LA-06 · U.S. House
The Republican candidate is almost certain to finish ahead in Louisiana’s November vote. Predicted first-round margin: R+22.7.
No party nominee: the all-party November ballot lists three Democrats, Chauna Banks, Patrick Forbes and Lindsay Garcia. The forecast is for a generic Democrat, not for any one of them.
Under each share, its likely range (80 in 100 simulations)
Forecast history
Latest reading · Oct 28 · first published Sep 9 · 80% range · margin points R+31.3 to R+14.2. Methodology
About this series
Reconstructed with the current model Aug 1 – Sep 8 and Sep 16 – Sep 18; published readings Sep 9 – 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 | Margin | Chance | 80% range | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 28 | R+22.7 | R win 99.0% | R+31.3 to R+14.2 | Published forecast |
| Oct 27 | R+22.7 | R win 99.0% | R+31.3 to R+14.2 | Published forecast |
| Oct 26 | R+22.7 | R win 99.0% | R+31.3 to R+14.2 | Published forecast |
| Oct 25 | R+22.7 | R win 99.0% | R+31.3 to R+14.2 | Published forecast |
| Oct 24 | R+22.7 | R win 99.0% | R+31.3 to R+14.2 | Published forecast |
| Oct 23 | R+22.8 | R win 99.0% | R+31.4 to R+14.2 | Published forecast |
| Oct 22 | R+22.8 | R win 99.0% | R+31.4 to R+14.2 | Published forecast |
| Oct 21 | R+22.8 | R win 99.0% | R+31.4 to R+14.2 | Published forecast |
| Oct 20 | R+22.8 | R win 99.0% | R+31.4 to R+14.2 | Published forecast |
| Oct 19 | R+22.9 | R win 99.0% | R+31.5 to R+14.2 | Published forecast |
| Oct 18 | R+22.9 | R win 99.0% | R+31.5 to R+14.2 | Published forecast |
| Oct 17 | R+22.9 | R win 99.0% | R+31.5 to R+14.2 | Published forecast |
| Oct 16 | R+22.9 | R win 99.0% | R+31.6 to R+14.3 | Published forecast |
| Oct 15 | R+23.0 | R win 99.0% | R+31.6 to R+14.3 | Published forecast |
| Oct 14 | R+23.0 | R win 99.0% | R+31.6 to R+14.4 | Published forecast |
| Oct 13 | R+23.0 | R win 99.0% | R+31.6 to R+14.4 | Published forecast |
| Oct 12 | R+23.0 | R win 99.0% | R+31.7 to R+14.3 | Published forecast |
| Oct 11 | R+23.0 | R win 99.0% | R+31.7 to R+14.3 | Published forecast |
| Oct 10 | R+23.0 | R win 99.0% | R+31.7 to R+14.3 | Published forecast |
| Oct 9 | R+23.0 | R win 99.0% | R+31.7 to R+14.3 | Published forecast |
| Oct 8 | R+23.0 | R win 99.0% | R+31.7 to R+14.4 | Published forecast |
| Oct 7 | R+23.0 | R win 99.0% | R+31.7 to R+14.4 | Published forecast |
| Oct 6 | R+23.1 | R win 99.0% | R+31.8 to R+14.5 | Published forecast |
| Oct 5 | R+23.2 | R win 99.0% | R+31.9 to R+14.5 | Published forecast |
| Oct 4 | R+23.1 | R win 99.0% | R+31.9 to R+14.4 | Published forecast |
| Oct 3 | R+23.2 | R win 99.0% | R+31.9 to R+14.5 | Published forecast |
| Oct 2 | R+23.2 | R win 99.0% | R+31.9 to R+14.5 | Published forecast |
| Oct 1 | R+23.2 | R win 99.0% | R+31.9 to R+14.5 | Published forecast |
| Sep 30 | R+23.2 | R win 99.0% | R+31.9 to R+14.4 | Published forecast |
| Sep 29 | R+23.2 | R win 99.0% | R+31.9 to R+14.5 | Published forecast |
| Sep 28 | R+23.2 | R win 99.0% | R+31.9 to R+14.5 | Published forecast |
| Sep 27 | R+23.2 | R win 99.0% | R+32.0 to R+14.5 | Published forecast |
| Sep 26 | R+23.2 | R win 99.0% | R+32.0 to R+14.5 | Published forecast |
| Sep 25 | R+23.2 | R win 99.0% | R+32.0 to R+14.4 | Published forecast |
| Sep 24 | R+23.3 | R win 99.0% | R+32.0 to R+14.5 | Published forecast |
| Sep 23 | R+23.3 | R win 99.0% | R+32.1 to R+14.5 | Published forecast |
| Sep 22 | R+23.3 | R win 99.0% | R+32.1 to R+14.6 | Published forecast |
| Sep 21 | R+23.3 | R win 99.0% | R+32.1 to R+14.6 | Published forecast |
| Sep 20 | R+23.3 | R win 99.0% | R+32.1 to R+14.5 | Published forecast |
| Sep 19 | R+20.0 | R win 98.8% | R+27.7 to R+12.3 | Published forecast |
| Sep 18 | R+20.0 | R win 98.9% | R+27.7 to R+12.3 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 17 | R+20.0 | R win 98.9% | R+27.7 to R+12.3 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 16 | R+20.0 | R win 98.9% | R+27.7 to R+12.3 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 15 | R+20.2 | R win 98.8% | R+27.9 to R+12.5 | Published forecast |
