Sportsbet Says It Will Pay Out Early On Biden As US President (bloomberg.com) 245
Anonymouse Cowtard writes: When you're holding millions in bets on the favorite, you don't take the decision to payout lightly. Betting agencies are often good barometers for political polls, but Sportsbet has been stung before. They incorrectly paid out on bets for the Labor Party in Australia to win two days before the election was held, assuming a victory would come to the polling leaders. That party lost.
According to Bloomberg, "Sportsbet has decided to pay out early on Joe Biden to be elected as the U.S President even with the official result still not known, according to a statement. The online bookmaker has deemed Biden's lead as 'unassailable' after CNN projected Michigan would go to the Democrats and that he holds the ascendancy in Nevada and Arizona. Sportsbet has paid out over 100,000 bets to punters who backed Biden."
According to Bloomberg, "Sportsbet has decided to pay out early on Joe Biden to be elected as the U.S President even with the official result still not known, according to a statement. The online bookmaker has deemed Biden's lead as 'unassailable' after CNN projected Michigan would go to the Democrats and that he holds the ascendancy in Nevada and Arizona. Sportsbet has paid out over 100,000 bets to punters who backed Biden."
Seems safer than the Australian vote (Score:3)
This one seems a bit safer, at this point it seems implausible that trump could make up a rather extensive list of recounts needed to be declared winner, and Biden appears to have AZ and Nevada in the hat and that would appear to win Biden the vote in its own right, and for some reason the pollsters seem to thing Pensylvania will flip (something to do with the demographics of uncounted votes).
Admittedly the Australian vote was a bit of a 2016 'wtf' moment, but there had been some pretty serious changes to the electoral system (regarding how preferences are chosen), and it would appear the models just where not reading how they'd pan out properly.
Re:Seems safer than the Australian vote (Score:5, Informative)
That's what's cause most to conclude Biden has this in the hat. But on the flip side,
Extrapolation and projections work when your sampling is completely random. So the votes left to count are statistically similar to the votes you've already counted. But that's not the way vote counting works. Votes from smaller precincts tend to be counted earlier (since you need to finish counting before you can report them). Votes which were mailed in earlier tend to be counted earlier. Precincts further from the counting stations may bring in their ballots later, and assuming a FIFO counting order these will be counted later.
Pennsylvania and Nevada announced before the election that they probably won't receive and count all their mail-in ballots until Friday (they just have to be postmarked by election day). So if the tally in those two states remains close enough that those remaining mail-in votes could make a difference, there's a chance we won't know the outcome until this weekend. (Not to mention the several states which require a recount when the vote differential is less than a certain percentage, usually 1%.)
One thing to note is that Biden seems to be holding at about 50.5% of the popular vote, which would make him the indisputable winner of the popular vote. In 2016 Clinton only won won a plurality - 48.2% of the popular vote vs Trump's 46.1%. But if you added in the votes of third parties based on whether they're conservative or liberal, the conservative popular vote actually exceeded the liberal popular vote 50.3% vs 49.7%. If Biden can remain over 50%, then it's indisputable that he won the popular vote (as was the case with Gore in 2000, and Bush probably lost to Clinton in 1992 because of conservative votes siphoned off by Perot).
Re: (Score:2)
Such a good post and then you had to ruin it with saying someone did or will win the popular vote.
The popular vote is a side metric only. A useful statistic. A coffee table talking point.
In the US, there is no competition held on the popular vote such that anyone can win it. You can only "receive more" of the popular vote.
Re: (Score:2)
The popular vote is a side metric only. A useful statistic. A coffee table talking point.
So was the number of slaves in the US at one point.
Re:Seems safer than the Australian vote (Score:4, Interesting)
The sheer popular vote tally of the presidential elections does not have any importance in the outcome. As the grand parent poster said: It's just a talking point.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The sheer popular vote tally of the presidential elections does not have any importance in the outcome. As the grand parent poster said: It's just a talking point.
His point had nothing to do with the 3/5th compromise and the effect of slave population on electoral districts. It has to do with the importance of pointing out problems in our laws even while they are still the law of the land. At one point slavery was legal but people still fought against it, and spent time pointing out its evils. Today the electoral still exists, but people will still fight against it and point out its problems.
