BBC:

When asked whether he will accept the 2024 election result, Donald Trump said during the presidential debate in September that he would if it was a "fair and legal and good election".

A majority of Americans - 70% - expect him to reject the result if he loses, according to a CNN/SSRS poll released Monday.

Just this week, Trump himself claimed widespread fraud in a key swing state.

“Pennsylvania is cheating, and getting caught, at large scale levels rarely seen before,” Trump posted on his Truth Social network. “REPORT CHEATING TO AUTHORITIES. Law Enforcement must act, NOW!”

This market is still overpriced. My balance is dangerously low so I'm offering some very generous YES limit orders to reduce my investment, but y'all keep leaving my YES orders untouched and buying my NO orders!

Rather than buying YES here, you should buy NO on the various "will trump win" markets, some of which are at 47% and plenty liquid.

@Fion https://manifold.markets/LarsDoucet/will-donald-trump-win-the-2024-us-p

48%!

This market is overpriced given that Trump needs to win and THEN he needs to deny the election.

This market includes the option that if he wins he declares it stolen. Which is possible. See his georgia rally comments about rigging the election in his favor.

@Philip3773733 In 2016 he won and then claimed the election involved millions of illegal votes against him (hence him losing the popular vote). So he kind of denied the validity of the election despite winning.

Can we have a version of this that is conditional on him winning, and a complementary one for Harris denying the results? To appear in the bottom section of https://manifold.markets/election

I would make them, but I don't want to be responsible for the nitty gritty of the resolution criteria.

• If Harris wins, will Trump publicly deny the official 2024 election results?

• If Trump wins, will Harris publicly deny the official 2024 election results?

Fine I'll do it myself:

https://manifold.markets/Snarflak/if-harris-wins-will-trump-publicly?r=U25hcmZsYWs

https://manifold.markets/Snarflak/if-trump-wins-will-harris-publicly?r=U25hcmZsYWs

Only if he loses. Otherwise, without having done ANYTHING about the process, the election will then be “the best, fairest, biggest landslide, most lopsided, tremendous turnout, most votes ever received by a wrongfully convicted criminal ever without the use the electric boats with sharks”

He said the election results were fraudulent even when he won.

Right, while bringing zero charges, zero lawsuits, zero indictments, zero changes, & zero proofs - while having FULL control of the Justice Dept. Unprecedented level of incompetence then?

Likened to “Job numbers r phony” b4 inauguration then, all of a sudden, “my job numbers r great”. Only to end up with a “Deep State conspiracy to tank my job numbers”

Always the victim.

This should be >70% if it includes the possibility that he wins the EC but loses the popular vote, and says (as he did in 2016) that he actually won the popular vote and that "millions of illegals voted"

It doesn't, see description explicitly saying that 2016 would have been NO

Love how this is just “the odds Harris wins”

I think if Harris wins by a large landslide he might not either, so I would probably subtract 5%.

This is way higher than the odds Harris wins...

The stated criteria for resolution strike me as convoluted.

I’m trying to protect against uncertainty in strange scenarios, but I hear you since normally there’s never a reason to be this pedantic, but say Trump loses a state in terms of people (not to be confused with the popular vote), but the electors are faithless and all vote for him, this market still resolves YES since he denied “official” results, even though he ultimately won the state in the electoral college. On the other hand, let’s say that the electors are faithless in the other direction (state votes for Trump but they vote for Kamala)… HE WOULD STILL BE DENYING OFFICIAL RESULTS (even though everyone would agree that those electors stole that state from him) (hopefully this doesn’t happen, but this criteria also accounts for an insane possibility like that).

I’m also trying to avoid deferring to the media (and instead use Ballotopedia as I don’t want to aggregate all the results myself) since they technically only project the winner, even though the official results actually come much later.

If Ballotopedia is defunct, I can refer to the FEC since they aggregate results as well… just much later and hence prefer not to

You make good points. Thanks.

I'm reading this resolving NO if Trump wins. He has to contest the overall results.

