These markets measure different questions in a nested hierarchy. Michelle Obama's 1% reflects her odds of winning the 2028 US Presidential Election outright—a three-step journey requiring her to (1) declare candidacy, (2) win the Democratic nomination, and (3) defeat the Republican nominee. Jon Ossoff's 6% measures only step 2: winning the 2028 Democratic presidential nomination. Because Ossoff's market has a narrower scope, its odds should naturally be higher, assuming similar base-rate probability. Yet the 6× price difference (1% vs. 6%) is substantial, signaling that traders view these candidates very differently as potential nominees. The price spread reveals trader conviction about viability and intention. At 1%, Michelle Obama is priced as a remote longshot for the presidency, implying either that she is unlikely to run or, if she enters the nomination race, unlikely to prevail. Ossoff at 6% for the nomination alone suggests traders see meaningful (if still modest) chances he becomes the Democratic nominee. The gap likely reflects Ossoff's current Senate seat and legislative profile, making him a "known quantity" in electoral politics, versus Michelle Obama's complete absence from electoral participation. Traders appear skeptical that Obama intends to run, or believe that if she does, other candidates in a crowded field would be stronger nominees. These markets can diverge significantly. Michelle Obama's nomination odds are implicitly baked into her 1% general-election odds—they are likely far below 1%, perhaps 0.1–0.5%. If she were to announce a 2028 bid, her odds could re-price upward by 10–100×, creating a correlation shock across both markets. Conversely, Ossoff could win the Democratic nomination and still lose the general election. The two candidates also differ in electoral advantage: Ossoff has demonstrated Senate viability in Georgia, a competitive state, while Michelle Obama has a national profile but no track record in electoral politics. A crowded Democratic field would suppress nomination odds for every candidate uniformly, whereas a two-person race would concentrate those odds. Traders should monitor whether either candidate signals clear 2028 intent via public statements, interviews, or organizational moves. Watch the Democratic nomination field size—early frontrunner clarity versus a 10+ candidate primary dramatically reshapes nomination odds for each participant. Track 2028 general-election polling data and hypothetical matchups between potential Democratic nominees and Republican candidates; favorable polling can lift both a candidate's nomination and general-election odds. Finally, pay attention to party establishment signals, major donor activity, and early-stage endorsement networks. A single high-profile development can quickly shift market prices for lower-probability candidates.