AK-AL · U.S. House
Nick Begich has a 69.7% chance of winning after ranked-choice transfers. Projected final round: Nick Begich 54.4, Bill Hill 45.6 (of ballots still counting).
Show all others (1)
Final round, middle 80 in 100 simulations: Hill by 14.2 to Begich by 28.0.
Under each share, its likely range (80 in 100 simulations) · shares are first-choice votes; winning chances include ranked-choice transfers · * incumbent
Background
At-large; ranked-choice keeps it live.
Forecast history
Latest reading · Oct 28 · first published Oct 6 · Lead on first choices, before ranked-choice transfers. Methodology
Aug 22: Eric Hafner, Matt Schultz and Bill Hill are forecast as candidates from this day; earlier readings are of the Democrat against the Republican alone.
Aug 31: The candidate field changed: Matt Schultz is no longer in it and James C. McDermott is in it. Readings before and after this day are not compared.
About this series
Reconstructed with the current model Aug 1 – Oct 5; 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 | First-choice lead | Chance | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 28 | R+11.5 | Nick Begich win 69.7% | Published forecast |
| Oct 27 | R+11.6 | Nick Begich win 69.9% | Published forecast |
| Oct 26 | R+11.5 | Nick Begich win 69.8% | Published forecast |
| Oct 25 | R+11.5 | Nick Begich win 69.9% | Published forecast |
| Oct 24 | R+11.6 | Nick Begich win 70.2% | Published forecast |
| Oct 23 | R+11.5 | Nick Begich win 70.1% | Published forecast |
| Oct 22 | R+11.5 | Nick Begich win 70.0% | Published forecast |
| Oct 21 | R+11.5 | Nick Begich win 71.4% | Published forecast |
| Oct 20 | R+13.4 | Nick Begich win 74.1% | Published forecast |
| Oct 19 | R+13.3 | Nick Begich win 74.1% | Published forecast |
| Oct 18 | R+13.4 | Nick Begich win 74.0% | Published forecast |
| Oct 17 | R+13.5 | Nick Begich win 74.4% | Published forecast |
| Oct 16 | R+13.4 | Nick Begich win 74.1% | Published forecast |
| Oct 15 | R+13.4 | Nick Begich win 75.6% | Published forecast |
| Oct 14 | R+13.4 | Nick Begich win 75.5% | Published forecast |
| Oct 13 | R+13.4 | Nick Begich win 75.5% | Published forecast |
| Oct 12 | R+13.3 | Nick Begich win 75.5% | Published forecast |
| Oct 11 | R+13.4 | Nick Begich win 75.8% | Published forecast |
| Oct 10 | R+13.5 | Nick Begich win 76.1% | Published forecast |
| Oct 9 | R+13.3 | Nick Begich win 75.7% | Published forecast |
| Oct 8 | R+13.4 | Nick Begich win 75.9% | Published forecast |
| Oct 7 | R+13.5 | Nick Begich win 76.1% | Published forecast |
| Oct 6 | R+13.4 | Nick Begich win 76.0% | Published forecast |
| Oct 5 | R+13.2 | Nick Begich win 75.6% | Recomputed with the current model |
| Oct 4 | R+13.3 | Nick Begich win 75.9% | Recomputed with the current model |
| Oct 3 | R+13.4 | Nick Begich win 75.9% | Recomputed with the current model |
| Oct 2 | R+12.7 | Nick Begich win 73.7% | Recomputed with the current model |
| Oct 1 | R+14.4 | Nick Begich win 75.4% | Recomputed with the current model |
| Sep 30 | R+14.2 | Nick Begich win 75.1% | Recomputed with the current model |
| Sep 29 | R+14.3 | Nick Begich win 75.3% | Recomputed with the current model |
| Sep 28 | R+14.5 | Nick Begich win 75.6% | Recomputed with the current model |
| Sep 27 | R+14.4 | Nick Begich win 75.5% | Recomputed with the current model |
| Sep 26 | R+14.3 | Nick Begich win 75.6% | Recomputed with the current model |
| Sep 25 | R+14.3 | Nick Begich win 75.5% | Recomputed with the current model |
| Sep 24 | R+14.3 | Nick Begich win 75.6% | Recomputed with the current model |
| Sep 23 | R+14.3 | Nick Begich win 75.8% | Recomputed with the current model |
| Sep 22 | R+14.2 | Nick Begich win 75.7% | Recomputed with the current model |
| Sep 21 | R+14.4 | Nick Begich win 75.8% | Recomputed with the current model |
| Sep 20 | R+14.2 | Nick Begich win 75.7% | Recomputed with the current model |
| Sep 19 | R+14.6 | Nick Begich win 76.5% | Recomputed with the current model |
| Sep 18 | R+14.2 | Nick Begich win 75.7% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 17 | R+14.4 | Nick Begich win 76.1% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 16 | R+11.5 | Nick Begich win 70.0% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 15 | R+11.4 | Nick Begich win 69.6% | Recomputed with the current model |