Even if he claims that certain States were stolen, or that many votes were fraudulent.

I created a market that's easier to resolve yes, especially if Trump wins. Trump only needs to claim the election was rigged enough to cost him delegates.

https://manifold.markets/GCS/will-donald-trump-claim-that-any-de?r=R0NT

@TraveelI It would also help if you explained, through the lens of the 2020 election, the types of behaviors by Trump that would or would not resolve YES or NO. What actions/statements in your mind in 2020 clearly resolved YES?

Also:

“>Trump wins the presidency but declares it stolen from the legitimate winner: YES.”

So Trump ‘objectively’ wins the presidency, and declares it stolen from…himself?

Or that he becomes president and admits he stole it from the objective winner?

I'm not sure what this is trying to communicate.

Also:

“Donald Trump explicitly states the election was fraudulent, stolen, or illegitimate after its certification…”[bold mine]

The U.S. presidential election process has no universally recognized “certification date.” It has multiple certifications and key dates.

For clarity, could you specify which of these you consider as the "certification date" for this market?

a) State Certification: Each state certifies its results independently. According to Ballotpedia, in 2020:

• The certification deadlines in five states were within one week of the election.

• In 28 states, the certification deadlines were between November 10 and November 30.

• In 14 states and the District of Columbia, the certification deadlines were in December.

• Three states (Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Tennessee) did not have fixed deadlines for results certification.

• For example Delware certified on 11/5 (after the 11/3 election). Hawaii/Missouri did so on the last possible day of 12/8 (see Safe Harbor Deadline).

https://ballotpedia.org/How_and_when_are_election_results_finalized%3F_(2020)

https://ballotpedia.org/Election_results_certification_dates,_2020

These certifications confirm the state's popular vote and slate of electors.

b) Safe Harbor Deadline: Dec 8, 2020 (2024: Dec 10)

States must resolve elector disputes by this date for Congress to consider them "conclusive."

c) Electoral College Vote: Dec 14, 2020 (2024: Dec 16)

Electors meet in their states to cast votes for President and Vice President.

d) Congressional Certification: Jan 6, 2021 (2025: Jan 6)

Congress counts electoral votes and declares the official result.

Only after your “certification date” do his denials count for the purposes of this market.

For example, on 11/8/20 Trump tweeted:

“We believe these people are thieves. The big city machines are corrupt. This was a stolen election. Best pollster in Britain wrote this morning that this clearly was a stolen election, that it’s impossible to imagine that Biden outran Obama in some of these states.”

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1325442336957018112

Uses the word “stolen.” I assume in general this would resolve as YES.

But your choice of “certification date” might exclude this. FYI: Delaware will likely be the first state to certify again in 2024 (11/8 deadline after 11/5 election).

Finally:

Using Claude, it found 4 statements where Trump used “stolen,” “fradulent,” or “illegitimate” in a public tweet/statement/speech.

Are you saying only those 4 statements - out of all of Trumps numerous statements and actions - only those would resolve YES if this market was running and you were judging, for the 2020 election? (notwithstanding some might not count depending on which “certification date” standard you select)

“Here are the four instances where Trump explicitly used one of the specified words ("fraudulent," "stolen," or "illegitimate") to describe the 2020 election:

1. November 8, 2020 - Tweet:

"We believe these people are thieves. The big city machines are corrupt. This was a stolen election. Best pollster in Britain wrote this morning that this clearly was a stolen election, that it's impossible to imagine that Biden outran Obama in some of these states."

2. December 2, 2020 - White House speech:

"This election was rigged. Everybody knows it. I don't mind if I lose an election, but I want to lose an election fair and square. What I don't want to do is have it stolen from the American people. That's what we're fighting for, and we have no choice to be doing that."

3. December 19, 2020 - Tweet:

"He didn't win the Election. He lost all 6 Swing States, by a lot. They then dumped hundreds of thousands of votes in each one, and got caught. Now Republican politicians have to fight so that their great victory is not stolen. Don't be weak fools!"

