Subjective, resolves based on my personal opinion. I will bet no to incentivize people to do this, but will avoid betting too much so as not to bias myself. I think my standards for this are high, but not unattainable.

In an ideal world, we would have markets that asked if a good thing was more likely to happen under Candidate A or Candidate B, and candidate A's supporters would bet on A and candidate B's supporters would bet on B.

And yet, it is incredibly difficult to create a functional market in this obvious format.

You have to account for the opportunity cost of betting on something condition on outcomes which might not happen, and even if they do happen it will be in a long time. Most proposed correlations are either so obvious that no one will bet against them, so nebulous that they are treated as an independent event, or so boring that no one cares.

The problem has been discussed to death in the Manifold Politics Discord channel, and all the various proposed solutions still have many flaws. Several markets have been made by myself and others to try to find notable correlations, and none have succeeded so far in my opinion.

If I am impressed by a market in this format before a date listed as an answer in this market, that answer resolves Yes. Otherwise, that date resolves No and I will add a new date until I am impressed.