Was Biden Senile?
Market Background and Criteria
The market Was Biden Senile? launched ahead of the June 27, 2024 presidential debate between Joe Biden and Donald Trump amid growing concern over Biden’s cognitive sharpness. Clips showing Biden hesitating or appearing confused had circulated widely in prior weeks. The market offered a way to bet on whether he would exhibit clear signs of senility consistently throughout the debate. Even mainstream outlets like Reuters noted that "many viewers will be on alert for any sign that Biden is not up to the task," framing Biden’s mental fitness as one of the key issues to watch heading into the debate.
The market description defined senility as persistent incoherence, confusion, inability to follow the debate format, or prolonged non-responsiveness. Isolated gaffes or occasional confusion were explicitly excluded. Resolution was based solely on video footage of the debate, with no post-launch clarifications allowed.
The description included a clarifying example: if this market were about Biden’s 2024 State of the Union address, it would have resolved to "No." That speech was cited as an example of an aging but coherent performance: fluid delivery, clear policy content, and no extended periods of confusion.
Price Movement and Trader Reaction
Before the debate, Yes shares traded around 33¢, reflecting modest expectations of a weak showing. Following the debate, sentiment flipped rapidly. Yes shares surged to over 90¢ within hours as many traders pointed to Biden’s slow delivery, slurred speech, and moments of apparent confusion as meeting the criteria. Others disagreed, citing stretches where Biden gave structured answers and stuck to the format.
Resolution Proposal and Dispute
A "Yes" resolution was proposed shortly after the debate. "Yes" supporters argued that Biden’s performance showed frequent confusion, disengagement, and delayed speech, and that this pattern lasted long enough to meet the bar for "persistent" senility. Some felt the intense public reaction, including calls for him to step aside, reflected the same judgment.
Major outlets highlighted how concern over Biden’s performance quickly turned into political panic and market swings. Axios described his freezing and stumbling as a ticking time bomb for Democrats. MarketWatch reported that contracts betting on Biden’s replacement more than doubled overnight.
However, not everyone agreed. Some pushed back, noting moments in the debate where Biden gave coherent answers and rebuttals. They emphasized that the rules excluded isolated lapses and required consistent signs of senility throughout the entire debate. Others pointed to the State of the Union as a comparison, arguing that while this performance was weaker, it did not meet the threshold.
Many voters tried to make sense of the term "senility" from different angles. Some looked to medical definitions, others compared Biden’s past performances, and some focused more on tone and demeanor. Still, the wording left too much open to interpretation. Terms like "persistent" and "consistently throughout" meant different things to different people, and there was no obvious way to apply them with certainty to a 90-minute event.
There was also tension between choosing the technically correct resolution versus the least wrong or most broadly acceptable one.
Market Resolution
The market resolved to P3 (Unknown / 50-50).
The outcome reflected the fact that the criteria, while specific in parts, ultimately relied on subjective judgment. Voters disagreed not just on what happened during the debate, but on how to interpret the rules. The lack of an enforceable standard made it difficult to justify either Yes or No decisively.
The selection of P3 ultimately reflected a Schelling point, a compromise that voters could converge on despite their disagreements.
While some traders were frustrated, especially those who bought Yes during the post-debate spike, the result followed precedent for markets where the language doesn’t support a clear resolution. P3 was used not because opinions were split, but because the rules left too much room for disagreement about what counted.
Post-Resolution Commentary
In the days after the resolution, outlets like Binance News and Astral Codex Ten continued to reference the senility market as a key moment in the debate’s political aftermath. Binance noted the spike in trading and called it one of Polymarket’s most active periods of the cycle. Astral Codex Ten highlighted the senility market as one of the clearest examples of prediction markets reacting in sync with public sentiment.
Future Implications
This market became a turning point in how Polymarket thinks about subjectivity. While the rules included examples and exclusions, the phrasing still left enough ambiguity to make resolution unworkable. Voters were not confused by the event itself, but by how to map the rules onto it.
Since this market, Polymarket has taken steps to tighten its resolution language, often favoring more measurable or observable phrasing. This case showed that when terms are open to interpretation, even well-intentioned rules can lead to deadlock. P3 should be used only when resolution becomes impossible due to the wording of the market, not simply when outcomes are controversial.
Last updated