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.)
1,000
1.00@beaver1
May the LORD protect us from all evil. Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, both now and ever, and unto the ages of ages. ☦☦☦
@Tater as it should. Polls have way too much uncertainty (margin of error is on the order of 10%)
Saw Nate silver say 1% in polls = 8% in chance of winning, and the polls have held steady
In these divided times, you have to appreciate days where everyone can agree:
Silver Bulletin: 58.1% Harris
The Economist: 58% Harris
538 Forecast: 58% Harris
Race To The White House: 59.5% Harris
The Hill: 56% Harris
Split Ticket: 57% Harris
JHK Forecast: 58% Harris
@Joshua no thank you, gonna stick to the numbers I get from a couple of high school kids i paid 10 bucks each to count the bumper stickers at a Walmart parking lot in PA
@Joshua based on those numbers why is Manifold putting Harris at 54%?
@TheWabiSabi the models weight the polls like 90% and have way too much uncertainty like in this chart from 538:
In my opinion the optimal model weights polls say closer to 50% and has much less uncertainty by accounting for all data.
Betting market is potentially more accurate and has Harris 52%
@Joshua someone should create a website with all the model odds in one place or a bot on Twitter/X. I think you left off 270 to Win (https://www.270towin.com/2024-simulation/battleground-270)
@PlasmaBallin Literally everything else like news sentiment, google search trends, WA primary data, voting data, analysts, etc.
For example the betting market is 45% sure the popular vote margin will be between Kamala +2 and +5, so the std deviation is 2.5% - 3% (Variance ~7.5 %^2)
538 which uses 90% polls has a standard deviation around 4.4% (Variance ~19.4 %^2), their 95% confidence is 17.3% wide.
So that suggests the market's is roughly based on 2.5x as much information as the polls.
@ChinmayTheMathGuy If people could reliably use google search trends and "analysts" (lol) to predict elections, don't you think they would do so?
@benshindel With the explosion of AI it's possible in theory. I'm not proposing a solution, just saying the status quo of 90% polls has much less information than the betting markets which truly account for nearly all information (including extraneous).
If polls true margin of error are on the order of 10% (as shown in that 538 scatterplot) while we know the actual margin of error is more on the order of 6%, the other half of the information has come from somewhere other than polls.
I'm basically expressing dissatisfaction with the current state of the art of models predicting US elections. Instead of simulations, I'd prefer a continous pdf of the 56+ dimensional outcones so we can actually make comparisons using a N=1 that show which methodology forecasts the correlations best.
There's not enough economic incentives compared to financial or sports markets since it's every 4 years and lots of uncertainty.
@ChinmayTheMathGuy there are papers showing there is efficacy to Google trends (https://osf.io/preprints/osf/6duw2) but currently Nate Silver is the most prominent forecaster and the majority of his code is the same as it was back in 2008 when he got famous (https://x.com/natesilver538/status/1832189691539378176?s=46)
Like I said not enough economic incentives to improve the models like there is in Wall Street.
I was having a long discussion below on who I should vote for, having lived in Pennsylvania. I've decided that it has to be TRUMP.
Trump is abhorrent - by far the worst President who has ever held the office. He will do immense damage if he wins. But I cannot just stand by and accept the 28% capital gains tax rate.
Next year, I have to take my distribution from what remains of the FTX scam and make it last the rest of my life. It's just not acceptable for someone who worked for 20 years, lost $7 million, started over, and then could lose another $120,000 to fund wasteful projects like the genocide in Israel, the Artemis program, and the various handouts for senior citizens that I will never see.
I'll vote straight D, except Trump for President. I believe that the United States will survive, that the midterms will shift the House even more Democratic, and Trump will be gone in 2028. By 2028, AI and Silicon Valley will be a more significant force in world affairs than the President anyway.
We need a party that has reasonable candidates and which has reasonable policy proposals. Cut spending, help those who need help, and let people live thier lives. If only Haley had been nominated.
Trump is abhorrent - by far the worst President who has ever held the office. He will do immense damage if he wins. But I cannot just stand by and accept the 28% capital gains tax rate.
If you dont want people to think you are trolling, you should probably not type this kind of stuff out in the open.
@SteveSokolowski Harris will want to be reelected. If she implements a 28% capital gains tax rate, she's guaranteed to be a one term president. That probably sounds as naive as anyone discounting the disastrous potential of combining an autocratic state, an overdeveloped disinformation infrastructure and nascent superintelligences. What is the average capital gains tax rate in unrestricted monarchies?
