BREAKING NEWS: 24 Hours & Counting; Trump 56% Odds of Winning, Harris only 44%

army judge

army judge

Super Moderator
Twenty-four hours before the U.S. presidential election, the betting is closer at this stage than before any election on the winning odds between Republican candidate, former President Donald Trump, and Democrat candidate Vice President Kamala Harris.

The latest Oddschecker data gives Trump a 56% probability of victory and Harris a 44% probability. This is based on 8/11 (-138) betting odds for Trump and 5/4 (+125) odds for Harris (see chart).

Betting-Odds-Chart-US-Election.jpg


"Trump's edge is slightly down from the 60% of Oddschecker bets backing him between October 2 and October 29. Harris had a 47% odds of winning during those dates.

"As we head into the final hours before election day, the betting markets are showing some decisive shifts, especially in the swing states," says Leon Blackman, a spokesman for Oddschecker of the UK, which compiles betting odds from 80 sources.

Trump's lead in the overall odds reflects a trend we've seen steadily build throughout October, but recent betting sentiment has shown a late surge for Harris, particularly in states like Michigan and Pennsylvania," Blackman adds.

In the swing states, Republicans are picking up betting support in Arizona and Nevada. North Carolina and Pennsylvania remain stable, with Republicans maintaining a slight edge.

Michigan and Wisconsin are the only two states where Democrats are betting favorites. In Georgia, Republicans' probability of winning has decreased slightly (see chart).


Betting-Odds-Chart-Swing-States-(002).jpg


The Betfair Exchange has had more than $220 million traded on the U.S. election winner market, making it the second-most wagered political event in history behind the 2020 U.S. election, when a staggering $2.6 billion was bet on the election.
 
Odds betting on a UK gambling site aren't a very reliable indicator of which candidate will win, especially as a number of those betting on that site are not U.S. citizens. And as the bets are apparently not broken down by state it tells us nothing about who may win the electoral votes. In several recent elections the candidate who won the popular still lost the electoral college vote, reflecting a flaw in our system that I have long advocated needs to be changed to electing the president by popular vote, just as we do with elections for every other office in the U.S.
 
Tax Counsel said:
In several recent elections the candidate who won the popular still lost the electoral college vote, reflecting a flaw in our system that I have long advocated needs to be changed to electing the president by popular vote,
Click to expand...
If that were to happen, you would need a change in the Constitution. I don't think that is possible in my lifetime. But you never know and that idea of election by the popular vote is the Democratic strategy by flooding the cities in swing states with immigrants and giving them free everything. If that were to happen, we won't need to vote because the left would always win. That's the end of the Democratic Republic of the United States.

o_O Interesting position for a proclaimed Republican to take.
 
welkin said:
If that were to happen, you would need a change in the Constitution. I don't think that is possible in my lifetime. But you never know and that idea of election by the popular vote is the Democratic strategy by flooding the cities in swing states with immigrants and giving them free everything. If that were to happen, we won't need to vote because the left would always win. That's the end of the Democratic Republic of the United States.

o_O Interesting position for a proclaimed Republican to take.
Click to expand...

Dems have real issues with the constitution, as a matter of fact they wish they could burn it up. It is the only thing saving the USA from turning into a California chit show of epic proportions.
 
welkin said:
If that were to happen, you would need a change in the Constitution.
Click to expand...
Yes, it would. I think it should be done, but make no bets on when, if ever, that change will be made.
welkin said:
o_O Interesting position for a proclaimed Republican to take.
Click to expand...

