Inkling Public Site

Make a prediction

Spend money (inkles) to express what you think will happen.

Next

Wisdom of the crowd

Everyone's predictions are combined in to a single prediction.

Next

Judgment time

Were you right or were you wrong about your prediction?

Don't show this again

Will more than two serious candidates run in the 2016 presidential election?

POSSIBLE ANSWERS

PREDICTED CHANCE

TODAY

Yes

(closed)

7.79%

  • expired

Question ends

October 31, 2016 @ 08:55pm PDT

Predictions Made

41

Most by: onedave (5 predictions)

Discussion

Sort by: Down Date

benthinkin (ADMIN)   •   Tue Jan 05 2016 at 10:15am PST

This market has been suspended. To forecast similar questions, please visit http://alphacast.cultivateforecasts.com

ChloeBurns   •   Sat Jul 25 2015 at 10:17am PDT

The suggestion to use polling data is a good one, but with no consensus to change the rules I am going to leave the determining criterion as originally written. Clear and consistent rules win out over an expedient cash out. Onedave, look for a polling data rule in the 2020 market.

ChloeBurns   •   Fri Jul 24 2015 at 07:25am PDT

Now that I think about it, it isn’t necessary for the other nominees to be decided. Any declared third party or independent candidate polling >=10% in three consecutive national polls qualifies as a serious candidate.

Polling data rather than election data allows for a quicker resolution without diluting the intent of the question.

What do the participants think of this revised definition?

wstritt   •   Fri Jul 24 2015 at 03:36pm PDT

Frankly, I thought the original criteria as set forth in the “background information” (i.e. “…any candidate other than the Democratic or Republican nominee receives more than 5% of the popular vote in the general election”) was both perfectly clear to anyone trading and perfectly reasonable.

Having said that, if you want to expand that to polling, I’d at least wait until the major party nominees are known because earlier polls could show all sorts of bizarre results for people who end up getting less than 5% of the vote and are effectively non-real candidates (e.g. Howard Stern for NY governor).

So my preference, in order: 1) stick with originally stated criteria, 2) post conventions, 3) 3 random polls.

onedave   •   Fri Jul 24 2015 at 03:35pm PDT

Replace >= 10% with >= 10% against Democratic and Republican candidate and I am OK.

Can we also say if anyone polls >=20% in three consecutive national polls against only Democrats or Republicans (ie, primary polls), drops out and then runs as a 3rd part candidate, we cash out at 100? I am thinking that only half the people will participate in those primary polls. So, 20% in a primary poll is equivalent to 10% in the poll against Democrat and Republican candidates.

sflicht   •   Fri Jul 24 2015 at 06:15pm PDT

Clarify what you mean by the first sentence? Just that only 3-way polls as opposed to heads-up matches should count?

ChloeBurns   •   Fri Jul 24 2015 at 06:38pm PDT

It is a continuation of the conversation from below.

sflicht   •   Fri Jul 24 2015 at 07:01pm PDT

oh thanks. i’d missed that part of the thread

onedave   •   Thu Jul 23 2015 at 03:56pm PDT

Can we say that Third Party candidate Donald Trump will be considered a third serious candidate?

ChloeBurns   •   Thu Jul 23 2015 at 05:12pm PDT

He is an utterly unserious person and a toxic candidate. However, if he runs as an independent and receives more than 5% of the vote in the general, this market will settle as “yes.”

I am open to other benchmarks for serious candidate. For example, participation in one or more general election debates.

onedave   •   Thu Jul 23 2015 at 06:28pm PDT

Once presumptive nominees are known for the Democrats and Republicans, I would say that anyone polling above 10% for multiple polls against them would be a serious nominee.

Popular vote total of second and third candidates combined exceeds the winner’s total sounds pretty serious to me.

ChloeBurns   •   Thu Jul 23 2015 at 06:56pm PDT

I agree. Anyone polling >10% in three consecutive national polls after the conventions or if the second and third candidates receive more votes than the winner of the popular vote in the general.

onedave   •   Fri Jul 24 2015 at 03:04am PDT

How about “Anyone polling >10% in three consecutive national polls after the Democratic and Republican are determined.” I don’t think that we need to wait around until after the conventions if the primary season proves decisive.

ChloeBurns   •   Fri Jul 24 2015 at 04:17am PDT

How do you define “determined”?

onedave   •   Fri Jul 24 2015 at 03:11pm PDT

Only one candidate left in the campaign, one candidate has clinched a majority of the delegates, or the mainstream media calls someone the presumptive nominee.

DariusX   •   Mon Mar 30 2015 at 05:00am PDT

Depends what you mean by “serious”. If you mean someone running with the hope of pulling a lot of voters toward it — as opposed to the normal third-parties that run each time, then I think 5% is as good as any. The Green Party hit 2.74% in 2000 and the Libertarians are usually around 1%. So, around 5% would be the minimum to distinguish from one of these (if that is your intention). Perot got almost 19% the first time, but under 9% the second time.

ChloeBurns   •   Fri May 16 2014 at 07:15am PDT

5% in the popular vote is an arbitrary limit for “serious candidate”. Any suggestions from market participants as to a better benchmark?

wstritt   •   Sat May 17 2014 at 06:55am PDT

Last time that would have happened was Perot in 1992/1996. Would not pick up Nader in 2000 (even less so in 2008). Sounds about right.

ChloeBurns   •   Sat May 17 2014 at 08:54am PDT

5% is based on the threshold for public matching funds. Another potential test is more than two candidates participate in a majority of nationally televised debates.

Rationales

"Third party over 5% is very rare"

DariusX bought at 25.97%
July 29, 2014 @ 07:42pm PDT

historical trend

Click on possible answers in the right column to hide/show them on the graph. You can also hover over any line to see current value at that time. Graphs will begin to show data one hour after the question has been open. The Historical Trend chart does not display all prices ever reached since it is only updated at discrete time intervals, (hourly/daily/weekly, depending on the date range).
Help
Ajax-loader