2024

[DMac]

The great debate should be held at the Outhouse Cafe where the menu offers diarrhea soup or a schidt sandwich.
Mind boggling to me that those are our choices.
Oh Lordy, Lordy.

[MDlaxfan76]

WIll this be an issue in the outcome of the 2024 election, and should it concern us all? Seems to tie in to the question elsewhere on these boards about how many illegal/undocumented have arrived and where they are, currently.

https://nypost.com/2024/06/14/us-news/h ... o-stop-it/

Depends on whether or not the Republican loses, and you know it.

Reality doesn't matter anymore. Keep trying to tell you and the other R's here.....you guys let these idiots into your tent, and you will NEVER get them out.

And if Trump loses? The nutjobs will get more and more extreme....and the new Trumps in America at all levels of government will take advantage of their stupidity.

You STILL think that Trumpism will go away. I don't get what needs to happen for you to wake up.

Have you noticed your team is back taking lessons from Hungarian fascists? Learning how to dismantle the Civil Service and Federal workers that have kept our nation running since, well, you know....?

You and your fellow Republican voters are allowing these shenanigans because you think that you're gonna get "conservative outcomes" from Trump. It has never once occurred to you that you're going to get a whole mess of outcomes that you don't like. Reminder: Trump ain't a conservative. And he's learned from the last go around that he didn't have enough toadies in place to do his bidding, and do it quickly.

May not be the end of the world, sure.....but I can easily see him putting the nail into the working class and poor, and a whooooole mess of other negative long term consequence when it comes to the boring-as-hell day to day operations of our great Nation.

Enough with the partisan stuff. Who cares which side wins or loses….the question is about voting concerns and validity of ballot accounting.

I'm not handing you partisan stuff, my man. I'm telling you what's coming, and giving you an honest answer.

Feel free to ignore, but we both know what's coming from your team if Trump loses. And I'm telling you that RepublicanTeamTinFoil has rendered real, actual, honest election security 100% irrelevant.

And I'm telling you this because this game is 1,000 times more dangerous than real problems with election security. The adults have been, and will continue to work on election security in each voting district in America. Same as it ever was. Don't believe me? Go visit yours, and ask questions.

https://www.usnews.com/news/national-ne ... oter-fraud

Getting more people to vote should be the priority, but it isn’t.

The number of people becoming increasingly dissalusioned with BOTH political parties is a big reason why people are not coming out to vote. IMO they have enough of the same old same old same old. An infusion of fresh blood is desperately needed. Joe and trump don't exactly fit that bill. Hell, one of them isn't a politician by trade.

Haven't both the last two Presidential elections broken records for votes cast?
2016 was close to 2008 and 2012 numbers, but 2020 was a big increase in total turnout.
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statist ... tions/2020

Maybe you mean "some" "people are not coming out to vote"? Always the case that there are people disillusioned by politics.

I quite agree re fresh blood. One might argue that Obama was the reason for a sizable turnout increase in 2008 over 2004.
But "fresh blood" just ain't happening in 2024.

More important to actual democracy, though, is that, except for the very narrow loss of popular vote by Bush in 2000, we have pretty nearly always have had the popular vote winner be the elected President. Indeed, we looked at the margin of the win to see what kind of "mandate" the voters were indicating.

That changed in 2016 by an important margin the other way, with Trump winning over Clinton despite solidly losing the popular vote.

The differential needed to be even larger in 2020 for Biden to prevail, as Trump actually expanded his own vote count.
Meaning that a heck of a lot more people came out to vote for both, just many more for Biden.
Mandate level vote differential.

But if Trump wins in 2024, it very likely will be again despite a loss of the popular vote.
That'll mean that, like 2016, a minority of Americans will have elected the President.
And the hard-core of that minority is VERY aware that their power is not gained by nationwide popular support.
They don't care.

So, we now have one of the parties, which is now owned by that hard-core minority lock stock and barrel, which no longer fairly focuses on seeking political power through the nationwide popularity of their policies. And they have abandoned the fundamental premise of fair dispute of facts and logic, and have instead adopted rhetoric and disinformation, and if necessary violence, as their tools of 'persuasion'. They are in full-on attack mode of all institutions and norms which undergird democracy, most importantly the rule of law not rulers, but also all forms of earned expertise.

Which gets us back to the genesis of the Electoral College process and why it created so much more power for lesser populated (by whites) states, particularly at the time slave-holding states.

There is no doubt to my mind that the intentions of this minority are as despicable as those who insisted on the continuation of slavery and the return of white supremacy power through Jim Crow, both under the rubric of "states rights".

Your comment in bold piqued my interest. Along with Trump in 2016 and GWB only two other countrywide popular pluralities lost: Tilden to Hayes in 1876 and Cleveland to Harrison in 1888. I was surprised that Hayes' "win" was with 3% less of the popular vote than Tilden while Trump took 2.09% less than Hillary. (Source - United States Election Project.)

Also interesting to note from that same source was the 2020 voter turnout was the highest since 1900 when McKinley beat Bryan. Lots of folk didn't want Trump. Hopefully that's still the case. ABT.

