2028 Presidential Election Odds: Every Name On The Board, Scored
Kalshi's "who wins the 2028 presidential election" board is the exchange's whole 2028 argument compressed into 30 contracts: about 55.8 million traded, 40.1 million still open, and a top of the book where the market cannot pick between two Republicans, holding J.D. Vance and Marco Rubio tied at 17.5 cents each. We put all 30 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 panel broke the tie emphatically, doubled the market's number on one former vice president, and put its second-biggest number on nobody at all.
The Quick Answer
Eight AI models, working price-blind from fetched polling, office, and settlement data, make J.D. Vance the single most likely winner of the 2028 presidential election at a 23.4% blend, above his 17.5-cent price and clear of everyone else. The market's co-favorite is the fade: Marco Rubio at 17.5 cents blends to just 7.8%. On the Democratic side the panel puts Kamala Harris at 10.5%, more than double her 4.75-cent price, with Gavin Newsom at 9.6% against 11.5 cents, and it drops Jon Ossoff from 10.5 cents to 0.7%, proportionally the hardest fade on the board. Its second-biggest number belongs to no contract: a 10.5% chance the next president is not listed here at all. The full 30-name board, every seat's number, and where the market disagrees with itself are all below.
The Market
| Venue | Kalshi — a CFTC-regulated event-contract exchange (18+; availability varies by state, as of August 2026) |
| The Contract | One market per person, 30 listed: "If [person] is the next person inaugurated as President for the term beginning in 2029, then the market resolves to Yes." Per the series contract terms, this settles on being the first person inaugurated for the term beginning January 20, 2029, not on election night, and post-expiration revisions do not count |
| The Clock | The listed expiration is January 21, 2029; markets close early once a president is inaugurated after the November 2028 election |
| Depth | About 55.8 million contracts traded across the board, 40.1 million open. Marco Rubio's 4.7 million is the most-traded single contract; the 30 quote midpoints sum to 101.7 cents |
| Timestamps | Verdicts generated August 1, 2026 (both rounds); prices as of August 1, 2026, from the live order book |
This is a neutral, data-driven analysis. It presents both parties' paths identically, advocates for neither, and every electoral fact in it was machine-fetched from the named sources at generation time.
One structural note before the numbers: the 30 listed names are Kalshi's listing choices, not a ballot, and there is no field contract. If someone unlisted is inaugurated, every market here settles No. The panel was therefore required to price an unlisted-field bucket, and what it put there turned out to be one of the board's two headlines.
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 30-contract board with its binding settlement language, every person's current office or public role pulled live from the congress-legislators dataset and Wikipedia, all 36 fetched polls of the 2028 Republican and Democratic primaries from the last 90 days of the VoteHub feed with per-pollster graded accuracy records, and the live national environment block. One disclosure matters more here than on any single-party board: the feed carries no 2028 general-election head-to-head polling of any kind, the card said so explicitly, and every seat was instructed to reason about the general-election layer from structure and to say it was doing so. No model saw a market price. Each seat priced the top 25 contracts individually plus a bucket for the other five listed names and a bucket for anyone unlisted, summing to 100%, then read the other seven's anonymized reasoning and could revise; seven seats revised, one held. These are model estimates, not predictions of fact and not financial advice.
Because there is no general-election polling to lean on, every seat had to state a view of the race's two layers: how each party's nomination resolves, and which party wins the general. On the first layer the seats converged hard, for the same reason they did on the Republican nominee board: a sitting vice president leading 17 of 18 fetched primary polls is the strongest structural signal 27 months out. On the second layer the panel's stated party splits ran from 51-49 to 60-40 in the Democratic direction, driven by the card's environment block (presidential approval 42.2 approve / 55.6 disapprove; generic congressional ballot D+6.4) and tempered, in nearly every rationale, by the card's measured warning that Trump-era presidential-year polling overstated Democrats by 3 to 5 points.
