IA · Senate 2026 · Updated Aug 27, 2026, 2:03 a.m. ET
Iowa
Rated Lean R
Ashley Hinson wins this seat in 78 in 100 simulations. Call it favored, but far from certain.
Ashley HinsonR78 in 100- Josh TurekD22 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 +12.0
- IncumbencyEven
- National environmentD +5.1
- FundraisingR +0.3
- Fundamentals sayR +7.2
- The polls sayR +5.2
- Blended forecast marginR +6.3
The blend puts 46 percent of its weight on the polls and 54 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 Ashley Hinson wins, read as an implied probability. Shown for comparison only. This is not betting advice, and market prices never feed the model.
- Ashley Hinson winsThis forecast78 in 100
- Ashley Hinson winsKalshi59 in 100
- Ashley Hinson winsPolymarket61 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Suffolk University | Aug 20–23 | 500 LV | 41–45 | R +4.0 | +1.2 | 73% |
| Emerson College | Aug 2–4 | 712 LV | 45–48 | R +3.0 | +0.9 | 24% |
| New York Times / Siena University | Jun 15–27 | 600 LV | 46–48 | R +2.0 | — | <1% |
| Beacon Research (D)/ Shaw & Co. Research (R) | Jun 23–27 | 1,003 RV | 50–46 | D +4.0 | +1.0 | 2% |
| Cygnal (R) | Jun 16–19 | 600 LV | 44–46 | R +2.0 | +1.2 | <1% |
| Global Strategy Group (D) | Jun 8–11 | 1,000 LV | 47–45 | D +2.0 | +0.1 | <1% |
| Public Policy Polling (D) | Jun 3–4 | 557 RV | 46–46 | Even | +0.4 | <1% |
| Echelon Insights (R) | Apr 3–9 | 377 LV | 46–45 | D +1.0 | +0.7 | <1% |
| GQR (D) | Mar 10–16 | 1,200 LV | 43–47 | R +4.0 | −0.2 | <1% |
| Change Research (D) | Jan 8–11 | 1,108 LV | 41–44 | R +3.0 | — | <1% |
How the weights, the blend, and the simulation work is spelled out on the methodology page.