| Sep 14 | R+11.4 | Nick Begich win 69.9% | Recomputed with the current model |
| Sep 13 | R+11.4 | Nick Begich win 69.7% | Recomputed with the current model |
| Sep 12 | R+11.5 | Nick Begich win 70.2% | Recomputed with the current model |
| Sep 11 | R+11.3 | Nick Begich win 69.4% | Recomputed with the current model |
| Sep 10 | R+11.4 | Nick Begich win 70.0% | Recomputed with the current model |
| Sep 9 | R+11.8 | Nick Begich win 70.1% | Recomputed with the current model |
| Sep 8 | R+11.4 | Nick Begich win 69.9% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 7 | R+11.3 | Nick Begich win 69.9% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 6 | R+11.5 | Nick Begich win 70.2% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 5 | R+11.5 | Nick Begich win 70.1% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 4 | R+11.6 | Nick Begich win 70.2% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 3 | R+11.5 | Nick Begich win 70.3% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 2 | R+11.4 | Nick Begich win 70.2% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 1 | R+11.4 | Nick Begich win 70.3% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 31 | R+11.6 | Nick Begich win 70.7% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 30 | I+2.8 | Bill Hill win 46.6% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 29 | I+2.8 | Bill Hill win 46.6% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 28 | I+2.8 | Bill Hill win 46.9% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 27 | I+2.9 | Bill Hill win 46.8% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 26 | I+2.8 | Bill Hill win 47.1% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 25 | I+3.2 | Bill Hill win 45.9% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 24 | I+3.1 | Bill Hill win 46.7% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 23 | I+3.1 | Bill Hill win 46.4% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 22 | R+3.3 | Nick Begich win 45.6% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 21 | R+3.5 | Nick Begich III win 72.6% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 20 | R+3.5 | Nick Begich III win 72.6% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 19 | R+3.5 | Nick Begich III win 72.5% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 18 | R+3.5 | Nick Begich III win 72.5% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 17 | R+3.5 | Nick Begich III win 72.5% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 16 | R+3.5 | Nick Begich III win 72.5% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 15 | R+3.5 | Nick Begich III win 72.4% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 14 | R+3.5 | Nick Begich III win 72.8% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 13 | R+3.5 | Nick Begich III win 72.8% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 12 | R+3.5 | Nick Begich III win 72.6% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 11 | R+3.5 | Nick Begich III win 72.7% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 10 | R+3.5 | Nick Begich III win 72.7% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 9 | R+3.5 | Nick Begich III win 72.6% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 8 | R+3.5 | Nick Begich III win 72.6% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 7 | R+3.5 | Nick Begich III win 72.6% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 6 | R+3.6 | Nick Begich III win 73.1% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 5 | R+3.6 | Nick Begich III win 73.2% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 4 | R+3.6 | Nick Begich III win 73.1% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 3 | R+3.6 | Nick Begich III win 73.1% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 2 | R+3.6 | Nick Begich III win 73.2% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 1 | R+3.6 | Nick Begich III win 73.2% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
The polls
Polling average, first choices · 4 polls · newer and larger polls count for more
49.8Nick Begich39.5Bill Hill7.8Eric Hafner
