← Back to scans

Will the margin of victory for Chris Taylor in 2026 Wisconsin Supreme Court election be between 18% and 100%? — Taylor, 18% and above

KXMOVWISUPREMECOURT-26APR07-T59 · Elections · 2026-04-12
97%
Agent
95%
Market Price
+2.0%
Edge
92%
Confidence
Volume: 125,297
Spread: 2.5c
Days to resolution: 360
Markets in event: 9
Final Rationale
The 2026 Wisconsin Supreme Court election occurred on April 7, 2026 — 5 days before the forecast date. Chris Taylor won in what sources describe as a 'landslide' with a 9:1 fundraising advantage against an exceptionally weak opponent. The Devil's Advocate critique is correct on all counts: I ACCEPT challenges 1-5. The market at 99% with 27,326 depth almost certainly reflects participants who have seen the actual certified vote totals, which would have been reported on election night. My independent estimate's 12% residual uncertainty was based on not having retrieved the exact numeric margin, but this is an information retrieval failure on my part, not genuine outcome uncertainty — the results are publicly known and the high-liquidity market confirms the margin exceeded 18%. I set my estimate at 0.97 rather than 0.99 only to retain minimal uncertainty for edge cases like a recount or data entry error affecting the official certified margin.
Price vs. prediction
How the market moved after the agent's call. Solid blue line is the actual market price; dashed line is the agent's static forecast at $t{=}0$.
$n = 57$ follow-ups
1. Planner Opus · Fermi decomposition + tool plan
Tools chosen: kalshi_data kalshi_orderbook article_search web_search wikipedia_lookup code_execution
Sub-questions (Fermi decomposition)
  1. Will Chris Taylor win the 2026 Wisconsin Supreme Court election? (w=0.35)
  2. If Chris Taylor wins, will her margin of victory exceed 18 percentage points? (w=0.40)
  3. Are current polling and structural factors consistent with a blowout win (18%+ margin) for Taylor? (w=0.25)
Planner reasoning
This question asks whether Chris Taylor will win the 2026 Wisconsin Supreme Court election by 18 percentage points or more. The resolution date is April 7, 2027, meaning the election likely takes place in April 2026 (consistent with Wisconsin's spring election schedule). The key analytical steps are: (1) Determine if Taylor is favored to win at all — Wisconsin's Supreme Court has trended liberal in recent cycles (Protasiewicz 2023, Karofsky 2020, Dallet 2018), and Taylor is a liberal candidate; (2) Assess whether an 18%+ margin is plausible given historical precedent — recent competitive Wisconsin Supreme Court elections have had margins of ~10-12%, making an 18%+ margin a significant threshold; (3) Consider whether specific race conditions (candidate quality, opponent strength, national political environment in spring 2026) could produce a blowout. Reference class: Post-2016 Wisconsin Supreme Court contested elections show liberal margins ranging from ~6% to ~12%, suggesting 18%+ would be historically unusual unless the opponent is unusually weak. However, the 2025 Wisconsin Supreme Court race (Brad Schimel vs Susan Crawford) saw Crawford win by ~10 points. The 18% threshold is roughly 6-7 points above typical liberal Wisconsin SC margins. Temporal note: The election may have already occurred by today (April 12, 2026), so web/news searches should check for actual results.
2. Research Parallel tool calls · legacy v2
ToolStatusTimeItemsSummary
kalshi_data OK 1.9s -
kalshi_orderbook OK 0.1s -
article_search OK 0.2s -
web_search OK 40.1s -
wikipedia_lookup OK 1.1s -
code_execution OK 0.0s -
3. Evidence Synthesis Sonnet · 10 items · legacy v2
#StrengthCredibilityDirectionSourceClaimPriced In
1 STRONG 95 ↑ UP web_search Chris Taylor won the April 7, 2026 Wisconsin Supreme Court election over conservative Maria Lazar, securing a 10-year term and expanding the liberal court majority to 5-2. Yes
2 STRONG 90 ↑ UP web_search This was the fourth straight victory for Democratic-backed candidates in Wisconsin Supreme Court elections; Taylor outraised Lazar nearly 9-to-1 ($3M vs $330K). Yes
3 STRONG 88 ↑ UP wikipedia_lookup Wikipedia confirms Taylor defeated Lazar 'in a landslide' on April 7, 2026, expanding liberal majority from 4-3 to 5-2. Yes
4 STRONG 85 ↑ UP wikipedia_lookup Wikipedia describes Taylor's victory over Lazar as a 'landslide,' which strongly implies a margin exceeding typical Wisconsin SC races (~10-12%), possibly at or above 18%. Yes
5 STRONG 92 ↑ UP kalshi_data The Kalshi market for 'Taylor, 18% and above' is priced at 99%, up +86% in 7 days and +91% in 30 days, with high liquidity (depth 27,326), strongly indicating the 18%+ threshold was met. No
6 STRONG 90 ↑ UP kalshi_orderbook The orderbook shows extremely high depth (27,326) and spread near $0.998, consistent with near-certain resolution YES — market participants have effectively closed out the NO side. Yes
7 MODERATE 65 ↓ DOWN code_execution Historical base rate analysis shows 0 of 3 recent liberal Wisconsin SC wins exceeded 18% margin (average liberal win: ~11.4%), making 18%+ historically unprecedented — but this was prior to actual results. Yes
8 STRONG 88 ↑ UP web_search Taylor's massive fundraising advantage (~9:1), anti-Trump messaging environment, and Lazar's weak campaign ($330K raised) are structural factors consistent with a blowout margin. Yes
9 MODERATE 80 ↑ UP wikipedia_lookup The election Wikipedia article's 'landslide' characterization — typically reserved for margins well above typical competitive elections — is consistent with a margin at or exceeding 18%. Yes
10 STRONG 87 ↑ UP web_search Lazar spent only ~$330K vs Taylor's ~$3M, indicating a dramatically underfunded conservative campaign that could produce an unusually large margin beyond historical norms. Yes
Information Gaps
  • Exact vote percentage totals or margin for Taylor vs. Lazar are not directly stated in the sources — 'landslide' is described but specific numbers (e.g., 59% vs 41%) are not yet confirmed in the retrieved data.
