The upcoming 2026 US midterm elections are entering their final stretch, but there is no single way to measure where the contest stands. Prediction markets such as Kalshi and Polymarket are continuously updating their prices based on what traders think will happen. Polling averages measure where voters currently stand. Silver Bulletin's FLIPR model combines polling with political fundamentals and expert race ratings to simulate possible outcomes. The Cook Political Report and Sabato's Crystal Ball, meanwhile, assess individual races using expert judgment and competitiveness ratings. All are looking at the same election. Yet they can produce noticeably different pictures. That difference is not necessarily a contradiction. The systems are answering different questions, using different inputs and operating on different timelines.<h2>Prediction markets: What are traders pricing in?</h2>Kalshi and Polymarket approach elections through prediction markets. Rather than asking voters directly, they provide markets in which participants trade contracts tied to future outcomes. Kalshi's own September 21 overview said traders had moved toward pricing Democratic control of both chambers, while stressing that market expectations can change as polling and campaign developments emerge.&nbsp;Polymarket similarly expresses expectations through market prices. Its markets can cover everything from control of the House and Senate to individual races and broader election scenarios. A contract priced around 60 cents, for example, can be interpreted as the market assigning roughly a 60% implied probability to that outcome, subject to the market's rules and liquidity. That makes prediction markets different from polls.&nbsp;A poll asks voters what they currently intend to do. A prediction market asks traders to put a price on what they believe will happen on Election Day. The distinction can become particularly important when a major development occurs. A new poll, debate performance, candidate controversy or economic development can move market prices before a large batch of new public polling becomes available. But market prices are not guaranteed forecasts. They reflect the participants, information and trading conditions in that particular market.<h2>Silver Bulletin: Turning polls and fundamentals into simulations</h2>Silver Bulletin takes a more traditional modelling approach, although its FLIPR system is considerably more than a simple polling average. FLIPR, short for Forecast with Leading Indicators, Polls and (Expert) Ratings, combines polling, non-polling fundamentals and outside expert ratings. The model then runs thousands of simulations to estimate the range of possible congressional outcomes.&nbsp;Its September 28 update showed Democrats with a 9.2-point advantage in its likely-voter-adjusted generic congressional ballot average. The model also had Democratic candidates holding polling leads in six Senate states it identified as particularly important to the Senate tipping point: Texas, Maine, Ohio, Iowa, Michigan and Alaska. That does not mean FLIPR simply takes a 9.2-point national lead and converts it into seats.&nbsp;The model accounts for the fact that congressional races are interconnected but not identical. It uses individual race polling, candidate and incumbency factors, the national political environment and other fundamentals. That is one reason a model can produce a different result from a prediction market even when both are looking at broadly similar political developments. Silver Bulletin's methodology notes that FLIPR typically uses 40,000 simulations and models House, Senate and gubernatorial elections jointly.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/raf-airbase-incident-netanyahu-claims-israel-warned-britain-about-iranian-terror-plot-1790842073923">RAF airbase incident: Netanyahu claims Israel warned Britain about Iranian terror plot</a><h2>Cook Political Report: The race-by-race approach</h2>The Cook Political Report uses another framework altogether. Rather than presenting every race as a probability, Cook classifies contests on a seven-point scale: Solid Democratic, Likely Democratic, Lean Democratic, Toss Up, Lean Republican, Likely Republican and Solid Republican. Cook says its ratings consider factors including a state's political makeup, candidate strengths and weaknesses, and the political environment at both the state and national levels.&nbsp;As of September 29, Cook's Senate ratings had seven races classified as Toss Ups: Alaska, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, New Hampshire, Ohio and Texas. That is useful information, but it should not be read as equivalent to a prediction-market probability. A Toss Up means Cook considers the race highly competitive; it does not mean the race is mathematically 50-50. This is an important distinction when comparing election coverage. A headline that places a ‘Toss Up’ next to a market's 55% or 60% probability can make the two systems appear to disagree more than they actually do.<h2>Sabato's Crystal Ball: Another expert lens</h2>Sabato's Crystal Ball provides another race-rating framework, using expert analysis to classify competitive contests rather than relying solely on a statistical probability. Like Cook, its value lies partly in the race-by-race context. Analysts can consider candidate developments, state political conditions and the broader electoral environment alongside polling. That means an expert rating can move even when the polling picture has not changed dramatically if analysts believe other factors have altered the competitiveness of a contest. The broader point is that expert ratings are designed to communicate the state of individual races in a relatively accessible way. They are not intended to function as trading prices or as the output of a single statistical simulation.<h2>Why can all five disagree?</h2>The biggest reason is simple: they are not measuring the same thing. A poll measures voter sentiment at a particular point in time. A prediction market measures the price traders are willing to put on a future outcome. A statistical model processes multiple data sources and simulates thousands of possible elections. An expert rating assesses the competitiveness of individual races.&nbsp;There is also a difference in how uncertainty is treated. Suppose several Senate races are polling within a few points. A model may simulate those races thousands of times and calculate how often each party reaches a particular seat threshold. A prediction market may assign a price to Senate control based on traders' collective expectations.Cook may simply classify several of those races as Toss Ups. All three can therefore be describing the same underlying uncertainty without producing the same number.<h2>So which number should voters look at?</h2>There is no single number that answers every question. If the question is what are traders pricing right now?, prediction markets provide that information. If the question is what does a statistical model calculate after combining polling and other indicators?, FLIPR provides a model-based answer. If the question is which individual races are considered competitive?, Cook and Sabato provide race-rating frameworks.&nbsp;And if the question is where voters currently stand, polling remains the direct measure of voter sentiment, although polls themselves carry sampling and methodological uncertainty. The most useful way to read the 2026 election landscape, therefore, may be to understand what each system is actually designed to measure rather than treating them as competing versions of the same forecast.&nbsp;With Election Day approaching on November 3, market prices can continue moving, new polls can change averages, models can update their simulations and race ratings can shift as campaigns develop. The disagreement between them is not necessarily a flaw. It is a reminder that an election is not a single number, and that different tools can turn the same political information into different measures of uncertainty.

