@traders I propose to make this market track how Senators actually caucus. If that's clear in advance, we can resolve shortly after election day. If it's unclear, and especially if Osborn wins and that matters, I propose to wait until the start of the term to see. I propose to define "majority" as "51 seats", not including the VP tiebreak, and "tie" to mean the major parties have exactly equal seat counts. "Other" would then be the remaining cases, where neither major party has 51+ seats, but counts are unequal, such as 50-49-1 with an independent or third party Senator.

I think that's the most consistent reading I can come up with given the lack of details available and existing pricing.

Opinions? Alternate suggestions?

I don't have a position in this market, but my arb bot trades in it and I'm using it for election modeling. My current interest in it is primarily in getting some clean and consistent definition nailed down soon.

For Democrats to win a majority, they must successfully defend all current Democrat seats and flip all vulnerable Republican seats (North Carolina, Maine, and Ohio). They must further flip at least one of Texas, Iowa, or Nebraska. It’s not impossible but it is a very tall order.

Alaska could become competitive if Mary Peltola runs, but it is not an easy flip either. And flipping Nebraska is only possible if Dan Osborn decides to caucus with Democrats.

There are currently two Independent senators who caucus with the Democrats (Bernie Sanders and Angus King). How are you counting them?

@EvanDaniel the creator has deleted his account. Perhaps you can decide? Thanks

I wonder how Dan Osborn would effect this market if elected

Why do you have tie instead of just letting the VP break the tie....

@Riley12 I assume because it's asking about "majority" and not control? It's a little odd but seems like a fine way to write a market.