347
Donald Trump's chances of winning election slump after RNC speech
(www.newsweek.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2024
347 points (92.6% liked)
politics
19145 readers
4637 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Sorry but "BIDEN COPIUM HAHAHA" is right.
This same agency is saying Kamala Harris already has better odds of becoming President than Joe Biden does, even without a decision to resign from Biden.
Paying out higher (better) odds means you think they’re less likely to win
Edit: They were initially confused about how betting odds work, now they’re confused about how outcomes work.
William Hill is saying that Trump has a 65% chance to win, and the Democrat has roughly a 35% chance to win, and that Democrat is much more likely to be Kamala than Biden. There is absolutely no conditional involved in this odds presentation that would imply who has a better chance of beating Trump, as separated from the question of how likely the Democrats are to replace Biden.
The article says P(Biden wins) < P(Harris wins). It isn't saying anything directly about P(Biden nominated) or P(Biden wins | Biden nominated) but it does imply that P(Biden nominated) is low.
I think the chances of Harris vs Biden winning are incorporated into this percentage. But it doesn’t separate out the factors such as likelihood of being the nominee vs likelihood of winning the GE. So we can’t say anything definitive about that without more information on how it’s being calculated.
Yeah, I messed up the notation in my original post. I have replaced it.
I added an edit which is critical of your new assertion