"Vance is the only person on this board with both a dominant nomination position and a plausible general-election path: he leads 17 of the 18 recent GOP primary polls at 29-47%, is the sitting Vice President, and would be 44 on Election Day 2028." — Kimi
"One party has a clear polling frontrunner in a sitting VP; the other has none, so Republican weight concentrates while Democratic weight — the likelier winning side — disperses." — Claude Opus
That second line is the whole geometry of this board. The panel thinks a Democrat is modestly more likely than a Republican to be inaugurated in 2029, and simultaneously that the most likely single person is a Republican, because one side's probability is concentrated and the other side's is split six ways.
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. Seven of eight moved, and the moves were evidence-shaped rather than herd-shaped.
The board's favorite got squeezed from both ends. DeepSeek walked its panel-high 30 back to 25, writing that its implied "75% nomination probability was too high given the uncertainty of early polling and the risk of a Trump-Vance break." ChatGPT went the other way, 20 up to 23, conceding it "had weighted his poll lead heavily but probably underweighted how much the vice-presidential platform consolidates a succession primary." Claude Fable was the lone full hold at 20, refusing the high end on the grounds that it "treats 27-month-out preference polling as far more predictive than" the record supports. The result is the tightest agreement on the board: seven final Vance numbers between 23.0 and 25.0, with Fable's 20 the only dissent.
Kamala Harris was the round's biggest single mover. Claude Opus had left her outside its top six at 5.4, and raised her to 8.6 after peers pointed at the feed: "the polls showing her leading big are the large ones (Lord Ashcroft n=4203, Focaldata n=1339-1430, Big Data n=1378-1467, Noble n=1224), while the three polls that displace her are the small or unsized." She leads 15 of the 18 fetched Democratic surveys.
And the unlisted field got argued upward. GLM, which had implicitly carried about 5% for everyone off the board, tripled it after peers named names: "RFK Jr., Cruz, Hawley, Booker, Sanders, and Fetterman all appear with real numbers in the primary polling feeds but are absent from Kalshi's 30-name board." Claude Sonnet lifted its field bucket from 9 to 13 on the same argument. Every one of those six people registers in the fetched polling; none of them has a contract here.
J.D. Vance: The Tie-Breaker
The market says the 2028 election's most likely winner is a coin flip between two Republicans. The panel says it is not close: Vance blends to 23.4%, six points above his price and three times its number on Rubio. The construction is explicit in every rationale: roughly a coin-flip-or-better chance at the Republican nomination (his side of the argument lives on the Republican nominee board, where the panel has him at 45.5%), multiplied by a general election the seats price near even for either nominee. GLM's arithmetic was typical: "25% reflects ~52% nomination odds times ~48% general-election odds." The cap is the environment: no seat gave the sitting administration's heir better than a coin flip in November, and several priced the conditional below it.
Kamala Harris And Gavin Newsom: The Democratic Top Tier
The panel's treatment of the two leading Democrats is symmetrical, and the market's is not. Harris blends to 10.5% against a 4.75-cent price, the board's biggest raw underdog gap. The case is the polling: she leads 15 of 18 fetched Democratic surveys, and the revision round's sample-size argument moved even her skeptics. The counter-case, priced in by every seat, is that her lead reads as name identification, that the sharpest-graded pollster in the card (AtlasIntel, 2.21-point average miss) has her fourth, and that a defeated former nominee returning to win it all is a thin historical path. Newsom blends to 9.6% against 11.5 cents, the rare big name where the panel and the market nearly shake hands; his cross-poll consistency (top two in essentially every fetched survey) and executive platform got him every seat's respect and nobody's enthusiasm beyond it. Behind them the panel prices a real second tier the market mostly does not: Pete Buttigieg at 6.8% against 3.05 cents and Josh Shapiro at 5.7% against 2.75, both doubled prices, both on the same logic of strong showings in the best-graded polls plus room to grow in a fractured field.
Marco Rubio And Jon Ossoff: The Two Prices The Panel Fades
The market's co-favorite and its fourth-favorite absorb the panel's two hardest verdicts, and the reasoning is the same conditional arithmetic run in reverse.
