I have accepted Joe Biden will be the next president

[Walk on Water]

It’s obvious now that the democrats have the power. You see all this going on right now. The coronavirus shut down the NBA. They were able to get us to lockdown for 3 months. And now the BLM has reached untouchable heights. Black Lives Matter is becoming part of history now. If you say All Lives Matter, you can lose your career like Grant Napear. You can be attacked for saying All Lives Matter.

Millions are now protesting all over. Trump even had to build a wall in front of the Whitehouse. Think about that. People aren’t supposed to leave their house and be within 6 feet of anyone and now you see so many people out, together that you can see it from Outer Space.

Michael Jordan donated 100 million to BLM. Bush doesn’t support Trump. And then you have Bill Gates who has funding the vaccines.

The left has taken over. It’s almost getting to the point to where they can just toss Trump out and start a new term now if they wanted.

Think about it. You lose your life if you say All lives matter. Trump is done. Even if he did well, they won’t let him win the election. They always have a new plan and these last few years they have prepared to take him down at all cost. They will not stop. Even if Trump wins, they’ll find a way to overtake the White House.

Maybe the impeachment didn’t work. The coronavirus sort of worked but the Black Lives Matter is killing Trump to the point where the battle might be over before it starts. They ban use the coronavirus again before election to mail in votes.

Trump is a good one man wrecking crew. But he cannot beat the Super-team dems. This is like Lebron vs the Warriors in 17 and 18. It is over. Trump doesn’t have the numbers or power anymore. Hilary lost the 3-1 lead figuratively but the Dems stacked the deck with Bill Gates and all the elites. They have silenced the republicans. Too much power. And they’ll cheat if they need to. They’ll do anything.

You gotta remember. Black Lives Matter and the coronavirus is becoming part of history. Trump will not be part of it during the next term. The vaccines, the chips, universal income, and the start of the new world is coming and you can sense it or just turn on the tv and you know the world is about to forever change.

The end result will be like Warriors vs Cavs when the Warriors stacked the deck. There is just no chance.

[MMM]

The rich and powerful turning America into a 3rd world shit show

[warriorfan]

Just for fun. That would be amazing if you voted for Biden if they had a secondary question asking if you would have your daughter stand with him during his acceptance speech.would be very interesting to see how those numbers turn out. :lol

[AirBonner]

Just for fun. That would be amazing if you voted for Biden if they had a secondary question asking if you would have your daughter stand with him during his acceptance speech.would be very interesting to see how those numbers turn out. :lol

What does monta think?

[Axe]

The rich and powerful turning America into a 3rd world shit show
They will be turning it into an imperial one.

[Rocket]

The polls show Biden is ahead, some say by double digits. Yea, polling is never wrong. Just look at how accurate they were in 2016. :roll:

[~primetime~]

The polls show Biden is ahead, some say by double digits. Yea, polling is never wrong. Just look at how accurate they were in 2016. :roll:

The polls were right in 2016... Hillary got 2.8 mill more votes. Polls don't account for the electoral college.

That same thing could happen here too.

[JohnnySic]

I think people area gonna be surprised come election time how many have turned on the left due to the recent events (weak/nonexistent response to rioting/looting, insanity regarding disbanding the police in Minneapolis, etc). I wouldn't be shocked if Trump wins in a landslide ala Reagan/Mondale.

[ZenMaster]

The polls were right in 2016... Hillary got 2.8 mill more votes. Polls don't account for the electoral college.

That same thing could happen here too.

The most respected(at least at the time) site for statistical election predictions gave Hillary a 99% chance of winning on the day of the election itself. Not a 99% chance of winning the majority vote, but to become the next president. I believe it was adjusted down to 70ish%.
Those predictions were based on polls.

[~primetime~]

The most respected(at least at the time) site for statistical election predictions gave Hillary a 99% chance of winning on the day of the election itself. Not a 99% chance of winning the majority vote, but to become the next president. I believe it was adjusted down to 70ish%.
Those predictions were based on polls.

lol no

these were the real odds:

https://www.oddsshark.com/entertainment/us-presidential-odds-2016-futures

[DoctorP]

Accept it, OP!!!

[Patrick Chewing]

I think people area gonna be surprised come election time how many have turned on the left due to the recent events (weak/nonexistent response to rioting/looting, insanity regarding disbanding the police in Minneapolis, etc). I wouldn't be shocked if Trump wins in a landslide ala Reagan/Mondale.

Amen, brother. I can see Trump carrying all 50 States after this fiasco. I just can't see people running towards no police, shutting down of free speech, aborting babies after they are born, higher taxes to pay for their "Free" programs, anti-Capitalism, etc. I'm sure I left a bunch of lunatic ideas out.

The Left just keeps getting crazier and crazier.

[ZenMaster]

lol no

these were the real odds:

https://www.oddsshark.com/entertainment/us-presidential-odds-2016-futures

Those are odds based on different bookmakers, only live tracked from the evening in question and they are not solely based on polls though it factors in quite a bit. Most bookmakers lost money on the election, because they made an offer selection based on public polls, basically only to be regulated by people betting on Trump at the time(people who are right leaning generally bet more than leftists).

The 99% prediction might have been a few days before the election, but it was certainly there..

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-why-our-model-is-more-bullish-than-others-on-trump/

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/sam-wang-princeton-election-consortium-poll-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-victory-a7399671.html


Survey finds Hillary Clinton has ‘more than 99% chance’ of winning election over Donald Trump

[DoctorP]

Accept it, OP!!!


https://media0.giphy.com/media/huWdEHSk7wOpW/giphy.gif

[~primetime~]

@zen vegas odds/bookmakers base nothing on polls...they are based 100% on who is betting on what

Vegas adjusts the payouts/odds on where the money is...if 80% of the money gambled is on Trump, they will adjust the odds to get more people to bet on Biden to even it out

The goal is to get an even 50%/50% of the money bet on each side...that way they win no matter what happens...they take a 10% rake from the winning side...only 40% of all the money gambled goes to the winners...they don't lose money on events that big, they win every time

[ZenMaster]

@zen vegas odds/bookmakers base nothing on polls...they are based 100% on who is betting on what

Vegas adjusts the payouts/odds on where the money is...if 80% of the money gambled is on Trump, they will adjust the odds to get more people to bet on Biden to even it out

The goal is to get an even 50%/50% of the money bet on each side...that way they win no matter what happens...they take a 10% rake from the winning side...only 40% of all the money gambled goes to the winners...they don't lose money on events that big, they win every time

I don't believe that's correct, if it is I'd like to see some sort of proof that Vegas bookmakers operate differently than all others. I believe what you're referring to here is in regards to moneyline bets, which are usually around 50/50 either way, but we'll get to that.

A bookmaker has to make an initial offering, before anyone has placed a bet. Naturally the original odds can't be affected by bets placed at this point, so the bookmaker uses information available to set the odds.

On bets where the outcome isn't close to 50/50, bookmakers take a substantial risk, because you cannot regulate the odds such way to get an even split placed on each outcome.
It's human nature that most people bet on favorites, both because people want as "safe" winnings as possible, but also because in general through sports it's usually the big clubs who has more fans and they'll generally be favorites to win their games.
To get even money one each outcome of a bet, if in reality there's a 70-90% chance one side wins, you'd end up offering ridiculous odds.
So bookmakers do take substantial risk, and they make their money when the generally perceived favorites lose.

Back to the moneyline bets. You're right that bookmakers look to get 50/50 action, but it's only possible due to the line itself being able to move, thus changing the requirements when the bet is a winner. With a straight up results bet you can't do that, because you're only taking bets on the definite outcome. In this case that was either Clinton or Trump, as there was no money line on having to win a certain number of electoral votes which could be changed to keep the chance 50/50 on the offerings.

The source here is myself, I work within that business, though not for a bookie in Vegas.

[TheMan]

The polls were right in 2016... Hillary got 2.8 mill more votes. Polls don't account for the electoral college.

That same thing could happen here too.

Except if Biden has that big of a national lead and it holds, it would be literally impossible for Trump to pull out the electoral college win. Besides, state polls also show Biden currently beating Trump in a lot of the states he barely won last time too.

Again, this election is a referendum on Trump, forget Trump v Biden. Something Trump supporters should keep in mind, historically speaking, the most important indicators are right/wrong direction of the country and job approvals and right now Trump is BELOW Carter and GHWB, both of whom were the last presidents to not be reelected.

