Presidential Election 2027Probabilities of winning, recalculated every day
Raphaël Glucksmann
Photo: Mathieu Delmestre, Public domain, Wikimedia Commons

Candidates

Raphaël Glucksmann

PP — PS – Place publique

1st-round score
13.2% 5.2–23.4
Qualifies for the 2nd round
28%
Comes first in the 1st round
6%
Wins the election
8% 6–8%

Model, not a poll · spread across scenarios · 80% interval · 1 Nov 2026

Profile

Experimental · automatically generated (local model) from Wikipedia and the press — may contain errors.

Raphaël Glucksmann, founder of the Place publique movement and Member of the European Parliament, is identified as a potential candidate for the 2027 presidential election, backed by part of the Socialist Party. His campaign faces internal challenges regarding unity and security incidents during his field visits.

Strengths

  • According to Le Parisien (centrist), he enjoys a positive image among certain contacts in Brussels, where he is perceived as having scored points. Wikipédia ; Le Parisien Centre
  • According to L'Opinion (center-right), he attracts a portion of the center-left electorate that is turning away from Édouard Philippe. L'Opinion Centre-right · 26 Oct 2026
  • He appointed Socialist Senator Alexandre Ouizille as campaign director to steer his candidacy. Le Nouvel Obs Centre-left · 26 Oct 2026 ; Le Parisien Centre

Weaknesses

  • Several media outlets, including Sud Ouest and blue News, highlight the difficulty for Raphaël Glucksmann to unite the entire Socialist Party behind his candidacy. blue News · 31 Oct 2026 ; Sud Ouest · 31 Oct 2026
  • According to 20 Minutes and 7sur7.be, the candidate faces difficulties campaigning on the ground due to incidents, insults, and harassment. 7sur7.be · 31 Oct 2026 ; 20 Minutes · 28 Oct 2026
  • L'Opinion (center-right) notes that his refusal to use the TikTok platform, which he criticizes, exposes his team to mockery and complicates his digital communication. L'Opinion Centre-right · 26 Oct 2026

Text from Wikipedia (CC BY-SA 4.0)

Polls and trend

Dots: one first-round poll. Line: model average. Band: 80% interval.

How to read this chart. Each dot is a published poll (pollster, end date of fieldwork); the line joins the average score estimated by the model. Hover over a dot to see the pollster and sample size.

Learn more

Polls from different pollsters are not directly comparable: each has its own method and usual bias, which the model corrects in part. The spread between dots on the same day reflects this diversity as much as statistical uncertainty.

View the figures as a table
DatePollster1st-round scoren =
22 Oct 2026Cluster1714.0%3000
22 Oct 2026Cluster1713.0%3000
22 Oct 2026OpinionWay13.0%973
22 Oct 2026Ipsos13.0%1500
22 Oct 2026Ipsos15.5%1500
22 Oct 2026Ipsos14.0%1500
22 Oct 2026Ipsos13.0%1500
21 Oct 2026Harris Interactive13.0%2094
21 Oct 2026Harris Interactive13.0%2094
21 Oct 2026Harris Interactive12.0%2094
21 Oct 2026Harris Interactive14.0%2094
21 Oct 2026Harris Interactive12.0%2094

Estimated share and uncertainty fan

Experimental: this block does not feed into the probability of winning. Left of the vertical line: dots are polls, the line is the smoothed median of the estimate, the pale band its 80% interval. Right: the state estimated on the day of the last poll, carried forward 28 days with the same random walk; three nested bands hold 50, 80 and 95% of the draws. It measures the uncertainty of the estimate; it does not announce the vote.

Experimental · does not feed into the probability of winning

Experimental: estimated share of Raphaël Glucksmann and uncertainty fan Last smoothed median: 12.6% on 22 Oct, from 36 polls. Fan at 28 days: 50% of draws between 11.6 and 13.4%, 80% between 10.8 and 14.4%, 95% between 10.0 and 15.4%. 05101520 Share of voting intentions (%) 24 Apr17 Aug10 Dec3 Apr27 Jul19 Nov Date 24 Apr · Odoxa · 11.5 %19 May · Harris Interactive · 10.0 %1 Oct · Cluster17 · 15.0 %7 Oct · Harris Interactive · 12.0 %28 May · Ipsos · 11.0 %8 Jul · Ifop · 12.0 %8 Jul · Harris Interactive · 10.0 %9 Jul · OpinionWay · 9.0 %10 Jul · Elabe · 8.5 %24 Jul · Cluster17 · 10.0 %19 Aug · Harris Interactive · 10.0 %25 Aug · Ifop · 11.0 %28 Aug · Elabe · 12.5 %1 Sep · Cluster17 · 11.5 %2 Sep · Ipsos · 11.5 %3 Sep · OpinionWay · 11.0 %9 Sep · OpinionWay · 9.0 %9 Sep · Ipsos · 11.5 %10 Sep · Harris Interactive · 9.0 %10 Sep · OpinionWay · 9.0 %16 Sep · Cluster17 · 12.0 %21 Sep · YouGov · 8.0 %24 Sep · Harris Interactive · 10.0 %29 Sep · Ifop · 11.0 %7 Oct · Odoxa · 9.5 %8 Oct · Harris Interactive · 10.0 %14 Oct · Ifop · 16.0 %14 Oct · OpinionWay · 13.0 %15 Oct · YouGov · 12.0 %15 Oct · Cluster17 · 11.0 %16 Oct · Elabe · 15.5 %19 Oct · Ifop · 13.5 %21 Oct · Harris Interactive · 12.0 %22 Oct · Ipsos · 13.0 %22 Oct · OpinionWay · 13.0 %22 Oct · Cluster17 · 13.0 %
  • Poll
  • Smoothed median
  • 80% interval (past)
  • 50% fan
  • 80% fan
  • 95% fan
  • Carried-forward median
  • last poll

