who Want To Bet On 2024 USA elections?

[Hispo]

~

I believe when comes to betting on events like this one (elections and political happenings), it is common to see lower odds than in some sport matches, that is true, that is the downside. The upside is that there is a lot of time for people to analyze (with the United States elections we have literal months before choosing our move) and we have more resources to lead ourselves to a right prediction, you know: polls, rallies, news; now we have indictments, scandals with secret documents... This could be a good chance for some people wise within the political analysis so make some good money, even those with those low odds. It must be kind of weird for someone like you to be in the spotlight of the news and becoming an important factor for the United States to choose their next leader and the alleged leader of the free world.
I believe you have told me before, you think Trump does not actually many chances to become the next president of the country, if so, then you should step forward and wager some money in favor of Joe Biden, not much, though. It could be fun. 
I am myself waiting for this year to continue to advance before finally deciding where to put my money on, if you already have a choice then do it.

Yes, it can be fun. I mean, I think I'll wager a dollar closer to the elections. It'll give, what, three dollars? Still it will be fun, right?

Now look Michelle Obama is the third favourite among gamblers:



I would definitely wager a dollar on her if you ask me. I'll wait a bit and maybe the multiplier for her will be over 10.00 again and then I will place my bet. She has a good chance in my opinion.

Well. I would personally stay away from betting in favor or Michelle Obama. She is not likely to even appear on the ballot, if you ask me. Also, I have not looked at the odds!
It is insane the amount of advantage Trump has managed to accumulated when compared to Biden!
I knew he was relatively ahead of him, but not this much... I know that taking a beting site seriously could be considered to be silly, but if I was the democrat party, I would be very careful on what to do in order to increase the popularity of Biden. Granted, not all voters and bettors, but all bettors are voters. 

You should go and placing a few dollars on either Trump or Biden. I am planning to do exactly that, probably when we are just one or two months away from election day. It is going to be a wild and strange day, that is for sure...

[Sithara007]

Yes, it can be fun. I mean, I think I'll wager a dollar closer to the elections. It'll give, what, three dollars? Still it will be fun, right?

Now look Michelle Obama is the third favourite among gamblers:



I would definitely wager a dollar on her if you ask me. I'll wait a bit and maybe the multiplier for her will be over 10.00 again and then I will place my bet. She has a good chance in my opinion.

With questions being raised over Biden's health, there is a small possibility that he will be replaced with someone else. But Michelle Obama? I am not very sure about it. There are dozens of other options out there, including Nancy Pelosi, Amy Klobuchar and Tammy Duckworth. And I don't even understand how Michelle's name propped up all of a sudden. She is not even active in political scene at this point. And with 7-8 months remaining for the POTUS elections, I don't think that the Democrat establishment will be willing to take such a risk.

[Argoo]

Yes, it can be fun. I mean, I think I'll wager a dollar closer to the elections. It'll give, what, three dollars? Still it will be fun, right?

Now look Michelle Obama is the third favourite among gamblers:



I would definitely wager a dollar on her if you ask me. I'll wait a bit and maybe the multiplier for her will be over 10.00 again and then I will place my bet. She has a good chance in my opinion.

With questions being raised over Biden's health, there is a small possibility that he will be replaced with someone else. But Michelle Obama? I am not very sure about it. There are dozens of other options out there, including Nancy Pelosi, Amy Klobuchar and Tammy Duckworth. And I don't even understand how Michelle's name propped up all of a sudden. She is not even active in political scene at this point. And with 7-8 months remaining for the POTUS elections, I don't think that the Democrat establishment will be willing to take such a risk.

I don’t understand why no one here mentions the real candidate for US President from the Republican Party - Nikki Haley, who was previously the governor of South Carolina and the US permanent representative to the UN.

Nikki Haley shares many of the same views as her rival Trump on a number of domestic policy issues, particularly on immigration and fiscal issues, but she is completely unapologetic about the intentions of many Republicans, including Trump, to soften US policy towards Russia . She considers Ukraine's victory in the war with Russia to be a guarantee of US global and national security, and criticizes her party members who call for dialogue with the Kremlin or US neutrality in this conflict.