But keep on believing polls aren't at all reliable.

[~primetime~]

@zen maybe the very first odds released the bookmakers based around something else...but the money gambled is what drives the odds%

in a football game if 60% of the money is being bet on the red team, the bookmakers will adjust the point spread to get money placed on the blue team to even it out

their goal is to get 50/50 spread of the money, and they adjust the odds to accomplish that goal

THEN they take a small % of the winning side...they win no matter what

https://www.gamblingsites.org/sports-betting/beginners-guide/how-bookmakers-make-money/

https://www.gamblingsites.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/bookmakers-2.jpg

[~primetime~]

Except if Biden has that big of a national lead and it holds, it would be literally impossible for Trump to pull out the electoral college win. Besides, state polls also show Biden currently beating Trump in a lot of the states he barely won last time too.

Again, this election is a referendum on Trump, forget Trump v Biden. Something Trump supporters should keep in mind, historically speaking, the most important indicators are right/wrong direction of the country and job approvals and right now Trump is BELOW Carter and GHWB, both of whom were the last presidents to not be reelected.

But keep on believing polls aren't at all reliable.

I think if the election were held today Biden would obliterate him

but there are still 6 months left which is plenty of time for covid to vanish, the protests to be forgotten, and the economy to recover...which would make Trump look amazing

[ZenMaster]

@zen maybe the very first odds released the bookmakers based around something else...but the money gambled is what drives the odds%

in a football game if 60% of the money is being bet on the red team, the bookmakers will adjust the point spread to get money placed on the blue team to even it out

their goal is to get 50/50 spread of the money, and they adjust the odds to accomplish that goal

THEN they take a small % of the winning side...they win no matter what

https://www.gamblingsites.org/sports-betting/beginners-guide/how-bookmakers-make-money/

https://www.gamblingsites.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/bookmakers-2.jpg

What they talk about in that article is the "vig" being priced into the odds, which is true(and opposite of what you describe that they then take a cut). Their example is a cointoss, which is the same as I said when I mentioned moneyline bets, which are 50/50 in nature and where the pricing can be manipulated to always be 50/50 through movement of a line.

I'll try and show you the difference.

Cowboys - Eagles -7.5

You get x1.90 back on your stake if you bet Cowboys to lose by less than 8, and x1.90 back on your stake if the Eagles win by 8 or more.
The bet is considered 50/50 in nature by the people betting on it, but more people believe in the Cowboys to lose by less than 8. The line is then adjusted to 7, or the odds are changed to x1.92 - 1.88 making it so more people start betting on the Eagles.
No matter who wins, they're only paid out a 1.90 multiplier on their bet, when they should have had 2.00.

Cowboys - Falcons, no line.

Cowboys are perceived as favorites by the general public and objectively has around an 80% chance of winning - 4 out of 5 times.

You get x1.20 back on your stake if you bet on the Cowboys win, and x4.70 back on your stake if the Falcons win.

Because more people think that Cowboys will win, more people will bet on them to win, but they don't necessarily bet for a lower stake than the people betting on the underdog.

So as a bookmaker, if you take bets worth one million on the Cowboys, when they win you have to pay out 1.2 million.
If somehow you got bets for equal volume placed on the Falcons to win at x4.70, you'd have to pay out 4.7 million when it happens.
In reality what happens is that probably 90% of the total volume is placed on the Cowboys if they're around an 80% favorite, with the remaining 10% or so on the Falcons.
At those odds, the difference is that .30 from 5.00 down to 4.70. At 1.20 and 5.00 on a 80-20 game it would be even money back on the total volume.
So the bookmaker is saying that they believe falcons will win one out of every 5 times, but if you believe the same they'll only pay you x4.70 back on your bet, thus creating their profit when it happens.

In this example, since it's nature that most of the betting volume comes on the favorites, it means that you need to pay out what is loosing amounts for the company most of the time, but when the underdog hits you clear the majority of the volume, as well as pay out less than what the actual chance the underdog had of winning(priced in vig). It's called variance.

[~primetime~]

Cowboys - Falcons, no line.

Cowboys are perceived as favorites by the general public and objectively has around an 80% chance of winning - 4 out of 5 times.

You get x1.20 back on your stake if you bet on the Cowboys win, and x4.70 back on your stake if the Falcons win.

Because more people think that Cowboys will win, more people will bet on them to win, but they don't necessarily bet for a lower stake than the people betting on the underdog.
???

no line means there is no favorite

the line doesn't have any effect on how much is paid out

[ZenMaster]

???

no line means there is no favorite

the line doesn't have any effect on how much is paid out

No line means that whoever is the favorite in real life, will also be the favorite on the bet. The line has the effect that it's possible to create 50/50 split of the total volume or close to it.

[~primetime~]

what?

no man...that's not how it works at all

if the line opens at Cowboys -7...and they see most of the money is being bet on the Cowboys, the odds makers will adjust the spread to Cowboys -6 to even it out

NO LINE means there is no point spread

[ZenMaster]

what?

no man...that's not how it works at all

if the line opens at Cowboys -7...and they see most of the money is being bet on the Cowboys, the odds makers will adjust the spread to Cowboys -6 to even it out

NO LINE means there is no point spread

Cowboys - Eagles

You have to bet on one of the teams to win, straight up.

If everyone thinks Cowboys wins this game 80% of the time, I don't think you realize how much you'd have to change the odds in order to get 50% of all bettors to place their money on the Falcons.

[kabar]

The most respected(at least at the time) site for statistical election predictions gave Hillary a 99% chance of winning on the day of the election itself. Not a 99% chance of winning the majority vote, but to become the next president. I believe it was adjusted down to 70ish%.
Those predictions were based on polls.
Do you understand how polls work and how elections are won at the margins? Trump won a couple of key swing states by only a margin of about ~100,000.
MSM media was running their echo chamber of Hilary's inevitable election and provided little motivation for their base to get out and vote, and Comey's letter on Oct. 28 swayed a lot of on the fence voters. Stop trying to over explain everything and just use common sense.

[~primetime~]

Cowboys - Eagles

You have to bet on one of the teams to win, straight up.

If everyone thinks Cowboys wins this game 80% of the time, I don't think you realize how much you'd have to change the odds in order to get 50% of all bettors to place their money on the Falcons.

that's the entire purpose of a line...if you spot the other team 14 points, gamblers will bet on the other team...that's what a point spread is, and the spread is adjusted all the way up to game time

the spread has no effect on the payout...none

[ZenMaster]

that's the entire purpose of a line...if you spot the other team 14 points, gamblers will bet on the other team...that's what a point spread is, and the spread is adjusted all the way up to game time

the spread has no effect on the payout...none

But when betting on Clinton vs Trump to become president, there is no line to set or change later. This means that the only way you can skew where the volume goes is by changing the offered odds.

[~primetime~]

But when betting on Clinton vs Trump to become president, there is no line to set or change later. This means that the only way you can skew where the volume goes is by changing the offered odds.

yes...and oddsmakers skew it based on where the money is being bet and not what the polls say

[ZenMaster]

yes...and oddsmakers skew it based on where the money is being bet and not what the polls say

I guarantee you that when a team wins/events happen that's 80% favorite, the bookmakers pay out more money on that bet than what is placed in volume on the team with 20% chance to win, taking a loss on their side.
What you're saying is that Hillary was at -700, because everyone up until the election had been betting on Trump. It's not true.

Another example of how Hillary was the perceived favorite is in your odds shark article. PaddyPower paid her out the day before as a winner, because everyone was expecting it to happen and they wanted to make the news - they do early payouts relatively often.

Also, I remember how a lot of people were saying that Trump had no chance to win, both in the media, among my friends, and on here as well as other forums. They referred to the polls as proof.

[TheMan]

Do you understand how polls work and how elections are won at the margins? Trump won a couple of key swing states by only a margin of about ~100,000.
MSM media was running their echo chamber of Hilary's inevitable election and provided little motivation for their base to get out and vote, and Comey's letter on Oct. 28 swayed a lot of on the fence voters. Stop trying to over explain everything and just use common sense.

It was actually closer than that, IIRC it was just under 80,000 total votes in MI, PA and WI that voted Trump and had it been HRC votes instead, she would be POTUS today. In an election that saw almost 130 million votes cast, 80,000 is statistically insignificant.

