Is this meant to have closed?

@diracdeltafunk Yes. Keeping the market open doesn't provide much useful information, and it costs me as the AMM.

@bagelfan Okie doke! Thanks for the useful market :)

Edit: I was confused here and retract this comment.

I think the probability in this market is way too high. In Nate Silver's model, Wisconsin and Nevada are approximately 50-50, and Pennsylvania and Michigan are slightly off 50-50 but in directions that approximately cancel each other out. So unless I'm missing something, the probability is approximately that of a coin flip turning up heads 4 times in a row, which is 6.25%. https://www.natesilver.net/p/nate-silver-2024-president-election-polls-model

@SoniaAlbrecht the outcomes of swing states in a presidential election are highly correlated. if one believes PA & MI are each 50%, the odds that a given candidate wins both are much higher than 25%.

FWIW, nate's model actually provides its own estimate of "someone sweeps 7 swing states" if you want to see how he approaches this (his probability is indeed many times higher than if the states were independent—attempting to model these correlations is at the heart of what nate is trying to do)

@Ziddletwix oh thanks for explaining! Looks like his model puts it at 35.6 %

The tongue twister vote shouldn't be discounted

Related market.

42% in the Silver Bulletin:

Market for Harris only :

@bagelfan how do you post a link to a market like that where it gives you the visual and not just the link?

@JimAusman Click the + button, add embed, then paste in link.