Alaska · U.S. Senate
Mary Peltola has a 51.6% chance of winning after ranked-choice transfers. Projected final round: Mary Peltola 50.1, Dan S. Sullivan 49.9 (of ballots still counting).
Show all others (1)
Final round, middle 80 in 100 simulations: Sullivan by 8.0 to Peltola by 8.5.
Under each share, its likely range (80 in 100 simulations) · shares are first-choice votes; winning chances include ranked-choice transfers · * incumbent
Background
Ex-Rep. Mary Peltola challenges Sen. Sullivan; ranked-choice voting keeps it live.
Forecast history
Latest reading · Oct 28 · first published Sep 9 · Lead on first choices, before ranked-choice transfers. Methodology
Aug 22: David B. Leslie and Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. are forecast as candidates from this day; earlier readings are of the Democrat against the Republican alone.
Oct 16: The candidate field changed: David B. Leslie is no longer in it and Gerald L. Heikes is in it. Readings before and after this day are not compared.
Back-filled: this chart was added on October 4, 2026, with a display fix. Its earlier readings are the lead the forecast published on each of those days, taken from the archived daily forecasts.
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 | First-choice lead | Chance | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 28 | D+0.9 | Mary Peltola win 51.6% | Published forecast |
| Oct 27 | D+0.9 | Mary Peltola win 51.3% | Published forecast |
| Oct 26 | D+0.9 | Mary Peltola win 51.3% | Published forecast |
| Oct 25 | D+0.9 | Mary Peltola win 51.0% | Published forecast |
| Oct 24 | D+0.9 | Mary Peltola win 51.0% | Published forecast |
| Oct 23 | D+0.8 | Mary Peltola win 50.6% | Published forecast |
| Oct 22 | D+0.8 | Mary Peltola win 50.4% | Published forecast |
| Oct 21 | D+0.8 | Mary Peltola win 50.6% | Published forecast |
| Oct 20 | D+0.8 | Mary Peltola win 50.0% | Published forecast |
| Oct 19 | D+0.7 | Dan S. Sullivan win 50.1% | Published forecast |
| Oct 18 | D+0.7 | Dan S. Sullivan win 50.3% | Published forecast |
| Oct 17 | D+0.7 | Dan S. Sullivan win 50.3% | Published forecast |
| Oct 16 | D+0.7 | Dan S. Sullivan win 50.0% | Published forecast |
| Oct 15 | R+1.3 | Dan S. Sullivan win 54.9% | Published forecast |
| Oct 14 | R+1.3 | Dan S. Sullivan win 55.0% | Published forecast |
| Oct 13 | R+1.4 | Dan S. Sullivan win 55.3% | Published forecast |
| Oct 12 | R+1.7 | Dan S. Sullivan win 57.5% | Published forecast |
| Oct 11 | R+1.9 | Dan S. Sullivan win 58.7% | Published forecast |
| Oct 10 | R+2.0 | Dan S. Sullivan win 58.8% | Published forecast |
| Oct 9 | R+2.0 | Dan S. Sullivan win 59.1% | Published forecast |
| Oct 8 | R+2.0 | Dan S. Sullivan win 59.2% | Published forecast |
| Oct 7 | R+2.0 | Dan S. Sullivan win 59.4% | Published forecast |
| Oct 6 | R+2.1 | Dan S. Sullivan win 59.6% | Published forecast |
| Oct 5 | R+2.1 | Dan S. Sullivan win 59.8% | Published forecast |
| Oct 4 | R+2.1 | Dan S. Sullivan win 59.9% | Published forecast |
| Oct 3 | R+2.8 | Dan S. Sullivan win 63.8% | Published forecast |
| Oct 2 | R+2.5 | Dan S. Sullivan win 62.0% | Published forecast |
| Oct 1 | R+2.6 | Dan S. Sullivan win 62.2% | Published forecast |
| Sep 30 | R+2.6 | Dan S. Sullivan win 62.4% | Published forecast |
| Sep 29 | R+2.7 | Dan S. Sullivan win 63.0% | Published forecast |
| Sep 28 | R+2.6 | Dan S. Sullivan win 62.5% | Published forecast |
| Sep 27 | R+2.7 | Dan S. Sullivan win 63.2% | Published forecast |
| Sep 26 | R+2.7 | Dan S. Sullivan win 63.0% | Published forecast |
| Sep 25 | R+2.6 | Dan S. Sullivan win 62.6% | Published forecast |
| Sep 24 | R+2.8 | Dan S. Sullivan win 63.4% | Published forecast |
| Sep 23 | R+2.8 | Dan S. Sullivan win 63.6% | Published forecast |
| Sep 22 | R+2.8 | Dan S. Sullivan win 63.3% | Published forecast |
| Sep 21 | R+2.8 | Dan S. Sullivan win 63.3% | Published forecast |
| Sep 20 | R+2.7 | Dan S. Sullivan win 62.7% | Published forecast |
| Sep 19 | R+2.4 | Dan S. Sullivan win 60.6% | Published forecast |
| Sep 18 | R+2.4 | Dan S. Sullivan win 60.5% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 17 | R+2.5 | Dan S. Sullivan win 60.6% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 16 | R+1.6 | Dan S. Sullivan win 54.3% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 15 | R+1.6 | Dan S. Sullivan win 55.2% | Published forecast |
| Sep 14 | R+1.5 | Dan S. Sullivan win 54.9% | Published forecast |
| Sep 13 | R+1.7 | Dan S. Sullivan win 55.4% | Published forecast |
| Sep 12 | R+1.6 | Dan S. Sullivan win 55.2% | Published forecast |
| Sep 11 | R+1.6 | Dan S. Sullivan win 55.4% | Published forecast |
| Sep 10 | R+1.8 | Dan S. Sullivan win 55.8% | Published forecast |
| Sep 9 | R+0.3 | Dan S. Sullivan win 54.0% | Published forecast |
