#703
Rank
45
Comments
21
Likes Received
12
Likes Given
ack
1 year ago
Some good predictions here: https://www.goldderby.com/awardshows/top24-predictions/grammy-awards-2025-predictions/album/sort/recent/
ack
1 year ago
This market doesn't use UFL or Atlas
Justifax
1 year ago
For those who missed it, UFL includes total ballots in their estimates, eg: undervotes. Which is a fair amount.
ack
1 year ago
trumpito doesn't have any analysis, he's just following rabs. and already lost a bunch on this market already.
Justifax
1 year ago
so the question i have and need to figure out, does rabs know what he is doing or is just a silly gamble? He trumpito and donor have put a bunch of money into the pv margin market which is somewhat governed by turnout. if he knows what he's doing, than i am at risk in that market and don't want to be in this one. if he doesn't know what he's doing, than i might consider buying here. tricky
ack
1 year ago
New ElectionLab estimate for Friday. 155,687,644, up from 155,547,700.
ack
1 year ago
New ElectionLab estimate is in. 155,547,700, up from 155,391,700.
ack
1 year ago
New unprocessed ballot report from California. Now 16,064,225, up from 15,950,819.
ack
1 year ago
I'm seeing 0 changes in any of the numbers in his sheet.
Sardinianshepherd
1 year ago
UF keeping the count at 155+ https://election.lab.ufl.edu/2024-general-election-turnout/
ack
1 year ago
New unprocessed ballots report from California at 15,950,819 total. Down from 16,446,273.
ack
1 year ago
we'll give nate a wedgie
Justifax
1 year ago
Deleted the post as some folks seem to know who 'rabs' is, and speculation seems counterproductive if that's the case.
ack
1 year ago
show us the atlas dashboard 🙏
Justifax
1 year ago
Deleted the post as some folks seem to know who 'rabs' is, and speculation seems counterproductive if that's the case.
ack
1 year ago
His yellow predictions look a little off. I think he's just dividing total current votes by percent left, which doesn't take into account unprocessed ballot reports from California and Arizona. I think it's going to be close, but still a little over 155.
SOMON
1 year ago
A detailed and quite solid prediction in my opinion. He estimates the final turnout at 156.3m : https://x.com/RussellM__/status/1856111901585064292
ack
1 year ago
New ElectionLab estimates out at 155.3M. Looks like they're gradually increasing. You may need to look in a private browser window if the old data is still cached. https://election.lab.ufl.edu/2024-general-election-turnout/
ack
1 year ago
Yes, I saw the increased estimate in California yesterday. It will certainly be close, but I'm still seeing 150-155M in my model.
Justifax
1 year ago
AP, DDHQ, and NateCohn all estimate around 157m. here's ap - https://imgur.com/a/VEmOiRU, and here's ddhq - https://imgur.com/a/caQkaMF here's nate's tweet https://x.com/Nate_Cohn/status/1854550651055063453
ack
1 year ago
Just curious -- what are you basing your numbers on? Are you taking their "votes counted" and projecting based on the percentage left?
Justifax
1 year ago
AP, DDHQ, and NateCohn all estimate around 157m. here's ap - https://imgur.com/a/VEmOiRU, and here's ddhq - https://imgur.com/a/caQkaMF here's nate's tweet https://x.com/Nate_Cohn/status/1854550651055063453
ack
1 year ago
2 mill extra for Cali.
Justifax
1 year ago
AP, DDHQ, and NateCohn all estimate around 157m. here's ap - https://imgur.com/a/VEmOiRU, and here's ddhq - https://imgur.com/a/caQkaMF here's nate's tweet https://x.com/Nate_Cohn/status/1854550651055063453
ack
1 year ago
AP has about two million extra votes in that image from AP... That would put it at above 2020 numbers which seems unlikely based on lower turnout in other blue states. NateCohn's analysis, as he says, doesn't include uncounted ballots reported by states -- it's a projection from a few days ago. Not sure about DDHQ, but I noticed their numbers had a lot of incorrect fluctuations in the past few days.
Justifax
1 year ago
AP, DDHQ, and NateCohn all estimate around 157m. here's ap - https://imgur.com/a/VEmOiRU, and here's ddhq - https://imgur.com/a/caQkaMF here's nate's tweet https://x.com/Nate_Cohn/status/1854550651055063453
ack
1 year ago
I'm seeing consistent voter turnout trends for states with population growth/decline and battleground states or states that lean red/blue. Using that to project turnout agains 2020 numbers in states still counting, I'm still seeing numbers between 150-155M, though it's close to the upper limit.
porktato
1 year ago
damn is it really barely gonna push past 155?
ack
1 year ago
153,852,863
ack
1 year ago
The only state above 2020 numbers at 95%+ of the vote counted in that state is Georgia with 170K more votes than 2020. All the other states with 95%+ of the vote counted are averaging 95% of their 2020 total. Projecting around 153,425,631 total.
ack
1 year ago
Tracking state-by-state turnout numbers and it's not looking good for YES.
BussyBlaster
1 year ago
im honestly not following this market, how we going no-bros? the spread seems to be fucking up the prediction, i have no clue how to interpret the market, are we really at 34% chance?
ack
1 year ago
Texas is 91% of 2020 numbers, it hasn't passed it lol.
sarya156
1 year ago
Just look at outstanding votes in state. texas has ~11% outstanding and has already passed 2020 numbers, theres a million more from one state alone this year
ack
1 year ago
Not really, no.
ack
1 year ago
154.8M 🫡
ack
1 year ago
154.8M 🫡
ack
1 year ago
People use VEP (voter-eligible population) to track how many people are able to vote. 2020: 240,628,443 & 2024: 245,741,673. You can find good info here: https://election.lab.ufl.edu/
wfvmaxi123
1 year ago
does someone have data on a comparison between 2020 and 2024, on how many people are allowed to vote?
ack
1 year ago
Last presidential election was a 66% turnout. There has only been a 5.1M increase in VEP since then, so turnout needs to be closer to 65%, which outside of the COVID election hasn't happened since 1908. Seems highly unlikely.