| Sep 14 | R+20.1 | R win 98.8% | R+27.8 to R+12.4 | Published forecast |
| Sep 13 | R+20.1 | R win 98.8% | R+27.9 to R+12.4 | Published forecast |
| Sep 12 | R+20.2 | R win 98.8% | R+27.9 to R+12.4 | Published forecast |
| Sep 11 | R+20.2 | R win 98.7% | R+27.9 to R+12.5 | Published forecast |
| Sep 10 | R+20.3 | R win 98.7% | R+28.0 to R+12.5 | Published forecast |
| Sep 9 | R+20.2 | R win 98.8% | R+27.9 to R+12.5 | Published forecast |
| Sep 8 | R+20.3 | R win 98.9% | R+28.1 to R+12.6 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 7 | R+20.4 | R win 98.9% | R+28.1 to R+12.6 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 6 | R+23.7 | R win 99.1% | R+32.6 to R+14.8 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 5 | R+23.7 | R win 99.1% | R+32.6 to R+14.8 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 4 | R+22.4 | R win 99.1% | R+31.3 to R+13.5 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 3 | R+23.8 | R win 99.1% | R+32.7 to R+14.9 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 2 | R+23.8 | R win 99.1% | R+32.7 to R+14.9 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 1 | R+23.7 | R win 99.1% | R+32.7 to R+14.8 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 31 | R+23.7 | R win 99.1% | R+32.7 to R+14.8 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 30 | R+23.7 | R win 99.1% | R+32.7 to R+14.8 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 29 | R+23.7 | R win 99.1% | R+32.7 to R+14.8 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 28 | R+23.7 | R win 99.1% | R+32.7 to R+14.8 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 27 | R+23.7 | R win 99.1% | R+32.7 to R+14.8 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 26 | R+23.8 | R win 99.1% | R+32.7 to R+14.8 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 25 | R+23.8 | R win 99.1% | R+32.7 to R+14.8 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 24 | R+23.8 | R win 99.1% | R+32.7 to R+14.8 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 23 | R+23.8 | R win 99.1% | R+32.7 to R+14.8 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 22 | R+23.8 | R win 99.1% | R+32.7 to R+14.8 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 21 | R+27.1 | R win 99.2% | R+35.2 to R+19.0 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 20 | R+27.1 | R win 99.2% | R+35.2 to R+19.0 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 19 | R+27.1 | R win 99.2% | R+35.2 to R+19.0 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 18 | R+27.1 | R win 99.2% | R+35.2 to R+19.0 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 17 | R+27.1 | R win 99.2% | R+35.2 to R+19.0 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 16 | R+27.1 | R win 99.2% | R+35.2 to R+19.0 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 15 | R+27.1 | R win 99.1% | R+35.2 to R+19.0 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 14 | R+27.1 | R win 99.2% | R+35.3 to R+19.0 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 13 | R+27.1 | R win 99.2% | R+35.3 to R+19.0 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 12 | R+27.1 | R win 99.2% | R+35.2 to R+19.0 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 11 | R+27.1 | R win 99.2% | R+35.3 to R+19.0 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 10 | R+27.1 | R win 99.2% | R+35.3 to R+19.0 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 9 | R+27.1 | R win 99.2% | R+35.3 to R+19.0 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 8 | R+27.1 | R win 99.2% | R+35.3 to R+19.0 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 7 | R+27.1 | R win 99.2% | R+35.3 to R+19.0 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 6 | R+27.2 | R win 99.2% | R+35.4 to R+19.1 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 5 | R+27.2 | R win 99.2% | R+35.4 to R+19.1 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 4 | R+27.2 | R win 99.2% | R+35.4 to R+19.1 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 3 | R+27.2 | R win 99.2% | R+35.4 to R+19.1 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 2 | R+27.3 | R win 99.2% | R+35.4 to R+19.1 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 1 | R+27.2 | R win 99.2% | R+35.4 to R+19.1 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
