President Trump 2.0

You could be generous and say he probably isn’t miming a hand job, but it’s pretty clear he’s jokingly fellating the thing afterwards. Especially in the context of the whole incident, in which he raged for 4-5 minutes because the mic stand was broken and he had to hold the mic in his tiny hands.

I suspect he jiggled the mic stand to emphasise its brokenness and it occurred to him at that point that he could make a sex joke out of it, hence the head-bobbing that followed.

[Dude111]

Alot of ppl think all hell is gonna break loose after the election...... (Im reading)

I think all of us here are pretty sane and stable <<>>I think we know whos gonna win!!

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by Dude111

Alot of ppl think all hell is gonna break loose after the election...... (Im reading)

I think all of us here are pretty sane and stable <<>>I think we know whos gonna win!!

Yes hopefully Kamala

Twice this morning I’ve had threaded tweets in my ‘for you’ feed fail to load. They work if I first go to the user’s profile page and find the thread there.

On both occasions they are tweet threads that are discussing Kamala Harris in a positive light.

Of course Elon Musk would definitely not stoop to suppressing discussion of politics he doesn’t like, would he. After all, ‘X’ is the world’s town square for open debate …

[Hom3r]

I see shops are boarding up in anticipation of Trump losing and his knuckle dragging voters going on the rampage.

Some of his comments at his Pennsylvania rally last night were really downbeat* … he knows the Selzer poll in Iowa is massive red flag for how he’s likely doing across the country and the campaign will also have their own internal polls, unadulterated by the leading questions, skewed samples or betting syndicates that have made the national polls so useless. They really don’t expect to win this thing and are already pushing the ‘stolen election’ narrative loud and clear. Don’t expect them to wait until January to kick off the rioting this time.

* Contrast with Kamala Harris who was happy to go on SNL at the weekend and have Maya Rudolph send her up to her face. Relaxed, happy. As I’ve been saying, the candidates’ demeanour and campaign tactics give us clues as to what their internal polls are telling them and what they *believe* the outcome will be. Trump believes he’s going to lose bigly. Harris believes she’s going to win.

Really nobody knows now. There are so many narratives you can spin either way about who's going to win. The polling is 50/50 and there is a strong suspicion all the pollsters are 'herding', i.e putting their thumbs on the scale to match each other so they're not out on a limb, which means we could see a surprise on the election night where one candidate was doing quite well but we just didn't have the polls to show us that.

You can easily see Trump or Harris winning quite easily and it not being even close. It's a recipe for disaster actually because the polls have primed people to expect a razor thin election so if one of them does win easily then the conspiracies will be out.

[Halcyon]

We have to hope this man does not get back into power.


Remember this is the guy who suggested that injecting bleach into our body would get rid of Covid!

[peanut]

Not a lot say really. Americans.... Lovely people, friendly as hell, but weird AF. A continent of cult like backwards nutjobs. Those 2, the best a country that size can offer... Again, not a lot to say really.

[1andrew1]

A historian who has successfully predicted nine out of the last 10 elections in the US believes Kamala Harris will win the keys to the White House.

Polls have been suggesting it will be a neck-and-neck race between Republican nominee Donald Trump and his Democratic opponent.

But Professor Allan Lichtman's system, called "The Keys to the White House", involves disregarding the polls entirely.

Instead, 13 metrics on a checklist are used to try and figure out who the successful candidate will be.

"Why am I sure that Harris is going to win? Because it's only close on the polls, and my system ignores the polls," Professor Lichtman told CNN.

The professor, who correctly predicted Mr Trump's win against Hillary Clinton in 2016, described polls as "snapshots" and said: "People don't respond to pollsters, they lie, they change their minds, and they have to guess who the likely voters are."

His system, which he developed in the early 1980s with the Russian geophysicist Vladimir Keilis-Borok, analyses the political landscape through the lens of 13 true-false statements focused on the incumbent president's party.

If six or more of the statements are false, then the challenger — in this case, Mr Trump — is predicted to win.

As detailed below, his system currently concludes that eight of the 13 keys are in Ms Harris's favour - while three favour her Republican rival.

https://news.sky.com/story/us-electi...-live-13209921

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Chris

Some of his comments at his Pennsylvania rally last night were really downbeat* … he knows the Selzer poll in Iowa is massive red flag for how he’s likely doing across the country and the campaign will also have their own internal polls, unadulterated by the leading questions, skewed samples or betting syndicates that have made the national polls so useless. They really don’t expect to win this thing and are already pushing the ‘stolen election’ narrative loud and clear. Don’t expect them to wait until January to kick off the rioting this time.