Thanks, I recalled but couldn't remember which, that it had happened a couple of times. Just not in the last 100 + years.

[Seacoaster(1)]

The disinformation ecosystem and the 2024 election:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/25/opin ... itter.html

"In 2020, the Stanford Internet Observatory, where I was until recently the research director, helped lead a project that studied election rumors and disinformation. As part of that work, we frequently encountered conspiratorial thinking from Americans who had been told the 2020 presidential election was going to be stolen.

The way theories of “the steal” went viral was eerily routine. First, an image or video, such as a photo of a suitcase near a polling place, was posted as evidence of wrongdoing. The poster would tweet the purported evidence, tagging partisan influencers or media accounts with large followings. Those accounts would promote the rumor, often claiming, “Big if true!” Others would join and the algorithms would push it out to potentially millions more. Partisan media would follow.

If the rumor was found to be false — and it usually was — corrections were rarely made and even then, little noticed. The belief that “the steal” was real led directly to the events of Jan. 6, 2021.

Within a couple of years, the same online rumor mill turned its attention to us — the very researchers who documented it. This spells trouble for the 2024 election.

For us, it started with claims that our work was a plot to censor the right. The first came from a blog related to the Foundation for Freedom Online, the project of a man who said he “ran cyber” at the State Department. This person, an alt-right YouTube personality who’d gone by the handle Frame Game, had been employed by the State Department for just a couple of months.

Using his brief affiliation as a marker of authority, he wrote blog posts styled as research reports contending that our project, the Election Integrity Partnership, had pushed social media networks to censor 22 million tweets. He had no firsthand evidence of any censorship, however: his number was based on a simple tally of viral election rumors that we’d counted and published in a report after the election was over. Right-wing media outlets and influencers nonetheless called it evidence of a plot to steal the election, and their followers followed suit.

Here’s what we actually did: Teams of student analysts identified social media posts that were potentially misleading the public about voting procedures, or which tried to delegitimize the outcome of an election. Sometimes a nonprofit clearinghouse that included state and local election officials shared with us posts that concerned them. In some cases, if a post we examined appeared to be going viral, and appeared to violate a social media platform’s election policies, we let the companies know. Most of the time, the platforms took no action; when they did act, it was primarily to label the post as disputed, or to attach a fact check.

The real impact of the rumors about us came offline. After the House flipped to Republican control in 2022, the investigations began. The “22 million tweets” claim was entered into the congressional record by witnesses during a March 2023 hearing of a House Judiciary subcommittee. Two Republican members of the subcommittee, Jim Jordan and Dan Bishop, sent letters demanding our correspondence with the executive branch and with technology companies as part of an investigation into our role in a Biden “censorship regime.” Subpoenas soon followed, and the investigations eventually expanded to requesting that our staff submit to closed-door video-recorded testimonies. That included students who worked on the project.

It was obvious to us what would happen next: The documents we turned over would be leaked and sentences cherry-picked to fit a pre-existing narrative. This supposed evidence would be fodder for hyperpartisan influencers, and the process would begin again. Indeed, this is precisely what happened, albeit with a wrinkle. Material the subcommittee obtained under subpoena or in closed-door hearings ended up in the hands of a right-wing group that had sued us, which was led by Mr. Jordan’s longtime ideological ally Stephen Miller. We do not know how.

This brings us to the present, when another election looms. The 2024 rerun is already being viciously fought. Since 2020, the technological landscape has shifted. There are new social media platforms in the mix, such as Bluesky, Threads and Truth Social. Election integrity policies and enforcement priorities are in flux at some of the biggest platforms. What used to be Twitter is under new ownership and most of the team that focused on trust and safety was let go.

Fake audio generated by artificial intelligence has already been deployed in a European election, and A.I.-powered chatbots are posting on social-media platforms. Overseas players continue to run influence operations to interfere in American politics; in recent weeks, OpenAI has confirmed that Russia, China and others have begun to use generative text tools to improve the quality and quantity of their efforts.

Offline, trust in institutions, government, media and fellow citizens is at or near record lows and polarization continues to increase. Election officials are concerned about the safety of poll workers and election administrators — perhaps the most terrible illustration of the cost of lies on our politics.

As we enter the final stretch of the 2024 campaign, it will not be other countries that are likely to have the greatest impact. Rather, it will once again be the domestic rumor mill. The networks spreading misleading notions remain stronger than ever, while the networks of researchers and observers who worked to counter them are being dismantled.

Universities and institutions have struggled to understand and adapt to lies about their work, often remaining silent and allowing false claims to ossify. Lies about academic projects are now matters of established fact within bespoke partisan realities.

Costs, both financial and psychological, have mounted. Stanford is refocusing the work of the Observatory and has ended the Election Integrity Partnership’s rapid-response election observation work. Employees including me did not have their contracts renewed.

This is disappointing, though not entirely surprising. The investigations have led to threats and sustained harassment for researchers who find themselves the focus of congressional attention. Misleading media claims have put students in the position of facing retribution for an academic research project. Even technology companies no longer appear to be acting together to disrupt election influence operations by foreign countries on their platforms.

