2024 U.S. Presidential Election Bets!

[MarjorieZimmermanGinger]

The Donkey dick heads will try to cheat and steal the election any way possible even if it means serving Trumps head on a silver platter which is exactly what they want so that America can continue going down the tubes and the world goes into chaos mode, especially China and Russia are going to push their boarders boundries and bank accounts to new all time and become the dominant force in this world. Power rules over the evil minds of men & unlimited money gets them to their destination.  

I don't want to take this seriously because it is already in the realm of politics and the purpose of the discussion may not be that far. Yes, maybe the US is the country that is in power now because it talks a lot about things that make this country stronger. Elections will continue to exist even if the winner is the person who cheated because constitutionally the office cannot be vacant. Whatever revolution is considered good only the US knows and they want what kind of leader they want because we are in another realm as connoisseurs or just discussing.

[EarnOnVictor]

Meanwhile, if anyone is willing to bet there is a huge difference (at this scale) between bookies for this event
Normal odds for betting on the winner at stake:




And some odds that probably nobody wants at Betfair and PP:

These odds above speak volumes already and most importantly speak my mind on this presidential race, it will be keenly contested and no more like before when Trump had the undue advantage. The table is seriously turning in Harris's favour and the last debate is another turning point in the event. Although Trump never admitted to Harris winning, who cares, people already scored them fairly and I've never seen anyone say/write that Trump won.

Harris again challenged him to a second debate in collaboration with CNN slated to happen in October which Trump blatantly rejected, he already knows his limit, despite too many lies. The event continues to prove those who believed Harris was no match for Trump wrong and I already know who would win the popular vote even if she doesn't win the electoral college like Hillary Clinton.

[avp2306]

Meanwhile, if anyone is willing to bet there is a huge difference (at this scale) between bookies for this event
Normal odds for betting on the winner at stake:




And some odds that probably nobody wants at Betfair and PP:

These odds above speak volumes already and most importantly speak my mind on this presidential race, it will be keenly contested and no more like before when Trump had the undue advantage. The table is seriously turning in Harris's favour and the last debate is another turning point in the event. Although Trump never admitted to Harris winning, who cares, people already scored them fairly and I've never seen anyone say/write that Trump won.

Harris again challenged him to a second debate in collaboration with CNN slated to happen in October which Trump blatantly rejected, he already knows his limit, despite too many lies. The event continues to prove those who believed Harris was no match for Trump wrong and I already know who would win the popular vote even if she doesn't win the electoral college like Hillary Clinton.

I guess people is more into equality which Harris is campaigning rather than thinking about adapting cryptocurrency which always been talk about by Trump, that's why it show up to the result that Harris is more dominant than Trump.

I like Trump to win to see if there's great changes that will happen towards the adaption of crypto in US. But if faith didn't let it happen and Harris will be declared as the winner then lead America then I guess the only thing can look forward is hopefully she will not became the same like Biden which he is so Anti Crypto. But also for sure my bet status will change since I like to bet on candidate that higher chance to win. So let see how everything goes especially each statistics shown.

[KTChampions]

You are confusing economic positioning and political positioning. Look at the Nolan or Eysenck model. The problem is that communists always come to power with "good" slogans and they promise the crowd what it wants (even if they don't believe it themselves), but after they consolidate their power, their rule turns into a dictatorship.

You're looking at 12 years out of 16 of democrat rule right now.
Does America look like anything communist to you?

Exactly yes. I don't know how old you are, but if you are old enough (and have a good memory), you should see the trend. The US is turning from a meritocracy and a free country into a dump where everyone is concerned with "equality of outcome" (which is fucking inconsistent with meritocracy), hatred of the rich, attempts to limit freedom of speech and gun ownership.

Let's make an experiment here and make a topic about corporations in the US you will see that instantly everyone who was calling the Democrats socialist and communist suddenly makes a 180 degree turn and says that corporations own everything in the US, we are all slaves, rich get richer and so on, that socialism is needed!  Grin
Wanna bet on it?

Don't you think that imaginary fantasies cannot be an argument? 

Look at the history of Russia, when communists came to power, in some issues they were the most progressive in the world at that time - getting rid of religious oppression, removing sexual taboos, progressive attitude to the racial issue, etc.

