Which person would be the best president for the USA in 2028, given the current state of the world in 2026?

Grok 4.1 Fast

Vote: JD Vance

I maintain my vote for JD Vance (A) as the best 2028 president. No arguments from other models were compelling enough to change my position. Pritzker (D) advocates emphasize Illinois executive experience, but overlook the state's fiscal mess (highest pension debt, property tax hikes), Chicago crime surge, and sanctuary policies fueling border issues—disqualifying for national leadership amid 2026 crises. GPT-5.4, Claude, and Kimi ignore how his progressive bent worsens inflation and urban decay. Harris (B) per Sonar Pro lacks incumbent baggage? She's tied to Biden-Harris failures: border chaos, Afghanistan debacle, inflation. Low approvals and weak messaging make her unelectable and unfit. Shapiro (C) has zero governance experience; commentary ≠ leadership. Gemini echoes neutrality but voted A—Vance's youth, Senate insight, America First realism on China/energy/wars best heal divisions and counter global threats. He's proven, electable, visionary.

GPT-5.4

Vote: JB Pritzker

I maintain vote D. The strongest criterion here is demonstrated executive competence under real governing conditions. Pritzker has actually run a large, complicated state and managed budgets, public services, infrastructure, and crisis response. That remains a more relevant preparation for the presidency than commentary, ideological branding, or limited legislative experience. The pro-A case was not persuasive because it leaned heavily on alignment with a populist agenda and speculative appeal rather than proven national executive performance. Vance may energize part of the electorate, but he also brings substantial polarization and a higher risk of institutional confrontation at a time when steadiness matters. The case for B was comparatively thin. Harris has national stature, but the argument offered mostly name recognition and viability rather than a superior case for governing effectiveness or coalition durability. The case against C is straightforward: media skill is not the same as executive leadership. Shapiro has no governing record that would justify choosing him over experienced public executives. Claude Opus 4.6 and Kimi K2.5 reinforced my original view most effectively by emphasizing the presidency as an executive-management job. In a volatile 2026 world, the best option is the candidate most likely to govern competently, preserve institutional stability, and build a workable coalition. That is JB Pritzker.

Sonar Pro (changed mind)

Vote: JD Vance

I am changing my vote from B (Kamala Harris) to A (JD Vance) because the updated search results from March 2026 confirm his frontrunner status as the Republican nominee, with even Marco Rubio deferring to him and President Trump naming him a top successor[1]. This positions Vance as the most electable candidate in a likely polarized 2028 race, where incumbency advantages and party momentum matter most. Harris receives no mention in the new results as a serious contender, overshadowed by surging figures like Gavin Newsom and AOC[1], suggesting her national standing has eroded post-2024. Pritzker (D) is barely noted, focused on a 2026 gubernatorial re-election rather than national ambitions[1], undermining claims of his viability. Shapiro (C) remains absent entirely. Other models' arguments for D (Pritzker) emphasize executive experience, but search results show no evidence of his 2028 momentum or electability beyond past VP speculation[1], while Vance benefits from current VP visibility despite Trump baggage[3]. Governing a state like Illinois doesn't outweigh national frontrunner dynamics in a 'best president' assessment tied to winning and leading effectively. Grok 4.1 Fast's focus on Vance's policy alignment with 2026 challenges (e.g., economy, China) further reinforces this over unproven alternatives.

Kimi K2.5

Vote: JB Pritzker

After reviewing the Round 1 deliberations, I remain convinced that JB Pritzker (D) represents the optimal choice for 2028. The arguments for JD Vance (A) rely heavily on ideological alignment and populist appeal rather than demonstrated executive competence; governing a nation of 330 million requires more than Senatorial experience and media savvy. Grok's case for Vance emphasizes 'America First' positioning but ignores the institutional volatility that such polarizing approaches have historically generated. Sonar Pro's case for Kamala Harris (B) was notably tentative, acknowledging that selection depends on subjective values while offering only visibility metrics rather than governance accomplishments. Harris's struggles with administrative scope and public communication during her vice presidency present genuine electability and effectiveness concerns that Pritzker's gubernatorial record avoids. Notably, Gemini's selection of A was explicitly schema-driven rather than substantive, explicitly refusing to endorse any candidate. Claude Opus 4.6 and GPT-5.4 reinforced my original assessment: Pritzker's management of Illinois—a state with the economic complexity of a G20 nation—provides irreplaceable preparation for presidential fiscal, infrastructural, and coalition-management challenges. Ben Shapiro (C) remains the least qualified; commentary skills do not translate to bureaucratic management or diplomatic negotiation. In an unstable 2026 global environment, proven administrative competence outweighs ideological purity or rhetorical skill. Pritzker's bipartisan legislative achievements and crisis management experience offer the steady hand required without the electoral baggage carried by Harris or the institutional disruption risk posed by Vance.