How to read this chart. Horizontal axis: time; vertical axis: the share of voting intentions, in %. Dots are polls, the line is the median of the estimate. After the vertical line the bands widen: the further from the last poll, the less certain the estimate.

Learn more

The three nested bands hold 50, 80 and 95% of the draws of the estimated state, carried forward with the same random walk as the opinion model; they contain neither future polls nor the vote itself. Validation shows this layer's intervals are too narrow: read them as a lower bound on uncertainty. The table under the chart gives the same values as numbers.

View the figures as a table · Fan values
Estimated share in %, by percentile of the draws.
Days after the last pollDatePercentile 2.5Percentile 10Percentile 25Percentile 50Percentile 75Percentile 90Percentile 97.5
022 Oct11.812.112.312.512.813.113.3
729 Oct11.111.612.012.513.013.514.0
145 Nov10.711.311.912.513.213.914.6
2112 Nov10.311.111.712.513.314.115.0
2819 Nov10.010.811.612.513.414.415.4

Probability of winning, day by day

Line: main scenario. Band: spread across poll scenarios (min–max).

Reconstructed curve: the model replayed day by day on the polls already published. Days without a recent poll are missing.

How to read this chart. The line is the candidate's probability of winning over time, the band its uncertainty interval. It is reconstructed day by day on the polls already published.

Learn more

A falling probability does not say the candidate is "losing": it says that, given the known polls, a smaller share of simulations has them winning. The model knows neither manifestos nor events, only the numbers.

Second-round head-to-heads

How to read this table. Each line pits two candidates against each other in the second round. The first table gives the score of head-to-head polls; the second, the share of simulations in which the first named wins.

Learn more

Head-to-head polls test specific pairs on a given date; the model, for its part, simulates all possible pairs from the first round and vote transfers. The two figures can therefore differ without contradicting each other.

Second-round polls

Glucksmann – Le Pen43.5% 41.1–45.9 6 polls, latest on 22 Oct

80% interval — Second-round polls : 1st-round score A.

Most likely match-ups according to the model

Why it moved

These items coincided in time with the movement. The model does not prove a cause-and-effect link: a coincidence is not an explanation.

30 days

Probability of winning: 7.6% → 8.3% in 30 days (+0.6 pts)

Average 1st-round score: 12.3% → 13.2% (+0.9 pts)

Breakdown (probability, in points)
Polls leaving the window — 180 polls +0.1 pts
Ageing of polls −0.3 pts
New poll — 7 polls −1.8 pts
New poll — 7 polls +0.5 pts
New poll — 7 polls +0.4 pts
New poll — 7 polls +0.4 pts
New poll — 7 polls +0.6 pts
Change of main scenario — 28 polls −0.2 pts
New poll — 5 polls +0.1 pts
House-effect correction +0.9 pts
Total+0.6 pts

Computed without any additional model: the same model, replayed changing one thing at a time. The lines add up to the total.

Market: no quote on both dates.

In the press over the same period

39 articles (previous period: 0) · Attention spike on 30 Oct: 12 articles against 1 on average · Attention spike on 31 Oct: 15 articles against 2 on average · Topics : Alliances 24, Polls 3, Immigration 2, Europe 1

These items coincided in time with the movement. The model does not prove a cause-and-effect link: a coincidence is not an explanation.

How to read this table. Each card breaks down the period's movement in probability into contributions: published polls, vote transfers, other items. The sum of the lines equals the total movement.

Learn more

The card names, for each contribution, the poll concerned (pollster, date). The market and the articles from the same interval are given separately, as context: they are not demonstrated causes.

In the press

What newspapers write is not voter support. None of these figures enters the probability.

How to read this table. The list shows recent articles in which the candidate is mentioned, with headline, outlet and date. Each headline links to the original article.

Learn more

The number of mentions measures press attention, not opinion: an article may be favourable, critical or purely factual, and the site does not judge. The outlets tracked cover the whole spectrum; their list is on the "Press" page.

Mentions : 39

What the markets say

How to read this chart. The solid line is the model's probability; the other lines are betting-market quotes. Above the chart is the day's gap.

Learn more

A betting market reflects money stakes, with their biases and liquidity. It is neither a poll nor the truth: it is another source, shown next to the model so that everyone can compare.

Model 8% · Market 4% (kalshi) · Gap +4 pts — within the noise