Republican members of the House Judiciary subcommittee reacted to the Stanford news by saying their “robust oversight” over the center had resulted in a “big win” for free speech. This is an alarming statement for government officials to make about a private research institution with First Amendment rights.

The work of studying election delegitimization and supporting election officials is more important than ever. It is crucial that we not only stand resolute but speak out forcefully against intimidation tactics intended to silence us and discredit academic research. We cannot allow fear to undermine our commitment to safeguarding the democratic process."

[CU88a]

The disinformation ecosystem and the 2024 election:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/25/opin ... itter.html

"In 2020, the Stanford Internet Observatory, where I was until recently the research director, helped lead a project that studied election rumors and disinformation. As part of that work, we frequently encountered conspiratorial thinking from Americans who had been told the 2020 presidential election was going to be stolen.

The way theories of “the steal” went viral was eerily routine. First, an image or video, such as a photo of a suitcase near a polling place, was posted as evidence of wrongdoing. The poster would tweet the purported evidence, tagging partisan influencers or media accounts with large followings. Those accounts would promote the rumor, often claiming, “Big if true!” Others would join and the algorithms would push it out to potentially millions more. Partisan media would follow.

If the rumor was found to be false — and it usually was — corrections were rarely made and even then, little noticed. The belief that “the steal” was real led directly to the events of Jan. 6, 2021.

Within a couple of years, the same online rumor mill turned its attention to us — the very researchers who documented it. This spells trouble for the 2024 election.

For us, it started with claims that our work was a plot to censor the right. The first came from a blog related to the Foundation for Freedom Online, the project of a man who said he “ran cyber” at the State Department. This person, an alt-right YouTube personality who’d gone by the handle Frame Game, had been employed by the State Department for just a couple of months.

Using his brief affiliation as a marker of authority, he wrote blog posts styled as research reports contending that our project, the Election Integrity Partnership, had pushed social media networks to censor 22 million tweets. He had no firsthand evidence of any censorship, however: his number was based on a simple tally of viral election rumors that we’d counted and published in a report after the election was over. Right-wing media outlets and influencers nonetheless called it evidence of a plot to steal the election, and their followers followed suit.

Here’s what we actually did: Teams of student analysts identified social media posts that were potentially misleading the public about voting procedures, or which tried to delegitimize the outcome of an election. Sometimes a nonprofit clearinghouse that included state and local election officials shared with us posts that concerned them. In some cases, if a post we examined appeared to be going viral, and appeared to violate a social media platform’s election policies, we let the companies know. Most of the time, the platforms took no action; when they did act, it was primarily to label the post as disputed, or to attach a fact check.

The real impact of the rumors about us came offline. After the House flipped to Republican control in 2022, the investigations began. The “22 million tweets” claim was entered into the congressional record by witnesses during a March 2023 hearing of a House Judiciary subcommittee. Two Republican members of the subcommittee, Jim Jordan and Dan Bishop, sent letters demanding our correspondence with the executive branch and with technology companies as part of an investigation into our role in a Biden “censorship regime.” Subpoenas soon followed, and the investigations eventually expanded to requesting that our staff submit to closed-door video-recorded testimonies. That included students who worked on the project.

It was obvious to us what would happen next: The documents we turned over would be leaked and sentences cherry-picked to fit a pre-existing narrative. This supposed evidence would be fodder for hyperpartisan influencers, and the process would begin again. Indeed, this is precisely what happened, albeit with a wrinkle. Material the subcommittee obtained under subpoena or in closed-door hearings ended up in the hands of a right-wing group that had sued us, which was led by Mr. Jordan’s longtime ideological ally Stephen Miller. We do not know how.

This brings us to the present, when another election looms. The 2024 rerun is already being viciously fought. Since 2020, the technological landscape has shifted. There are new social media platforms in the mix, such as Bluesky, Threads and Truth Social. Election integrity policies and enforcement priorities are in flux at some of the biggest platforms. What used to be Twitter is under new ownership and most of the team that focused on trust and safety was let go.

Fake audio generated by artificial intelligence has already been deployed in a European election, and A.I.-powered chatbots are posting on social-media platforms. Overseas players continue to run influence operations to interfere in American politics; in recent weeks, OpenAI has confirmed that Russia, China and others have begun to use generative text tools to improve the quality and quantity of their efforts.

Offline, trust in institutions, government, media and fellow citizens is at or near record lows and polarization continues to increase. Election officials are concerned about the safety of poll workers and election administrators — perhaps the most terrible illustration of the cost of lies on our politics.

As we enter the final stretch of the 2024 campaign, it will not be other countries that are likely to have the greatest impact. Rather, it will once again be the domestic rumor mill. The networks spreading misleading notions remain stronger than ever, while the networks of researchers and observers who worked to counter them are being dismantled.

Universities and institutions have struggled to understand and adapt to lies about their work, often remaining silent and allowing false claims to ossify. Lies about academic projects are now matters of established fact within bespoke partisan realities.

