** KAMALA HARRIS FOR PRESIDENT -PART DEUX **

Tim Simmons

Poncier said:

Tim Simmons said:

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.

“Undecideds” watching Fox News have already made their mind up that they are voting for Trump. They aren’t a real coalition. Real undecideds aren’t watching shit. What she was going for were the weak decideds, the ones who could be reasoned with. 

Tim Simmons

My general contention is that there are very few undecideds. Most have made their mind up at some level but want to appear being fair, because for whatever reason, they feel the need to appear like they are grinding out a thought process. 

There is no election in our lifetimes that has been more clear what is right and what is wrong in regards to what American Democracy is, than this one. 

gimmesometruth27

mace1229 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

mace1229 said:

Poncier said:

Tim Simmons said:

I mean, when you are running against one other person, you kinda have to contrast yourself to them. 

Of course. But at least give some semblance of an answer to the questions at hand in the process.

Exactly. No one expects her not to mention Trump. But when that’s the focus of every answer, you want more substance.

she goes on a trump propaganda network that has been lying about her to their viewers for months and lying to prop up trump and make him seem normal and your reaction is "iLiKe It BeTtEr WhEn ShE aNsWeRs QuEsTiOnS wItHoUt MeNtIoNiNg TrUmP!!"

literally nothing she does is good enough for you guys. imagine trump going on msnbc. but he never would. it proves that to you harris critics the bar is constantly raising and lowering while the bar for trump is laying on the ground.

maybe if she would have had the interviewer listen to music for a half hour.

Not what I said.
Of course she’s going to talk about Trump. No one said she shouldn’t mention him. But making him the center point of literally every response while not answering the question is another thing. 

fox viewers have up until this point not heard anything that she said about trump up until that point. it is a propaganda network that props him up. she had to tell the truths the network won't.

that may be too much for some people to handle. but she did what she had to do.

gimmesometruth27

Poncier said:

Tim Simmons said:

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.

to be an undecided voter at this point in the game says a lot more about that individual as a person than it does about either of the two candidates.

gimmesometruth27

Tim Simmons said:

My general contention is that there are very few undecideds. Most have made their mind up at some level but want to appear being fair, because for whatever reason, they feel the need to appear like they are grinding out a thought process. 

There is no election in our lifetimes that has been more clear what is right and what is wrong in regards to what American Democracy is, than this one. 

at this point, an undecided voter is a trump voter that is too embarrassed to say out loud that they are voting for trump. probably for the 3rd time too.

The Juggler

mace1229 said:

Poncier said:

Tim Simmons said:

I mean, when you are running against one other person, you kinda have to contrast yourself to them. 

Of course. But at least give some semblance of an answer to the questions at hand in the process.

Exactly. No one expects her not to mention Trump. But when that’s the focus of every answer, you want more substance.

You must hate literally every single question Trump attempts to not answer....all in much friendlier environments.

The Juggler

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-presidential-candidate-is-still-the-stock-markets-bet-to-win-the-election-4e0a1b76

The stock market still leans to this candidate winning the presidential election

The Dow’s indication of who will win the U.S. presidency deserves to be taken seriously

By 

Mark Hulbert

Follow

Last Updated: Oct. 17, 2024 at 1:44 p.m. ET
First Published: Oct. 17, 2024 at 7:20 a.m. ET

Share

Resize

83

---

Listen(3 min)

The Dow has been a reliable predictor of presidential election outcomes. This year, the stock market’s odds currently favor Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris over Republican Donald Trump.Photo: AFP/Getty Images

Referenced Symbols

• DJIA0.37%

---

The correlation between the Dow’s year-to-date return through mid-October and the incumbent party’s chances of winning are significant at the 97% confidence level.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average’s 

DJIA0.37%

 strong year-to-date return translates to a 72% probability that the Democratic candidate, Vice President Kamala Harris, will win the presidential election in November.

