This market will resolve as:
Yes if:
At least three major mainstream media outlets (e.g., CNN, MSNBC, New York Times, Washington Post, ABC News, CBS News, NBC News) publish articles or broadcast segments lending credibility to claims of widespread election or voter fraud that could have affected the outcome of the 2024 presidential election, OR
At least two of the following Democratic leaders make public statements expressing suspicion of widespread election or voter fraud that could have affected the outcome: President-elect Kamala Harris, former President Barack Obama, former President Joe Biden, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, or House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries.
No if:
By January 20, 2025 (Inauguration Day), neither of the above conditions for "Yes" have been met.N/A if:
The election results are officially overturned through legal challenges before the inauguration, OR
Extraordinary circumstances prevent a clear determination of the above criteria.
The market will default to N/A unless the specific conditions for Yes or No are clearly met.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Lending credibility" requires EITHER:
1. Direct Assertions:
Using language that treats fraud claims as valid, such as:
- "Investigation reveals evidence of..."
- "Data shows patterns of..."
- "Analysis demonstrates..."
- "Evidence emerges of..."
- "Records indicate..."
OR
2. Sustained Sympathetic Coverage:
ALL of:
- At least 5 fraud claim mentions spanning 25%+ of article/segment
- 3+ of: references to "election integrity concerns", multiple uncontested fraud quotes, detailed irregularity descriptions, "mounting concerns", "statistical anomalies"
- 2+ of: minimal fact-checking, limited use of "alleged", fraud in headline/lead, uses "investigation" over "claims"
1,000
3.00Not saying these are true, but I've been seeing these around today:
https://www.reddit.com/r/houstonwade/comments/1gnwsv0/they_cheated/
@Endothermia If the allegations are almost certainly true but the election results aren't over turned the resolution will be Yes if the criteria for main stream Democrats supporting the claims are satisfied.
Seems like the same rules Republicans are given for if their election fraud claims were "True" or not I think, if the outcome is changed.
@Endothermia This market is about if Mainstream Democrats will allege significant election fraud.
Your post about some posted claims of fraud (in which you mentioned your non-committal to the estimate of how true the claims are) made me consider what if you had included that you thought they were true.
So I was clarifying that even if someone did think (even correctly!) that the election fraud claims are true, it will not impact the market resolution, unless the election result itself is overturned.
I also added that this is a similar standard that applies to Republicans, who are culturally recently the ones known for claiming election fraud. The view by the mainstream media is that this is obviously false. A major reason they don't have to engage with the potential truth of it is because the 2020 election results the Republicans contested wasn't overturned. So i'm saying that is the objective standard we will have to use to allow for this to resolve N/A rather than Yes.
The idea being that mainstream Democrats would be absolved for the allegations if they are true. This is important since this market is really about the idea that Democrats might, potentially hypocritically, start to push for election fraud narratives to the same degree they had criticized some Republicans for doing. People voting No are essentially claiming no such conspiratorial propensity hypocrisy is likely from the Democratic party in this election cycle.