Costs, both financial and psychological, have mounted. Stanford is refocusing the work of the Observatory and has ended the Election Integrity Partnership’s rapid-response election observation work. Employees including me did not have their contracts renewed.

This is disappointing, though not entirely surprising. The investigations have led to threats and sustained harassment for researchers who find themselves the focus of congressional attention. Misleading media claims have put students in the position of facing retribution for an academic research project. Even technology companies no longer appear to be acting together to disrupt election influence operations by foreign countries on their platforms.

Republican members of the House Judiciary subcommittee reacted to the Stanford news by saying their “robust oversight” over the center had resulted in a “big win” for free speech. This is an alarming statement for government officials to make about a private research institution with First Amendment rights.

The work of studying election delegitimization and supporting election officials is more important than ever. It is crucial that we not only stand resolute but speak out forcefully against intimidation tactics intended to silence us and discredit academic research. We cannot allow fear to undermine our commitment to safeguarding the democratic process."

Sad and Crazy.

Thanks for sharing this article.

[OCanada]

“ Unless those deceased voters find a way to come back from the dead to vote. Alot of them managed to do so in Chicago when they voted for JFK. Never say never...”

Time stands still? 1960? More than 60 years ago. Why not go back to 1800? A lot has changed since 1960.

And the more things change the more they stay the same.

Except they do not. As a Greek philosopher once taught “ you cannot step into the same river twice”

[cradleandshoot]

“ Unless those deceased voters find a way to come back from the dead to vote. Alot of them managed to do so in Chicago when they voted for JFK. Never say never...”

Time stands still? 1960? More than 60 years ago. Why not go back to 1800? A lot has changed since 1960.

And the more things change the more they stay the same.

Except they do not. As a Greek philosopher once taught “ you cannot step into the same river twice”

That must have been a one legged Greek philosopher.

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C8sK5tRS ... BiNWFlZA==

[youthathletics]

Is this a new thing? https://ktla.com/news/california/gov-ga ... ebate/amp/

Gov. Gavin Newsom to be a campaign surrogate for President Biden ahead of debate

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

ANALYSIS
From antisemitism to Israel: The Jewish topics to watch for in the Biden-Trump debate
Trump will likely attack moderators and challenge Biden’s Gaza war policies, while both US candidates will face questions on antisemitism amid its spike on far left and far right

By RON KAMPEAS 6.27.24

WASHINGTON (JTA) — When Donald Trump and Joe Biden met for their first debate back in September 2020, the most explosive moment was notable to many Jewish viewers: Trump stopped short of condemning white supremacists and told the Proud Boys, a far-right group, to “stand back and stand by.”

This Thursday, as Trump and Biden meet in Atlanta during their second race, for what will be their third debate in total, viewers are likely to see more moments of Jewish significance — from disagreements over the Israel-Hamas war to a discussion of antisemitism. The Jewish identity of both of the moderators, CNN’s Dana Bash and Jake Tapper, might also be a factor.

In addition, expect segments on several issues that, polls show, are usually on Jews’ minds at the voting booth, such as abortion, climate change and the future of US democracy. Immigration, a topic of historical Jewish concern, will almost certainly be a focus.

Here’s a look at what to expect when the two candidates meet onstage on Thursday.

Trump will likely attack the moderators as well as Biden
Both CNN moderators, Bash and Tapper, are Jewish — and have woven their Jewish experiences into their news analysis. That’s been especially true for Tapper when he’s reported on the authoritarian tendencies of Trump and his defenders.

Most recently, Tapper has likened Trump’s rhetoric to Adolf Hitler’s. Tapper has said that the former president’s claims that migrants to the United States are “poisoning the blood” of Americans echo passages in Hitler’s “Mein Kampf.”

That has put Trump into fighting mode: His nickname for the CNN anchor is “Fake Tapper.” So expect him to lash out. Whether either anchor’s Judaism comes up alongside references to the Hitler comparisons, however, is more of an open question.

Trump will likely challenge Biden on his handling of the Israel-Hamas war
Historically, incumbents are at a disadvantage when it comes to crises: Their challengers, free of the burden of making hard decisions and facing their consequences, say they would handle whatever instability is unfolding better than the incumbent has.

That’s how Biden dinged Trump on COVID-19 when the two men faced each other in 2020. Now Trump has been paying Biden back in spades — especially when it comes to the Israel-Hamas war. He has said Hamas would not have even dared launch the war on his watch.

“An attack happened that should have never been allowed to happen, both from the Israeli standpoint and from the United States standpoint,” he told a right-leaning Israeli outlet, Israel Hayom, in March. “If they respected our president, which they don’t, they have no respect for him whatsoever. That’s why it wouldn’t have happened with me.”

The same month he told Fox News that Israel should be free to “finish it up and do it quickly.” He also has said he would be tougher on Iran than Biden has been, claiming he had the Islamic Republic on its heels when he left office.

The debate comes at a touchy time for Biden’s relations with Israel. The president is enduring tensions with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has accused the administration of slow-walking weapons deliveries — an accusation the White House has denied.

