TX · Senate 2026 · Updated Aug 27, 2026, 2:03 a.m. ET
Texas
Rated Lean R
Ken Paxton wins this seat in 60 in 100 simulations. Call it could easily go either way.
- Ken PaxtonR60 in 100
- James TalaricoD40 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 +11.7
- IncumbencyEven
- National environmentD +5.1
- FundraisingD +1.3
- Fundamentals sayR +5.3
- The polls sayD +1.1
- Blended forecast marginR +2.0
The blend puts 52 percent of its weight on the polls and 48 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 Ken Paxton wins, read as an implied probability. Shown for comparison only. This is not betting advice, and market prices never feed the model.
- Ken Paxton winsThis forecast60 in 100
- Ken Paxton winsKalshi51 in 100
- Ken Paxton winsPolymarket49 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| University of Texas /Texas Politics Project | Aug 5–13 | 1,200 RV | 42–39 | D +3.0 | +0.1 | 18% |
| Emerson College | Aug 9–10 | 1,000 LV | 46–47 | R +1.0 | +0.9 | 36% |
| YouGov Blue (D) | Jul 15–31 | 1,001 RV | 48–45 | D +3.0 | — | 5% |
| Wedgewood Polls | Jul 30–31 | 800 LV | 48–46 | D +2.0 | −0.1 | 9% |
| Texas Southern University | Jul 27–30 | 1,200 LV | 47–45 | D +2.0 | — | 9% |
| Texas A&M University /ReconMR/ Siena University | Jul 27–30 | 619 LV | 47–43 | D +4.0 | — | 7% |
| Beacon Research (D)/ Shaw & Co. Research (R) | Jul 23–27 | 1,005 RV | 51–48 | D +3.0 | +1.0 | 11% |
| Texas Public Opinion Research (D) | Jul 15–17 | 1,048 LV | 45–40 | D +5.0 | — | 4% |
| A2 Insights | Jun 23–28 | 618 LV | 48–46 | D +2.0 | — | <1% |
| New York Times / Siena University | Jun 19–27 | 656 LV | 47–47 | Even | — | <1% |
| SoCal Strategies (R) | Jun 21 | 800 LV | 47–49 | R +2.0 | — | <1% |
| University of Texas /Texas Politics Project | Jun 5–12 | 1,200 RV | 42–43 | R +1.0 | +0.1 | <1% |
| Texas A&M University /ReconMR/ Siena University | Jun 1–4 | 807 LV | 46–46 | Even | — | <1% |
| Quantus Insights | Jun 3–4 | 800 LV | 43–45 | R +2.0 | — | <1% |
| Texas Public Opinion Research (D) | May 27–28 | 1,670 LV | 47–44 | D +3.0 | — | <1% |
| Public Policy Polling (D) | May 22–23 | 643 RV | 45–38 | D +7.0 | +0.4 | <1% |
| Texas Southern University | Apr 22–May 6 | 1,223 LV | 45–45 | Even | — | <1% |
| University of Texas /Texas Politics Project | Apr 10–20 | 1,200 RV | 42–34 | D +8.0 | +0.1 | <1% |
| Texas Public Opinion Research (D) | Apr 17–20 | 1,018 LV | 46–41 | D +5.0 | — | <1% |
| Impact Research (D) | Mar 12–17 | 900 LV | 44–43 | D +1.0 | −0.1 | <1% |
| Public Policy Polling (D) | Mar 4–5 | 576 V | 47–45 | D +2.0 | +0.4 | <1% |
| University of Houston / YouGov | Jan 20–31 | 1,502 LV | 44–46 | R +2.0 | — | <1% |
| Emerson College | Jan 10–12 | 1,165 RV | 46–46 | Even | +0.9 | <1% |
| Ragnar Research Partners (R) | Nov 12–17 | 1,000 LV | 44–44 | Even | −0.3 | 0% |
| University of Houston / Texas Southern University | Sep 19–Oct 1 | 1,650 RV | 46–49 | R +3.0 | — | 0% |
| UT Tyler | Sep 17–24 | 1,032 RV | 37–38 | R +1.0 | — | 0% |
How the weights, the blend, and the simulation work is spelled out on the methodology page.