| Sep 8 | R+1.8 | Dan S. Sullivan win 56.1% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 7 | R+1.9 | Dan S. Sullivan win 56.3% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 6 | R+1.9 | Dan S. Sullivan win 56.6% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 5 | R+1.9 | Dan S. Sullivan win 56.8% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 4 | R+2.0 | Dan S. Sullivan win 56.8% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 3 | R+2.0 | Dan S. Sullivan win 56.9% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 2 | R+2.0 | Dan S. Sullivan win 57.2% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 1 | R+1.9 | Dan S. Sullivan win 57.0% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 31 | R+2.0 | Dan S. Sullivan win 57.1% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 30 | R+2.0 | Dan S. Sullivan win 57.1% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 29 | R+2.0 | Dan S. Sullivan win 57.3% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 28 | R+2.0 | Dan S. Sullivan win 57.7% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 27 | R+2.1 | Dan S. Sullivan win 57.5% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 26 | R+2.1 | Dan S. Sullivan win 58.2% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 25 | R+2.1 | Dan S. Sullivan win 58.2% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 24 | R+2.2 | Dan S. Sullivan win 58.1% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 23 | R+2.2 | Dan S. Sullivan win 58.6% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 22 | R+2.3 | Dan S. Sullivan win 58.7% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 21 | R+1.8 | Dan S. Sullivan win 59.7% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 20 | R+1.8 | Dan S. Sullivan win 59.8% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 19 | R+1.9 | Dan S. Sullivan win 60.0% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 18 | R+2.1 | Dan S. Sullivan win 61.0% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 17 | R+2.1 | Dan S. Sullivan win 61.2% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 16 | R+2.2 | Dan S. Sullivan win 61.4% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 15 | R+2.2 | Dan S. Sullivan win 61.5% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 14 | R+2.2 | Dan S. Sullivan win 61.8% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 13 | R+2.8 | Dan S. Sullivan win 63.8% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 12 | R+2.8 | Dan S. Sullivan win 63.9% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 11 | R+2.8 | Dan S. Sullivan win 64.0% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 10 | R+2.9 | Dan S. Sullivan win 64.1% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 9 | R+2.9 | Dan S. Sullivan win 64.2% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 8 | R+2.9 | Dan S. Sullivan win 64.3% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 7 | R+2.9 | Dan S. Sullivan win 64.4% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 6 | R+3.0 | Dan S. Sullivan win 64.9% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 5 | R+3.0 | Dan S. Sullivan win 65.0% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 4 | R+3.0 | Dan S. Sullivan win 65.1% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 3 | R+3.1 | Dan S. Sullivan win 65.3% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 2 | R+3.1 | Dan S. Sullivan win 65.4% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 1 | R+3.1 | Dan S. Sullivan win 65.5% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
The polls
Polling average, first choices · 7 polls · newer and larger polls count for more
48.9Mary Peltola46.7Dan S. Sullivan2.6Daniel J. Sullivan Jr.1.7Gerald L. Heikes
| Fieldwork | Added | Pollster | Result | Sample |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| from 2026-10-08 | Data for Progress ↗ | 49.0Mary Peltola45.8Dan S. Sullivan4.2Daniel J. Sullivan Jr.1.0Gerald L. HeikesFirst choices | 694 LV | |
| from 2026-10-14 | Public Policy Polling (D) ↗ | D+1.0D 48% · R 47% | 578 RV | |
| from 2026-10-09 | InsiderAdvantage ↗ | 50.9Mary Peltola45.0Dan S. Sullivan1.8Daniel J. Sullivan Jr.2.3Gerald L. HeikesFirst choices | 1,200 LV | |
| from 2026-10-01 | Alaska Survey Research | D+2.0D 47% · R 45% | 1,512 LV | |
| from 2026-09-24 | The New York Times/Siena University ↗ | D+7.0D 50.07% · R 43.07% | 504 LV | |
| from 2026-09-28 | Quantus Insights ↗ | 48.2Mary Peltola48.5Dan S. Sullivan1.7Daniel J. Sullivan Jr.1.6Gerald L. HeikesFirst choices | 758 LV | |
| from 2026-09-22 | Trafalgar Group ↗ | 47.5Mary Peltola48.9Dan S. Sullivan2.9Daniel J. Sullivan Jr.0.7Gerald L. HeikesFirst choices | 1,079 LV | |
| from 2026-09-10 | Alaska Survey Research | D+4.0D 48% · R 44% | 1,352 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 every poll as one party’s candidates against the other’s, and that, with past results and the national mood, sets the balance between the two parties. From the 7 polls above that named every candidate it also takes the share of Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. and Gerald L. Heikes: Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. 2.6% and Gerald L. Heikes 1.9%, a weighted average. Newer and larger polls count for more. A poll paid for by a party or a campaign counts for a quarter as much.