Biden should expect hard questions on that front. He may be asked about mounting casualties in Gaza and how he reconciles his longstanding support for Israel with the pressure he’s gotten from the left, younger Democrats, and Arab American and Black Democrats to scale back or end his support for Israel.

Trump, for his part, will probably refer back to his own presidency, when he had close relations with Netanyahu and pivoted longstanding US policy in a wide range of areas toward the preferences of Israel’s right wing. He moved the US embassy to Jerusalem, pulled out of the nuclear deal with Iran and recognized Israeli sovereignty in the Golan Heights. Israelis particularly celebrated the Abraham Accords, the normalization agreements between Israel and four Arab countries that the Trump administration brokered.

But Trump has been light on details when it comes to what he would do in the Middle East now — and that’s where the moderators and Biden may press him. How does Israel “finish it up” quickly without crumbling its Abraham Accords relationships? How does Trump intensify pressure on Iran as it threatens an all-out war with Israel? How do the Palestinians factor into hopes for expanding the Abraham Accords?

Trump is also not without vulnerabilities when it comes to Israel. When the war started, Biden was outspoken in his support of Israel and became the first president to visit the country in wartime. Trump, meanwhile, chastised Israel for being unprepared, called Hezbollah “very smart” and attacked Netanyahu. The two men broke from each other after Netanyahu and congratulated Biden for winning in 2020, and Trump later said, “F— him.”

Expect both candidates to face questions on antisemitism
A major Biden strength in 2020, at least in his campaign for the Jewish vote, was his emphasis on the correlation between the rise of violent antisemitism since 2016 and Trump’s rhetoric.

He said he was inspired to run after Trump equivocated in condemning the deadly 2017 neo-Nazi march in Charlottesville, Virginia. The man who carried out the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting in October 2018, the deadliest attack on Jews in US history, was spurred by a baseless take on immigration that Trump has echoed.

In May 2023, to much fanfare, Biden unveiled a national strategy to combat antisemitism.

Now, however, in the wake of the October 7 attack and the backlash to Israel’s response, antisemitism has become a vulnerability for Biden – and Republicans are noticing. Some pro-Palestinian protests that are largely associated with the left, both on campuses and on the streets, have included antisemitic signs and slogans. And some progressive Democrats who have harshly criticized Israel, such as Jamaal Bowman, the congressman who this week lost his New York primary — have used rhetoric their rivals say crosses into antisemitism.

Biden has publicly reviled these outbreaks of hostility, but his Republican critics say his party is implicated in the protest movement and that he has not produced results. His Education Department is investigating antisemitism on multiple campuses, but most of those probes are not yet completed, or their outcomes are not yet tangible. It is the Republican-led US House of Representatives that has most prominently shone a light on vulnerabilities that some Jewish students say they feel on campus — and that has brought about the resignation of two Ivy League presidents accused of not taking a strong enough stand against antisemitism.

Trump and his acolytes, including one of his top Jewish surrogates, anti-immigration activist Stephen Miller, say without evidence that the protests are spurred by foreign students. Trump has said, likewise with no proof, that Biden’s visa policies will lead to a Hamas takeover of American streets and universities. Trump has said that Biden’s immigration policies generally make the United States more vulnerable to terrorist attacks.

Biden is likely to seek to turn the antisemitism tables on Trump during the debate. A key theme of Biden’s campaign in recent weeks is the threat that Biden says Trump poses to democracy — it has become a centerpiece of Biden’s video ad campaign — and the Biden campaign has sent reporters multiple fact sheets listing the ways Trump’s authoritarianism leads to antisemitism.

Those fact sheets include Trump accusing, on multiple occasions, Jews of not being loyal, reports of his admiration for Hitler, his dinner last year with two well–known antisemites and a recent Trump campaign social media post that appeared to celebrate the return of a “unified Reich” — a term associated with the Nazis. (Trump’s campaign said the post was a low-level staffer’s error.)

https://www.timesofisrael.com/from-anti ... mp-debate/

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

A little lighter fare regarding the debate tonight. I recall reading Wiseguy, the book from which Goodfellas was made, where Hill says Mob guys used to bet on anything. He wrote that sometimes, if they happened to see two birds on a telephone cable, would bet on which bird would fly off first. From the betting angle, here's a lighter look at the debate.


Can You Bet On The Biden-Trump CNN Presidential Debate?
By Brian Pempus, Editor
Jun 24, 2024

Betting directly on politics hasn’t been legalized anywhere in the U.S., and that includes any outcomes from the June 27 debate between President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump.

On numerous betting platforms in countries where betting on politics is allowed, Trump is the slight odds favorite to win the November election.

Odds could change following their first scheduled meeting this election cycle.

CNN will host the first presidential debate this year between the incumbent president and former president. One well-known offshore gambling site has odds on who will “win” the debate.

Here are some key details of the debate:

Hosts: CNN’s Jake Tapper and Dana Bash
Location: Atlanta
Duration: 90 minutes
Commercial Breaks: Two
Live Audience: No
Podium Position: Coin Flip
Trump Favored Over Biden
At BetOnline, which can’t operate legally in the U.S. and is therefore risky for American consumers, Trump is a -140 favorite to win the debate, compared to +100 for Biden.

