So far, Trump has avoided commenting on whether or not he supports Matt Gaetz's attempt to remove Kevin McCarthy as speaker.
"I don't know anything about those efforts, but I like both of them very much," Trump told reporters in Iowa.
"I think it's too early [to comment], it just happened a little while ago. I've always had a great relationship with [McCarthy], he said very nice things about me and the job I've done, so I appreciate that."
Before October 31st, will it be reported or captured on video that Trump expresses support for getting rid of Kevin McCarthy even if the statement is only ambiguously in support of removal? For instance , this would resolve as yes with the statement, "I think Kevin's done a great job but a lot of people are saying the it's time for Kevin to move on." Please see my related market about weather Trump makes a statement unambiguously supporting removal.
Only statements created after the creation of this market will count.
Related questions
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ1,010 | |
| 2 | Ṁ173 | |
| 3 | Ṁ143 | |
| 4 | Ṁ119 | |
| 5 | Ṁ107 |
in my opinion, this should resolve yes pursuant to this latest statement:
https://www.tampafp.com/trump-says-rep-matt-gaetz-of-florida-may-favor/
@SemioticRivalry On Thursday, speaking with Brian Kilmeade, former President Donald Trump told Kilmeade that Gaetz may have done a ‘tremendous favor’ for the GOP.
“Well, he was upset that Kevin was doing a lot of the Obama work, he was working on the budget and getting something approved that, you know, we could have gotten a lot for, and the debt ceiling, everybody was hurt with that,” said Trump.
“At the same time, Kevin’s a great guy, he is a wonderful guy, but people were hurt by that. It depends, I mean, on how good the new speaker, whoever that may be, how good he does. Maybe we’ll end up with one of the great speakers of all time, in which case Matt Gaetz did a tremendous favor,” said Trump.
If I was ruling in the market, an endorsement in the subsequent election has nothing to do with removal - he would have to refer to the removal ambiguously for it to count, even if McCarthy was clearly willing to return to the job. But also I wouldn't appeal if Wongo went the other way, since they don't have a position.
@ZviMowshowitz that said, any statement after the new speaker is chosen that implies the new speaker is an improvement, should count
@ZviMowshowitz it felt like to me Trump's endorsement was uncharacteristically calculated to avoid weighing in on the removal. Much like @MattLashofSullivan implied, he could have made the endorsement in a way to denigrated mccarthy, but I feel like he went out of his way to avoid that appearance. Time will tell. I'm surprised we has gone this long without Trump expressing an opinion on how we got here. I do sort of regret me making this market because it seems like I'm going to make people upset regardless of what I pick, but so far I think it's an easy call that Trump has not really weighed in. Thank goodness I did not make a bet in the beginning when I thought this would be easier to resolve.
@WrongoPhD I'll say that I bet yes, and I don't think it's hit a yes threshhold thusfar. When I bet, I anticipated one of Trump's emphatic, unfiltered statements e.g. "GOP right to remove PEWLING BABY McCarthy, always begging for my support..." etc.
@LeahLibresco well, that would be an unambiguous statement, which is the other market. I also bet yes and agree that yes hasn't been met yet.
@will58c3 yeah i think that after there is a new speaker Trump will say that the new speaker is an improvement. Trump loves a winner, after the winning is over with he will want to say he was with the winner all along.
@MattLashofSullivan oh i was misreading the title of this market. why would anyone bet on "ambiguous support"
Does this count: “Congressman Jim Jordan has been a STAR long before making his very successful journey to Washington, D.C., representing Ohio’s 4th Congressional District,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social site early Friday. “He will be a GREAT Speaker of the House, & has my Complete & Total Endorsement!”
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/111186121976324259
@derikk I don't think endorsing someone else for Speaker is inherently an endorsement for supporting the removal. I might be more convinced if Trump criticized Kevin's latest statements about wanting to be reelected.
@WrongoPhD since he is endorsing Jordan for an election in which McCarthy is running, isn't that implicitly supporting McCarthy's removal from the office?
@derikk Just because I'd rather Jim become my stepdad rather than Steve, it still doesn't mean I'm happy my Dad divorced my mom. It still feels pretty soft to me. I expect even you think it's soft or you'd have bet more. FYI I'm not being this market because the question is inherently squirrely
@WrongoPhD I don't see how endorsing someone else could be viewed as anything other than "ambiguous support for removing Kevin McCarthy". It's key that McCarthy still wants the job (https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/09/us/politics/mccarthy-speaker.html), but Trump signaled he doesn't think McCarthy is the guy for the job by endorsing someone else.
Similar to your example, by not directly calling for McCarthy's removal, he kind of hedged his bets in that if McCarthy had been re-appointed, he could say he was never critical of McCarthy.
@BDStraw There are a lot of Congressman endorsing Scalise who would have preferred McCarthy never have been removed. I don't think they are implicitly endorsing the removal. I think Trump has to say something about McCarthy for it to be considered weighing in.
@WrongoPhD Nothing in the description of the market indicates the statement would need to directly reference McCarthy, and that detail fundamentally changes the market.