Resolution Criteria: The question will resolve to "Yes" for the candidate officially declared the winner of the 2028 U.S. Presidential Election by the U.S. Electoral College and certified by Congress, as verified by the U.S. Federal Election Commission (FEC) or another authorized government body. If no candidate is declared the winner, it will resolve to "No."
Request your candidate in comments.
1,000People are also trading
What's going on with the low odds for Vance? Do people expect that he'll struggle because Trumpism is discredited? or because he's a charisma vacuum? Or he'll get dragged down by the groyper stuff? He's gotta have decent odds of winning the nomination (>70%?), and modern presidential elections have been very close (>40% of an R president?)
@Stephen9zEAA Manifold has him at around 50-55% odds of winning the Republican nomination, and this implies about a 40% chance of winning the election conditional on the nomination, which seems if anything optimistic at this point.
@bens why so low on the nomination? Something I'm missing about intra-R politics?or just necessary to win the general?
@Stephen9zEAA Hah, that's funny, I literally just asked the opposite question two days ago, I think 21% is outrageously high. I said "1%" but that was hyperbole and I'd probably put my odds somewhere around 5%.
My thinking is that his connection to trump will drag him into the abyss. If trends continue, trump's approval rating could very easily in the high -30s by 2028. We're already seeing 30 point swings in special elections. By 2028 it'll be insurmountable.
I respect the possibility of a shakeup that turns things around, but he needs something big to turn this ship around. I don't think an ordinary miracle would be enough.
I guess as a baseline, you could say Vance got saddled with a bottom 1/46 percentile debuff (being the VP of the 46/46 worst US President). So in order to beat Newsom or whoever, he'd need a counteracting, top 1/46 percentile buff. So his base rate odds of winning the election are 2.17 percent? It feels like shaky reasoning though so idk.
@JonathanSheehy But that's how we improve. Also apparently they break it down by category and I'm doing good in politics tho???
@nikki The ones I've spoken to are a mix of "I had no idea it would be this bad" and "Did you know Emmanuel Macron married his own dad?"
@JonathanSheehy I'm sorry, I don't mean to be on a combative footing like this. My original comment ends with the sentence "What am I missing?" And that wasn't rhetorical. My brain is telling me 5% and I don't have enough hubris to think I've outsmarted the market here. Evidently you're better calibrated than me, but you won't tell me what mistake my brain is making here. Is it underestimating Maga loyalty? Because my brain is hitting back at that again and telling me it just won't be enough. Is this one of those times where we just have to wait so my brain can see the result and make the update when vance wins?
@JonathanSheehy no worries I didn't think you were being combative. I am mostly going by the outside view (VPs usually win the nomination when they run; general elections have mostly been quite close this century). I'd ballpark that at like 38% for generic incumbent VP. And unfortunately I think the electoral penalty for being irresponsible, callous, and odious is less than 5% of the vote. I'd have trouble going below like 25% for Vance unless I was very confident in my ability to forecast the economic and geopolitical situation. But maybe I'm wrong!
Trump will presumably have -30 approval in 2028, Will people really want to vote for his vice president after that? I don't understand why vance is above 1%, What am I missing?
@JonathanSheehy I think you're making a good argument. Some cases I'd make for Vance odds:
There's a material risk Trump doesn't complete his presidency, in which case Vance could have e.g. a year to forge his own reputation and run as a returning president
Vance being the R candidate for president is pretty likely on base rates, VPs are often picked
Dems could pick a candidate seen as "too left" by moderates, e.g. AOC, and still lose for that reason despite Vance being unpopular
Rapid turnarounds in approval can happen if there's a major crisis or war, and neither of these things seem that unlikely.
It seems very unlikely on base rates that the fair value for "republicans win 2028" (regardless of candidate) is in the ballpark of 1%. The other credible R candidates (e.g. Rubio) are mostly also associated with the current admin. So therefore something has to give - either we confidently predict an outsider candidate, we confidently predict Rs have no shot, or we question the assumption that association with the current admin will have such a strong negative effect. Personally, I'd lean more towards the 3rd leg of the trilemma there.
JD Vance at 21.8% leading the field is interesting but probably about right. As sitting VP, he has the strongest structural advantage for the GOP nomination (every sitting VP who sought their party's nomination since 1960 has won it except one). But winning the general is another matter.
The Democratic field is fragmented: Newsom 17%, AOC 5.5%, Shapiro 4%, Buttigieg 3%, Ossoff 2.4%. That sums to about 32% across named Democrats. If the party coalesces behind one candidate, the eventual nominee probably deserves close to the full 32%. The question is who.
Shapiro at only 4% seems like value. As governor of Pennsylvania โ the single most important swing state โ he has a strong electability argument. Governors also have a much better presidential win rate than senators historically. Newsom at 17% may be overpriced given California's poor favorability in swing states.