[~primetime~]

I guarantee you that when a team wins/events happen that's 80% favorite, the bookmakers pay out more money on that bet than what is placed in volume on the team with 20% chance to win, taking a loss on their side.
What you're saying is that Hillary was at -700, because everyone up until the election had been betting on Trump. It's not true.

Another example of how Hillary was the perceived favorite is in your odds shark article. PaddyPower paid her out the day before as a winner, because everyone was expecting it to happen and they wanted to make the news - they do early payouts relatively often.

Also, I remember how a lot of people were saying that Trump had no chance to win, both in the media, among my friends, and on here as well as other forums. They referred to the polls as proof.

no that means everyone was betting on Hillary...and you wold have to bet $700 in order to just win $100

they make the payout that small in order to get 50% of the money on Trump

it's the exact same concept as point spreads

[~primetime~]

With an event as big as the presidential election, it is pretty much a guarantee that Vegas will accomplish a 50/50 split of the money...they've had months to adjust odds...and then they take a % of the winning side....they win money no matter who wins the election...it's not a gamble for them

[ZenMaster]

no that means everyone was betting on Hillary...and you wold have to bet $700 in order to just win $100

they make the payout that small in order to get 50% of the money on Trump

it's the exact same concept as point spreads

Example using the odds from oddshark.

As a bookmaker, 2 million to be placed in total volume at those odds with a 50/50 split of the volume(1 mill on each), gives you the following.

Hillary wins and you have to pay out 1.14 million to the people who bet on here, but get to keep the 1 million from the people who bet on Trump. You end up losing $140.000.

Trump wins and you have to pay out 5.75 million to the people who bet on him, but get to keep the 1 million from the people who bet on Hillary. A loss of $4.7 million.

Do you see the problem?

If what you're saying is true, you would see a much higher difference in odds offered on different bookmakers, with their odds fluctuating wildly as different stakes come in.

The only time bookmakers make money no matter the outcome, are on games where the actual chance of either outcome are even and therefore have a close to even split of the volume naturally.
Outside of that, there's plenty of variance in the short run.

And they don't take a cut of the winnings, that's already priced in the odds offered.

Anyways, looks like it'll be a crazy election.

[kabar]

It was actually closer than that, IIRC it was just under 80,000 total votes in MI, PA and WI that voted Trump and had it been HRC votes instead, she would be POTUS today. In an election that saw almost 130 million votes cast, 80,000 is statistically insignificant.

And that's why I see Trump losing. He's pissing a lot of fiscal conservatives lowering tax rates for corporate interests while increasing the military budget. Small government folk are also pissed off about Lafayette square. This isn't all speculation either, the shift was seen in 2018.
https://media2.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2018_45/2636286/us_independents_01abf2295c558ec755d51840bc22c00d.n bcnews-ux-2880-1000.png

[~primetime~]

@zen no, that's all wrong...sorry man

odds do fluctuate from one bookmaker to the next

here are 3 different oddsmakers with different odds:
https://www.vegasbetting.com/odds/odds-on-presidential-election

the odds aren't THAT different because it's a huge event and the money is pretty much spread around the same everywhere

and they DO take a cut of the winnings...

you think they are gambling on it all just like everyone else?...no

[ZenMaster]

@zen no, that's all wrong...sorry man

odds do fluctuate from one bookmaker to the next

here are 3 different oddsmakers with different odds:
https://www.vegasbetting.com/odds/odds-on-presidential-election

the odds aren't THAT different because it's a huge event and the money is pretty much spread around the same everywhere

and they DO take a cut of the winnings...

you think they are gambling on it all just like everyone else?...no

As a bookmaker, the best you can do is to make sure you have as close to equal payouts no matter the outcome, making the payout smaller than the total volume of the bet. But when even'ts aren't 50/50 chance of either outcome, you can't get 50/50 split of the volume either.
If a team has an 80% chance of winning and the other 20%, you set the odds so hopefully around 80% of the money is bet on the favorite and 20% on the underdog.

Again I have to ask, do you not see the problem with going for a 50/50 split of the volume, when you're not offering 50/50 odds?

As a bookmaker, 2 million to be placed in total volume at those odds with a 50/50 split of the volume(1 mill on each), gives you the following.

Hillary wins and you have to pay out 1.14 million to the people who bet on here, but get to keep the 1 million from the people who bet on Trump. You end up losing $140.000.

Trump wins and you have to pay out 5.75 million to the people who bet on him, but get to keep the 1 million from the people who bet on Hillary. A loss of $4.7 million.

Bookmakers take risk in the short run, but because the overall odds offered are lowered than the actual probabilities, they win in the long run.

[~primetime~]

As a bookmaker, the best you can do is to make sure you have as close to equal payouts no matter the outcome, making the payout smaller than the total volume of the bet. But when even'ts aren't 50/50 chance of either outcome, you can't get 50/50 split of the volume either.
If a team has an 80% chance of winning and the other 20%, you set the odds so hopefully around 80% of the money is bet on the favorite and 20% on the underdog.

Again I have to ask, do you not see the problem with going for a 50/50 split of the volume, when you're not offering 50/50 odds?

As a bookmaker, 2 million to be placed in total volume at those odds with a 50/50 split of the volume(1 mill on each), gives you the following.

Hillary wins and you have to pay out 1.14 million to the people who bet on here, but get to keep the 1 million from the people who bet on Trump. You end up losing $140.000.

Trump wins and you have to pay out 5.75 million to the people who bet on him, but get to keep the 1 million from the people who bet on Hillary. A loss of $4.7 million.

Bookmakers take risk in the short run, but because the overall odds offered are lowered than the actual probabilities, they win in the long run.

if there were a completely even split on the money Hillary vs Trump, the payouts would be the exact same

the situation you have listed there isn't possible

[ZenMaster]

if there were a completely even split on the money Hillary vs Trump, the payouts would be the exact same

the situation you have listed there isn't possible

I used the offered odds at 7.58 ET from the odds shark article you posted, -700 and +475.
If one million dollars were placed on each outcome, those would be the payouts the company offering the odds would have to make on that 2 million dollar volume.

[Hawker]

One thing i would definitely listen to primetime on is vegas and betting.

Strippers too but he isn't a part of that life anymore. :lol

[~primetime~]

I used the offered odds at 7.58 ET from the odds shark article you posted. If one million dollars were placed on each outcome, those would be the payouts the company offering the odds would have to make on that 2 million dollar volume.
if there were $1 mill total on each candidate, the company offering that should also be offering the exact same odds for each candidate...if they don't then yes they run the risk of losing money

[ZenMaster]

if there were $1 mill total on each candidate, the company offering that should also be offering the exact same odds for each candidate...if they don't then yes they run the risk of losing money

Exactly, but they can't offer the exact same odds because it's not a 50/50 probability of each outcome and they're not getting half their volume on each candidate, but instead something that looks like a 80/20 split.

[~primetime~]

Exactly, but they can't offer the exact same odds because it's not a 50/50 probability of each outcome and they're not getting half their volume on each candidate, but instead something that looks like a 80/20 split.

I think we are getting on the same page

Currently the vegas odds for Trump-Biden are about EVEN...which means the money being bet on the two is about split even 50/50...this is different than the polls show, where Biden is beating Trump. We can see from that the polls do not play into the actual odds which are money driven.

[kabar]

As a bookmaker, the best you can do is to make sure you have as close to equal payouts no matter the outcome, making the payout smaller than the total volume of the bet. But when even'ts aren't 50/50 chance of either outcome, you can't get 50/50 split of the volume either.
If a team has an 80% chance of winning and the other 20%, you set the odds so hopefully around 80% of the money is bet on the favorite and 20% on the underdog.

Again I have to ask, do you not see the problem with going for a 50/50 split of the volume, when you're not offering 50/50 odds?

As a bookmaker, 2 million to be placed in total volume at those odds with a 50/50 split of the volume(1 mill on each), gives you the following.

Hillary wins and you have to pay out 1.14 million to the people who bet on here, but get to keep the 1 million from the people who bet on Trump. You end up losing $140.000.

Trump wins and you have to pay out 5.75 million to the people who bet on him, but get to keep the 1 million from the people who bet on Hillary. A loss of $4.7 million.

