like there's something about her that is so terrible.
Sexism is gross, but it's still very prevalent, especially in suburbia and with minority men. Just look at the report WaPo just did on college athletes and the disparate amounts of money women are getting compared to their less talented male counterparts.
You aren't kidding.
That this race is as close as it is is a terrible indictment of our citizenry.
Unfortunately, it still comes down to gender for many voters and couple that with her mixed race and she loses those voters for no legitimate reason. Even some of the comments by posters here about voting against Trump like there's something about her that is so terrible.
Sexism is gross, but it's still very prevalent, especially in suburbia and with minority men. Just look at the report WaPo just did on college athletes and the disparate amounts of money women are getting compared to their less talented male counterparts.
Agreed.
Kamala: "combative" during an interview while fact-checking the interviewer.
Trump: "dominant" when calling the interviewer nasty etc.
Unfortunately, it still comes down to gender for many voters and couple that with her mixed race and she loses those voters for no legitimate reason. Even some of the comments by posters here about voting against Trump like there's something about her that is so terrible.
Sexism is gross, but it's still very prevalent, especially in suburbia and with minority men. Just look at the report WaPo just did on college athletes and the disparate amounts of money women are getting compared to their less talented male counterparts.
You aren't kidding.
That this race is as close as it is is a terrible indictment of our citizenry.
honest questions here.
how often do you think the newly registered are polled? secondary question to this, can we reasonably extrapolate prefered candidate based on who was recommending folks get registered?
how often do you think polling lists are updated relative to election cycles/registration blitzes?
is exit polling allowed during early in person voting? if so , is it being done, given the increase in first day totals generally. if done what are results thus far?
do the news orgs have a vested interest in keeping you engaged by skewing polls to keep engagement high?
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Comments
It's such a bullshit question. That number is NEVER positive, it certainly wasn't positive when Trump was in office. If you asked me right now if we are on the wrong track, my answer is yes. But I'm answering yes due to dissatisfaction with the House and Judiciary, not because of the admin. Baer knows this. I wish Harris would have called him out on such a nonsense stat.
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Yeah that should be the stock answer. How do we get in touch with her campaign advisors? lol
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/story/kamala-harris-to-lose-heres-why
This Race Is Kamala Harris’s to Lose. Here’s Why.
In these waning stages of the late Trump era, everything and nothing is a surprise. We’ve become immune. I mean, when you have the nominee of a major political party mentally unplugging during a town hall, stopping answering questions, and swaying along to his own Spotify playlist for 39 interminable minutes—and no one seems to blink—we’re out of surprises.
There’s no big last debate. No tentpole events likely to shake up the race in these dwindling days. Yes, a full-on war could break out in the Middle East. Or another hurricane could blow ashore, wreaking havoc—and Category 5 conspiracy theories. But the reality is that if nothing or everything happens between now and November 5, it’s unlikely to change the outcome.
This sucker is baked.
I’m going to make a bold prediction. Kamala Harris is going to win. Maybe easily.
Hive
By signing up you agree to our User Agreement and Privacy Policy & Cookie Statement. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
And what does that mean? Well, first of all, there aren’t really any undecided voters. If you haven’t figured this one out by now, chances are you’re sitting it out.
Watch Now:
Finn Wolfhard Takes a Lie Detector Test
In effect, the oldest cliché is the oldest cliché for a reason: It all comes down to turnout. Turnout with a capital T. In other words: This election will be decided in favor of the candidate whose troops can get the most folks in the key counties in the seven swing states to actually go to the polls.
I’m going to make a bold prediction here because I just don’t give a shit if I’m wrong, even if this lives on the internet forever. Kamala Harris is going to win. Maybe easily.
Hear me out for a minute. I’m not saying this because some of the polls we are seeing are flawed. All polling is flawed these days. I mean, how many of you have answered a political poll in the last 5 or 10 years? Right? So to whom are they talking? What’s more, everyone in the political establishment realizes that many of the polls come from dubiously partisan polling firms—“expert” hired guns who put their thumbs on the scales by simply publishing a flurry of inaccurate but nonetheless credible tallies designed to create the perception of an advantage and in some way trigger a bandwagon effect, believing their theoretical say-so helps sway the actual electorate. Good luck with that.
Even if you give professional pollsters the benefit of the doubt—that they are going above and beyond, and paying the extra dime to find voters, and balancing or weighting their work appropriately—they are still modeling their numbers based on past races. So the most recent presidential election model was 2020. And people might have voted for Donald Trump or Joe Biden with conviction, but there weren’t a ton of people excited about it.
Here’s why I say it’s Harris’s to lose.
Trump voters may be committed, but Harris voters are excited and enthusiastic. In August, the Harris–Tim Walz ticket enjoyed an eight-point lead when it came to voter enthusiasm. And there is a big difference in the ground game. Democrats are largely paying their field workers, while Republicans are mostly relying on volunteers. These are factors not being picked up on the radar of the head-to-head polling.
$2.50 $1 per month for 1 year + a free tote.
Subscribe NowIn addition, Trump suddenly seems not just lazy, weak (by dodging another debate, for instance), and old, but also truly out of it. Some days he makes it seem like the “25” in Project 2025 is a secret plan to execute the 25th Amendment if he actually gets elected, paving the way for—Lord help us—President JD Vance.
