Idaho · Governor
Brad Little is almost certain to win. Projected candidate margin: Brad Little over Terri Pickens by 21.5 points. No two-party forecast is published for this race: a third candidate is on the ballot beside the Democrat and the Republican, so the forecast is published per candidate rather than as a two-party margin.
Show all others (2)
John R. Stegner
Other is a combined forecast; individual estimates are not published.
Ballot eligibility alone supplies no quantitative estimate. Other is a collective share, not any named candidate’s forecast. Official ballot sources: John R. Stegner (checked 2026-10-05).
Under each share, its likely range (80 in 100 simulations) · * incumbent
Forecast history
Latest reading · Oct 28 · first published Oct 6 · Lead between the top two candidates, in points of all votes. Methodology
Sep 23 – Oct 5: these days carry only a Democrat-against-Republican reading, which is not that lead with more than two candidates on the ballot, so they are not drawn.
Oct 6: The candidate field changed. Readings before and after this day are not compared.
Oct 24: John Stegner is forecast as a third candidate from this day; earlier readings are of the Democrat against the Republican alone.
About this series
Reconstructed with the current model Aug 1 – Sep 22; published readings Oct 6 – Oct 28. Each reconstructed day is the current model on that day’s own inputs, not a forecast published then. Corrections are dated in the changelog.
Faded: CTMM 2.2 reconstructed history: computed after the fact with each date's available polls and environment, without expert ratings; not an issued forecast. Issued forecasts begin at the launch marker.
CTMM 2.2 readings for 2026-09-16, 2026-09-17, 2026-09-18 were computed after the fact with each day's available inputs: no edition was issued on those days. Not an issued forecast.
Data table
| Date | Lead | Chance | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 28 | R+21.5 | Brad Little win 99.0% | Published forecast |
| Oct 27 | R+21.5 | Brad Little win 98.9% | Published forecast |
| Oct 26 | R+21.5 | Brad Little win 98.9% | Published forecast |
| Oct 25 | R+21.6 | Brad Little win 99.0% | Published forecast |
| Oct 24 | R+21.6 | Brad Little win 99.0% | Published forecast |
| Oct 23 | R+20.0 | Brad Little win 98.8% | Published forecast |
| Oct 22 | R+20.1 | Brad Little win 98.8% | Published forecast |
| Oct 21 | R+20.1 | Brad Little win 98.8% | Published forecast |
| Oct 20 | R+20.2 | Brad Little win 98.9% | Published forecast |
| Oct 19 | R+20.3 | Brad Little win 98.9% | Published forecast |
| Oct 18 | R+20.3 | Brad Little win 98.9% | Published forecast |
| Oct 17 | R+20.4 | Brad Little win 98.9% | Published forecast |
| Oct 16 | R+20.5 | Brad Little win 98.9% | Published forecast |
| Oct 15 | R+20.5 | Brad Little win 98.9% | Published forecast |
| Oct 14 | R+20.6 | Brad Little win 98.9% | Published forecast |
| Oct 13 | R+20.7 | Brad Little win 98.9% | Published forecast |
| Oct 12 | R+20.8 | Brad Little win 98.9% | Published forecast |
| Oct 11 | R+20.8 | Brad Little win 98.9% | Published forecast |
| Oct 10 | R+20.9 | Brad Little win 98.9% | Published forecast |
| Oct 9 | R+20.9 | Brad Little win 98.9% | Published forecast |
| Oct 8 | R+21.0 | Brad Little win 98.9% | Published forecast |
| Oct 7 | R+21.1 | Brad Little win 98.9% | Published forecast |
| Oct 6 | R+21.6 | Brad Little win 98.9% | Published forecast |
| Sep 22 | R+29.3 | Brad Little win 99.4% | Recomputed with the current model |
| Sep 21 | R+29.3 | Brad Little win 99.4% | Recomputed with the current model |
| Sep 20 | R+29.4 | Brad Little win 99.4% | Recomputed with the current model |
| Sep 19 | R+29.4 | Brad Little win 99.4% | Recomputed with the current model |
| Sep 18 | R+29.4 | Brad Little win 99.4% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 17 | R+29.4 | Brad Little win 99.4% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 16 | R+29.5 | Brad Little win 99.4% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 15 | R+29.5 | Brad Little win 99.4% | Recomputed with the current model |
| Sep 14 | R+29.5 | Brad Little win 99.4% | Recomputed with the current model |
| Sep 13 | R+29.6 | Brad Little win 99.4% | Recomputed with the current model |
| Sep 12 | R+29.6 | Brad Little win 99.4% | Recomputed with the current model |
| Sep 11 | R+29.7 | Brad Little win 99.4% | Recomputed with the current model |
| Sep 10 | R+29.7 | Brad Little win 99.4% | Recomputed with the current model |
| Sep 9 | R+29.7 | Brad Little win 99.4% | Recomputed with the current model |