Not at all odd for a Republican who wants FAIR elections where the Supreme Court's standard for every other election is the ideal of everyone's vote counting the same. The only reason the Supreme has not imposed that standard for presidential elections is that the process for those elections is set in the Constitution and the Supreme Court cannot change it. It is the only election in the U.S. in which the principle that every vote counts the same is violated. It's unfair to give to smaller states a bigger say in the laws of our country than the bigger states. The reason the Constitution was set up that way in the first place was because the Senate was made of member appointed by the states and thus the electoral college system allowed the states to have a say in the election too. In short, our founders didn't truly trust the public to make the right choices and built-in a hedge in which the wealthier members of the country, who tended to be the ones the states selected for Congress, would have more say than the ordinary American. Our founders were certainly not perfect in crafting the new government they were creating (which they acknowledge in the Preamble). But that already weak justifiication disappeared once the nation scrapped the state legislature model of the Senate and made senators elected by popular of eligible voters in each state, just as the House is elected.

In short I'm in favor of fair rules, not stacking the rules to favor one party over the other (which is the sort of thing dictators do to preserve their power, just look at Russia for a prime example). If you have dictatorial mindset and want election rules that favor your party rather than rules that are fair for all citizens then I can see why you'd support the electoral college. The justification for the electoral ended long ago. The principle that each person has an equal vote can easily be achieved with our current technology and there is no principled reason any more for keeping it now that the Senate is elected by popular vote just as the House is. If you want to keep the electoral college merely because at present it favors Republicans then you aren't interested in fairness but rather in amassing as much power for your party as possible. I consider that an un-American view and the way of dictators rather than being supportative of democracy.
 
Oh call a whambulance TC,

The constitution provides an electoral college so that the inner cities which are corrupt and usually always vote for a certain party can not dictate to the rest of the country who we should have as President. It levels the playing field, if you will. I don't want one party supremacy which will be the result if what you said was implemented.

Which could be the result anyway, since democrats via their open borders have been app flying in illegal immigrants to swing states and giving them all the welfare they need in order to vote BLUE.

No one should feel sorry for Harris or Walz, they have the money, the corrupt machine, and the new world order wanting them to be in power. It will take a miracle for Trump to return to the White House and if one is granted --- maybe he can get these people out of our country before it really does turn into a 3rd world disaster area. I went to Mexico in 1990 and homelessness in Mexico City and Guadalajara was rampant. Well through HellBilly Clinton and NAFTA now the homelessness is in California, Michigan, and other major cities while Mexico and their drug cartels live high on the hog.
 
Redemptionman said:
Oh call a whambulance TC,

The constitution provides an electoral college so that the inner cities which are corrupt and usually always vote for a certain party can not dictate to the rest of the country who we should have as President.
Click to expand...
You can't REALLY think that inner-city corruption was a consideration of the Founding Fathers...
I fear that you might :(
 
Redemptionman said:
The constitution provides an electoral college so that the inner cities which are corrupt and usually always vote for a certain party can not dictate to the rest of the country who we should have as President. It levels the playing field, if you will. I don't want one party supremacy which will be the result if what you said was implemented.
Click to expand...
Lol, you clearly never really studied the Constitution and the debates surrounding the negotiations. There was never any mention of "corruption" in big cities (in part because there were very few of those in 1789) in the constitutional debates. Corruption was not as rampant at the time as it became as the industrial revolution remade society. You'll find no mention of corruption in the Federalist Papers, let alone calling out corruption just in big cities. The discussions regarding the make up of the federal government and how the people holding the top offices would be chosen basically revolved around two things: First, the founding fathers, all wealthy white men, did not competely trust the common citizen (though they did not put it so boldly as that) and thus, though devoted to democracy in principle, they put in several anti-democratic provisions to block a true democratic federal government. Second, the small states were were wary of the power of big states to dominate the smaller ones and settled on a compromise of a Senate represented by the state legislatures to act as a counterweight the citizen elected House.

One of those anti-democratic provisions was eliminated over a century ago when the Senate was changed to election by popular vote rather than selection by the state legislature. That was a step in the right direction of taking the thumb of the rich of off the scale of government representation.