Support for Nikki Haley has grown in recent months both in individual states and within the Washington core of the Republican Party.
Haley is a compromise for those who do not want Donald Trump to return to the White House and she has a good chance compared to the old Joe Biden, and also if Trump is removed from the election due to many criminal cases against him.

[electronicash]

Nikki Haley lost in her own state. she doesn't have a chance either. she was booed on many occasions for saying lots of stupid things too. Trump leads already and if there is one person in Dem who could take a fair fight against Trump, it could be RFK. 

if you are just to bet for the obvious Trump. although there is still a chance that the election will not happen. with trucker's rallying now due to Trump's case in NY, and Landfill refusing to take the trash from NY, things are going to get messy.

[Sithara007]

I don’t understand why no one here mentions the real candidate for US President from the Republican Party - Nikki Haley, who was previously the governor of South Carolina and the US permanent representative to the UN.

Nikki Haley shares many of the same views as her rival Trump on a number of domestic policy issues, particularly on immigration and fiscal issues, but she is completely unapologetic about the intentions of many Republicans, including Trump, to soften US policy towards Russia . She considers Ukraine's victory in the war with Russia to be a guarantee of US global and national security, and criticizes her party members who call for dialogue with the Kremlin or US neutrality in this conflict.

Support for Nikki Haley has grown in recent months both in individual states and within the Washington core of the Republican Party.
Haley is a compromise for those who do not want Donald Trump to return to the White House and she has a good chance compared to the old Joe Biden, and also if Trump is removed from the election due to many criminal cases against him.

No one is talking about Nikki Haley because there is virtually zero chance that she will win the Republican nomination. She is consistently polling between 10% to 30%, despite being the only remaining candidate apart from Donald Trump. And GOP support base in general agrees with Trump's views on the Russo-Ukrainian war. The US has spent hundreds of billions of USD on this war, to provide economic and military assistance to Ukraine. But what has they got in return? Russia is conquering one city after the other and a number of Ukrainian officials are being investigated for embezzlement and corruption.

[nullama]

~snip~
No one is talking about Nikki Haley because there is virtually zero chance that she will win the Republican nomination. She is consistently polling between 10% to 30%, despite being the only remaining candidate apart from Donald Trump. And GOP support base in general agrees with Trump's views on the Russo-Ukrainian war. The US has spent hundreds of billions of USD on this war, to provide economic and military assistance to Ukraine. But what has they got in return? Russia is conquering one city after the other and a number of Ukrainian officials are being investigated for embezzlement and corruption.

Yeah, the thing is that it looks quite clear that Trump will win the Republican nomination.

I don't think there's any competition there to be honest, and Nikki Haley is not even close. Most polls show a huge advantage to Trump against her.

The way the voting system works in the US, you would be wasting your vote if you vote for someone with such a minority of votes.

[Argoo]

No one is talking about Nikki Haley because there is virtually zero chance that she will win the Republican nomination. She is consistently polling between 10% to 30%, despite being the only remaining candidate apart from Donald Trump. And GOP support base in general agrees with Trump's views on the Russo-Ukrainian war. The US has spent hundreds of billions of USD on this war, to provide economic and military assistance to Ukraine. But what has they got in return? Russia is conquering one city after the other and a number of Ukrainian officials are being investigated for embezzlement and corruption.

There are still many months before the US presidential election, and during this time a lot can still change. Trump is old and very scandalous. Europe has already taken up arms against him and is considering the possibility of creating its own defense bloc.

Regarding US assistance to Ukraine, since the beginning of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the United States has provided approximately $66 billion in total aid to Ukraine. Of this, more than $43 billion alone was allocated as military aid.
https://www.epravda.com.ua/rus/news/2023/08/7/702986/

This amount is, of course, decent. But if the United States does not help Ukraine now, then in the future they will have to spend much more money and the lives of thousands of Americans when Russia attacks one of the NATO countries, and they understand this.
But military assistance provided to Ukraine has a beneficial effect on the US economy and its citizens. The productivity of the US defense sector is now breaking all possible historical records. Thus, the monthly output of the United States defense sector is the highest since the end of World War II and already exceeds the levels of the arms race (1950s-1991) or the global war on terrorism (2001-2021).

