Resolves yes if Abdul el Sayed wins the Michigan Democratic primary for senate and Francesca hong wins the Wisconsin Dem primary for governor.
Resolves based on winners of primary.
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Trader | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ14,343 | |
| 2 | Ṁ13,106 | |
| 3 | Ṁ12,126 | |
| 4 | Ṁ7,435 | |
| 5 | Ṁ3,429 |
@SentientTree
Wild... It's a "huge win for data centers" that a Democrat will be governor now, instead of a Republican 🥱🥱
@SentientTree To say that David Crowley has the same views of Data Centers as Tom Tiffany does, is just disingenuous. The reality is that Francesca Hong would've never won no matter what, she'd just lead to the worse candidate winning.
Crowley is definitely closer to Tiffany than to Hong on data centers. He was considered more likely to win the general than Hong, but not twice as likely. Thus, on this issue, the expected position of the governor has shifted in favor of data centers.
"The reality is that Francesca Hong would've never won the general no matter what"
"Closer" is a funny word, you could be slightly different from candidate A but still closer to candidate A than B and you'd still be closer to candidate B
Dawg Crowley and Tiffany both fundamentally want to expand the construction data centers with minor regulation differences. Hong proposed a moratorium to stop that.
If you genuinely believe Hong had 0 chance and aren’t just ragebaiting, you’d believe the same about Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan. I set up a big limit order to give you some liquidity:
https://manifold.markets/kl938/which-party-will-win-the-2026-michi?r=U2VudGllbnRUcmVl
@SentientTree I actually support Abdul El Sayed in Michigan, as shown by my previous markets so I'm not going to go thru with your false dilemma fallacy. They are quite fundamentally different especially when it comes to the environment and conservation of data centers Crowley has stated for example that he'd "require data centers to be powered by their own 100% clean energy"
Again I'm a leftist as shown by my support of El Sayed, and Flanagan but I'm against this idea that the farther left you go the better it is, because than you'd reach communism.
@SentientTree "Will not stop data centers being built"
The problem isn't the data centers itself, if you're against Data Centers as an idea you should honestly throw away or donate your computer and never use the internet again or else you're a hypocrite since the only reason you're able to use the internet is thru the power of Data Centers.
Being a leftist does not mean that you have to be clueless, of what things are and not understand the things that you are fighting for. Data Centers itself are not the problem, the problem is the current environmental costs and power price increases that are the result of those data centers both things that Crowley is planning on issuing.
Again Data Centers are vital for things like cloud storage, streaming You tube, playing online games, and most importantly securing people's "data" online and if you're against it, you should be against the fact that you're using your computer to write this message since a lack of knowing what a data center is, does not give you the excuse to be against it.
I’m not saying data centers are inherently evil., and obviously they’re necessary to some extent. They have significant negative externalities for the local population (water, noise, climate, electricity costs, etc.) and while Crowley is trying to offset some of those externalities, I am not convinced that corporations will not just find a way around whatever regulations Crowley (or a Crowley-Republican compromise) puts in place. I hope to be proven wrong on that front
@SentientTree Well then what is the alternative? Stop it from being built in the first place? In my viewpoint rural people deserve as much of a high speed internet as people in the city, there's no reason why they don't.
In my view the only logical answer when it comes to data centers is regulation not removal.
@Kraalnaxx they explained it to me in discord. All the liquidity is hovering around the 99.4% mark 😂. As I created marker at 95% and withdrew liquidity when it was much lower, pushing the liquidity even higher.
@Kraalnaxx The short answer is that for this market, the further away bets are from 99.4%, the less liquidity they'll have available. The only way to fix this is to add more liquidity to the market near the current percentage, but given that it's probably going to resolve in the next day that doesn't make sense.