Resolution Criteria: The question will resolve to "Yes" for the candidate officially nominated by the Republican Party for the 2028 U.S. Presidential Election, as confirmed by the party's official announcement or at the Republican National Convention. If no candidate is nominated, it will resolve to "No."
1,000People are also trading
Bell weather isn't predictive anymore.
Going by who holds governor's offices is.
GOP always has a way of snatching victory from defeat. But they can't take the presidency without an outsider or a former governor, or someone that has political connections to the governorship.
Vivek was kinda snubbed by Trump (rightfully so), so he won't back whoever Trump prefers. Vance took front and center in foreign diplomatic meetings like the speech to NATO. That looks like preparing him for the role, but Trump listens to his advisors, so backing Vance, without Vance having experience, indicates Vance is a show candidate to cover for a later pick.
When the GOP is in a tough corner in the mid-terms before a presidential race, they tend to go with hardliners.
Thats not youngkin, and he doesn't have the polarization power to win a primary.
That, despite what everyone else is saying, leaves Abbot, Rubio, or Nikki Haley, or Ron. Nikki is just a female version of hillary, and doesn't have enough appeal, even with the evangelical vote to win. So it comes down to Desantis or Abbot. Texas is being secured with the redistricting, and the GOP would only do that if they were 1. making an actual effort going into 2028 2. knew they'd need to recapture the governorship with a president FROM that state. If their pick were going to be Ron, you'd see redistricting in florida. Therefore, again, despite the apparent odds, Abbot will in fact be the GOP pick for president. Fuck, I'm right aren't I? Of course I am.
@DavidAttenborough
> Therefore, again, despite the apparent odds, Abbot will in fact be the GOP pick for president. Fuck, I'm right aren't I?
Probably not, but your reasoning is good enough that I'll buy YES at 0.7.
@NBAP Lot of assumptions to be sure.
Depends on if congress authorizes war again, this time in south america or venezuela.
If they do, we get Vance as a pick. If they don't it'll be Abbot. Because congressional authorization for war is a proxy vote for a president's vp pick, thats my model.
With congress so recalcitrant, polarization so high, the only way they can differentiate themselves during mid terms is to fight WH policy, long-shot backboard wins from the cheap seats, because it costs them nothing to do so.
Looking at that, I see a lot of congress shrugging and thinking why bother authorizing, when theres nothing in it for them? And the polarization that will follow from a george-bush-esque texas figure all resecures their seats next midterms.
Intelligence agencies would be happier too, its back to the familiar political reruns.
But we'll know who it will be based, on whether the next war is authorized or not.
big question is whether Trump will stick by this
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/trump-wont-run-again-loses-november-election-rcna172147
@JessicaEvans If we get enough request and polularity for Tucker, we'll add him. Meanwhile if you want to bet on Tucker, we have an option for him in another related market.
@predyx_markets surely very undervalued.
P(Trump wins) * P(Vance 2028 | trump win)
45% * 80%+
= 36%
Plus vance is a strong candidate imo.
@polymathematic Nothing is stopping us from taking profits in the short term. If you strongly believe in a candidate, you can always buy low and sell high. 📈💡
@Daniel_MC love that you brought some math, but 80% is too high IMO. Historically, maybe the vice prez gets the nomination that often (I didn't check), but Trump has a history of throwing absolutely everyone who has ever worked for him under the bus, eventually.
@Daniel_MC I don't think P(Vance 2028 | trump win) is nearly as high as 80%. He's also an incredibly weak candidate, though, given the current state of the GOP, I doubt that affects his chances of getting nominated.