4. January 6, 2021 - Video message to supporters:

"We had an election that was stolen from us. It was a landslide election and everyone knows it, especially the other side."​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​“

Seems very restrictive but that's your market’s prerogative. But they exclude, for example these 4 statements which seem fundamentally just as bad. (Or you can indicate they would resolve as YES notwithstanding they occur after your “certification date”):

Here are three damning statements from Trump that strongly imply the election was fraudulent, stolen, or illegitimate without using those exact words:

1. November 4, 2020 - Early morning speech:

"This is a fraud on the American public. This is an embarrassment to our country. We were getting ready to win this election. Frankly, we did win this election. We did win this election. So our goal now is to ensure the integrity for the good of this nation."

2. December 2, 2020 - Facebook video:

"We already have the proof, we already have the evidence, and it's very clear. Many people in the media, and even judges so far, have refused to accept it. They know it's true, they know it's there, they know who won the election. But they refuse to say: you're right."

3. December 13, 2020 - Fox News interview:

"We won the election easily. There's no way Joe Biden got 80 million votes. This was a rigged election. Hundred percent. And people know it... This election was a total fraud... And how the FBI and Department of Justice — I don't know. Maybe they're involved. But how people are allowed to get away with this stuff is unbelievable. This election was rigged. This election was a total fraud."​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

4. January 6, 2021 - "Save America" rally speech:

"We won this election, and we won it by a landslide. This was not a close election... We will never give up. We will never concede. It doesn't happen. You don't concede when there's theft involved."

@Traveel I’m reluctant to bet on this market until this is clarified.

“…So Trump ‘objectively’ wins the presidency, and declares it stolen from…himself?”

It was meant mainly in jest, since there is a timeline in which Trump (because of cognitive decline or otherwise) wins according to the official results, but emails his supporters that his own win was illegitimate and that (e.g.) Kamala was the rightful winner.

Hypothetical timeline rundown;

>(November 5th) people vote

>(Little after) media declares winners

>(November 10th) “WE CANNOT LET THE CROOKED KAMALA’S RADICAL LEFT STEAL ANOTHER RIGGED ELECTION. DJT” -Trump on Truth Social

>(Late-November) most states will have certified their results

>(Mid- December) electoral college votes (presumably in accordance with the results of their states)

>(Early January) congress certifies the results

“Resolves upon his first denial after the results are certified.” This was egregious wording. What it means is: should Donald Trump have denied election results on November 10th, the market will not resolve until the election results are officially certified (despite the denial being made prior to its certification). Thus, the first denial qualifies the market’s resolution, NOT the idea that any denial made prior to the certification doesn’t count.

For your questions:

1. YES

2. YES

3. YES

4. YES

BUT, the market itself does not resolve until the results are official.

Two useful hypotheticals:

>Texas seems blue (media declares it so) (November 6th)

>Trump denies the results specifically in Texas

IF

>Trump successfully demands a recount

>Texas is now red and certifies its results as such

The market does not resolve YES (because his “denial” is in keeping with Texas’ “official” results)

ELSE IF

>Texas certifies its results as blue

The market resolves YES

Will update the description accordingly. Great comment. Please provide any other feedback you may have.

Will update the description accordingly.

To elaborate, the reason this market resolves according to the official results is because Trump wouldn’t actually be denying any results prior to their certification. Though the media projects outcomes and will declare winners, those aren’t actually the results, so, I’m deferring to official results, which also avoids the question “was the election actually stolen?” Instead, it resolves according to information everyone can access and agree on, free from a philosophical bias (so the question is more falsifiable and scientific than conceptual).

Hey, thanks for responding! I know I gave you a lot to consider; I wish I had organized it more clearly.

Clarity on Four 2020 Trump Tweets

I provided 4 tweets/statements from Trump that didn't include “fraudulent,” “stolen,” or “illegitimate.” However, their general thrust is a robust denial of the results that I believe reasonable people would agree on.

You've said they all resolve as YES.

