I agree with the above post because today I saw Trump giving his "victory" speech when onely 35 percent of the votes were in!

With 91% of the votes counted in New Hampshire, Trump is going to win 54 to 43%. However, considering that poll aggregators had 56 to 36% on average (and even over 60% for Trump in the last 2 polls without DeSantis), it looks like Haley got the majority of the undecided voters and did quite a bit better than expected while Trump underperformed somewhat.

If Haley could make that a trend (and capitalize on the increasing signs of dementia of Trump), id' say she still has a shot, even though the odds are still long.

A few things:

A call basically starts as a projection. It's not an official result. It's basically an outlet making an educated judgment call. It's possible for a call to be wrong.

CNN called Florida for Gore in 2000:

Obviously this didn't end up being the correct call. 

They make these judgment calls based off things like polling and previous election results. For example, California pretty consistently votes for Democrats at the federal level. They might expect from polling that California will vote 63% for the Democratic Nominee in 2024 and 34% for the Republican Nominee for President, and it helps that is what the last election looked like there. An outlet might call the election extremely early in California, because they might be seeing the early vote go the way they expected, or maybe even more slanted towards Democratic than they expected. Some of those states, I think even frequently get called when there are still 0 votes, just because it would require an unprecedented Christmas miracle for things to go the other way. 

In this case, they might have had something like "in these counties we expect Haley to win by 2%, and in these counties we expect Trump to win by 4%." And these will have a margin of error of about 3%. If we start the real count on those Haley counties, and Trump is actually winning by 1% (that is within the margin of error to still be accurate polling); then it's pretty safe to conclude that Trump will win the whole state. If he didn't, that would require the Trump counties to actually go to Haley, and that would require the +4% Trump to be a very large unexpected error.

Every vote will be counted to be sure, and as I said the call isn't an official result. 

I hate the Tories in the UK but man, the Republican Party is truly something else, what a fucking cult it has became.

If Biden has any brains left he should now bash Trump and the Republicans as "wanting totally open borders with no regulations since they killed the bill to avoid those"

I don't think talks about possible death is unreasonable for either candidate. 

I didn't say Biden has dementia, I said doctors have no cure for cognitive decline or dementia (which is on the spectrum of cognitive decline). Mild cognitive decline is a global aging phenomena, it's very common after the age of 60 and it only becomes more prevalent, it's unreasonable to look at Biden and suggest the guy is going through something, this is not an insult, just like saying he can't run a marathon isn't an insult, it's an observation, an observation that matters because the polls have consistently shown the democratic base views Biden's age negatively, so it isn't just a made up concern of mine, it's what his base thinks. I think he's doing great for his age, I can only hope to have as much marbles as he does if I live that long, maybe not to run for an election though. 

The heart attack argument. At that age, having a heart attack doesn't make your heart less robust than someone else from the same age group. A man with history of attacks in their 80s absolutely can have a healthier heart than another man in their 80s without history of heart attacks. Bernie is more physically and mentally robust, he campaigned more in 2020 for Biden than Biden campaigned for himself, I am sure this will be the same in 2024. Does it mean that he is less likely to drop dead tomorrow? No. Bernie's overall heath might be worse, I don't have their medical records, but perception and what we see matters, and Biden looks more frail of the 3 in question. 

These days, policies don't matter. I don't believe Bernie being a socialist matters as much as people think, in many ways, Trump was more left wing than Hillary herself on issues like healthcare, bringing manufacturing back, trade deals, opposition of China, and obviously, he was more left wing on the borders (if we actually leave tribalism and the racist rhetoric out of the picture). He still outflanked every other republican who ran on a proper rightwing platform. As far as I can tell, the guy was more Pro-LGBT than Obama himself if you compare both when they were elected, yet again, republicans didn't care and chose him over Bush. (obviously, Trump lied/failed on every single on one of these issues including the border).

With the way politics is (a byproduct of under-educated public), people vote for the person they don't hate, centre, left, right, I doubt the general public is educated enough to know anything beyond who they need to vote for. As a seemingly Biden hater, I seem to have a better grasp of all of his excellent left wing internal policies that been implemented in his first term than many Biden fans. The public really seem to care about few issues, immigration is a global sore point for left wing politicians but nope, we ain't touching that because.... reasons. Besides that, I don't know if the majority cares bout anything else anymore.  

Obviously, just because policies don't matter, it doesn't make Bernie the default candidate, he still needed to win. My point is that you can't have both the DNC and their massive MSM arm influence the democratic primaries negatively and then say "Bernie is unelectable", in the same breath giving us Hillary and Kamala, ok. I personally believe this is the time progressives should go all out and show the voters how genocide Joe (and Starmer) are half bowls of shit, it's a perfect opportunity to either show the difference and at the very least, exert pressure to pull Biden further to the left on more issues. 

As for Trump being worse for the rest of the world, I acknowledged this repeatedly, I am not rooting for Trump to win. Even though, I personally think it would be great for Europe to stop being the USA's lapdog and become a self-sufficient continent that doesn't depend on the USA aid/help/policies etc, I still don't think this should happen because Trump may screw us over, it should happen because... logic dictates it should happen. 

Forget all of the above, the last the point you make in the end, I find baffling and I don't think anyone can rationally support it. The vast majority of Israel arms come for the USA (like 90%?), to say that if "USA stops supporting Israel, not much will change" falls firmly in the objectively wrong territory. This is untested and unsupported hypothesis that is only floated around to leave a small way out for Biden from this mess. Why is AIPAC constantly influencing politicians and elections with dark money if "USA lack of support won't change much" had any merits? AIPAC seems to disagree, and they put their money where their mouth is, hundreds of millions of dollars kind of money.

Why is Biden is risking the few advantages he has and his chances of winning of his stances wouldn't change much? I don't think we'll see an eye to eye on this one. 

They can extrapolate from early voting patterns who the winner will be. You'll see it in November as well. States like Oklahoma and Tennessee will be called for Trump almost as soon as the counting starts.Same thing with California being called for Biden almost out of the gate. They call it when the remaining votes show no likely/possible path to victory in that precinct for one candidate or another. 

"Become"? It's been like this for a great many years. I lived in Oklahoma in 1994, at the time of the so-called Republican Revolution, and Oklahoma is one of the places where the cult took root and blossomed early on. Not only at the Congressional level, but the state's flagship newspaper, which was owned by a conservative family, began targeting the Democratic governor and his family. The Republican governor who followed passed the nation's first welfare-to-work laws and eventually "right-to-work" legislation aimed at undermining labor unions.