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.
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ6,351 | |
| 2 | Ṁ2,307 | |
| 3 | Ṁ2,142 | |
| 4 | Ṁ2,118 | |
| 5 | Ṁ2,083 |
People are also trading
I'm assuming @Simon74fe this resolves NO if Biden is put up for nomination but not nominated (the nomination vote fails)
Same question on Polymarket currently at 63% https://polymarket.com/event/biden-nominated-by-virtual-roll-call-before-dnc
DNC chair arguing with Nate Silver on X about this:
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!
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.
Surprised by how low this is, given the information we have?
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.