Just two months ago the Dow was assigning a 64% probability to a Harris victory (as I wrote at the time). And when I devoted a column in May to this subject, the probability of a Democratic victory was judged to be 58%. The increases in probabilities since then are due to the stock market’s strength; there’s a statistically significant correlation between the Dow’s election-year performance and the incumbent political party’s chances of retaining the White House.

A 72% probability of a Democratic victory is much higher than the 43% chance that the electronic futures markets currently place (according to the aggregator site Election Betting Odds).

Which measure deserves your attention?

There’s no clear answer. Electronic futures markets are a relatively recent phenomenon, making it difficult for their track records to be statistically significant. But this is not the case with the Dow, since we have data for more than 30 presidential elections dating back to the late 1800s. I calculate that the correlation between the Dow’s year-to-date return through mid-October and the incumbent party’s chances of winning are significant at a 97% confidence level.

Now Playing: This finance coach prioritizes investing over paying off student debt - MarketWatch

Visit our Video Center

Read: Betting markets put chance of Trump win at 3-month high, but analysts express some skepticism

The greater the stock market’s year-to-date return going into the presidential election, the greater the chances the incumbent party will win. Consider:

• In all years in which the Dow’s year-to-date gain as of Oct. 15 was greater than 10% — like this year, with the Dow up 13.4% as of Oct. 15 — the incumbent party won 78% of the time.
• When the year-to-date gain was positive but below 10%, the incumbent party won 60% of the time.
• When the Dow in mid-October was sitting on a year-to-date loss, the incumbent party’s chances of winning fell to 42%.

The theoretical basis for believing the stock market is a good political predictor is that it is a sensitive leading indicator of the economy’s future performance. People tend to vote their pocketbooks.

You might think that this year is proving to be an exception, since consumer sentiment has been weak even as the U.S. stock market has been strong. But when I conducted a head-to-head statistical test of consumer sentiment and the stock market, the latter came out ahead in being a better predictor of presidential election outcomes.

The bottom line: The Dow’s indication of who will win the presidency deserves to be taken seriously.

brianlux

October 17, 2024

Heather Cox Richardson Oct 18

Meanwhile, Vice President Harris today held rallies in Milwaukee, Green Bay, and La Crosse, Wisconsin. In La Crosse, MAGA hecklers tried to interrupt her while she was speaking about the centrality of the three Trump-appointed Supreme Court justices to the overturning of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that recognized the constitutional right to abortion. 

“Oh, you guys are at the wrong rally,” Harris called to them with a smile and a wave. As the crowd roared with approval, she added: “No, I think you meant to go to the smaller one down the street.”

***********************

Haha!  You tell 'em, KH!

josevolution

mace1229 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

mace1229 said:

Poncier said:

Tim Simmons said:

I mean, when you are running against one other person, you kinda have to contrast yourself to them. 

Of course. But at least give some semblance of an answer to the questions at hand in the process.

Exactly. No one expects her not to mention Trump. But when that’s the focus of every answer, you want more substance.

she goes on a trump propaganda network that has been lying about her to their viewers for months and lying to prop up trump and make him seem normal and your reaction is "iLiKe It BeTtEr WhEn ShE aNsWeRs QuEsTiOnS wItHoUt MeNtIoNiNg TrUmP!!"

literally nothing she does is good enough for you guys. imagine trump going on msnbc. but he never would. it proves that to you harris critics the bar is constantly raising and lowering while the bar for trump is laying on the ground.

maybe if she would have had the interviewer listen to music for a half hour.

Not what I said.
Of course she’s going to talk about Trump. No one said she shouldn’t mention him. But making him the center point of literally every response while not answering the question is another thing. 

https://www.threads.net/@bluhope16/post/DBOhDe2uXXR?xmt=AQGzzBFrPwme0MI3POEQ9Y3owqKJ5ffxXDcG7itIroqvwA

Funny how different folks who watched the same interview come to different conclusions! 

Johnny Abruzzo

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.

