who Want To Bet On 2024 USA elections?

[Hispo]

~snip~
I would wish there was another election in USA before the presidential one, to be honest. Those midterm results were more enlighting than any poll could aspire to be, perhaps if there was some kind of minor election then I could have a way to see a more clearer picture of the actual heat map of the politics in the United States.

By the way, I wonder if someday the system of election colleges will be abolished in USA and select their leader through direct voting instead. It would be controversial, since it would be obviously great for democrats.

There are more alternative ways of voting though, I think one of the best ones is where the vote is mandatory and you vote by ranking your preferences.

So, if your number 1 doesn't get elected, then your option number 2 can influence the results, and so on.

It's much better than just voting for one candidate.

Here's the system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_voting

I have read about mandatory voting and I even have a friend who lives in a country where mandatory voting is enforced there, but it is rather a silly system because if one does not vote, then the penalty is being forced to pay a sanction.

Though, while one owes money to the state, one cannot ask for a passport and other social benefits. Rather than pushing the electoral system down the throat of citizens, it would be better to show them why participating in important.

✂✂✂✂
By the way, I wonder if someday the system of election colleges will be abolished in USA and select their leader through direct voting instead. It would be controversial, since it would be obviously great for democrats.

LOL.. this was discussed lot many times in the past, and we know that it is not going to change. Obviously Democrats would prefer electing the president through the popular vote rather than electoral college. But the supporters of the current system claims that it makes sure that smaller states such as Arizona and Nevada are not taken lightly during the electoral process. But there is a catch though. There is an argument that a lot of Republicans refrain from voting in deep blue states such as California and New York. Under the current system, their votes are not being valued. But if the system changes, then more of them will take part in the elections and the GOP candidate will get more support than expected.

Still, I would not expect Republicans in California or New York to be a majority of they could influence much on the outcome of a presidential election under that new system of direct voting.

[1715213843]

1715213843

[1715213843]

1715213843

[STT]

Electoral college is the basis of the union, I doubt it will be altered any time soon.   Democracy is not purely highest votes wins, that system of indirect representation is true in many countries.   The belief in a system of votes only would be described under direct democracy perhaps where its always just down to the most votes in any decision to decide how it should proceed.  I think with modern technology that prospect might actually occur in some country but surprisingly its not the best perhaps as citizens will not always recognize all the details apparent in the various bills up for vote.
  I dont see USA as switching to purely popular vote only, its an attractive argument on the surface but it would be alongside something opposite such as states leaving the union thats how I view the scale of the change and hence unlikely imo.  Quite obviously near term the Republican party would be against it, theres no consensus for such an action.   It wont alter the voting or prospective bets this decade imo and I dont think any of the candidates include it within their platform to run under so far as Ive read so far.

[Sithara007]

✂✂✂✂
Still, I would not expect Republicans in California or New York to be a majority of they could influence much on the outcome of a presidential election under that new system of direct voting.

One thing is sure. If there is a system of direct voting, then Republicans will get a lot more votes from deep-blue states such as California and New Jersey. Right now, not all of the GOP supporters end up at the polling booth, because they know that their vote is not valued. Democrats will win CA and NJ anyway, so why bother voting? But then, I don't know what it the proportion of such voters to the overall GOP support base. GOP votes may increase by 1%, or 10% or 20%. We can't be sure about it. But obviously GOP will get a bigger boost, because there are a lot of populous deep-blue states, while deep-red states are minuscule in population, like Wyoming and Oklahoma.

[Gyfts]

RCP polling averages have Trump +0.5 points on Biden, with DeSantis trailing on recent polls by a few percentage points.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2024/president/us/general-election-trump-vs-biden-7383.html

Firstly, polls this early do not mean anything. Of course, gamblers will make use of available data so as to place their bets accordingly if they're betting on an outcome -- but again, it's too early.

But I raise this because it highlights precisely why you should *not* be using polls as the quintessential element in predicting outcome. Many of the polls that have Trump beating Biden assumes that he will greatly overperform on the minority vote, securing something like 20-30% of the black vote and perhaps even more of the hispanic vote. If Trump were to secure this portion of the minority vote, then a Trump victory seems plausible and the polling numbers seem accurate. However, based on historical trends, a democratic candidate hasn't secured less than 90% of the black vote in the last three election cycles, so for the polls to suggest that Trump has any chance of securing double digits of the black is erroneous. Setting propaganda from the Trump team about his great poll numbers against Biden aside, the actual data beneath the headlines render the poll results nearly worthless.

Generally speaking, economic indicators are a great way of predicting election results. This applies to elections globally. Over and over again, when there is large uncertainty in the direction of the economy, voters will often elect the opposing party into power, whether or not the opposing party would actually cause greater economic prosperity.

And so if at any point from now until the election there were to be a recession, Trump's chances of victory boost significantly.

