The odds of Donald Trump securing victory over Joe Biden in November have lengthened from 2/5 on Thursday to 8/15 on Friday, according to William Hill.
I have no idea about William Hill. But the odds they describe sound about right to me, and the Nate Silver thing and the summary of Trump’s speech sound informative
I've basically given up worrying about federal politics; I STILL VOTE IN FEDERAL ELECTIONS, but it's clear they're too solidly captured by special interests to do much there. I've shifted my focus to local/municipal politics and found a lot more success there.
Yup the idiots will still vote for him no matter what happens. Aliens could pop out of his skull and claim they've been operating him all along to destroy the earth and they'd still vote for him.
You think everyone is just tired of this shit? Both these dudes are older than my grandfather when he died. I am fucking tired boss. It shouldn't be this crazy just to get sensible candidates who are actual human beings. It really shouldn't.
If only the well wasn’t poisoned with REPLACE BIDEN NOW OR WORLD WILL END ALSO KAMALA SUCKS bullshit, 5-10 times every hour, some of it coming yesterday still with fresh Cyrillic in its video description, we could have an adult conversation about what a good Democratic strategy would be, so that the end of the world doesn’t get elected
Trump wouldn’t be the end of the world. Don’t be so dramatic. He would be the end of The United States, and at most the human race. But there’s basically no chance he could destroy all life on earth.
There’s a perfectly reasonable conversation to be had about replacing Biden being a better strategy. 10 seconds of thinking will lead one to realize that figuring out the strategy, and then switching to it, is way better than dumping Biden and then figuring out the strategy afterwards. And, it’s notable that all the same outlets who are openly hostile to democracy in the United States were the ones that were pushing so hard on the backwards version of the strategy, until the more gullible parts of the Democratic Party apparatus eventually picked it up and started running with it.
The forward strategy is still fine. The loud preemptive drumbeat of hard criticism of Kamala that is now emerging, though, should hopefully serve as a big loud blaring fucking wake up call to anyone who is sincerely interested in defeating Trump who is still echoing the backwards version.
Idk the Drop Biden propaganda isn't really landing with me, and I dont do any other media besides Lemmy. Plus, working in construction has me surrounded by Trumpets everywhere and its not convincing me at all. I'm not immune by any means, but I'm not a fair weather fan either.
Honestly id take the Enclave from Fallout at this point. At least then we get eyebots, power armor, and vertibirds. Plus I want to release FEV Curling 13 into the water supply of Utah to see what happens.
While it looks like half the country is split between this dipshits, in reality the majority of Americans agree on a shockingly high number of issues.
One of those issues is that both options are fucking awful, so who's "losing" harder is matter of witchcraft at the moment as things violently spiral into the ridiculous
in reality the majority of Americans agree on a shockingly high number of issues.
And it's exactly why I say this every single day in some comment or another: I FUCKING HATE PROPAGANDISTS!!!
What you said is absolutely true and without the likes of Fucker Carlson, Sean Hamface, and Laura Inbread, we'd actually have some fucking semblance of unity and solidarity... But no, we get divide and conquer... Hate hate hate hate. Fox primetime is literally the "two minutes hate" from 1984 with an ever changing Goldstein.
Biden is not really that awful as an option, as far as it goes. If he is in decline, he steps down after the win. It's not like Biden as a choice is comparable to donnie as a choice. They are night and day.
Now, trying to sell Biden as a product to "independents" (aka, the low info) because we sell politicians like the way we sell consumer goods like fizzy sugar water - that's not so great, since the bothsiderists keep acting like they are equally bad options.
Just vote, volunteer to help give rides to people that wouldn't be able to vote without it. If everyone votes, there will be no chance for the racist rapist with 34 felonies that has said on record that he will be a dictator.
Losing implies that something happened. Like in a race a contestant is visibly ahead, or in gambling you have more chips than someone else or your money is all gone.
They're lying cause Trumps winning to the point high level democratic members are openly admitting Bidens gonna lose. All this is pitiful window dressing.
The William Hill odds of a Trump victory in November lengthened from 2/5 (71.4 percent) on Thursday before his convention address to 8/15 (65.2 percent) on Friday.
Donald Trump remains the overwhelming favorite
This same agency is saying Kamala Harris already has better odds of becoming President than Joe Biden does, even without a decision to resign from Biden.
Paying out higher (better) odds means you think they’re less likely to win
Edit: They were initially confused about how betting odds work, now they’re confused about how outcomes work.
William Hill is saying that Trump has a 65% chance to win, and the Democrat has roughly a 35% chance to win, and that Democrat is much more likely to be Kamala than Biden. There is absolutely no conditional involved in this odds presentation that would imply who has a better chance of beating Trump, as separated from the question of how likely the Democrats are to replace Biden.
The article says P(Biden wins) < P(Harris wins). It isn't saying anything directly about P(Biden nominated) or P(Biden wins | Biden nominated) but it does imply that P(Biden nominated) is low.
