Will Kamala Harris win the first debate against Donald Trump? (According to manifold)
Basic
145
24k
resolved Sep 11
Resolved
YES

I'll compare the probability of "Kamala Harris" in this market right before and right after the debate. If it increases I'll resolve yes.

Technicalities:

  • If it stays at the same number, I'll use the manifold API to get the exact numbers

  • If it still stays the same I'll resolve NO

  • If there is no debate I'll resolve NA

  • If it doesn't end up being a debate between Harris and Trump, the market will be about whoever the nominees are

Mini version open during the debate:

Get Ṁ1,000 play money

🏅 Top traders

#NameTotal profit
1Ṁ373
2Ṁ311
3Ṁ251
4Ṁ225
5Ṁ206
Sort by:

Exact market probability from API: 51.0400917209865%

I hope she's been grilling and grinding every day to prepare for this. You know people are going to vote based on the dumbest superficial shit from this debate.

N̶o̶t̶h̶i̶n̶g̶ e̶v̶e̶r̶ h̶a̶p̶p̶e̶n̶s̶. It's already priced in.

bought Ṁ500 NO

i have a 1/1 track record of sensing of how debates might turn out and I think Manifold is overrating Harris severely for the debate. There is zero evidence to suggest she's a good debater, and great evidence that she's terrible on her feet, and says nonsensical shit all the time. Trump is nothing special, but he will absolutely sense blood and try to knock her out in this debate, and there is a good chance it goes quite badly for Harris.

opened a Ṁ200 YES at 59% order

Please fill my yes shares.

@PlainBG Are you sure?

Context for Manifold's judgement

bought Ṁ100 NO

Efficient Market Hypothesis holds that this cannot be too different than 50%. Given Manifold's stated calibration record, it is more true than not.

Good point but not necessarily. Maybe there's a 75% chance Kalama goes up by 1% but a 25% chance she goes down by 3%.

Seems unlikely to have that much asymmetry priced in. More realistic is the possibility of "relief" trade, with Kamala being underpriced slightly because she hasn't debated well in the past and then exceeding the expectation with >50% probability.

You know what, this actually strikes me as plausible: because she has not done presidential debates before, there is more variance in the expectation of her debate performance, more to lose than Trump if she performs poorly (loss aversion), but less to gain if she (with higher likelihood) performs at or above expectation. The asymmetry with respect to Trump can be rationalized as in "traders don't as care much about his performance because he's a known quantity", it's just mirror image of the Kamala trade.