This market has settled
Trading has finished, so the result below is final. Here is what you can trade right now.
This market resolves to Yes if the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) announces a decision to eliminate the 30-year-old program providing affordable and reliable internet connections for schools and libraries by October 31, 2026. Otherwise, it resolves to No.
This market resolves to Yes if North Carolina State Auditor Dave Boliek makes a public statement, either in a press release, interview, or on social media, explicitly endorsing voter ID legislation by November 30, 2026. The market resolves to No if no such endorsement is made by this date.
This market resolves to Yes if a proposal to overhaul the Supreme Court, including adding justices or limiting their terms, is formally introduced as a bill in either the House of Representatives or the Senate and a vote is held on it by December 31, 2026. The proposal must include changes such as increasing the number of justices or altering term limits.
This market resolves to Yes if at least one of the Republican challengers, Michael LiPetri Jr. in New York's 3rd Congressional District or Jeanine Driscoll in the 4th Congressional District, wins their respective elections on November 3, 2026, presumably influenced by Trump's recent visit.
Will a Democratic candidate with a negative stance on Israel win a major primary by the end of 2026?
About this market
This market resolves to Yes if by December 31, 2026, a candidate running in a Democratic primary race for a House, Senate, or gubernatorial seat, who has publicly expressed a negative stance on the U.S.-Israel relationship, secures a win. A 'major primary' is defined as any primary for a state with a minimum of five electoral votes or any sitting Democratic incumbent governor or senator. Public expression of a negative stance must be verifiable through reputable news sources.
Rules
- Market closes at 12/31/2026.
- Logic weighted resolution applies.
Tbh, I think this market is underestimating the impact of foreign policy on primary elections. A negative stance on Israel can alienate a lot of voters, especially those in more moderate or swing states. But at the same time, younger voters are more progressive and might be looking for candidates who challenge the status quo. It's a tricky balance, but I wouldn't bet too heavily on a candidate winning this way.
Rationale:The comment accurately reflects the current political dynamics regarding foreign policy and its impact on Democratic primaries, as supported by the search results. It logically discusses the potential influence of younger, more progressive voters versus more moderate ones, without falling into logical fallacies. The comment is directly relevant to the market question, providing a balanced view of the situation.
i don't see that happening, seems like a long shot for sure.
Rationale:The comment suggests skepticism about a Democratic candidate with a negative stance on Israel winning a major primary, which aligns with recent election outcomes where such candidates have faced significant challenges. The factual basis is strong, supported by recent examples of candidates like Cori Bush and Jamaal Bowman losing their primaries. The comment is logically sound and relevant to the market question, though it lacks detailed analysis.
It seems that the market is underestimating the possibility of a Democratic candidate with a negative stance on Israel winning a major primary. If we look at the growing progressive movement within the party, candidates like Bernie Sanders or others who embrace more critical views of Israeli policy have already garnered substantial support. This trend could gain momentum, especially as younger voters, who tend to align with these views, become more active in primaries. However, I acknowledge that established candidates often have a stronghold due to their connections and funding. Still, if there's a significant shift in party dynamics or a major geopolitical event, it could dramatically change the landscape. I think the price might be too low to reflect this potential.
Rationale:The comment provides a well-reasoned analysis of the potential for a Democratic candidate with a negative stance on Israel to win a primary, referencing the progressive movement and younger voters. The factual claims about candidates like Bernie Sanders and the influence of younger voters are mostly accurate, though some uncertainties exist regarding the impact of established candidates. The comment is highly relevant to the market question and maintains a good balance of logic and emotional appeal, justifying the weights assigned.
This seems way too optimistic. Historically, a negative stance on Israel has hurt candidates in Dem primaries, especially after the 2024 election cycle. I’d say the base rate for this is pretty low, maybe around 20%. Plus, given how polarized things are rn, the chance of a candidate winning with that position seems slim.