Rubio at 17.5 cents against a 7.8% blend is the board's biggest absolute fade. Nobody on the panel disputes his standing: secretary of state, acting national security advisor, the clear second in nearly every Republican primary poll, and first in one. The dispute is what that is worth at the top of a two-layer parlay. To justify 17.5 cents while Vance trades at the same price, the market needs Rubio to either roughly match Vance's nomination chances, which the fetched polling contradicts, or to be a dramatically stronger general-election candidate conditional on getting there. The panel's blend implies the market is doing the second, and no seat found a fetched fact to support that size of a conditional edge in either direction.
Ossoff at 10.5 cents against a 0.7% blend is the same shape at a steeper angle, and it is the second board in three days to produce it: on our Democratic nominee verdict, the panel faded his 14.5-cent nomination price to 1.3%. Every fetched Democratic survey that lists him has him between 1% and 2%. The honest caveat travels with the number: the polling feed ends June 14, a crowd with 3.5 million contracts through this market is not parked on a name by accident, and if traders are pricing something newer than the data the models saw, the models cannot know it. But the market is also making a second, stranger claim here, covered next.
The Nominee Math: One Board Multiplied By Another
Nobody gets inaugurated without being nominated first, so this board is arithmetically chained to the two nomination boards, and the chain is where the market's internal tensions show. All prices below were fetched together on August 1, 2026; each implied conditional is a person's price here divided by their nomination price.
- J.D. Vance: 17.5 cents to win it all, 39.5 to be nominated. Implied general-election win rate if nominated: about 44%.
- Marco Rubio: 17.5 over 29.5. Implied conditional: about 59%. The market is saying Rubio converts his nomination into the presidency half again as often as Vance converts his.
- Ron DeSantis: 4.1 over 5.3. Implied conditional: about 77%, the highest of any major name on either side.
- Jon Ossoff: 10.5 over 14.5 on the Democratic board. Implied conditional: about 72%.
- Gavin Newsom: 11.5 over 17.5. About 66%. Kamala Harris: 4.75 over 9.05. About 52%.
- Donald Trump: 2.9 cents to be inaugurated, 2.55 cents to be nominated. That is a conditional above 100%: the market prices him more likely to be sworn in than to clear the only normal gate to being sworn in. Read literally, traders are either paying for paths outside a 2028 Republican nomination or the two order books have simply drifted apart; the panel, which priced the boards separately and blind, put him at 0.4% here and 1.1% there, numbers that at least point the same direction.
The panel's own cross-board arithmetic is not spotless either, and the revision round is where it self-corrected: DeepSeek's round-one 30 on Vance implied a 75% nomination probability that its own seat on the nominee board never gave him, and it cut the number for exactly that reason. What survived both rounds is a coherent shape: the blends here imply roughly a 51% conditional for Vance and 50% for Rubio, which is the panel refusing to award either man a general-election edge the fetched data cannot see.
Party Vs Person: The Three Market Layers
Kalshi also runs a thinner party-level market ("which party wins the 2028 presidency," about 531,000 contracts traded), and on August 1 it priced Democrats at 57.5 cents and Republicans at 41.5. Sum this person board by party and it tells a different story: the 12 Republican-associated names add to about 46.9 cents, the 16 Democratic-associated names to about 54.2. The two layers of the same exchange disagree by roughly five points on the same question, with the person board the more Republican of the two and carrying a hundred times the volume. The panel's stated party splits, 51-49 to 60-40 Democratic across the eight seats, land between the two market layers, which is either reassuring or damning depending on how you feel about crowds. What all three layers agree on: this is a competitive-leaning-Democratic environment in which the single most likely inauguree is a Republican, because concentration beats breadth in a race with one heir apparent and six contenders.
