according to leading bookmakers.
Oh for fuck's sake, can we please get one post-debate article that isn't highly partisan or just moronic?
this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2024
-41 points (32.2% liked)
News
23300 readers
5057 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
That would involve having a media environment that isn't controlled by billionaires who are highly involved in manufacturing consent for regressive policies.
And just pulling in revenues with clickbaity tactics.
I mean the betting markets are generally aligned with extravagant statistical prediction models.
After all these markets have hundreds of millions poured into them, and people are trying to win not loose. Obviously there are still problems with them, and that headline really should have included “according to bookmakers”.
Are you sure about that?
If I make a $10,000,000 bet in one direction to change the betting odds to make everyone think my viewpoint is more popular, that's a very cheap marketing campaign.
Even if I lose all that money, it's good marketing. Especially if I'm manipulating less popular topics with less $$$$ needed to change the odds.
that’ll only change the odds on a single bookmaker. There are thousands on the election.
Also it’s highly illegal to bet on an event you are part of (although that doesn’t seem to stop trump from doing other things).
Additionally, to sway public opinion, influencing pollsters and the media (which we have objective proof of camapigns doing) is more effective. although they were mentioned in this article, they’ll be mentioned a lot less than polls.
Also it’s highly illegal to bet on an event you are part of (although that doesn’t seem to stop trump from doing other things).
Illegal to who?
FBI? Or some poor IT administrator who gives no shits about this issue?
Additionally, to sway public opinion, influencing pollsters
You're using the fucking betting market as a poll. A system that is innately, and provably, influenced by money. Not even indirectly, but DIRECTLY influenced by money.
Then you paper over this fact by saying "but people want to make money", ignoring the fact that these campaigns are literally spending $100,000,000+ sums, losing money throughout a whole campaign to try to change public opinion by about 5%.
Troublingly, the electorate rather resembles the coverage: highly partisan or just moronic.
Why not both?
No. Reactionary horseshit is all you've got coming.
The frightening realisation to take away is that most people don’t have a visceral horror of fascism in the way that progressives on Mastodon do. Which makes sense: if fascism was regarded with widespread revulsion, the Trumps and Orbans and Netanyahus of this world would be as successful as someone running a dogshit sandwich stall at the local market.
You are totally right.
Fascism appeals to humanity's most basic impulses and fascists will therefore always be a threat to democracy.
People crave the strong, authoritarian leader who will protect them from danger.
The frightening realisation to take away is that most people don’t have a visceral horror of fascism in the way that progressives on Mastodon do.
Oh, don't worry. Many of the people on the Fediverse don't have a visceral horror of fascism either. To them it's "Both sides are fascist" because otherwise they might feel uncomfortable letting Trump win, and wouldn't feeling uncomfortable about that just be awful.
load more comments
(22 replies)
I would vote for a walking corpse over a fascist like trump.
Thanks to the DNC you are required to make this choice
Honestly doesn't even need to be walking. You could absolutely Weekend at Bernies him in a very obvious way and I'd still prefer him over trump
Isn't that very nearly what they're doing right now?
load more comments
(1 replies)
Or maybe it was Trump who lost the debate and his chances are worse afterwards? Who knows definitely not fucking Newsweek or CNN or Fox or anybody for that matter.
I do know that Trump is a fucking criminal and a human trash pos. So a lot of people won’t be voting for whatever that pile of shit is.
Did you not watch? I saw every second and it was disastrous for Biden.
Everyone from Jon Stewart to Pod Save America recognize Biden had one of the worst debate performances in history. Focus groups of undecided voters who watched said Biden lost.
Let's stay in reality and face the facts. Let's not stoop to maga alt-reality.
Instead let's just fix the issue at hand, assuage the concerns of voters, and improve our odds of beating Trump. Because there is no good data to support a Biden victory.
It’s funny to see the blue maga folks try to frame this as a failure of progressives.
Or somehow try to say that Biden somehow had good talking points in between the times he was mumbling or completely losing his train of thought.
So a lot of people won’t be voting for whatever that pile of shit is.
I wouldn't be so sure of that.
Republicans will vote Republican no matter what.
Dem voters have always needed a candidate they like and/or agree with to turnout en mass and get the Dem elected.
It makes zero sense to keep blaming Dem voters for having standards instead of blaming party leaders for continuingly shoving candidates we don't like down our throats.
There is zero reason to keep pushing unpopular candidates.
But because we all held our noses for Biden 4 years ago, he got to nominate DNC leadership and he picked idiots who say Biden is our only shot.
Holding our noses and voting for a candidate whose not for basic parts of the party platform, just moves the party platform and makes it even harder to get votes the next election.
"Party leaders" did not shove Biden down our throats. Unless you're arguing that the party leaders of the dems are all the suburban soccer moms of the countries, and their consistency at voting. Then yes, that's true.
The party literally refused to hold any primary debates, or even primary elections in several states. They gave people no chance to even consider other candates.
And why? Because Dean Philips was doing so strongly, garnering appeal from progressives with his centrist positions?
If you want strong candidates, they need to run. If nobody good runs, then I think we've found the problem.
And I keep asking the people who say things like this who they canvassed for and they get defensive and don't give me an answer. Much like when I ask the Never-Bidens who I should vote for instead that has a chance of winning.
How can we know there were no strong candidates, when they don't get a real chance to run? They (and to be fair, most) simply assumed the incumbent was the best, because that's the way its been forever.
Polling, usually. Otherwise primary results. Most states did have their primary, btw, only a handful cancelled. Each state has their own way of doing it.
Can you name a candidate that was doing well at any point? Better than low single-digits? Dean was the only one I heard much about.
edit: You do remember the write-in uncommitted thing, right? Those were primaries.
load more comments
(8 replies)
I fucking hate republicans and will vote D no matter what (check my comment history). That was an abysmal performance on biden’s part. Appearances really fucking matter in this age of the mindless, post-facts voter. Biden needs to GTFO.
load more comments
(2 replies)
He shit the bed but this is blatant bait. There hasn’t even been time to poll this, and those would be limited in value regardless.
Again, terrible performance. But this headline is nonsense.
Best case scenario at this point is one of them croaks before November. It's insane to me that Biden even contemplated a second term, when the whole point of picking Kamala Harris as his VP was so she could be the young fit successor. It's time to roll out plan B, guys.
Personally I don't want a career prosecutor as president, either.
view more: next ›