Such unprecedented rates and volumes of production require a huge number of workers. It is therefore not surprising that, thanks to assistance to Ukraine, the American defense industry now dominates the global labor market. The United States accounts for 60% of all global aerospace and defense jobs. Their closest competitors are 6–10 times behind. Sales to US defense contractors rose 42.8%. Ukraine has become a testing ground for modern technologies, which gives the American defense industry an advantage. This directly strengthens not only security, but also the US economy and employment.
https://zn.ua/WORLD/pochemu-soedinennym-shtatam-vyhodno-pomohat-ukraine-v-vojne-protiv-rossii.html.

At the same time, Russia's successes are not that great. A few days ago, the Russians occupied the ruins of the small town of Avdeevka, which they had been continuously storming since October 10, 2023, leaving 47,186 dead and wounded people, 364 tanks, 748 armored vehicles, 248 artillery systems and other weapons.
https://war.gordonua.com/unichtozhili-rezerv-dlja-nastuplenija-tarnavskij-rasskazal-ob-obshchikh-poterjakh-rf-v-bojakh-za-avdeevku-1698176.html

Before this, the Russians captured the small town of Bakhmut in May last year, losing about 23,000 of their soldiers killed and about 80,000 wounded. A few more such Pyrrhic victories and Russia will have nothing to advance with. By the way, in the last four days alone, Russia has lost  of six of its fighters worth approximately $400 million.

[FanEagle]

Makes me wonder how the sense of patriotism and love for freedom will play as a factor in this incoming election. Even Republicans, specially reasonable Republicans can see Russia is more or less a dictatorship with a system which does not allow any opposition to exist, those Republicans may keep the meaning of freedom in their minds whenever they hear Trump talking positively about Putin and and current state of the politics in Russia. Some of them will turn their back on Trump, because regardless on how many people are willing to vote for him not matter what, there have been another silent group which is not willing to vote against their own sense of what freedom is and why it is so important.

The special election held in New York to fill the seat left empty by George Santos and won by the democrat party may only be another proof of the existence of such silent group of people, they may not vote for democrats, but are not willing to vote for Trump either, they stay home as a form of protest. I have not checked whether Trump's odds have changed since that election took place.

Politics is not something like that. If a republican does something, for a republican that is the right thing, if a democrat does the same thing then it's a wrong thing. The thing that is being done is exactly the same, but depending on who does it, the result would change.

For example if Trump was president and he funded Ukraine, all the republicans would say that was a good thing and Trump has their support for going against Russia and would probably say stuff like "Trump stood against a bully" or something. Don't get me wrong, same goes for democrats, whatever Trump did was wrong, and whatever Biden did was right. So this is why there is really no reason to even have campaigns, they either love you or don't, it's that simple.

[serveria.com]

There are still many months before the US presidential election, and during this time a lot can still change. Trump is old and very scandalous.

Haha you must be joking? Biden is a teenage boy is that right?  

Europe has already taken up arms against him and is considering the possibility of creating its own defense bloc.

Europe can't create anything, their military stocks are empty. The biggest sponsor and leading member of NATO is the US. Without them this military alliance doesn't look impressive anymore.

Regarding US assistance to Ukraine, since the beginning of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the United States has provided approximately $66 billion in total aid to Ukraine. Of this, more than $43 billion alone was allocated as military aid.
https://www.epravda.com.ua/rus/news/2023/08/7/702986/

That's not true. Only in 2022 alone, the US has (officially) spent $112 billion. Unofficially this number can reach $150-200b

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64656301

This amount is, of course, decent. But if the United States does not help Ukraine now, then in the future they will have to spend much more money and the lives of thousands of Americans when Russia attacks one of the NATO countries, and they understand this.

That's bs. Putin is not suicidal, he understands very well that he can't confront NATO atm. This "you're next" narrative is targeting NATO member countries in order to force them to enter this conflict. And that would mean WW3 and nukes going off, leading to the demise of the humanity.

