Resolves to the person who wins the majority of votes for US President in the Electoral College, or selected by Congress following the contingency procedure in the Twelfth Amendment.
Resolves provisionally if both the Associated Press projects a winner and the losing major party candidate concedes.
This question has a list of 10 current candidates, and resolves to "Someone else" if the winner is anyone else.
Newer market here if you want more options:
Related questions
@Tumbles Drain my balance and the next day I will take my daily loans and put those limit orders right back up. They will stand strong. Like a wall. A strong wall. A very strong, MAGA sort of wall.
I'd like to get a bit more traffic to this questions of mine
(not for the mana, I'm just very interested in how people rate this (terrifying?) probability)
https://manifold.markets/Flekkie/will-trump-still-be-president-in-ju?r=Rmxla2tpZ
There's been consistently a few % of arb potential with these markets for the past few days. I've been picking up the free money but running low on balance now, so if anybody else wants to get in on it, it's all yours.
(Buy YES on both Donald Trump and Joe Biden on this market. Buy NO on both of the other markets. Guaranteed profits. Opportunity will go away once the users with limit orders realise they can make better profits by moving them to other markets.)
There are of course lots of other markets to arb, but at the time of posting these two had the best limit orders to take advantage of.
@Fion Those markets are now arbed about as much as they can be. I only made about M$40 of profit off of them, and had to put in around M$6000, so not exactly a huge win, but a little bit of free profit is nice.
Yikes
I'm reading this book. Just replace Reagan with Trump.
From 2010, Jean Baudrillard, America. 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.
I bought Trump, but this piece has me thinking:
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/12/10/trump-comeback-2024-not-happening-444135
And there was a video where he seemed to mix Biden and Obama and looked really old and sick. I can't find it now.
I'm no partisan, just updating.
@uair01 It’s a solid trade, don’t sell. Where have all the surprises been? On the upside for Trump, not the downside. Don’t get me wrong, he’s a disaster, but he’s a disaster that knows know to win politics
Interesting
@Ansel To be fair, I’d count all the criminal charges and 14th amendment challenges as surprises that are unpleasant for Trump. And all the legal stuff Trump has to go through eats up his time and money.
@nottelling2ccc He's magically able to use any attack as a positive to energie his base. It's his unique talent. I don't see crack in his armour yet.
@uair01 I believe that Trump will get enough votes to get elected. But nonetheless Biden will be declared the winner.
No, because “enough votes to get elected” and “winning the popular vote” are two different things. For better or worse, in America, it matters less how the people overall vote and more how the people in each state vote.
As for @bfdc, they sound like either a conservative conspiracy theorist who still believes Trump’s lies about the election despite the fairly obvious and extensive evidence from the many, many independent legal battles he lost, or (based on the Cyrillic username) they’re an Eastern European who incorrectly pattern-matches what you see from elections in places like Russia to the United States, ignoring the fact that the standards for trustworthiness are much higher and the results much more scrutinized.
Even if they made a market like “Will the 2024 election be unfairly stolen from Trump?”, you’d then have to trust them to resolve the market accurately based on all available evidence, and I’m not sure I’d take that bet.
@Kronopath dude, labeling people "conspiracy theorists" is both counterproductive and unfair.
I don't really care whether Trump or Biden win or if the US turns into flames this week because of Texas situation. I invest my Ms, that's all I do.
Before Trump there was unwritten and unspoken political convention between the Republicans and Democrats: "after the election, we stop pouring dirt, accept the result and continue business as usual". Another convention was not to use courts and legal system to pursue political opponents.
I don't know why, but this convention has been broken when Trump came into power. He was chased by legacy media and democratic elites during all his term. That broke first "convemtion". There are criminal and legal proceeding against Trump and his supporters. That breaks second convention.
All I see that for reasons unknown to me, the Democrats are willing to broke the whole political system just to stop Trump from winning. What could stop them from breaking a couple of laws and to throw in a couple fake ballots? All I do is I bet on conflict: either Trump won't get enough votes and he looses, or he wins but the current elites won't let him win. In either case, Biden will still be a president.
PS: before you givee more of this sweet sweet lies about "trustworthines", tell me: did you read American electoral laws? Because I did. This is something...
Do you even know who oversees elections and how your local election committee is nominated? Do you even know that neither Democratic not Republican Party exist on the federal level as "parties", as single legal entities?
@bfdc
He was chased by legacy media and democratic elites during all his term.
I think "chased" is sort of a slippery word here. What does it mean, exactly? Sure, several people criticized him, and he got impeached, but neither of those are unprecedented. Also, some might argue that news media was, overall, not critical enough of Trump.
There are criminal and legal proceeding against Trump and his supporters. That breaks second convention.
Arguably, Trump inciting/all-but-inciting the January 6th riots was a huge break of convention. The supporters who unlawfully broke into the capitol broke convention.
the Democrats are willing to broke the whole political system just to stop Trump from winning.