* Contrast with Kamala Harris who was happy to go on SNL at the weekend and have Maya Rudolph send her up to her face. Relaxed, happy. As I’ve been saying, the candidates’ demeanour and campaign tactics give us clues as to what their internal polls are telling them and what they *believe* the outcome will be. Trump believes he’s going to lose bigly. Harris believes she’s going to win.

It’s not going to be a ‘big win’, it is extremely tight, even in those swing States. I think that Harris may have the edge.

Originally Posted by Damien

Really nobody knows now. There are so many narratives you can spin either way about who's going to win. The polling is 50/50 and there is a strong suspicion all the pollsters are 'herding', i.e putting their thumbs on the scale to match each other so they're not out on a limb, which means we could see a surprise on the election night where one candidate was doing quite well but we just didn't have the polls to show us that.

You can easily see Trump or Harris winning quite easily and it not being even close. It's a recipe for disaster actually because the polls have primed people to expect a razor thin election so if one of them does win easily then the conspiracies will be out.

I actually can’t see Trump winning easily. He has his fired-up MAGA base who will turn up and clap and hoot like performing seals regardless of what he says or does, but I can’t see there being enough dumb people in America to give him a complete and utter free pass to be the rapey mysoginist con man he freely shows himself to be at every opportunity.

And, I can’t stress this enough, he really, really, really neither looks nor sounds like he thinks he’s winning, whereas Laughin’ Kamala so clearly thinks she is.

*If* Trump wins, it will be on a knife edge (i.e. the polls were near-enough correct). But as you’ve observed, there is ample evidence of pollsters correcting so as to avoid being the outlier, making it look as if it could go either way on a knife edge while in fact there’s ample evidence that Harris is romping away with it.

The Salzer poll in Iowa has a cast iron reputation and she has just returned a +3 for Harris. At this stage in 2016 she gave Trump +7 against Clinton; trump took the state with an 9.4 %age point margin. In 2020, she gave Trump a +7-point poll lead over Biden; Trump’s winning margin was 8.2%age points. Further back, her poll gave Obama a +5 point lead in 2012; he won Iowa with a 5.6 percentage-point lead.

Ann Selzer has now given Harris a +3 point lead over Trump. Even allowing for the margin of error (3.4 points) for Harris to come close in Iowa is enough of a hint at how well she is likely to be doing everywhere she needs to do well in order to win convincingly.

The likely reason for Harris doing so well - and, to be charitable to the main nationwide pollsters who I believe are getting it catastrophically wrong - is that the overturning of Roe v Wade, which Trump enthusiastically owns as his sop to the evangelical right, has triggered a lot of women who don’t want state legislatures telling them what they can and can’t do with their bodies. An unusually high female turnout is bad news for Trump and pollsters whose models don’t adequately allow for it.

https://www.newsweek.com/who-ann-sel...harris-1979294

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Chris

Twice this morning I’ve had threaded tweets in my ‘for you’ feed fail to load. They work if I first go to the user’s profile page and find the thread there.

On both occasions they are tweet threads that are discussing Kamala Harris in a positive light.

Of course Elon Musk would definitely not stoop to suppressing discussion of politics he doesn’t like, would he. After all, ‘X’ is the world’s town square for open debate …

We and them have to learn from this and previous elections and referendums and stop the rich and powerful manipulating them for their own ends, I thought it sucked massively when Russia's oligarchs ruled the roost only for it to turn out they were the puppets, not the master and this is worse imo. The betting market is pointing to Donny simply because of a few massive bets being placed in his favour and I'm pretty sure their will be examples on the other side too and imho it's got to stop, this manipulation and misinformation harms democracy and legitimacy to levels where an alternative form of government may seem preferable to many.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

It’s not going to be a ‘big win’, it is extremely tight, even in those swing States. I think that Harris may have the edge.

The polls are imperfect so whilst Harris (happy) and Trump (unhappy) have their own polls, they're not sharing their polling with us.

I suspect Trump supporters could be in for an upset and I hope they don't resort to violence.

As Chris points out, Trump's moves on abortion don't go down well with a lot of female voters.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

We and them have to learn from this and previous elections and referendums and stop the rich and powerful manipulating them for their own ends, I thought it sucked massively when Russia's oligarchs ruled the roost only for it to turn out they were the puppets, not the master and this is worse imo. The betting market is pointing to Donny simply because of a few massive bets being placed in his favour and I'm pretty sure their will be examples on the other side too and imho it's got to stop, this manipulation and misinformation harms democracy and legitimacy to levels where an alternative form of government may seem preferable to many.

This^

The Polybet nonsense Elmo keeps pushing has reached ludicrous heights now, giving Trump something like 65%. It is now widely known that 4 accounts belonging to one person (code name ‘French Elephant’) have put more than $44million worth of micro-bets on Trump. Betting markets might once have been a good guide to political outcomes but once a few wealthy, motivated people caught onto it they became useless as a guide to anything.