Robust Denial Will Resolve

Thanks for clarifying this! I believe that's a very fair (and the best) position to take. It sounds like you're saying that a denial that resolves to YES needs to be robust and clear in meaning. Those 3 words would cause an automatic resolve to YES, but as long as the denial is clear and robust we should expect a resolve to YES.

Certification Date?

I didn't get any clarity regarding the key “certification date.” I'm not sure if you were trying to provide one and I just missed it.

What I was hoping for, was for you to select a specific 2024 date (or a 2020 analog) on/after which a Trump statement may qualify as a denial.

I provided several potential options. The election is 11/5. Delaware (unless things change) will again be the first stage to certify its results. Their deadline is 11/8 and they tend to do it on (not ahead) of their deadline.

2024 Dates

Election: 11/5

Final Polls Close (Alaska/Hawaii): 11/6 1:00 AM EST

First state certification: 11/8

Safe Harbor Deadline: 12/10

Electoral College Vote: 12/16

Congressional Certification: 1/6

My Suggestion

Honestly, I suggest you just use “Final Polls Close (Alaska/Hawaii): 11/6 1:00 AM EST.”

Alternatively you could use “After 3 major TV Networks/News Organizations Call the Election.”

There were 6 News Orgs/Networks that made a call in 2020 after the 11/3 Election:

CNN: 11/7 11:24 AM EST

NBC: 11/7 11:25 AM EST

CBS: 11/7 11:25 AM EST

ABC: 11/7 11:26 AM EST

AP: 11/7 11:28 AM EST

Fox News: 11/7 11:40 AM EST

A Bit of History

I asked Claude, prior to WWII has an major presidential party candidate ever denied an election in any way?

“In every Presidential election (including ones with voting irregularities like Nixon-Kennedy in 1960 and Bush-Gore in 2000) no major presidential party candidate has ever issued a denial of election results. Further all losing major party conceded within 24 hours of independent state, court, or media adjudication of results.

Nixon, 1960: 11/8 Election. After the Califonia AG declared that Nixon could not close the gap based on remaining uncounted votes on 11/11 at 6:30 AM EST, Nixon conceded on 11/11 at 12:30 PM EST.

Gore, 2000: 11/7 Election. After the US Supreme Court ruled in Bush v. Gore on 12/12 at 10 PM EST, Gore conceded on 12/13 at 9 PM EST.

My Reasoning

The history of major party electional denial is Trump alone (at least since WWII). Formal concessions from presidential campaign loser to winner started with the 1896 election. There has never not been a concession since then.

Why try and section off potential 2024 Trump statements that are wholly unprecedented in the history of the concession era. And arguably the entire history of all US elections including the disputed 1876 Hayes-Tilden election. Even Douglas never disputed Lincoln’s election despite the fact South Carolina would secede 44 days after the 1860 election.

Polls Closed Standard: Best

Using “polls closed” deadline is more than fair.

If you want to allow for some “hyperbole” in the immediate aftermath of that, certainly after 3 news org/networks have made a call would be more than fair.

I think that would be less than ideal because in a Bush-Gore recount scenario that lasted until the Safe Habor Deadline (the same day the Supreme Court made its ruling). That could be up to 35 days of unlimited Trump statements of “stolen” election talk that don't count.

Given the entire history of presidential contests, I don't know why he should be given that luxury.

Thought Experiment

Maybe you’re trying to protect against a Florida in 2000 recount scenario. Bush won officially by 537 votes. According to Wikipedia there were 8 standard one could select to assess the “after the fact” unofficial recount done by independent media organizations. 4 standards have Bish still winning (best by 493 votes); 4 standards have Gore winning (best by 171 votes).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidential_election_recount_in_Florida?wprov=sfti1#NORC-sponsored_Florida_Ballot_Project_recount

If Gore had said, “This election was stolen from me!” one might say that is a “reasonable” statement to make from his POV and might also objectively be correct (if one wants to look at how the Court system ruled in various ways).