Bookmakers take risk in the short run, but because the overall odds offered are lowered than the actual probabilities, they win in the long run.
lol what are you talking about? All of this is nonsense. A bookmaker doesn't set the odds based on chances of winning based on polls. Use your brain, why in the world would you set the odds with polls and not the numbers on the bookmaker's balance sheet?

[ZenMaster]

I think we are getting on the same page

Currently the vegas odds for Trump-Biden are about EVEN...which means the money being bet on the two is about split even 50/50...this is different than the polls show, where Biden is beating Trump. We can see from that the polls do not play into the actual odds which are money driven.

Currently the vegas odds for Trump-Biden are about EVEN...which means the money being bet on the two is about split even 50/50...this is different than the polls show, where Biden is beating Trump. We can see from that the polls do not play into the actual odds which are money driven.[/QUOTE]

The bookmaker I'm looking at has Biden at -110 and Trump at +105. That mean Trumps pays out 7.3% more than Biden if you bet $100. It's not too far off from the pools, though there is a gap.

Another factor is the fact that betting companies lost money due to the odds offered throughout both Brexit and the 2016 election. Too many people saw through the faulty polls/predictions and placed underdog bets, that weren't underdog in reality.
Granted, political bets aren't that big of a market in general(people like to bet on fun things), and most companies offer it for pr reasons as well as just being able to offer it and not give a reason for players to move to a competitor, but they still don't want to lose money if they can prevent it.

This is the one you should have been looking at in your link btw, it shows why you don't look to achieve a 50/50 split when the probability of each outcome isn't 50/50.

https://www.gamblingsites.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/bookmakers-5.jpg

[~primetime~]

^^^ that image shows what I've been saying...if the money being bet isn't 50/50 they adjust the payouts...like Hillary -700

[ZenMaster]

lol what are you talking about? All of this is nonsense. A bookmaker doesn't set the odds based on chances of winning based on polls. Use your brain, why in the world would you set the odds with polls and not the numbers on the bookmaker's balance sheet?

I never said they did. I've said they factor in, and the rest is through the balance sheet, but not at 50/50 split when the outcomes doesn't have a 50/50 chance of happening.
On events with a very high probability of one outcome, you will take risk as a bookmaker, because so many people bet the favorites.

[ZenMaster]

^^^ that image shows what I've been saying...if the money being bet isn't 50/50 they adjust the payouts...like Hillary -700

The money bet in that example is 50/50, there's $5000 on each side. And in one outcome the bookie loses, but in the other it wins. When it wins, it takes in $150 more in profit compared to when it loses.

[~primetime~]

The money bet in that example is 50/50, there's $5000 on each side. And in one outcome the bookie loses, but in the other it wins. When it wins, it takes in $150 more in profit compared to when it loses.

yes that example is what a bookmaker would NOT do

they avoid putting themselves in a position where they could lose money

[ZenMaster]

yes that example is what a bookmaker would NOT do

they avoid putting themselves in a position where they could lose money

You've been saying up until now that bookies should look to get half of the money people bet with them on either side, glad you can see now why it's not a good thing when the chances aren't 50/50. :cheers:

This is also from that article.


There’s no guarantee that adjusting the odds will always create a balanced book, but it usually helps. This is one reason why the volume of bets is so important to bookmakers. As a general rule, more money coming in means they are more likely to get the balance right. It’s actually quite rare to get markets perfectly balanced; the goal is simply to get as close as possible.

It’s worth noting that sometimes odds compilers will actually want an imbalanced book. If they have confidence in a particular outcome, they will try to create a situation where they stand to make the most profit if it happens. If they are very confident that Djokovic could win the match against Murray, for example, they might decide to push the odds out on Murray to get more action on that side of the book.

I can add to that, that on certain events where one team is seen as a heavy favorite, it can be impossible to create a balanced book, simply because there isn't enough volume placed on the underdog.

[~primetime~]

No that quote is exactly what I've been saying...and I said with an event as large as the presidential election Vegas is pretty much guaranteed to get an even split.

that's not like some sudden death game where they have to throw out odds on the fly...they have a very long time to process the election

[ZenMaster]

No that quote is exactly what I've been saying...and I said with an event as large as the presidential election Vegas is pretty much guaranteed to get an even split.

that's not like some sudden death game where they have to throw out odds on the fly...they have a very long time to process the election

I've read what you've been saying as the bookies looking to take 50/50 of the action on either outcome, no matter the odds they're offering on the payouts. I think how you've meant it is that they look to achieve a 50/50 split on their payouts.

[~primetime~]

I've read what you've been saying as the bookies looking to take 50/50 of the action on either outcome, no matter the odds they're offering on the payouts. I think how you've meant it is that they look to achieve a 50/50 split on their payouts.
in a point spread situation they try to take in even on each side...in a situation like the election where there are no points or score of any kind, yes they adjust to a 50/50 payout (like Hillary -700)

but really the entire point of this debate was to show that polls have no effect on the odds...it's money driven

[ZenMaster]

in a point spread situation they try to take in even on each side...in a situation like the election where there are no points or score of any kind, yes they adjust to a 50/50 payout (like Hillary -700)

but really the entire point of this debate was to show that polls have no effect on the odds...it's money driven

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump-win-sparks-betting-armageddon-as-bookies-get-election-wrong-2016-11-09


Industrywide, gamblers have bet more than £20 million ($25 million) on the outcome of the election and by keeping the Donald as an outsider for most of the campaign the U.K. bookies now stand to pay out more than that turnover.

“It’s been a political betting Armageddon,” said Féilim Mac An Iomaire, spokesperson for bookmaker Paddy Power. “It’s been a difficult year for us. We didn’t get Brexit right either and now this one.”


It was a similar story at other U.K. bookies. William Hill WMH, -1.97% spokesperson Graham Sharpe told MarketWatch the gaming company made a high six-figure loss on the election even as the volume reached £5 million. A Cornish castle owner was among William Hill’s biggest winners, banking £100,000 after staking 30 bets on the Republican hopeful over the past 18 months.

Ladbrokes UK:LCL also said the unexpected Trump triumph was set to “complete the biggest upset in political betting history,” although it didn’t give any indication of the size of losses.

[Doomsday Dallas]

If somebody on ISH could help me out and somehow findout the exact date Biden was quoted as saying this: ....


Biden on Meet the Press in 2002, discussing Saddam Hussein: “He’s a long term threat and a short term threat to our national security… “We have no choice but to eliminate the threat. This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world.”

https://www.nationalreview.com/2008/08/just-words-joe-biden-would-forget-jim-geraghty/



... it would be much appreciated.

[TheMan]

If somebody on ISH could help me out and somehow findout the exact date Biden was quoted as saying this: ....



https://www.nationalreview.com/2008/08/just-words-joe-biden-would-forget-jim-geraghty/



... it would be much appreciated.
Biden supported the Iraq War but rn people are eager to get rid of Trump, no one is supporting his hard-line stance against the protestors...even a majority of Republicans, 53-46 support the protests. 84% of people believe the country is out of control and that ultimately falls on the guy at the top.

He is lucky the election is still months away and Sleepy Joe is an uninspiring candidate because right now he would lose big.

[ZenMaster]

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump-win-sparks-betting-armageddon-as-bookies-get-election-wrong-2016-11-09

@Prime, just so we're on the same page here, the companies in the article lost money on their election offering because the odds they offered on Trump were too high compared to the overall volume. So they took risk and gambled, which they did on the basis of available information, which were polls being touted as genuine and real information.
Also, at the time of the previous election, I may or may not have worked for one or the companies mentioned in the article and seen this happen from the inside.

[~primetime~]

I mean if some places want to gamble on it themselves, they take the risk of losing money...but that isn't typical I don't think.

[rufuspaul]

The polls were right in 2016... Hillary got 2.8 mill more votes. Polls don't account for the electoral college.

That same thing could happen here too.

The polls had Hillary leading by double digits in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin. Trump won them all. Some advice for Biden: don't trust the polls. Hillary didn't even campaign in those states in the last weeks leading up to the election because her peeps thought it was a done deal. They instead had her concentrate on Florida, North Carolina and Georgia. They pulled out all the stops, bringing in the Obamas and big time Hollywood stars. And she lost those states too. :roll::roll::roll:

[ZenMaster]

I mean if some places want to gamble on it themselves, they take the risk of losing money...but that isn't typical I don't think.

