2028 Democratic Nominee Odds: The AI Model Verdict Vs. The Kalshi Market
The 2028 Democratic nomination market is Kalshi's monster: 46 named candidates, about 164.6 million contracts traded, and 111 million still open. For scale, that is roughly triple the volume of the matching Republican nomination board (54.5 million) and more than that board and the 2027 pro football championship market combined. We put all 46 names in front of an eight-model AI panel with live data and zero prices, then ran a second round in which every model read the other seven's anonymized reasoning and could revise. The result agrees with the crowd about the favorite almost to the cent, and disagrees with it violently about who sits behind him.
The Quick Answer
Eight AI models, working price-blind from fetched polling, office, and settlement data, make Gavin Newsom the 2028 Democratic nominee favorite at a 16.2% blend, in near-perfect agreement with his 16.5-cent Kalshi price. From there the two boards diverge: the panel has Kamala Harris second at 12.7% and Pete Buttigieg third at 10.3%, nearly double his market price, while the market's co-second-favorites tell a different story entirely: it holds Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez at 14.5 cents against a panel blend of 8.5%, and Jon Ossoff at 14.5 cents against a panel blend of just 1.3%, the widest gap on the board. The full 46-name board, every seat's number, and the dark horses at least one model refuses to dismiss are all below.
The Market
| Venue | Kalshi — a CFTC-regulated event-contract exchange (18+; availability varies by state, as of July 2026) |
| The Contract | One market per candidate, 46 listed: "If [candidate] wins and accepts the nomination for the Presidency for the Democratic party in 2028, then the market resolves to Yes." Kalshi's contract terms define the nominee as the first person to be nominated by the party and to accept; a nominee who later withdrew would still settle Yes, and post-expiration revisions do not count. |
| The Clock | Markets close early once the party nominates someone and they accept, at the 2028 Democratic convention; the listed expiration is November 7, 2028 |
| Depth | About 164.6 million contracts traded across the board, 111 million open. Quotes run in 0.1-cent ticks below 10 cents, so even sub-1% names carry two-sided books, though the thinnest few trade on spreads nearly as wide as their price |
| Timestamps | Verdicts generated July 30, 2026 (both rounds); prices as of July 30, 2026, from the live order book |
One structural note before the numbers: the 46 listed names are Kalshi's listing choices, not a ballot, and there is no field contract. If someone not on the board is nominated, every listed market settles No. The panel was therefore required to price a 47th bucket, the unlisted field, and its blend put real weight there: 6.7%.
How The Panel Read It
Eight models (ChatGPT GPT-5.5, Claude Fable, Claude Opus, Claude Sonnet, Gemini 3.1 Pro, GLM 5.2, Kimi K3, DeepSeek V4) each received the same deterministically fetched data card: the full 46-contract board with its binding settlement language, every candidate's current office or public role pulled live from the congress-legislators dataset and Wikipedia, and all 18 polls of the 2028 Democratic primary from the last 90 days of the VoteHub feed, each annotated with its pollster's graded accuracy record. No model saw a market price. Each seat priced the entire field in one pass as a distribution summing to 100%, then read the other seven's anonymized reasoning and could revise; seven of the eight completed that revision round, and Claude Sonnet's round-one board carried forward unchanged after its revision reply failed to parse. The headline blend is the equal-weight average of each seat's final distribution. The framing is strictly analytical, the way the panel would price a wide-open championship field: office platforms, name identification, age, coalition math, and how early polling has historically translated. These are model estimates, not predictions of fact and not financial advice.
The panel's political outings are publicly graded. At the White House Correspondents' Dinner in July, the Kalshi crowd narrowly beat the panel's best seat on 30 settled markets, Brier 0.238 to 0.240, and we published the full scorecard either way. Read the gaps below with that humility in hand: when these models split from this crowd, the models are not automatically right.