| Fieldwork | Added | Pollster | Result | Sample |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| from 2026-10-08 | Data for Progress ↗ | 50.0Nick Begich43.8Bill Hill5.2Eric HafnerFirst choices | 694 LV | |
| from 2026-10-14 | Public Policy Polling (D) | R+40.0D 5% · R 45% | 578 RV | |
| from 2026-10-01 | Alaska Survey Research ↗ | R+43.0D 7% · R 50% | 1,512 LV | |
| from 2026-09-24 | The New York Times/Siena University ↗ | 48.9Nick Begich36.8Bill Hill8.6Eric HafnerFirst choices | 504 LV | |
| from 2026-09-01 | The Bullfinch Group ↗Independent Leadership Council | 49.1Nick Begich40.6Bill Hill8.2Eric HafnerFirst choices | 820 LV | |
| from 2026-09-08 | Fabrizio Ward/Impact Research ↗AARP | 51.1Nick Begich35.2Bill Hill10.2Eric HafnerFirst choices | 800 LV | |
| from 2026-08-20 | — | Alaska Survey Research ↗Not in the average | 53.7Nick Begich41.5Bill Hill4.9Eric HafnerFirst choices | 1,872 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’s numbers for this race start from a weighted average of the 5 polls above that named every candidate: Nick Begich 50.5%, Bill Hill 39.9% and Eric Hafner 7.2%. Newer and larger polls count for more. A poll paid for by a party or a campaign has the gap between Eric Hafner and Nick Begich moved 2.0 points against the side that paid for it. The average is not blended with past results or the national mood, because the contest here is not simply the Democrat against the Republican.
From there the forecast scales the shares to add up to 100%, simulates the election many times with every share free to move, and publishes the average result: Nick Begich 50.8%, Bill Hill 39.3%, Eric Hafner 8.3% and James C. McDermott 1.5%, a lead of 11.5 points for Nick Begich. James C. McDermott is not named in these polls and is given an assumed share instead. This race is decided by ranked-choice voting: these shares are first choices, and each candidate’s chance of winning comes from simulating the ranked count.
Democrat-versus-Republican poll average R+40.1Of the Democratic and Republican support in each poll. It is not this race’s headline: the two leading candidates here are not a Democrat and a Republican, and the candidates’ numbers start from the polls of the full field listed above. This average feeds only the forecast’s Democrat-versus-Republican estimate for the race.A 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 House 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 puts the average it reads at R+40.4.7 recorded polls · 6 in the poll average
Weighted average, as the forecast took it: 7.2Eric Hafner50.5Nick Begich39.9Bill Hill · 5 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 partisan coordinate was built
Tap an input for its calculation and source.
Displayed values are rounded. This is the model coordinate before ranked-choice transfers. It compares Eric Hafner (D) with Nick Begich (R), not Nick Begich with Bill Hill.
Winning chances include ranked-choice transfers; this walk is on first choices, before them.
All calculations & sources
This district's measured terrain −13.124 points
Call the Map's partisan lean on the CURRENT district lines, before any current-cycle evidence. Every pull below is measured from here — not from EVEN.
- Call the Map partisan lean, district geography bound to this forecast edition.
- Prior source: observed_unchanged_lines.
Fitted model, above the terrain shown +8.057 points
What the fitted model adds on top of the starting terrain above — incumbency, past results, campaign finance and the other fitted terms — measured from that terrain rather than from EVEN. It is a comparison with the starting point already shown, not a separate input. The source detail lists the variables the fit uses.
- Fitted baseline -5.067 minus starting point -13.124 = 8.057 points.
- One fitted structural total; this edition does not split it into partisan lean and incumbency.
- Fundamentals: −5.1 — the district's structural lean before this year's polling, money and candidate quality are added.
- This edition publishes that as one fitted total. It does not break it into a partisan-lean and an incumbency term, so this page does not invent that split.
