When weirdos invaded all movies, games, schools, corporations, too say there is no evidence is to be a weirdo wokie yourself.
On Friday 25 October 2024 at 16:11:18 UTC+3 PGC wrote: > 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/d44b89ce-8696-4566-b428-229bf01611dfn%40googlegroups.com.
