Resolves YES if in 2024, Dave Wasserman calls an election with a post saying "I've seen enough", but ultimately ends up being wrong. Otherwise NO.
Background
Sometimes Dave Wasserman (@Redistrict), of the Cook Political Report, tweets "I've seen enough", and calls the result of an election based on the returns at that time (example, example, example), typically before major news networks.
"I've seen enough" has great accuracy. In fact, Manifold is not aware of any cases it was wrong: https://manifold.markets/Conflux/has-dave-wasserman-ever-seen-enough
Wasserman describes his approach as making a call at ~98% confidence. https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1311862792279003136
My general approach to "seeing enough" on Twitter is to make that declaration at a ~98% personal confidence interval, whereas a media organization might prudently wait to project a race at a ~99%+ confidence interval.
In other words, I'd expect that for every 98 times "I've seen enough" ends up being correct, there might be two times it ends up being incorrect.
Details
For this to resolve YES, someone must link a qualifying post in the comments. If no such post is linked by January 1, 2025, the market will resolve NO; however it will re-resolve to YES in case a qualifying post is later discovered.
