This market resolves to YES if Donald Trump finishes in first place in every nominating contest of the 2024 Republican Party presidential primary. If Trump finishes second or lower in any contest, this market will resolve to NO.
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ4,947 | |
| 2 | Ṁ1,194 | |
| 3 | Ṁ465 | |
| 4 | Ṁ318 | |
| 5 | Ṁ184 |
People are also trading
@nikki The NV primary wasn't a real nominating contest, since no delegates were awarded. Trump won the Nevada caucus, which was the actual nominating contest in NV. Also, Haley didn't win the NV primary, "None of these candidates" did. And "None of these candidates" presumably means Trump, since he wasn't on the primary ballot.
@PlasmaBallin Haley won the primary. Wikipedia and others consider a non-binding primary a part of the nominating contest.
"None of these candidates" cannot win an election in Nevada. By state law, Nikki Haley won the primary. Besides, "None of these candidates" is not equivalent to Trump.
@PlasmaBallin By the definitions in the description, Trump did not finish first in the Nevada primary. The Nevada primary is a nominating contest, regardless of whether it awards delegates. Therefore this market should resolve no
Wikipedia and others consider a non-binding primary a part of the nominating contest.
I don't know where "Wikipedia and others" say this (and also, "part of the nominating contest" would not necessarily mean the same thing as "a nominating contest"). But the Nevada primary wasn't just a non-binding primary - it was a primary that was not considered valid by the party it was supposed to be a primary for, and there was a completely separate nominating contest in the state that the party actually used.
It would have been better if the creator had specified beforehand, but it is completely reasonable to not count the meaningless primary that Trump wasn't even on the ballot for in this market, given that the only contest in Nevada that actually matters is the caucus (I did the same thing in my market about whether Trump would lose a single state in the primaries). And given that the creator didn't resolve it after the Nevada primary, this is obviously what the intent of the market is. And it's also obviously how everyone else betting in the market interpreted it, given that it's been at almost 90%. It would be extremely dishonest if the creator were to suddenly change the interpretation of the market from what every trader except you was trading based on.
By the definitions in the description, Trump did not finish first in the Nevada primary.
The description doesn't give a definition of "nominating contest". Don't cite the description when you are actually using your own definition that is nowhere to be found in the description.
@nikki Google says he won, he got the delegates, if every single state turned out like Nevada he would have won the primary. Also, if your criteria were the understood definition why was this thing in the 90's even after Nevada? You're using a tortured definition, it's obvious, unless I'm missing something. I would need a pretty good explanation or I would feel iffy ever betting on a market from this user
@PlasmaBallin AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH I should lose mana just for this mistake. that's a very bad mistake and I was very self righteous about that. These comments were days old when the market was resolved, they weren't from the person who created the market, I didn't even check to see if there were other states he lost since then. These are all mistakes worth mentioning out loud.
I'll bleed some mana to a charity as penance.
👍