I’m scared now I’ve realised this

[Pickandmixmood]

I was thinking that the US public wouldn’t vote for Trump now that it is so apparent he is such a fascist. It’s terrifying to realise that they already know that and that is why they are going to vote for him.
I’m scared for the world.

You seriously take note of the polls? A lot of them contradict each other. There are no polls though that are putting her clearly in the lead. They voted for Biden at the time because he was of sound mind then. And tbh even when he was displaying bonkers behaviour they were still standing by him. It was only when his last debate with trump went wrong, and the problems he was having were clear for all to see that he was gently pushed to stand down. And no, her campaigns are not going well. Apparently the Democrats have to actually find people to ask them (bribe them)to attend, or there would be barely anyone there.

Meanwhile, Trump's rally in important swing state Pennsylvania is almost empty...

The writing is so on the wall for Trump. He knows it. His party knows it. That's why he is becoming more and more unhinged in his speech as this goes on.

Where did you hear this nonsense about Democrats bribing people to attend Harris's rallies? Are you confused? Meanwhile, Elon Musk is literally handing out $million checks to people to attend Drumpf's rallies.

@Livelovebehappy is clearly getting the majority of their disinformation from social media, very likely Elon's brokeass website.

The democrats should be wiping the floor with Trump. He’s a showman, and any decent opponent would and should be pulling in the votes.

That's really not how it works right now. Roughly 33% of the electorate is baked in for Trump right now, regardless of policy or opponent. That leaves a very small margin of voters to be won over to one side or the other. There's no Democrat (or person) on the face of the earth right now that will lure people out of the Trump cult.

Bullshit.

The Iowa Selzer poll is always accurate, has her clearly in the lead there.

Apparently the Democrats have to actually find people to ask them (bribe them)to attend, or there would be barely anyone there.
'Apparently' - same old MAGA playbook - lies and vagaries.

I've many many friends and relatives volunteering and working on the Harris campaign and it's going incredibly well. Meanwhile, Musk is bankrolling people to canvas for Trump, stiffing them on their pay and they're all absconding.

How weird to come on to this site predominantly used by women and denigrate the woman candidate with lies and push an agenda for a convicted rapist and a party which have limited women's reproductive rights and bodily autonomy.

At least Trump isn't president right now so when he refuses to accept Harris's victory she can crack down hard. Can't wait to see him in prison.

Does anyone know what the rules are surrounding betting on the election? It seems like a recipe for conflict of interest, especially with influencers etc. Obviously this is just a thought I had, not based on anything really, but if people are betting on the election outcome with the same eagerness that American's seem to have taken to sports betting surely they would then be really motivated to push their candidates position on their own social media - especially if they are already youtubers etc with a large following. It could affect left and right. Just that social media is already crazy enough, people having money on the line could make it crazier and lead to more doubling down. (I also think sports gambling is ruining sports).

(Its not even that I just think people would cynically try to influence others to earn themselves money. Just that "investing" in something tends to make people much more ummm invested in it.

This explains some of it - https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/election-betting-newly-legal-risks-getting-confused-polls-rcna177880
A major issue is Musk etc using betting odds as some demo of how the candidates are doing - whereas betting is pretty gendered as in more men are likely to bet - and as the article analyses, a v dodgy way to determine popularity and intentions

This is the first year people in the US have been legally allowed to bet on elections and it seems likely that it's very dodgy in terms of the conflicts of interest - particularly since Polymarket, one of the largest betting sites is partially owned by Peter Thiel, JD Vance's backer, and employs Nate Silver, who previously had a reputation as the foremost poll analysis expert in the US.

I'm amazed by how many people here in the UK seem to be taking the betting odds as gospel on the outcome of the election. Posting a link to an article on some of the issues, but I'm going to put it in my next post as the link contains some words that seem to trigger Mumsnet temporarily blocking the post.

Absolutely shameful. I really hope she doesn't abuse her power even if her supporters want her to.

Lols. He’s a convicted felon awaiting sentencing. If he didn’t want to go to prison he shouldn’t have broken the law.

So would you prefer nothing be done by the forces of law and order if his supporters start a violent riot again?! Wow.

Why shouldn't Trump serve a prison sentence if he's found guilty of a serious offence that would normally result in a prison sentence?

@citylightsbehind You were correct re mumsnet blocking. I know quite a few young(ish) men in my friendship group got really into [digitalmoney] when that was being pushed as a big thing a while back and unfortunately also lost a lot of their investment when it crashed. (Fortunately they didn't go bankrupt because it was spare money they were spending their girlfriend put their foot down). There is something about the prospect of earning money through being smart, combined with endless knowledgeable discussing of statistics and looking at graphs etc that really appeals to men. The same way that fantasy football leagues do. And you can discuss it on forums online, and sound really well informed when you tell other men about it in the pub. Betting on the election would be like catnip to them because it has a golden combination: earning money through wise investment; graphs and polling figures and pundits discussing inflection points; additional political discussion; future payoff of being able to casually talk about how you managed to earn a decent amount on the last election and wow people with your foresight. etc etc. I know for a fact that a lot of online influencers who themselves were invested in bitcoin were pushing it quite heavily to their followers (because of course). I just hope that this doesn't become a regular pattern in elections - it will make people even more belligerent when discussing politics and possibly less willing to accept their side losing. Plus it will inevitably result in people losing their savings in some cases and that's sad.

Betting on elections has been legal in the UK as long as I can remember and it hasn't attracted very much interest at all.

Meanwhile, Jon Ralston is predicting a Harris win in Nevada!

If you read my other posts, you will see I’m no supporter of Trump. I’ve said, any decent opposition should be wiping the floor with him. I’m not going to advocate for someone just because they’re a woman. I’m a strong supporter of women who deserve to be where they are through hard work and integrity. I’m afraid Harris doesn’t fit that criteria for me. My opinion. And whether her campaign is going incredibly well - it really depends on who you listen to, and what rag you’re reading.

I don’t know you so I don’t know who you support. I do know it’s a typical MAGA tactic to lie and be vague on specifics.

Why do you say Harris hasn’t worked hard and lacks integrity? What evidence has formed your opinion?

Why do you use the term ‘rag’? As I said I’ve an extensive network in the USA. I also lived there for many years and have graduate degrees in American history and politics. I follow numerous analysts and the vast majority believe she’s doing well and will win.

You clearly don’t understand American politics nor their electoral system if you think any one candidate can easily ‘wipe the floor’ with another if by that you mean a landslide victory. That hasn’t actually happened since Reagan v Mondale in 1984, 40 years ago.

If you read my other posts, you will see I’m no supporter of Trump.

I've just read all your other posts. For a non-supporter of Trump, you sure do sound like a slavish supporter of Trump, and it is clear that you have bought into the lies put out by other slavish supporters of Trump.

This one is the saddest and most easily refuted:

Apparently the Democrats have to actually find people to ask them (bribe them)to attend, or there would be barely anyone there.

Her huge rallies are joyous, upbeat, have people queuing up for hours to attend, and thousands having to be turned away due to no room left even in the overflow areas.

The empty rallies - there is footage of these - are for Trump. But as a non-supporter you would be aware of this, surely.

Here's one from the final day:

Here's a good one!

Still just those razor’s edge swing states to decide it then.