Some of these polls were taken before this ballot was settled on 2026-08-18, so the other candidates’ numbers are not taken from them. The Democratic and Republican totals come from the forecast’s Democrat-versus-Republican estimate, which is built from past results, the national mood and this race’s poll average. Each candidate named here takes their share out of their own party’s total, or out of both if they belong to neither party. The published result is Mary Peltola 48.2%, Dan S. Sullivan 47.3%, Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. 2.6% and Gerald L. Heikes 1.9%, a lead of 1.0 point for Mary Peltola. 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.
Poll average D+2.0A 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 Senate races the forecast then counts a poll sponsored by a party or campaign at a quarter of its weight and moves its margin 2 points against that party, which puts the average it reads at D+2.6. It then applies a fitted correction of 1.6 points toward Republicans for Senate races, measured from past polling error, before blending it with its other evidence.26 recorded polls · 20 in the poll average
Weighted average, as the forecast took it: 2.6Daniel J. Sullivan Jr.1.9Gerald L. Heikes · 7 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. This is the model coordinate before ranked-choice transfers.
Winning chances include ranked-choice transfers; this walk is on first choices, before them.
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+9.7 |
| National environment | R+6.5 |
| Campaign finance | R+6.5 |
| This race’s polls | D+0.9 |
| Election rules & guards | D+0.9 |
| Historical calibration | D+0.9 |
| The candidate field | D+0.9 |
All calculations & sources
This race’s polls +7.081 points
What this race’s admitted polls move the leader-versus-runner-up gap by.
National environment +3.054 points
How much of the national climate reaches this race’s leader-versus-runner-up gap.
The candidate field +0.069 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 +0.017 points
Certified election-mechanics terms — ballot rules, guards and locks — as they bear on these two candidates.
Fundamentals −9.261 points
What the fitted structural model contributes to the gap between the leader and the runner-up, before any of this cycle’s evidence.
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. | −9.69 |
| This race's pollsAdmitted head-to-head polls of this race, recency- and quality-weighted. | +7.41 |
| National environmentThe national environment’s contribution to the prior. Polling can attenuate its influence; this value is not the national polling margin. | +3.20 |
| Structural terrain safeguardA bounded pull toward presidential terrain in heavily partisan states. | +0.02 |
| Other factors | +0.00 |
Where the votes are
The map of this race loads here.
Recent elections
| Election | Result | Votes cast |
|---|---|---|
| 2020 · U.S. Senate ↗ | R+12.7 | 354,587 |
| 2014 · U.S. Senate ↗ | R+2.1 | 282,400 |
| 2008 · U.S. Senate ↗ | D+1.2 | 317,723 |
| 2002 · U.S. Senate ↗ | R+67.7 | 229,548 |
Margins are the Democrat’s share of all votes cast minus the Republican’s.