The gambling site will use polling “co-sanctioned with CNN” to determine a winner. “If no such poll, any from YouGov, Ipsos or aggregate of those two if necessary,” the betting market rule stated. “If none of those three, bets are void.”

How is the debate poll conducted? After the final debate in 2020, CNN conducted an “instant poll” of debate watchers. The CNN post-debate poll was conducted by SSRS by telephone and included interviews with 585 registered voters who watched the debate. The margin of sampling error was plus or minus 5.7 percentage points.

Overall, 53% of debate watchers said that then-candidate Biden won, while 39% said that President Trump did.

Debate Odds Only for Entertainment
Unfortunately, wagering with offshore betting sites is not recommended if you’re in the U.S., as they aren’t regulated like U.S. sportsbooks. For example, in May, the Michigan Gaming Control Board sent a cease-and-desist letter to the operator of Bovada, another prominent offshore betting site taking political bets.

Michigan is one of more than 30 states that have legalized sports betting.

According to trading on Polymarket, a crypto-based platform that facilitates legal trading outside the U.S. on current events, there’s a 5% chance the first debate is canceled. More than $500,000 has been bet on this market. Polymarket geo-blocks U.S.-based users.

Another market, albeit much smaller with just $19,000 wagered, was whether Biden and Trump would shake hands before the debate, with “yes” at only 32%.

Gamblers have also risked more than $100,000 on what Trump will say during the debate. Below were the probabilities on Polymarket as of Monday, June 24:

“Fake News”: 65%
“Dementia”: 14%
“Crack”: 24%
“Felon”: 35%
“Sleepy Joe”: 24%
“Hunter”: 65%
“Jail/Prison”: 69%
“Abortion”: 65%
“Putin”: 77%
“Crypto/Bitcoin”: 45%
“Rigged”: 61%


Brian Pempus is the Managing Editor of Forbes Betting.

https://www.forbes.com/betting/novelty/ ... den-trump/

[cradleandshoot]

A little lighter fare regarding the debate tonight. I recall reading Wiseguy, the book from which Goodfellas was made, where Hill says Mob guys used to bet on anything. He wrote that sometimes, if they happened to see two birds on a telephone cable, would bet on which bird would fly off first. From the betting angle, here's a lighter look at the debate.


Can You Bet On The Biden-Trump CNN Presidential Debate?
By Brian Pempus, Editor
Jun 24, 2024

Betting directly on politics hasn’t been legalized anywhere in the U.S., and that includes any outcomes from the June 27 debate between President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump.

On numerous betting platforms in countries where betting on politics is allowed, Trump is the slight odds favorite to win the November election.

Odds could change following their first scheduled meeting this election cycle.

CNN will host the first presidential debate this year between the incumbent president and former president. One well-known offshore gambling site has odds on who will “win” the debate.

Here are some key details of the debate:

Hosts: CNN’s Jake Tapper and Dana Bash
Location: Atlanta
Duration: 90 minutes
Commercial Breaks: Two
Live Audience: No
Podium Position: Coin Flip
Trump Favored Over Biden
At BetOnline, which can’t operate legally in the U.S. and is therefore risky for American consumers, Trump is a -140 favorite to win the debate, compared to +100 for Biden.

The gambling site will use polling “co-sanctioned with CNN” to determine a winner. “If no such poll, any from YouGov, Ipsos or aggregate of those two if necessary,” the betting market rule stated. “If none of those three, bets are void.”

How is the debate poll conducted? After the final debate in 2020, CNN conducted an “instant poll” of debate watchers. The CNN post-debate poll was conducted by SSRS by telephone and included interviews with 585 registered voters who watched the debate. The margin of sampling error was plus or minus 5.7 percentage points.

Overall, 53% of debate watchers said that then-candidate Biden won, while 39% said that President Trump did.

Debate Odds Only for Entertainment
Unfortunately, wagering with offshore betting sites is not recommended if you’re in the U.S., as they aren’t regulated like U.S. sportsbooks. For example, in May, the Michigan Gaming Control Board sent a cease-and-desist letter to the operator of Bovada, another prominent offshore betting site taking political bets.

Michigan is one of more than 30 states that have legalized sports betting.

According to trading on Polymarket, a crypto-based platform that facilitates legal trading outside the U.S. on current events, there’s a 5% chance the first debate is canceled. More than $500,000 has been bet on this market. Polymarket geo-blocks U.S.-based users.

Another market, albeit much smaller with just $19,000 wagered, was whether Biden and Trump would shake hands before the debate, with “yes” at only 32%.

