-42
Joe Biden's chances of winning election plummet after debate (www.newsweek.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/news@lemmy.world
65 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 51 points 2 years ago (5 children)

according to leading bookmakers.

Oh for fuck's sake, can we please get one post-debate article that isn't highly partisan or just moronic?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    I mean the betting markets are generally aligned with extravagant statistical prediction models.

    After all these markets have hundreds of millions poured into them, and people are trying to win not loose. Obviously there are still problems with them, and that headline really should have included “according to bookmakers”.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    Are you sure about that?

    If I make a $10,000,000 bet in one direction to change the betting odds to make everyone think my viewpoint is more popular, that's a very cheap marketing campaign.

    Even if I lose all that money, it's good marketing. Especially if I'm manipulating less popular topics with less $$$$ needed to change the odds.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    that’ll only change the odds on a single bookmaker. There are thousands on the election.

    Also it’s highly illegal to bet on an event you are part of (although that doesn’t seem to stop trump from doing other things).

    Additionally, to sway public opinion, influencing pollsters and the media (which we have objective proof of camapigns doing) is more effective. although they were mentioned in this article, they’ll be mentioned a lot less than polls.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago*

    Also it’s highly illegal to bet on an event you are part of (although that doesn’t seem to stop trump from doing other things).

    Illegal to who?

    FBI? Or some poor IT administrator who gives no shits about this issue?

    Additionally, to sway public opinion, influencing pollsters

    You're using the fucking betting market as a poll. A system that is innately, and provably, influenced by money. Not even indirectly, but DIRECTLY influenced by money.

    Then you paper over this fact by saying "but people want to make money", ignoring the fact that these campaigns are literally spending $100,000,000+ sums, losing money throughout a whole campaign to try to change public opinion by about 5%.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 50 points 2 years ago (24 children)

    The frightening realisation to take away is that most people don’t have a visceral horror of fascism in the way that progressives on Mastodon do. Which makes sense: if fascism was regarded with widespread revulsion, the Trumps and Orbans and Netanyahus of this world would be as successful as someone running a dogshit sandwich stall at the local market.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 26 child comments
    •
  • [–] 15 points 2 years ago

    You are totally right.

    Fascism appeals to humanity's most basic impulses and fascists will therefore always be a threat to democracy.

    People crave the strong, authoritarian leader who will protect them from danger.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 2 years ago

    The frightening realisation to take away is that most people don’t have a visceral horror of fascism in the way that progressives on Mastodon do.

    Oh, don't worry. Many of the people on the Fediverse don't have a visceral horror of fascism either. To them it's "Both sides are fascist" because otherwise they might feel uncomfortable letting Trump win, and wouldn't feeling uncomfortable about that just be awful.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (22 replies)
    [–] 25 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    I would vote for a walking corpse over a fascist like trump.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
    • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 18 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    Or maybe it was Trump who lost the debate and his chances are worse afterwards? Who knows definitely not fucking Newsweek or CNN or Fox or anybody for that matter.

    I do know that Trump is a fucking criminal and a human trash pos. So a lot of people won’t be voting for whatever that pile of shit is.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Everyone from Jon Stewart to Pod Save America recognize Biden had one of the worst debate performances in history. Focus groups of undecided voters who watched said Biden lost.

    Let's stay in reality and face the facts. Let's not stoop to maga alt-reality.

    Instead let's just fix the issue at hand, assuage the concerns of voters, and improve our odds of beating Trump. Because there is no good data to support a Biden victory.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    It’s funny to see the blue maga folks try to frame this as a failure of progressives.

    Or somehow try to say that Biden somehow had good talking points in between the times he was mumbling or completely losing his train of thought.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 15 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Republicans will vote Republican no matter what.

    Dem voters have always needed a candidate they like and/or agree with to turnout en mass and get the Dem elected.

    It makes zero sense to keep blaming Dem voters for having standards instead of blaming party leaders for continuingly shoving candidates we don't like down our throats.

    There is zero reason to keep pushing unpopular candidates.

    But because we all held our noses for Biden 4 years ago, he got to nominate DNC leadership and he picked idiots who say Biden is our only shot.

    Holding our noses and voting for a candidate whose not for basic parts of the party platform, just moves the party platform and makes it even harder to get votes the next election.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    "Party leaders" did not shove Biden down our throats. Unless you're arguing that the party leaders of the dems are all the suburban soccer moms of the countries, and their consistency at voting. Then yes, that's true.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    The party literally refused to hold any primary debates, or even primary elections in several states. They gave people no chance to even consider other candates.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    And why? Because Dean Philips was doing so strongly, garnering appeal from progressives with his centrist positions?

    If you want strong candidates, they need to run. If nobody good runs, then I think we've found the problem.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago

    And I keep asking the people who say things like this who they canvassed for and they get defensive and don't give me an answer. Much like when I ask the Never-Bidens who I should vote for instead that has a chance of winning.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    How can we know there were no strong candidates, when they don't get a real chance to run? They (and to be fair, most) simply assumed the incumbent was the best, because that's the way its been forever.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago* (8 children)

    Polling, usually. Otherwise primary results. Most states did have their primary, btw, only a handful cancelled. Each state has their own way of doing it.

    Can you name a candidate that was doing well at any point? Better than low single-digits? Dean was the only one I heard much about.

    edit: You do remember the write-in uncommitted thing, right? Those were primaries.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
    load more comments (8 replies)
    • [+] 8 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    load more comments (2 replies)
    [+] 8 points 2 years ago
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 6 points 2 years ago

    He shit the bed but this is blatant bait. There hasn’t even been time to poll this, and those would be limited in value regardless.

    Again, terrible performance. But this headline is nonsense.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Best case scenario at this point is one of them croaks before November. It's insane to me that Biden even contemplated a second term, when the whole point of picking Kamala Harris as his VP was so she could be the young fit successor. It's time to roll out plan B, guys.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    • load more comments
    view more: next ›