Sure, we don’t have to bet at 50⁄50 odds. I’m willing to bet at say 90⁄10 odds in your favor that the next election is decided by electoral college or popular vote with a (relatively) free and fair election comparable to 2016, 2020 and 2024.
I agree that Trump is… bad for lack of a better word and that he seeks loyalty and such. But the US democracy is rather robust and somehow people took the fact that it held up strongly as evidence that… democracy was more fragile than we thought.
This strikes me as too optimistic/not taking the evidence from the last two elections seriously enough.
In both of them a leading contender for the Presidency did not commit to a peaceful transfer of power. In one of them he incited an insurrection. In both of them, more severe outcomes were prevented by contingent factors.
As we discussed at EAG B, the material change between the 1st term and 2nd term is that there were many “adults in the room” who kept the former president from fulfilling his worst instincts. Whereas now there has been a 4-year effort to cultivate a pipeline of loyalists to staff the government. Ezra’s episode on Trump and his disinhibition is a good piece on the topic.
The nominations for the national security apparatus are the strongest signal that he wants power consolidated and will test GOP Senators out the gate if they will be a check on his power.
I think Ezra’s start to the podcast that Michael linked was apt. If someone two months ago said that Gaetz, Gabbard, and Hegeseth were going to be nominated for DoJ, DNI, DoD, it would have been framed as hyperbolic doomer Liberal talk. However that is the universe we are in.
Have the nominations and the proposal to purge military generals updated your priors at all since EAG B?
I find the Gaetz and Hegeseth picks to be a bit worrying. I struggle to find a reason that the Gabbard is bad at all. In fact, I think she is probably good? She’s a former congresswoman, city councillor, hawaii house rep and member of the national guard, etc. She seems like a good pick who is concerned about the US tendency to intervene in foreign countries.
Now, to be clear, I find the Gaetz and Hegeseth picks to be bad but I thought Trump would do these types of things and I think there is a whole universe of things that Trump could have done and so he did some mildly-moderately bad ones.
So, he did some bad things but it was around expectation and nothing yet in the tails and thus I shouldn’t update in the direction of totalitarianism.
I’m still not finding anything to really be alarmed about other than people I know being alarmed.
So, he did some bad things but it was around expectation and nothing yet in the tails and thus I shouldn’t update in the direction of totalitarianism.
No one speaks of totalitarianism here, but a risk of authoritarian drift.
Over the past two weeks, the President-Elect has indicated he wants to appoint extreme loyalists without substantive qualifications to positions most relevant for democracy working well (or not) (DOJ, DOD, etc.). He is also trying to weaken the power of the Republican Senate Majority, both via the threat of recess appointments plus generally by pushing the Senate to confirm unqualified candidates.
I don’t think anyone knows what will happen, but I think being confident that he is not doing anything in the tails seems overconfident, what he is doing now is exactly what one would be doing if one wanted to move towards more authoritarianism.
The worry that people have with Gabbard is that her sympathies with Russia and Syria would essentially make it hard for her own and allied intelligence services to trust her severely undermining the function she is to serve.
how about 99/1? pretty wild to me that you would say
I have generally found the fears of democracy failing in the US to be hyperbolic and without much good evidence. The claims are also very “vibes-based” and/or partisan rather than at the object level.
and then only offer 90⁄10 odds. Are you saying you think there is a ~1 in 20 chance the next election is not going to be free and fair? I would not consider freaking about about 1⁄100 to be hyperbolic, much less 1⁄20.
Also It would be nice to break this up a little bit more. Here are some things I would probably bet you on, though they need to be clarified and thought out a bit more.
Trump will commit more than x crimes during his presidency.
Trumps secretaries will commit more than x crimes during his presidency
Trump will attempt to run for a third term
The winner of the republican primary in the next two presidential elections will be a MAGA
In the next x years, a future president or (sufficiently) high up politician will not be convicted of any crimes conditional on their party controlling the justice department
If I’m willing to bet, I need to take “edge”. I am not going to bet at my actual odds since that gives no profit for me.