The Board
Panel blend is the equal-weight average of each seat's final board, after the revision round. Kalshi prices are quote midpoints from the live book, August 1, 2026. Roles were fetched this run from the congress-legislators dataset and Wikipedia. The bottom five names were priced by the panel as a single combined bucket (marked †).
| Person | Current Role | Kalshi | AI Blend |
|---|---|---|---|
| J.D. Vance | Vice President (since 2025) | 17.5¢ | 23.4% |
| The Field (anyone unlisted) | — | no contract | 10.5% |
| Kamala Harris | Former Vice President (2021-25) | 4.75¢ | 10.5% |
| Gavin Newsom | Governor of California (since 2019) | 11.5¢ | 9.6% |
| Marco Rubio | Secretary of State (since 2025) | 17.5¢ | 7.8% |
| Pete Buttigieg | Former Transportation Secretary (2021-25) | 3.05¢ | 6.8% |
| Josh Shapiro | Governor of Pennsylvania (since 2023) | 2.75¢ | 5.7% |
| Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez | U.S. Representative, NY | 8.55¢ | 3.4% |
| Ron DeSantis | Governor of Florida (since 2019) | 4.1¢ | 3.2% |
| Gretchen Whitmer | Governor of Michigan (since 2019) | 1.25¢ | 2.3% |
| J.B. Pritzker | Governor of Illinois (since 2019) | 1.55¢ | 2.2% |
| Donald Trump Jr. | Businessman and political activist | 1.15¢ | 2.2% |
| Andy Beshear | Governor of Kentucky (since 2019) | 2.95¢ | 2.1% |
| Mark Kelly | U.S. Senator, AZ | 3.05¢ | 2.1% |
| Wes Moore | Governor of Maryland (since 2023) | 1.2¢ | 1.1% |
| Jon Ossoff | U.S. Senator, GA (term ends Jan 2027) | 10.5¢ | 0.7% |
| Glenn Youngkin | Former Governor of Virginia (2022-26) | 0.55¢ | 0.7% |
| Tulsi Gabbard | Former Director of National Intelligence (2025-26) | 0.7¢ | 0.5% |
| Tucker Carlson | Host, The Tucker Carlson Show | 1.05¢ | 0.5% |
| Donald Trump | President (2017-21; since 2025) | 2.9¢ | 0.4% |
| Ro Khanna | U.S. Representative, CA | 0.5¢ | 0.4% |
| Rahm Emanuel | Former Chicago mayor; ambassador to Japan (2022-25) | 1.5¢ | 0.3% |
| James Talarico | Texas state representative; 2026 U.S. Senate nominee | 0.5¢ | 0.3% |
| Thomas Massie | U.S. Representative, KY | 0.5¢ | 0.2% |
| Jamie Dimon | Chairman and CEO, JPMorgan Chase | 0.4¢ | 0.2% |
| Hunter Biden | Businessman; son of former President Joe Biden | 0.5¢ | 0.1% |
| Greg Abbott | Governor of Texas (since 2015) | 0.35¢ | —† |
| Vivek Ramaswamy | 2026 Republican nominee for Ohio governor | 0.3¢ | —† |
| Stephen A. Smith | ESPN television personality | 0.25¢ | —† |
| Nikki Haley | Former UN ambassador; 2024 candidate | 0.25¢ | —† |
| Tim Walz | Governor of Minnesota (since 2019) | 0.05¢ | —† |
| † The 5 names above (combined) | — | 1.2¢ total | 3.1% |
These are model estimates, not predictions of fact and not financial advice. Quotes below 10 cents run in 0.1-cent ticks, so the sub-cent prices are real two-sided books, but the thinnest of them trade on spreads nearly as wide as the price itself.
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 buckets.
