Resolution criteria same as @Joshua market for 2023.
FAQ:
Why are so many answers getting disqualified? What were they?
They were because a troll (now banned) submitted answers and then edited them to completely different answers, including many duplicates. As a result, those answers had to be disqualified, which means they are guaranteed to resolve NO. (This market type doesn't allow N/A-ing specific answers unfortunately.)
I'm surprised Trump is still so low (currently 16%). He has lowered in the election market (currently 45%, was just briefly at 56%), but that implies a ~2/3 chance he's president-elect but not Time POTY. However, the president-elect has been Time POTY every cycle since 2000, and from a historical perspective, Trump's re-election would probably entrench the effects his first term and second campaign had on US culture and conservative politics.
@Jacy While I think he's very likely to be picked if he wins, he might be featured alongside JD Vance, which would resolve the market 50% Trump and 50% Vance.
What are the odds that Harris is named, but not Walz?
In my opinion, quite low. Considering that Harris and Biden were named together in 2020, I could imagine Harris being named alone if her running mate was a boring, irrelevant placeholder. However, Walz has already proven to be a major player in the race, having coined the "weird" strategy, and having reached impressive approval levels rapidly. Having heard the man speak, one can only imagine that his significance in the race will only go up after his debate with Vance.
Therefore I posit that Harris and Walz should be much closer together. Harris is too high at 44% and Walz is too low at 17%.
@Joshua since the description refers to your market from last year, can you confirm if 3 people resolves to 1/3 each, eg. Harris, Walz, and Biden? And can they resolve exactly to 1/3 or would they have to do something like 33%/33%/34%? Thanks.
(it always resolves to 100, so it takes your inputs as weights)
you can just type "1" in each box and it'll split evenly. no need to do that math
ooh i never knew that, thanks for the tip @Stralor