[nullama]

~snip~
I have read about mandatory voting and I even have a friend who lives in a country where mandatory voting is enforced there, but it is rather a silly system because if one does not vote, then the penalty is being forced to pay a sanction.

Though, while one owes money to the state, one cannot ask for a passport and other social benefits. Rather than pushing the electoral system down the throat of citizens, it would be better to show them why participating in important.

It's also usually done in a simple way, as in, voting is done on a weekend, the whole country is prepared for that, and also you can mail vote in advance.

I think it's a better way to do it, because being a citizen comes with responsibilities, like voting.

[Betwrong]

Yeah, but can he win? He could be a popular showman, no doubt about that, but people are smarter these days than to elect a guy like him as president.

Btw, something has changed recently. Desantis was kicked out from the top 3 by Vivek Ramaswamy:



I didn't know him before. Why do people think he has a chance?

There is always a new flavor of the month in the early days of the campaign which gets a lot of media attention. First it was DeSantis, then Ramaswamy, and now Nikki Haley is starting to rise in the polls. Realistically, Trump's lead appears to be insurmountable and the primaries should be over very quickly.

Regardless of who gets the Republican nomination, recent CNN polling is not looking so favorable towards Biden. Even Chris Christie could beat him in a direct face off.

Nikki Haley is far below from other candidates, she has 26.00 odds. But what's interesting is that Vivek Ramaswamy went down lately to the 5th place:



Chris Christie you say? He has the same chances as Hillary Clinton, very small chances:



Biden is still number one. And in predictions like these I trust gamblers more than anyone because their motivation is money and they put their efforts in research more than anyone.

[Hirose UK]

Nikki Haley is far below from other candidates, she has 26.00 odds. But what's interesting is that Vivek Ramaswamy went down lately to the 5th place:



~snip~

There is still more than 1 year left in the election and currently the clear advantage is still held by Biden and Trump who are also candidates with former presidential status, but it does not rule out the possibility that there will be an increase in the advantage of other candidates such as Gavin Newsom and Ron Desantis.

Of the several existing candidates I think that as the election gets closer and each candidate's campaign becomes more active predictions of who will win the election will become clearer and it cannot be denied that the top two candidates will have a very tight competition gather mass supporters or gather more loyal followers.

[bittraffic]

^^
Ramaswamy went down because he promoted Trump saying Trump is the greatest president. The vote supposedly for him goes to Trump.  But then Ramaswamy is not really known to all, people hardly knew him, if it weren't for those influencers mentioning him in political discussions I wouldn't know him at all.

Kamala Harris who is the current vice president is not even going up the race, this tells the voters that Biden and Kamala are quite a pair to doubt.

[Hispo]

^^
Ramaswamy went down because he promoted Trump saying Trump is the greatest president. The vote supposedly for him goes to Trump.  But then Ramaswamy is not really known to all, people hardly knew him, if it weren't for those influencers mentioning him in political discussions I wouldn't know him at all.

Kamala Harris who is the current vice president is not even going up the race, this tells the voters that Biden and Kamala are quite a pair to doubt.

Ramaswamy went down because other reasons as well, his interviews and the answers he gives to his interviewers have been polemical and rather than increasing support for him, has directed people towards Trump.

For example, he made some tasteless comparisons between the KKK and some democrat politicians and also pointed out questions on race and racial discrimination, being himself a brown person running for the Republican nomination.

Also, Harris knows where her place is and may be aware she has even fewer chances of defeating Trump, so responsibly put herself to one side and left Biden to take the lead.

[STT]

Honestly I would rather bet on Chris Christie, he has recognition nationally not just locally but maybe not for the right reasons.  Half the fight is getting people to actually know who you are and then know the message generally you are trying to sell them for votes.   Trump of course had a head start in that respect for being on TV, now you cant get away from it.  Even if people disagree with a candidate at this point I would go off actual recognition for odds prospects.
  Vivek G. Ramaswamy  is very young and still just an unknown unrecognized candidate, particularly the message isnt registering right or wrong thats probably the lay of the land for him currently.  I would swap those two comparatively in order of preference for where I think the odds can end up.    Do I think Vivek is the next Obama in terms of coming out of nowhere at a young age, really no but I think he is wanting to take a position in the administration of whoever does win and this explains why many of these people are running.

[LUCKMCFLY]

✂✂✂✂
By the way, I wonder if someday the system of election colleges will be abolished in USA and select their leader through direct voting instead. It would be controversial, since it would be obviously great for democrats.

LOL.. this was discussed lot many times in the past, and we know that it is not going to change. Obviously Democrats would prefer electing the president through the popular vote rather than electoral college. But the supporters of the current system claims that it makes sure that smaller states such as Arizona and Nevada are not taken lightly during the electoral process. But there is a catch though. There is an argument that a lot of Republicans refrain from voting in deep blue states such as California and New York. Under the current system, their votes are not being valued. But if the system changes, then more of them will take part in the elections and the GOP candidate will get more support than expected.