| Person | Kalshi | Fable | Opus | Sonnet | GPT | Gemini | GLM | Kimi | DeepSeek | R1 Blend |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| J.D. Vance | 17.5¢ | 20.0 | 24.0 | 24.0 | 19.5 | 20.5 | 25.0 | 25.0 | 30.0 | 23.5% |
| Kamala Harris | 4.75¢ | 7.0 | 5.4 | 11.0 | 11.0 | 14.5 | 13.0 | 12.0 | 11.5 | 10.7% |
| Gavin Newsom | 11.5¢ | 8.5 | 9.6 | 10.0 | 8.8 | 11.5 | 8.5 | 9.0 | 9.0 | 9.4% |
| Marco Rubio | 17.5¢ | 6.5 | 6.5 | 8.0 | 8.5 | 8.5 | 10.5 | 8.5 | 4.2 | 7.7% |
| Pete Buttigieg | 3.05¢ | 6.0 | 6.4 | 7.0 | 5.2 | 6.0 | 7.8 | 6.0 | 8.4 | 6.6% |
| Josh Shapiro | 2.75¢ | 5.0 | 5.5 | 6.0 | 5.0 | 5.5 | 4.6 | 4.5 | 7.5 | 5.5% |
| Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez | 8.55¢ | 5.5 | 5.0 | 3.5 | 3.4 | 2.5 | 3.5 | 4.5 | 4.0 | 4.0% |
| Mark Kelly | 3.05¢ | 3.0 | 2.4 | 2.5 | 2.8 | 2.5 | 2.7 | 3.0 | 3.9 | 2.8% |
| Ron DeSantis | 4.1¢ | 2.5 | 1.4 | 1.5 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 3.7 | 3.0 | 2.1 | 2.8% |
| Andy Beshear | 2.95¢ | 3.0 | 3.0 | 1.5 | 3.1 | 2.0 | 3.5 | 2.5 | 3.5 | 2.8% |
| Gretchen Whitmer | 1.25¢ | 3.5 | 2.4 | 2.0 | 2.4 | 4.5 | 1.6 | 1.8 | 3.0 | 2.6% |
| J.B. Pritzker | 1.55¢ | 3.5 | 2.6 | 2.0 | 2.5 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 2.0 | 4.0 | 2.5% |
| Donald Trump Jr. | 1.15¢ | 3.0 | 1.4 | 3.0 | 2.9 | 3.0 | 1.7 | 2.5 | 1.0 | 2.3% |
| Wes Moore | 1.2¢ | 2.0 | 1.9 | 2.0 | 1.6 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 0.8 | 1.4 | 1.4% |
| Jon Ossoff | 10.5¢ | 1.5 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 1.2 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 2.5 | 1.1% |
| Glenn Youngkin | 0.55¢ | 0.7 | 0.8 | 0.6 | 1.0 | 1.5 | 0.8 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.8% |
| Tucker Carlson | 1.05¢ | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.7 | 0.7% |
| James Talarico | 0.5¢ | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.4 | 0.8 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.4% |
| Tulsi Gabbard | 0.7¢ | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.4% |
| Donald Trump | 2.9¢ | 1.5 | 0.8 | 0.5 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.4% |
| Ro Khanna | 0.5¢ | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.4% |
| Rahm Emanuel | 1.5¢ | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.3% |
| Jamie Dimon | 0.4¢ | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3% |
| Thomas Massie | 0.5¢ | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.2% |
| Hunter Biden | 0.5¢ | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0% |
| Other 5 listed (combined) | 1.2¢ | 2.5 | 2.4 | 2.0 | 3.8 | 5.0 | 4.9 | 3.5 | 1.2 | 3.2% |
| The Field (unlisted) | no contract | 11.6 | 14.8 | 8.9 | 9.9 | 3.1 | 3.0 | 7.6 | 0.5 | 7.4% |
These are model estimates, not predictions of fact and not financial advice.
What History Prices In 30 Months Out
The humility section, because a board like this earns one. The panel's own political record is public and mixed: at the White House Correspondents' Dinner in July, the Kalshi crowd narrowly beat the panel's best seat across 30 settled markets, and the full scorecard is published. The card's poll-error table is a second dose: Trump-era presidential-year polling overstated Democrats by 3.7 and 4.7 points in 2016 and 2020, which is exactly why no seat converted a D+6.4 generic ballot into a Democratic lock, and why several wrote the discount into their rationales explicitly.
And the biggest honest number on the page is the one with no contract attached. The panel's 10.5% field blend says roughly one inauguration in ten goes to somebody Kalshi is not listing in August 2026, and the seats did not treat that as filler: the revision round's most one-sided argument was peers pushing the low-field seats upward by naming polled, contract-less people. Thirty months is long enough for the answer to this board's question to currently be a row on no board at all.
Dark Horses The Panel Won't Dismiss
Asked which sub-3% names they would least want to dismiss, the seats converged on a profile: swing-state credentials the early national polls cannot price yet.
