← Back to the House
Forecast · r64-20260730-236b8cdd42f0 · as of 2026-07-30

The House · OK-01

Projected resultModel share · middle 80% of simulations · chance to win
DJohn Croisant91,971 votes
39.9
RMark Tedford132,586 votes
57.5
Other5,995 votes
2.6
remainder

Projected turnout: 230,552 votes · model estimate, not counted votes.

Displayed shares include the model's Other-vote allowance and therefore add to 100%. Interval endpoints are the model's 10th and 90th percentiles, not a polling margin of error.

SURE — · not yet rateable

How reliable is the evidence behind this race's number — not who wins. A safe seat with no polls can score low while its forecast is easy.

No public poll of this race has been fielded yet. SURE rates poll evidence, so it has nothing to rate here — this is an absence of evidence, not a judgement that the evidence is weak.

Limited evidence: zero polls. The fitted race-error distribution widens automatically; no manual score penalty or race override is applied.

Effective poll evidence0.00
Race-specific error SD4.0 points
Historically calibrated 80% half-range±5.7
Model treatmentprovisional widen-only chamber fallback
Fundamentals Environment Polls Money (FEC) Roster settled

SURE v3 — historically calibrated evidence-conditioned uncertainty · generated 2026-07-27. SURE rates the EVIDENCE behind a race's number, not the outcome: a safe seat with no polls can score low while its forecast is easy. Never a second win probability. It changes only idiosyncratic uncertainty, never the center. Senate marginal intervals are historically calibrated under the stated 0-120 day assumptions; House/Governor conditioning is provisional and widen-only until chamber-specific history passes the same gates.

OK-01 · Oklahoma
Rating band
Striped = seat changes partyDistrict locator

County map

County view
Projected margin
R+40R+20EvenD+20D+40
Striped = seat changes partyProjected county outcome

Counties colored by the projected margin — the 2024 result shifted by the state's projected swing, summing exactly to the forecast above. Hover a county for its numbers.

County by county

CountyMarginJohn CroisantMark TedfordTotal
RogersR+20.235,53254,10192,026
WagonerR+13.332,55142,81177,374
CreekR+21.023,34636,21661,152

Projected — each county's share of THIS district only (split counties count just the votes inside the lines), summing to the forecast above.

State of the race

Call the Map currently has Tedford ahead of Croisant by R+18.1, with a >99 in 100 chance to win. The seat is currently held by a Republican. That result would keep the seat with Republicans. No current nominee-matched poll average is available, so the forecast is leaning on the non-polling evidence shown below.

CTM forecast
Solid R hold · >99 in 100
Seat
Rep.-held · projected hold
Forecast range
R+25.8 to R+10.4
Daily forecast

How the race is moving

100%R win probability today

Since the Jul 21 edition: margin 1.4 pts toward R · win probability unchanged

Estimated two-party vote shareLine = estimate · tint = 80% of simulations
D 41.0%● R 59.0%
Win probabilityProbability in each tracked daily edition
D 0%● R 100%

Tracked editions only. The pale segment marks the time remaining to Election Day; it is not fabricated future data. Hover, tap, or focus a chart and use the arrow keys for each edition's exact values.

How the margin was built

Published Democratic margin−18.087

6 contributions, summing to the forecast R+18.1. Every model adjustment is published here — including candidate-quality shifts. Read how the whole margin is built →

Comparable evidenceFloor 0.05 · precision discount 0.1

TWIN neighbours

TWIN means Typology-Weighted Inference from Neighbors, Call the Map’s comparable-unit matching engine for any kind of race. It borrows poll residuals only—never centers, terrain, or outcomes. Similarity is demographic and behavioural, not geographic, and each contribution decays with similarity distance. Borrowed evidence always has lower precision than a race’s own polling.

Borrowed residual before discount +5.813Published margin contribution +0.135
10/10 governed nearest similar races are available in the published artifact.
RaceRoleSimilarityResidual contributedDirection
OK-05Fellow recipient0.748±0.000 ptsnone
PA-10Lender (polled)0.730+8.400 ptstoward D
SC-04Fellow recipient0.724±0.000 ptsnone
PA-07Lender (polled)0.701+5.600 ptstoward D
FL-07Lender (polled)0.687+9.400 ptstoward D
OH-13Fellow recipient0.685±0.000 ptsnone
MO-05Fellow recipient0.680±0.000 ptsnone
OH-10Fellow recipient0.677±0.000 ptsnone
AR-03Fellow recipient0.674±0.000 ptsnone
FL-15Fellow recipient0.668±0.000 ptsnone

Signals at a glance

CTM Partisan Lean Index
R+22.2
Historical match quality
74/100 — How closely this race matches its eight historical analogues; not a win probability.

Recent polling

No polls yet for this race — the forecast rests on fundamentals only (partisan lean, fundraising, incumbency).

Money & Ads

Money in this race

Explore all spending →
Total supporting$587.7K
Total opposing$24.5K
FEC transactions18

Who does this money help? These are independent expenditures — spending by groups that are not the campaigns and may not coordinate with them. Each dollar is reported either supporting one candidate or opposing another, and both can help the same person, so the table below nets them out per candidate. It lists everyone with reported activity in this cycle's FEC filings — which can include primary candidates who are no longer on the ballot.

CandidateSupporting themOpposing themNet for them
Mark Tedford RNominee$95K+$95K
Jackson Lahmeyer RPrimary field$478.7K$24.5K+$454.2K
Kim David RPrimary field$14K+$14K
FEC committee activity

Direct PAC support

$48K · 13 transactions
  • Mark TedfordNominee$17.5K
  • Jackson LahmeyerNot on the ballot$17K
  • Kim DavidNot on the ballot$11K
  • Dan RooneyNot on the ballot$2.5K
FEC independent expenditures

Top outside spenders

Support and opposition reported separately

Official FEC independent expenditures. Cycle totals may include primary spending. Direct PAC totals include governed committee contributions and in-kind contributions. Campaign-video embeds are metadata-only editorial context from exact, reviewed channels; inclusion does not establish paid placement. Outside spending and campaign videos have zero forecast weight; direct PAC activity is reporting only.

Comparable past results

On the same ballot in Oklahoma