The single fact doing the most work in the panel's reasoning is a split inside the polling itself. Kamala Harris leads 15 of the 18 fetched polls, averaging 28% and reaching 44% in one survey. But the best-graded pollsters in the card disagree with each other about her. TIPP Insights, the sharpest record in the set at a 2.15-point average miss, has her first at 31%; AtlasIntel, right behind it at 2.21, has her fourth at 13%, under Ocasio-Cortez at 26%, Buttigieg at 22%, and Newsom at 21%; Emerson College (4.55) has her fifth at 9.9%. Most seats weighted the AtlasIntel and Emerson side of that split, read her raw lead as name recognition rather than committed support, and priced her far below her polling average. Whether that weighting was right is exactly what the revision round ended up arguing about.
"Best-rated pollsters (AtlasIntel, Emerson) show Harris's lead is name-ID mush, so probability flows to governors and proven national campaigners in a structurally open race." — Claude Fable [Editor's note: by the card's graded records AtlasIntel is second-sharpest at a 2.21-point average miss; TIPP Insights (2.15) rates best in the set, and it has Harris first.]
Newsom's case is the mirror image: no pollster has him first, but he is top-two in 17 of the 18 surveys, polling between 13% and 26% no matter who asks the question, and he holds the largest executive platform on the board, which Claude Opus paired with "a term ending in 2027, freeing him entirely" in its reasoning.
"With no heir apparent, I weight cross-poll consistency and durable office platforms above a defeated nominee's volatile name-ID lead, keeping the top under 20% and the board long." — Kimi
The Revision Round
After round one, each seat read the other seven's reasoning, anonymized, with instructions that revising is optional and conformity is a failure mode. What moved, and what refused to move, is the most interesting output of the run.
Harris was the battleground. Gemini cut her from 16% to 11.5% and DeepSeek from 17% to 12.1%, both citing the same peer argument about the quality-weighted polls; GLM, her strongest backer, conceded ground from 22% to 19.5% while lifting Newsom from 15% to 20.7% to become the panel's most aggressive Newsom seat. And one model moved the other way: Claude Opus raised Harris from 8% to 11%, on the grounds that its own round-one discount had over-weighted one pollster's rating.
"Three peers held Harris at 16-22 on her poll dominance, which by itself did not move me. What moved me was re-auditing my own use of the reliability ratings under that pressure: I had cited AtlasIntel's 2.21 miss as authority for discounting her while ignoring the counter-evidence in the rest of the set." — Claude Opus
The smaller arcs were just as evidence-shaped. Claude Fable made exactly one swap, Shapiro up a point and Whitmer down one, after peers sent it back to the card to find that Shapiro out-polls Whitmer in essentially every survey listing both. Kimi added Whitmer explicitly at 5% but refused to chase the swing-state-governor thesis further, noting she polls 0-4% in the fetched set. Gemini and DeepSeek both added the unlisted-field bucket they had underpriced in round one, at 8% and 4%. Net effect across the panel: Harris 14.0% down to 12.7%, Whitmer 5.0% up to 6.1%, the field bucket 5.7% up to 6.7%, and Newsom up a point to 16.2%. The quieter headline is who finished on top of each seat's board. Four seats began round one with Harris first; the three of them that completed the revision round all ended it with Newsom on top, and the only board still led by Harris was the one that never revised.
Where The Machines Split From The Money
The market and the panel agree on the favorite and then stop agreeing. Four gaps are big enough to be the story of this board.
Jon Ossoff, 14.5 cents against a 1.3% blend, is the widest disagreement on the board by a factor of two. The market holds the Georgia senator as its co-second-favorite on 6 million contracts of volume; every poll in the fetched window that lists him has him between 1% and 2%, and every seat priced him accordingly, between 0.6% and 2.5%. The honest read cuts both ways. The panel's polling window ends June 14, the newest survey the feed carries, and a crowd this deep is not parked on a name for no reason; if traders are pricing something more recent than the data the models saw, the models cannot know it. But if the 14.5-cent price is a story about a senator whose current term ends in January 2027, the panel is saying the polling gives that story no support yet.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, 14.5 cents against an 8.5% blend, is a fade with an asterisk, because the panel itself is split: Gemini has her at 3.5% while four seats put her at 9% or higher, and GLM raised her from 6% to 11% in the revision round. The bear case across seats is structural, a House platform and no statewide race behind her; the bull case is that AtlasIntel, one of the card's two best-graded pollsters, has her first at 26%.