The truth is that I did not know that these reasons were so important, especially to support a system or a political trend in particular, what I thought was that it could be done in other ways, I thought that the reasons were because of the order, or perhaps because The Electoral Colleges had more privilege in obtaining certain things than in a normal contest without polling stations, for example in the country that I am in, I believe that if the electoral colleges are imposed the result is the same, because I think and I know that the system is here totally corrupt, that it is rigged and international observers said so, then in that order of ideas we could think that if it is an automated system as it is here with all traces, well things will always go wrong in the same way, because obviously when one thinks of a particular state, the results will be the same, then one already loses that interest in having a clear, transparent, democratic selection, because it is known that it is almost a communist system, and that is a very ugly, sometimes they disguise it as socialism, but socialism is nothing more to me than a current that does not and will never serve, that is why I say something, for me Trump represents the entire right-wing current, and there are many things They like that on the right, that always with hard work, more money will be obtained, as it should be, while in a subterranean current an Engineer must earn the same as a worker, and no, those things are not correct, because An Engineer had more time to read, to prepare, while a worker only fulfills his purpose with and leaves, has days off, and everything he wants free, a studied person will always have better opportunities, and in socialism that ends.

For that reason I would like Trump to win, I am not from the USA, nor do I have the slightest idea or intention of leaving, the only thing is that they would offer me a job according to my degree and my other degrees that I studied, but leaving to work like everyone else does in bathrooms, washing dishes, which is not a bad job either, but it's just not in line with what I prepared, that's what I mean.

[Hispo]

Honestly I would rather bet on Chris Christie, he has recognition nationally not just locally but maybe not for the right reasons. 

Ironically, Christie is the best candidate so far the Republican party can offer, specially in comparison to Mike Pence and Donald Trump. Sure, he initially endorsed Trump went along with him politically, but now he is speaking out-loud many truths which Trump cannot easily counter, hence the reason Trump is not willing to show up in Republican debates.

In the end, we all know it is very unlikely Chris will be the Nominee for the Republican party, even if he losses he can still continue to rally against Trump, though It can be dangerous to him, keeping in mind of some Trump supporters have acted lately. }

Remember that guy who attacked the FBI headquarter after Trump got a searching order for Mar-a-Lago.

[beerlover]

~snip~
I have read about mandatory voting and I even have a friend who lives in a country where mandatory voting is enforced there, but it is rather a silly system because if one does not vote, then the penalty is being forced to pay a sanction.

Though, while one owes money to the state, one cannot ask for a passport and other social benefits. Rather than pushing the electoral system down the throat of citizens, it would be better to show them why participating in important.

It's also usually done in a simple way, as in, voting is done on a weekend, the whole country is prepared for that, and also you can mail vote in advance.

I think it's a better way to do it, because being a citizen comes with responsibilities, like voting.

In my nation, we all just go vote and come back, I do not understand why USA doesn't do that. It happens on Sundays, which means it is usually a situation where a lot less people work, sure there are some business types where you work on Sundays too, but they are far lesser than let's say something like Wednesday, and I believe USA does it on Sundays as well.

Make it a national holiday type of thing as well to make sure most other places are closed and only the very important stuff like for example Hospitals are open, rest, if they can close shop they should. This would allow a lot more people to vote, and there was even a punishment back in the day for not voting, you can go vote absentee, meaning you do not have to pick anyone, but still have to go and vote.

[Westinhome]

Ironically, Christie is the best candidate so far the Republican party can offer, specially in comparison to Mike Pence and Donald Trump. Sure, he initially endorsed Trump went along with him politically, but now he is speaking out-loud many truths which Trump cannot easily counter, hence the reason Trump is not willing to show up in Republican debates.

In the end, we all know it is very unlikely Chris will be the Nominee for the Republican party, even if he losses he can still continue to rally against Trump, though It can be dangerous to him, keeping in mind of some Trump supporters have acted lately. }

Remember that guy who attacked the FBI headquarter after Trump got a searching order for Mar-a-Lago.

Christie was the option of most of the people who do gambling here,because he had full support in the Republican Party for now.The Donald Trump may try to make their win this time,but we can’t easily predict the US president election now a days.Trump should target the public speech to get support in the current situation.Since the Trump had a gap of five years,he need to speech in the public to get support from their own party itself.Mike pence is not the good option to my point of view,only the Christie and the Trump will have the competition now.The Mike pence will get a chance on working for it in the upcoming days.becasue the struggling person only get the winning at any point that including the US presidential election.