I'd hardly call "using the courts to challenge his ability to run in the wake of a violent insurrection" breaking the political system. Yes, it's unprecedented, but it's an unprecedented reaction to a violent insurrection which itself had no precedent.
What could stop them from breaking a couple of laws and to throw in a couple fake ballots?
Several criminal charges (where many alleged conspirators have taken guilty pleas) are centered on people's efforts to overturn the election in favor of Trump. See also: The J6 riots discussed above. The fact that these people tried and failed is evidence that we are not literally powerless to stop people from overturning election results.
dude, labeling people "conspiracy theorists" is both counterproductive and unfair.
It is an apt label in some cases. What term do you think we should use instead?
Before Trump there was unwritten and unspoken political convention between the Republicans and Democrats: "after the election, we stop pouring dirt, accept the result and continue business as usual".
A convention which was broken by Trump in 2020 pretty clearly.
Another convention was not to use courts and legal system to pursue political opponents.
Do you think Trump should be immune to prosecution just because he's the political opponent of the current president? If no one could take any legal action against Trump because it's "pursuing political opponents", that would make Trump above the law. One of the most important principles of liberal democracy is that no one is above the law.
I don't know why, but this convention has been broken when Trump came into power. He was chased by legacy media and democratic elites during all his term. That broke first "convemtion".
How did that break any political convention? The media has always criticized the president - that's actually what they're supposed to do. And if there ever was a convention of media not vigorously criticizing the president (or politicians they oppose in general), how was this convention not broken long before Trump by media organizations like Fox News and right-wing talk shows?
There are criminal and legal proceeding against Trump and his supporters. That breaks second convention.
There were criminal and legal proceedings against Trump and his supporters because they committed crimes. There has never been any convention against prosecuting corrupt politicians for their crimes (Just look at Illinois where two of our last five governors have gone to prison - no one claims that the prosecution of former governors somehow broke a convention). And even if there had been such a convention, it would be a bad one because it would violate the rule of law.
Also, you're euphemizing when you say there were criminal proceedings against Trump's supporters. No one has gotten into legal trouble simply for supporting Trump. People got into legal trouble for storming the U.S. Capitol. I hope it's not to bold of me to assert that there is not, in fact, any convention against prosecuting people who illegally invade the halls of government.
Both of these arguments you're making are fully general excuses that would allow the president to get away with anything. If the media shouldn't attack the president because of some sort of norm about being respectful once the election is over, then the president can do whatever he wants without any fear of being criticized for it, and any scandals he has will go unreported. If we shouldn't prosecute people who are running for office because that would be weaponizing the courts and legal system, then anyone can get away with anything as long as they're a political opponent of the current government.
All I see that for reasons unknown to me, the Democrats are willing to broke the whole political system just to stop Trump from winning.
What did the Democrats actually do to "break the whole political system"? And what is the evidence that they did it just to stop Trump from winning, rather than for legitimate reasons? There is one guy who attempted to break the political system by suing to have an election overturned, trying to use fake electors to interfere with the results, calling election officials to solicit election fraud, trying to convince his VP to refuse to accept the votes that would elect his opponent, trying to convince Congress to refuse to accept the votes, defaming election officials and forcing many to resign because of intimidation by his supporters, so that said election officials could be replaced by his loyalists, and trying to get people who refuse to accept the results of the previous election into election administration positions in hopes that they'll have the power to overturn the results next time, among other things. The guy who did that wasn't a Democrat, though.
What could stop them from breaking a couple of laws and to throw in a couple fake ballots?
The same thing that stops anyone from breaking laws that it's very hard to break without getting caught. And it would almost certainly require a lot more than "a few" fake ballots to change the outcome of the next election. It would have required at least tens of thousands to affect the result in 2020 (and in reality more than that, since anyone trying to manipulate the results wouldn't know exactly how many votes are needed and in what states to change the result).
All I do is I bet on conflict: either Trump won't get enough votes and he looses, or he wins but the current elites won't let him win. In either case, Biden will still be a president.
Okay, so all you do is make bad bets. The former situation is obviously plausible, but the latter one is not. How come the elites who supposedly won't let him win in 2024 let it happen in 2016?
PS: before you givee more of this sweet sweet lies about "trustworthines",
Do you have any evidence that the claim about U.S. elections being trustworthy is a lie? Any at all?
did you read American electoral laws? Because I did. This is something...
Do you even know who oversees elections and how your local election committee is nominated? Do you even know that neither Democratic not Republican Party exist on the federal level as "parties", as single legal entities?
This is saying a whole lot of nothing. Instead of vaguely gesturing at what supposedly proves U.S. elections are untrustworthy, why don't you tell us what it is? If you actually have any evidence, it shouldn't be hard to present it.