It's absolutely typical. Like I wrote yesterday, there's a difference between bets that are 50/50 in nature vs bets that has a perceived heavy favorite, as well as why there's a difference between sport and political bets.
Usually, too many people bet the favorites compared to the underdog, so the money coming from the underdog does not cover the payout for the winners. But when the underdog wins, the payout to the winners is much less than the money coming from the people who bet the favorites.
Meaning that for a bookmaker, your results can go up and down in the short run, but they'll balance out in the long run where your profit appears(variance), due to the fact that you offer lower odds on both sides than the actual probability of either happening and thus achieving a margin.
Yes you can affect your balance a bit by changing the odds, but when there's a heavily perceived favorite it's not just some magic wand, as the general tendency for people is to bet favorites.

When it comes to Hillary vs Trump, the opposite happened because too many people saw through the media BS and "fake" polls, so they bet on Trump thinking he probably had a 50/50 chance, but offered 3/1 odds or higher, making it a profitable gamble.
This is similar to what happened in real life. Hillary supporters and people in general were saying "he has no chance and he's so far behind in the polls", while Trump supporters where more in the tune of "They're not showing reality, he has a fair chance or is even a small favorite at this point".

The companies mentioned in the article, I'm pretty sure that if you had the data to go back and see when they offered which odds, you'd find that they mirror the ones from in Vegas to a close degree.

[~primetime~]

No it is not typical...the link I posted in here explains exactly how bookmakers make money and they try to avoid gambling themselves. It looks like you found some places in the UK that actually lost money, well that is why they try to avoid that typically.

[Patrick Chewing]

50 States.


RED.

[ZenMaster]

No it is not typical...the link I posted in here explains exactly how bookmakers make money and they try to avoid gambling themselves. It looks like you found some places in the UK that actually lost money, well that is why they try to avoid that typically.

It's typical on bets where there's a heavy favorite, because there's no way to even out the balance. I don't think you can grasp that some bets aren't 50/50, and there's no way to make them 50/50 because there's no money line on the bet.
I've shown you that the bookmakers lost money, because they factored in polls. The "some places in the UK" as you call them, like William Hill and Paddy Power, they're some of the biggest bookmakers in the world.

Have to correct myself from earlier, there's no mirroring of Vegas odds when it comes to the election, because they're not allowed to take bets on it. The odds compiled in your odds shark article are from different bookmakers, UK ones included.

[DoctorP]

I think Trump has some good things on his agenda, BUT...

yeah, it's tme to make a change. After having the REPUBTARDS run amok during the pandemic and now the LIBTARDS doing the same with BLM...

we need a change ASAP.

Let's run with this retarded version of Biden and see where it takes us.

F IT.

[~primetime~]

It's typical on bets where there's a heavy favorite, because there's no way to even out the balance. I don't think you can grasp that some bets aren't 50/50, and there's no way to make them 50/50 because there's no money line on the bet.
I've shown you that the bookmakers lost money, because they factored in polls. The "some places in the UK" as you call them, like William Hill and Paddy Power, they're some of the biggest bookmakers in the world.

Have to correct myself from earlier, there's no mirroring of Vegas odds when it comes to the election, because they're not allowed to take bets on it. The odds compiled in your odds shark article are from different bookmakers, UK ones included.

of course there is, IIRC the biggest upset ever for Vegas was Mike Tyson vs Douglas...the odds were 42/1...that means if you were betting on Tyson you had to bet $42 to win just $1...that's how they balance it out, there was SO much money on Tyson to win but they still balanced it out

[ZenMaster]

of course there is, IIRC the biggest upset ever for Vegas was Mike Tyson vs Douglas...the odds were 42/1...that means if you were betting on Tyson you had to bet $42 to win just $1...that's how they balance it out, there was SO much money on Tyson to win but they still balanced it out

"They" didn't balance it out on the Tyson - Douglas fight, there was only one bookmaker who took bets on the fight without a line. Like I said yesterday, for this to be possible the odds would fluctuate wildly within individual bookmakers, and they did so for that one bookmaker on that fight. It started with 27-1 and went all way up to 42-1 in the end. All other Vegas bookmakers did not take bets, because it wasn't possible to balance the books through usual market odds, so they'd end up at a loss. Today, there are so many more bet types and live bet possibilities, that as a bookmaker you have to still offer bets where you can't balance the market. On those bets, you have to take risk in the short term and wait until it evens out through time as upsets happen. Because you set lower odds than the actual probabilities, you still come out with a profit in the end.

Even offering odds that high, they still only ended up with a profit of $3000 had Tyson won, and they increased the odds 50% to make that happen. It's so close to fully showing what I mean when I talk about just how hard it can be to stop people from betting on favorites.

[~primetime~]

Odds DO fluctuate from one bookmaker to another...anyway we're going in circles, I'm just trying to explain to you that anything can be balanced out, currently Hillary Clinton's odds to win presidency in 2020 are around 400/1 and you can find bookmaker to take you up on that.

[ZenMaster]

Odds DO fluctuate from one bookmaker to another...anyway we're going in circles, I'm just trying to explain to you that anything can be balanced out, currently Hillary Clinton's odds to win presidency in 2020 are around 400/1 and you can find bookmaker to take you up on that.

No, you were trying to explain how the polls in 2016 didn't matter and that Hillary wasn't considered the general favorite, you said the real odds were the ones from the bookies.
Then I said the odds from the bookies were affected by the polls, that they were very similar to the pools and that the bookmakers lost money on offering the bet. You said that's not true, and then I posted proof that it happened.

[~primetime~]

? what this again :lol no, the polls do not play into the odds...currently the polls for Biden/Trump (Biden 10pt favorite) are very different than the vegas odds (even)

Just look at the link I provided you on bookmaker basics:
https://www.gamblingsites.org/sports-betting/beginners-guide/how-bookmakers-make-money/

I do not care to keep debating this

[ZenMaster]

? what this again :lol no, the polls do not play into the odds...currently the polls for Biden/Trump (Biden 10pt favorite) are very different than the vegas odds (even)

Just look at the link I provided you on bookmaker basics:
https://www.gamblingsites.org/sports-betting/beginners-guide/how-bookmakers-make-money/

I do not care to keep debating this

These are your posts dude..


The polls were right in 2016... Hillary got 2.8 mill more votes. Polls don't account for the electoral college.

That same thing could happen here too.


lol no

these were the real odds:

https://www.oddsshark.com/entertainm...s-2016-futures

I showed you that the companies who offered the odds in that odds shark link, lost money.

I don't know if it's because you didn't read all the information from your link, but it is there.


There’s no guarantee that adjusting the odds will always create a balanced book, but it usually helps. This is one reason why the volume of bets is so important to bookmakers. As a general rule, more money coming in means they are more likely to get the balance right. It’s actually quite rare to get markets perfectly balanced; the goal is simply to get as close as possible.

It’s worth noting that sometimes odds compilers will actually want an imbalanced book. If they have confidence in a particular outcome, they will try to create a situation where they stand to make the most profit if it happens. If they are very confident that Djokovic could win the match against Murray, for example, they might decide to push the odds out on Murray to get more action on that side of the book.

It should now be clear why bookmakers have a mathematical advantage over their customers. They don’t always win money on every single market they price up, but this advantage does help to ensure they win money in the long run.

[DoctorP]

https://i.imgur.com/2HenmwR.jpg

[~primetime~]

wat? no where in there did I say polls factor into odds...I posted those odds because you said Hillary was a 99% favorite. That would be 100/1 odds...at her peak on election day she was -700 which is 7/1

those places in the UK that lost money?...okay I accept that they lost money...I'm telling you that isn't how bookmakers typically do things, and they are examples of why that is.

[TheMan]

50 States.


RED.

You are losing your mind, my friend :(

[TheMan]

I think Trump has some good things on his agenda, BUT...

yeah, it's tme to make a change. After having the REPUBTARDS run amok during the pandemic and now the LIBTARDS doing the same with BLM...

we need a change ASAP.

Let's run with this retarded version of Biden and see where it takes us.

F IT.

