2024 Presidential Election | ELECTION DAY 2024

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 8K
  • Views: 207K
  • Politics 
I know some people believe in this stuff, but a betting market is more open to influence than just about anyother vote indicator. Not sure why people WHO SHOULD KNOW BETTER like Frank Luntz was giving this shit any credence.

gizmodo.com

Polymarket Says the Four Whales Betting Big on Trump Are Actually Just One French Guy

Sacrebleu!
gizmodo.com gizmodo.com

Amid a tight race, people have been looking to the betting markets as a potentially stronger signal for the expected outcome of the November presidential election. Surely people putting their money where their mouths are will have stronger convictions about what’s going to happen, right?


It turns out, however, that just one individual has poured more than $45 million into bets favoring Donald Trump on Polymarket, the crypto-based betting website. The company was forced to investigate after it was discovered that just four accounts were placing disproportionate bets in favor of Trump winning the election.

In a statement to DealBook, Polymarket confirmed that a single trader based in France controls the accounts, a finding they came to following an investigation. Bets on Polymarket are placed using stablecoins, allowing users to remain somewhat anonymous—though with enough effort, blockchain analysis firms can often trace the origins of funds and unmask wallet holders.

Polymarket does not operate in the United States due to a settlement with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and there were questions raised about whether an American was bypassing the restriction to sway the betting markets in favor of Trump. It seems that’s not the case, but the finding from Polymarket goes to show that predictive betting sites are easy to manipulate and not a reflection of reality.

A concern critics raise with betting markets like Polymarket is that voters could be swayed by inauthentic sentiment for or against a candidate. It’s the same reason why platforms like X (before Elon took over) would crack down on networks of bot farms spreading inauthentic content—a flood of coordinated messaging from seemingly real accounts might sway undecided voters towards certain beliefs, such as that Trump has more support amongst Americans than he really does.
 
GQNC said:
I would also be interested to see more details about this Marist data, but anecdotally I can see it happening. Just in my sphere, my wife and I are UNA, our son-in-law and his mom are GOP, my nephew’s wife is GOP, and about half the people we canvassed and got responses from in Concord were UNA - all of us have or plan to vote for Harris.

Of these my son-in-law’s family has been GOP for generations and he is a fiscal conservative. He hates Trump and what he has done to his party and votes straight D to punish the shit birds. My nephew’s wife was obnoxiously FOR Trump eight years ago, but she hates him now.

Still only anecdotal, but enough anecdotes tend to point to a trend.
Click to expand...

Dang it GQNC, stop giving me so much hope! You’re killing my angsty vibe 😂😂
 
altmin said:
Trump said on day 1 he would fire Jack Smith. I thought the whole point of special prosecutors is that they are outside the normal firing process.
Click to expand...
Outside the normal firing process, but not terribly protected. The AG can fire the special prosecutor.

So Trump can't do it on day 1. I think only the AG can fire the special prosecutor, and on Day 1 the acting AG would probably be Garland's deputy. But I'd expect Trump to submit his AG nomination almost immediately and it would be rubber-stamped.

The important thing, of course, is Trump signaling that this is his #1 most important priority.
 
EhringhausSouth said:
Goodness. And I also saw where they had to remove some non-citizens from the voter rolls in Georgia (only 20, but still how does that happen to begin with?) I predict an absolute crap show and crazy claims to the point if there are any actual issues no one will know what to believe.
Click to expand...
I would expect more than 20 just from random chance and mistakes.
 
EhringhausSouth said:
Goodness. And I also saw where they had to remove some non-citizens from the voter rolls in Georgia (only 20, but still how does that happen to begin with?) I predict an absolute crap show and crazy claims to the point if there are any actual issues no one will know what to believe.
Click to expand...
Let’s be very clear about this. Yes it was 20, but it is CRITICALLY IMPORTANT to note that that was 20 out of 4.8 MILLION registered voters. That equates to (I think, but I may be off a decimal or so) 0.0004%. AND…, of this 20 voters 9 voted years ago before voter if was in place, and the other 11 registered, but have never voted. So it literally does NOT constitute actual voter fraud.

I only say this to make sure we clearly explain this WHEN (not if) the idiots raise this to us.
 
nycfan said:


“…
When asked if the United States could potentially end all federal taxation, Mr. Trump said the country could return to the economic policies in the late 19th century, when there was no federal income tax.

“It had all tariffs — it didn’t have an income tax,” Mr. Trump said. “Now we have income taxes, and we have people that are dying. They’re paying tax, and they don’t have the money to pay the tax.”

In June, Mr. Trump floated the idea of replacing federal revenue from income taxes with money received from tariffs.

… Either way, both liberal and conservative experts have dismissed his idea as mathematically impossible and economically destructive. Even if Republicans control Congress, lawmakers are unlikely to dismantle the income tax system. Yet Mr. Trump’s combination of tax cuts and tariff increases has been central to his political pitch. …”
Click to expand...

lol, someone on here called this last week.

that "no taxes!" would be his next insane, desperate, impossible, vote-buying nonsense claim/promise.

eta: @Enigma94 good call, dude
 
Last edited:
CLT Heel said:
Let’s be very clear about this. Yes it was 20, but it is CRITICALLY IMPORTANT to note that that was 20 out of 4.8 MILLION registered voters. That equates to (I think, but I may be off a decimal or so) 0.0004%. AND…, of this 20 voters 9 voted years ago before voter if was in place, and the other 11 registered, but have never voted. So it literally does NOT constitute actual voter fraud.

I only say this to make sure we clearly explain this WHEN (not if) the idiots raise this to us.
Click to expand...
You know that the story on the Fox News report would be something like this:
"A Georgia investigation has uncovered multiple instances of voter fraud. Who knows how many other cases are out there in Georgia or other swing states?"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top