Why do Kalshi, Polymarket, Silver Bulletin, Cook and Sabato differ on the 2026 US midterms? Here’s how markets, models, polls and ratings work

The upcoming 2026 US midterm elections are entering their final stretch, but there is no single way to measure where the contest stands. Prediction markets such as Kalshi and Polymarket are continuously updating their prices based on what traders think will happen. Polling averages measure where voters currently stand. Silver Bulletin's FLIPR model combines polling with political fundamentals and expert race ratings to simulate possible outcomes. The Cook Political Report and Sabato's Crystal Ball, meanwhile, assess individual races using expert judgment and competitiveness ratings. All are looking at the same election. Yet they can produce noticeably different pictures. That difference is not necessarily a contradiction. The systems are answering different questions, using different inputs and operating on different timelines. Prediction markets: What are traders pricing in? Kalshi and Polymarket approach elections through prediction markets. Rather than asking voters directly, they provide markets in which participants trade contracts tied to future outcomes. Kalshi's own September 21 overview said traders had moved toward pricing Democratic control of both chambers, while stressing that market expectations can change as polling and campaign developments emerge. Polymarket similarly expresses expectations through market prices. Its markets can cover everything from control of the House and Senate to individual races and broader election scenarios. A contract priced around 60 cents, for example, can be interpreted as the market assigning roughly a 60% implied probability to that outcome, subject to the market's rules and liquidity. That makes prediction markets different from polls. A poll asks voters what they currently intend to do. A prediction market asks traders to put a price on what they believe will happen on Election Day. The distinction can become particularly important when a major development occurs. A new poll, debate performance, candidate controversy or economic development can move market prices before a large batch of new public polling becomes available. But market prices are not guaranteed forecasts. They reflect the participants, information and trading conditions in that particular market. Silver Bulletin: Turning polls and fundamentals into simulations Silver Bulletin takes a more traditional modelling approach, although its FLIPR system is considerably more than a simple polling average. FLIPR, short for Forecast with Leading Indicators, Polls and (Expert) Ratings, combines polling, non-polling fundamentals and outside expert ratings. The model then runs thousands of simulations to estimate the range of possible congressional outcomes. Its September 28 update showed Democrats with a 9.2-point advantage in its likely-voter-adjusted generic congressional ballot average. The model also had Democratic candidates holding polling leads in six Senate states it identified as particularly important to the Senate tipping point: Texas, Maine, Ohio, Iowa, Michigan and Alaska. That does not mean FLIPR simply takes a 9.2-point national lead and converts it into seats. The model accounts for the fact that congressional races are interconnected but not identical. It uses individual race polling, candidate and incumbency factors, the national political environment and other fundamentals. That is one reason a model can produce a different result from a prediction market even when both are looking at broadly similar political developments. Silver Bulletin's methodology notes that FLIPR typically uses 40,000 simulations and models House, Senate and gubernatorial elections jointly. Also Read: RAF airbase incident: Netanyahu claims Israel warned Britain about Iranian terror plot Cook Political Report: The race-by-race approach The Cook Political Report uses another framework altogether. Rather than presenting every race as a probability, Cook classifies contests on a seven-point scale: Solid Democratic, Likely