What alternative history did you read?
When communists came to power (via a civil war) they nationalized everything, introduced the war communism economy movement, collectivization that ended with the famine of 1921, the genocide of Kulaks, and so on.
If you're thinking of the Declaration of Rights that was a joke, probably Lenin and Stalin were laughing their ass out while writing that, the first thing Lenin did was expropriate all churches and declare that religion is opium and destructive to society. Racial stuff, let's not even go there!

LMAO 
The Holodomor and the destruction of the kulaks (normal peasants) was the beginning of the 30s. After the civil war, the communists, while maintaining political power, introduced the NEP - "new economic policy" (essentially old capitalism).
What don't you understand about the words "freedom from religious oppression"?
If you don't understand, then read the criminal code that was in place under the tsar who was overthrown by the communists and under which people were slaves of the church.
As for the racial issue - will you deny that in the USSR it was solved 50-60 years earlier than in the USA? Officially segregation in the USA was banned only in 1964, hahaha, I hate communists but here they were much more progressive.
Friend, I'm from Russia, so I just find it funny when you write about history that you don't know.

As for corporations, they are anti-market by nature: they have won the competition and now want to secure their victory. They advocate regulation, licensing, quotas, and other things that raise the threshold for entering the market. Therefore, corporations try to merge with the state machine (against people). These are the basics.

You still haven't explained how an economy run by corporations is a communist one! 
But let's go one further, if those corporations are bad as you say, why aren't you supporting democrats taxing them more and you're supporting Trump who wants tax cuts for them?  It's a bit hard for me to understand why you want to take the side of the ones who are agsint the people, this in your own words! 

You asked a question, I gave you an answer.

And speaking of communism, why are corporations endorsing Kamala if she wants to turn the US a commie state? 

The fact that you don’t understand the answer is a problem of understanding.
You yourself write that it is difficult for you to understand why corporations support additional taxes (which further increases the price of entry into the market and cements their position of dominance). I have already written about this, just reread it.

[Marykeller]

The reason why Kamala is leading by a big margin right now is because of the debate if you ask me. Debate made sure that republicans may not go out to vote like they normally would. It didn't made any Trump voter become Kamala voter or vice versa, that never happens, these debates help with candidates either get their voters turn out or not, and I think Kamala voters will come out and trump voters will not come out and that's the most important part.

I believe that we are going to see this change one way or another. I know that it is going to be something that will take a bit of a time and we will have to wait until the elections to be sure but I think Kamala will win. It will be a very close race I am sure of that, everything will be decided by a few states once again, and a very close margin in those states as well.

Link to how the polls result was gotten:
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/national/

From the national polling average conducted by BBC, Harris is leading Trump with few numbers, not as a big margin as you have stated. No doubt, it was the debate that was conducted that gave Harris the small lead.

In all the 50 states that made up the US, both the Republican and Democrat party candidates would come out and vote in mass for their choice candidates not because of who wins the debate but because of who they feel can make America great and take her to great heights of excellence. However, I believe that both candidates stand a chance of winning the November 5 presidential election

[Haunebu]

Harris again challenged him to a second debate in collaboration with CNN slated to happen in October which Trump blatantly rejected, he already knows his limit, despite too many lies. The event continues to prove those who believed Harris was no match for Trump wrong and I already know who would win the popular vote even if she doesn't win the electoral college like Hillary Clinton.

Lol! Trump is still whining about Swift supporting Harris and losing his debate pretty convincingly which is why it makes sense as to why he rejected another debate. His desperation led to the whole fake assassination crap recently.

Anyway, as Pope Francis himself mentioned, voters should choose the lesser of both evils which is obviously Harris in my opinion.

[beerlover]

The US affects every country in the entire world somehow with our grip on foreign affairs through our gigantic military presence around the entire world. We are sort of like the Referee and also the best team at the same time if this was football lmao. Our military & global money printer have served us well. Having a cucked leadership under the failed Harris/Biden/Walz Regime will only further worsen America's standing in the world & respect that countries have for us. We will drag our allies into wars that they don't want to be a part of (look at Poland today), we will continue guzzling money into things that don't help anyone except just create more problems to only serve the global elitist agenda. There needs to be some serious revolution in the direction the US is headed and only God at this point can intervene it seems. The Donkey dick heads will try to cheat and steal the election any way possible even if it means serving Trumps head on a silver platter which is exactly what they want so that America can continue going down the tubes and the world goes into chaos mode, especially China and Russia are going to push their boarders boundries and bank accounts to new all time and become the dominant force in this world. Power rules over the evil minds of men & unlimited money gets them to their destination.  

