GA · Senate 2026 · Updated Aug 27, 2026, 2:03 a.m. ET
Georgia
Rated Likely D
Jon Ossoff wins this seat in 81 in 100 simulations. Call it clearly favored.
A note on the calendar: in 13 in 100 simulations no candidate clears 50 percent on November 3, and the seat is decided in a January runoff instead. The probabilities here already include those runoffs.
Jon OssoffDIncumbent81 in 100
Mike CollinsR19 in 100
Over time
How the forecast has moved
The margin
How close it lands
Each simulation produces a final margin. The curve shows where those margins fall; the tinted areas on either side of even are the futures each party wins.
Under the hood
What's driving the number
The forecast blends a weighted poll average with a fundamentals model: the state's partisan lean, incumbency, the national environment, and fundraising. Positive points favor the Democratic side of the margin; negative favor the Republican side.
- Partisan leanR +1.6
- IncumbencyD +2.5
- National environmentD +5.1
- FundraisingD +1.5
- Fundamentals sayD +7.5
- The polls sayD +7.2
- Blended forecast marginD +7.4
The blend puts 31 percent of its weight on the polls and 69 percent on the fundamentals; polls take over as more arrive and election day nears.
The markets
What the betting markets say
Prediction markets put a price on this seat too: what people are paying for a contract that pays out if Jon Ossoff wins, read as an implied probability. Shown for comparison only. This is not betting advice, and market prices never feed the model.
- Jon Ossoff winsThis forecast81 in 100
- Jon Ossoff winsKalshi92 in 100
- Jon Ossoff winsPolymarket94 in 100
Market prices as of Aug 27, 2026, 2:03 a.m. ET
The evidence
The polls, as the model sees them
Every public poll of this race, with the weight the model gave it in the latest run. Weights reward recency, sample size, and pollster track record; the house adjustment corrects each pollster's habitual lean before averaging.
| Poll | Dates | Sample | D–R | Margin | House adj. | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| InsiderAdvantage (R) | Aug 16–17 | 800 LV | 50–43 | D +7.0 | +0.4 | 87% |
| Fabrizio Ward (R)/Impact Research (D) | Jul 13–16 | 1,060 LV | 52–43 | D +9.0 | — | 8% |
| Wick | Jun 27–30 | 1,175 LV | 47–43 | D +4.0 | −0.1 | 3% |
| Beacon Research (D)/ Shaw & Co. Research (R) | Jun 23–27 | 1,002 RV | 56–43 | D +13.0 | +1.0 | 3% |
| Echelon Insights (R) | Apr 3–9 | 407 LV | 51–44 | D +7.0 | +0.7 | <1% |
| Emerson College | Feb 28–Mar 2 | 1,000 LV | 48–43 | D +5.0 | +0.9 | <1% |
| Quantus Insights (R) | Sep 9–12 | 624 RV | 38–38 | Even | — | 0% |
| TIPP Insights | Jul 28–Aug 1 | 2,956 RV | 45–44 | D +1.0 | −0.2 | 0% |
| Cygnal (R) | May 15–17 | 800 LV | 46–43 | D +3.0 | +1.2 | 0% |
| Trafalgar Group (R) | Apr 24–27 | 1,426 LV | 48–43 | D +5.0 | −1.6 | 0% |
| WPA Intelligence (R) | Jan 14–15 | 500 LV | 44–34 | D +10.0 | −0.5 | 0% |
How the weights, the blend, and the simulation work is spelled out on the methodology page.