Given the news today, resolving NA seems more consistent with than resolving NO. @traders any other views?

Alternatively, I can just leave this open in case Trump renominates her later in his administration…..

oooh I see the ambiguity:

or never takes office as UN Ambassador.

Did she never take office? Resolves NO

Was she never confirmed by the senate? Resolves NA

Well at least we agree it doesn’t resolve yes (yet)! 😅

@BlueDragon I thought this was an unambiguous NO. She didn't fail at the Senate (she never got a vote) && she never took office, so this is a NO

@Robincvgr (That is, will be an unambiguous NO if you decide to leave it open in case Trump renominates her but he doesn't)

@Robincvgr I’m biased by my market position but I agree!

@Conflux ?

@Robincvgr OOPS I misread the market and thought it would resolve N/A if she never took office

@creator Is there any restriction on when she needs to become UN ambassador for this to resolve as YES?
For example, she doesn't run for her next term, and becomes is UN ambassador from Jan 2027 until the end of the term, does that count?

@DanielTilkin interesting, I’d say yes, but I see the ambiguity you are getting at. That would technically not be Trump’s whole term, just one year of it.

I don’t think this scenario is likely. More likely, she steps down from Congress and gets confirmed in the next month, but anything is possible.

Clarifications I think make sense:

• Resolves YES if she serves continuously from her confirmation to the end of Trump’s term

• Resolves NA if she fails to get Senate confirmation

(fixed typo, Sefanik -> Stefanik)