Maybe, that’s valid from a presidential candidate. Maybe not. A value judgment I have a strong opinion about, but still a value judgment.

However, if you're trying to prepare for that case, then the market should be “Trump denies the 2024 election result without reasonable basis.” Of course now you have to define how to objectively assess a “reasonable basis.”

The final report “Democracy Counts: The Media Consortium Florida Ballot Review” wasn’t released until August 28, 2002. At best only after that date could Gore “reasonably” claim the election was stolen. Or else, by what “objectively reasonable” measure could the claim be justified by?

In my opinion there is no reason to even allow for this contingency. However it is your market; these are just some items to consider.

For the date, it’s according to any official results, whether that be the states’ certification of its popular vote or congress’ of the electoral college. I’m not doing it according to the media because they don’t actually report the winner as such, but merely project one, and also for reasons you mentioned (“objectively” evaluating “reasonable basis”; value judgements; etc). With this criteria, I don’t have to). Even if, a candidate won seemingly won 100% of the votes, they’re still unofficial results until they’re certified.

I’ll use the recent Netherlands vs England 2024 (UEFA) match as an example. Early in the game, a Dutch player possibly fouled an English player. Everyone watching (at the time) agreed that it was not a foul. Immediately after the possible foul, a VAR working for a broadcaster said ~’no, this won’t be reviewed.’ A few seconds later it went to review. After, ‘still, this will never be called as a penalty.’ A little later, it was called as a penalty. Even an English commenter and former professional footballer went so far as to call it a disgrace. In retrospect, it is still debated, and that even if it was a penalty, not letting it slide (as it presumably would’ve in any other scenario) actually awarding a penalty kick was insane. According to my criteria, none of that matters, because it defers to the official decision, regardless of whether or not it was wrong. Let’s say I asked, “did the Netherlands foul England?” I would need to consider the debate. Here, I can defer to information everybody has access to and cannot debate, unlike whether or not what happened was really a penalty.

Anyway, Trump may not be very specific, and so I will say that, for practical purposes, he’d have denied election results after the last state certified its vote, but if you want a specific resolution date, it will likely be January 7th if Trump is vague. Why not earlier? Won’t he have denied the “official” results?

Consider the following scenarios:

Trump Truths “THIS WILL BE A STOLEN ELECTION WITH FAKE RESULTS AND I WILL HAVE BEEN YOUR RIGHTFUL PRESIDENT” as the voting is happening, likely in reference to something happening in, say, California, but we don’t know for sure. Well, after all states certify their votes, we can be sure that no matter what, he denied official results (because even if it wasn’t in reference to California, all the states’ votes are now certified). I would personally then also say that he denied official results, but wouldn’t yet resolve the market.

He merely said “THIS WILL BE A STOLEN ELECTION WITH FAKE RESULTS AND I WILL HAVE BEEN YOUR RIGHTFUL PRESIDENT,” and let’s say that a month later, all the would-be Trump electors are faithless and vote Kamala. Trump goes to the media and says “I told you all on election night.” I’d be wrong to have resolved after all the state certifications, because he (at least claims) to have been referencing his foreseeing of the faithless electors (by the way, as I said in another comment, as soon as congress certifies the electoral vote, this would resolve YES, crazy as it sounds). In this scenario, he denied results the market didn’t resolve on and not yet official at the time of resolution, and so I’d have resolved wrongly.

Let’s say he said “CALIFORNIA IS STEALING THIS ELECTION FROM ME RIGHT NOW,” then I could resolve YES as soon as California certifies its vote.

Also, had Gore said: “this election was stolen from me. These results are illegitimate, and I am the rightful President,” this market would resolve YES, even if he was right, because he denied the official results of the election. Had Gore (or Trump for that matter) merely said, “this is unfair, but I accept these results,” or even just “this is unfair,” it wouldn’t be enough to resolve YES, but if he instead said “this is unfair, and I do not accept these as the legitimate results,” I would resolve YES.

Thanks for the comments and questions though, and feel free to express any more that you may have.