(yes i know Jeff doesn't work there, but y'know...)
You’re able to see this for yourself when you travel to other countries and talk to people you meet about the politics in their country in person. Suddenly, magically, you’re able to see both or all sides and actually listen instead of selectively listen.
On the other hand, one would say people closer to the issue are the more informed ones and that’s usually correct. A counter point is people closer to the issue are being targeted by more advertising and usually we associate targeted advertising with causing a populace to become more misinformed rather than more informed. The primary media bias every year is calling elections closer than they actually are. Because if the media outlets and the pollsters they hired said any given election wasn’t close, people would check the news less and the media’s primary customers, the advertisers, would be sad about their ads reaching less eyeballs.
What is your opinion about foreign views and foreign bets on foreign elections?
My best guess is that this "betting action" has nothing to do with people trying to make money by betting on who they think will win - given the scale of divergence from polling results, and the speed at which that happened, this seems more like election interference - people spending money trying to influence the outcome.
I'd have to guess that in this election it's American citizens who see it more realistically. From afar it might seem obvious that Trump will lose (spouting Nazi rhetoric, killing Roe vs Wade, etc), and he'll obviously lose the popular vote, but you need to be very finely attuned to what's going on in the swing states - especially at ground level - to understand who's going to be more successful getting out the vote, etc. If expert US pollsters like Nate Silver can't get it right, then someone the other side of the world if unlikely to either. Anyways, as said, I don't think this money really is betting action - I expect it's just election interference.
On top of that, the growth of the blue firewall in PA is losing steam too early...
I do hope I'm wrong, but purely looking at the numbers, I don't think I am.
I don't really trust my opinion, and I have a pretty limited perspective on what people in other areas think, but between 2020 and now, there is much increased support for Harris compared to Biden, and much more muted support for Trump 2024 compared to Trump 2020.
With the polling mildly in favor of Harris in key states (but within the margin of error), I wonder how you've drawn your conclusion.
If I'm wrong, please let me know, as I'd really like to be proven wrong here.
Polls don't really trend though, they tend to settle. Of course significant news can cause people to reevaluate things, but it's probably the case in this election that most people have already made a pretty conclusive decision.
There are other people who are weary from these elections having gone on for so long now and were long ready for it to all be over months ago.
The whole reason for elections and democracy is for the administration and party in power to have a peaceful decent from power. Because without them, in history the only prior means were to overtake the administration by physical force and peaceful descents from power were rare and uncommon.
That had the negative ramifications of the power being concentrated by people with the strongest weapons, not the people with the best leadership, governance, and the most care towards it’s own populace, citizens, and constituency.
If I’ve answers this in any non-neutral or biased way, please let me know as I’m NPA —- the 3rd largest political affiliation.