@SteveSokolowski What are the chances that Harris passes a 28% capital gains tax? 0%? I don't see why you would reelect the worst president in history to prevent something that won't happen anyway.
@dgga Is it irrational to vote in your own interests? Is it “trolling” to vote in your own interests?
@dgga As I stated earlier, I won't engage with people who call others "trolls." I said what I'm going to do. I blocked dgga.
@BonjTwo It is irrational to not realize that you have a huge vested interest in the stability of your country's institutions and democracy. If shit hits the fan you can't eat money. Therefore you have to prioritize shit not hitting the fan over a 28% reduction in wealth. (I don't know what the capital gains tax is right now, I'm assuming it's 0%).
@becauseyoudo I understand that many people here support HARRIS, but the arguments here aren't convincing me.
What I'm understanding the argument is, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, is "vote for me because I won't actually do what I say." Why wouldn't I vote for the person who actually says they don't want to do that? Surely that vote has a greater chance of blocking the policy.
I doubt that anyone will convince me to change my vote. Feel free to call me names if you want. I am directly asking @houstonEuler here: would you take a $120,000 risk? Answer that question directly, not hypothetical questions candidates suggest like that the "average taxpayer" will pay $500 more. Would you, personally, pay $120,000 because you believe that strongly that US democracy will fall - and that if it does, the outcome will be absolutely horrible?
I'm sorry, but I cannot take that risk. I'm not rich anymore. If Merrick Garland had actually done his job and used my evidence to prosecute Barry Silbert and Zac Prince, then I wouldn't mind paying the 28% on the $7 million. I can't afford to pay it on what is left. The actions of people in office have real consequences. I'm sorry to say this, but for all the idiocy that Trump has done, he never did anything wrong to me, while the Democratic administration has done many things, both in action and in inaction.
But again, I really want to get someone on the record here with actual real numbers. Is there anyone here who will reply and state, with their real name, that they would personally spend $120,000 of their family's money to vote against TRUMP? People need to think very carefully before posting hypothetical insults.
@houstonEuler You didn't answer the question. I don't have capital losses. Are you willing to back up your argument by stating with your real name that you would actually risk $120,000 of your family's money?
@SteveSokolowski "It's just not acceptable for someone who worked for 20 years, lost $7 million..."
How did you lose the 7 million?
@SteveSokolowski Also, I don't believe you have a family. I'm going to need to see their official IDs and verify their Social Security Numbers before I continue this conversation any further.
@houstonEuler This is the last response I'm going to make until you answer my question.
The $7 million was lost because of fraudulent accounting documents that were presented to me by the CEO of a one company and high-level officials in other companies related to the FTX scam. I put everything I owned into buying bitcoins for $76 in 2013 and settled the claims at an approximate value of $4200 in 2024, resulting in large gains (but a theft of about $12 million, $7 million of which was lost in this one case). What I have left is $1.4 million, 8% of which is around $120,000.
Again, this is my last response; I'm not going to talk about this anymore because it's not relevant to the question. Put your name to whether you would personally pay $120,000 to "protect democracy," given that democracy was not lost the last time around.
@SteveSokolowski So if what you're saying is true, whomever is elected President will have absolutely no effect on your stated tax situation, because the capital gain occurred and will be taxed in 2024, at the current rates.
@houstonEuler I expect to be paid in 2025.
By the way, if you want to see what the 8% would go to, look at what happened today in Beirut. The United States government is putting all of our lives on the line with these weapons deliveries, even if you live in another country. Biden is going to get the world destroyed.
Unfortunately, neither Trump nor Harris has promised to cut Israel off, but higher taxes won't help force that decision.
@SteveSokolowski I certainly would pay an extra 8% capital gains tax on profits I'd made on Bitcoin circa 2013-2025, even if that happened to be 100% of my net worth, if that meant Trump losing the election. That 8% being of $1.4M (~$112K) would not change that position, since I would still have ~$1M left over (after 28% has been taxed).
Because these are gains you have not realized for over 10 years implies that this money is not critical to you or your family's ordinary finances, so phrasing this situation and policy proposal as "risking 120K of your family's money" is extraordinarily disingenuous.
@SteveSokolowski Amen. We need to stop the genocide and ethnic cleansing ASAP. Trump is also bought and paid for by Israel, but I trust him to be less competent in helping them. And I trust Trump to do the right thing for Russia-Ukraine.