I think the chances of Harris vs Biden winning are incorporated into this percentage. But it doesn’t separate out the factors such as likelihood of being the nominee vs likelihood of winning the GE. So we can’t say anything definitive about that without more information on how it’s being calculated.
One of my favorite quotes about Democrats (other than that they form circular firing squads) is that "Democrats will never pass up the opportunity to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory."
Newsweek seems to be the only publication making these claims. We’ve had some 2-3 weeks of Newsweek reportage of the Trump campaign floundering, its wheels falling off, and it circling the drain. Given Newsweek’s right-wing ownership and recently poor reputation for facts, it does feel like an op (perhaps to lull progressive campaigners into a false sense of security?)
So I think we are in a post 2016 news cycle so even though an assassination attempt is kind of historic, it’s not that big of a deal in 2024 when I’m sure next week we will get another huge earth shattering news. Maybe this time Putin finally croaks.
I'm an insomniac and the news came through while most of my country would be asleep. There's been news I've woken my sleeping partner up for, because it's been historic or 'in the run '.
Jan 6 was one of those days.
This wasn't. And yeah it had just happened and then the event was over so, nothing really ongoing. But I literally read what I needed to about it and moved on.
On reflection, America has used up all my sense of surprise, and I'm ashamed to say, compassion for them.
I watched Sandy Hook unfold and cried. I remember that day. But the many, many that came after? Just another headline.
I'm not hyper focused on the news; there's plenty going on in my country of interest or more relevance to me.
But I think it's odd that the attempted assassination of an American President in my lifetime... Just isn't surprising or interesting to me. I just have a 'well that tracks for that place' attitude. Putin? Now that would be something.
But I think it's odd that the attempted assassination of an American President in my lifetime... Just isn't surprising or interesting to me.
Not here either.
I have heard one person who wasn’t some friend/family I was specifically talking to about it, even mention it. And she clearly didn’t give a shit. She referenced it for like 5 seconds talking about something else and then never returned to the topic.
It’s fucking wild. I think everyone has just tuned out of the crazy shit politics news machine… which of course brings its own brand of danger. ☹️
Over the same period, Biden's odds of securing reelection later this year deteriorated substantially to just 12/1 (7.7 percent) as the president faces pressure from within his own party to withdraw from the race.
Donald Trump remains the overwhelming favorite, but his odds have lengthened a touch – now 8/15 to return to the White House.
No. He literally thought that Hannibal Lecter, the fictional murderer and cannibal from the film "The Silence of the Lambs", was both dead and also a great person. And no, the person who portrayed the character of Hannibal Lecter, Anthony Hopkins, isn't dead either. Also, that was a speech from a few weeks ago I think, and not the RNC speech, which was also unhinged and devolved into a Trump rally attacking Biden and prominent leftists rather than the "call for unity from a changed man" we were promised by bad faith right wing media outlets.
Trump's brain is just as much a pile of mush as Biden's is at this point, but at least I know in the moments of lucidity that Biden has, he's effective at the job and does the right thing. Can't say the same for the 34 time convicted felon running for re-election after he failed to steal the last one.
IMO the senility of either candidate is beside the point because they both have teams that will keep things running when they can't. Hell, those teams keep things running even when the president can because it's not a job one person can do alone.
The difference is Trump's team is openly planning fascism while Biden's team has to at least pretend to be opposed to that or risk more people accepting that neither party wants to oppose the ruler class.
The only time a president being lucid matters is when the president disagrees with their team, that disagreement matters for the people, and the president is on the good side of the disagreement.
And in this case, I can't see any disagreement a lucid Trump has with his team having a good option for the prime or any disagreement a lucid Biden has with his team having a worse outcome than Trump's team gaining power.
Well that's a click bait title. It's based on betting markets that the head line completely misinterprets. The article itself admits Trump is still the favorite by far.
I’ve been tracking the odds on Betfair. They have moved from 1.54 to 1.58 (decimal odds, 1 is dead cert, 2 is 50/50), so very marginally less likely Trump win. ‘Slumped’ they have not.
(Note they sum to more than 100%, because of the "house cut" nonreciprocal nature of the odds)
If there are more recently updated numbers that now say 1.58 decimal, that would mean the odds of Trump winning have dropped from 78% to 63%. I'd say that's a fuckin slump.
(Also note - that doesn't mean they think Biden has a 10% chance of winning if he stays in. It means the chance he will stay on as the nominee times the chance he will win in the election is 10% -- although looking at their odds for who the D nominee will be, it looks like they also think he has a lower chance of winning than Kamala, if he is the nominee.)
I do think it's funny that Biden's team has figured out that the winningest move is to just talk about Republican policies, 2025, etc. My entire life I've pretty much only wanted to talk policy and rolled my eyes at every single other thing that people said mattered, and it's like I'm finally getting just a little vindication.
The only sad thing is that it seems like they're (still?) only talking about the other side's policy, rather than backing their own policy based on its strength.
Just "I'm not the other side" (but at least with policy rather than personality)
So what are they basing this article on? William Hill odds? Nate Silver's opinion? I wouldn't put much stock in that. Is Trump going to lose 4 points of support because of a speech? Doubtful.