At the same time, Russia's successes are not that great. A few days ago, the Russians occupied the ruins of the small town of Avdeevka, which they had been continuously storming since October 10, 2023, leaving 47,186 dead and wounded people, 364 tanks, 748 armored vehicles, 248 artillery systems and other weapons.
https://war.gordonua.com/unichtozhili-rezerv-dlja-nastuplenija-tarnavskij-rasskazal-ob-obshchikh-poterjakh-rf-v-bojakh-za-avdeevku-1698176.html

That's propaganda bs. Every town which had been lost by AFU is: destroyed completely (yeah right, google Mariupol now), is small and useless (biggest and toughest frontline citadel held since 2014), Russians suffer heavy losses (Russians were using guided bombs, number of artillery rounds shot was 20:1 in favor of Russia, more than 3500 AFU soldiers surrendered so who is suffering heavy losses?)

Before this, the Russians captured the small town of Bakhmut in May last year, losing about 23,000 of their soldiers killed and about 80,000 wounded. A few more such Pyrrhic victories and Russia will have nothing to advance with. By the way, in the last four days alone, Russia has lost  of six of its fighters worth approximately $400 million.

You are using propaganda numbers here again. However, I'm not surprised, after all that was you who claimed that Russia already lost a million people in Ukraine.  

[Argoo]

At the same time, Russia's successes are not that great. A few days ago, the Russians occupied the ruins of the small town of Avdeevka, which they had been continuously storming since October 10, 2023, leaving 47,186 dead and wounded people, 364 tanks, 748 armored vehicles, 248 artillery systems and other weapons.
https://war.gordonua.com/unichtozhili-rezerv-dlja-nastuplenija-tarnavskij-rasskazal-ob-obshchikh-poterjakh-rf-v-bojakh-za-avdeevku-1698176.html

That's propaganda bs. Every town which had been lost by AFU is: destroyed completely (yeah right, google Mariupol now), is small and useless (biggest and toughest frontline citadel held since 2014), Russians suffer heavy losses (Russians were using guided bombs, number of artillery rounds shot was 20:1 in favor of Russia, more than 3500 AFU soldiers surrendered so who is suffering heavy losses?)

Before this, the Russians captured the small town of Bakhmut in May last year, losing about 23,000 of their soldiers killed and about 80,000 wounded. A few more such Pyrrhic victories and Russia will have nothing to advance with. By the way, in the last four days alone, Russia has lost  of six of its fighters worth approximately $400 million.

You are using propaganda numbers here again. However, I'm not surprised, after all that was you who claimed that Russia already lost a million people in Ukraine.  

I did not find in the figures the number of Ukrainian military forces defending Avdiivka, but it was not much more than the number you mentioned of those captured there.
Perhaps this figure appeared due to the fact that yesterday, February 20, the American edition of the New York Times published an article that allegedly from 850 to 1000 Ukrainian soldiers could have been captured or gone missing during the withdrawal from Avdiivka. Two soldiers with knowledge of Ukraine's retreat estimated that between 850 and 1,000 soldiers appear to have been captured or missing in action. Western officials said that range appears accurate.
However, Ukraine denied this information, saying that it was disinformation and an unsubstantiated lie.
https://tsn.ua/ru/ato/nyt-pishet-chto-pod-avdeevkoy-v-plen-popali-tysyachi-ukrainskih-voennyh-chto-otvechayut-v-vsu-2518897.html

So far, we can only talk for sure about the six captured, whom Russian soldiers immediately shot, filming it on video. After the Ukrainian troops retreated to the Zenit position in Avdiivka, five wounded and one more soldier remained who were not evacuated in time. The Russians agreed to evacuate them and exchange the wounded from Zenit, but they broke their promise.

Regarding the losses of Russians near Avdeevka, there has already been a huge scandal on Russian television due to the fact that the truth about the huge losses of the Russian army in Avdeevka got into the Ukrainian media. The loss figures were announced by military sergeant of the fourth separate motorized rifle brigade of the Russian armed forces, Andrei Morozov, who is fighting in the Donbass. According to him, the irretrievable losses of Russians in the Avdeevka area amounted to about 16 thousand people.
This post in Ukraine was quoted by literally all the leading media, and because of this, Russian propagandists went into real hysterics.
The hosts of the Solovyov Live channel, Yulia Vityazeva and Armen Gasparyan, dedicated an entire half-hour-long broadcast to Andrei Morozov, during which they called Morozov a traitor, a saboteur and demanded the most brutal repressions for him.
https://www.bagnet.org/news/accidents/1361810/zhiteli-rf-uznali-pravdu-o-kolichestve-pogibshih-v-boyah-za-avdeevku.

