Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 07/13/2026 7:35:32 AM PDT by spintreebob
Kalshi‘s predictions are based on people betting on the outcome of a race, not on the opinions of voters in Maine. It’s just another way for money to influence our politics.Unfortunately CNN as well as CNBC recently made lucrative deals with Kalshi and are allowing it to influence their reporting. Guess it saves them he cost of polling regular Americans who don’t have the time or money to constantly bet on things.
(Excerpt) Read more at thedailybeast.com ...
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
From all sides, there are those who mis-represent and twist the story. We need to read these stories...and understand the bias.
Sure... no candidate named and now all the sudden Dems have a better chance.
The very definition if polling to create a narrative.
Like the fact that we are to believe Collins is a conservative.
If you didn’t give me any names, but told me the accused rapist with the Nazi tattoo was no longer the Democrat’s candidate, I’d think they just improved their odds.
True, but we need to fight as though the barbarians are winning.
Improving their odds is different than specifically having a better chance than the incumbent to win the election.
Don’t be fooled by the rhetorical sleight of hand being performed here, they are clearly saying ANY democrat is not more likely to win than the incumbent.
There is no basis for that other than pushing a narrative.
I agree, no time to get comfortable.
Reminds me of those polls that said Hillary Clinton had a 95% chance of beating Trump - on the eve of the election.
Also polls right before the election showed (2016):
Wisconsin: Polls showed Clinton +6.5; she lost by 0.7
Michigan: Polls showed Clinton +3.4; she lost by 0.3
Pennsylvania: Polls showed Clinton +2.0; she lost by 1.2
Also in 2024:
“A Des Moines Register/Mediacom Iowa Poll conducted from October 28–31, 2024, showed Kamala Harris leading Donald Trump 47% to 44% among likely voters in Iowa.”
Trump ultimately won Iowa by 13 points.
So much for polls...
Most ‘elite’ pollster like their elite journalist brethren are liberal, biased, and unaware of how that effects their ‘work’. Or they don’t care how it effects their work. Not caring is more likely in both groups who feel their real job is to trick the public into believing they’re making an effort to be fair.
It makes perfect sense if you consider that often people vote against a candidate and not for a candidate. In this case, the former Democratic candidate was more unpopular than the incumbent Republican and thus got fewer (hypothetical) votes. However, with no candidate named on the Democratic side, there is now no one to vote against but the remaining republican.
-PJ
Are there any obvious democrats in line to accept the nomination? Yes, at this point, anyone would be better than the Nazi sex predator. But any known person will have a record that can be attacked. An unknown can be packaged as a stainless miracle find, but will lack name ID. Not that name ID matters to base democrats, but it might to the swing voters in Maine. If there are any left.
Some of them change the narrative to a more truthful poll reporting shortly before an election to save face. That way the next time they can say that their polling is "accurate". Gotta protect the brand.
I think a lot of those bettors are thinking that it’s better to put a dollar on a 5 to 1 horse than a 1 to 2 horse.
Prediction market Kalshi shifted from a 50-50 toss-up, on July 2, to giving Democrats a 63-percent chance of winning, on July 12.
This is gamblers playing the odds, not actual polling. You only need 50% +1 to win this bet.
This like to market responding negatively to an estimate when the actual data comes in lower then the pronogistcators suggested. The data is what it is.
Susan will win this race going away.
Steven Scharf
Never forget when “Republican” pollster Frank Luntz was highly vocal in his emails to Hunter Biden, reminding him of all the things he had done supporting his dementia carcass daddy over President Trump. Luntz was wanting something in return.
Believe nothing from these tools. They are paid professional liars. They know sheep only want to follow the leader.
CNN Data Guru .... 🤣
Collin’s favorability rating is negative. She was only beating Plattner because the rapist/nazi favorability rating was even worse.
Enten also pointed to history, noting that the president’s party rarely wins Senate seats in states it lost in the previous presidential election.
In 2024, Trump lost Maine to Democratic nominee Kamala Harris, who won 52 percent of the vote.
The last time Republicans won a Senate race in a state they had lost in the previous presidential election was in 2010. “Susan Collins is going to have to break history to win in Maine in 2026,” he said. “And with Platner out of the race, it makes it much less likely.”
The Maine Dems are going through the formality of choosing the designated loser. None of the lightweights under consideration have a snowball’s chance in heck of beating Collins.
The only possible candidate with enough gravitas is retiring Gov. Janet Mills, who “suspended” her campaign but still came in 2nd behind Platner. She’s been “werry-werry qwiet” as we watched Platner implode. If she walks into the Special Convention on Saturday, July 25, 2026, you’ll know the fix is in. As told to me by a Dem insider, “Mills wants it so bad she can taste it!”
We shall see!
The Daily Beast” -as bad as it gets. The bottom.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.