Sha
1 year ago
I should have probably invested more before commenting, but oh well. This is so obviously YES. Around %61.1 VEP should result in a record turnout and there's no way turnout % will be lower than Hillary vs Trump. Reps are very pro Trump and dems are wary of taking the election for granted and repeating 2016 again.
ack
1 year ago
now you're thinkin'
Amok
1 year ago
3 factors to consider: 1. There are more eligible voters overall. 2. Trump will get more votes this time than in 2020. 3. That means the Dems will have to print more ballots to steal the election. = More votes overall
ack
1 year ago
It only increased by 5.1M since 2020 based on VEP data.
Neoss
1 year ago
Eligible voters increase by 8-12 million people on average every presidential election cycle. Even if turn out were to be down a few %, total number of votes can still be higher
ack
1 year ago
lol
PearlJamSucks
1 year ago
Why is this disputed? She supports unrealized capital gains tax.
ack
1 year ago
She's talking about her economic policies live right now, but here's her full economic plan that was just released. No mention of an unrealized gains tax, it just talks about long-term capital gains. https://kamalaharris.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Policy_Book_Economic-Opportunity.pdf
ack
1 year ago
“Every conversation I’ve had is that it’s not going to happen,” Cuban stated during a recent interview with CNBC. He said that he frequently communicates with Harris's team and shared their explicit feedback: “Their verbatim words to me is, ‘That’s not where we want to go.’”
ack
1 year ago
I don't think she's really released official text for any of her policies. My bet is that since "unrealized gains" is so divisive even in her own party, she's going to dance around it and never say anything explicitly.
Justifax
1 year ago
"I support a make rich people pay tax!!!" I mean.. wtf, right.
ack
1 year ago
https://pagesix.com/2024/09/08/celebrity-news/lana-del-rey-and-jeremy-dufrene-hold-hands-as-they-attend-karen-elsons-nyc-wedding/
ack
1 year ago
She said "I support a billionaire minimum tax" not "I support the Billionaire Minimum Tax Act." I was YES yesterday, but it's clear she's just not going to explicitly state her support or else she would have done it. She has never said anything about unrealized gains explicitly.
Commodore
1 year ago
She did not say "I agree with Biden". She said " I support the billionaire tax."
ack
1 year ago
She's never going to explicitly support it, it's too controversial.
ack
1 year ago
"If Harris broadly states she agrees with Biden's policy proposals, and one of Biden's policy proposals is to tax unrealized gains, it will not suffice to resolve this market to "Yes" - she must explicitly support the specific proposal."
ack
1 year ago
"If Harris broadly states she agrees with Biden's policy proposals, and one of Biden's policy proposals is to tax unrealized gains, it will not suffice to resolve this market to "Yes" - she must explicitly support the specific proposal."
Justsomeguy
1 year ago
This one is a lock. Kamala has literally voiced support for a bill that taxes unrealized gains
ack
1 year ago
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/6498
cpa
1 year ago
The closest she comes is saying "I support a billionaire minimum tax" which could mean anything.
ack
1 year ago
There it is.
Axios
1 year ago
https://x.com/ABCPolitics/status/1831417006307819776
ack
1 year ago
If they were seen holding hands and going to restaurants, but now she is saying no, an argument can definitely be made that they were dating and then broke up.
tunatyler
1 year ago
https://x.com/PopBase/status/1829998242081489205/photo/2 Should easily resolve as no, they never were dating
ack
1 year ago
it also goes against the original rules. "If it's unclear whether or not they are in a romantic relationship, this market will resolve to the side with the stronger argument based on credible reporting." Credible reporting states that they are not in a relationship. Resolving this to No makes 0 sense.
TRUMP2O24
1 year ago
"If it's shown they were never in a romantic relationship to begin with, this market will resolve to "No", since they cannot end a non-existent relationship" is the dumbest conclusion that can be made, because the market was created on the basis of rumors that appeared on social networks and on the basis of these social media the relationship existed until today.
ack
1 year ago
https://www.billboard.com/music/music-news/lana-del-rey-jeremy-dufrene-dating-rumors-response-1235765259/
ack
1 year ago
Lana denies she is even dating him in the first place: https://x.com/PopBase/status/1829998242081489205
ack
1 year ago
Lana denies she is even dating him in the first place: https://x.com/PopBase/status/1829998242081489205
ack
1 year ago
I don't have much in this bet, but she hasn't explicitly stated her support through herself or her representatives. She has "broadly supported" Joe Biden's economic agenda, but according to the rules that is not specific enough. Bharat Ramamurti, the guy in the CNBC video is not an official representative of her campaign, he's noted as an "informal advisor."
ActDrew
1 year ago
Why hasn't this resolved? it literally says "This market will only resolve based on official announcements by Kamala Harris and/or her representatives." That already happened. This seems like it's not the first time these kamala markets have been sus, happened with the Joy/Joyful market too.
ack
1 year ago
Just because someone on Twitter says its her economic advisor doesn't make it her actual economic advisor
Butch09
1 year ago
Sending your economic advisor on TV to defend it seems like a pretty good announcement by a representative…
ack
1 year ago
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/democratic-national-convention-speakers-biden-obama-clintons-rcna166128
ack
1 year ago
The man loves his beautiful strong astronauts. Told NASA to focus on going to mars instead of the moon.
ThatGuyInTheGlass
1 year ago
Mars being priced at lower than weird is a YUGE bargin