1⁄2. I think nearly every president committed crimes, for example, war crimes. This mainly depends on what he is prosecuted for as opposed to what is committed.
If the constitution is amended that seems fine. I’m fine to bet on something like this though.
I’m not sure why that matters. People can elect people you and I disagree with ideologically.
I don’t think I understand this one. Can you clarify?
I feel like people are converting their dislike of Trump into unwarranted fears. I don’t like Trump but it’s not helpful to fear monger.
This is pretty patronizing. You don’t know me but do you really think the average person on the EA forum needs that explained?
hence why I wrote 1⁄20 (95-5). If you believe the chance is <1/100 you are 10x. Given the asymmetry of my/other users knowledge of your internal probability, I understand offering the best possible odds for yourself that you still think the other side would take, but it’s a bit of an icky norm to come on here and play poker when people might assume you would be happy to take a 2x-5x bet. More importantly the bet you offered proves nothing in my mind since anywhere between a 1-5% chance of the next election being rigged would still be really really bad and worth hyperventilating about.
If you want, read my comment to lark. I don’t think my resolution criteria are good. It’s rather that I don’t personally expect the next election to be rigged ( I would be on the same side of the 90⁄10 bet as you) but I do expect trump to continue to denigrate the checks and balances that we have in this country, whether it be official laws or unofficial norms, hence why I am trying to pose intermediate questions. I’ll try to improve the original questions though.
1⁄2 - just specify a specific crime that we think most presidents don’t commit and would obviously be worth prosecuting.
3 - really? You think this wouldn’t be a clear step towards autocracy?
4 - The general position of MAGA’s is that the 2020 election was stolen. 5- Admittedly a Pretty awful market, just ignore this one
Again I don’t think even these modified versions are good, but I think we can still do better.
Trump will commit more than x crimes during his presidency.
This lacks an objective resolution criteria, and ‘number of crimes’ in the US is often a fairly random number because a single act can give rise to multiple violations. Also, committing crimes is very different from being an autocrat—you could be an autocrat and obey the law, and you can be a democrat and break the law.
Trumps secretaries will commit more than x crimes during his presidency
Similar issues.
Trump will attempt to run for a third term
Not as bad, but seems insufficient. Michael Bloomberg ran for a third term as NYC mayor, even though this required changing the rules just for him, but he was not an autocrat.
The winner of the republican primary in the next two presidential elections will be a MAGA
This is subjective, and also insufficient, as whatever ‘MAGA’ is, it is not the same as an autocrat.
In the next x years, a future president or (sufficiently) high up politician will not be convicted of any crimes conditional on their party controlling the justice department
This also seems insufficient to demonstrate autocracy—for example to my knowledge Obama was never convicted of any crimes when his party controlled the Justice Department, but he was not an autocrat.
I think the best thing to bet on is the probability of winning the next election. Unfortunately this doesn’t work nearly as well as it would have a few weeks ago, but I think think it is the best approach.
Completely agree—I think all of my markets are bad. However the direction I’m trying to move in by proposing these questions is to operationalize steps along the way towards autocracy. You could semi replicate this but saying ok well will one of the next 5 elections going to be rigged (if you believe you can operationalize this), but even if you could set up a futures market for it I don’t think you will get all that much market efficiency from it.
Betting on the prob of next election is going to paint a very incomplete picture. There is a world in which we are 99% the next election is not going to get rigged but acts during this admin would credibly increase the chance of future riggings by a lot. For instance lets assume trump himself as no interest in being an autocrat. Then he wouldn’t rig the election purposely right? And yet the fact that we now have a precedent that you won’t be prosecuted for essentially anything if you win the presidency surely changes the incentives of future politicians who are considering meddling.
This is literally my position. I think the next election is >90% to be “relatively fair”, but I also think trump is going to do a ton of stuff that paves the way for a future election to not be fair. Picture below to help explain thesis.