- fundamentals core = 25-term dynamic formula (mass fit over the master feature matrix, held-out-cycle validated; see matrix/feature_dictionary.md + mass_fit_report.json)
- 40-term formula, held-out validated.
National environment +2.071 points
The contribution to this race’s margin, not the national polling margin itself. The race’s loading, reference level and polling blend determine how much of the national climate reaches its final forecast.
- Three-source blend, updated 2026-10-14: 53% generic-ballot aggregates (D+7.7) · 28% special-election overperformance (D+9.0 across 46 specials) · 20% approval-implied (D+9.1 from net approval -24.3).
- Latest polls — generic ballot 2026-10-14 (14 days old), approval 2026-10-14 (14 days old).
- Generic-ballot average D+7.7 · support factor 0.87 (the share of that channel's capacity the admitted polls carry) — separate inputs; their product is a capacity diagnostic, not a margin.
- Weights are the 55/25/20 capacities scaled by each channel's evidence and renormalized, so thin polling widens the interval instead of pulling the center toward zero — 12% of the weight is carried that way.
- Blended national environment: D+8.3.
- Applied at full strength to this chamber's races.
- This step’s recorded contribution to the margin is +2.1.
- Blended national environment: D+8.3 (updated 2026-10-14).
- Effective poll weight 88%; fundamentals share 12%, carried by the interval (×1.06) rather than by the center.
- The support factor is the share of the generic-ballot capacity the admitted polls carry; average × support is a capacity diagnostic, not a margin, and is not what the row above multiplies.
- Applied at full strength to this chamber: +2.1 of this margin.
This race’s polls −35.093 points
What this race’s own recent polling adds beyond its prior. The forecast weights each poll for recency and sample size and counts each pollster once; the weights listed here are those of the polls’ own average.
- Data for Progress (2026-10-16, n=694): R+43.0 · weight 0.62 in the poll average
- Public Policy Polling (D) (2026-10-15, n=578): R+40.0 · weight 0.56 in the poll average
- Alaska Survey Research (2026-10-03, n=1,512): R+43.0 · weight 0.75 in the poll average
- The New York Times/Siena University (2026-10-01, n=504): R+38.4 · weight 0.45 in the poll average
- Fabrizio Ward/Impact Research (2026-09-11, n=800): R+36.0 · weight 0.45 in the poll average
- The Bullfinch Group (2026-09-06, n=820): R+36.8 · weight 0.43 in the poll average
- Democrat-versus-Republican poll average R+40.1, from 6 polls · 6 recorded polls. This is the polls’ own average, each poll at its published margin, the figure this page’s poll summary shows. In House 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 puts the average it reads at R+40.4. The forecast gives the polls 94% of the weight against its structural prior for this race, which moves the margin 35.1 points toward Republicans from where it stood before the polls. Eligible polls: latest poll: 2026-10-16 (12 days old).
These are the fitted model’s named contributions to the partisan coordinate, before the candidate-field calculation.
| Named factor | Contribution |
|---|---|
| This race's pollsAdmitted head-to-head polls of this race, recency- and quality-weighted. | −35.09 |
| FundamentalsThe admitted fitted baseline. Its surviving variables differ by office; the source detail above identifies those used for this race. | −5.07 |
| National environmentThe national environment’s contribution to the prior. Polling can attenuate its influence; this value is not the national polling margin. | +2.07 |
| Other factors | 0.00 |
Where the votes are
The map of this race loads here.
Recent elections
| Election | Result | Votes cast |
|---|---|---|
| 2024 · U.S. House ↗ | Begich (R) won ↗Ranked-choice winner. The vote-count column retains the source's first-choice total; it is not the number of continuing final-round ballots. | 329,555 |
| 2022 · U.S. House ↗ | Peltola (D) won ↗Ranked-choice final round: Peltola 137,263; Palin 112,471. The vote-count column retains the source's first-choice total. | 263,610 |
| 2020 · U.S. House ↗ | R+9.1 | 353,165 |
| 2018 · U.S. House ↗ | R+6.6 | 282,166 |
Historical district boundaries may differ. Margins are the Democrat’s share of all votes cast minus the Republican’s.