Democratic, Lean Democratic, Toss Up, Lean Republican, Likely Republican and Solid Republican. Cook says its ratings consider factors including a state's political makeup, candidate strengths and weaknesses, and the political environment at both the state and national levels. As of September 29, Cook's Senate ratings had seven races classified as Toss Ups: Alaska, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, New Hampshire, Ohio and Texas. That is useful information, but it should not be read as equivalent to a prediction-market probability. A Toss Up means Cook considers the race highly competitive; it does not mean the race is mathematically 50-50. This is an important distinction when comparing election coverage. A headline that places a ‘Toss Up’ next to a market's 55% or 60% probability can make the two systems appear to disagree more than they actually do. Sabato's Crystal Ball: Another expert lens Sabato's Crystal Ball provides another race-rating framework, using expert analysis to classify competitive contests rather than relying solely on a statistical probability. Like Cook, its value lies partly in the race-by-race context. Analysts can consider candidate developments, state political conditions and the broader electoral environment alongside polling. That means an expert rating can move even when the polling picture has not changed dramatically if analysts believe other factors have altered the competitiveness of a contest. The broader point is that expert ratings are designed to communicate the state of individual races in a relatively accessible way. They are not intended to function as trading prices or as the output of a single statistical simulation. Why can all five disagree? The biggest reason is simple: they are not measuring the same thing. A poll measures voter sentiment at a particular point in time. A prediction market measures the price traders are willing to put on a future outcome. A statistical model processes multiple data sources and simulates thousands of possible elections. An expert rating assesses the competitiveness of individual races. There is also a difference in how uncertainty is treated. Suppose several Senate races are polling within a few points. A model may simulate those races thousands of times and calculate how often each party reaches a particular seat threshold. A prediction market may assign a price to Senate control based on traders' collective expectations. Cook may simply classify several of those races as Toss Ups. All three can therefore be describing the same underlying uncertainty without producing the same number. So which number should voters look at? There is no single number that answers every question. If the question is what are traders pricing right now?, prediction markets provide that information. If the question is what does a statistical model calculate after combining polling and other indicators?, FLIPR provides a model-based answer. If the question is which individual races are considered competitive?, Cook and Sabato provide race-rating frameworks. And if the question is where voters currently stand, polling remains the direct measure of voter sentiment, although polls themselves carry sampling and methodological uncertainty. The most useful way to read the 2026 election landscape, therefore, may be to understand what each system is actually designed to measure rather than treating them as competing versions of the same forecast. With Election Day approaching on November 3, market prices can continue moving, new polls can change averages, models can update their simulations and race ratings can shift as campaigns develop. The disagreement between them is not necessarily a flaw. It is a reminder that an election is not a single number, and that different tools can turn the same political information into different measures of uncertainty.

Kalshi, Polymarket, Silver Bulletin, Cook and Sabato read the 2026 US midterms differently. Here's why markets, models and ratings diverge

Who’s reading the US midterms 2026 correctly? Markets, models and polls tell different stories

