Will Kamala Harris be able to flip a state in the 2024 election?
Flipping a state means she wins a state not won by Joe Biden in 2020.
Maine or Nebraska's congressional districts do not count. For example, if Kamala Harris wins Maine's second district, that doesn't resolve this question.
This question closes a day before the election, and resolves as soon as results are known.
1,000
1.00@DaEpicFirestar Why would Missouri be any more likely than Florida or Texas, let alone North Carolina?
@ScottSupak You guys can bet here on "whether this is a NC market" (in the sense that if it's "a NC market" then the market I just created should trade at around 0.
https://manifold.markets/EricNeyman/will-kamala-harris-lose-nc-but-win?play=true
@EricNeyman good idea for a market, and of course it's possible--especially now with the disaster possibly affecting the election--that another state could flip while NC doesn't, and my tone is only meant as a suggestion that the price should be low, and your market is priced pretty well at 8c.
@Nightsquared That is the wrong way to think about this market. How many universes are there in which NC goes red and another Solid R state like FL, AK, or IA goes blue? That's like maybe on the order of magnitude of 1 in a 100 or 1 in a 1000. Not happening. The equation is that probability plus p(Harris wins NC). So essentially p(Harris wins NC) is the market value here.
@BrandonRoney I mean, I mostly agree, but Nate Silver's model doesn't. I get the impression that these models give too much credence to bizarre outcomes, but who knows.
@Nightsquared Nate Silver is pretty overrated. Its too dependent on weights of polls that have awful records when Trump is on the ballot.
@Nightsquared I think the "Harris flips a state but loses NC" probability is coming mostly from Alaska. I don't have access to the model any more, but last time I did, it had Alaska at ~25%. And it has the weakest correlation with other states.
@BrandonRoney not really, the NC market has Harrisโ chances at 45%. Right now, this market is at 51%; of that, 45% comes from Harris flipping NC (and maybe another state), and 6% from Harris flipping another state but not NC.
@BrandonRoney https://manifold.markets/Nightsquared/will-kamala-harris-flip-a-state-but-v6ddgu13hj?play=true
I have a limit order at 1% which you can take if you think this is definitely not gonna happen.
@FoxKHTML Please refrain from using such language here. Let's not turn Manifold comment sections into Polymarket comment sections.
@FoxKHTML And also your point is not quite true. It's possible (though unlikely) that Harris flips a state but loses the election. See https://manifold.markets/Nightsquared/will-kamala-harris-flip-a-state-but?play=true.
@bagelfan I was 20 when I first learned that some people thought the word retard was offensive. I couldn't really believe it tbh. Looked it up and it seems to be some crusade by people who don't understand that disused medical terms gradually lose their medical connotation and become normal. Former medical terms include: lame, stupid, moron, idiot, dumb, retarded, insane, paranoid, mad, imbecile, lunatic, demented, hysterical, maniac, simpleton, deranged, cretin, and the list really does go on a lot further. The word retard has charted a similar path, at least for Gen Z like myself, maybe older people don't like it but it definitely doesn't have any medical connotation anymore, I went 2 decades without hearing about that.
I did some research and it does appear to be an age thing, so if you're of an older age I'd just like you to know that your efforts to stop people from using it might be futile, especially if the person is from a younger generation. Here's some discussion about it: https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/10kpjz1/cmv_those_who_are_against_the_colloquial_usage_of
@PeterNjeim what you said is completely off topic of what @bagelfan said. The point was about the original commentor insulting other market participants, which is completely unnecesary in a civilised place.
@ScipioFabius I didn't see anything particularly insulting in the original comment. When someone says "don't use such language", it's usually referring to a word, not to an attitude. So saying it's "completely off topic" is an abuse of superlatives. Also I don't consider this to be a "civilized place" lol, far too many bad faith actors are already here. Also, again, "'completely' unnecessary", please tone down the use of superlatives, it leads to a boy who cried wolf effect.
Just pasted the original comment and its response into ChatGPT without a question, and it agrees with my interpretation. Don't call things "off topic", let alone "'completely' off topic", when in fact they're natural interpretations of a comment
@ScipioFabius I shouldnโt have to explain this to you, but what I said was obviously tongue in cheek, obvious by the fact that โremedialitesโ is a made-up word.
@PeterNjeim I agree that saying it was 'completely off topic' was too much, however it still is tangential at best. Can you please elaborate how 'completely unnecessary' leads to 'boy who cried wolf effect'?
@ScipioFabius what I meant is that you were using the word "completely" too often. We're on the same page now so it's all good
@FoxKHTML Using a nonsense word on the internet isn't a very good indicator of a comment being tongue in cheek. Keep Poe's law in mind.
@PlasmaBallin Why are you necroing a 2-day old thread. Poe's law doesn't recommend changing your actions, it's just a warning that some people will take it the wrong way. When you take it the wrong way, you don't attack them by telling them about this adage, you just accept it and move on
@PeterNjeim Yes, and clearly he did not heed it if he's surprised people didn't interpret his comment as a joke
@PlasmaBallin I don't think he was surprised, I think he was attacking the other person for not understanding that it was tongue-in-cheek, in a similar manner to you lecturing him that he should make it even more obvious than it already was