| Sep 8 | R+29.8 | R win 99.4% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 7 | R+30.8 | R win 99.4% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 6 | R+29.9 | R win 99.4% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 5 | R+29.6 | R win 99.4% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 4 | R+29.7 | R win 99.4% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 3 | R+29.7 | R win 99.4% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 2 | R+29.8 | R win 99.4% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 1 | R+29.8 | R win 99.4% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 31 | R+29.9 | R win 99.4% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 30 | R+29.9 | R win 99.4% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 29 | R+30.0 | R win 99.4% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 28 | R+30.0 | R win 99.4% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 27 | R+30.1 | R win 99.4% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 26 | R+30.1 | R win 99.4% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 25 | R+30.2 | R win 99.4% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 24 | R+30.2 | R win 99.4% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 23 | R+30.4 | R win 99.4% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 22 | R+32.3 | R win 99.5% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 21 | R+32.3 | R win 99.6% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 20 | R+32.3 | R win 99.6% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 19 | R+32.4 | R win 99.6% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 18 | R+32.4 | R win 99.6% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 17 | R+32.4 | R win 99.6% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 16 | R+32.5 | R win 99.6% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 15 | R+32.5 | R win 99.6% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 14 | R+32.6 | R win 99.6% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 13 | R+32.6 | R win 99.6% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 12 | R+41.1 | R win 99.8% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 11 | R+41.1 | R win 99.8% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 10 | R+41.1 | R win 99.8% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 9 | R+41.1 | R win 99.8% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 8 | R+41.1 | R win 99.8% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 7 | R+41.1 | R win 99.8% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 6 | R+41.2 | R win 99.8% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 5 | R+41.2 | R win 99.8% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 4 | R+41.2 | R win 99.8% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 3 | R+41.2 | R win 99.8% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 2 | R+41.2 | R win 99.8% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 1 | R+41.2 | R win 99.8% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
The polls
Polling average · 2 polls · newer and larger polls count for more
53.7Brad Little32.0Terri Pickens11.4John Stegner
| Fieldwork | Added | Pollster | Result | Sample |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| from 2026-10-21 | 5d ago | VoteNexus ↗ | 52.7Brad Little32.3Terri Pickens10.8John StegnerEvery candidate named | 700 LV |
| from 2026-09-13 | Advanced Targeting Research ↗ | R+10.0D 27% · R 37% | 700 RV | |
| from 2026-07-28 | Change Research ↗ | 55.8Brad Little31.4Terri Pickens12.8John StegnerEvery candidate named | 1,213 LV |
How the forecast uses these polls
The polling average above is the polls’ own: every poll in this race’s poll average, newer and larger polls counting for more and each pollster once, with nothing adjusted. What the forecast does with the polls is a separate matter, set out here.
The forecast reads this race two ways and publishes a figure halfway between the two. First, a weighted average of the 2 polls above that named every candidate: Brad Little ahead by 22.4 points. Newer and larger polls count for more. A poll paid for by a party or a campaign has the gap between Terri Pickens and Brad Little moved 2.0 points against the side that paid for it. Second, the forecast’s usual method, which also counts polls that asked about Terri Pickens and Brad Little alone, corrects for how polls have missed in past elections and blends in past results and the national mood: Brad Little ahead by 23.2 points. The two readings count equally, which gives Brad Little ahead by 22.8 points.
In these polls John Stegner averages 11.4%. With this little polling the forecast does not take John Stegner’s 11.4% at face value: candidates of this kind have typically finished near 4.0%, and it counts John Stegner at 7.2%, between the two. The difference returns to the other candidates. The forecast then simulates the election many times and publishes the average result: Brad Little 54.3%, Terri Pickens 32.8% and John Stegner 7.2%, a lead of 21.5 points for Brad Little.