How the margin was built
Tap an input for its calculation and source.
Displayed values are rounded.
All calculations & sources
This district's measured terrain −31.293 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: model_reconstructed_trial15_new_seat; district redrawn for 2026.
Fitted model, above the terrain shown +6.432 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 -24.862 minus starting point -31.293 = 6.432 points.
- Presidential-margin-by-congressional-district dynamic core.
- Presidential-margin-by-congressional-district dynamic core (Jul 8 2026 deploy): a mass fit across district demographics, fundraising, incumbency, and past-cycle overperformance, trained on all 435 districts at once instead of a hand-built lean+incumbency recipe.
- This district's lines changed for 2026 — the core weights its within-state redistricting position alongside the raw presidential margin.
- The work: the core's fitted terms sum to −24.9 — the fundamentals row.
- 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.
Votes for other candidates +0.056 points
Every step above is measured between the two major-party candidates alone, as if nobody else were on the ballot. The forecast sets 0.2% of the vote aside for other candidates and write-ins, so as a share of every vote cast the gap between the two is smaller by that much. This step is exactly that: the two-party margin times the share going to other candidates. It is the same arithmetic that turns the two-party margin into the two shares printed at the top of the page.
The components this edition publishes for this race, in points. “Other factors” closes the sum to the two-party structural lean exactly. The margin the page prints is a share of every vote cast, so the “Votes for other candidates” row carries the exact difference between the two-party lean and that margin; with it, the walk sums to the printed margin exactly.
| Named factor | Contribution |
|---|---|
| FundamentalsThe admitted fitted baseline. Its surviving variables differ by office; the source detail above identifies those used for this race. | −24.86 |
| 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 ↗ | Multiple-candidate ballotAt least one party total combines several candidates. It is not an individual candidate's result. | 296,033 |
| 2022 · U.S. House ↗ | Not a D–R contestThe ballot was not a Democrat versus a Republican; a D/R margin cannot identify the winner. | 235,928 |
| 2020 · U.S. House ↗ | R+45.5 | 373,996 |
| 2018 · U.S. House ↗ | Multiple-candidate ballotAt least one party total combines several candidates. It is not an individual candidate's result. | 268,525 |
Historical district boundaries may differ. Margins are the Democrat’s share of all votes cast minus the Republican’s.
Race context
- 2024 presidential vote here
- 353,210
- 2024 presidential margin
- R+32.4between the two parties
Forecast as of October 28, 2026: Call the Map currently has the Republican candidate favored by R+22.7, with a 99 in 100 chance to finish ahead in November. If no candidate passes 50%, the top two meet in a runoff on December 12, 2026. The seat is currently held by a Democrat. That result would flip the seat to Republicans. No current nominee-matched poll average is available, so the forecast is leaning on the non-polling evidence shown below.