That makes it far more than a coffee table statistic. Keeping the historical
Re:Seems safer than the Australian vote (Score:4, Insightful)
Regional representation might skew some results, but in turn you get another layer of checks and balances. It's a trade-off, but I think it's a worthwhile one.
Re: Seems safer than the Australian vote (Score:3)
Very well stated.
I think it's overdue to remind people that the US is *supposed* to be a federation of independent states. And, the*only* reason for the national part of the ballot, which seems to escape most people, is for the office of President only.
People from Nevada don't get to choose the Senators from Michigan.
Re:Seems safer than the Australian vote (Score:4, Insightful)
No that is not true at all. What you do in a sane system if you want region representation is that you use the number of the votes for a party, to determine the total number of congress members for that party, and then you use the number of votes in each region to determine where exactly the members come from.
The math is rather more complicated in the real world, but most of EU(Except uk) is running on a variation of that system.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Such a good post and then you had to ruin it with saying someone did or will win the popular vote.
The popular vote is a side metric only. A useful statistic. A coffee table talking point.
In the US, there is no competition held on the popular vote such that anyone can win it. You can only "receive more" of the popular vote.
It's a moral victory in a shit electoral system that should have been scraped the day the telephone was invented.
It's beyond belief that the system in place doesn't even bother to have an odd number of college votes, so we could end up with a tie!
And what happens in a tie? Do we look at what people voted for? Fuck that! This is politics; we don't want people interfering with that - we'll send it to the House to decide! And that could be a tie too, because there's 50 votes there. This can theoretically go on
Re: (Score:3)
It could be worse. Just look to the election of 1800. It took 36 rounds of voting for the electoral college to decide upon a president.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1800_United_States_presidential_election
Re: (Score:3)
It's beyond belief we're still using this unnecessary system. The reasons for the electoral college no longer exist.
One of the most significant reasons for the electoral college still does exist, which is why it hasn't been reformed. The details are very different today than at our founding though. Originally the electoral college protected lower population (in citizen count) agrarian states from the higher population northern states. This protection was necessary to form a single prosperous nation. Even that wasn't enough eventually (civil war) but it helped hold the country together for almost a century.
Today the elect
Re:Seems safer than the Australian vote (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Seems safer than the Australian vote (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Seems safer than the Australian vote (Score:5, Funny)
All I know is someone needs to reboot North Carolina, it's been stuck at 95% since yesterday.
Their counting machines run windows and use the system progress bar.
Re:Hasn't always been like this... (Score:5, Informative)
The Presidential elections that I remember had full results available the next day.
Name a single US presidential election where the *full* results were available the next day. I think you might be confusing that with situations where one candidate wins the required electoral college votes with only the results available the next day.
Also aren't you forgetting the 2000 election? Personally I think that one was very memorable so it's a bit strange you'd forget about it.
Most of the ballots are paper ballots. You get a group of people from both major parties in a room, and pair them up. They work together to separate ballots into Biden and Trump piles (and 3rd party). This is not rocket science, and for an election of this importance there would be plenty of volunteers. There is no excuse for any state not to have had ballots fully counted by the next morning.
You do know for postal ballots they need to be verified before being counted, right? And that takes longer. And given there is a deadly pandemic more people have opted for postal ballots.
Not to mention the electoral college doesn't even meet until Dec. 8 so with the current system there is literally over a month reserved for the counting process.
Re: (Score:2)
None of this weird "COVID 19" or whatever else they're calling it these days. I wonder if the global pandemic and record mail-in ballots might have something to do with that.
Re:Hasn't always been like this... (Score:5, Interesting)
The States that haven't reported are the ones that have laws requiring them to NOT count ballots until election day, even if they receive them weeks in advance. They also have large populations and large numbers of mail-in ballots -- millions in some cases.
Sane States allow ballots to be counted, but not reported, as they come in. This prevents a backlog and the sort of non-sense that we're seeing now.