Sure, we don’t have to bet at 50⁄50 odds. I’m willing to bet at say 90⁄10 odds in your favor that the next election is decided by electoral college or popular vote with a (relatively) free and fair election comparable to 2016, 2020 and 2024.
I agree that Trump is… bad for lack of a better word and that he seeks loyalty and such. But the US democracy is rather robust and somehow people took the fact that it held up strongly as evidence that… democracy was more fragile than we thought.
This strikes me as too optimistic/not taking the evidence from the last two elections seriously enough.
In both of them a leading contender for the Presidency did not commit to a peaceful transfer of power. In one of them he incited an insurrection. In both of them, more severe outcomes were prevented by contingent factors.
As we discussed at EAG B, the material change between the 1st term and 2nd term is that there were many “adults in the room” who kept the former president from fulfilling his worst instincts. Whereas now there has been a 4-year effort to cultivate a pipeline of loyalists to staff the government. Ezra’s episode on Trump and his disinhibition is a good piece on the topic.
The nominations for the national security apparatus are the strongest signal that he wants power consolidated and will test GOP Senators out the gate if they will be a check on his power.
I think Ezra’s start to the podcast that Michael linked was apt. If someone two months ago said that Gaetz, Gabbard, and Hegeseth were going to be nominated for DoJ, DNI, DoD, it would have been framed as hyperbolic doomer Liberal talk. However that is the universe we are in.
Have the nominations and the proposal to purge military generals updated your priors at all since EAG B?
I find the Gaetz and Hegeseth picks to be a bit worrying. I struggle to find a reason that the Gabbard is bad at all. In fact, I think she is probably good? She’s a former congresswoman, city councillor, hawaii house rep and member of the national guard, etc. She seems like a good pick who is concerned about the US tendency to intervene in foreign countries.
Now, to be clear, I find the Gaetz and Hegeseth picks to be bad but I thought Trump would do these types of things and I think there is a whole universe of things that Trump could have done and so he did some mildly-moderately bad ones.
So, he did some bad things but it was around expectation and nothing yet in the tails and thus I shouldn’t update in the direction of totalitarianism.
I’m still not finding anything to really be alarmed about other than people I know being alarmed.
No one speaks of totalitarianism here, but a risk of authoritarian drift.
Over the past two weeks, the President-Elect has indicated he wants to appoint extreme loyalists without substantive qualifications to positions most relevant for democracy working well (or not) (DOJ, DOD, etc.). He is also trying to weaken the power of the Republican Senate Majority, both via the threat of recess appointments plus generally by pushing the Senate to confirm unqualified candidates.
I don’t think anyone knows what will happen, but I think being confident that he is not doing anything in the tails seems overconfident, what he is doing now is exactly what one would be doing if one wanted to move towards more authoritarianism.
The worry that people have with Gabbard is that her sympathies with Russia and Syria would essentially make it hard for her own and allied intelligence services to trust her severely undermining the function she is to serve.
how about 99/1? pretty wild to me that you would say
and then only offer 90⁄10 odds. Are you saying you think there is a ~1 in 20 chance the next election is not going to be free and fair? I would not consider freaking about about 1⁄100 to be hyperbolic, much less 1⁄20.
Also It would be nice to break this up a little bit more. Here are some things I would probably bet you on, though they need to be clarified and thought out a bit more.
Trump will commit more than x crimes during his presidency.
Trumps secretaries will commit more than x crimes during his presidency
Trump will attempt to run for a third term
The winner of the republican primary in the next two presidential elections will be a MAGA
In the next x years, a future president or (sufficiently) high up politician will not be convicted of any crimes conditional on their party controlling the justice department
If I’m willing to bet, I need to take “edge”. I am not going to bet at my actual odds since that gives no profit for me.
1⁄2. I think nearly every president committed crimes, for example, war crimes. This mainly depends on what he is prosecuted for as opposed to what is committed.
If the constitution is amended that seems fine. I’m fine to bet on something like this though.
I’m not sure why that matters. People can elect people you and I disagree with ideologically.