Poll average R+16.7A poll’s weight halves every 60 days and grows with its sample. Each pollster counts once, at its best release. Every poll counts at its published margin, sponsored or not.In governor races the forecast then counts a poll sponsored by a party or campaign at full weight and moves its margin 2 points against that party, which leaves the average it reads the same for this race. It then applies a fitted correction of 2.5 points toward Republicans for governor races, measured from past polling error, before blending it with its other evidence.3 recorded polls · 3 in the poll average
Plain average, as the forecast took it: 11.4John Stegner · 2 polls
Each poll’s figures are shares of the people who picked a candidate. Undecided voters are left out, so the numbers run a little higher than the poll’s own headline figures, and a candidate who has since left the race is not counted.
How the candidate lead was built
Tap an input for its calculation and source.
Displayed values are rounded.
The two-party D-versus-R coordinate, step by step
The walk above decomposes the published candidate lead. The model also carries a latent Democrat-minus-Republican coordinate, which is the quantity chamber seat and control arithmetic runs on. It is shown here at the same steps as a secondary reading, not as this race’s published forecast margin.
| After this step | D−R coordinate |
|---|---|
| Fundamentals | R+35.9 |
| National environment | R+34.0 |
| Campaign finance | R+34.0 |
| This race’s polls | R+19.5 |
| Election rules & guards | R+20.8 |
| Historical calibration | R+23.2 |
| The candidate field | R+23.2 |
All calculations & sources
This race’s polls +12.633 points
What this race’s admitted polls move the leader-versus-runner-up gap by.
National environment +1.596 points
How much of the national climate reaches this race’s leader-versus-runner-up gap.
Fundamentals −31.242 points
What the fitted structural model contributes to the gap between the leader and the runner-up, before any of this cycle’s evidence.
Historical calibration −2.129 points
The calibration term fitted on past cycles, carried onto this gap.
The candidate field −1.235 points
What the field itself contributes: the third principals on the ballot and the election rule, which a two-party coordinate has nowhere to put.
Election rules & guards −1.095 points
Certified election-mechanics terms — ballot rules, guards and locks — as they bear on these two candidates.
These are the fitted model’s named contributions to the partisan coordinate, before the candidate-field calculation.
| Named factor | Contribution |
|---|---|
| FundamentalsThe admitted fitted baseline. Its surviving variables differ by office; the source detail above identifies those used for this race. | −35.88 |
| This race's pollsAdmitted head-to-head polls of this race, recency- and quality-weighted. | +14.51 |
| Historical calibrationThe House lane's calibration against certified past cycles. | −2.44 |
| National environmentThe national environment’s contribution to the prior. Polling can attenuate its influence; this value is not the national polling margin. | +1.83 |
| Structural terrain safeguardA bounded pull toward presidential terrain in heavily partisan states. | −1.26 |
| Other factors | 0.00 |
Where the votes are
The map of this race loads here.
Recent elections
| Election | Result | Votes cast |
|---|---|---|
| 2022 · Governor ↗ | R+40.2 | 592,603 |
| 2018 · Governor ↗ | R+21.6 | 605,131 |
| 2014 · Governor ↗ | R+15.0 | 439,830 |
| 2010 · Governor ↗ | R+26.3 | 452,535 |
Margins are the Democrat’s share of all votes cast minus the Republican’s.
Race context
- Turnout, 2018 midterm
- 48.8% 612,536 ballots
- Turnout, 2022 midterm
- 42.7% 595,350 ballots
- 2024 presidential margin
- R+37.5between the two parties
Turnout is ballots cast statewide as a share of the voting-eligible population. Source: University of Florida Election Lab ↗
Population profile
U.S. Census Bureau, 2022 American Community Survey 5-year estimates ↗
Coverage
1 quote
- Hear directly from Idaho candidates ahead of Election Day. Watch our interviews on YouTube to learn where candidates stand on the issues facing Idaho.
Gov. Brad Little, Sen. Jim Risch and Attorney General Raúl Labrador did not respond to our requests for interviews.
Watch the playlist: ↗
Boise State Public Radio · Official · 5d ago
curated state newsroom · recent Bluesky post · named-race match
Forecast as of October 28, 2026: Call the Map currently has Brad Little ahead of Terri Pickens by 21.5 points, with a 99 in 100 chance to win. The seat is currently held by a Republican. That result would keep the seat with Republicans. The forecast reads 2 polls that named every candidate in this race, listed under “The polls”. The current poll average is R+16.7; 3 public polls are recorded.