https://www.slowboring.com/p/riding-the-vibes-to-victory

starting slowly

If border is the only issue she claims to be tough on (no talk of city policing, etc), does this resolve yes?

If she just went on about how we need to close the border and deport people I don't think it should resolve yes, but if it's more than that, things like 'jailing drug cartels and human traffickers', that pushes towards yes

@transmissions11 if you have specific questions about resolution, you should probably ask @Conflux , because IIUC it looks like he's agreed to be the arbitrator

@transmissions11 I agree with Jackson Polack - in American politics, “immigration” tends to be thought of as a distinct issue from “crime,” so she would need to be “tough on crime” not just “tough on the border”

https://x.com/MediumBuying/status/1821882462017855925

Kamala Harris has spent decades fighting violent crime. As a border state prosecutor, she took on drug cartels smuggling weapons and drugs across the border. As vice president, she backed the toughest border control bill in decades. And as president, she will hire thousands more border agents and crack down on fentanyl and human trafficking. Fixing the border is tough. So is Kamala Harris.

Resolves in 4 hours, any updates?

That was a placeholder close date, sorry for the confusion. I've set a new close date to after the election

How can you say "going into the election" then move the goalposts to after the election ends? "Going into" clearly signifies the beginning of a campaign. The first close date made more sense than the new one.

Agree with this point - my bet was on that date not all time

@Conflux any interest in being conscripted as judge on this subjective market?

Sure, I'd be happy to arbitrate this market. I'll provide a few more details on my tentative interpretation so traders can comment.

My interpretation of the criteria is that the items in the bulleted list (explicit statement / commentator callout / police stock impact / Democrat callout) shouldn't just happen once; they should happen a few times over the course of the campaign (in different weeks, let's say).

For instance, if there was one news cycle in which Silver and Yglesias wrote articles, and Democrats criticized Harris, but then Harris moved away from the strategy for the rest of the campaign, my gut is to resolve that as a NO, but if she shifted back and the news cycle repeated a month later, that would become a YES, even if she shifted away from it again before Election Day.

Does that align with your/traders' interpretation of the question? Paging @SemioticRivalry @Joshua as representatives of Team YES

oops, here are real pings: @SemioticRivalry @Joshua

fine with me

Yeah seems alright.

Ok, I think I'm now judge then, under those criteria.

Looks like it's already starting: https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/22/politics/video/kamala-harris-campaign-headquarters-speech-digvid

I would bet yes if this had clear resolution criteria aligned with my intuition. Feels like I’d really be betting on something different though..

I've added some benchmarks to the description, but yeah, it's still a subjective market.

Wouldn't that defeat the point of her being black?

They say only Nixon could go to China.

Can you define ‘lean in’? What’s required for resolution?

At the moment the plan is to find an unbiased third party to render their subjective judgement. But if you have any specific clarifications, I'll try to get them answered.

Imo her being a fmr prosecutor sets a baseline to what "leaning in" means - in that case vague statements of "locking up criminals (like Trump/whoever)" should not count unless it's one of the central points of the campaign. There will likely be some of this to appeal to centrist voters, but she will obviously walk a fine line as not to antagonize progressive/Black Dems too much.