Nah.  Many (maybe even most) polls literally had Harris winning.  Not a single betting firms over the entire campaign ever gave Harris better odds than Trump.  I tracked a wide variety of firms, all (that i watched) never had Trump less than 55%.  

The polls were hot garbage.  Almost all polls had harris winning the popular vote....  

Polls had 7 states as toss-ups.  Meaning 3 to 4 should have flipped Harris.  Zero flipped.  

Iowa was suppse to be on the table, and Trump won by 10+ points.  New York and California were closer than Florida.  Granted Cali was still counting so potentially has changed.

Sorry there was little about polls that were accurate.  What makes it worse is they under polled Trump twice before, making this literally three times in a row.  I for one have zero trust in polls.  The data is out, clearly they have no idea what they are doing.   

As for odds changing, that typically occurs when one side places more bets than the other, it is a derisk calculation, not a prediction change.  

Betting firms were way more accurate than polls.  Just accept reality, my faith in betting firms was a good position.  Your mockery was a bad one.  It happens.  

Edit

I agree with Jon Stewart regarding polls.  To each their own, but it will be a long time before I give a **** what pollsters are claiming.  

Remember the following post from Sept. 13 (Page 79 of this thread, 4th down)

LMAO !!!

(...)

Let's make up a story. What if, the Democratic presidency instead of telling everyone to suck it up because worldwide economic situation is bad, would be understanding of the problems the working class people face. What if they create programs to help the people that are poor and are hardest hit? What if they supported their people instead of big corporations? (...)

Almost all polls were within the margin of error, so hardly anyone had Harris winning. Even that one Iowa poll was within the margin of error, and it was an outlier because all other polls for the state had Trump winning. Regardless, the polls in general were wrong because they showed a toss-up when it wasn't a close race.

The polls being wrong doesn't make betting firms a good predictive tool though. They just show where the money flows, so your position of faith in them wasn't a good one because at the end of the day it's like putting faith in having random luck at the right time.

So you show me an old post where I said that the polls aren't accurate in response to my post where I said that I didn't regard polls as accurate. Cool.

That is what Kamala Harris ran on. Punish corporations for price gouging, tax cuts for the working class, benefits for first time house buyers.

Trump's policies, if implemented, will cost the working class up to an additional $4,000 a year when they are already stretched thin as it is.

One policy proposal is good for the working class, the other one is bad. This is a very easy call, so how could Trump win the election regardless? Because it's like sundin said, there are too many idiots who don't understand the economy.

In the aftermath of this election there have been way too many analyses that were built on the premise that American voters decided in a reasonable and rational manner, but Occam's Razor shouldn't be ignored. When you consider the stark contrast between the two candidates and their policies in all areas, this was the easiest decision ever, yet the American people still bungled it. A lot of them voted against their own financial interests.

It ain't that hard bro.  Polls had it as a toss up.  Betting firms had Trump winning fairly comfortable, including swing states.

Trump won comfortably and won all swing states.  

Betting firms were more accurate.  This cannot be disputed.  It is a cold hard fact, period.  

edit

End of October (31st), Polymarket had Trump at 65% and Harris at 35%....  polls had it as a tossup... there is no argument, full stop. 

That is what Kamala Harris ran on. Punish corporations for price gouging, tax cuts for the working class, benefits for first time house buyers.

Trump's policies, if implemented, will cost the working class up to an additional $4,000 a year when they are already stretched thin as it is.

One policy proposal is good for the working class, the other one is bad. This is a very easy call, so how could Trump win the election regardless? Because it's like sundin said, there are too many idiots who don't understand the economy.

In the aftermath of this election there have been way too many analyses that were built on the premise that American voters decided in a reasonable and rational manner, but Occam's Razor shouldn't be ignored. When you consider the stark contrast between the two candidates and their policies in all areas, this was the easiest decision ever, yet the American people still bungled it. A lot of them voted against their own financial interests.

Hey, nobody said Trumps policies are good for the working class, you really are fighting windmills here.

Bernie Sanders said that Biden had good policies enacted, but he also said it isn't enough, as the rich still get richer while the working class still suffers. More is needed. Kyle Kulinski commented it as being the tallest in kindergarden - you can brag, but it doesn't mean as much in the bigger picture.

Additionally the Democrat party didn't really show alliance to working class. If at all they got condescending messages. The actual focus of the campaign wasn't working class worries, but how republican the democrats now are: owning guns, securing border and so on.

And in your argument is an assumption baked in: the assumption that every voter Harris lost gone and vote Trump. But the reality is, that Trump pretty much got the same number of votes as 2020: he got 74 million in 2020 and now got about a million more. Harris lost 10 million votes compared to Biden 2020. So it isn't a question of Trump being better. It is more a question if the democrats are good enough, and for many voters they weren't apparently. So comparing with Trump is pointless, the question should be: how can the democrats be better.

And yes, vibes do matter more than the nitty gritty details. But either way, even if looking at the real data shows that peoples life didn't improve under Biden and the vibe of the democratic party is that they don't care about the simple worker, more that Nancy Pelosi can keep getting rich off insider trading. The vibe is, that the democratic party cares more about graduates from elite universities, than uneducated working people at minimum wage jobs.

So, you and sundin call people idiots, because they didn't act like you wanted, not acknowledging how different people are and live and how different their situation is. You are handwaving it as not rational, even though their situation isn't really improving with democratic policies as they are now. The question is how much it is worth if Don Quijote is calling people idiots, who didn't join him in the fight against windmills. Who is the idiot here?

First of all, Harris lost PA alone by 150k votes. 

As for hypotheticals, there isn't really any way to know how things would have been different if Biden initially chose not to rerun. My opinion though is that Harris ran a damn good campaign, benefitted from a lot of momentum and enthusiasm when Biden dropped out (which also kept Trump and his attacks off balance for a while), didn't have to go through a difficult primary and was able to run a campaign focused on the general election from the start. She also had ample funding a strong ground game. Given this, I don't see any other Democrat as having a lot of room for improvement, even if they got through the primary unscathed and ran a perfect campaign. 

IMO, saying that this election was close is cope. It was not close and imo it was not about the candidate or the campaign, it was about the party and the national environment. 

I'm sticking with my original opinion: Dems were doomed from the start. 

Lol he has to run a million dollar daily giveaway in PA with Elon to win...

These people are truly deranged