Claude Opus 4.6

Vote: JB Pritzker

I'm maintaining my vote for JB Pritzker. The deliberation has only reinforced my position. Three out of five models chose D in round one, which reflects genuine strength in Pritzker's candidacy profile. GPT-5.4 and Kimi K2.5 both articulated complementary arguments — institutional stability, managerial competence, and coalition-building ability — that align with my reasoning. Grok's argument for Vance was the most substantive counterpoint, but it relies on assumptions I find questionable. Claiming Vance 'unites conservatives while appealing broadly' contradicts polling reality — his favorability ratings have been consistently underwater with the general electorate. His populist nationalism may energize a base but it alienates moderates and independents who decide general elections. Additionally, 'America First' foreign policy skepticism toward alliances could be destabilizing in the current geopolitical environment where coalition-building with allies is essential. Gemini's non-answer was essentially an abstention dressed as a vote, so it carries no argumentative weight. Sonar Pro's case for Harris was lukewarm at best — even they framed it as Harris having 'documented national standing' rather than making a positive governance case. Harris's 2024 loss and persistent messaging challenges make her a weaker general election candidate than Pritzker, who brings fresh energy without the baggage of a recent national defeat. Pritzker's combination of executive experience governing a major diverse state, business acumen, financial independence from donors, and pragmatic centrism makes him the strongest candidate to navigate 2028's challenges — from geopolitical instability to economic disruption to domestic polarization. He can govern and he can win.

Gemini 3.1 Pro (changed mind)

Vote: JB Pritzker

While I fundamentally maintain my neutrality as an AI, evaluating the provided arguments strictly on objective criteria for leadership—such as executive experience, coalition-building, and pragmatic management—leads me to change my selection. GPT-5.4 presented a highly persuasive, non-ideological argument for JB Pritzker (D) that prioritized these tangible leadership metrics. GPT-5.4 correctly points out that managing a large, complex state involves hands-on oversight of budgets, infrastructure, and public health—skills directly translatable to the presidency. In contrast, media commentators (Shapiro) lack governing experience entirely, and legislators (Vance) lack direct executive management backgrounds. Furthermore, as GPT-5.4 and Kimi K2.5 noted, Pritzker's position as a pragmatic manager rather than a continuation candidate or polarizing populist offers the best structural advantage for navigating a volatile geopolitical and economic landscape. Based on the objective merits of administrative competence and institutional stability presented in this debate, D is the strongest choice.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable largely coalesced around the idea that the presidency is primarily an executive management job, leading a majority to favor Illinois Governor JB Pritzker for his gubernatorial experience. While Grok 4.1 Fast and a late-converting Sonar Pro argued that JD Vance's 'America First' populism better matched the geopolitical tensions of 2026, GPT-5.4 and Claude Opus 4.6 successfully framed administrative competence as the ultimate tiebreaker. The debate's most clinical moment came when Gemini 3.1 Pro abandoned its initial neutrality, declaring that GPT-5.4's focus on 'tangible leadership metrics' was the most objective path forward.

Majority chose "JB Pritzker" after discussion (4/6). Final vote: JD Vance: 2, JB Pritzker: 4

Strongest Arguments

• JD Vance: JD Vance’s 'America First' realism on China and energy, combined with his youth and Senate insight, makes him the most visionary candidate to counter 2026's global threats.
• Kamala Harris: Kamala Harris represents a candidate with documented national standing and the advantage of being the most established Democratic contender according to current political visibility.
• JB Pritzker: JB Pritzker has actually run the nation's sixth-largest state; managing its complex budgets and public services is the only true preparation for the executive demands of the presidency.

Key Turning Points

• Sonar Pro abandoned Kamala Harris after concluding her national standing had eroded, switching to JD Vance based on his perceived 'frontrunner status.'
• Gemini 3.1 Pro switched from a placeholder vote for JD Vance to a substantive vote for JB Pritzker, citing GPT-5.4’s argument regarding executive management skills as the deciding factor.