This market's resolution criteria doesn't test for need, only coincidence. What if the canidate would have won with out the endorsement? If the canidate is doing very poorly and does not improve until they recive the endorsement and then they go on to win then we might say they needed the endorsement to win, but if they were already doing great before the endorsement it is less clear.

@ShitakiIntaki This! Real question is whether Trump gets an endorsement and wins the election.

I've thought about this a bit, and I've made my own question here. Feel free to copy its resolution criteria over.

Will the 2024 Republican presidential nominee win because of Trump’s endorsement?

45% chance. If... Trump is the nominee -> resolves N/A Win + Endorsement -> **resolves YES if it gives nominee enough of a boost Win + No endorsement -> resolves NO Lose + Endorsement -> resolves NO Lose + No endorsement -> resolves N/A **If, in the 2 weeks following Trump’s endorsement, the c…

I think the title is confusing, for the reason Yoav has pointed out. Currently, this market is really "Will the republican candidate be endorsed by Trump and win." I propose a new criterion to distinguish it:

If the republican nominee loses without Trump's endorsement, resolves N/A. (We can't know if they needed Trump's endorsement to win in that case)

If the candidate lost without trumps endorsement, isn’t that a sign they needed it to win?

@Yoav Yes, but it doesn't mean they would have won with Trump's endorsement either.

@BruceGrugett But them winning with Trump’s endorsement doesn’t mean they would have lost without it either.

If Trump is the Republican candidate, will this resolve N/A? (I think that would make this market more interesting.)

Resolves yes if the Republican candidate wins the election with Trump's endorsement. Resolves no otherwise.