After that, Morozov simply shot himself.
https://www.dialog.ua/war/290417_1708503880

[Hispo]

Makes me wonder how the sense of patriotism and love for freedom will play as a factor in this incoming election. Even Republicans, specially reasonable Republicans can see Russia is more or less a dictatorship with a system which does not allow any opposition to exist, those Republicans may keep the meaning of freedom in their minds whenever they hear Trump talking positively about Putin and and current state of the politics in Russia. Some of them will turn their back on Trump, because regardless on how many people are willing to vote for him not matter what, there have been another silent group which is not willing to vote against their own sense of what freedom is and why it is so important.

The special election held in New York to fill the seat left empty by George Santos and won by the democrat party may only be another proof of the existence of such silent group of people, they may not vote for democrats, but are not willing to vote for Trump either, they stay home as a form of protest. I have not checked whether Trump's odds have changed since that election took place.

Politics is not something like that. If a republican does something, for a republican that is the right thing, if a democrat does the same thing then it's a wrong thing. The thing that is being done is exactly the same, but depending on who does it, the result would change.

For example if Trump was president and he funded Ukraine, all the republicans would say that was a good thing and Trump has their support for going against Russia and would probably say stuff like "Trump stood against a bully" or something. Don't get me wrong, same goes for democrats, whatever Trump did was wrong, and whatever Biden did was right. So this is why there is really no reason to even have campaigns, they either love you or don't, it's that simple.

You are talking about Politicians and political parties keeping a minimum degree of consistency in their political speech, which is something I will agree on. That is one of the problems of the policial parties nowadays, you know, they do not longer embrace the ideas or political theories which were used during the foundation of their movements, they allow leaders to distort their discourse as they please for the sake of power and nobody in the party would dare to call it out. The easiest example to consider would be when Trump himself called for his supporters to march to the Capitol in Washington DC in January 6, and then later in the same day he denounced the violence and the riots, even though, he was a main figure on them happening in the first place, the whole Republican party end up saying no insurrection had taken place and Trump had nothing to do with the violence, and the few who refused to endorse or accept Trump's version of events ended up being excluded from the Party and losing their positions of power, even after Trump was not longer President and did not hold any public office, he continued to have a powerful influence on lawmakers; bettors know it and since the influence he has managed to keep continues to grow stronger his odds against Biden continue to show he is now the favorite of bettors, at least in Stake's market. It would be worth a look to other markets which also deal with political events.

Political inconsistence is bad, no doubt about it, but that is rather a discussion to keep in the Politics & Society section of the forum instead of here.

[Ozero]

Politics is not something like that. If a republican does something, for a republican that is the right thing, if a democrat does the same thing then it's a wrong thing. The thing that is being done is exactly the same, but depending on who does it, the result would change.

For example if Trump was president and he funded Ukraine, all the republicans would say that was a good thing and Trump has their support for going against Russia and would probably say stuff like "Trump stood against a bully" or something. Don't get me wrong, same goes for democrats, whatever Trump did was wrong, and whatever Biden did was right. So this is why there is really no reason to even have campaigns, they either love you or don't, it's that simple.

Then what will the Republicans do now, given that Trump recently said that he would support Ukraine even more than Biden is doing now?

After the US Senate passed a bill on military aid to Ukraine, former President Donald Trump, who opposed and incited Republican congressmen to vote against it, suddenly changed his rhetoric and said that he would give more to Ukraine than current President Joe Biden.

“Speaking [on February 14] at a campaign rally in North Charleston, Trump said that under a Biden presidency, Putin “will get everything he wants, including Ukraine. This is a gift. "He has a gift" and tried to flip the script by saying he would do more to protect Ukraine than Biden, The New York Times writes.


https://rubryka.com/ru/2024/02/15/tramp-na-peredvyborchomu-zahodi-zayavyv-shho-zrobyt-dlya-ukrayiny-bilshe-za-bajdena/

https://insiderua.net/glavnoe/tramp-zayavil-chto-sdelaet-dlya-ukrainy-bolshe-chem-bajden-nyt-133009.html

[CODE200]

I didn't expect Michelle to be there, first Hilary and now it's Michelle, first ladies trying their hands on the presidency? I would love to see that happen with the former presidents being on the sideline now while their wives take a speech. Trump seems to be the leading one to win this election but it's weird to me that there's some new that I'm hearing that he's still have some legal battle that he need to deal with and that he's not the bet of the Republican so I don't see why he's still got such a low odds, US election is confusing.