Now that the Senate no longer represents the states, there is no logic to the argument to how the votes are done in the electoral college or even in having an electoral college at all. The president should be chosen by popular vote just like every other office in the land. There is nothing unique in the presidency that it should be excluded from the one person, one vote rule that is the lichpin of democracy. Supporting the electoral college is supporting an undemocratic system. So if you claim to be in favor of democratic principles rather than tyranny you ought to welcome popular votes for the election for president.
Redemptionman said:
No one should feel sorry for Harris or Walz, they have the money, the corrupt machine, and the new world order wanting them to be in power. It will take a miracle for Trump to return to the White House and if one is granted
Click to expand...

As I write this, Trump is predicted to win both the popular vote and electoral college vote. If those predictions prove true then Trump didn't need the crutch of the electoral college bias towards small states to win. He'd win on popular vote. And that is how it should work, the winner should be the one who gets the most popular votes, not an electoral college count that gives some votes more weight than others.

Our system is supposed to be that each vote counts the same. Do you believe in that principle as a foundational part of our system or do you believe in that only when you preferred candidate wins? If what you want is a system stacked to benefit you to the detriment others then you don't really adhere to the idea of democracy and freedom. You'd be happy with a dictator as long as that dictator favored you. So which is it? Do you believe that the each vote should count the same for president or not? That's what it comes down to. How strong is your commitment to the principle of democracy?

I've yet to hear a convincing defense of the archaic electoral college system in our modern age. You've so far not advanced one. If Harris were to win the electoral vote for president and Trump win the popular vote then in my view Trump should be the winner because he was elected by popular vote in which everyone's vote counts the same. I'd feel the same way if the results if the results were reversed. I think the electoral college system is anti-democratic and flies against the principles our system is supposed to be founded upon.

Our founders acknowledged they did not a create a "perfect union" and not all their choices were good ones. Retaining slavery and denying black persons the right to vote being the most glaring example of their failure to fully embrace democratic principles. Over time we've corrected various shortcomings of the Constitution and it's time we corrected this one too.

By the way, I've lived in a variety of places over the course of my life, from big cities to small towns and areas in between. I can tell you from first hand experience that big cities don't have a monopoly on corruption. Small counties and town engage in corruption, too. Because they are small those instances of corruption don't make national news, but they are no less harmful to the people living with that corruption than those living in corrupt big cities.
 
Well, well, well; lookey here; former president Trump has once more accomplished what the donkeys said was impossible.

He not only cracked the Vaunted blue wall, he demolished it!!!

Furthermore, President-elect Donald J. Trump becomes the second person to ascend to our presidency after being defeated for a second term. By the way, the only other person to accomplish a second ascent to our presidency after suffering a defeat pursuing a second term was Grover Cleveland.

Two years ago, former President Donald Trump took to his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida, and announced his third presidential bid.

"America's comeback starts right now," he said, calling his time out of office a "pause."

Trump, who was the 45th President of the United States from 2017 to 2021, is now the Republican nominee for the 47th presidency.

He is not the first to try and make his way back into the Oval Office. Many have attempted and failed before him, including Theodore Roosevelt in 1912, Ulysses S. Grant in 1880, Millard Fillmore in 1856 and Martin Van Buren in 1844 and 1848.

In all of American history, only one president — Stephen Grover Cleveland — succeeded in winning nonconsecutive terms.

Trump prevailed in his November 5th election attempt, becoming the second president to leave the White House and return four years later.

May The Good Lord Bless our nation, our elected leaders, our citizenry, her families, and our allies.

I gave 35 years of my life to serving our nation, as I proudly wore her army uniform and fought beside her allies.

Our founders had their flaws, as do all human beings. However, on days and nights like this, I can only thank them for giving us this great nation!

Today I once again witnessed an election. Soon, we'll all witness another peaceful and lawful transition of power.

Thanks to my beloved mother for teaching me the subtleties of our presidential election process. During my middle and high school days, spending an evening watching election returns roll in, mother helped me hone my knowledge of our body politic.

www.nbcwashington.com

Has a president ever won nonconsecutive terms before?