[FanEagle]

The point of having this current style of elections is the fact that if we make it like that, then some states would have absolutely no say in the election at all, there would be bigger differences between two parties in one state than entire population of another state. This is why the founding fathers basically made it in a way that they would not be silenced by the majority.

I feel like it's good, because it would be insane to think that it would be fine to let it be just popular vote in most cases, and in other nations there are congress that works like that as well, so it is not really too terrible. Otherwise we would see Democrats end up winning everything everywhere all the time, which would be undemocratic ironically.

[nullama]

~snip~
In my nation, we all just go vote and come back, I do not understand why USA doesn't do that. It happens on Sundays, which means it is usually a situation where a lot less people work, sure there are some business types where you work on Sundays too, but they are far lesser than let's say something like Wednesday, and I believe USA does it on Sundays as well.

Make it a national holiday type of thing as well to make sure most other places are closed and only the very important stuff like for example Hospitals are open, rest, if they can close shop they should. This would allow a lot more people to vote, and there was even a punishment back in the day for not voting, you can go vote absentee, meaning you do not have to pick anyone, but still have to go and vote.

The voting style in the US is very complex and has a long history.

In most other countries it's usually one vote per person, and then they just count it, in different ways sometimes, but basically one person, one vote in the end.

In the US, your vote could literally no matter at all, because they take the majority per "zone", with each "zone" having a certain weight in the final vote. It's weird.

[Hispo]

...This is why the founding fathers basically made it in a way that they would not be silenced by the majority.

I feel like it's good, because it would be insane to think that it would be fine to let it be just popular vote in most cases...

What do you mean?
Is not that what democracy is supposed to be about? Letting the majority of people to lead the road of a country?

Now, if you want to debate that the majority of people is not always right, then that is something different, in the end, most of current dictatorships were established through a democratic process. And even Trump (someone who is not even considered to be a good leader) was elected through a democratic process.

The United States would definitely change forever if the elections where decided through direct vote, instead electoral colleges. Republicans would need to actually make an effort to earn the trust of the average swing voter, instead relying their chances in their usual hard base. 

[beerlover]

The voting style in the US is very complex and has a long history.

In most other countries it's usually one vote per person, and then they just count it, in different ways sometimes, but basically one person, one vote in the end.

In the US, your vote could literally no matter at all, because they take the majority per "zone", with each "zone" having a certain weight in the final vote. It's weird.

I know that, the point is that it makes no sense at all. If republicans "really" think that people at New York or California would vote for them a lot more because they will finally have a say in this, and they think that there is a chance that they could win, then let the democrats get rid of this method and just go into popular vote. Imagine a world where you end up voting for someone 10+ more millions of votes, and they still lose the election, how does that make sense to them.

I get the whole "smaller states would have a say in this that way" but why? Why would a smaller state dictate what millions of people did not want? There is a possibility of someone who gets 75 million votes lose to someone with 65 million votes, so smaller states should dictate what that 10 million people can't have? Makes no sense to me.

[Hispo]

The voting style in the US is very complex and has a long history.

In most other countries it's usually one vote per person, and then they just count it, in different ways sometimes, but basically one person, one vote in the end.

In the US, your vote could literally no matter at all, because they take the majority per "zone", with each "zone" having a certain weight in the final vote. It's weird.

I know that, the point is that it makes no sense at all. If republicans "really" think that people at New York or California would vote for them a lot more because they will finally have a say in this, and they think that there is a chance that they could win, then let the democrats get rid of this method and just go into popular vote. Imagine a world where you end up voting for someone 10+ more millions of votes, and they still lose the election, how does that make sense to them.

I get the whole "smaller states would have a say in this that way" but why? Why would a smaller state dictate what millions of people did not want? There is a possibility of someone who gets 75 million votes lose to someone with 65 million votes, so smaller states should dictate what that 10 million people can't have? Makes no sense to me.

It makes sense if you recall that, even though we consider the United States to be a whole country, in reality they are several Republics or "States" which are supposed to coexists within a federal union.

So if you were the head of state within a Republic, which is at the same time part of a confederation or a union (as Florida, Texas or California are) would you be happy if people from other parts of the union had more say on your Republic or State than the very own people who live there? It would undoubtedly people angry if they could not even be able to decide their own policies, because the lack of population.

So, in order for direct voting to be implemented in USA, the State government would need to be abolished in favor of the Federal one.

[FanEagle]

^^ The situation in USA is not the same as any other place, they have a HUUUGE land there, think of it like all of Europe is being one single nation and you will see my point. That is why I said most cases, because in most cases it would be insane to just let it be like that, but there are cases when it is not.

This is why it may work for them, not like I am against popular votes neither, if they decide to go that way then I would be fine with that, not like I am American so I do not care, all I am saying is that making this work in a nation that is much smaller would be weird, but making it like this here in a giant land doesn't sound too weird to me. I am not saying this one is better, just saying it only makes sense for a nation like this.