Contract wording

Will Republicans win Iowa and Kansas, and lose Alaska, Maine, Michigan, Ohio, and Texas?

Outcome structure

Yes / No within a 128-contract market family

Resolution criteria

This market will resolve according to which of the United States Senate general elections in Alaska, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Ohio (special election), and Texas, currently scheduled for November 3, 2026, are won by the Republican candidate, inclusive of any potential runoffs. Each listed outcome names the exact set of these states in which the Republican candidate wins. An outcome will resolve to "Yes" only if the Republican candidate wins every state it names and does not win any of the other states covered by this market. A state counts as not won by the Republican candidate if any other candidate wins it, including a Democratic, independent, or third-party candidate, or if its results cannot be determined by March 31, 2027. A candidate will be considered to represent the Republican Party by their ballot-listed affiliation or if they are the nominee of the Republican Party. Candidates who run as independents will not be considered to represent the Republican Party regardless of any affiliation they may have with the party. The resolution source for this market is the Associated Press, Fox News, and NBC. This market will resolve once all three sources have conclusively called the relevant elections. If all three sources do not achieve consensus in calling the relevant races for this market, it will resolve based on the official certification.

This timeline uses Tomlinson-retained provider observations, sampled into 15-minute UTC intervals. It is not a continuous tick feed. Up to 96 recent samples are shown; active observations are retained for 3 days.

1. Oct 31, 6:15 AM EDTProvider probability observed12.5%
2. Oct 31, 6:00 AM EDTProvider probability observed12.5%
3. Oct 31, 5:45 AM EDTProvider probability observed12.5%
4. Oct 31, 5:30 AM EDTProvider probability observed12.5%
5. Oct 31, 5:15 AM EDTProvider probability observed12.5%
6. Oct 31, 5:00 AM EDTProvider probability observed12.5%

Insufficient causal evidence

Fewer than two independent, verified, time-stamped sources support a causal claim.

The provider reports the observed price and comparison fields above. Movement is not proof of a cause.

Alternative interpretation

The move may reflect contract-specific participation, liquidity, wording, or resolution mechanics rather than a durable change in the underlying event.

Counterevidence and missing information

No independent counterevidence is attached. That absence lowers interpretive confidence; it is not evidence that an interpretation is correct.

Open each relationship to see what the current source supports, what depends on it, how it connects to the timeline, and where evidence is missing.

Analytical confidence: Insufficient. Fewer than two independent, verified, time-stamped sources support a causal claim.

High field confidence. This assessment reflects field completeness (5/5 core fields), provider freshness, and visible bid/ask data. It is not a forecast confidence score or probability of outcome.

• Freshness: live
• Coverage: full; data completeness: complete
• Provider-reported movement field: available
• Participation quality: high
• Tomlinson-retained history: 49 governed observations available
• Cross-venue comparability: not assessed

Insufficient information: no active contract from another venue shares enough normalized event terms for useful comparison. Broad topic similarity is intentionally excluded.

• The provider revises or withdraws the quote.
• The contract expires, resolves, is cancelled, or changes its resolution rules.
• New primary evidence contradicts the implied interpretation.
• Liquidity or spread deteriorates enough to make the observation unreliable.

Reassess on the next provider refresh or immediately after a contract-rule change.