  • No polling data closer to the election was retrieved that would quantify expected margin pre-election.
  • No article explicitly states the margin exceeded 18%; the Kalshi market at 99% is the strongest signal but the precise certified result is not quoted.
Key Uncertainties
  • The exact certified margin: Wikipedia says 'landslide' and Kalshi is at 99%, but without the numeric vote totals, there is a residual ~1% chance the margin falls just below 18%.
  • Whether the Kalshi market has already resolved based on election night returns or official certification — the rapid jump (+86% in 7 days) suggests results became known but formal certification may still be pending.
Market Context
Price: 0.99 · 7d: +0.86 · 30d: +0.91
Volume: HIGH — 5,049 average daily contracts · Depth: VERY HIGH — 27,326 depth
Reliability: HIGH — extremely high depth and volume, near-certainty pricing consistent with known election result; market effectively treating this as resolved YES
4. Independent Forecaster Opus · No market price · legacy v2 Did NOT see market price
Independent estimate: 85% (55% confidence)
base rate
87%
55% conf
evidence driven
87%
55% conf
contrarian
81%
55% conf
Spread
6pp
Low disagreement
sq1: Will Chris Taylor win the 2026 Wisconsin Supreme Court election?
99%
The election has already occurred. Multiple sources confirm Taylor won. This is essentially a resolved fact. P(yes) = 0.99.
sq2: If Chris Taylor wins, will her margin of victory exceed 18 percentage points?
88%
Base rate: In recent contested WI SC races, liberal margins have been ~6-12% (Dallet 2018: ~12%, Karofsky 2020: ~10%, Protasiewicz 2023: ~11%, Crawford 2025: ~10%). Zero of these exceeded 18%. This gives a base rate of 0%. However, strong evidence pushes up significantly: (1) Wikipedia's 'landslide' characterization pushes up ~25% — this word is not used for 10-12% margins in judicial races; it typically implies 15%+ and often 20%+. (2) The 9:1 fundraising disparity is far more extreme than any recent WI SC race, pushing up ~15%. (3) Lazar raising only $330K suggests an exceptionally weak opponent unlike Hagedorn, Kelly, or Schimel. (4) However, I don't have the actual numeric result, creating residual uncertainty. The term 'landslide' in political usage typically means 15-20%+ margins. Given how extreme this race's fundamentals were (massive funding gap, weak opponent, anti-Trump environment), and the 'landslide' descriptor, I estimate ~88% probability the margin exceeded 18%. The ~12% downside accounts for the possibility that 'landslide' could describe a 14-17% margin, or that Wisconsin's partisan baseline limits how large margins can get even in lopsided races.
sq3: Are current polling and structural factors consistent with a blowout win (18%+ margin) for Taylor?
85%
Structural factors strongly favor a blowout: 9:1 fundraising advantage is unprecedented in recent WI SC history. Lazar's $330K campaign suggests minimal voter contact/advertising. The anti-Trump environment in spring 2026 likely boosted liberal turnout. Previous WI SC liberal wins averaged ~11% in more competitive races. The dramatic asymmetry here could easily add 7+ points to typical margins. However, Wisconsin is a closely divided state and there are limits to how much judicial candidates can outperform partisan baselines. I estimate 85% that structural factors are consistent with 18%+.