Pete Buttigieg at 5.7 cents and Josh Shapiro at 4.5 cents are the gaps that run the other way, blended at 10.3% and 7.9%. Buttigieg's number is the panel's quiet conviction: every seat's final number sits between 9% and 13.4%, the tightest agreement on any non-favorite, on prior national-campaign infrastructure and top-tier showings in AtlasIntel (second at 22%) and Emerson (first at 17.9%). Shapiro's case is the Pennsylvania governorship plus double-digit readings in two fetched polls, Emerson and HarrisX. Gretchen Whitmer at 1.1 cents against a 6.1% blend is the same shape further down: a swing-state governor priced by the market at a fraction of what any seat gave her, and, in Kimi's words, "term-limited and free after January 2027."
Rahm Emanuel at 5 cents against a 0.3% blend is the fade nobody argued about. The market prices the former Chicago mayor and ambassador to Japan ahead of every sitting governor on the board except Newsom; no seat gave him more than 0.8%.
Dark Horses The Panel Won't Dismiss
The board's tail is 32 names blended under 1%, worth 12.6 points of probability in total, and the seats were asked which of them they would least want to dismiss. Three names kept coming back.
Wes Moore (2.5 cents, 2.0% blend) was named by seven of the eight seats, always on the same logic: a sitting governor since 2023 who already registers 1-2% in five different fetched polls, which the seats read as the profile that scales once a campaign actually starts, "despite near-zero national exposure" in Claude Opus's phrasing.
James Talarico (1.5 cents, 0.3% blend) is the deepest cut with the clearest catalyst: the Texas state representative, born in 1989, is the Democratic nominee in the 2026 U.S. Senate race in Texas. Kimi's framing: a November win there "would instantly mint a national contender." The panel's tiny number is a price on the parlay, Texas first, then everything else.
Zohran Mamdani (0.2 cents, 0.7% blend) drew the most divided reasoning. Several seats flagged the New York City mayoralty, held since 2026, as the largest media platform in the party; Sonnet's counterweight was that "the mayor-to-president jump is historically rare." At a fraction of a cent, that argument is the whole question.
One more, from a single seat rather than the chorus: Kimi alone made the case for Jon Ossoff as a legitimate sleeper rather than a mispricing, arguing his Senate term ending in January 2027 means "a 2026 Georgia reelection win would make him a twice-elected swing-state senator with a fresh mandate." That is the only seat whose reasoning and the market's 14.5-cent price point in the same direction.
The Board
Panel blend is the equal-weight average of each seat's final distribution, after the revision round. Kalshi prices are quote midpoints from the live book, July 30, 2026. Office descriptions were fetched this run from the congress-legislators dataset and Wikipedia.