Depends on where you are talking about to be fair. I am sure that you do matter in a lot of places for military presence, but just because there are military personal in some places, doesn't mean that they actually care that much at all. Like just for example, when you were in Iraq or Afghanistan or whatever third world nation then it did matter a lot, because those are places you completely change.

But if we are talking about Ukraine, that's something you did because you hate Russia, while we all do, and Europe definitely loved the help, doesn't mean that the result would be all that different if you didn't do it, sanctions would still be there, maybe that two piece of lands would have been lost already, but Europe would have been Europe, like just because Ukraine lost land, nothing would have changed for Germany or France for example, hence the added importance to yourself is shown everyone, world doesn't care about USA as much as you think it does.

[Smartprofit]

An idea occurred to me... Is anyone here considering a scenario in which Kamala Harris wins the US presidential election, but Donald Trump's supporters categorically reject her victory?

As a result, a political crisis arises in the US, after which neither Kamala Harris nor Donald Trump becomes president, but some third person? As a result, all bets on the victory of these two candidates are effectively cancelled. More precisely, everyone who bet on one or the other candidate will end up losing and lose their money.

The probability of such an event is currently assessed by me as not very high, but it is by no means zero.

[stompix]

The problem is that communists always come to power with "good" slogans and they promise the crowd what it wants (even if they don't believe it themselves), but after they consolidate their power, their rule turns into a dictatorship.

vs

Friend, I'm from Russia, so I just find it funny when you write about history that you don't know.

Oh, the irony in this, a non-American who has never set foot in the USA is talking about how he knows everything about the US and how life is there but at the same time god forbid someone points out the flaws in his own knowledge of his own country. But this is the usual stuff, as always the one who hasn't seen something in his entire life knows most about that single stuff than even the guy that invented it!

So, the genocide of the kulaks started in 1930 according to you...weird, then who said this in 1918? Lenin maybe?

The interests of the whole revolution require this because 'the last decisive battle' with the kulaks is now underway everywhere. An example must be made.

And the communists freed people from served not the 1861 emancipation yup, keep them coming.

You still haven't explained how an economy run by corporations is a communist one! 

You asked a question, I gave you an answer.

No, you didn't!
So again why is a "communist" Harris that wants to tax corporations who are sucking the soul of every American a bad thing?

You yourself write that it is difficult for you to understand why corporations support additional taxes (which further increases the price of entry into the market and cements their position of dominance).

Oh I got it!
So as a corporation that sells stuff I would want out of the $10 I make from selling a $90 product the state to get half of it so I would have to raise the price to $200 as for sure people will buy the same amount of goods! No fucking way would I want the government to cut taxes so that I don't spend $90 but $80 making this product and I could sell it for $100 making $20 for the same price and some demand!
Are you sure you know how taxation on profits works? 

Harris again challenged him to a second debate in collaboration with CNN slated to happen in October which Trump blatantly rejected, he already knows his limit, despite too many lies. The event continues to prove those who believed Harris was no match for Trump wrong and I already know who would win the popular vote even if she doesn't win the electoral college like Hillary Clinton.

He knows he is losing, he needs desperately something and I'm pretty sure in just a few weeks we're going to see some really big PR show or some false flag operation, he needs desperately to either gain real conservative votes or to make people not vote for Kamala. Meanwhile, it's funny how crypto markets still go for her despite Trump being a shitcoinlover



Outside this forum and the bots infected X nobody is buying Trump crypto fake love:
https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/1fiue9m/donald_trump_struggles_and_seems_confused_in/
And some still think Americans will vote for Trump just because of crypto 

[TwitchySeal]

An idea occurred to me... Is anyone here considering a scenario in which Kamala Harris wins the US presidential election, but Donald Trump's supporters categorically reject her victory?

As a result, a political crisis arises in the US, after which neither Kamala Harris nor Donald Trump becomes president, but some third person? As a result, all bets on the victory of these two candidates are effectively cancelled. More precisely, everyone who bet on one or the other candidate will end up losing and lose their money.

The probability of such an event is currently assessed by me as not very high, but it is by no means zero.