Re:Hasn't always been like this... (Score:4, Informative)
They watch the counters sort into stacks for each candidate, then bundle the stacks into batches of say 10, and then those into batches of 100 and so on. The counters have to handle the ballots in such a way that the observers can see them too.
This implies that there is only one candidate per ballot. That's not the way it works in the USA. In the USA elections, you vote for the president, the governor, the senators, etc.. on a single ballot. Yes, many people vote along party lines but not everyone so there is no way to sort them into piles.
Many districts like my local district uses scantrons. I like this the best. With scantrons, you can easily run all the ballots thru one machine and then thru a second machine or even count by hand if you want.
Re:Hasn't always been like this... (Score:4, Interesting)
That actually explains a lot, now I think about it. I bet a lot of people just select the Republican or Democrat candidate for everything. That how you get the deceased and QAnon believers elected.
At least I hope that's why.
Some ballots actually make it even easier and let you check one box to vote straight party. Personally, I think that party shouldn't even be on the ballot, just the candidate's name. The way it is now, you don't even have to know anything about a candidate, just that the candidate is on your "team".
Re:Hasn't always been like this... (Score:5, Interesting)
Concession generally ends the election, even if the votes are still being counted.
Actually, concession is a political gesture intended to try to gracefully bring the country back together after the necessary division of an election. It has no effect on the outcome. That is decided when Congress certifies the votes of the electors in December, and if for whatever reason it ever happened that the certified result favored the candidate who had conceded, that candidate would be sworn in as president on January 20th.
Re:Seems safer than the Australian vote (Score:5, Insightful)
It is indisputable that most Americans are voting for parties regardless of clown in front. Every election is balancing around 50/50 with changes happening only due to some people not voting or changing sides.
What do you expect when both parties put up a ridiculous candidate? When you have to chose between two clowns, you just vote for the party platform or you vote third party. I literally could have pulled a name out of the phone book and ended up with a better candidate than either Trump or Biden. Trump is a loud, obnoxious, asshole while Biden has been in politics for over 50 years, was using his son to enrich himself and his family and is responsible for some terrible crime bills, and now doesn't appear to be able to tie his own shoes without assistance.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Given the scarcity of phonebooks, your choice would probably be dead, and he would still be a better choice.
Re: (Score:2)
for some reason the pollsters seem to thing Pensylvania will flip (something to do with the demographics of uncounted votes).
The pollsters are correct. The Pennsylvania mail-in ballots skew toward the blue urban areas. So once they are counted, the tally will very likely shift in favor of Biden.
James Carville once described Pennsylvania as "Pittsburgh in the west, Philadelphia in the east, and Alabama in the middle."
But it doesn't matter. Biden wins with or without Pennsylvania.
The only states still in play are NV, PA, NC, and GA. Biden can win with one. Even NV's 6 EC votes put him over the top.
Trump has to win ALL of them.
Re: Seems safer than the Australian vote (Score:4, Insightful)
Ideally, Biden wins NV, PA, and GA. There needs to be a clear message to the extremes (on both sides) that the statue quo of blaming & yelling across the fence needs to stop. If Biden wins with just NV, that just becomes fuel to continue the current temper tantrum's.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably Trump takes PA, NC, and GA and the whole thing focuses down on who wins NV.
Most forecasts have Biden winning NV and PA, and Trump winning NC and GA.
That means Biden is the next president.
Pennsylvania has millions of uncounted mail-in ballots. They are expected to be mostly blue.
But if Biden wins NV, Pennsylvania doesn't matter.
Many of the unreported votes in NV are from Clark County (Las Vegas) which is urban with lots of Hispanics. They will skew blue.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My math may be off, but if Arizona and Nevada go to Biden, he still needs at least one more state. I'm used to disappointment, and I'll be happy if I am wrong, but the most likely bet is Wisconsin and it doesn't seem like a sure thing. Everyone seems to be hoping that a vast majority of mail in ballots are all Democratic, and the vast majority of Republicans voted in person, but there's got to be some non trivial fraction of Republicans who realize that covid is a real thing and would prefer mailing in the
Re:Seems safer than the Australian vote (Score:4, Informative)
Your math is off, unless you don't believe that some of the states/districts that have already been called are, in fact, truly definite. CNN is showing 253 for Biden. Add to that Arizona's 11 and Nevada's 6, and that's exactly 270.