| Candidate | Current Office | Kalshi | AI Blend |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gavin Newsom | Governor of California (since 2019) | 16.5c | 16.2% |
| Kamala Harris | Former Vice President (2021-25) | 9.8c | 12.7% |
| Pete Buttigieg | Former Transportation Secretary (2021-25) | 5.7c | 10.3% |
| Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez | U.S. Representative, NY | 14.5c | 8.5% |
| Josh Shapiro | Governor of Pennsylvania (since 2023) | 4.5c | 7.9% |
| The Field (anyone unlisted) | – | not offered | 6.7% |
| Gretchen Whitmer | Governor of Michigan (since 2019) | 1.1c | 6.1% |
| Mark Kelly | U.S. Senator, AZ | 6.8c | 3.9% |
| Andy Beshear | Governor of Kentucky (since 2019) | 3.6c | 3.8% |
| J.B. Pritzker | Governor of Illinois (since 2019) | 2.6c | 3.1% |
| Cory Booker | U.S. Senator, NJ | 0.6c | 2.4% |
| Wes Moore | Governor of Maryland (since 2023) | 2.5c | 2.0% |
| Raphael Warnock | U.S. Senator, GA | 0.6c | 1.4% |
| Jon Ossoff | U.S. Senator, GA (term ends Jan 2027) | 14.5c | 1.3% |
| Tim Walz | Governor of Minnesota (since 2019) | 0.1c | 1.2% |
| Amy Klobuchar | U.S. Senator, MN | 0.1c | 0.9% |
| Elissa Slotkin | U.S. Senator, MI | 0.6c | 0.9% |
| Chris Murphy | U.S. Senator, CT | 0.7c | 0.8% |
| Ruben Gallego | U.S. Senator, AZ | 0.6c | 0.8% |
| Ro Khanna | U.S. Representative, CA | 2.4c | 0.8% |
| Roy Cooper | Former Governor of North Carolina (2017-25) | 0.2c | 0.7% |
| Zohran Mamdani | Mayor of New York City (since 2026) | 0.2c | 0.7% |
| Jared Polis | Governor of Colorado (since 2019) | 0.1c | 0.7% |
| Michelle Obama | Former First Lady (2009-17) | 1.1c | 0.6% |
| Bernie Sanders | U.S. Senator, VT | 0.6c | 0.6% |
| John Fetterman | U.S. Senator, PA | 0.1c | 0.6% |
| Gina Raimondo | Former Commerce Secretary (2021-25) | 0.1c | 0.5% |
| Jasmine Crockett | U.S. Representative, TX | 0.1c | 0.5% |
| Elizabeth Warren | U.S. Senator, MA | 0.1c | 0.4% |
| Phil Murphy | Former Governor of New Jersey (2018-26) | 0.1c | 0.3% |
| Jon Stewart | Comedian and TV host | 1.1c | 0.3% |
| Rahm Emanuel | Former Chicago mayor; ambassador to Japan (2022-25) | 5.0c | 0.3% |
| James Talarico | Texas state representative; 2026 U.S. Senate nominee (TX) | 1.5c | 0.3% |
| Mark Cuban | Businessman | 0.9c | 0.3% |
| Beto O'Rourke | Former U.S. Representative, TX (2013-19) | 0.1c | 0.3% |
| Abdul El-Sayed | Former Wayne County health director; epidemiologist | 0.5c | 0.2% |
| Mitch Landrieu | Former New Orleans mayor (2010-18) | 0.5c | 0.2% |
| Stephen A. Smith | ESPN television personality | 0.5c | 0.2% |
| Hillary Clinton | Former Secretary of State (2009-13) | 0.1c | 0.1% |
| Andrew Yang | Forward Party founder | 0.2c | 0.1% |
| Dwayne Johnson | Actor and professional wrestler | 0.1c | <0.1% |
| Jamie Dimon | Chairman and CEO, JPMorgan Chase | 0.2c | <0.1% |
| Liz Cheney | Former U.S. Representative, WY (2017-23) | 0.1c | <0.1% |
| LeBron James | NBA player, Philadelphia 76ers | 0.1c | <0.1% |
| Hunter Biden | Businessman; son of former President Joe Biden | 0.8c | <0.1% |
| Graham Platner | Oyster farmer; ended 2026 ME Senate campaign in July | 0.1c | <0.1% |
| Barack Obama | Former President (2009-17) | 0.3c | <0.1% |
Every Seat's Round-1 Number
The table below is each seat's independent round-one board, before any model saw another's reasoning; the headline blend above folds in the revision round. Values are percentages; each column sums to roughly 100 with the field bucket.