I don't see a third party becoming president.  I also don't see Kamala winning without Trump crying fraud and his MAGAtard army parroting back every one of his baseless conspiracy theories.  Luckily they've been telegraphing their plan for years now, installing MAGAtards on as many local election boards as possible to hold up any certification where the outcome isn't a Trump victory and cause enough chaos to give Trump an opening to force his way into the white house somehow.  The democrats I've heard discuss this recently seem pretty confident that they will be able to shut all that down but we'll see.

Absolute worst case scenario, imo, is Trump loses and then just decides to say he's president and convinces his MAGAtards to try and overthrow the government again in much bigger numbers than last time.

Communism = everything is state owned.  No free markets.

A communist government will have a police department, a military, public schools, etc.

That doesn't mean police departments, militaries and public schools in capitalist countries are communist.

Non-communist countries have been implementing price controls since before communism existed - including America - under conservative presidents.
Non-communist countries have enforced anti-racist anti-homophobic policies for decades.
Non-communist countries have built government funded health care systems and made them available to every citizen.
Non-communist countries have progressive tax policies, where the wealthy pay more to help fund programs that benefit the people that need help the most.

None of these ideas are communist. You don't have to agree with them, and there are valid arguments to be made against them.  But calling them communist is just ignorant.

[sompitonov]

An idea occurred to me... Is anyone here considering a scenario in which Kamala Harris wins the US presidential election, but Donald Trump's supporters categorically reject her victory?

As a result, a political crisis arises in the US, after which neither Kamala Harris nor Donald Trump becomes president, but some third person? As a result, all bets on the victory of these two candidates are effectively cancelled. More precisely, everyone who bet on one or the other candidate will end up losing and lose their money.

The probability of such an event is currently assessed by me as not very high, but it is by no means zero.

I think this is a very unlikely scenario that no more than 1% believe in. But sometimes it can happen, for example, I personally expect a lot of interesting and unexpected things from the upcoming elections. Today's world never ceases to present surprises, and unfortunately, they are often negative. Nevertheless, I think that everything will be fair and transparent, and the winner will be announced with a small advantage, I can't say yet what it will be, because their chances are equal. I am really curious who will win and the swing states will decide the outcome of this election.

[CryptSafe]

....... Elections will continue to exist even if the winner is the person who cheated because constitutionally the office cannot be vacant. Whatever revolution is considered good only the US knows and they want what kind of leader they want because we are in another realm as connoisseurs or just discussing.

You are right, elections would definitely come and go but the community and the people would always be there. This is the reason why it is not good to make issues and things difficult for other people when one is in power. Posterity would always have its course no matter what happens. The people always know who they want but the process never allows them get  things done properly. This is the situation of my country.

[jossiel]

The reason why Kamala is leading by a big margin right now is because of the debate if you ask me.

I agree.

That debate really helped her a lot and that's why she's leading right now. Now, we see the polls are changing. When Trump was tempted with an assassination, he reached the ceiling with the polls.

It's interesting that we're seeing a change here and with less than 2 months left, what's more to come and see.

The thing with Trump's poll numbers and also the betting markets is it is seems Trump has already reached a ceiling or a maximum number/percentage of people who favours him as the winner. An assassination attempt is one of the craziest things which could happen during a presidential campaign and it would certainly make the politician the perpetual favorite for what it is left in the run for the presidency, but with Trump is different, he has already been gone through two assassinations attempts, he has fund-raised a lot of money and it is willing to even go along the cryptocurrency community to reach new levels of popularity, and yet he has not managed to do so beyond what we saw with the first attempt against his life. It speaks volume on the amount of people who blindly follows him snd those who do not.

You're right that he's likely reached the peak already because of that incident. While for Harris, people who are in Trump and hears her talk in her campaigns are still able to contemplate whether who to vote for real.

That's why she hasn't reached the peak yet and there's more to grow. And for Trump, we'll see if the ones that are on him will stick until the end.

[STT]

All presidents peak and then decline in popularity when actually in office.  Whats remarkable here is Harris managed to already be the Vice president and not suffer any negative from Biden's policies which is surprising when she is apparently backing them and not openly disagreeing while campaigning here.
   Trump equally was in power and has to be held responsible for his tenure, of the two he has the worst track record I guess with many deaths in the pandemic and the inevitable recession at that time.    So on this historic point of view, Harris wins the balance of the popular vote most likely.  

If Trump gets in this time, it will be the first time I can remember a one term president losing then regaining the office.   So in terms of probability the odds are against him on achieving that feat.

