In Ben Shapiro and Destiny's debate,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5I6A2cukme8
Ben Shapiro claim that there is 0% chance that Trump would try to run for a third term US president, while Destiny claim that there's 100% chance that Trump would try to run for a third term. Who is right?
I use a rather broad definition of 'attempt' here. Resolves to 'Yes' if there is any attempt by Trump to run for a third term as president. This includes public statements, fundraising efforts, or other indications suggesting he is considering a run for a third term.
Resolves NA if Trump did not become president in 2024
Resolves 'No' if there is no evidence for Trump attempting to run for a third term by the end of 2032.
Edit: If Trump was making a joking about running for 3rd term president that wouldn’t count. In case that it is difficult to determine if Trump is joking or not, I’ll consult with traders here.
Edit: If no clear statement or quote from Trump is available, I do not consider that sufficient evidence for the market to resolve YES.
[Edit May 6, 2025]: For the record, I’m handing over the ownership of the market to @shankypanky, she has the final say on the market resolution and all clarifications on the market.
Pinning the voting page here on whether this market should have resolved Yes already.
https://manifold.markets/Balasar/should-manifold-market-resolve-as-y?play=true
1,000People are also trading
I've put my hand up in response to @Gabrielle's post to mods, as I don't hold a position here.
I'm reopening this market - selling meme gear or offhand comments such as his recent "well we'll see, people want me to" (paraphrasing) don't count as an attempt.
the market description feels unfortunately incongruent to me as I would say a remark is not an attempt (as the question asked). to keep with the existing criteria, I'll be a bit more loose than I'd prefer to qualify as an attempt but even so, I feel strongly any evidence I've seen thus far does not qualify. the fundraiser will need to be unambiguously tied to a third term run, and can't be run by third parties simply because they hope he will if they raise money for it. Trump sells so much schlocky gear that I can't in good faith consider these hats as much more than a troll.
"some people want us to do a fourth. I don't know. I'll have to think about that. You saw the new hat?… It says Trump 2028"
@JamesBaker3 "I'll have to think about that..." Literally synonymous with considering a run. It's a "public statement... suggesting he is considering a run for a third term". But yeah I agree given the history here it probably won't resolve .
Okay, if there's not going to be a response to my comment (whatever, fine, I get it I guess) then can we at least get a very large cleanup and edit of the market description?
I have no idea how and to what degree I should update my positions because the market description is clearly not in line with the real resolution criteria, and the comment section is now huge, and overwhelming in parts, and I don't know where to look.
I don't think, based on the new criteria (although i still am confused about what these criteria are), the market should resolve YES yet. However, I think Balasar's comment about the differences in %'s suggests others are perhaps as confused as we are about how to evaluate this.
@Quroe thanks.
Maybe this should be fleshed out and replace the old market description, or at least shift the old description down and put this at the top.
@Quroe my personal preference would be to just remove the old description completely, and add a new one, because from my understanding the new requirements for resolution are pretty much fundamentally at odds with the old ones. The market is being run by someone new anyway, too.
full clarity here btw: ive sold out my position here entirely for a (for me anyway) pretty heavy loss. lack of response to my (at least I think) my fair questions and your link to the bookmark leave me 1) not wanting to participate as a better in this market anymore and 2) think the current odds are probably already pretty good for what is the burden of proof here, so idk where the +EV bet would be.
my reason for asking for a modified/redone description (despite no longer holding) is based in 1) I think this market has some merit still considering its size and the historical recounting of its comments, but also 2) if i ever get back in i'd like to be able to just check the description instead of having to comb through comments again in say, a year from now.
@JamesBaker3 The hard part here is telling when he is trolling, which he does actually do in addition to being serious about absolutely insane things. For example, he is not attempting to run for pope.
@shankypanky Look, as further evidence this market is no longer remotely about what it says it is about, the market dropped another 10 points - not in response to these comments, which happened a day ago, but because of the person who is responsible for the market reposting them. This market is now trading below "Will Trump say he is candidate for a third term as president during the year of 2028?", which should be a stronger criterion, and is effectively tied with "Trump seriously attempts 3rd term in 2028?" which was explicitly designed to be a stronger version of this market without the "broad" criterion that the original creator claimed to be going for. Surely this suggests there's some problem here.
@Balasar so, before the argument was that the 2028 hats should be considered a fundraiser or that his interview was explicit (not implicit) that he plans to run in 2028 but now that there's a video of him directly saying the hats aren't a fundraiser and he's not planning to run, this market is somehow problematic?? a market shouln't resolve to an interpretation of off-hand comments, as I said before, and the video I've posted here/Joshua posted below makes it clear that (at least for now) he's not planning to run.
the market covers a lot of years, there's no real need for people to aggressively push for resolution based on subjective interpretations of past comments or merch in his longstanding grift shop.
@Balasar I will personally arbitrage between the two markets. I agree with you, there should be no reason why this market has a lower price than "Will Trump say he is candidate for a third term as president during the year of 2028?" or "Trump seriously attempts 3rd term in 2028?"
@Balasar The problem is that I don't spend enough time on this website anymore or these would all be <20
@Joshua >10 is still atrociously high for defying the constitution but I don't see it worth much more. He'll be too old, too unpopular, and have too many republicans lined up to take his place.
@shankypanky I apologize, I'm not trying to be rude to you personally. This market just reminds me of all the "reasonable" folks back in 2020 who thought it was media hyperventilation to say that Trump would attempt to hold on to power when he was obviously setting up a narrative to try to retain it past the election. I normally would not care about a fake market so much, except that I find it personally upsetting that people are so blase about this. I feel like the chance it happens is pretty strongly anti-correlated with the expectation that it will happen, and so, to me, a low number here is very deeply unsettling. Maybe I should get off Manifold.
For what it's worth...
———
Trump says he is not considering running for third term
@itsTomekK I worry that I would worsen things by editing the title/descriptions. If @shankypanky or other mods would like to make edits to the title/descriptions to make them more consistent with each other, please do.