Just for calibration, which of the following, if any, would you say Trump is seriously trying to take over?

1. The Panama Canal

2. Greenland

3. Canada

@HthePenguin For "seriously trying", I would say none of those three, currently.

But if we were to use this question's looser bar of "public statements... or other indications suggesting he is considering", I would say Greenland and Canada currently qualify, and the Panama Canal is borderline.

How does this market resolve if Trump takes active efforts to run for the position of Vice President of the United States but implies strongly that the Presidential running mate will resign if elected? In fact how does it resolve if he attempts to run for any position in the line of succession with the implication that those ahead of him in that line will resign and make him President?

People who want to interpret Trump's statements in the best light tend to alternate between saying they are just random musings that have no purpose and that they are deeply strategic. If we view these as statements by a President of the United States, and assume that he says what he says for a reason (especially when he says it over a dozen times), it's reasonable to view what Trump is doing is "attempting to run for a third term" in my view. By doing this he is signaling to the Maga leaders like Miller, Bannon, Catturd etc that the correct talking point is "maybe the constitution isn't so clear..." rather than "Trump would never do this". He's making at least not saying 'I definitely don't support a third Trump term' a loyalty test for congressional republicans.

As an analogy, someone in early 2003 who constantly was talking about how bad Saddam was, how much of a threat WMD's could be, and saying we need to take "strong action" if Saddam didn't fully abandon his WMD program was transparently "trying to start a war with Iraq" even if they tacked on a "I hope it doesn't come to war" sentence to their op-ed.

Edit: A more apropos analogy: someone who goes to Iowa and Vermont repeatedly, releases a memoir, talks to donors, consults with experienced presidential campaign hands, does focus groups, etc in the year before an election is "attempting to run for president" even if they never file for an exploratory committee. In that case it's not that they didn't run, they just lost in the invisible primary.

This market is worded very broadly and all other markets have time constraints or are about success and not intend. So I made one about actually mounting am attempt: https://manifold.markets/AlexanderTheGreater/trump-seriously-attempts-3rd-term-i

“Will Trump attempt to run for president again?” is a different question than “Will Trump consider running for president again?”

@snazzlePop Markets resolve according to the details in their descriptions, not according to a vibe based on the topline question. I agree that the topline question should read something more like your latter question but the description is clear.

@Balasar I think it’s more fair to resolve by the spirit of the question than by narrow legalese interpretations of resolution criteria.

That said, it does seem that the spirit of Ammon’s question was closer to “Will Trump seriously consider running for or somehow otherwise sitting in a third term as president?”

@snazzlePop There is no legalese here. (not sure why we are having this conversation in two markets) The question clearly includes public statements, which a comment to a major journalist in a press interview certainly qualifies as.

@snazzlePop This is a pretty strange take, and seems like an indefensible position. The purpose of a resolution criteria is to remove ambiguity that may be present in the one-liner short question title. If we aren't supposed to use the resolution criteria as, you know, the criteria for resolution, then why do we even write them?

The criteria is pretty clear that it "Resolves to 'Yes' if... [there are] public statements... suggesting he is considering a run for a third term." If @AmmonLam wanted predictions on a different question, he would have (or should have) written a different question.

Personally, I think we have already passed the bar to resolve Yes. The only defensible position I can see for not resolving yet is that a fuller transcript of the conversation in question is needed before confirming.

(Disclosure of interests: I initially bet NO, but switched to YES after reading the resolution criteria.)

https://manifold.markets/Balasar/should-manifold-market-resolve-as-y?play=true

If this is not resolving YES, then the market creator needs to add substantial specificity to why his “not joking” comment and his reference to “plans” about running for a 3rd term does not meet the public statement criteria.

@Balasar quote the strongest statement you have from him and the market will respond accordingly.