Re: (Score:2)
I was looking at BBC who are a bit more conservative before calling states. Wisconsin does look a lot safer than Nevada which is very tight at the moment.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow. They haven't called Wisconsin yet. Assuming that 99% number is accurate, President Trump would have to get more than 81.3% of the remaining votes to win. It's not quite impossible, but it would raise a *lot* of eyebrows if it happened.
Re: (Score:2)
I wish they wouldn't call a yes/no answer until remaining votes could not change the election.
It invites civil disorder to tell people "that's it- it's done" and then 8 hours later say, "Oh wait- we didn't expect at 70/30 split so now it's not done."
Just say, "We are counting the vote- we'll give you a total every 4 hours. Next update is at 7pm."
Re: (Score:3)
And in states that are subject to a recount, should they refrain until the recount is done? If a legal challenge is pending, should they wait for that? News organizations aren't picking a winner, they're reporting the situation. They should just make their thresholds clear ("we believe that the chance of this going the other way is below 3%") and follow them.
Re: (Score:3)
It almost seems like the people’s best interests are not the #1 priority of the media.
I mean, if you didn’t know better.
Re: (Score:3)
, and for some reason the pollsters seem to thing Pensylvania will flip (something to do with the demographics of uncounted votes).
The votes from Philadelphia and surrounding areas have not yet been fully counted. That is a huge Democratic area. Also, the mail-in ballots are not yet counted. There were 1.4 million mail-ins and for those which have been counted so far, 78% were for Biden. Assuming the remaining ballots have the same percentage, Biden will overcome the 176,000 vote deficit he currently ha
Re: This one's in the bag, don't worry about it! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:This one's in the bag, don't worry about it! (Score:5, Insightful)
Irrelevant observation. Biden isn't a criminal.
You do realise that zerohedge basically just makes shit up right?
"Whisleblower said", is about as useful a claim as "secret CIA agent on 4chan says tom hanks is really a space lizard working with the evil conspiracy mans"
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, as much as I support the first amendment, I feel that manifestos don't convey the same sense of safety and calm that they might once have. Again though, that's just me so please don't target my family for violence.
Re: This one's in the bag, don't worry about it! (Score:5, Informative)
It's not just the law, but also the volunteer & paid Rep & independent supporters who are overseeing and later auditing the process. Even if you assume _every_ Dem supporter is on some brainwashed pill and in on it. Everyone else not on the Dem side are just complacent.
Re:This one's in the bag, don't worry about it! (Score:5, Insightful)
On the one hand they are sure there is massive fraud taking place and have strong evidence to back it up.
Double paradox. They claim to have evidence of massive fraud but when asked to produce it, they can't. In fact, in the 2016 election, the con artist and his supporters sued to stop all recounts by unequivocally stating there is no evidence of vote fraud.
So which is it? Either there's massive vote fraud and they have the evidence to show it, or there's no evidence to show vote fraud so all votes are valid.
Re:This one's in the bag, don't worry about it! (Score:5, Insightful)
On the one hand they are sure there is massive fraud taking place and have strong evidence to back it up.
Double paradox. They claim to have evidence of massive fraud but when asked to produce it, they can't. In fact, in the 2016 election, the con artist and his supporters sued to stop all recounts by unequivocally stating there is no evidence of vote fraud.
So which is it? Either there's massive vote fraud and they have the evidence to show it, or there's no evidence to show vote fraud so all votes are valid.
They don't need to produce evidence, they just have to make claims of voter fraud and Trumpðs followers will swallow it hook line and sinker. Their whole world is blind faith based not fact based. Blind faith in the dear leader's utterances is the core principle by which the Tump cult functions.
Re:This one's in the bag, don't worry about it! (Score:5, Insightful)
All very poetic. But there are plenty of non-Trump supporters who grow our food, deliver packages, fight wars, etc. It's absurd to suggest that it's only the non-Trump voters who called people names, threw tantrums, etc. Those are things that right wing candidates and media seem to have a virtual monopoly on in the US.