This election is basically a referendum on Trump, as all reelection years are for incumbents. Really doesn't matter who the challenger is unless he is seen as wholly unfit for the presidency but that bar has been set pretty low with Trump :lol

Trump is fortunate there is still some time left but his reelection is slipping away from him while Sleepy Joe hasn't really done anything of note but he doesn't have to, Trump is slowly hanging himself, just give him so rope and GTFO. Before 2020, Trump wasn't exactly a shoo in because his unfavorables remain high BUT he was in the driver's seat and the odds on favorite. Now three straight crisis most Americans view as him having fumbled, his polls numbers are the worst of his presidency, below GHWB and Carter at this point of their reelection bids...honestly I think he's done. Not impossible for him to come back but keep an eye out for GOP members if they defect from him as a sign they think the Trump ship is sinking.

Biden is exactly the right candidate for right now, a boring old white run of the mill pol, people don't want a chaotic president in times of difficulty, hence Trump's older supporters leaving in droves and going to Biden, the very people most affected by the virus and his perceived mishandling of it by a majority of people...

[Patrick Chewing]

You are losing your mind, my friend :(



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_wlQZ5N_2k


Brother, your abuelita can beat Biden.

[DoctorP]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_wlQZ5N_2k


Brother, your abuelita can beat Biden.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EZuWoGuXkAAKAn4.jpg

[rufuspaul]

This election is basically a referendum on Trump, as all reelection years are for incumbents. Really doesn't matter who the challenger is unless he is seen as wholly unfit for the presidency but that bar has been set pretty low with Trump :lol

Trump is fortunate there is still some time left but his reelection is slipping away from him while Sleepy Joe hasn't really done anything of note but he doesn't have to, Trump is hanging his own self. Before 2020, Trump wasn't exactly a shoe in because his unfavorable remain high BUT he was in the driver's seat and the odds on favorite. Now three straight crisis most Americans view as him having fumbled, his polls numbers are the worst of his presidency, below GHWB and Carter...honestly I think he's done. Not impossible for him to come back but keep an eye out for GOP members if they defect from him as a sign they think the Trump ship is sinking.

Biden is exactly the right candidate for rn, a boring old white run of the mill pol, people don't want a chaotic president in difficult times, hence Trump's older supporters leaving in droves, the very people most affected by the virus.


I mostly agree with this but who knows what the next 6 mos. will bring? For one thing Biden is gonna name Kamala Harris as his running mate, hoping to appease both women and the BLM peeps. This could backfire because the Trump camp will seize on the fact that both Biden and Harris are responsible for incarcerating black males at an alarming rate (Biden with the 1998 crime bill and Harris as California AG).

Harris was in the spotlight grilling Bret Kavanaugh and acting all high and mighty on the Me Too mountain but she won't be able to use that on Trump because of Biden's creepy history when it comes to women.

Like I said earlier the debates should be very entertaining.

[ZenMaster]

wat? no where in there did I say polls factor into odds...I posted those odds because you said Hillary was a 99% favorite. That would be 100/1 odds...at her peak on election day she was -700 which is 7/1

those places in the UK that lost money?...okay I accept that they lost money...I'm telling you that isn't how bookmakers typically do things, and they are examples of why that is.

It was me who said the polls factored into the odds, not you.

I didn't say Hillary was a 99% favorite, I said predictions based on polls were giving her a 99% chance, later corrected down to a 70% chance on the day of the election. I think I corrected myself that it wasn't 538 that gave the 99%, but they did give the 70% one.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/sam-wang-princeton-election-consortium-poll-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-victory-a7399671.html

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

The odds of -700 reflect polls saying Hillary will win at very high rate. -700 implies a 87.5% probability, which is damn close in between the different predictions ranging between 65-99% in the last 72hours before the election.

And the odds of -700 was based on poling. Those places in the UK(along with all other bookmakers who offered the same odds) are the bookmakers that give you that -700 number, not Vegas. Had those odds not been based on polls but instead the market, it would have been 50/50 or Trump as a small favorite, because most of the overall volume was being bet on him.

[Doomsday Dallas]

Not sure who will win the election...

but I will straight up make an even $500 bet that Joe Biden is not inaugurated on Monday, January 21, 2021 while Trump is alive.

safe bet for me... any takers?

[Facepalm]

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/502120-trump-campaign-demands-cnn-retract-poll-showing-big-biden-lead


Trump is SHOOK. Absolutely PETRIFIED. :oldlol:




President Trump's reelection campaign has sent a cease and desist letter to CNN President Jeff Zucker demanding that the network retract its recent poll showing Trump trailing Democratic presidential rival Joe Biden by 14 points.

The demand from the campaign was quickly rejected by CNN spokesman Matt Dornic and the network's general counsel David Vigilante on Wednesday.



https://twitter.com/sarahmucha/status/1270770514940887041?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5 Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1270770514940887041&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fthehill.com%2Fhomenews%2Fcam paign%2F502120-trump-campaign-demands-cnn-retract-poll-showing-big-biden-lead

[ThatCoolKid]

Biden is afraid to say defund the police on the daily show. The guy is a p*ssy tbh. I'll still vote for him. But god damn.

He makes decent points later in the interview. But you can tell that he's just old in his thinking. He talks about how in mental institutes they use force and physical restraints as a reason a social worker type can't respond to a mental health emergency. Send them with a security guard then. Why do you need a gun?

He does mention later that we should turn to non armed police officers as much as we can. Then talks about increasing accountability.

I guess this is the tightrope Biden walks. Can't spook the old white people too much by saying the big bad scary words that has Fox News peeing themselves.

[Hawker]

Biden is afraid to say defund the police on the daily show. The guy is a p*ssy tbh. I'll still vote for him. But god damn.

He makes decent points later in the interview. But you can tell that he's just old in his thinking. He talks about how in mental institutes they use force and physical restraints as a reason a social worker type can't respond to a mental health emergency. Send them with a security guard then. Why do you need a gun?

He does mention later that we should turn to non armed police officers as much as we can.

I guess this is the tightrope Biden walks. Can't spook the old white people too much by saying the big bad scary words that has Fox News peeing themselves.

Young people don't vote. You realize that right? You sound pretty naive with your thinking around mental folk. Guns should definitely be used as a last resort but you need some big ass dudes to help with that.

Bernie doesn't want to defund the police either. Sounds like a *****.

[ThatCoolKid]

Young people don't vote. You realize that right?

I've vote and I'm young. My friends vote too. But I take your point - he has to appease the unimaginative and the fragile.

[Hawker]

I've vote and I'm young. My friends vote too. But I take your point - he has to appease the unimaginative and the fragile.

Rather them then appease the ones destroying buildings.

[Patrick Chewing]

Bernie doesn't want to defund the police either. Sounds like a *****.



He actually said he wants to provide more funding for the police. :oldlol:


Bernie, I'm liking what I'm hearing. He actually makes sense. More funding for better training.

[TheMan]

People were flaming me at the start of the year when I suggested that Biden had the best shot at beating Trump, and here we are :lol Granted no one saw all these crisis one after the other and Trump totally clusterfukking em but Biden is exactly the right candidate to beat Trump in these times, he is a safe old white dude everyone already knows, Obama's VP for 8 years, the perfect candidate to peel away Trump's most reliable base, old white people. Biden also doesn't need a huge turnout of young people, who time and again fail to show up at the polls but add to the fact that the Dems are riled up to take down Trump, they might show up and make election night and short night...

The dinosaurs are nervous about Trump's unsteady leadership recently, to put it kindly, and Sleepy Joe is a safe alternative...he just has to not royally fukk it up and this is in the bag. It's not impossible for Trump to come back but Trump's numbers right now are worse at this point of the year than George HW Bush and Jimmy Carter's were, and we all know what happened to them.

Grab yer popcorn, folks...

[Patrick Chewing]

People were flaming me at the start of the year when I suggested that Biden had the best shot at beating Trump, and here we are :lol Granted no one saw all these crisis one after the other and Trump totally clusterfukking em but Biden is exactly the right candidate to beat Trump in these times, he is a safe old white dude everyone already knows, Obama's VP for 8 years, the perfect candidate to peel away Trump's most reliable base, old white people. Biden also doesn't need a huge turnout of young people, who time and again fail to show up at the polls but add to the fact that the Dems are riled up to take down Trump, they might show up and make election night and short night...

The dinosaurs are nervous about Trump's unsteady leadership recently, to put it kindly, and Sleepy Joe is a safe alternative...he just has to not royally fukk it up and this is in the bag. It's not impossible for Trump to come back but Trump's numbers right now are worse at this point of the year than George HW Bush and Jimmy Carter's were, and we all know what happened to them.

