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

And when Biden was doing this, the Republicans and MAGA heads were calling for him to stop being president, not just seeking relection.

So, same applies, right?

Journalists in the US have been examining very unusual betting patterns in the last fortnight or so and suspect that non-regular gamblers have been manipulating the odds to make it 'look' like Trump is the red hot favourite to win (and Trump's team have money to burn in this regard).

As someone pointed out online, we are living in the strangest of timelines.

First they wore diapers for him

Then they wore tissues on their ears for him

Now they are wearing rubbish bags.

Absolutely bizarre when you stop to think about it!

What, because Julia Roberts shouldn't be allowed to voice her partiality to Kamala Harris or something?

The ad does make clear that your vote and your privacy in the polling booth is 'sacrosanct' as you put it.

Currently for the polls, analysts and experts it's pretty much too close to call. Those betting don't have more insight than that, so there could be other factors at play rather than educated knowledge e.g. perhaps a higher proportion of Republican voters tend towards placing a bet on their candidate rather than e.g. Dem supporters.

On paper I think Trump has it by a nose now, but with e.g. early voting breaking records, which tends slightly towards Dem (which could change) there are too many variables that are different with this election.

Personally I have a bet on Trump winning, and I have a few non-Trump supporting friends who have done the same - not because we are backing odds but because if the worst happens we'll get a bit of cash out of it

How can it be a mad conspiracy theory? If someone places a series of large bets on one of two candidates, their odds will shorten and their rival's odds will lengthen (and I'm saying this as an experienced punter with knowledge of how the betting and spread markets work).

Manipulation of betting markets by people who are not actually gambling or trying to win money is not at all unheard of.

Polymarket has confirmed that $28M of the bets for Trump are from the same person. That person may or may not be a Trump supporter but the odds are being influenced.

I guess it’s why half this rubbish is happening - whole states are “Red” or “Blue” - it’s essentially robots isn’t it? It’s brain washing and conformity in the extreme - much as I’m against coercion I think there’s a much bigger issue here than just that

Groundwork being laid to reject the result if Trump loses

"

Republicans are already laying the ground for rejecting the result of next week’s US presidential election in the event Donald Trump loses, with early lawsuits baselessly alleging fraud and polls from right-leaning groups that analysts say may be exaggerating his popularity and could be used by Trump to claim only cheating prevented him from returning to the White House.

The warnings – from Democrats and anti-Trump Republicans – come as Americans prepare to vote on Tuesday in the most consequential presidential contest in generations. Most polls show Trump running neck and neck with Kamala Harris, the vice-president and Democratic nominee, with the two candidates seemingly evenly matched in seven key swing states.

But suspicions have been voiced over a spate of recent polls, mostly commissioned in battleground states from groups with Republican links, that mainly show Trump leading. The projection of surging Trump support as election day nears has drawn confident predictions from him and his supporters.

"

"

“We’re leading big in the polls, all of the polls,” Trump told a rally in New Mexico on Thursday. “I can’t believe it’s a close race,” he told a separate rally in North Carolina, a swing state where polls show he and Harris are in a virtual dead heat.

An internal memo sent to Trump by his chief pollster is confirming that story to him, with Tony Fabrizio declaring the ex-president’s “position nationally and in every single battleground state is SIGNIFICANTLY better today than it was four years ago”.

Pro-Trump influencers, too, have strengthened the impression of inevitable victory with social media posts citing anonymous White House officials predicting Harris’s defeat. “Biden is telling advisers the election is ‘dead and buried’ and called Harris an innate sucker,” the conspiracy theorist Jack Posobiec posted this week.

GOP-aligned polling groups have released 37 polls in the final stretch of the campaign, according to a study by the New York Times, during a period when longstanding pollsters have been curtailing their voter surveys. All but seven showed a lead for Trump, in contrast to the findings of long-established non-partisan pollsters, which have shown a more mixed picture – often with Harris leading, albeit within error margins.

"

“What, because Julia Roberts shouldn't be allowed to voice her partiality to Kamala Harris or something?”

Where did I say that?
It was clear in my post that a non partisan message around the privacy of the voting booth delivered to all voters would have been a better way to get this message out there if coercion of voters by their partners is an issue. There’s no need to make things up that I didn’t say or to post in a manner that makes it look like I said that-

Honestly. How does he not have a tan from the golfing?

Because golf buggies have a canopy?

I didn't make up that you said anything, I asked you a question?

Seems to the contrary Julia Roberts got her message out there super effectively, they were even airing the ad for free on Fox News just to give out about it. Not only that but in doing so they made themselves out to be the very type of husbands that the ad is inferring are an issue, those who want to control what their women-folk do via threat of divorce etc. — even though it's the likes of Watters and Gingrich etc. who cheated on their wives.

Heck now they're discussing it on The View too - because Fox News discussed it, because of its effectiveness.

NAVARRO: If it wasn’t so serious, it would be comical is people like, you know, Newt Gingrich saying that we shouldn’t walk around saying wives should lie to their husbands or husbands should lie to their wives. He cheated on his first and second wife. And then the other guy, Jesse Water, says, what? That lying is equivalent to having an affair. Well, I guess that’s why he’s okay with supporting a man who had multiple affairs on all three of his wives.

JOY BEHAR: The hypocrisy!

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/ana-navarro-roasts-newt-gingrich-for-outrage-over-wives-lying-to-husbands-about-their-vote-he-cheated-on-his-first-and-second-wife/

And we're here discussing it now too with people wringing hands about it, clearly it's had incredible reach that wouldn't have been possible if it was as 'neutral' and such as you claim it ought to have been. You haven't really explained why you think it would have been a more effective ad if she had not also endorsed Harris within it, leaving questions about why you think that is, hence the ask.