Re: (Score:3)
Biden has such a huge lead at this point it would need massive, unprecedented fraud to flip those states that Trump needs. We are talking industrial scale cheating, trucks full of fake ballots. The idea that anyone could get away with that is pretty far fetched.
That's the paradox of the voter fraud conspiracy theories. On the one hand they are sure there is massive fraud taking place and have strong evidence to back it up. On the other hand law enforcement is so utterly incompetent that they don't notice any of this fraud, or despite being generally pro-Trump are for some reason ignoring it.
And of course, if Trump is right about the fraud then if he wins it's not legit - he said so himself! Re-run the election.
At the moment Biden has a lead over the paedophile of 3,602,603 but there's still ~17,000,000 votes to count so the serial sex abuser could still be allowed back to work, even if the system worked by, you know, counting the votes people cast.
Re:This one's in the bag, don't worry about it! (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Only problem is that Trump has SCOTUS in his back pocket, and SCOTUS is the gatekeeper to the Oval Office. Any state decisions hitting the Supremes will be in Trump's favor. All it takes is for appeals for recounts to be rejected, or even if Biden has the popular vote, and the 270+ EC votes, SCOTUS can still vote Trump in, and go full Chewbacca defense... 6-3, SCOTUS can write anything, and the court decision will stand, and Trump will get another term.
I heard an interesting analysis of how SCOTUS might rule if there is an issue of this year's election before them. We have a candidate for POTUS on record saying that he will consider packing SCOTUS by increasing the number of justices on the court, considering putting in age or time limits on justices, and a more recent twist that might concern the justices. Biden has said he might take justices out of SCOTUS and have them take positions in circuit appellate courts. This might be a case of rotating them
Re: (Score:3)
Let me get this absolutely clear. You are suggesting that the Judges of the supreme court, who are supposed to rule on law as judges, would change their decisions based on their personal opinion of one of the candidates. Specifically breaching the US constitution and their own oaths. This also does not seem to worry you? It does not worry you that such people were put into place by your current legislature?
Re:Seems safer than the Australian vote (Score:4, Interesting)
Let me get this absolutely clear. You are suggesting that the Judges of the supreme court, who are supposed to rule on law as judges, would change their decisions based on their personal opinion of one of the candidates. Specifically breaching the US constitution and their own oaths. This also does not seem to worry you? It does not worry you that such people were put into place by your current legislature?
Mitch McConnell stepped in front of the camera not that long ago and claimed that he expected SCOTUS to be 'a political asset for Republican candidates around the country'. So the way McConnell see it SCOTUS is a tool he expects to be able to use to 'adjust' elections in favour of the GOP regardless of the law, be it by upholding gerrymandering, defending voter disenfranchisement and suppression, invalidating ballots on some doubtful pretext or just outright stealing elections. Blindseer seems to be basically parroting McConnell which is not surprising for a loyal Trumpist party soldier who thinks his candidate is entitled to win every election although he coated the issue in way more logical bullcrap than McConnell did. The one thing I like about McConnell is that he is a pretty blunt guy for a Maciavellian power politician. One is are never in any doubt what he'll do next because he'll just tell you in advance. He never coats his intentions in multiple layers of self delusional bullcrap.
Re: (Score:3)
Let me get this absolutely clear. You are suggesting that the Judges of the supreme court, who are supposed to rule on law as judges, would change their decisions based on their personal opinion of one of the candidates. Specifically breaching the US constitution and their own oaths. This also does not seem to worry you? It does not worry you that such people were put into place by your current legislature?
I'm saying that if the matter had any ambiguity on how the justices of SCOTUS were to rule then they'd favor seeing the Republicans win, because the Democrats have stated publicly that they fully intend to turn SCOTUS into a political body for the purposes of rubberstamping future Democrat Party policy. I'm saying that even a Democrat appointed Justice Breyer, the eldest on the court, is likely to have the foresight to realize that the Democrats are on a suicidal path if they follow through on their threat
Darn. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Only 500:1? I wouldn't take that at 30000:1.
