Will Kamala lean into her Copmala persona / prosecutorial background?
https://x.com/SwannMarcus89/status/1815155883061739554
Conditional on winning the nomination.
This market is so I can bet against someone on the question. I'll resolve according to the judgement of whatever trustworthy third party we use to adjudicate our disagreement.
The kind of thing the judge(s) should be looking for:
Explicitly states that her administration will break from Joe Biden's policies
Matt Yglesias or Nate Silver call out the strategy in their newsletters
Any promise of Kamala's favorably impacts police supply/private prison stocks (and isn't immediately walked back)
She's criticized by other Democrats over the stance
[placeholder]
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ22,900 | |
| 2 | Ṁ8,944 | |
| 3 | Ṁ3,983 | |
| 4 | Ṁ1,650 | |
| 5 | Ṁ853 |
People are also trading
As arbitrator: Based on the evidence below, and my general sense of her campaign vibe, I’m inclined to resolve NO. (She has talked about being tough on the border, but as I wrote in an earlier comment, that doesn’t count.) The things in the bullet points have maybe happened slightly? I feel like Harris tried to have her cake and eat it - she didn’t want to risk condemnation from the left.
Does anyone have evidence toward a YES resolution they want to share? Otherwise I’ll resolve NO in a few days.
@MichaelWheatley Resolution criteria examples invoke Matt Yglesias. I think #3 here is Yglesias's way of saying Kamala should have acted tougher on crime if she wanted to improve her chances of winning the election:
@MichaelWheatley oh dear. this is like the thousandth thing on my priority queue. I can rule in a week (or if someone presents evidence that takes a very short amount of time to agree with)
@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”
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.
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