Some days Trump makes it seem like the “25” in Project 2025 is a secret plan to execute the 25th Amendment if he actually gets elected.
Meanwhile, Harris looks strong and confident. She’s demanding another debate. She’s marching into the lion’s den of Fox News and perhaps Joe Rogan’s podcast. She’s running clips of Dictatorial Donald at her rallies—to cheers and jeers. On the campaign trail, she’s enlisting the help of a raft of ready-for-prime-time players, including Barack Obama, other top Democrats, and a number of anti-Trump Republicans.
Finally, there is the gender gap. Yes, Trump has an advantage with men. But I believe that in the end, the Harris gender gap with women will shatter all previous records and be determinative. I just feel, in my bones—from talks with voters of all stripes, Gen Z to the senior set—that enough women have sufficient outrage from the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision, and PTSD from 2016, that they are going to crawl over broken glass to break the glass ceiling.
So yes, it’s going to come down to turnout, of course. And while conventional wisdom may dictate that women are more enthusiastic about voting, check out any of Turning Point chief Charlie Kirk’s campus rally videos and take a look at the sea of young men in red hats. Believe me, it will get your attention, and have you second-guessing all of the political wizards.
Kirk, to be fair, has the right message when he says: “I don’t care about polls. I don’t care about betting markets. I don’t care about vibes. I care about how many ballots are in the box. If we turnout, we win. Do the work.”
But when it all comes out in the wash, I think women are going to do the work and save our ass and our democracy. They’ve been doing it for centuries, so it shouldn’t be a surprise.
As the Eurythmics and Aretha Franklin liked to say: “Sisters are doin’ it for themselves.”
“well Brett, as you well know, 95% of politics is Optics and not policy, sad as that is. Also, you and I both know that Brandon has a life long stutter and that he is still challenged by it and unfortunately, it makes him appear, optics, too old, slow and unfit. However, I can attest, as god is my witness, that Brandon is fully capable and adept when it comes to policies that make life better for average Americans. He works hard, he understands the issues and he knows how to navigate Congress. I’m proud of Brandon’s and my accomplishments and you should be as well, considering where we were when we took office, and where we are today. And that is the fundamental question, are you better off today than you were four years ago, optics aside? Now, I can rattle off all of our accomplishments but I’m sure you’re aware of them, let me finish please, but there are still challenges that lie ahead and why we need an opposition party that is willing to work with us to solve these complex policy issues, like we had done with the border bill, the first piece of major immigration legislation since 1986, or preferably a democratic house and senate so we can continue to help all Americans have a better life and continue to be that beacon of hope, that shining light on the hill, for the rest of the world.”
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
It wasn't "sponsored" by trump, just some rando with a website that I'm CERTAIN could be traced back to trump or melon.
WF Center 4/28/16; WF Center 4/29/16; Fenway Park 8/7/16; Fenway Park 9/2/18; Asbury Park 9/18/21; Camden 9/14/22;
Las Vegas 5/16/24; Las Vegas 5/18/24; WF Center 9/7/24; WF Center 9/9/24; Baltimore Arena 9/12/24
Tres Mtns - TLA 3/23/11; EV - Tower Theatre 6/25/11; Temple of the Dog - Tower Theatre 11/5/16
WF Center 4/28/16; WF Center 4/29/16; Fenway Park 8/7/16; Fenway Park 9/2/18; Asbury Park 9/18/21; Camden 9/14/22;
Las Vegas 5/16/24; Las Vegas 5/18/24; WF Center 9/7/24; WF Center 9/9/24; Baltimore Arena 9/12/24
Tres Mtns - TLA 3/23/11; EV - Tower Theatre 6/25/11; Temple of the Dog - Tower Theatre 11/5/16
Good job, Johnny, kudos!
https://wapo.st/4f9eYhb
Because Trump is so rational and stable as a leader and decision maker without all those emotions and hormones 🙄.
Someone please turn out the lights on your way out.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Someone please turn out the lights on your way out.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
sooo, you think that subset of voter overwhelms the newly registered since 22 cycle?
I think it’s one of many subsets that’ll be peeled away or overestimated.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
2003: 4/29 Albany, 5/2 Buffalo, 7/9 MSG 2 2006: 5/12 Albany, 6/3 East Rutherford 2
2008: 6/27 Hartford 2009: 10/27 Philadelphia 1 2010: 5/15 Hartford, 5/21 MSG 2
2013: 10/15 Worcester 1, 10/25 Hartford 2014: 10/1 Cincinnati
2018: 9/2 Fenway 1
2024: 9/3 MSG 1, 9/4 MSG 2 , 9/15 Fenway 1, 9/17 Fenway 2
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
PA: Harris 49 Trump 47
WI: Harris 50 Trump 47
MI: Harris 49 Trump 47
GA: Harris 51 Trump 47
NV: Harris 48 Trump 48
AZ: Trump 49 Harris 46
NC: Trump 50 Harris 47
Sexism is gross, but it's still very prevalent, especially in suburbia and with minority men. Just look at the report WaPo just did on college athletes and the disparate amounts of money women are getting compared to their less talented male counterparts.
That this race is as close as it is is a terrible indictment of our citizenry.
Kamala: "combative" during an interview while fact-checking the interviewer.
Trump: "dominant" when calling the interviewer nasty etc.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14