I don’t think I understand this one. Can you clarify?
I feel like people are converting their dislike of Trump into unwarranted fears. I don’t like Trump but it’s not helpful to fear monger.
This is pretty patronizing. You don’t know me but do you really think the average person on the EA forum needs that explained?
hence why I wrote 1⁄20 (95-5). If you believe the chance is <1/100 you are 10x. Given the asymmetry of my/other users knowledge of your internal probability, I understand offering the best possible odds for yourself that you still think the other side would take, but it’s a bit of an icky norm to come on here and play poker when people might assume you would be happy to take a 2x-5x bet. More importantly the bet you offered proves nothing in my mind since anywhere between a 1-5% chance of the next election being rigged would still be really really bad and worth hyperventilating about.
If you want, read my comment to lark. I don’t think my resolution criteria are good. It’s rather that I don’t personally expect the next election to be rigged ( I would be on the same side of the 90⁄10 bet as you) but I do expect trump to continue to denigrate the checks and balances that we have in this country, whether it be official laws or unofficial norms, hence why I am trying to pose intermediate questions. I’ll try to improve the original questions though.
1⁄2 - just specify a specific crime that we think most presidents don’t commit and would obviously be worth prosecuting.
3 - really? You think this wouldn’t be a clear step towards autocracy?
4 - The general position of MAGA’s is that the 2020 election was stolen.
5- Admittedly a Pretty awful market, just ignore this one
Again I don’t think even these modified versions are good, but I think we can still do better.
These seem like poor things to bet on:
Trump will commit more than x crimes during his presidency.
This lacks an objective resolution criteria, and ‘number of crimes’ in the US is often a fairly random number because a single act can give rise to multiple violations. Also, committing crimes is very different from being an autocrat—you could be an autocrat and obey the law, and you can be a democrat and break the law.
Trumps secretaries will commit more than x crimes during his presidency
Similar issues.
Trump will attempt to run for a third term
Not as bad, but seems insufficient. Michael Bloomberg ran for a third term as NYC mayor, even though this required changing the rules just for him, but he was not an autocrat.
The winner of the republican primary in the next two presidential elections will be a MAGA
This is subjective, and also insufficient, as whatever ‘MAGA’ is, it is not the same as an autocrat.
In the next x years, a future president or (sufficiently) high up politician will not be convicted of any crimes conditional on their party controlling the justice department
This also seems insufficient to demonstrate autocracy—for example to my knowledge Obama was never convicted of any crimes when his party controlled the Justice Department, but he was not an autocrat.
I think the best thing to bet on is the probability of winning the next election. Unfortunately this doesn’t work nearly as well as it would have a few weeks ago, but I think think it is the best approach.
Completely agree—I think all of my markets are bad. However the direction I’m trying to move in by proposing these questions is to operationalize steps along the way towards autocracy. You could semi replicate this but saying ok well will one of the next 5 elections going to be rigged (if you believe you can operationalize this), but even if you could set up a futures market for it I don’t think you will get all that much market efficiency from it.
Betting on the prob of next election is going to paint a very incomplete picture. There is a world in which we are 99% the next election is not going to get rigged but acts during this admin would credibly increase the chance of future riggings by a lot. For instance lets assume trump himself as no interest in being an autocrat. Then he wouldn’t rig the election purposely right? And yet the fact that we now have a precedent that you won’t be prosecuted for essentially anything if you win the presidency surely changes the incentives of future politicians who are considering meddling.
This is literally my position. I think the next election is >90% to be “relatively fair”, but I also think trump is going to do a ton of stuff that paves the way for a future election to not be fair. Picture below to help explain thesis.
My problem with this is that it’s not falsifiable.
Read a history book?
edit: this was super rude but yea my point is there is lots of literature you can comb through to think about if my graph is accurate.
edit 2: What exactly are you saying is not falsifiable?
Maybe just bet on v-dem, or regimes of the world? There is already one market for that: https://manifold.markets/Siebe/if-trump-is-elected-will-the-us-sti?play=true