Want more?!? Here. Read the 81 page economic plan! https://kamalaharris.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Policy_Book_Economic-Opportunity.pdf  Let me know when you're done. I'll be knocking on doors. 

Merkin Baller

Johnny Abruzzo said:

Want more details? Did you want her to spend 90 minutes explaining every little detail of her plans...

Then the criticism would be that she was over prepared for the interview. There never won't be some disqualifying feature or bar she can't clear. That's the crux of where we are at this point. 

Regardless, thank you for what you're doing on the ground in PA. 

Tim Simmons

The problem with that interview on Fox is, the questions were structured in a way for maximum sound bites for Fox and Trump. It was never gonna be a civil Q&A, and it’s less Baiers fault than it is the network and how they conduct these things. Rather than a back and forth, the aggressiveness is meant to stir emotional responses, off the cuff gaffs and poor answers. She handled it so well by pushing back and giving what she was getting. If people want real policy, well it’s on the website. But Americans don’t work that way for the most part. 

She came cross as tough, thoughtful and prepared. Great qualities in a president. 

Merkin Baller

Tim Simmons said:

The problem with that interview on Fox is, the questions were structured in a way for maximum sound bites for Fox and Trump. It was never gonna be a civil Q&A, and it’s less Baiers fault than it is the network and how they conduct these things. Rather than a back and forth, the aggressiveness is meant to stir emotional responses, off the cuff gaffs and poor answers. She handled it so well by pushing back and giving what she was getting. If people want real policy, well it’s on the website. But Americans don’t work that way for the most part. 

She came cross as tough, thoughtful and prepared. Great qualities in a president. 

She would make a fine president, even in a vacuum where she wasn't running against the worst candidate we've seen in our lifetimes. 

Johnny Abruzzo

Tim Simmons said:

 If people want real policy, well it’s on the website. But Americans don’t work that way for the most part. 

 

Yup. Ask Elizabeth Warren.

Tim Simmons

Merkin Baller said:

Tim Simmons said:

The problem with that interview on Fox is, the questions were structured in a way for maximum sound bites for Fox and Trump. It was never gonna be a civil Q&A, and it’s less Baiers fault than it is the network and how they conduct these things. Rather than a back and forth, the aggressiveness is meant to stir emotional responses, off the cuff gaffs and poor answers. She handled it so well by pushing back and giving what she was getting. If people want real policy, well it’s on the website. But Americans don’t work that way for the most part. 

She came cross as tough, thoughtful and prepared. Great qualities in a president. 

She would make a fine president, even in a vacuum where she wasn't running against the worst candidate we've seen in our lifetimes. 

I’ve long thought so. I remember telling my dad one day maybe back in 2015/6? That she may be president one day. 

mickeyrat

https://www.threads.net/@bannercityhusker/post/DBQ7gGhOrc1?xmt=AQGzMFrpcR-irtmjZFsa71KTnVKIGd511ex9-eWuErrZ1A

The Juggler

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. 

Halifax2TheMax

mickeyrat said:

https://www.threads.net/@bannercityhusker/post/DBQ7gGhOrc1?xmt=AQGzMFrpcR-irtmjZFsa71KTnVKIGd511ex9-eWuErrZ1A

Does a day go by where POOTWH doesn’t fucking whine about some great injustice done to him? Whiny bitch is right.

The Juggler

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!"


https://www.wsj.com/finance/betting-election-pro-trump-ad74aa71

A Mystery $30 Million Wave of Pro-Trump Bets Has Moved a Popular Prediction Market

Four Polymarket accounts have systematically placed frequent wagers on a Trump election victory

By 

Alexander Osipovich

Follow

Oct. 18, 2024 5:00 am ET

Share

Resize

340

---

Listen(2 min)

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.

Write to Alexander Osipovich at alexo@wsj.com

Halifax2TheMax

I’m sure some heads will explode. Maybe even some rotten brains. Mahalo.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DBPbc5GJNnV/?igsh=MWc2amthOWxzYjU1OQ==