Representative Gaetz is out. There's a very decent chance that Democrats will have the majority on day one. Would this market nonetheless resolve for Rs?

@MP It seems extremely unlikely that Dems would have a day 1 majority without Gaetz. That being said, resolution criteria seems pretty clear that it’ll resolve based on the AP call for the house? I could see extending this a bit to see if AP retracts their call or etc. but given the description, seems clear that whatever the AP defines as what’s needed to call the house is what this question uses

@Jessef0226 @ManifoldPolitics this is your resolution source in the description. Time to resolve.

Arb here

How is the house so close if States like New York shifted right so much and Trump looks like he won the popular vote

@ChinmayTheMathGuy gerrymandering

@ChinmayTheMathGuy Trump overperformed in many races, relative to down ballot (at least in the Senate I know this is true). Maybe people buy wholesale into his messaging, maybe it's bc Kamala is uniquely bad in the eyes of many, maybe it's because Kamala is a black woman, maybe I'm wrong and it's gerrymandering.

@ChinmayTheMathGuy Mid cycle gerrymander

There has to be an arbitrage opportunity here, but I'm too lazy to find it.

Arbitrage https://manifold.markets/lisamarsh/will-the-democrats-win-a-majority-i?play=true

always bet on the second funniest outcome

A strong case for Harris is that a Republican trifecta is far more likely than a Democratic one. The Senate is practically a shoo-in for the GOP. If you care about checks and balances / balanced government, a vote for Harris makes that a likelier outcome at this point

@EricBolton https://substack.com/@jeffgiesea/note/c-74188590?r=g4o5j&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action

Made a copy of this market, but for after the 2026 election:

Bearish on Dems controlling the Senate. None of the Republican seats are competitive right now, and GOP is virtually guaranteed to take Joe Machin's seat. Meanwhile, Democrats have 7 competitive races they need to win if they want to maintain 50 seats. Plus the vice-presidency.

Most likely outcome is that GOP keeps the 49 seats they already have, plus Manchin and Tester's seats, as well as one of the "Toss UP" elections. That would put them at 52.

What if Senate is 50 R, 49 "D" (King and Sanders included), and Murkowski splits off post election but before the swearing in?

then we're screwed and probably Manifold Politics will have to do something silly like resolving 50% between a Senate D and Senate R option

@Najawin I suspect AP won't officially call Senate control until the new Senate is in session.

Upgrading this market to premium!

Currently, Nate Silver has the national odds at 53.7% Harris to 45.9% Trump.

The Economist has it at 51% Harris to 48% Trump.

Meanwhile our friends at Metaculus currently have 55% Harris to 45% Trump, and their Balance of Power market shows this:

Our friends at Metaculus love to be overconfident in all of their predictions

I've been (cleaning up) in the Metaculus quarterly competition this last month, and one thing I've noticed is as soon as a market falls below like ~10% (or above ~90%) probability, there's some sort of weird downward spiral effect where people notice the market probability dropping and adjust their own probabilities downwards, causing it to go even further down. You end up with some weird situations where a market gets to 0.1% in cases where that level of confidence is completely and utterly unwarranted, but it rarely teaches the traders a lesson, because even when the actual probability is 10x more, that will only go awry 1% of the time.

Quite amazing you can sell a trifecta at 25% while Tester is at 32%, and Moreno is at 54%.

Adding this together, Republicans have a 48.7% chance of winning presidency to Dems 51%. Strong arbitrage with this market.