Gamblers have also risked more than $100,000 on what Trump will say during the debate. Below were the probabilities on Polymarket as of Monday, June 24:

“Fake News”: 65%
“Dementia”: 14%
“Crack”: 24%
“Felon”: 35%
“Sleepy Joe”: 24%
“Hunter”: 65%
“Jail/Prison”: 69%
“Abortion”: 65%
“Putin”: 77%
“Crypto/Bitcoin”: 45%
“Rigged”: 61%


Brian Pempus is the Managing Editor of Forbes Betting.

https://www.forbes.com/betting/novelty/ ... den-trump/

You forgot to mention the over/ under for Joe falling off the stage. Greater or less than 45 minutes into the debate is the starting point. Hopefully the Biden people have perfected the proper Joe juice formula. They have had 7 days at Camp David to work on it. Perhaps a concoction of formaldehyde and fentanyl are the base ingredients.

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

You forgot to mention the over/ under for Joe falling off the stage. Greater or less than 45 minutes into the debate is the starting point. Hopefully the Biden people have perfected the proper Joe juice formula. They have had 7 days at Camp David to work on it. Perhaps a concoction of formaldehyde and fentanyl are the base ingredients.

CAS, I have learned to put down my coffee before reading your posts. Too frickin funny.

[cradleandshoot]

You forgot to mention the over/ under for Joe falling off the stage. Greater or less than 45 minutes into the debate is the starting point. Hopefully the Biden people have perfected the proper Joe juice formula. They have had 7 days at Camp David to work on it. Perhaps a concoction of formaldehyde and fentanyl are the base ingredients.

CAS, I have learned to put down my coffee before reading your posts. Too frickin funny.

FTR I use to have a lot of respect for Joe Biden. He has a lot of warts to cover up and has a long and distinguished career as human gaffe machine. This has nothing to do with his speech impediment. This is all about his ineptitude and incompetence. There is a reason why BHO said ( although he will never admit saying it ) Never underestimate Joe Bidens ability to eff things up. Joe has proven his former boss correct from day one of his administration. Joes record of ineptitude stands all alone as an embarrassment to the Democrat party. His poor and beleaguered press secretary KJP was handed the Democrat version of Mission Impossible... It might have been beneficial if Bidens press secretary was not as incompetent as her boss.

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

You forgot to mention the over/ under for Joe falling off the stage. Greater or less than 45 minutes into the debate is the starting point. Hopefully the Biden people have perfected the proper Joe juice formula. They have had 7 days at Camp David to work on it. Perhaps a concoction of formaldehyde and fentanyl are the base ingredients.

CAS, I have learned to put down my coffee before reading your posts. Too frickin funny.

FTR I use to have a lot of respect for Joe Biden. He has a lot of warts to cover up and has a long and distinguished career as human gaffe machine. This has nothing to do with his speech impediment. This is all about his ineptitude and incompetence. There is a reason why BHO said ( although he will never admit saying it ) Never underestimate Joe Bidens ability to eff things up. Joe has proven his former boss correct from day one of his administration. Joes record of ineptitude stands all alone as an embarrassment to the Democrat party. His poor and beleaguered press secretary KJP was handed the Democrat version of Mission Impossible... It might have been beneficial if Bidens press secretary was not as incompetent as her boss.

I wonder if he's even cognizant enough these days. Ben Shapiro made a remark in an interview the other day saying that Biden is dealing with stage 2 dementia. Whether that's actually true or not--I don't know. But I know what my eyes have seen and my ears have heard and it wouldn't surprise me if he is. All to say--I wonder if he's even running the country anymore--if his handlers, staff, whomever, are actually in the "War Room" making the critical decisions. But yes, he's had his fair share of tragedy and hard knocks.

[a fan]

You forgot to mention the over/ under for Joe falling off the stage. Greater or less than 45 minutes into the debate is the starting point. Hopefully the Biden people have perfected the proper Joe juice formula. They have had 7 days at Camp David to work on it. Perhaps a concoction of formaldehyde and fentanyl are the base ingredients.

CAS, I have learned to put down my coffee before reading your posts. Too frickin funny.

FTR I use to have a lot of respect for Joe Biden. He has a lot of warts to cover up and has a long and distinguished career as human gaffe machine. This has nothing to do with his speech impediment. This is all about his ineptitude and incompetence. There is a reason why BHO said ( although he will never admit saying it ) Never underestimate Joe Bidens ability to eff things up. Joe has proven his former boss correct from day one of his administration. Joes record of ineptitude stands all alone as an embarrassment to the Democrat party. His poor and beleaguered press secretary KJP was handed the Democrat version of Mission Impossible... It might have been beneficial if Bidens press secretary was not as incompetent as her boss.

The great news for you both is that Biden will lose, and Donald Trump, who's sharp as a tack, and has no trouble making speeches, will be our next POTUS.

So you can stop worrying about having someone in the White House who doesn't make any sense, and who doesn't take his speeches off on nonsensical tangents because he can't keep his train of thought.

[cradleandshoot]

You forgot to mention the over/ under for Joe falling off the stage. Greater or less than 45 minutes into the debate is the starting point. Hopefully the Biden people have perfected the proper Joe juice formula. They have had 7 days at Camp David to work on it. Perhaps a concoction of formaldehyde and fentanyl are the base ingredients.

CAS, I have learned to put down my coffee before reading your posts. Too frickin funny.

