OH · Special election · Updated Oct 28, 2026, 2:01 a.m. ET
Ohio (special)
Rated Lean D
Sherrod Brown wins this seat in 65 in 100 simulations. Call it favored, but far from certain.
Sherrod BrownD65 in 100
Jon HustedRIncumbent35 in 100
The race
What this race is about
The numbers on this page come from the model. This section doesn't. It's a short briefing on the contest itself: who is running, what they are arguing about, and where each side's strength lies.
The matchup
A special election for the last two years of the term JD Vance vacated for the vice presidency. Sherrod Brown, who held this state's other seat for three terms before losing to Bernie Moreno in 2024, is trying to come back against Jon Husted, the former lieutenant governor Gov. DeWine appointed in January 2025. Both cleared their May primaries without a fight. Husted has won statewide before, but never as a federal incumbent.
The issues
Inflation towers over everything else here. Four in ten Ohio voters call it their top issue, far ahead of the rest. The policy fight runs through health care costs: Brown campaigns on the insulin price cap and Medicaid, and hits Husted's votes on subsidies and the 2025 budget law. Brown's union and manufacturing identity, the dignity-of-work message he has run on for decades, is the spine of his pitch.
Who has the edge, and where
August polling leans Brown, with leads of 4 to 8 points in the better-known surveys, though averages disagree more than usual. He has out-raised Husted four quarters running, including $14 million to $3.4 million in the spring. The state is the problem. Ohio went for Trump by double digits twice, so Brown has to outrun its lean again through union households, the Mahoning Valley, and the Columbus and Cincinnati suburbs.
The environment
This is the year a red-state Democrat needs. The national mood tilts against the president's party, and a midterm electorate is older and more college-educated than the 2024 one that beat Brown. Both parties' outside groups are treating the seat as a control race and spending like it.
Written by hand, not by the model. As of August 27, 2026.
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 +10.4
- IncumbencyR +1.0
- National environmentD +4.7
- FundraisingD +0.8
- Fundamentals sayR +6.0
- The polls sayD +3.5
- Blended forecast marginD +2.7
The blend puts 92 percent of its weight on the polls and 8 percent on the fundamentals; polls take over as more arrive and election day nears.
The field
How other forecasters see this race
Ours isn't the only model on this race. Where another forecaster publishes a number — or we've copied one in by hand from a paywalled model — it appears here beside ours, dated, because models update on their own schedules. Forecasts disagree for knowable reasons: different poll filters, different weights on the fundamentals, different priors.
- Sherrod Brown winsThis forecast65 in 100
- Sherrod Brown winsRametta & Hare · as of Oct 2767 in 100
No model is "right" before the votes are counted. How our number is made — and how it scored against 2012–2024 races — is on the methodology page.
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 Sherrod Brown wins, read as an implied probability. Shown for comparison only. This is not betting advice, and market prices never feed the model.
- Sherrod Brown winsThis forecast65 in 100
- Sherrod Brown winsKalshi68 in 100
- Sherrod Brown winsPolymarket70 in 100
Market prices as of Oct 28, 2026, 2:00 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Echelon Insights (R) | Oct 16–23 | 508 LV | 47–47 | Even | +0.9 | 9% |
| RedBox Research (D) | Oct 20–23 | 2,998 LV | 47–44 | D +3.0 | −0.1 | 15% |