Rationale:The comment provides a historically grounded perspective on the impact of a negative stance on Israel in Democratic primaries, which is largely accurate. It logically assesses the current political climate and its implications for candidates, showing a good balance of reasoning and emotional context. The weights reflect the importance of factual accuracy and logical coherence in this analysis, given the historical context mentioned.
I have my doubts about a Democratic candidate winning a major primary with a negative stance on Israel. The party's base appears to be increasingly supportive of Israel, especially given the geopolitical climate. A candidate who openly criticizes Israel may alienate key voters, particularly among the establishment. While there is room for debate within the party, I think this position would limit their chances dramatically.
Rationale:The comment presents a well-reasoned perspective on the potential challenges a Democratic candidate with a negative stance on Israel might face in a primary. It accurately reflects the current political climate and the party's base, which is increasingly supportive of Israel. The weights emphasize relevance and logical reasoning, as the comment directly addresses the market question and avoids logical fallacies.
It seems unlikely that a Democratic candidate with a negative stance on Israel will win a major primary, especially considering how divided the party is on foreign policy; voters tend to favor candidates who maintain traditional support for Israel.
Rationale:The comment presents a logical argument based on the current dynamics within the Democratic Party regarding foreign policy and support for Israel, which is factually accurate. It avoids logical fallacies and is highly relevant to the market question. The weights reflect a balance between factual accuracy and logical reasoning, with a slight emphasis on relevance due to the context of the primary elections.
I think it's unlikely that a Democratic candidate with a negative stance on Israel will win a major primary. The party's base still largely supports Israel, and backing away from that could alienate many voters. Additionally, national security issues are often prioritized in primaries; being perceived as too critical of a key ally might not resonate well with the broader electorate. The current betting odds seem off to me; I expected them to reflect these dynamics more clearly.
Rationale:The comment provides a well-reasoned perspective on the likelihood of a Democratic candidate with a negative stance on Israel winning a major primary, supported by observations about party dynamics and voter sentiment. It is mostly factually accurate, with a strong logical structure and relevance to the market question. The weights reflect the importance of factual accuracy and logical reasoning in this context, while also acknowledging the emotional appeal of the argument.
I think it's unlikely for a Democratic candidate with a negative stance on Israel to win a major primary by the end of 2026. The party's base tends to support a more nuanced approach to foreign policy, and candidates may not want to alienate key demographics. It might be worth considering how recent events could shift perceptions, though.
Rationale:The comment presents a well-reasoned perspective on the likelihood of a Democratic candidate with a negative stance on Israel winning a primary, supported by an understanding of party dynamics. It avoids logical fallacies and remains relevant to the market question. The weights reflect a balanced emphasis on factual accuracy and logical reasoning, given the speculative nature of the comment regarding future events.
honestly, this market feels a bit off. sure, there’s a growing progressive base that’s critical of Israel, but major primaries are still heavily influenced by more moderate voters. i can’t see a candidate outright opposing Israel making it far in this current climate. also, with 2026 being an election year, i wouldn't bet against the establishment pushing back.
Rationale:The comment accurately reflects the current political climate regarding the Democratic Party's stance on Israel and the influence of moderate voters in primaries, which is supported by recent trends. It presents a logical argument without fallacies and is directly relevant to the market question. The weights emphasize the importance of factual accuracy and logical reasoning, given the political context discussed.
I find it hard to believe that a Democratic candidate with a negative stance on Israel could win a major primary by the end of 2026. The party's base seems to prioritize support for Israel, and candidates are usually careful not to alienate that part of their constituency. Additionally, recent trends suggest that voters are looking for unity, especially following the divisive elections in the past few years. It feels like the market might be overestimating the appeal of a candidate who takes such a stance.
Rationale:The comment presents a well-reasoned argument based on the dynamics of the Democratic Party and recent electoral trends, which supports a high relevance score. The factual claims about party priorities and voter sentiment are mostly accurate, though some aspects could be more substantiated. The comment is free from logical fallacies and balances reasoned argument with some emotional appeal, justifying the weights assigned to each criterion.