➕
Plus
89
125k
Aug 20
22%
chance

Resolves YES if Joe Biden is nominated via virtual roll call before the DNC convention (currently scheduled for August 19).

Resolves NO if someone else is nominated or if Joe Biden is nominated during the DNC convention.

Get Ṁ600 play money
Sort by:

I'm assuming @Simon74fe this resolves NO if Biden is put up for nomination but not nominated (the nomination vote fails)

Yes, this would not count. The market is about him officially receiving the nomination

It's at 44% now

Big spread now

Damn I should really be betting on polymarket...

bought Ṁ50 YES

There is clear opposition. I think there is some chance the opposition succeeds, but a 45? chance? I hope that is correct.

DNC chair arguing with Nate Silver on X about this:

https://x.com/harrisonjaime/status/1813241706990473389

Very trivially lying, nobody serious believes in this argument and it would get massacred in a federal appeals court.

bought Ṁ538 NO

Like not appointing supreme court in the election year? They are aware of the way laws are bending for the other party. Imagine how ridiculous it is looking for not having the name on the ballot? But this party is tearing at seams, I think they will fold and holding for the convention!

the supreme court's very recent ruling in trump v anderson forecloses any of these possibilities

I don't understand how trump v Anderson applies to stuff like this. It can't say that states can't have deadlines and other criteria for ballot access, they obviously do. (E.g. RFK isn't going to be on many state ballots) But I don't really understand how the legal justification for this stuff works

The current law in all 50 states is that the Democratic and Republican candidates for President have ballot access. The very strict and early ballot deadlines are for other parties. The DNC is arguing, sure, we have access in all 50 states, but what if they suddenly change the state law to make it so that we don't? Therefore, we must select a candidate now. In Trump v. Anderson, SCOTUS talk about how there shouldn't be a patchwork of different enforcement in each different state, and I think the same idea would work against any such state law that would arbitrarily change law to exclude a specific candidate. It would also very likely violate the Purcell Principle.

They did change the law, and gave the DNC every chance to comply with the new law.

Deliberately not following the current law because you are super confident they will, retroactively, change it back after the deadline passes is ... honestly probably fine because the Republicas probably wouldn't dare, but it undeniably introduces a small risk.

It is undemocratic processing for not nominating the primary winner!

bought Ṁ200 YES

Me too. Just curious, what is the argument for the opposite? I do know that there is some opposition. But, this was announced a long time ago that this would happen, and already been decided on by a DNC committee. Certainly the campaign desperately wants it done ASAP as well? The opposition to Biden's candidacy seems to now be in a quieter mode as well.

opened a Ṁ1,000 NO at 56% order

It was a bizarre, antidemocratic move even before Biden showed the entire world that he couldn't speak. Now a lot of people will line up against it.

opened a Ṁ1,000 NO at 55% order

Just another bluff

Sure it seems bizarre, and seems like a political mistake to me, but the DNC & Biden campaign appear pretty deadset on it.

More related questions