| Candidate | Kalshi | ChatGPT | Fable | Opus | Sonnet | Gemini | GLM | Kimi | DeepSeek | R1 Blend |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gavin Newsom | 16.5c | 13.5 | 16.0 | 17.3 | 15.0 | 15.0 | 15.0 | 14.0 | 15.0 | 15.1% |
| Kamala Harris | 9.8c | 11.0 | 10.0 | 8.0 | 17.0 | 16.0 | 22.0 | 11.0 | 17.0 | 14.0% |
| Pete Buttigieg | 5.7c | 10.5 | 9.0 | 10.0 | 9.0 | 8.0 | 11.0 | 10.0 | 11.0 | 9.8% |
| Josh Shapiro | 4.5c | 9.0 | 6.0 | 7.0 | 6.0 | 11.0 | 8.0 | 7.0 | 7.0 | 7.6% |
| Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez | 14.5c | 7.0 | 8.0 | 9.0 | 8.5 | 3.5 | 6.0 | 9.0 | 9.0 | 7.5% |
| Gretchen Whitmer | 1.1c | 4.5 | 6.0 | 4.5 | 4.5 | 9.5 | 2.5 | 3.0 | 5.5 | 5.0% |
| Andy Beshear | 3.6c | 5.0 | 4.5 | 4.5 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 3.5 | 4.3% |
| Mark Kelly | 6.8c | 4.5 | 3.5 | 3.0 | 3.5 | 5.3 | 3.0 | 5.5 | 4.5 | 4.1% |
| J.B. Pritzker | 2.6c | 4.0 | 4.5 | 5.0 | 3.5 | 3.5 | 2.0 | 4.0 | 3.5 | 3.8% |
| Wes Moore | 2.5c | 3.0 | 3.0 | 3.5 | 2.5 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 2.9% |
| Cory Booker | 0.6c | 1.6 | 1.2 | 2.0 | 2.5 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 2.5 | 2.0 | 1.9% |
| Jon Ossoff | 14.5c | 1.7 | 2.5 | 1.5 | 0.6 | 1.0 | 1.5 | 2.5 | 1.5 | 1.6% |
| Raphael Warnock | 0.6c | 1.8 | 1.2 | 1.2 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 1.0 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 1.4% |
| Tim Walz | 0.1c | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.6 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 1.0 | 1.2% |
| Elissa Slotkin | 0.6c | 1.0 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 1.2 | 0.5 | 1.0% |
| Ruben Gallego | 0.6c | 1.4 | 1.2 | 1.2 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 1.2 | 0.5 | 1.0% |
| Chris Murphy | 0.7c | 1.2 | 0.8 | 1.2 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 1.5 | 0.5 | 0.9% |
| Roy Cooper | 0.2c | 1.0 | 0.6 | 0.8 | 1.2 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 0.9% |
| Michelle Obama | 1.1c | 0.2 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 1.5 | 1.0 | 0.5 | 1.5 | 0.5 | 0.8% |
| Ro Khanna | 2.4c | 0.7 | 1.0 | 1.2 | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 0.5 | 0.8% |
| Jared Polis | 0.1c | 1.0 | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.8% |
| Zohran Mamdani | 0.2c | 2.0 | 1.2 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.2 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.2 | 0.8% |
| Amy Klobuchar | 0.1c | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 0.8% |
| Gina Raimondo | 0.1c | 0.8 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.7% |
| James Talarico | 1.5c | 0.4 | 1.0 | 1.5 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.7 | 0.2 | 0.6% |
| Bernie Sanders | 0.6c | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 1.2 | 0.5 | 0.1 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5% |
| John Fetterman | 0.1c | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.1 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.4% |
| Jon Stewart | 1.1c | 0.2 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.8 | 0.5 | 0.2 | 0.7 | 0.2 | 0.4% |
| Elizabeth Warren | 0.1c | <0.1 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.4% |
| Jasmine Crockett | 0.1c | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.4% |
| Rahm Emanuel | 5.0c | 0.1 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.2 | 0.4% |
| Beto O'Rourke | 0.1c | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.2 | 0.5 | 0.4% |
| Phil Murphy | 0.1c | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.3% |
| Mark Cuban | 0.9c | <0.1 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.3% |
| Mitch Landrieu | 0.5c | <0.1 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.5 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3% |
| Abdul El-Sayed | 0.5c | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.2% |
| Stephen A. Smith | 0.5c | <0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.5 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.1 | 0.2% |
| Hillary Clinton | 0.1c | <0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.5 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2% |
| Liz Cheney | 0.1c | <0.1 | <0.1 | <0.1 | <0.1 | 0.5 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1% |
| Andrew Yang | 0.2c | <0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1% |
| Jamie Dimon | 0.2c | <0.1 | 0.1 | <0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0 | 0.1% |
