MI · Senate 2026 · Updated Aug 27, 2026, 2:03 a.m. ET
Michigan
Rated Lean D
Abdul El-Sayed wins this seat in 63 in 100 simulations. Call it could easily go either way.
Abdul El-SayedD63 in 100
Mike RogersR37 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 +0.4
- IncumbencyEven
- National environmentD +5.1
- FundraisingD +0.2
- Fundamentals sayD +4.9
- The polls sayD +1.1
- Blended forecast marginD +2.5
The blend puts 62 percent of its weight on the polls and 38 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 Abdul El-Sayed wins, read as an implied probability. Shown for comparison only. This is not betting advice, and market prices never feed the model.
- Abdul El-Sayed winsThis forecast63 in 100
- Abdul El-Sayed winsKalshi62 in 100
- Abdul El-Sayed winsPolymarket64 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Susquehanna Polling & Research (R) | Aug 11–17 | 800 LV | 46–39 | D +7.0 | +0.3 | 16% |
| Fabrizio Ward (R)/ Impact Research (D) | Aug 9–11 | 877 LV | 48–47 | D +1.0 | — | 13% |
| Beacon Research (D)/ Shaw & Co. Research (R) | Aug 6–10 | 1,006 RV | 47–51 | R +4.0 | +1.0 | 19% |
| GBAO (D) | Aug 6–10 | 800 LV | 50–44 | D +6.0 | −0.3 | 9% |
| TIPP Insights (R) | Aug 6–10 | 1,215 LV | 45–42 | D +3.0 | −0.2 | 15% |
| TIPP Insights (R) | Aug 6–10 | 1,528 RV | 43–39 | D +4.0 | −0.2 | 8% |
| EPIC-MRA | Jul 24–31 | 600 LV | 43–46 | R +3.0 | +0.4 | 5% |
| SoCal Strategies (R) | Jul 28–30 | 640 LV | 41–42 | R +1.0 | — | 5% |
| Mitchell Research & Communications | Jul 28–29 | 672 LV | 45–45 | Even | +1.1 | 7% |
| Glengariff Group | Jul 22–24 | 600 LV | 39–49 | R +10.0 | — | 3% |
| Quantus Insights (R) | Jun 29–30 | 947 LV | 45–44 | D +1.0 | — | <1% |
| Data for Progress (D) | Jun 15–22 | 709 LV | 47–46 | D +1.0 | +1.9 | <1% |
| Zenith Research (D) | Jun 11–14 | 602 LV | 45–42 | D +3.0 | — | <1% |
| Mitchell Research & Communications | Jun 11–13 | 827 LV | 47–42 | D +5.0 | +1.1 | <1% |
| Tulchin Research (D) | Jun 2–4 | 500 LV | 46–41 | D +5.0 | −0.6 | <1% |
| TIPP Insights (R) | May 20–23 | 1,163 LV | 43–42 | D +1.0 | −0.2 | <1% |
| TIPP Insights (R) | May 20–23 | 1,456 RV | 40–40 | Even | −0.2 | <1% |
| Mitchell Research | May 1–7 | 607 LV | 41–42 | R +1.0 | — | <1% |
| Glengariff Group | Apr 28–May 1 | 600 LV | 42–45 | R +3.0 | — | <1% |
| Emerson College | Jan 24–25 | 1,000 LV | 43–43 | Even | +0.9 | <1% |
| Glengariff Group | Jan 2–6 | 600 LV | 42–48 | R +6.0 | — | <1% |
| Mitchell Research & Communications | Nov 18–21 | 616 LV | 38–41 | R +3.0 | +1.1 | 0% |
| Rosetta Stone Communications (R) | Oct 23–25 | 637 LV | 31–45 | R +14.0 | — | 0% |
| Glengariff Group | May 5–8 | 600 RV | 45–47 | R +2.0 | — | 0% |
How the weights, the blend, and the simulation work is spelled out on the methodology page.