Mark Kelly (3.05 cents, 2.1% blend) was named by six of eight seats, always on the same two card facts: his Senate term runs to January 2029, so a presidential run costs Arizona nothing, and he registers 4-8% in nearly every fetched survey. Andy Beshear (2.95 cents, 2.1% blend) drew five mentions as the two-term governor who keeps winning deep-red Kentucky, "exactly the crossover profile open Democratic primaries have rewarded" in Fable's phrasing, with an 8.5% Emerson reading as the polling proof of concept. Gretchen Whitmer (1.25 cents, 2.3% blend) runs nearly two-to-one against her price; Gemini carried her highest, on the argument that her swing-state executive experience "routinely translates poorly in early national name-ID polling but excels in actual primary mechanics." And one from the market's side of the ledger rather than the panel's: Donald Trump Jr. blends to 2.2% against 1.15 cents here while also carrying real numbers on the nominee board, the panel's standing estimate of an unresolved succession story.
How To Read These Prices
The models can tell you where they part from the crowd; the number in front of you still has to be understood in context.
A Worked Example: Ossoff At 10.5 Cents
Ossoff's Yes trades at 10.5 cents, which reads as 10.5% and converts to about +852 in American odds. The board's midpoints sum to 101.7 cents, so his de-vigged share is about 10.3%. The panel's 0.7% blend, translated the same way, prices the identical contract past +14000. That is not a normal-sized disagreement; it is the panel claiming a price is mostly story, and the market claiming the panel's data feed is stale. One of them will be wrong in a measurable way, which is precisely why every number on this page lands in a graded ledger. The cents-to-odds mechanics behind that arithmetic live in our sportsbook-to-Kalshi translation guide.
Then the frictions. This board's clock runs to an inauguration nearly 30 months out, the longest capital lockup of any market we have scored: positions here pay nothing until early 2029, spreads on the sub-cent tail run nearly as wide as the prices, Kalshi's trading fees apply, and line movement between now and November 2028, not settlement, is how most positions on a board like this actually resolve. Eligibility is the standard rail: Kalshi is a CFTC-regulated event-contract exchange, 18+, availability varies by state. And for readers whose price-shopping happens on this weekend's games rather than 2028, our live odds screen and free expert picks run the same compare-every-number discipline across sportsbooks.
When This Board Re-Scores
Everything above is a quiet-window snapshot: no declared candidates in any structured feed, primary polling that ends June 14, and 30 months of runway. The re-score calendar writes itself. The November 2026 midterms will replace the environment block's proxies with real results; the first declared-candidacy wave converts name identification into campaigns; and both nomination boards feeding this one will re-price along the way.
Want the re-scored board when it moves? The panel re-runs this market after the November 2026 midterms and again when the first major candidacies are declared, on this same page. The email signup at the end of this article gets each re-score first, wherever you are reading from.
The Bottom Line
The market's top line says the 2028 presidential election is a tie between two members of the same cabinet-level orbit. The panel says the tie is an illusion: one of those men holds the strongest nomination platform in the field, and the other holds a price the polls cannot currently justify, while the real second tier is a former vice president trading at a fifth of her blended probability and a field bucket no one can buy. Both nomination halves of that argument are scored the same price-blind way on the 2028 Republican nominee board and the 2028 Democratic nominee board, and the panel's nearer-term political test case, the 2026 midterms balance-of-power verdict, settles first and will grade the environment read every seat leaned on here.
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 August 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 the 2029 inauguration, the same way every board it prices is graded.
Hottest Prediction Markets Right Now
- 2028 Democratic presidential nominee · $166M traded
- Rocket Classic Winner · $85M traded
- 2027 Pro Football Champion · $52M traded
- Pro Baseball Champion · $41M traded
- Bitcoin price at the end of 2026 · $30M traded
- 2027 Pro Basketball Champion · $19M traded
Every market above links to our full AI model verdict; browse them all on the OddsShopper prediction markets hub.
Verdicts generated August 1, 2026, in two rounds (independent, then revision). Prices as of August 1, 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.