[EarnOnVictor]

~

I believe when comes to betting on events like this one (elections and political happenings), it is common to see lower odds than in some sport matches, that is true, that is the downside. The upside is that there is a lot of time for people to analyze (with the United States elections we have literal months before choosing our move) and we have more resources to lead ourselves to a right prediction, you know: polls, rallies, news; now we have indictments, scandals with secret documents... This could be a good chance for some people wise within the political analysis so make some good money, even those with those low odds. It must be kind of weird for someone like you to be in the spotlight of the news and becoming an important factor for the United States to choose their next leader and the alleged leader of the free world.
I believe you have told me before, you think Trump does not actually many chances to become the next president of the country, if so, then you should step forward and wager some money in favor of Joe Biden, not much, though. It could be fun. 
I am myself waiting for this year to continue to advance before finally deciding where to put my money on, if you already have a choice then do it.

Yes, it can be fun. I mean, I think I'll wager a dollar closer to the elections. It'll give, what, three dollars? Still it will be fun, right?

Now look Michelle Obama is the third favourite among gamblers:



I would definitely wager a dollar on her if you ask me. I'll wait a bit and maybe the multiplier for her will be over 10.00 again and then I will place my bet. She has a good chance in my opinion.

Hahaha...What I see in this image above is not only funny but absurd, to say the least. If not for the fact that people do not often know how the system of the US is working, especially the justice system, someone like Donald Trump should be behind bars by now. Not to mention trying to contest for the president of the country, and also not to mention of being given the lowest odd of 1.90 while the incumbent president is given 3.4 odds which is almost the odd that speaks of being almost twice lower in chance compared to Donald Trump.

Joe Biden is not without faults in this administration but certainly better than Trump when it comes to the core view of the American people. His chance could have possibly reduced due to the white extremism of Trump but it can't be as bad as the odds paint it. I will leave the two to it until the time comes but the inclusion of Michelle Obama in this is just gross. I do not think she can make it out of primaries not to talk of seeing her on the ballot papers.

[Sithara007]

I don't know this.. Is it even possible for Michelle Obama to take part in the Democrat primaries now? I guess some of the primary contests have been completed already. And I haven't seen her in any of the opinion polls for Democrat presidential nomination. I know that Biden is in poor health, but I don't think that his health will deteriorate much further in the next 6-7 months. Michelle Obama can be a good candidate in 2028, and not in 2024. And this time, Trump is so far ahead in polls that she has very little chance of winning anyway.

[Hispo]

I don't know this.. Is it even possible for Michelle Obama to take part in the Democrat primaries now? I guess some of the primary contests have been completed already. And I haven't seen her in any of the opinion polls for Democrat presidential nomination. I know that Biden is in poor health, but I don't think that his health will deteriorate much further in the next 6-7 months. Michelle Obama can be a good candidate in 2028, and not in 2024. And this time, Trump is so far ahead in polls that she has very little chance of winning anyway.

Traditionally, it seems that in the United States the incumbent president is re-selected through a process of primaries within the same party, it was the case when Trump wanted to get another four years in the White House in the last Presidential election, there was not a Republican primary process. So it seems very unlikely there will be a Democrat primary process this year for the Democrat party to choose an alternative to Joe Biden. Besides, Michelle Obama has pretty much not chances to win against Trump, the USA is neither ideological nor in a societal way prepared to put a woman in the presidency of the country, she being black and a woman could play against herself and Democrats are not willing to take unnecessary risks in 2024. They are already taking too many by not going with a younger and more charismatic leader.

In the 2028 election I am expecting to see the face of Tucker Carlson in boards and his name in the ballots, he could even end up running against AOC, which would be pretty hilarious, keeping in mind how Tucker has lashed against her in his defunct Fox show.

