- Joined
- Jul 12, 2019
Updated view count from anon on /pol/ who is counting the viewers.
2020 U.S. Presidential Election - Took place November 3, 2020. Former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden assumed office January 20, 2021.
- Thread starter Pickle Dick
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- May 17, 2020
Not to get off topic, but what is this...
I swear, the left is completely deluded sometimes.
I swear, the left is completely deluded sometimes.
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2019
They learned from their predecessors in 1930s Germany: If you provide the big lie, and get people to believe it, it's no longer a lie.
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2013
MrJokerRager
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2019
The left loves the FBI now is one big revelation. The FBI is a group that historically targeted and destroyed leftist groups like the original Black Panthers. And loved spying on Muslims during the Bush and early Obama era.
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2020
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2020
Something I have been looking at is, but do betting odds indicate anything?
www.realclearpolitics.com
www.realclearpolitics.com
Not going to bother archiving them at the moment assuming they aren't already.
It's worth noting that that during the 2016 election, there was never a moment where Hillary Clinton was not leading in betting odds by at least 30%. At the tail end, she was given a 88% of winning and we all know what happened there.
But things are different this time around. During the 2020 election, Biden has never gone above 61% in likelihood of winning and Trump has never gone below 36%. That's lower for the Democratic nominee than Clinton at her lowest point and higher for Trump than his previous election bid. It is also worth noting that prior to May, Trump was actually leading in the betting odds for a couple of months and that while Biden still has a double digit lead, that lead is quickly dissipating. Biden on July 31 had a +24.6 lead. Not even a month and he is only at +10.9. Assuming no surprises, Trump could be in the lead again in betting odds before October rolls around.
Thoughts on this?
RealClearPolitics - 2016 U.S. Presidential Election Betting Odds
RealClearPolitics - 2016 U.S. Presidential Election Betting Odds
RealClearPolitics - Betting Odds - 2020 U.S. President
RealClearPolitics - Betting Odds - 2020 U.S. President
Not going to bother archiving them at the moment assuming they aren't already.
It's worth noting that that during the 2016 election, there was never a moment where Hillary Clinton was not leading in betting odds by at least 30%. At the tail end, she was given a 88% of winning and we all know what happened there.
But things are different this time around. During the 2020 election, Biden has never gone above 61% in likelihood of winning and Trump has never gone below 36%. That's lower for the Democratic nominee than Clinton at her lowest point and higher for Trump than his previous election bid. It is also worth noting that prior to May, Trump was actually leading in the betting odds for a couple of months and that while Biden still has a double digit lead, that lead is quickly dissipating. Biden on July 31 had a +24.6 lead. Not even a month and he is only at +10.9. Assuming no surprises, Trump could be in the lead again in betting odds before October rolls around.
Thoughts on this?
Most outlets went on an increase, especially CSPAN likely because of impartial coverage, but Bloomberg not covering it today was a big blow to potential stream ratings. Not sure how Day 2 compares to that of the DNC, but let's hope the next two days are better.
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2019
Dems last week: Whew, I'm glad we managed to survive our convention without Bernie Bros burning down Wisconsin because we didn't nominate Sanders!
Those dumb fucks can't do a damn thing right. Not. A. Single. Thing.
Those dumb fucks can't do a damn thing right. Not. A. Single. Thing.
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2018
I hope he doesn't increase in betting odd otherwise I might lose moneySomething I have been looking at is, but do betting odds indicate anything?
RealClearPolitics - 2016 U.S. Presidential Election Betting Odds
RealClearPolitics - 2016 U.S. Presidential Election Betting OddsRealClearPolitics - Betting Odds - 2020 U.S. President
RealClearPolitics - Betting Odds - 2020 U.S. President
Not going to bother archiving them at the moment assuming they aren't already.
It's worth noting that that during the 2016 election, there was never a moment where Hillary Clinton was not leading in betting odds by at least 30%. At the tail end, she was given a 88% of winning and we all know what happened there.
But things are different this time around. During the 2020 election, Biden has never gone above 61% in likelihood of winning and Trump has never gone below 36%. That's lower for the Democratic nominee than Clinton at her lowest point and higher for Trump than his previous election bid. It is also worth noting that prior to May, Trump was actually leading in the betting odds for a couple of months and that while Biden still has a double digit lead, that lead is quickly dissipating. Biden on July 31 had a +24.6 lead. Not even a month and he is only at +10.9. Assuming no surprises, Trump could be in the lead again in betting odds before October rolls around.
Thoughts on this?
Most outlets went on an increase, especially CSPAN likely because of impartial coverage, but Bloomberg not covering it today was a big blow to potential stream ratings. Not sure how Day 2 compares to that of the DNC, but let's hope the next two days are better.
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2019
I think, if the Biden loss theories have a good possibility of happening, the best thing for the democratic party is for Biden to lose and the dems purge the wokesters.
You can say the right has the "alt-right" but from the outside looking in on both, the woke left is much more prevalent than the alt-right as far as public representation goes.
You can say the right has the "alt-right" but from the outside looking in on both, the woke left is much more prevalent than the alt-right as far as public representation goes.
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2019
Not to mention the Republicans really make no efforts to appease the alt-right, which is why they oscillate between calling Trump Zion Don (which to be fair isn’t wrong) and calling him based for being America First. The far-left is pretty clearly in cahoots with the Democratic Party seeing that they support the same interest groups, have very similar agendas and generally amicable to one another. The Democrats would and will never call out any of these riots for what they are because if they do, then the far-left will attack them.
- Joined
- May 3, 2019
That's what I'm curious about as well.
People were sure they'd drop it after 2016 but all they've done since is go more insane.
Will losing twice make them go even more extreme?
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2020
Kenosha and the RNC condemning the riots is like the perfect dual messages in unision. Shit's resonating and will blow up.
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2020
Either that or they'll commit mass suicide (which I'm surprised they haven't done by now).
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2019
I agree. It looks like Kenosha will be straw that broke the camel's back.
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2015
Meanwhile, these two messages are the only things that Joe Biden has had to say about Kenosha.
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2020
Needless violence won't heal us! Text 0451 to 03030303033300 now to promote throwing molotov cocktails at 17 year olds!
- Joined
- May 3, 2019
Isn't it YOUR side condoning the violence Joe?
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2019
FTFY. Let's be real. The only thing I want that old man to do is debate Trump once and retire.
Joe's political team is disgusting at this point. But at least they took Don Lemon's advice. Let's see if they can win back voters.
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2017
I dunno, I think losing twice will make the corporate bigwigs and the ruling neoliberal wing of the Democratic Party more likely to cut the shit and drop the Woke Left like a rock.
I've said this multiple times before, but I think they've doubled and tripled down on all the woke nonsense since 2016 because they're convinced that 2016 was a fluke. Hillary Clinton winning the popular vote and the unexpected early successes of Bernie Sanders were the things that led them to that conclusion.
- Status