The money
Nick Begich ↗
R$5.5Mraised
$3.1M cash on hand
Bill Hill ↗
I$1.3Mraised
$516K cash on hand
Eric Hafner
DNo filingrecorded
— cash on handFiling date unavailable
The tick marks cash on hand. A missing filing stays blank rather than becoming $0.
One more fundraising reportCall the Map · $325
The candidates are comfortably out-fundraising the website covering them. A little rude, perhaps, but statistically unsurprising.
- Received so far
- $325
- Measured compute
- $26,188.58
Ko-fi and Buy Me a Coffee supports are counted as each one arrives. Measured compute prices model runs at standard published API rates; it is not what I paid. Hosting, data and subscriptions, the domain and my own time are not counted. Donations buy gratitude, never a forecast adjustment.
Supporters are listed by first name and last initial; a username alone is shortened to its first eight characters. Want your full name shown? Say so in your message. Give privately, or leave the name blank, and you are listed as Anonymous, with the platform and date. Supporters who give a name may also be thanked by name in the newsletter.
Thank you to Tom H., ColoradoFlyer, Chris, EW, gbaileym…, True Independent, MT V., JBL, Erin G., Caroline M., Melanie, MKV and 7 more.
Outside spending
Separate from what the campaigns raisedFor and against Bill Hill$5.5M
7 spending groups
| Group | For | Against |
|---|---|---|
| WHEEL DOG PAC | $3.8M | $0 |
| Club for Growth Action | $0 | $1.3M |
| NO GOING BACK PAC INC. | $0 | $144K |
| Freedom Caucus Fund | $0 | $122K |
| The Alaska Center | $50K | $0 |
| SEIU COPE (Service Employees International Union Committee On Political Education) | $11K | $0 |
| Planned Parenthood Alliance PAC , Serving WA, AK, ID, HI, IN, KY | $4K | $0 |
For and against Nick Begich$5.7M
15 spending groups
| Group | For | Against |
|---|---|---|
| WHEEL DOG PAC | $0 | $1.4M |
| HMP | $0 | $866K |
| YOUR COMMUNITY PAC | $0 | $786K |
| Club for Growth Action | $689K | $0 |
| DEFEND AMERICAN JOBS | $508K | $0 |
| AMERICA FIRST AGRICULTURE ACTION INC. | $378K | $0 |
| FREEDOM CAUCUS FUND | $370K | $0 |
| 907 INITIATIVE ACTION | $0 | $241K |
| SEIU COPE (Service Employees International Union Committee On Political Education) | $0 | $190K |
| NO GOING BACK PAC INC. | $140K | $0 |
| CORNERSTONE FOUNDERS PAC | $0 | $125K |
| 907 Initiative Inc. | $0 | $55K |
| SENATE CONSERVATIVES ACTION | $11K | $0 |
| Club for Growth PAC | $8K | $0 |
| SENATE CONSERVATIVES FUND | $8K | $0 |
Includes primary spending. Opposition is recorded against its named target; no benefit to another candidate is assumed.
$628K in outside spending on earlier candidates.
FEC filings · through 07/29/2026 · Definitions & method
Race context
- 2024 presidential vote here
- 338,177
- 2024 presidential margin
- R+13.7between the two parties
Population profile
U.S. Census Bureau, 2022 American Community Survey 5-year estimates ↗
Forecast as of October 28, 2026: Call the Map currently has Nick Begich ahead of Bill Hill, with a 70 in 100 chance of winning after ranked-choice transfers. Projected final round: Nick Begich 54.4, Bill Hill 45.6 (of ballots still counting). The seat is currently held by a Republican. That result would keep the seat with Republicans. The forecast reads 5 polls that named every candidate in this race, listed under “The polls”. The current poll average of the Democrat against the Republican is R+40.1; 6 public polls are recorded.