Grab yer popcorn, folks...


Man, your downfall on this board is going to be epic. :lol

[TheMan]

Man, your downfall on this board is going to be epic. :lol
Naw man, Trump has never been that popular to begin with. I've no idea why you think he is some unbeatable dude.

[ThatCoolKid]

Rather them then appease the ones destroying buildings.

The vast majority of protestors are peaceful. Time and time again video evidence has shown the police to come into peaceful protests as the aggressors and use force, teargas, and potentially lethal rubber bullets.

Hell, even the president had peaceful protestors teargassed by police so he could make it to St John's church on time for his photo op.

These abuses of power have revealed to the world that the police are in need of transformative change. The peaceful protestors are the ones calling to defund the police. We are not appeasing the "ones destroying buildings." We are addressing a system that on average kills americans in custody twice the rate of Australia and 6x the rate in the UK. Common quote is that insanity is repeating the same actions and expecting a different result. Defund the police fundamentally recognizes how unacceptble policing outcomes in this country are and seeks to reimagine the role of police in our society. This shit doesn't happen in other countries - the people who say this is all fantasy just don't have any imagination.

The phrase is unpopular now because no one knows what defund the police means, it is a nebulous work in progress - but, hey, MLK and civil rights wasn't popular at the time either :confusedshrug:

[Patrick Chewing]

Naw man, Trump has never been that popular. I've no idea why you think he is some unbeatable dude.

So all you're doing is telling us how bad a guy Trump is, but have you seen what is happening right now across the country? Liberal strongholds in Blue states, Blue cities, are at the mercy of the mob. This appeasement to the mob only gets worse with Biden as President. So Liberals and Independents who would otherwise not vote for Trump, they see the silver lining, and they are not going to vote for more chaos. You honestly think cancel culture, riots, looting, and lawlessness is going to cease under Biden?? There are six city blocks right now as we speak in Seattle that have been taken over by ANTIFA and BLM where they've created their own government and are charging people to come in and out. :oldlol:


So while Trump may be Trump and offend a lot of people, the streets are safer and civilized under his leadership. And if anyone out there thinks the lawlessness in these Liberal strongholds is Trump's doing, you're an idiot. This anti-government sentiment has been brewing since the rise of social media and 24-hour news. The media has created this false reality that this country is a big, bad, racist and overreaching country. We all know this isn't true and never has been.

So yeah, keep thinking Biden will beat Trump. The more ANTIFA and BLM go unchallenged, the more people will turn to Trump.

[bladefd]

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/502120-trump-campaign-demands-cnn-retract-poll-showing-big-biden-lead


Trump is SHOOK. Absolutely PETRIFIED. :oldlol:






https://twitter.com/sarahmucha/status/1270770514940887041?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5 Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1270770514940887041&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fthehill.com%2Fhomenews%2Fcam paign%2F502120-trump-campaign-demands-cnn-retract-poll-showing-big-biden-lead

Wtf lol. Trump campaign threatening litigation on what grounds? Fake poll results? :oldlol: That's a new one

[TheMan]

So all you're doing is telling us how bad a guy Trump is, but have you seen what is happening right now across the country? Liberal strongholds in Blue states, Blue cities, are at the mercy of the mob. This appeasement to the mob only gets worse with Biden as President. So Liberals and Independents who would otherwise not vote for Trump, they see the silver lining, and they are not going to vote for more chaos. You honestly think cancel culture, riots, looting, and lawlessness is going to cease under Biden?? There are six city blocks right now as we speak in Seattle that have been taken over by ANTIFA and BLM where they've created their own government and are charging people to come in and out. :oldlol:


So while Trump may be Trump and offend a lot of people, the streets are safer and civilized under his leadership. And if anyone out there thinks the lawlessness in these Liberal strongholds is Trump's doing, you're an idiot. This anti-government sentiment has been brewing since the rise of social media and 24-hour news. The media has created this false reality that this country is a big, bad, racist and overreaching country. We all know this isn't true and never has been.

So yeah, keep thinking Biden will beat Trump. The more ANTIFA and BLM go unchallenged, the more people will turn to Trump.

You are so out of touch, bro LMAO

I hope you're giving Trump advice, it's really turning out well for him right now. :roll:

[Patrick Chewing]

You are so out of touch, bro LMAO

I hope you're giving Trump advice, it's really turning out well for him right now. :roll:

You can't refute what I'm saying, so all you say is that I'm out of touch. LOL ok pal.

Can you even provide us with actual reasons why you think Joe Biden even has a remote chance in hell at beating Trump? Other than "Orange man bad".

[ThatCoolKid]

You can't refute what I'm saying, so all you say is that I'm out of touch. LOL ok pal.

Can you even provide us with actual reasons why you think Joe Biden even has a remote chance in hell at beating Trump? Other than "Orange man bad".

One of the biggest things that people supported Trump for was the economy doing well. Now with Corona and massive unemployment that's no longer a strength. Trump's approval rating has dropped in the past month because people don't approve of the way he handles the coronavirus pandemic or the BLM protests. So Trump's economic argument is declining. People will like that Biden talks about needing to reform the police - that's very popular right now. Trump looks totally blind for ignoring the requests of the protestors. Even the NFL supports them. Trump is being left in the dust.

Biden has very popular views on healthcare. He doesn't use words like Medicare For All so the old white people don't get scared. But as seen with Obamacare - when you give people healthcare they realize the program actually helps them and it becomes popular. Joe wanting to mildly expand upon Obamacare is super popular - while Trump insisting on wanting to take healthcare away from people is grossly unpopular.

In terms of being commander in chief, Trump has demonstrated authoritarian traits and even spoke about using the Insurrection Act in order to set the military upon his own citizens against the recommendations of the governors of his state. Even his own former Secretary of Defense criticized him for this. People view Trump as unstable and fear him being in control of the military already - but this makes things much, much worse. Layfayette Square will be in the history books as a moment summarizing Trump's poor man's attempts to be a dictator.

People like Biden's temperament. People trust him. They see him as level headed. He reminds them of the Obama presidency when things weren't so volatile. So for reasons of peace of mind people will vote for him.

[Lakers Legend#32]

Amen, brother. I can see Trump carrying all 50 States after this fiasco. I just can't see people running towards no police, shutting down of free speech, aborting babies after they are born, higher taxes to pay for their "Free" programs, anti-Capitalism, etc. I'm sure I left a bunch of lunatic ideas out.

The Left just keeps getting crazier and crazier.

The true definition of a fanatic.

[TheMan]

You can't refute what I'm saying, so all you say is that I'm out of touch. LOL ok pal.

Can you even provide us with actual reasons why you think Joe Biden even has a remote chance in hell at beating Trump? Other than "Orange man bad".
Um yeah, Trump's approval ratings are worse than GHWB and Carter's 5 months out of their reelection bids and they lost...he's bleeding support from all demographic groups, Trump is down 26% with women alone, he cannot win being down that big. This is a referendum on Trump, forget Biden...poll after poll has shown a clear majority of Americans believe Trump mishandled the Coronavirus outbreak and the anti racism/police protests with on top of that former military leaders calling Trump a danger to the nation, add to that a trashed economy with record breaking unemployment...can you give me your reasons as to why Trump will win aside from your delusions and your fanboi hopes???

[DoctorP]

Um yeah, Trump's approval ratings are worse than GHWB and Carter's 5 months out of their reelection bids and they lost...he's bleeding support from all demographic groups, Trump is down 26% with women alone, he cannot win being down that big. This is a referendum on Trump, forget Biden...poll after poll has shown a clear majority of Americans believe Trump mishandled the Coronavirus outbreak and the anti racism/police protests with on top of that former military leaders calling Trump a danger to the nation, add to that a trashed economy with record breaking unemployment...can you give me your reasons as to why Trump will win aside from your delusions and your fanboi hopes???

https://media.giphy.com/media/vtCT0tNdmR8t2/giphy.gif

[Patrick Chewing]

Um yeah, Trump's approval ratings are worse than GHWB and Carter's 5 months out of their reelection bids and they lost...he's bleeding support from all demographic groups, Trump is down 26% with women alone, he cannot win being down that big. This is a referendum on Trump, forget Biden...poll after poll has shown a clear majority of Americans believe Trump mishandled the Coronavirus outbreak and the anti racism/police protests with on top of that former military leaders calling Trump a danger to the nation, add to that a trashed economy with record breaking unemployment...can you give me your reasons as to why Trump will win aside from your delusions and your fanboi hopes???