Young adults between 18 and 21, who are generally too young to legally gamble at most US casinos and sportsbooks, have traded an estimated $5.4 billion on Kalshi this year, according to a new CNN analysis. The surge highlights growing concerns about prediction markets, which have rapidly expanded in popularity and allow users to trade contracts tied to events ranging from sports and elections to culture and weather.&nbsp;Unlike traditional casinos and sportsbooks, which are largely regulated by individual states and typically require customers to be at least 21, prediction markets operate under federal financial-market rules. That means users can generally participate once they turn 18. The difference has prompted lawmakers, consumer advocates and addiction specialists to question whether prediction markets have created a loophole that exposes younger adults to financial risks and potentially harmful trading behavior.<h2>Sports and parlays dominate trading</h2>Sports and parlays, all-or-nothing combinations of bets that have become particularly popular among sports bettors, account for roughly 80% of Kalshi's overall trading volume. CNN's analysis estimates that users between 18 and 21 have traded approximately $3.9 billion across those categories this year alone. That figure could increase substantially as major sporting events continue to attract users.&nbsp;“Normally you’d have a big summer lull, but the World Cup changed that completely,” said Jonathan Michaels, who runs a gaming industry consulting firm. “Prediction markets will also see record numbers this fall with the football season, and that’ll certainly trickle down into college-age students.” Kalshi has recorded more than $173 billion in total trading volume so far this year, based on publicly available figures from Paradigm, a major investor in the prediction-market company.&nbsp;According to a Kalshi spokesperson, users aged 18 to 21 currently account for 3.14% of the company's overall trading volume.CNN has a partnership with Kalshi and uses its data to report on major events. CNN editorial employees are prohibited from trading on prediction markets. Kalshi declined to provide CNN with detailed figures on the amount traded or spent specifically by users aged 18 to 21.&nbsp;The company has previously highlighted several safeguards aimed at younger and potentially vulnerable users. These measures include deposit limits and warnings for accounts showing patterns associated with risky behaviour. Kalshi has also contributed $2 million to the National Council for Problem Gambling to support efforts aimed at addressing unhealthy trading and addiction.<h2>Prediction markets dominate the US</h2>Financial analysts estimated earlier this year that Kalshi controlled approximately 90% of the US prediction-market volume, making it by far the largest player in the sector. Polymarket, considered the second-largest US prediction market, declined to comment and has not publicly released trading or spending figures for users aged 18 to 21. The rapid growth of these platforms has also intensified a broader legal battle over whether sports-related prediction contracts should be treated as financial products or gambling.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/bjp-president-nitin-nabin-reprimands-three-delhi-mps-over-condoling-sajjan-kumar-s-death-1788008745797">BJP President Nitin Nabin reprimands three Delhi MPs over condoling Sajjan Kumar's death</a><h2>Legal battle over prediction markets continues</h2>Prediction platforms currently operate as federally regulated financial exchanges and, under their current regulatory framework, are generally outside state gaming laws and taxes. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) oversees these markets at the federal level. That regulatory structure is facing a major legal challenge, however. The effort has received support from 44 state attorneys general, dozens of Indian tribes and the casino industry.&nbsp;The American Gaming Association, which represents the casino industry, has long argued that sports contracts offered by prediction markets effectively function as unlicensed sportsbooks. The organization has pointed to Kalshi's trading figures among younger users as evidence of the concerns surrounding sports prediction contracts. “Most parents and grandparents don’t realize that the ‘prediction markets’ are offering a backdoor into sports-betting in jurisdictions where the legal betting age is 21,” AGA president Bill Miller told CNN. “This means their freshman son or daughter is prohibited from entering legal sportsbooks, but now they can just pull out their phone and use Kalshi to bet on football.”&nbsp;Supporters of prediction markets counter that the platforms are financial exchanges rather than traditional gambling operators. They also note that Americans can legally open brokerage accounts at 18 and trade stocks and other financial products that can involve significant financial risk.<h2>Calls grow for a 21+ trading age</h2>The debate has prompted some prediction-market operators to voluntarily impose a minimum age of 21, despite federal rules generally allowing participation from users aged 18 and older. Fanatics, the sports merchandising giant, launched a prediction platform last year with a 21+ requirement.&nbsp;A company spokesman previously told CNN, “We believe 21+ is the right age for any type of real-money activities.” Major sports organizations have also urged regulators to reconsider the current age requirement. The NCAA, NFL, NBA, PGA Tour and other sports leagues have called on the CFTC to increase the minimum age for prediction-market trading to 21. The agency rejected those calls and is moving toward federal regulations that would maintain the current 18+ eligibility standard.

Young adults aged 18-21 have traded an estimated $5.4 billion on Kalshi this year, raising concerns over sports betting, addiction and regulation