Re: (Score:2)
Only 500:1? I wouldn't take that at 30000:1.
Hey, that's what I got at the UK bookie Ladbrokes for Kim!
I figured that with all other variables having been thoroughly dissected, ass size would be a driving factor in voters' expectations of the next POTUS.
I'm disappointed that Wolf Blitzer has not been addressing ass size in his election coverage.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure Kanye will release his electors to vote for Trump. So Trump fans, keep your fingers crossed!
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it wasn't impossible. He would have won if Biden dropped out from Alzeimers, Trump got disqualified for being arrested for tax evasion, and Jo Jorgensen withdrew because she didn't want to be told what to do.
Re: (Score:2)
Why pay out early? (Score:3)
Even if they are sure, why take the risk of losing the payout money? I don't get it.
Sooner you pay out, the sooner you get paid. (Score:5, Insightful)
They know well that people won't pull their winnings out. People put gambling winnings on other stakes, which they invariably lose. Sooner they pay out, the sooner they can get their hands on your 'winnings'.
Same reason why they do things like 'if your team is up by 10 at half time, we'll pay out' - Once they do that, you'll be flooded with options to stake those winnings on 'spot bets' for things that happen in the second half, guaranteeing that even if you won the main stake, you'll still rise from the table a loser.
Re: Sooner you pay out, the sooner you get paid. (Score:4, Insightful)
Holy crap that's devious.
Re: Sooner you pay out, the sooner you get paid. (Score:4, Insightful)
Welcome to the world of gambling. To quote Joshua, "The only winning move is not to play."
Re: Sooner you pay out, the sooner you get paid. (Score:5, Insightful)
The winning move is to play with cash you can afford to lose and assume a total loss for entertainment. Or make single bet that you can afford to lose if you want to worry about the cash not the entertainment value.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't casino gambling, it's online bookmakers. Casino gambling has a different bag of dirty tricks.
Re:Why pay out early? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
OOOH it all makes sense now!
Re: (Score:2)
but they look at everything is upside down there!
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Why pay out early? (Score:5, Interesting)
Publicity. They turn over billions in revenue, one bad payout isn't going to affect their profits.
Betting on a foreign power's election isn't a life and death matter, it's a bit of a laugh - however distasteful any in the US might find it. As a novelty bet, bookies have no interest in the fallout from any Gore 2000 court challenge. Goodwill with their punters.
My larrikin neighbour put $20 on Trump to win even though he would prefer Biden, something to commiserate with.
Re: (Score:2)
Stalin said it best (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes.
Indeed, the people who voted were pretty clearly in favour of Biden, 50.4% to 48%. The people who count the votes have made this much tighter.
Let me be the first to say... (Score:2, Insightful)
You're fired!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't it make more sense to fire the Sun into Trump, since he is the larger bright orange celestial body?
Re: (Score:2)
There is nothing celestial about goblins.
A Calculated Risk for Publicity? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you saying that they're gambling? Who would've thought that a gambling site might be run by gamblers :)
I am sure that the publicity combined with the likely chance of losing (low but not 0) and (as another poster said) extra bets made with the winnings - many people will just bet on something else with their winnings which is profitable - will be a net win for the site.
Don't hatchet your counts (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
The rooster came first.
Re: (Score:2)
This could be a long drawn out one. Trump is launching strategic lawsuits, his supporters are demanding the counter stops/continues depending on if he is winning/losing in their state.
https://twitter.com/therecount... [twitter.com]
It's over, (Score:2, Funny)
Twitler is finally OUT. Hallelujah! Go ahead give me a -1, I'm so happy I don't fucking care now.
Good luck with all that (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Is a houyhnhnm like a covfefe?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It's about half a covfefe...
Re:Wow (Score:5, Interesting)
True story:
I just googled "covfefe" because I couldn't remember how to spell it. Among the first few hits are web sites claiming that it's a rel word but google suppresses searches for it, just to make Trump look bad. There's actually people out there that believe that.