In all of American history, only one president — Grover Cleveland — has succeeded in winning nonconsecutive terms. If Trump wins November's election, he will become the second president to leave the White House and return four years later.
www.nbcwashington.com www.nbcwashington.com
 
Last edited:
Redemptionman said:
No one should feel sorry for Harris or Walz, they have the money, the corrupt machine, and the new world order wanting them to be in power. It will take a miracle for Trump to return to the White House and if one is granted --- maybe he can get these people out of our country before it really does turn into a 3rd world disaster area.
Click to expand...

No need to feel sorry for anything, my friend.

Its days like this that make me smile. We are fortunate to be citizens of this great nation.

Human beings often get down, feel sad, defeated, but that's the time to smile. Why? Hope, my friend, hope. Without hope, there's only despair. Never allow anything to take your joy, your hope, your dreams. Keep the faith, soldier on, do your duty, never quit.

Things looked bleak, and God, once more restored my hope, renewed my faith, for its all His Will.
 
adjusterjack said:
Fought her allies?

I thought our allies were on our side. LOL.
Click to expand...
army judge said:
I gave 35 years of my life to serving our nation, as I proudly wore her army uniform and fought beside her allies.

There you go, corrected.

Yesterday and today have been two wonderful days.

They were made even better, because my wife was discharged from rehab hospital yesterday morning after breaking her left femur, surgery, followed by rehab.

So far, so good.

She's made amazing progress.
 
stealthy1 said:
Well, congrats to some, commiseration to others.

I'm glad your wife is recovering, @army judge
Click to expand...
Thank you for your kind words, @stealthy1
I'll pass them along to my wonderful wife, she's fighting the good fight. But, she has some outstanding physicians and surgeons, along with a great team of OT and PT practitioners helping her get back to full health.

I tried to be gentle with it, but struggle suppressing my exuberance because Trump isn't the beast others make him out to be.

Sometime over the next six to nine months, our nation is going to return to financial fitness, inflation will be gone, jobs will be plentiful, and we'll have left no one behind.

Biden and Harris broke it, but Trump and his team will repair, rehabilitate it, improve it, and get our country humming like the beautiful machine it can be.

It'll be a heavy lift, but America is a great nation, populated by diverse, and good people.
 
We shall see. But in the words of Robert Frost - life goes on.

In other news, I tripped over a cat last night, and took a faceplant in the garage. I look like I went a few rounds... Oh well!
 
Redemptionman said:
Trump being victorious rights the world and he can finish out his term in relative piece.

Now what to do about a sentencing hearing next month?
Click to expand...

Sentencing will never happen.
Sentencing for Trump, that is.
The vindictive, lying, tiny runt, AKA "sleepy Joe" and his henchlings might soon find the shoes on their feet!!!
The siege has been broken, by the new, improved, SUPERSIZED Trump version5.0!!!!


1730903637330.png




1730903590751.png
 
stealthy1 said:
In other news, I tripped over a cat last night, and took a faceplant in the garage. I look like I went a few rounds... Oh well!
Click to expand...

Goodness, gracious, I do wish your health to be restored fully and soon!

My wife suffered similarly as we were leaving the house 10 days ago to take her to dialysis.

She stumbled, ending in a faceplant on our brick patio, and brother did she look as if she went three rounds with Mike Tyson during his early, winning, fighting days.

She also ending up breaking her femur from the kneecap to her upper thigh. The surgery involved a titanium rod being inserted along the femur, and various hardware implanted into the bone.

She lost some teeth, which a couple dental/maxi facial surgeons rebuilt both arches with implants.

It has been a challenge for her, that's for sure.

And you somehow suffered a very similar fate.

That's eerie, and scary.

As my drill Sargeant during basic would often yell, "Who'll be my monkey in the barrel today?"

Having been that monkey on a couple occasion, I've endeavored to avoid the honor often!!!
 

Share this page

Get a free case review from a lawyer
Back
Top