You keep repeating the same thing over and over. This is a referendum on Trump blah blah blah. Trump has been successful as a President. Again, if you're an honest person, you should be looking at the country's health prior to the virus. Thriving economy. No wars. Better trade deals. Senseless regulations eliminated. A new branch of the Military. A reinvestment in funds to NASA for space exploration. And again, the economy is the most important thing.

But most of you people are disingenuous. You place the blame on the current state of the economy on him. A virus that emanated from a hostile country that ravaged several parts of the world is somehow Trump's fault.


But by all means, keep repeating the same drivel over and over again.

[Facepalm]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/11/politics/milley-trump-appearance-mistake/index.html


America's top general is apologizing for appearing in a photo-op with President Donald Trump after the forceful dispersal of protesters outside the White House last week, saying the move was a "mistake."

Gen. Mark Milley, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff also said that he was "outraged" by the killing of George Floyd and added that the protests it sparked spoke to "centuries of injustice toward African Americans."
"As senior leaders, everything you do will be closely watched. And I am not immune. As many of you saw, the result of the photograph of me at Lafayette Square last week. That sparked a national debate about the role of the military in civil society," Milley, said in a pre-recorded speech to a group of graduates from the National Defense University released on Thursday.
"I should not have been there. My presence in that moment and in that environment created a perception of the military involved in domestic politics. As a commissioned uniformed officer, it was a mistake that I have learned from, and I sincerely hope we all can learn from it," he added.
While he did not pose for photographs with Trump upon arriving at St. John's Church, Milley, dressed in his combat fatigues, was captured on camera walking behind Trump as he moved from the White House to the church.
Both Milley and Defense Secretary Mark Esper have told colleagues they are distressed with the criticism about the walk to St. John's because it became a photo-op with political overtones. When asked if they regret being on the walk, one administration official close to both men recently told CNN, "Of course they do.

Trump's own military is turning against him. He can't even get the respect his idols lil Kim and Putin get :oldlol:

[Hawker]

One of the biggest things that people supported Trump for was the economy doing well. Now with Corona and massive unemployment that's no longer a strength. Trump's approval rating has dropped in the past month because people don't approve of the way he handles the coronavirus pandemic or the BLM protests. So Trump's economic argument is declining. People will like that Biden talks about needing to reform the police - that's very popular right now. Trump looks totally blind for ignoring the requests of the protestors. Even the NFL supports them. Trump is being left in the dust.

Biden has very popular views on healthcare. He doesn't use words like Medicare For All so the old white people don't get scared. But as seen with Obamacare - when you give people healthcare they realize the program actually helps them and it becomes popular. Joe wanting to mildly expand upon Obamacare is super popular - while Trump insisting on wanting to take healthcare away from people is grossly unpopular.

In terms of being commander in chief, Trump has demonstrated authoritarian traits and even spoke about using the Insurrection Act in order to set the military upon his own citizens against the recommendations of the governors of his state. Even his own former Secretary of Defense criticized him for this. People view Trump as unstable and fear him being in control of the military already - but this makes things much, much worse. Layfayette Square will be in the history books as a moment summarizing Trump's poor man's attempts to be a dictator.

People like Biden's temperament. People trust him. They see him as level headed. He reminds them of the Obama presidency when things weren't so volatile. So for reasons of peace of mind people will vote for him.

I think a lot of people disliked Obama but of course the mainstream culture is controlled by democrats currently so it's portrayed by peace. Last I checked there were a lot of riots during his time as well. The current culture created by democrats is authoritarian in nature and Biden created many of the laws that allowed police so much freedom. Why should he get a pass for this?

Also, the insurrection act was used to force desegregation. Do you think that was an incorrect use of it?

[Facepalm]

Also, the insurrection act was used to force desegregation. Do you think that was an incorrect use of it?

It was also used against Native Americans. Do you think using it on (mostly) peaceful protesters who are calling for police reform a correct use of the act?

[dreamshake]

You keep repeating the same thing over and over. This is a referendum on Trump blah blah blah. Trump has been successful as a President. Again, if you're an honest person, you should be looking at the country's health prior to the virus. Thriving economy. No wars. Better trade deals. Senseless regulations eliminated. A new branch of the Military. A reinvestment in funds to NASA for space exploration. And again, the economy is the most important thing.

But most of you people are disingenuous. You place the blame on the current state of the economy on him. A virus that emanated from a hostile country that ravaged several parts of the world is somehow Trump's fault.


But by all means, keep repeating the same drivel over and over again.

Maybe if Trump didn't go after China in the trade war, they wouldn't have unleashed the coronavirus on the United States.

[bladefd]

Melania renegotiated her prenup with lil Donny so she may be getting ready to accept Biden as the next president.

Perhaps she is about to leave the fat slug on November 5th when the fat slug loses to grandpa Joe :oldlol:

[Hawker]

It was also used against Native Americans. Do you think using it on (mostly) peaceful protesters who are calling for police reform a correct use of the act?

The outrage was over him using it was that it was "against governors wishes" which was the same case for desegregation in an effort to label him as some dictator.

Nothing to do with the "mostly peaceful" protestors (:rolleyes:).

[RRR3]

You keep repeating the same thing over and over. This is a referendum on Trump blah blah blah. Trump has been successful as a President. Again, if you're an honest person, you should be looking at the country's health prior to the virus. Thriving economy. No wars. Better trade deals. Senseless regulations eliminated. A new branch of the Military. A reinvestment in funds to NASA for space exploration. And again, the economy is the most important thing.

But most of you people are disingenuous. You place the blame on the current state of the economy on him. A virus that emanated from a hostile country that ravaged several parts of the world is somehow Trump's fault.


But by all means, keep repeating the same drivel over and over again.
We're currently fighting in multiple countries. Trump didn't start the fighting though, I'll give him that, but he hasn't stopped them, and he actually had the ability to end the fighting in Yemen (Congressional support) and he refused. Lmao at defending him getting rid of regulations that protect workers and the environment. Those regulations are there for a reason. Expanding the military is also bad, you warmonger.

[Jasper]

both candidates have dementia but I will take the candidate that doesn't fire someone every other day.
It shows that trump selects people without research , but ironically he has not fired his kids (LMAO)

[bladefd]

both candidates have dementia but I will take the candidate that doesn't fire someone every other day.
It shows that trump selects people without research , but ironically he has not fired his kids (LMAO)

He hires whoever sucks up to him without looking at qualifications or experience

[SATAN]

http://www.thehypertexts.com/Donald%20Trump%20Antichrist%20666.htm

[Doomsday Dallas]

http://www.thehypertexts.com/Donald%20Trump%20Antichrist%20666.htm


Illuminati Tarot Card Game

Steve Jackson's Illuminati: The Game of Conspiracy was released in 1995. One card, titled Enough is Enough, houses an image similar to an angry-looking Trump. The "Trump card" is captioned: "At any time, at any place, our snipers can drop you ... have a nice day." Could this be a prophesy that Trump will be shot and suffer a head wound, as the Bible predicts about the Antichrist? Could it mean that Trump will resort to extrajudicial assassinations like those of Rodrigo Duterte, the murderous Philippine strongman whom Trump has praised for "doing the right thing"? Duterte has threatened to murder 100,000 people in his "war on drugs." On September 30, 2016

Serious Business.

[bladefd]

Potential scenario:

Democrats/independents are taking coronavirus more seriously while Republicans are exact opposite. Democrats/independents will be much more likely to vote by mail, Republicans will be more likely to vote in-person. Trump wins in-person ballot on election day and declares victory while paper ballots take few days extra to get counted. Once paper ballots are finished being counted, Biden is winner.

Lil Donny would of course cry bloody mary and yell voter fraud. Now the question remains what would he & Trumpeters do next??


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mSVzGnKsXw

[Doomsday Dallas]

Democrats/independents are taking coronavirus more seriously while Republicans are exact opposite.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EaoZ2T6XYAA4UTO.jpg

[Patrick Chewing]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EaoZ2T6XYAA4UTO.jpg

:oldlol:


owned