Never-Trump Republicans are drastically undervalued.

Gavin Newsom has a real chance if, and it’s a big if, he can dial down his exaggerated hand gestures during podcast appearances.

@Tetraspace could you add Mr Beast as a potential candidate?

@BoydKane he's not old enough until the 2036 election

@BoydKane $1 PODIUM VS $1,000,000 PODIUM

LAST MURDERER TO LEAVE CIRCLE GETS A PARDON

I SPENT 24 HOURS LOCKED IN THE WHITE HOUSE NUCLEAR BUNKER

Why are you all so bearish on Mike Johnson? It's not that unlikely (not less than <0.1%) that both Trump and Vance die/get impeached/retire due to scandal and Johnson gets reelected as incumbent president.

@ThomasMach isn't he, like, openly radically homophobic? With election majorities so thin that could make it very difficult to win. However yeah 0.1% is still probably a tad too low

@TheAllMemeingEye My internal model is democratic and republican nominee gets 50% in chance until there is relying polling data. Thus the question is: Can Mike Johnson become the nominee? That I see as likelier as both Obamas or The Rock Johnson.

Maybe you then want to discount his chances of winning to less than 50:50 but more like 40:60 because he is kind of unpopular. I bought his chances at 0.1% and I think 0.3-0.5% might be fair.

@ThomasMach what the...

Why is the Rock so high? XD

@TheAllMemeingEye I think the problem is that buying no at 3% binds up a lot of mana for 3 years without much upside.

@TheAllMemeingEye

Not saying he should be at 3% but...

@jessald I understand why some would click to buy yes with a few mana behind it. And I understand that there is a reason why he is the highest among non-politicians.

@ThomasMach I also just realized a one mana bet on him would move his odds from 0.1 to 5%.
I guess liquidity must be divided over every listed candidate or something?

@jessald Yes the market doesn't have enough liquidity. That's another reason one can't profit enough from The Rock at 3% to justify driving down the price.

@ThomasMach ChatGPT evaluates the probability of all these events occurring at 0.036% https://chatgpt.com/share/68893ad8-56c8-8010-8086-04b78488f5e4

@ShawnReynolds In your chat ChatGPT assumes that Trump leaving and Vance leaving are independent events. They are not. There are plenty of cases, where the scandal or the terror attack is so big that both president and vice president are affected.

I think ChatGPT is under estimating most of the figures and thus is more like a lower bound.

@ThomasMach ChatGPT puts the odds of a dual-killing terrorist attack or assassination at ~0.001% (one in 100,000). I agree, this is just an action movie scenario.

They say that the "very generous" odds that both will resign or get impeached is 0.5%. I'd say 0.05% (one in two thousand). In that scenario, there is probably a less than 20% chance that a Republican would get reelected in the wake of this scandal.

So both of these barely affect the odds.

@shankypanky @Tetraspace could you add Vivek Ramaswamy, Kirsten Gillibrand, Maura Healey, Phil Murphy, and Elissa Slotkin?

@TylerMurphy will do

@nikki looks like we hit the 100 answer limit

@nikki If you N/A an option to allow more to be added does the user who added it get the initial adding cost back? If so I'm ok with my joke answers of Laura Loomer and Barron Trump being N/A'd

@TheAllMemeingEye I don't believe individual options can be resolved early (including N/A) in linked multiple choice

5k Yes Newsom at 9%

Time for a president who is willing to ADMIT to doing crack!

@thepurplebull

test