Here I googled it:  Cleveland of 1884 term, won, lost, won.  https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/11/16/few-former-presidents-have-run-for-their-old-jobs-or-anything-else-after-leaving-office/

[bbc.reporter]

Putin wouldnt have answered the question in any sensible way, he would take it as a joke and answered as such.   USA and Russia are as hostile as they've been since the era of the bay of pigs etc.    It was a stupid question and returned with a stupid answer.  Trump says he'll alter the Ukraine war & since Putin has had nothing but pain from that mistake its obvious he would like a change in policy.   I dont doubt he will wait for the outcome of the election to decide the war in some way, its that pivotal most likely.   There is no gain but he wishes to reduce losses surely and loss of face.

I thought the security agents would get paranoid and significantly increase the former president's security

For the money they cant cover every angle.  This time they did their job and stopped it well in advance, he didnt get a shot off.   I wonder if he can even be charged with any attempt but it should not matter as I think filing the serial off a gun is a sentence of more then a decade perhaps, they have enough anyway.

There are speculations that Putin started the war against Ukraine because the western allies are very much close on convincing Ukraine to join NATO. This expansion by NATO is implied as a threat by Putin and Russian generals.

I reckon if Trump becomes the president of America, he might issue an order to stop this expansion and use diplomacy for Russia to stop this war. Putin has mentioned already that there is a possibility that Russia will use nuclear weapons of Ukraine joins NATO during this war. In any case, it appears that Trump will lose the election and this war will certainly continue and increase under the administration of Harris.

Yeah NATO expansion has been one of the Kremlins talking points from the start.  Then when Sweden and Finland (both share borders with Russia) joined in response to the invasion, Putin acted like no big deal...

And Putting Ukraine, our ally, in the worst possible position by cutting of weapons and then trying to negotiate a plea deal might seem diplomatic, but Ukraine is not the first country Putin attacked for political control, and if he gets Ukraine it won't be the last.
And Trump was already contemplating leaving NATO during his second term until he lost the election (which he is still confused about somehow).  He respects American enemies and disrespects American allies - something about their style of leadership and the way they act like super strong manly men.  I'm sure you've heard his rants about NATO members not paying their bills (which makes only a little bit of sense), it's because he knows they think he's a clown.  

Putin and Xi think he's a clown also I would bet....but a very useful clown.  He seems to be embracing it from his truth social profile picture.  Or maybe he was just getting board with the orange, who knows.

I am not quite certain what is good or bad because I am only a small minnow and I cannot be the judge on this, however, we can certainly witness that from the position of Russia, they certainly see that American imperialism is bad. It might be because for them, what business does America have over Russia and Ukraine? America should be the peace keeping diplomats, I reckon. They should not support war being the stronger superpower but their military should answer in force if no one wants peace.

I speculate that the Donald will use diplomacy backed by full military force if Putin does not listen and I reckon this will certainly make Putin listen.

In any case, Trump is losing. I have speculated that the second debate might be good for Trump's ratings because Kamala is not a strong debater. However, Trump made it appear that she is strong.

[TwitchySeal]

It might be because for them, what business does America have over Russia and Ukraine?

That's a good question.

In exchange for Ukraine giving up it's Soviet Nuclear Weapons in 1994, America, Russia and the UK signed an agreement to respect Ukraine borders and as a sovereign country, and also to guarantee security to Ukraine as a non nuclear state, should they come under attack or threat by a Nuclear power.

America should be the peace keeping diplomats, I reckon. They should not support war being the stronger superpower but their military should answer in force if no one wants peace.

What you're really saying is that after convincing Ukraine to give up it's nukes, and promise to keep them safe, America should refuse to help Ukraine while being attacked by Russia. 
The whole peacekeeping, anti-war stance is really just "I support Russian Imperialism".
It's really not just about Ukraine.  The reason for NATO existing today is because they were worried that Russia would do what Putin has been trying to do for the last couple decades.  

You: "But US invaded smaller countries too"

Imagine George W Bush never left office and was still looking for any excuse to invade today.  Now look at Putin.

[Z_MBFM]

There’s a lot of issue and some of it is critical during Biden admin. I think they are equal wash up candidate with Trump based on how I see social media post. Trump supporters gain a lot of momentum this election due to this failure of current administration. However I’m not sure how accurate social media post nowadays.  

