Kamala Harris rises in polls. See what election odds bettors give her now The odds on Polymarket, a crypto-trading platform, swung in favor of the vice president on Saturday night as she and running mate Tim Walz concluded their four-day tour of five battleground states. As of Tuesday at 10 a.m. EDT, the betting – which legally can't be done in the U.S. – put the likelihood of Harris winning the election at 52% and Trump's at 45%. A month ago, bettors placed Trump's odds of winning as high as 71%. How accurate have election odds been in past presidential elections? The betting favorite has only lost twice since 1866, according to the Conversation, a nonprofit news organization. The two upsets came in 1948 when Democrat Harry Truman beat eight-to-one odds to defeat Republican Thomas Dewey, and in 2016 when Trump overcame seven-to-two odds to beat Hillary Clinton. https://www.usatoday.com/story/graphics/2024/08/13/trump-harris-2024-election-odds/74767125007/
The people telling you Donald Trump should be President this week Are the same people now in prison for assaulting law enforcement officers in Jan. 6th and wanting to overturn the vote.
Biden's old, but he's not an old compulsive lying psychopath and felon like Trump. Trump is unfit to serve. He's not even trying to tell the truth any more. He still to this day refuses to accept the fact that he lost the election. Deny, Deflect, and Lie. That's all that crazy old man does.
It wasn't too long ago GOP was the party representing the elite and wealthy and the democrats were demanding to get money out of politics. You all are the same. Two different sides of the same coin.
Let's fast forward to November already, we either get rid of the orange cancer on our society for good or show the world how stupid the average American really is.
Not sure how reliable the Xweet is. Over a 24 hour period the Harris campaign received donations from more than 888,000 donors. 500,000 were donating for their first time. That being said, yes there is big money donating to both parties. But I still want money out of politics. I want candidates from both parties to get the same amount of money from the govt. They shouldn't be allowed to spend more. That would be true for congressional races as well. That would keep big corporations from writing policy, politicians trying to please those big donors, and being more accountable to the citizens. It wasn't the left leaning supreme court justices that said money was free speech and corporations are people. That was the right leaning ones.
[/QUOTE] Campaigning isn’t governing. Winning an election doesn’t equal governing. You’re mixing up the ability to campaign and win an election with the ability to actually govern. Biden is fit to govern, but he was a long shot to win the election. These are two separate things. The kicker is that those saying Biden needs to go because he's not winning are 100% right, given how this election is swinging. Final note: I think you guys on the right know this, but you're still angry that the Democrats made a smart move and are winning because of it. And honestly, if you're a Trump supporter—someone who’s completely unfit to govern—you really shouldn’t be lecturing anyone on who’s fit for the job.
Yeah, not sure about that tweet either, but what they need to take out of the equation are all the Super PACs. Donations should be limited per person, and not manipulated by other means to funnel huge money.
You want to talk criminals, well look no further than your felon candidate Trump. He surrounds himself with criminals to work together like a criminal mob. The guy is as dirty as they come. He pardoned his criminal associates. Manafort was pardoned before Trump left office. He’s back in the foreign lobbying business, although the optics of being involved in Trump’s 2024 campaign were apparently too much. Manafort recently backed away from a supporting role helping plan the Republican National Convention after media scrutiny over his involvement. Pardoning Bannon was one of Trump’s final acts in office. Trump’s pardon helped Bannon avoid prosecution in the border wall scheme, but Bannon may yet go to prison. Another former top Trump aide, Peter Navarro, has already reported to prison after his conviction for contempt of Congress. Trump can’t help Bannon or Navarro now, since he’s not currently president, but he has already promised to use pardon power to help people convicted of crimes related to January 6, a riot committed by his supporters. He commuted the sentence of his longtime friend Roger Stone, the political operative who was convicted by a jury of, among other things, obstructing the Russia investigation. Trump issued the Flynn pardon shortly after losing the 2020 presidential election. Flynn is now an avowed QAnon conspiracy theorist, but Trump has said he could bring him back in a second Trump administration. Trump also can’t help another lieutenant, Allen Weisselberg, who stayed loyal. Weisselberg already served one monthslong jail sentence on Rikers Island for a yearslong tax scheme. But then he was found to have lied during a deposition in the civil fraud trial in which Trump was found to have inflated his wealth to get favorable loans. For that perjury, Weisselberg pleaded guilty to different state charges and is now serving another five months at Rikers Island jail. Even if Trump is reelected, a president cannot use his pardon power to absolve state charges. https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/14/politics/cohen-trump-prison-what-matters/index.html
Pretty sure that graph is showing where employees that made individual contributions work… which isn’t supporting the argument he’s trying to make.
Are you seriously trusting Xweet's reliability? I was curious about what you were trying to explain. That poster, as usual, doesn’t know what he’s talking about. "The 100 employers with the most employees who donated to each campaign" basically means, assuming the phrasing is accurate, which companies or organizations have the highest number of employees contributing to a particular political campaign. It’s a totally useless metric for measuring "elite and wealth." It’s actually more about workers and individual contributors, likely through a company PAC. Whatever the case, it’s definitely not what SG thinks it is. You’re spot on about first-time donors. I haven’t checked the stats, but I’m pretty sure Harris’s campaign has far more small donors than Trump’s. She probably matches him with large donors too. Her campaign is fueled by both big donors and a massive number of small individual contributions. In July alone, 94% of the $310 million raised came from donations of $200 or less. One last thing—if those on the right want big donors out of the system, vote Democrat. Republicans are the ones who enabled this, while Democrats opposed it. But since that’s the game, don’t complain when Dems play it too—there’s an election to win, after all. Harris raises $310 million in July as campaign shakeup energizes donors | Reuters Two-thirds of the July donations came from first-time donors and 94% of the donations were $200 or less, the campaign said.
Those bubbles represent WORKERS. If the vast majority of WORKERS are donating to Dems, where is Republican money coming from?
Rich right wing billionaires can't have their free speech curtailed and should be allowed to fund whatever candidate they want (on the right!) without limitation. Individual democratic donors need to be limited! It's not fair! Look where they work!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
