Harris Vs Trump 2024 US Presidential election - read the warning in the OP posted 18/09/24

I mean it is just encouragement to shift wages from normal hours to overtime. Tell them they will get paid crap for normal hours but overtime will make up for it. If anything this would increase overtime rates as employers use that instead of base wages to attract employees to lessen their tax bill.

It doesn't make sense that someone earning 60k should pay less tax than someone earning 60k just because their base salary is lower.

While I didn't think that Harris was the best possible candidate the Democrats could have ran, she's probably the best one they could have ran in the circumstances, with 3 1/2 months to go. After running against Biden, Trump's next preferred scenario would have been something like the Democrats holding a contested convention that would divide the party and being forced to run a candidate who'd be starting from almost rock bottom in terms of campaign funding and national fame.

If Harris loses, I would say most of the blame will have to go on Biden, who didn't know when to quit, and his enablers like his wife, Jill. He could have been a stabilising, transitional president, but instead wanted a second term, which could turn out to be one historically bad case of pride.

The fact of the matter is that the Democratic party machine is pretty much designed to churn out bland candidates. This was true of the Republican machine as well up until 2015, and still would be if they had control. Trump didn't rise to power via the party apparatus. He rose to power because a majority of that party's voters demanded him. We should also remember that the Democratic party didn't really want Obama at the outset. It was supposed to be Hillary's turn, but their base demanded Obama.

So the kind of transformational candidate who may truly defeat Trumpism could be out there, but they won't come via the party. They'd have to go directly to the people.

I'd also like to say, as an aside, that there was at least one poster on here who claimed that the polls would shift back in Biden's favour as the election drew nearer and more people started paying attention (I think it's supposed to be around Labour Day when this is said to happen), but that shift never occurred.

HE COULDNT EVEN FIGURE OUT HOW TO TIE HIS OWN APRON

except there’s actual evidence of this. You spent days arguing in bad faith that democrats control the weather. Falso in uno falsus in omnibus.

Thats a terribly bad faith argument.

What if the IT worked really hard for their 36hrs and the other person swings in a chair for 60hrs?

“she's probably the best one they could have ran in the circumstances, with 3 1/2 months to go.”

Yeah totally agree.

Is Biden to blame if she loses?

Well firstly, for the record, I wouldn’t ever blame Harris, unless she does something exteaordinaly stupid in the next few weeks- I think she’s done as good as she can do under the circumstances but something is stopping those polls from budging.

Had Biden stepped back much earlier:

1. I don’t think Harris would have won the ticket - some non descript middle aged shiny toothy male would have arrived
2. Trump would have had more opportunity to pick his most suitable running mate - a small issue maybe but I think small issues are big in this election given it’s so close- normally it wouldn’t matter a darn

Would the above have made a difference? I’m not sure it would have - I think there’s more reasons on the Democrat side right now to vote for Harris- ethnicity and gender being the biggest- than there ever would be for a middle aged white male candidate - and who knows what skeletons would have been in his closet considering he’d have spent 20+ years in public life as a politician.

Harris was essentially “baggage free”- I don’t think you’d get a more straight candidate than her .

If it makes people feel better to blame Biden then fine- personally I’m blaming democrat voters themselves-

just what bleeding flavour of president is it that you want as an alternative to Trump because jezuz, there’s never been a more clearer mandate and reason to get out there en masse and vote democrat?

There's evidence of how we can change the weather. That's a fact.

What I didn't say was that the democrats manipulated a hurricane. Yet somehow it's been suggested I did.

you’re proving my point you’ll give out about democrats controlling the weather ‘but McDonald’s photo op? Staged? I’d have to see the evidence.’ (Sees the evidence) ‘nah, it’s real’

Falso in uno Faldo’s in omnibus

The MAGA method.

"They controlled the weather"

"Dont talk such nonsense"

"See here is evidence of very minor weather control experiments"

"But its not a hurricane"

"So you deny there are weather control experiments"

"No I deny that they can control hurricanes"

"I never said they control hurricanes, just asking questions is all"

"Sigh"

It was Trump who raised it, why has he not teased it out? Because, just like getting rid of Obamacare or building a wall, he hasn't really thought about it. He has no idea. It is a nice soundbite.

You have no idea how he would implement it, and when it is pointed out how it could very easily work in favour of those already earning large money, you simply wave it off.

And how does Trump intend to raise the money that was previously earned through taxing overtime? What services will be cut, and what additional taxes will be raised? Because the money has to come from somewhere. Are you happy for your taxes to be increased to pay for the shortfall?

Exactly…. the guy has had nothing to do for the last 3.5 years so you would think he could come up with some details on his policies ffs

I went looking for stats or research out there around how successful betting odds are at predicting the outcome of a presidential election?

I found this: you would imagine that whatever mistakes they made in 2016 are now covered off in their updated model - unless of course new mistakes are now being made, especially if there are collective biases within the betting group itself, which is a distinct possibility and is referenced in the article -But it’s certainly pointing towards Trump on the face of it as the winner right now

“According to aggregates by Bookmakers Review, betting odds have accurately predicted several of the most recent elections, with 77 percent of the expected candidates winning over the last 35 years.

In the 11 presidential elections since 1980, the only race where the winning candidate had worse odds than the losing candidate was in 2016, where both the betting markets and conventional polling failed to predict a Trump win.”

https://www.newsweek.com/election-betting-odds-accurate-prediction-us-presidential-election-1964752

If not mistaken, betting odds are just based on what people are betting on. If Kamala has better odds to win that just means that more people are betting on Kamala to win.

That is all that it is. It's not based on anything else.

It's like betting on the favourite in a horse race. You will win money until the day when the favourite loses, and thats when the bookie cleans up.

Did you actually read the statistics I posted? Only 1 election- 2016- since 1980 was called incorrectly by the bookies - just one. Thats fact- I’m not sure what where youre going with this argument- no one is forcing anyone to bet their house on this outcome - but in an election where pollsters are saying “coin toss”, it’s interesting how another set of predictions are making a clear distinction - maybe they’ll keep their record of predictions going or maybe they won’t - - it’s just a relatively consistent historical indicator of what might happen