Resolves on inauguration day [January 20th, 2025] to whoever gets inaugurated. However, if the winner is called by AP and the challenger(s) concede, that is sufficient to resolve this market.
Related questions
I think this market would be vastly improved with a couple small changes to help make sure traders' expectations are not fooled by the small pool of candidates:
The title should explicitly mention that there is only a select pool of candidates listed.
The title and/or description should specify how the market resolves if none of these candidates wins.
Without changes like this, I think this market is going to cause confusion for users. I think my favorite suggestion is to change the title to something more like "Which of the listed candidates will win the 2024 US Presidential Election? (N/A if other)", and also add a note in the description about that.
It seems like in most cases this is expected to play out in a straightforward manner, but there are certainly potential outcomes where one candidate in this market is at 90% while he's at ~50% in a different market. And other weird stuff.
@getby what do you think? I know there is a mechanism where Manifold is able to 'take control' of markets if they think they need it, but it isn't used super often.
@Irigi this is now at least the third time this question has been asked. Creator seems to be (mostly) inactive. At what point do we need to seek moderator input?
Can we tell whether it's even possible to add more options to this market? Is NA the only option?
@Fion in markets where more options can be added there's always an "other" option. This market doesn't have one, so we can deduce that it is impossible to add more options.
@Fion in markets where more options can be added there's always an "other" option. This market doesn't have one, so we can deduce that it is impossible to add more options.
From 2010, Baudrillard, America. This is scary. Might this be a prediction?
Reagan’s popularity gives us all food for thought. But we should first establish what type of confidence he is accorded. It is almost too good to be true. How can it be that every defence has fallen before him? How can it be that no mistake or political reversal damages his standing and that, paradoxically, his failures even improve it (which infuriates our French leaders, for whom things are the other way round: the more initiative and goodwill they show, the less popular they become). But the point is precisely that the confidence placed in Reagan is a paradoxical confidence. Just as we distinguish between real and paradoxical sleep, we should also distinguish between real and paradoxical confidence. The former is granted to a man or a leader on the basis of his qualities and his success. Paradoxical confidence is the confidence we place in someone on the basis of their failure or their absence of qualities. The prototype of this confidence is the failure of prophecy – a process that is well-known from the history of messianic and millenarian movements – following which the group, instead of denying its leader and dispersing, closes ranks around him and creates religious, sectarian, or ecclesiastical institutions to preserve the faith. Institutions all the more solid for deriving their energy from the failure of the prophecy.
@uair01
I would not place too much emphasis on that seven percent number, or that ten percent number, as I suspect there is private information at work here
“Private information” assumes the bettors here are being rational. I hope this doesn’t come across too rude, but I would not put people betting Michelle up to 7% as “rational” in the way OP is assuming.
@nottelling2ccc It’s like what Wall Street Bets did with GameStop, except even less rational. You could argue that the stock price and valuation of a company have a sort of feedback loop, but I don’t see how betting up Michelle improves her chances. She’s not winning.
@nottelling2ccc If people betting up Michelle are not rational, there should be enough rational bettors betting her down, if they are sure enough? (This is real money after all, so there should be strong motivation..)
@Irigi All of the fees (and no loans mechanism) make the real-money prediction markets way worse at betting things down from 7% to 1% than Manifold.
Trump has a movement, right wingers on social media love the energy and feeling of community
but MAGA turnout rates were always going to be high due to them being the main believers in "stop the steal"
Both moderate and further-left democrats received substantial exposure, by reputable news sources, to the message that Trump was the Bad Actor in 2020, whereas moderate republicans received less exposure to the message that the election was stolen (pretty sure Fox News was always vague on that point, whereas NYT was not).
At the same time, Biden's popularity is lower, has zero charisma/energy, and he probably only won in 2020 because people were upset from the pandemic and felt tired of 4 years of Trump. Now they will be tired of Biden.
Trump only won the 2016 election when he was fresh, since then it has been 8 years of lies and Trump coexisting with the establishment, with life either staying the same or getting worse for rural americans during that period (are they more online now? it's been like a decade + covid)
What are people's thoughts on this?
@ooe133 I'm more of a "Stop the Steele Dossier" person than a "Stop the Steal" one. A lot of the "reputable" reporting on Trump has been shoddy and/or in bad faith. And on the topic of Trumpism, there are very few serious attempts. The Baudrillard passage above from 1986 comes closer to the spirit of things than most of the contemporary accounts (Bruno Macaes is another rare European who gets it; see his book History Has Begun).
As an example, here is one genius UKsplaining Trump. He dons his Jane Goodall outfit and finds that the rise of Trump is the "[valorization of] status, money, power and dominance". Has he traveled through middle America's flyover territories and spoken to people there? Doubtful, given his repudiation of travel on climatological grounds. Really, it doesn't matter, since many such drive-by (or bike-by) take-downs of heartland American politics have been made before, often with a sneering and barely-veiled smug hatred.
I lived for over a decade in a Trump +60 county and can report with high confidence the people there are not as described by the supposed coastal zookeepers. To the extent status plays into any of it, it is precisely because of the smugness of the self-anointed elites that the flyovers are incensed. I believe that a great healing needs to occur to weld back together the fabric of American society. The first step in this path is to actually listen to each other, rather than listening to hyperbolic caricatures of each other.
@AlQuinn I think many people don't want to acknowledge the humanity and compassion of people who support unjust systems. People who have the capacity to hate often have the capacity to love, and often, they do both.
That doesn't make them justified, of course, but it does mean that hateful people are still people.
https://manifold.markets/duck/will-donald-trump-win-the-2024-pres don't forget to arb this one up to 50% too 😉
https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/mantic-monday-12924
…Metaculus and PredictIt are 50-50, Manifold favors Biden, and Polymarket favors Trump. Shouldn’t really be possible, should it?
This is probably the problem Johnson mentioned above. Manifold has lots of young people and rationalists, who probably lean Biden. Polymarket has lots of degenerate gamblers who use VPNs, who probably lean Trump.
But as we saw above, the two best sources for politics have previously been Metaculus and Nate Silver. Nate Silver says (unofficially, here) that “If we do get a Trump-Biden rematch, I think the odds are roughly 50/50.” Metaculus agrees. So fine. The real odds are 50-50.
@jacksonpolack Oh hmm, I mean, I guess that’s still primary whatever whatever
I'm afraid this Manifold population is not representative. I think Trump has a big chance of winning.
@uair01 Why? If you don't like Trump it seems like a win-win. If he loses, you get your preferred outcome and lose a small amount of mana. If he wins, sad, but at least you get some mana. Betting on something is not supporting it, it's predicting an outcome, even if it's one you don't like.
@uair01 Well to be fair, he had a huge chance of winning last year until everyone saw what the tallies were