[STT]

Its never impossible for anyone to get elected as I understand it.   If its not on the ballot you are allowed to write it in and if enough do that then its a done deal.   However I dont know why people think Ms. Obama who doesnt want the job will have even one in a hundred chances when we know full well Hilary Clinton could not get the job done with all the full support and apparently was desperate for it to happen; you might as well bet on Clinton if you are going that route and I dont recommend that either.    
   6 to 1 odds is diabolically bad, thats what Trump should be if we're being honest.  He was very lucky to get the job first time around and he has destroyed alot of those reasons to such unlikely strength now, plus may be prevented physically anyhow.   My personal take is they will not exclude Trump legally not to save him but for implications on democracy itself which is too great to impede for a knarly old fight with two old men tbh.

he could even end up running against AOC

Currently too young and by implication appearing too young in a future election to really be a serious contender.   Alot of the electorate are quite senior, to favor a brand new player in the game is again possible but improbable.   The reason perception matters is money mostly, do you want to spend a billion on an outside chance; with Trump or anyone that rich they can finance a campaign differently.

[Hirose UK]

~snip~
No one is talking about Nikki Haley because there is virtually zero chance that she will win the Republican nomination. She is consistently polling between 10% to 30%, despite being the only remaining candidate apart from Donald Trump. And GOP support base in general agrees with Trump's views on the Russo-Ukrainian war. The US has spent hundreds of billions of USD on this war, to provide economic and military assistance to Ukraine. But what has they got in return? Russia is conquering one city after the other and a number of Ukrainian officials are being investigated for embezzlement and corruption.

Yeah, the thing is that it looks quite clear that Trump will win the Republican nomination.

I don't think there's any competition there to be honest, and Nikki Haley is not even close. Most polls show a huge advantage to Trump against her.

The way the voting system works in the US, you would be wasting your vote if you vote for someone with such a minority of votes.

That because since Trump served as president several years ago before being defeated by Biden in the next election, there has been lot of support that tends to be really solid for Trump, clearly this is an advantage that can be exploited to win the Republican nomination.
Nikki Haley of course will not be able to beat Trump and of course thanks to Trump success in becoming president and winning the 2016 election, he also gave the Republican Party the majority of votes.
This is the reason that up to now Trump is still able to dominate the vote tally, he is an intelligent figure and is very good at winning over everyone hearts so they can give him full support.
Nikki Haley will never be able to get that opportunity as long as Trump is still one of the Republican candidates, after all Trump has also won three internal elections within the Republican Party.
If Nikki Haley continues to insist on running then she will only get results in vain, the only chance she has is to try to run for vice president.

Yes, and of course the differences in the way the voting system works in US elections will be very different from other countries and we will even see these differences are very striking.

[NotATether]

Yes, it can be fun. I mean, I think I'll wager a dollar closer to the elections. It'll give, what, three dollars? Still it will be fun, right?

Now look Michelle Obama is the third favourite among gamblers:



I would definitely wager a dollar on her if you ask me. I'll wait a bit and maybe the multiplier for her will be over 10.00 again and then I will place my bet. She has a good chance in my opinion.

Hahaha...What I see in this image above is not only funny but absurd, to say the least. If not for the fact that people do not often know how the system of the US is working, especially the justice system, someone like Donald Trump should be behind bars by now. Not to mention trying to contest for the president of the country, and also not to mention of being given the lowest odd of 1.90 while the incumbent president is given 3.4 odds which is almost the odd that speaks of being almost twice lower in chance compared to Donald Trump.

Joe Biden is not without faults in this administration but certainly better than Trump when it comes to the core view of the American people. His chance could have possibly reduced due to the white extremism of Trump but it can't be as bad as the odds paint it. I will leave the two to it until the time comes but the inclusion of Michelle Obama in this is just gross. I do not think she can make it out of primaries not to talk of seeing her on the ballot papers.

It's almost like those people who are betting on those 1.90 odds are asking the bookies to just keep their money.  

If I were a sportsbook operator, of course I would want a lotta people wagering on Trump's election.

[nullama]

~snip~
It's almost like those people who are betting on those 1.90 odds are asking the bookies to just keep their money.  

If I were a sportsbook operator, of course I would want a lotta people wagering on Trump's election.

Interesting to see these numbers.

Basically they think that Trump most surely will win.

It's an interesting thing to see how much people think something will happen by simply looking at a number.

I guess AI can get good at predicting things based on these numbers as well.