Who will win the 2024 US Presidential Election?
🔮
Crystal
5.3k
24M
Dec 17
56%
Donald Trump
38%
Kamala Harris
1.7%
Joe Biden
1%
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

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.

(May resolve provisionally if both the Associated Press projects a winner and the losing major party candidate concedes; if Manifold allows provisional resolutions.)

Get Ṁ600 play money
Sort by:
bought Ṁ50 Kamala Harris YES

Honestly the best move for the Republicans right now is for trump to pass the torch. If he fully endorses a younger Christian white man the Republicans have it in the bag. But the way things are now it's gonna iether be close or the Dems are gonna win by a mile

This plan relies on Trump not being a narcissist, which makes it a non-starter.

Honestly I hope he loses and we never hear from conservatives again

Biden 'Approves' Clip of Trump Saying 'You'll Never Hear From Me Again' If He Loses Election - Newsweek

I would have been happy if Trump kept this promise, but I guess he still claims he didn't lose in 2020.

We'll hear from conservatives again no matter what, but I certainly hope we never have to hear from him again.

He has created much crazier ppl than himself they just don't have their footing yet because he takes all the attention for himself. my hope is that we keep them out of office for so long that they have to conform and actually make better policies than the dems

is Vance underpriced here?
actuary tables say an overweight 78 year old man has a ~9% chance of dying each year, we're 5/12 of a year out from the election so make that ~4%, assume vance has a 50% shot of winning post trump heart attack, he should be at 2% and he gets extra percentage points from possible court related things

When talking about politicians you always need to adjust the actuarial tables for socioeconomic status, access to the best healthcare, etc. It makes a huge difference to the numbers.

that's an excellent point
trump also never drinks or smokes which should give him a few extra point
though death isn't the only thing that could take him out. A stroke that leaves him paralyzed isn't part of that 9% etc

and simply health? trump may not seem like the healthiest guy. but people vastly underestimate how unhealthy the typical person who dies at 78 years old is. quoting these actuarial tables for active politicians is nonsensical—if you solely condition on the fact that trump is largely functional (travels around the country, holds long & fairly demanding campaign rallies, etc), that already makes him vastly less likely to die than the actuarial tables suggest.

when you hear the stat "X% of people at age Y die in the next year", you should not be picturing "X% of people who are typical for that age suddenly drop dead". the deaths are highly concentrated in the subset of people who were obviously, visibly ailing.

i wonder if someone were to compile a table of all politicians what the relevant numbers would be
house and senate are too small to work with, but throw in state representatives and senators, governors, attorney generals maybe you could make something out of that

What does the actuarial table say for 78 year olds who can still give a speech every single day and run a presidential campaign?

Damn i lost everything

https://paulgraham.com/charisma.html

Paul Graham's charisma theory accurately predicts every presidential election in the modern era. Since it was written: Obama obviously, Trump 2016 over boring Hillary, and Biden 2020 when he still had that old-fashioned politician charm.

America's wacky aunt easily beats a guy with little appeal outside his base.

This is such a perfect case of hindsight bias that it's hard to argue against

One: hindsight bias. Two: Biden in 2020 had less "charisma" than Trump inasmuch as there's any workable definition of "charisma". So, it only predicted 3 out of 4 elections since it was formulated, which is not great, tbh!

However, this criteria probably does work pretty well for historical elections. You'd have to go back to 1972 to find an election where the obviously less charismatic candidate won (Nixon over McGovern). Reagan and Clinton truly had rizz!

You think people voted for Biden because of his old-fashioned charm? That seems like a stretch. Another rizz failure case would be Teddy Roosevelt vs Woodrow Wilson. Charisma is a bigger pull when people aren't already sick of a candidate, at which point it might even work against the candidate.

bought Ṁ50 Kamala Harris YES

this is the first time im hearing of "old fashioned political charm lmao" he wasnt trump

Yesterday was the biggest day ever (since September 2020) for ActBlue donations, with $66.6M narrowly beating the $66.3M from September 19, 2020: ActBlue Ticker Tracker / Ryan Murphy | Observable (observablehq.com)

Major events lead to spikes in donations. Nothing unusual. Trump raised $69M the day he was "convicted".

@lukres Why is "convicted" in quotes?

Just to trigger the libs

and to highlight that the Trump's prosecutions are of political nature, using unusual legal theories, and decided by judges and juries openly hostile to the defendant

It's unusual to have a guy break so many laws. Punishing someone for breaking the law is not political in nature.

I'd argue that the hush money was a "Hillary's emails" level of scandal. Yes it was improper, but nobody got hurt.

How about the people who died on January 6th (ya know, the coup attempt?) How about the foreign agents the US had that died suspiciously after Trump stole a bunch of top secret documents? How about all the other crimes? Come on.

Who died during January 6th event besides Ashli Babbitt who was shot and killed by the USCP?
(also, while not completely unarmed..she had a knife, but of course media using it was a "PARA FORCE KNIFE" making it seem like some kind of special knife for military or something regular people shouldn't carry)
Here is an image from their website...its similar to a knife every person has, especially hunters, fishers, and even mechanics I know.

Only 0.64in longer than what TSA has banned from bringing on airplanes.


https://www.factcheck.org/2021/11/how-many-died-as-a-result-of-capitol-riot/

@AlexGraettinger He wasn't convicted for that other stuff. Not that it matters much, you can still be a criminal if you're not convicted. But the "convict" buzzwords loses its weight when the crime you were convicted of wasn't that bad.

Oh I forgot, if you can push out your court date forever you are "TOTALLY EXHONERATED!!!"

See that's a good example of why you can't put too much weight on whether or not someone was convicted.

Yeah just look the other way at obvious criminality and corruption, let that fester. I think good things will happen.

@AlexGraettinger : The main odd thing about the particular conviction is how oddly harmless the crime was. It was not about the hush money itself, Jan 6 or anything else, but about classification of expenses recorded in business documents.
To help explain why people find it odd, consider what the world would look like without that crime.
In a world where someone who commits fraud or theft doesn't commit their crime, their victims are better off (and we don't get the deadweight loss associated with the crime).
A world where Trump does not commit this crime looks almost identical to our own except the Trump 2016 campaign ends with $7 million left over rather than $7.4 million and Trump is personally $400k richer.

Fraud and corruption causes decay in institutions. If you look the other way it just emboldens criminals to go further. The laws exist for a reason, he broke them, he was found guilty by a jury, and he should receive consequences.

Imagine an ordinary person is on trial and multiple jury candidates admit they posted images on the social media disparaging that person and that they hold a negative view of him. They further state that they watch news channels known for portraying the defendant as America's Hitler who needs to be imprisoned to protect democracy. However, the candidates claim they can be impartial regardless and the judge accepts that. Do you consider this a fair trial?

Yes I think it was a fair trial even though the jury admitted to ...watching the news.

Now try steelmanning

@lukres

and multiple jury candidates admit they posted images on the social media disparaging that person and that they hold a negative view of him

The majority of Americans hold negative views of him. A jury that doesn't contain any would not be a jury of his peers.

bought Ṁ250 Donald Trump YES
Comment hidden
Comment hidden

More related questions