| Dwayne Johnson | 0.1c | <0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1% |
| LeBron James | 0.1c | <0.1 | <0.1 | <0.1 | <0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1% |
| Graham Platner | 0.1c | <0.1 | <0.1 | <0.1 | <0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | <0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1% |
| Hunter Biden | 0.8c | <0.1 | <0.1 | <0.1 | <0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | <0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1% |
| Barack Obama | 0.3c | <0.1 | <0.1 | <0.1 | <0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0 | 0 | 0.0% |
| The Field (anyone unlisted) | not offered | 9.7 | 9.2 | 7.0 | 5.3 | 3.0 | 4.4 | 4.5 | 2.8 | 5.7% |
A Worked Example: Reading These Prices Like A Bettor
Take the board's strangest number and walk it through, because the mechanics matter more here than on any single-game market. Jon Ossoff's Yes trades at 14.5 cents, which reads as 14.5% and converts to about +590 in American odds. But the 46 quote midpoints on this board sum to 102.6 cents, not 100, and that overround is the exchange's version of vig. De-vig the board by normalizing it to 100 and his true market-implied probability is 14.1%. The panel's 1.3% blend, translated the same way, would price the same contract deep in +7000 territory. That is the size of the disagreement in a bettor's units.
Now the honesty a sportsbook line never forces on you. This market's closing line is as much as 27 months away: anyone taking a position is locking capital until the party's 2028 nominee is chosen and accepts, paying Kalshi's trading fees on the way in, and on the sub-cent names, crossing spreads nearly as wide as the price itself. Line movement between now and the convention, not settlement, is how most positions on a board like this actually resolve, and closing line value against the 2028 number is how this page's blend will be judged. The full cents-to-odds mechanics are in our sportsbook-to-Kalshi translation guide.
The Shape Of The Distribution
Step back from the names and the two boards disagree about geometry, not just order. The market concentrates 44.3% of its normalized probability in its top three (Newsom, Ocasio-Cortez, Ossoff); the panel puts 39.2% in its top three (Newsom, Harris, Buttigieg) and pushes the difference down the ladder, into the governors' tier and the unlisted field. A 16% favorite this far from the convention is a claim that this race is more open than any single storyline about it, and it is the one claim every seat and the market make together.
What would move this board, on the models' own stated reasoning: fresher primary polling than the feed's June 14 cutoff, especially from the graded pollsters whose split readings drove the Harris argument; the November 2026 races that several seats treated as gating events for specific names; and formal campaign infrastructure, the thing early polling cannot measure and the models repeatedly said separates name recognition from candidacy. If you are newer to reading an exchange board than to reading a sportsbook, our guide to Kalshi's politics markets for sports bettors covers the mechanics of translating cents into odds, and the panel's previous political board, Trump's GM Milford speech markets, shows the same method on a market that settled within a day.
To be explicit about what this page is: an analytical comparison of one crowd's prices and one panel's estimates, on a CFTC-regulated exchange available to adults 18+ in eligible states as of July 2026. It is not advocacy for any candidate or party, and none of it is advice about what anyone should trade or how anyone should vote. The panel's numbers will be graded against settlement in 2028, the same way every board it prices is graded.
Hottest Prediction Markets Right Now
- Rocket Classic Winner · $68M traded
- 2027 Pro Football Champion · $50M traded
- Pro Baseball Champion · $39M traded
- Bitcoin price at the end of 2026 · $29M traded
- 2027 Pro Basketball Champion · $18M traded
- Ethereum price at the end of 2026 · $12M traded
Every market above links to our full AI model verdict; browse them all on the OddsShopper prediction markets hub.
Verdicts generated July 30, 2026, in two rounds (independent, then revision). Prices as of July 30, 2026. Panel: ChatGPT GPT-5.5, Claude Fable, Claude Opus, Claude Sonnet, Gemini 3.1 Pro, GLM 5.2, Kimi K3, DeepSeek V4, all price-blind. These are model estimates, not predictions of fact and not financial advice.