Something you didn't mention is the Climate Hysteria. We are pouring trillions of dollars into "green energy" and fighting off specters of what will happen in 100 years, when we will likely have AGI in 3. Every dollar spent fighting the so-called climate crisis is a dollar wasted, and the Democrats want to push forward a "green new deal."
@cthor I don't agree with your assertion. In 2001, I made a "life plan." I would do the FIRE philosophy (note that I don't believe in FIRE anymore for a number of reasons.)
My goals were to work for about 20 years, until 2022. For the first 20 years, I would do a lot of overtime, save 60% of my salary, and focus on work. For the following 20, when most people would normally still be working, I would then evaluate whether I wanted to get married and do that sort of thing, while not having to work. Critically, the first half of my life would be hard to make the second half easy.
I am always 100% honest with every statement I make, and there is no "disengenuous" stuff here. I already have worked as many hours as someone who is at least 15 years older than I am. Since 2013, I probably have taken off 5 days per year because I spent so much time on my business. Tomorrow is the third weekend day I'm not going to work this year.
The situation is holistic and interconnected. I already put in my 20 years of overtime work to get the original $12 million and am too exhausted to go back to work. I will live with the scraps. The money would not be "realized" all at once if it weren't for the scams forcing it to be. Furthermore, the fact that I don't have a family - and have decided not to pursue one at this point - is strongly correlated with the fraud in 2022. It can't be separated.
But this all has nothing to do with Trump and Harris. I'm glad that you are willing to go on the record and say that you would be willing to spend the money. I respect you for that. You'll notice that most of the people here just state platitudes about what they would do, while you actually stand by it.
Manifold is filled with idealists who believe that the world is filled with good people, or that it can actually be fixed at all. I think that's great. I certainly wish them all the best and I'd be glad to see that I'm wrong someday. Myself, I've spent enough energy trying to fix things for one lifetime.
@stardust I don't know if I would use the term "Climate Hysteria," but I do agree with the premise that the only thing that matters is accelerating AI as quickly as possible.
All this other stuff is basically a sideshow on the way to superintelligence. If you had to summarize my political views, it would probably be: humans have messed things up pretty badly, so gum up the works to make sure they can't do anything worse, get to superintelligence within a few years, and if we can get a 1 in 3 chance of a good outcome, we should take it.
@SteveSokolowski I think the term Climate Hysteria is apt enough: I'm not a climate change denialist, but suppose we spent trillions of dollars annually on preventing deaths from people falling off their beds. You don't have to be a people-falling-off-beds-denialist to call it what it is: hysteria. The EV of climate change deaths is probably a couple thousand, because the latest we're possibly getting AGI is mid-2030.
I have made the fact that I am a Christian very clear on this site: I believe that when superintelligence happens, God will be with us and what happens will be whatever He wills.
I've gotta applaud you, the long-term commitment to this troll job is borderline art.
@SteveSokolowski I love how manifold is your little echo chamber that you keep coming back to because you actually get engagement, unlike your Twitter account:
"I lost millions on this"
"my AI model..."
"did you know I lost millions on FTX?""
"I bought Bitcoin when it was..."
"I won't continue to engage with you" -> continues to engage repeatedly.
So, you're voting for Trump because you don't support a 28% capital gains tax rate? Cool. Thanks for letting us all know.
@stardust I'm sure that being a Christian probably gets more negative energy directed your way on Manifold than probably anything else. For that, I feel sorrow.
In general, I've found that Manifold is populated by a lot of effective altruists. Most effective altruists (but not all) tend to be very closed-minded, particularly when it comes to religion, and somewhat when it comes to politics. I think that many of those people are out of touch with the way that people outside their group view the world.
I may not agree with your use of terms like "climate hysteria" or how Republicans often tend to label others with blanket terms, but I can certainly see why you and others would be angry about those things and the reasons they would do so.
I've tried posting in a lot of different forums in recent weeks. Interestingly, I've noticed that the places where supposedly the most "intelligent" or "rational" people visit are usually the worst places to post. Surprisingly, forums that discuss UFOs or UAPs are the most welcoming.
Some people in those UAP forums are pretty far out there with what they say, making wild claims with no evidence. But the majority of people are actually intelligent and can separate the BS Mirror articles from things that actually deserve investigation. If I make a post about some other unrelated topic there, it will often be liked or upvoted based upon whether it contributes to the discussion and is factual, rather than upon whether people dislike you because your opinion differs from theirs.
In this specific case, it seems that a group of people has decided to criticize me for one reason or another, and has completely overlooked the fact that there are 2 million victims of this scam who had their lives ruined, which may have been the largest in the history of the world. Surely an insightful strategist would pick up that the (in)actions of Democrats in regards to the scam have turned more votes than one.