Do not believe on social media. I can remember the the last election in my country, the person that people were talking about on the social media did not even became the second but the the third. What I believe in is during voting after seeing some results. I just know that election is going to be very tough and who will be the winner between Trump and Biden is not yet known.

A lot of fake news is spread on social media and the titles are given in such a way that they are catchy and the videos or posts get more views. So social media posts should never be trusted. Both Trump and Kamala Harris have a lot of potential in the US election. Kamala Harris has a lot of support and on the other hand Donald Trump was elected president before so it can be said that his popularity is very big. So Kamala Harris and Trump will be fighting a lot. So placing a potential bet here is a very difficult task. So here one can bet only for the favorite party of all. I will support Donald Trump

Donald Trump held a meeting on Bitcoin one day and that day there was an unprecedented amount of volatility on Bitcoin.  So I think if Donald Trump wins the election Bitcoin will pump a lot more. And Donald Trump is very likely to be elected.  Because he is an experienced president and has a lot of popularity. so his chances of winning the election are much higher than other candidates. Because of this I can predict a big bull run in Bitcoin in December.  And if it doesn't happen in December, it could do it in the first quarter of 2025.

At the same time, if I bet for the US election, I would put it in favor of Donald Trump

[bbc.reporter]

It might be because for them, what business does America have over Russia and Ukraine?

That's a good question.

In exchange for Ukraine giving up it's Soviet Nuclear Weapons in 1994, America, Russia and the UK signed an agreement to respect Ukraine borders and as a sovereign country, and also to guarantee security to Ukraine as a non nuclear state, should they come under attack or threat by a Nuclear power.

America should be the peace keeping diplomats, I reckon. They should not support war being the stronger superpower but their military should answer in force if no one wants peace.

What you're really saying is that after convincing Ukraine to give up it's nukes, and promise to keep them safe, America should refuse to help Ukraine while being attacked by Russia.  
The whole peacekeeping, anti-war stance is really just "I support Russian Imperialism".
It's really not just about Ukraine.  The reason for NATO existing today is because they were worried that Russia would do what Putin has been trying to do for the last couple decades.  

You: "But US invaded smaller countries too"

Imagine George W Bush never left office and was still looking for any excuse to invade today.  Now look at Putin.

However, this treaty is nothing because Russia attacked Ukraine and Putin threatens to use nuclear weapons if Ukraine joins NATO. He has also mentioned that their actions on nuclear launch will be very fast. It will not be formula 1 fast, it will be hypersonic. What will the next administration's roadmap for this war?

Also, it appears that you did not understand the argument. America as the peace keeper but by backed by a full military occupation by the USA in Ukraine if Putin creates an attempt to invade might give him second thoughts.

You mention George W Bush hehehe. If he was president, Putin might not invade Ukraine. I speculate that one of the reasons that encouraged Putin to invade Ukraine is because the president of America is presently very weak. I wish the next American leader will be a peace maker but threaten full military control of Ukraine to discourage Putin.

[OcTradism]

Link to how the polls result was gotten:
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/national/

From the national polling average conducted by BBC, Harris is leading Trump with few numbers, not as a big margin as you have stated. No doubt, it was the debate that was conducted that gave Harris the small lead.

First I don't look at the poll result but see a screenshot and your post, I know it comes from BBC. Next I have no reason to believe in the poll result conducted by BBC because days ago I read an article from BBC that says Kamala Harris did a better debate than Trump and she beat Trump in the debate.

This information about the debate is very fake, so how do I believe in BBC's poll result?

I am sorry but no way to believe in the poll result.

Who won the debate?
Undecided Americans impressed by Harris - but did debate shift their votes?

[STT]

Its not fake, its opinion based or subjective.   I do agree the majority of the press has a left bias to it but not to the extent they'd mislabel the news on purpose.  Subconsciously there is bias there anyway, a natural alignment of the left you could say maybe journalism has that slant Im not sure.

Harris most likely does have the popular vote but could lose anyway, thats the tricky thing.   The polls dont represent that well enough, it'd cost them far more to poll accurately to that extent they just take a quick test or indicator.    None of it will be too accurate until the day the votes are all counted.
   Clinton lost with the popular vote and having being called a winner by some Channels on the night but actual electoral votes never followed through.  So I would look for any similarities between the two then and now.  If we can spot a repeat that'd be a great counter bet.