| InsiderAdvantage (R) | Oct 21–22 | 1,200 LV | 47–44 | D +3.0 | −0.4 | 12% |
| Verasight/VoteHub | Oct 1–20 | 531 LV | 45–41 | D +4.0 | — | 3% |
| Versalight/VoteHub | Oct 1–20 | 531 LV | 45–41 | D +4.0 | — | 3% |
| Beacon Research (D)/ Shaw & Co. Research (R) | Oct 15–19 | 1,592 LV | 52–47 | D +5.0 | +1.1 | 14% |
| Beacon Research (D)/ Shaw & Co. Research (R) | Oct 15–19 | 2,005 RV | 53–46 | D +7.0 | +1.1 | 7% |
| Marist University | Oct 15–18 | 1,176 RV | 51–42 | D +9.0 | +0.9 | 6% |
| Marist University | Oct 15–18 | — | 48–44 | D +4.0 | +0.9 | 2% |
| ActiVote | Sep 26–Oct 18 | 400 LV | 50–50 | Even | +0.1 | 2% |
| Rasmussen Reports (R) | Oct 12–14 | 901 LV | 47–49 | R +2.0 | −0.6 | 4% |
| GS Strategy Group (R)/New River Strategies (D) | Oct 9–13 | 959 LV | 49–43 | D +6.0 | +0.2 | 4% |
| Bowling Green State University / YouGov | Sep 29–Oct 9 | 1,000 LV | 48–42 | D +6.0 | +0.1 | 2% |
| co/efficient (R) | Oct 5–6 | 925 LV | 43–44 | R +1.0 | −1.0 | 2% |
| SSRS | Sep 29–Oct 5 | 760 LV | 49–43 | D +6.0 | +0.4 | 3% |
| New York Times / Siena University | Sep 22–Oct 1 | 616 LV | 49–46 | D +3.0 | — | 1% |
| YouGov | Sep 18–30 | 3,780 LV | 49–45 | D +4.0 | +1.5 | 5% |
| InsiderAdvantage (R) | Sep 28–29 | 1,200 LV | 44–43 | D +1.0 | −0.4 | 1% |
| Suffolk University | Sep 23–27 | 500 LV | 47–44 | D +3.0 | +1.5 | 2% |
| Big Data Poll (R) | Sep 26–27 | 735 RV | 44–40 | D +4.0 | −0.3 | <1% |
| Big Data Poll (R) | Sep 26–27 | 680 LV | 46–41 | D +5.0 | −0.3 | <1% |
| Marist University | Sep 24–27 | 1,298 RV | 51–43 | D +8.0 | +0.9 | <1% |
| Rasmussen Reports (R) | Sep 22–23 | 1,115 LV | 46–43 | D +3.0 | −0.6 | <1% |
| Quantus Insights (R) | Sep 21–23 | 695 LV | 46–45 | D +1.0 | −0.4 | <1% |
| Trafalgar Group (R) | Sep 14–16 | 1,085 LV | 45–42 | D +3.0 | −1.7 | <1% |
| Bowling Green State University / YouGov | Sep 1–10 | 1,000 LV | 48–45 | D +3.0 | +0.1 | <1% |
| InsiderAdvantage (R) | Sep 8–9 | 1,200 LV | 47–42 | D +5.0 | −0.4 | <1% |
| Abacus Data | Aug 26–28 | 500 RV | 53–43 | D +10.0 | — | <1% |
| Abacus Data | Aug 26–28 | 306 LV | 52–46 | D +6.0 | — | <1% |
| Abacus Data | Aug 26–28 | — | 52–46 | D +6.0 | — | <1% |
| Wedgewood Polls | Aug 11–13 | 800 LV | 48–44 | D +4.0 | +0.1 | <1% |
| Beacon Research (D)/ Shaw & Co. Research (R) | Aug 6–10 | 1,008 RV | 53–45 | D +8.0 | +1.1 | <1% |
| Tulchin Research (D) | Jul 29–Aug 4 | 600 LV | 47–43 | D +4.0 | −0.6 | <1% |
| New York Times / Siena University | Jun 15–28 | 601 LV | 47–50 | R +3.0 | — | <1% |
| Fabrizio Ward (R)/ Impact Research (D) | Jun 14–16 | 800 LV | 48–45 | D +3.0 | — | <1% |
| Tulchin Research (D) | Jun 2–4 | 600 LV | 46–42 | D +4.0 | −0.6 | <1% |
| Beacon Research (D)/ Shaw & Co. Research (R) | May 28–Jun 1 | 1,015 RV | 53–45 | D +8.0 | +1.1 | <1% |
| Bowling Green State University / YouGov | Apr 7–14 | 1,000 RV | 47–50 | R +3.0 | +0.1 | <1% |
| Echelon Insights (R) | Apr 3–9 | 413 LV | 45–51 | R +6.0 | +0.9 | <1% |
| Quantus Insights (R) | Mar 13–14 | 784 LV | 44–46 | R +2.0 | −0.4 | <1% |
| OnMessage Public Strategies (R) | Mar 3–8 | 600 LV | 47–45 | D +2.0 | — | <1% |
| EMC Research (D) | Feb 10–22 | 1,343 LV | 51–47 | D +4.0 | −0.9 | <1% |
| Emerson College | Dec 6–8 | 850 RV | 46–49 | R +3.0 | +0.9 | 0% |
| Bowling Green State University / YouGov | Oct 2–14 | 800 RV | 49–48 | D +1.0 | +0.1 | 0% |
| Hart Research (D) | Sep 19–22 | 800 LV | 48–45 | D +3.0 | — | 0% |
| Emerson College | Aug 18–19 | 1,000 RV | 44–50 | R +6.0 | +0.9 | 0% |
| Bowling Green State University / YouGov | Apr 18–24 | 800 RV | 46–49 | R +3.0 | +0.1 | 0% |
| Bowling Green State University / YouGov | Feb 14–21 | 800 RV | 41–47 | R +6.0 | +0.1 | 0% |
How the weights, the blend, and the simulation work is spelled out on the methodology page.