I think many Manifold users would benefit a lot more from reading and understanding why people would form the opinions they do, compared to angrily typing.
Fwiw I don't think Steve is trolling here. The tax on unrealized capital gains is one of the most worrying things about Harris, and I think it makes Trump clearly the better choice when it comes to the economy, even with his insane tariffs. (I don't myself consider that sufficient to overcome all of the other things that are wrong with Trump, though.)
But @SteveSokolowski , I think it's worth keeping in mind that the tax on unrealized capital gains probably won't pass, so you should treat it as losing $120,000 * whatever the probability is of them passing. Maybe -$50,000 in expectation. Not sure whether that changes the equation for you, or whether you still value the difference between Trump and Harris at less than $50,000.
Also, I don't quite understand what it is about Harris's tax that would cause you to lose $120,000. Can't you just sell off all of your investments for cash in 2024, before the new tax takes effect? (Of course, the fact that many people will do this will be awful for the economy, but that's a separate point.)
@ZaneMiller I don't have the money. These are bankruptcy claims, and I can't control when they pay.
It's actually an interesting legal situation. The entire cryptocurrency industry was (and is) a scam, and everyone except the lenders at the bottom was (and is) involved in criminal activity. So, the FTX estate has to pay out its creditors first. One of FTX's creditors is BlockFi, which then owes money to its subsidiaries, and so on. This complexity is likely intentional. The CEO of BlockFi who I had the video call with, Ellison, SBF, Silbert, and the other scammers made this extremely complex so that it would be easier to trick people with the fraudulent accounting statements they sent me. This stuff will be in court for years; I don't waste my time trying to keep track of it.
You make a good point about the expected value. The issue though is that the Senate control is not independent. Most of the prediction sites seem to imply a 45% or so swing in Senate control probability depending on who wins the Presidency, with Democrats slightly favored to win the Senate if Walz is breaking all the ties. Full Democratic control scares me more than full Republican control does, although both are bad.
I don't think the tariffs are the disaster people make them out to be, because most of the attack ads leave out an important point. He said he wanted to cut other taxes in exchange for adding the tariffs. That essentially institutes a national sales tax, which I think is good policy and in line with European nations. We should tax consumption, not income, to encourage people to work.
I've carefully considered how much I'm willing to work because the tax code is too progressive as it stands - and I think Democrats don't understand that in general. I've looked at those OpenAI jobs that pay $400,000+ and was tempted to apply, but then computed that if I took one of them next year and moved to California, I would end up with a tax rate of around 64% along with losing two thirds of whatever gain in value there was in the house I sell. So I'm not going to work next year; I don't see the point of being pushed to death at that company to come away with $130,000 - in California.
I don't plan on ever working enough hours to earn more than $191,200 in a year again, the point where taxes go up another 8%.
This is why I keep lamenting that we needed Haley. If you want the economy to grow, cut programs and allow people who do valuable tasks for society, like designing models, to work hard and get rich if they want. I think that even those who really like Harris's policies personally should see that other than abortion, her policies are simply not that popular. Trump did actually do things in his term that resulted in a better economy, with the exception of his last minute push in December 2020 to give away free money to everyone.
@ZaneMiller Call it what you will but Steve is now promoting UFO forums as an alternative for anyone that feels challenged by interpretations of their posts. Saying that Manifold is hostile to Christians is another creatively nuanced note from Steve. I have yet to see a single comment here attacking anyone's spirituality.
[Edit] I removed the strange verse selection. I shouldn't have posted it. I only meant to say that Steve shouldn't take political opinions expressed in this thread personally.
@becauseyoudo I read this post twice and I honestly have no idea what you actually mean. Could you just use plain language?
@SteveSokolowski When the legendary @EnopoletusHarding comes in as the voice of reason you know something is off. 😆
@EnopoletusHarding Beats me. I started out by telling people how I was going to vote and why, and people are now posting LLM-selected bible verses.
What I'm understanding the argument is, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, is "vote for me because I won't actually do what I say." Why wouldn't I vote for the person who actually says they don't want to do that? Surely that vote has a greater chance of blocking the policy.
That's not the actual argument. The argument is that you yourself think Trump is the worst president in history, but you still want to vote for him because of something that almost certainly won't happen if he loses. Given that you already consider Trump's presidency to be disastrous, it seems that you have much stronger evidence for a terrible outcome if he's elected than if Harris is.