Show full reasoning trace
base rate: Historical WI SC contested liberal wins: 0/4 exceeded 18% margin (avg ~11%). Base rate for 18%+ is ~0% historically.
evidence updates: Election already occurred. 'Landslide' descriptor (+25-30% from base). 9:1 fundraising gap (+15%). Exceptionally weak opponent (+10%). But no confirmed numeric margin (-uncertainty). Net: from ~5% base to ~87%.
combination method: Conditional: P(win) * P(18%+ | win). Taylor's win is confirmed (0.99). The margin question is the key uncertainty.
final: The election occurred and Taylor won in what's described as a landslide with historically lopsided fundamentals. While I lack the exact numeric margin, the weight of evidence strongly suggests 18%+ but I cannot be certain without confirmed numbers. The absence of exact vote totals is the main source of residual uncertainty, keeping me at 87% rather than 95%+.
ensemble: {'ensemble_count': 3, 'perspectives': {'base_rate': {'p_yes': 0.87, 'confidence': 0.55}, 'evidence_driven': {'p_yes': 0.87, 'confidence': 0.55}, 'contrarian': {'p_yes': 0.81, 'confidence': 0.55}}, 'spread': 0.06, 'individual_p_yes': {'base_rate': 0.87, 'evidence_driven': 0.87, 'contrarian': 0.81}}
5. Devil's Advocate Sonnet · legacy v2 Market price revealed
Reasoning Flaw Asymmetric Evidence Time Awareness Issue
Challenges
  1. The forecaster acknowledges the Kalshi market is at 99% with extremely high depth and volume, and that the election has already occurred with a 'landslide' result, yet still assigns only 85-87% probability. The forecaster's main justification for the ~13% residual uncertainty is the absence of exact numeric margins in retrieved sources. However, the market at 99% with 27,326 depth and 5,049 daily contracts almost certainly reflects participants who HAVE seen the actual certified results. The election occurred on April 7, 2026, and it is now April 12 — results are publicly available and would be known to market participants.
  2. The forecaster treats 'landslide' as ambiguous (could mean 14-17%), but this is inconsistent with the market signal. If the margin were in the 14-17% range (below 18%), the market would not be at 99% — it would be at or near 0%. The fact that the market is at 99% with enormous liquidity effectively confirms the margin exceeded 18%. The forecaster's 12% downside scenario (that 'landslide' might mean less than 18%) is essentially ruled out by the market's near-certainty.
  3. The forecaster's reasoning contains an internal contradiction: they note the Kalshi market at 99% as STRONG UP evidence, yet their final forecast only reaches 85%. If the market price is genuinely treated as strong evidence that the actual result exceeded 18%, the forecast should be much higher. The forecaster seems to be discounting this evidence inappropriately.
  4. The election results from April 7 would be publicly available by April 12 — vote counts are typically reported on election night and certified shortly after. The forecaster's claim of an 'information gap' regarding exact vote totals is likely a failure to find readily available information rather than genuine uncertainty about the outcome. The 5-day lag between the election and the forecast date means certified or at minimum unofficial results are certainly known.
  5. The base rate analysis (0/4 exceeded 18%) is given too much weight relative to the post-hoc evidence. The election has already happened and been described as a landslide with a market at 99%. Historical base rates become nearly irrelevant once the actual outcome is (effectively) known.
Suggested adjustment: +12pp
The election occurred 5 days ago. Results are publicly known. The market at 99% with enormous depth and volume reflects actual certified/reported results, not speculation. The forecaster's 12% residual uncertainty for a 'landslide might mean less than 18%' scenario is effectively ruled out by the high-liquidity market pricing. The forecaster is treating a known (to the market) outcome as still uncertain due to a gap in their own retrieved sources, which is a reasoning error about information availability, not genuine outcome uncertainty. Forecast should be ~0.97.
Market comparison: Forecaster: 85.0%, Market: 99.0%. The 14% divergence is NOT justified. The election already occurred 5 days ago, results are publicly available, and the market with 27,326 depth reflects actual knowledge of the margin. The forecaster's uncertainty stems from not having the exact numbers in their retrieved sources, but this is an information retrieval limitation, not genuine outcome uncertainty. The market is almost certainly correct here.
6. Aggregator Opus · final calibrated forecast
97% (92% confidence)
The 2026 Wisconsin Supreme Court election occurred on April 7, 2026 — 5 days before the forecast date. Chris Taylor won in what sources describe as a 'landslide' with a 9:1 fundraising advantage against an exceptionally weak opponent. The Devil's Advocate critique is correct on all counts: I ACCEPT challenges 1-5. The market at 99% with 27,326 depth almost certainly reflects participants who have seen the actual certified vote totals, which would have been reported on election night. My independent estimate's 12% residual uncertainty was based on not having retrieved the exact numeric margin, but this is an information retrieval failure on my part, not genuine outcome uncertainty — the results are publicly known and the high-liquidity market confirms the margin exceeded 18%. I set my estimate at 0.97 rather than 0.99 only to retain minimal uncertainty for edge cases like a recount or data entry error affecting the official certified margin.