The money
Mary Peltola ↗
D$18.5Mraised
$4.6M cash on hand
Dan S. Sullivan ↗
R$9.1Mraised
$7.3M cash on hand
Gerald L. Heikes
RNo 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 Mary Peltola$21.1M
20 spending groups
| Group | For | Against |
|---|---|---|
| LAST FRONTIER PAC | $0 | $8.3M |
| Americans for Prosperity Action, Inc. (AFP Action) DBA CVA Action and DBA LIBRE Action | $0 | $3.7M |
| NO GOING BACK PAC INC. | $0 | $3.6M |
| MIDNIGHT SUN PAC | $1.5M | $0 |
| Forward Alaska | $1.3M | $0 |
| SLF PAC | $0 | $964K |
| One For All Committee | $470K | $0 |
| America PAC | $0 | $446K |
| EDW Action Fund | $254K | $0 |
| 59 PAC | $0 | $204K |
| UNITED FUTURES PAC | $192K | $0 |
| AB PAC | $101K | $0 |
| North Star | $53K | $0 |
| MAGA INC. | $0 | $29K |
| THE CONSERVATIVE CAUCUS DBA AMERICANS FOR CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTY | $0 | $16K |
| Majority Blue PAC | $12K | $0 |
| SEIU COPE (Service Employees International Union Committee On Political Education) | $11K | $0 |
| NATIONAL RIGHT TO LIFE VICTORY FUND | $0 | $10K |
| Blue Fight PAC | $5K | $0 |
| Gun Rights America | $0 | $2K |
For and against Dan S. Sullivan$32.9M
21 spending groups
| Group | For | Against |
|---|---|---|
| North Star | $0 | $10.1M |
| Americans for Prosperity Action, Inc. (AFP Action) DBA CVA Action and DBA LIBRE Action | $4.1M | $0 |
| Women Vote | $0 | $3.6M |
| NO GOING BACK PAC INC. | $3.5M | $0 |
| WinSenate | $0 | $3.1M |
| AB PAC | $0 | $1.9M |
| PROTECTING ALASKA FISHERMEN | $0 | $1.4M |
| Right for Alaska | $0 | $1.1M |
| Forward Alaska | $0 | $1.0M |
| Club for Growth Action | $824K | $0 |
| 907 INITIATIVE ACTION | $0 | $742K |
| SLF PAC | $319K | $0 |
| HIGH PLAINS PAC | $265K | $0 |
| Duty and Country | $0 | $227K |
| America PAC | $217K | $0 |
| VoteVets | $0 | $123K |
| 907 Initiative Inc. | $0 | $107K |
| HUNTER ACTION FUND (HAF) | $106K | $0 |
| MIDNIGHT SUN PAC | $0 | $28K |
| Indivisible Action | $0 | $15K |
| Planned Parenthood Alliance PAC , Serving WA, AK, ID, HI, IN, KY | $0 | $4K |
Includes primary spending. Opposition is recorded against its named target; no benefit to another candidate is assumed.
$1.0M in outside spending on earlier candidates.
FEC filings · through 07/29/2026 · Definitions & method
Race context
- Turnout, 2018 midterm
- 51.2% 285,009 ballots
- Turnout, 2022 midterm
- 50.3% 267,047 ballots
- 2024 presidential margin
- R+13.7between 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
5 stories · 20 quotes
- Democrats May Have Recruited Alaska’s Second Dan Sullivan, After All ↗
NOTUS · Oct 28
- Trump and Vance rally for Republicans in final midterms push; Alaska’s Murkowski backs Democrat in governor’s race – live ↗
The Guardian US politics · Oct 28
- “Inside Democrats’ Secret Effort to Stack Alaska’s Ballot” ↗
Election Law Blog · Oct 28
- A Peltola staffer reportedly helped find other Alaskans named Dan Sullivan to run against the incumbent senator. ↗
HuffPost · Official · 1h ago
curated newsroom · recent Bluesky post · named-race match - The irony about the Dan Sullivan situation is that #AKsen is the one race where it doesn't have to matter! Voters can rank the Dans Sullivan 1st and 2nd and that solves the problem. ↗
Nathaniel Rakich · Analysis · 2h ago
curated election analyst · recent Bluesky post · named-race match · election-topic match - Just in: U.S. DOJ says that Mary Peltola's campaign should not be allowed to participate in the elections lawsuit it filed against the Alaska Division of Elections — www.documentcloud.org/documents/28... #akleg ↗
James Brooks Cascade · Commentary · 18h ago
curated political commentary · recent Bluesky post · named-race match - State of Alaska says DOJ lawsuit over Senate race ‘has no legal basis’ ↗
KTOO · Oct 27
- NEWS — Alaska election officials asked a federal judge to dismiss the Justice Department’s lawsuit seeking to block certification of the state’s Senate results if Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan loses. The judge expedited the case ahead of the Nov. 3 election. ↗
VoteHub · Analysis · 1d ago
curated poll aggregator · recent Bluesky post · named-race match · election-topic match
Forecast as of October 28, 2026: Call the Map currently has Mary Peltola ahead of Dan S. Sullivan, with a 52 in 100 chance of winning after ranked-choice transfers. Projected final round: Mary Peltola 50.1, Dan S. Sullivan 49.9 (of ballots still counting). The seat is currently held by a Republican. That result would flip the seat to Democrats. The forecast reads 7 polls that named every candidate in this race, listed under “The polls”. The current poll average is D+2.0; 26 public polls are recorded.