@DougHardin ??

@Tetraspace this one should probably NA since it's a Dependent market and this is a bit of an unserious answer

Pete going on Flagrant and doing 3 hrs is an auspicious signal that he's learnt the cost of ceding online spaces to the right --- hope he goes on lex or jre next and pushes a progressive vision for actually getting shit done (though his term in cabinet may not be the best aegis of that...).

@JoeBoyle edit:

I meant emblem not aegis.

@JoeBoyle boot-edge-edge is a nerdy 5'8 gay man...he's not going to be potus even if he did 1000 podcasts

@dlin007 People said that about Obamna

@JoeBoyle 6'1 biracial force of nature with generational charisma...slgihtly different. Pete is more like a Democratic Vivek

@Lorelai this should be marked N/A @creator

@Lorelai This is clearly an orthogonal concern to this market

@AlexanderTheGreater it will call into question the legitimacy of the election, arguably rendering it not a real election

@Lorelai right but this is not the point of the market and it’s non-resolvable. Please do not add answers of this nature.

@bens the question implies the existence of free and fair elections as we have understood them up until this point in time. Should those elections change shape as a result of restrictions on the voter base that should absolutely be taken into account as whoever is "elected" president will not have been elected as we currently understand the word

@Lorelai yes but this is a dependent multiple-choice market. Only one answer can resolve YES. How would the creator resolve this market if, say, voter restrictions are introduced, and also Gavin Newsom wins the election?

@bens er, this is a problem with the market and the creator. Both should be resolved yes/partially yes in that situation and that should be an option. But I would argue that newsom's election would be less relevant than fraudulent elections with mass voter disenfranchisement if there could only be one option.

@Lorelai no this is a problem with you creating that option, lol. You can’t just create out-of-concept answers on an add-your-own-answer market and then blame the creator. They’re just gonna delete your option, but it’s still annoying and you should avoid doing it.

@bens people question market concepts all the time. You're clearly not a noob, so that you don't understand this is very strange.

@Lorelai I'm curious, do you have another example of a market where an option was added that doesn't fit the format of the market? I've only been active for about a year, so I might simply never have seen it.

@Lorelai perhaps consider the possibility that /you/ are the one not understanding something

@bens nope, it's a very real and dangerous possibility that there is going to be voter suppression in any forthcoming elections and that you don't recognise that eventuality as having any bearing on results is a you problem.

@AlexanderTheGreater I'm not going to trawl through manifold to source specific examples for you but markets are constantly questioned in the comments

@Lorelai Yes in the comments, not the answers.

@Joshua there should be a partial resolution option at very least, there is a real risk of serious forthcoming voter disenfranchisement

@Lorelai Again, that's orthogonal to the market and seems better as its own market with its own, clear resolution criteria

@AlexanderTheGreater er, no. It's entirely relevant to this market.

@Lorelai knock it off

@MachiNi wow, really bothered some likely MAGA supporters in highlighting forthcoming voter disenfranchisement huh

@Lorelai lol if only you knew