@AmmonLam Trump says he is ‘not joking’ about seeking a third term in office - https://giftarticle.ft.com/giftarticle/actions/redeem/ef5fefcd-7243-4f73-95a3-308bc5c7b587 via @FT

@AmmonLam In response to interviewer question about running for a third term: "No, no I’m not joking. I'm not joking."

@Balasar fwiw I don't read it as trump saying he is running. He says that it's "too early." But he could serve a third term and he's not joking.

@Balasar what's the question? Care to quote it here?

@AmmonLam I would love to but that's the extent of what I can find, it doesn't appear to have a recording. edit: https://x.com/brianstelter/status/1906385585130135968

@AmmonLam Nevertheless, if you don't consider a telephone comment to a journalist a "public statement" and a clear trial balloon under what you describe as a "rather broad" definition of an attempt then you should edit the question description. I think the most reasonable interpretation of the rules, in the absence of a White House denial, which hasn't happened, is to resolve YES.

@Balasar Updated the description

@AmmonLam The goalposts are moving. Do you deny that he said this or not? Your earlier edit seemed to indicate that if he said he was not joking this would resolve YES. The question that remains is if he said this. NBC News has reported on it and the White House has not denied it.

@Balasar The earlier edit was in place back a year ago

@AmmonLam I feel like that makes the case for resolution even stronger, because that means that in your original conception of this market that a non-joke would count for a resolution. But fine, if you refuse to resolve YES, we can wait a few more weeks before he says it again.

@Balasar The issue is not about whether he is joking or not. The issue is that there's no clear statement for me to judge what Trump actually said, what is the question being asked, etc.

If you truly think that Trump intents to run for a third term, he surely will make other indications again, and the market price should be much higher than 50%. The fact that the market are not betting the market higher suggests to me that the market are not confident on Trump's intention to run for the third term.

@AmmonLam Well I think the market is pricing in your reticence to resolve this as YES and maybe thinks that you will interpret some clear trial balloons with vague plausible deniability and then an eventual abandonment of the idea due to infeasibility as a NO.

@Balasar If you think I'm biased here, feel free to start a vote and see whether people believe this market should resolve as YES already. If a majority agrees with you, I'm happy to resolve it as YES. (My guess is that most people would not think the market should have resolved as YES yet, but I could be wrong.)

@AmmonLam Here is the poll: https://manifold.markets/Balasar/should-manifold-market-resolve-as-y?play=true

Nevertheless you are correct in thinking that I do think he will do it again, given that he has referenced it like 3 times in as many months.

@AmmonLam Also, I found this transcript: https://x.com/brianstelter/status/1906385585130135968

@AmmonLam given the above evidence and today's reporting, I'm inclined to believe this should resolve yes (i say as a NO holder), even though I'm still not convinced he will actually ATTEMPT to do so (i.e., change the constitution, enter the next campaign cycle officially, etc.)

Your description clearly doesn't require an actual attempt, but rather just a serious statement that he will, which seems already satisfied imo

@No_uh I'm buying 200mana in YES full context. i sold my NO at loss

@Balasar i couldn’t find any video of him saying anything about 3rd term. Can you give a link directly to the video?

@mathvc That's because it's not a TV interview. It was a telephone interview with Meet the Press moderator Kristen Welker. The transcript is here: https://x.com/brianstelter/status/1906385585130135968

@Balasar do you have any proof this telephone interview is real? Like any indication it actually happened eg trump schedule with interview in it

@mathvc Like a dozen news orgs have cited it? Nobody has denied it has happened on the White House side and the New York Times mentioned a statement by Steven Cheung that referenced the interview. This schedule also seems to align with the reporting that it was an early morning telephone call: https://rollcall.com/factbase/trump/topic/calendar/

@Balasar The schedule says that Trump did some press pool interviews in the morning followed by a presidential excursion to the Trump International Golf Club West Palm Beach where I'm sure he was doing very presidential things all day.

@Balasar yeah i agree with you, it should resolve yes

Very scary developments in US politics!