Young adults between 18 and 21, who are generally too young to legally gamble at most US casinos and sportsbooks, have traded an estimated $5.4 billion on Kalshi this year, according to a new CNN analysis. The surge highlights growing concerns about prediction markets, which have rapidly expanded in popularity and allow users to trade contracts tied to events ranging from sports and elections to culture and weather. Unlike traditional casinos and sportsbooks, which are largely regulated by individual states and typically require customers to be at least 21, prediction markets operate under federal financial-market rules. That means users can generally participate once they turn 18. The difference has prompted lawmakers, consumer advocates and addiction specialists to question whether prediction markets have created a loophole that exposes younger adults to financial risks and potentially harmful trading behavior. Sports and parlays dominate trading Sports and parlays, all-or-nothing combinations of bets that have become particularly popular among sports bettors, account for roughly 80% of Kalshi's overall trading volume. CNN's analysis estimates that users between 18 and 21 have traded approximately $3.9 billion across those categories this year alone. That figure could increase substantially as major sporting events continue to attract users. “Normally you’d have a big summer lull, but the World Cup changed that completely,” said Jonathan Michaels, who runs a gaming industry consulting firm. “Prediction markets will also see record numbers this fall with the football season, and that’ll certainly trickle down into college-age students.” Kalshi has recorded more than $173 billion in total trading volume so far this year, based on publicly available figures from Paradigm, a major investor in the prediction-market company. According to a Kalshi spokesperson, users aged 18 to 21 currently account for 3.14% of the company's overall trading volume. CNN has a partnership with Kalshi and uses its data to report on major events. CNN editorial employees are prohibited from trading on prediction markets. Kalshi declined to provide CNN with detailed figures on the amount traded or spent specifically by users aged 18 to 21. The company has previously highlighted several safeguards aimed at younger and potentially vulnerable users. These measures include deposit limits and warnings for accounts showing patterns associated with risky behaviour. Kalshi has also contributed $2 million to the National Council for Problem Gambling to support efforts aimed at addressing unhealthy trading and addiction. Prediction markets dominate the US Financial analysts estimated earlier this year that Kalshi controlled approximately 90% of the US prediction-market volume, making it by far the largest player in the sector. Polymarket, considered the second-largest US prediction market, declined to comment and has not publicly released trading or spending figures for users aged 18 to 21. The rapid growth of these platforms has also intensified a broader legal battle over whether sports-related prediction contracts should be treated as financial products or gambling. Also Read: BJP President Nitin Nabin reprimands three Delhi MPs over condoling Sajjan Kumar's death Legal battle over prediction markets continues Prediction platforms currently operate as federally regulated financial exchanges and, under their current regulatory framework, are generally outside state gaming laws and taxes. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) oversees these markets at the federal level. That regulatory structure is facing a major legal challenge, however. The effort has received support from 44 state attorneys general, dozens of Indian tribes and the casino industry. The American Gaming Association, which represents the casino industry, has long argued that sports contracts offered by prediction markets effectively function as unlicensed sportsbooks. The organization has pointed to Kalshi's trading figures among younger users as evidence of the concerns surrounding sports prediction contracts. “Most parents and grandparents don’t realize that the ‘prediction markets’ are offering a backdoor into sports-betting in jurisdictions where the legal betting age is 21,” AGA president Bill Miller told CNN. “This means their freshman son or daughter is prohibited from entering legal sportsbooks, but now they can just pull out their phone and use Kalshi to bet on football.” Supporters of prediction markets counter that the platforms are financial exchanges rather than traditional gambling operators. They also note that Americans can legally open brokerage accounts at 18 and trade stocks and other financial products that can involve significant financial risk. Calls grow for a 21+ trading age The debate has prompted some prediction-market operators to voluntarily impose a minimum age of 21, despite federal rules generally allowing participation from users aged 18 and older. Fanatics, the sports merchandising giant, launched a prediction platform last year with a 21+ requirement. A company spokesman previously told CNN, “We believe 21+ is the right age for any type of real-money activities.” Major sports organizations have also urged regulators to reconsider the current age requirement. The NCAA, NFL, NBA, PGA Tour and other sports leagues have called on the CFTC to increase the minimum age for prediction-market trading to 21. The agency rejected those calls and is moving toward federal regulations that would maintain the current 18+ eligibility standard.

Young adults aged 18-21 have traded billions on Kalshi this year, intensifying concerns over sports betting, addiction and prediction-market rules

Young adults under 21 trade billions on Kalshi amid explosive prediction market growth

kalshi-prediction-market

Kalshi Prediction Market, News on Kalshi Prediction Market, stories on Kalshi Prediction Market, articles on Kalshi Prediction Market, Kalshi Prediction Market stories at Wion, Kalshi Prediction Market news, Kalshi Prediction Market latest news

kalshi prediction-market

Who’s reading the US midterms 2026 correctly? Markets, models and polls tell different stories

Under-21 traders bet billions on Kalshi as prediction market craze sweeps the US