On Friday, October 25, 2024 at 1:43:21 PM UTC+2 John Clark wrote:
*About those those betting odds, I found out something new today, the odds may have been manipulated. In today's New York Times I read this: * "Mr. Trump’s apparent lead may be an illusion. The odds on Polymarket began favoring him this month after just four accounts, with user names like Fredi9999 and PrincessCaro, bet more than $30 million on a Trump victory, according to an analysis of transaction records by Chaos Labs, a crypto data provider. Polymarket said on Thursday that all four accounts were controlled by one person, whom it described as a French national with a financial services background, without revealing the person’s identity. The election betting has placed enormous scrutiny on Polymarket, a start-up based in New York that allows people to wager crypto on everything from sports to Taylor Swift’s romantic prospects. The start-up, which is backed by an investment firm of the conservative tech mogul Peter Thiel, a strong Trump supporter. The bets that bolstered Mr. Trump’s odds have raised alarms that Polymarket could be vulnerable to manipulation. The trader who placed the wagers might have been “*willing to take the losses in order to change public perceptions*,” said Rajiv Sethi, an economics professor at Barnard College. “*And possibly have an effect on things like donations and morale and volunteer support and turnout*.” " Thanks for the update. In 2016, the betting odds would have had to favor Clinton. So grain of salt, even before the update you brought to our attention here. Recent developments highlight the Democratic Party's challenges in confronting Donald Trump's enduring appeal. The manipulation of betting odds on platforms like Polymarket—where a single person significantly influenced perceptions by placing large bets favoring Trump—demonstrates again how easily narratives can be distorted, potentially affecting voter morale, donations, and turnout. Kamala Harris appears to struggle with emotionally resonating with voters, an area where Trump has historically excelled. Trump's 2016 victory defied conventional wisdom; he won not through detailed policies but by embodying a maverick persona promising to disrupt the status quo. He tapped into voter frustrations, building a loyal base resistant to traditional political attacks. Harris faces skepticism due to several factors. Incumbency suggests continuity, which may not satisfy voters hungry for change. She also struggles to differentiate herself from President Biden's administration while maintaining Democratic support. There's a disconnect between her messaging and the emotional nature of Trump's support. Her philosophical arguments against authoritarianism, citing Trump's alleged fascist tendencies and testimonies from his former staff, don't resonate with his base, who often dismiss such characterizations as typical political attacks. As we see on our list: arguments don't work on folks with emotional biases. MAGA pride seems tough for her to crack. That's why I thought they should've used the Convention to select somebody "new". That lack of perceived freshness is not mitigated by statements like: "I'm not Joe Biden.", which seem more like a concession/justification that she stands for "more of the same". Moreover, Harris's shift toward the political center to appeal broadly may erode the little authenticity she has. Voters seek clarity and consistency; sudden shifts can cause confusion about her true stance. In contrast, Trump's messaging remains consistent bullshit/misinformation, reinforcing his connection with supporters that politics is just a stage/game anyway; and that the content of candidates' statements are all merely propagandistic and without substance. Another hurdle is Harris's ability to communicate tangible benefits to the average voter, especially regarding economic issues like purchasing power and middle-class prosperity. Without effectively demonstrating how her policies would improve lives—despite potential congressional opposition—she may fail to inspire confidence among undecided voters. We saw how "Not Trump" backfired for Hillary. Why are we seeing this ineffective approach again? Additionally, Harris lacks the charisma and rhetorical prowess of figures like Bill Clinton or Barack Obama, which could hinder her ability to galvanize support in a media-saturated environment where personal appeal is crucial. Trump's steadfast base presents a formidable challenge; his supporters remain loyal despite facts/evidence, including his legal. Logical arguments and highlighting his criminal status have little impact, as their support is rooted in emotional and cultural identification - as misguided and ill-defined as they may be (see prevalence of failure to understand that alleged "wokeness" is a distraction designed to manipulate societal regression, and not a substantive, coherent idea based on evidence or theory) - rather than policy agreements or ethical considerations. Losing minority votes due to her being perceived as the "woke communist" demonstrates an inability to disarm this nonsense by her campaign. Given these factors, skepticism about the Democrats' prospects seems warranted. The combination of incumbency-associated stagnation perception, ineffective emotional engagement, strategic shifts that undermine authenticity, and messaging that fails to address immediate economic concerns creates a challenging landscape for Harris's campaign. Ultimately, Harris's effectiveness hinges on overcoming these obstacles and connecting with voters on both rational and emotional levels. I feel that without significant adjustments, Democrats may struggle to counter Trump's entrenched support and address the electorate's desire for change, casting doubt on their prospects for electoral success. Of course this is just speculative on my part. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/eeb96579-33c5-4267-8cdb-3c687e91e8b5n%40googlegroups.com.