FTR I use to have a lot of respect for Joe Biden. He has a lot of warts to cover up and has a long and distinguished career as human gaffe machine. This has nothing to do with his speech impediment. This is all about his ineptitude and incompetence. There is a reason why BHO said ( although he will never admit saying it ) Never underestimate Joe Bidens ability to eff things up. Joe has proven his former boss correct from day one of his administration. Joes record of ineptitude stands all alone as an embarrassment to the Democrat party. His poor and beleaguered press secretary KJP was handed the Democrat version of Mission Impossible... It might have been beneficial if Bidens press secretary was not as incompetent as her boss.

The great news for you both is that Biden will lose, and Donald Trump, who's sharp as a tack, and has no trouble making speeches, will be our next POTUS.

So you can stop worrying about having someone in the White House who doesn't make any sense, and who doesn't take his speeches off on nonsensical tangents because he can't keep his train of thought.

Someone in the Democrat should have made Joe Biden an offer he can't refuse. If Joe loves the Democrat party he should have done what LBJ did and bowed out for a Democrat that could beat Trump with one arm tied behind their back.
I'm also not impressed with Joe Bidens abysmal failure on policy.

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

You forgot to mention the over/ under for Joe falling off the stage. Greater or less than 45 minutes into the debate is the starting point. Hopefully the Biden people have perfected the proper Joe juice formula. They have had 7 days at Camp David to work on it. Perhaps a concoction of formaldehyde and fentanyl are the base ingredients.

CAS, I have learned to put down my coffee before reading your posts. Too frickin funny.

FTR I use to have a lot of respect for Joe Biden. He has a lot of warts to cover up and has a long and distinguished career as human gaffe machine. This has nothing to do with his speech impediment. This is all about his ineptitude and incompetence. There is a reason why BHO said ( although he will never admit saying it ) Never underestimate Joe Bidens ability to eff things up. Joe has proven his former boss correct from day one of his administration. Joes record of ineptitude stands all alone as an embarrassment to the Democrat party. His poor and beleaguered press secretary KJP was handed the Democrat version of Mission Impossible... It might have been beneficial if Bidens press secretary was not as incompetent as her boss.

The great news for you both is that Biden will lose, and Donald Trump, who's sharp as a tack, and has no trouble making speeches, will be our next POTUS.

So you can stop worrying about having someone in the White House who doesn't make any sense, and who doesn't take his speeches off on nonsensical tangents because he can't keep his train of thought.

Oh, Trump can say some outlandish things, alright. No shortage of his wackjob comments to go around. I wish there was a better alternative but he's all we on the Right have at this point. The only hope to get out from under Biden's messes.

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

Someone in the Democrat should have made Joe Biden an offer he can't refuse. If Joe loves the Democrat party he should have done what LBJ did and bowed out for a Democrat that could beat Trump with one arm tied behind their back.
I'm also not impressed with Joe Bidens abysmal failure on policy.

Agreed.

[a fan]

You forgot to mention the over/ under for Joe falling off the stage. Greater or less than 45 minutes into the debate is the starting point. Hopefully the Biden people have perfected the proper Joe juice formula. They have had 7 days at Camp David to work on it. Perhaps a concoction of formaldehyde and fentanyl are the base ingredients.

CAS, I have learned to put down my coffee before reading your posts. Too frickin funny.

FTR I use to have a lot of respect for Joe Biden. He has a lot of warts to cover up and has a long and distinguished career as human gaffe machine. This has nothing to do with his speech impediment. This is all about his ineptitude and incompetence. There is a reason why BHO said ( although he will never admit saying it ) Never underestimate Joe Bidens ability to eff things up. Joe has proven his former boss correct from day one of his administration. Joes record of ineptitude stands all alone as an embarrassment to the Democrat party. His poor and beleaguered press secretary KJP was handed the Democrat version of Mission Impossible... It might have been beneficial if Bidens press secretary was not as incompetent as her boss.

The great news for you both is that Biden will lose, and Donald Trump, who's sharp as a tack, and has no trouble making speeches, will be our next POTUS.

So you can stop worrying about having someone in the White House who doesn't make any sense, and who doesn't take his speeches off on nonsensical tangents because he can't keep his train of thought.

Someone in the Democrat should have made Joe Biden an offer he can't refuse. If Joe loves the Democrat party he should have done what LBJ did and bowed out for a Democrat that could beat Trump with one arm tied behind their back.
I'm also not impressed with Joe Bidens abysmal failure on policy.

Biden did offer the job to others in the Party. No one wanted to run.

Same for Trump. Which is why we are here, with two lifeless, brainless candidates. Four years after not learning our lesson the first time.

[runrussellrun]

Biden did offer the job to others in the Party. Really, to whom did Biden "offer" the job to. No one wanted to run. except, for that Kennedy "kid".

Same for Trump. Which is why we are here, with two lifeless, brainless candidates. Four years after not learning our lesson the first time. What,
"lesson", was not learned? Be specific.

don't forget, THIS is a place to discuss............and ignore