(...and they're voting on how to run the country)
Re: (Score:2)
True story:
I just googled "covfefe" because I couldn't remember how to spell it. Among the first few hits are web sites claiming that it's a rel word but google suppresses searches for it, just to make Trump look bad. There's actually people out there that believe that.
I just googled this too, and, besides a few Urban Dictionary joke entries [urbandictionary.com], four pages in I see no evidence supporting your claim. Can you post a link, as I'd love to read one?
Re:Wow (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah....there's no "v" in Arabic. The "f" sound is used. So, if it were a real Arabic word it would have been cof-fefe. And in the second link the transcription between the English letters and Arabic are incorrect. They have "fa-ya-fa" which would correctly transcribe to English as "feef"not "fe'fe". Now, since Arabic often does not show the short vowels which are written either above or below the main word structure there could be a short "i" at the end, but it wouldn't sound like "fe'fe". That construction would be "fa-ya-fa-ya", with a "ya" at the end turning the word into a possessive (for example "kitaab" is book, "kitaabee" is my book). There is also no "c" sound and the Arabic letter used in the "translation" does not correlate with any of the letters that would make similar sounds (the letters kha, kaf, or qaf). It's a doctored image.
Re: (Score:3)
It's about half a covfefe...
But houyhnhnm is a metric unit while covfefe is imperial so the conversion factor is 0,56249 houyhnhnms to the covfefes plus a triple recommended dose of Sudafed, a thimble full of orange dye and lots of hot air.
Woosh!!!! (Score:3)
Is slashdot that illiterate???
https://www.britannica.com/art... [britannica.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say take the money and immediately run across the border.
Re: (Score:2)
He can't. There is a wall there. O wait..
Re: (Score:2)
That's without taking into account the various dirty tricks Trump is likely to pull (supreme court, etc.)
If people had thought through the impact of mail in ballots then this would not have happened.
The US Postal Service is a federal executive agency. This means that POTUS has authority over how they operate. This means that Trump can issue executive orders on what happens to ballots mailed in states that lean red or blue.
The Democrats were idiots for encouraging voting by mail. Now Trump can manipulate the votes.
If Democrats were serious about maintaining the legitimacy of the vote then they'd keep the fed
Re: (Score:2)
Eh?
The AP callaed Arizona for Biden yesterday and the gap has widened since. I don't believe the AP has ever called a state wrong. Biden is currently 2.4 % points clear in AZ.
GA has a .4% gap with most of the votes counted.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You did not correctly (or incorrectly) predict anything. There are still votes left to count.
In PA, Trump now has a 1.6% lead with 11% of votes left to count. I wouldn't call that secure. In GA, it is 0.5% with 5% left to count.
The votes that are uncounted are mostly mail-in in counties that are mostly Democratic. The mail-in vote largely skewed towards Democrats as Trump actively discouraged people from voting via mail. So the late-counted votes will likely be heavily skewed in that direction. My bet is th
Re: (Score:3)
I think there are several reasons - really it isn't rocket science.
1. Larger counties tend to be slower at counting. They have a higher volume of votes per capita and don't necessarily have proportionally more resources. This is especially true in poorer districts within a city (have you ever seen photos of long lines to vote? They are almost always in poorer districts and the same is very, very likely true for the resources to count the votes as well).
2. Larger counties tend to have larger cities. It is VE
Re: (Score:2)
You took a second mortgage on your house on the outcome of a political decision?
Why? What would that possibly achieve?
And, incidentally, I don't know if you're keeping up, but it's FAR from given that Trump is gonna win.
Re: The non-existent Blue Wave is here (Score:3)
That's not what blue wave was supposed to mean. A blue wave should mean a repudiation of Trumpism, trouncing him. But instead we see Biden taking most battleground states just barely, in many cases we'll see by fractions of one percent. Republicans near cerain to control the senate. That's not a repudiation. This means roughly half of people over there still voted for Trump. This means Trumpism is very much alive and will be back sooner than most think. Only next time it's very likely its next leader will b
Re: (Score:3)
Dems made gains in the senate (they have +1 so far), but they still don't have control of the Senate
The incumbents have had decades to gerrymander themselves into permanent seats.