Florida · U.S. Senate
Ashley Moody is heavily favored to hold Florida’s Senate seat. Predicted margin: R+8.7.
Under each share, its likely range (80 in 100 simulations) · * incumbent
Background
Appointed Sen. Ashley Moody (R) faces Angie Nixon (D).
Forecast history
Latest reading · Oct 28 · first published Sep 9 · 80% range · margin points R+16.0 to R+1.4. 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+8.7 | R win 93.3% | R+16.0 to R+1.4 | Published forecast |
| Oct 27 | R+8.7 | R win 93.2% | R+16.0 to R+1.4 | Published forecast |
| Oct 26 | R+8.8 | R win 93.5% | R+16.1 to R+1.5 | Published forecast |
| Oct 25 | R+8.8 | R win 93.5% | R+16.1 to R+1.5 | Published forecast |
| Oct 24 | R+8.8 | R win 93.5% | R+16.1 to R+1.5 | Published forecast |
| Oct 23 | R+8.8 | R win 93.5% | R+16.1 to R+1.5 | Published forecast |
| Oct 22 | R+8.8 | R win 93.5% | R+16.1 to R+1.5 | Published forecast |
| Oct 21 | R+8.7 | R win 93.2% | R+16.0 to R+1.3 | Published forecast |
| Oct 20 | R+8.9 | R win 93.7% | R+16.3 to R+1.6 | Published forecast |
| Oct 19 | R+8.7 | R win 93.2% | R+16.0 to R+1.4 | Published forecast |
| Oct 18 | R+8.7 | R win 93.2% | R+16.0 to R+1.4 | Published forecast |
| Oct 17 | R+8.7 | R win 93.3% | R+16.1 to R+1.4 | Published forecast |
| Oct 16 | R+8.7 | R win 93.3% | R+16.1 to R+1.4 | Published forecast |
| Oct 15 | R+8.7 | R win 93.3% | R+16.1 to R+1.4 | Published forecast |
| Oct 14 | R+9.0 | R win 93.7% | R+16.3 to R+1.6 | Published forecast |
| Oct 13 | R+8.9 | R win 93.6% | R+16.2 to R+1.6 | Published forecast |
| Oct 12 | R+8.9 | R win 93.6% | R+16.2 to R+1.6 | Published forecast |
| Oct 11 | R+8.9 | R win 93.6% | R+16.2 to R+1.6 | Published forecast |
| Oct 10 | R+9.3 | R win 94.3% | R+16.6 to R+2.0 | Published forecast |
| Oct 9 | R+9.3 | R win 94.3% | R+16.6 to R+2.0 | Published forecast |
| Oct 8 | R+8.5 | R win 92.8% | R+15.9 to R+1.2 | Published forecast |
| Oct 7 | R+8.5 | R win 92.8% | R+15.9 to R+1.2 | Published forecast |
| Oct 6 | R+7.7 | R win 90.4% | R+15.3 to R+0.2 | Published forecast |
| Oct 5 | R+7.7 | R win 90.5% | R+15.3 to R+0.2 | Published forecast |
| Oct 4 | R+7.7 | R win 90.5% | R+15.2 to R+0.2 | Published forecast |
| Oct 3 | R+7.7 | R win 90.6% | R+15.2 to R+0.2 | Published forecast |
| Oct 2 | R+7.7 | R win 90.7% | R+15.2 to R+0.3 | Published forecast |
| Oct 1 | R+7.7 | R win 90.7% | R+15.2 to R+0.3 | Published forecast |
| Sep 30 | R+7.7 | R win 90.8% | R+15.2 to R+0.3 | Published forecast |
| Sep 29 | R+7.8 | R win 90.9% | R+15.2 to R+0.3 | Published forecast |
| Sep 28 | R+7.9 | R win 91.0% | R+15.3 to R+0.4 | Published forecast |
| Sep 27 | R+7.9 | R win 91.1% | R+15.3 to R+0.4 | Published forecast |
| Sep 26 | R+7.9 | R win 91.1% | R+15.3 to R+0.4 | Published forecast |
| Sep 25 | R+7.9 | R win 91.2% | R+15.3 to R+0.5 | Published forecast |
| Sep 24 | R+6.9 | R win 87.5% | R+14.7 to D+0.9 | Published forecast |
| Sep 23 | R+6.9 | R win 87.6% | R+14.7 to D+0.8 | Published forecast |
| Sep 22 | R+6.3 | R win 84.5% | R+14.4 to D+1.8 | Published forecast |
| Sep 21 | R+6.3 | R win 84.5% | R+14.4 to D+1.8 | Published forecast |
| Sep 20 | R+6.3 | R win 84.5% | R+14.4 to D+1.8 | Published forecast |
| Sep 19 | R+6.3 | R win 84.7% | R+14.4 to D+1.8 | Published forecast |
| Sep 18 | R+6.3 | R win 84.6% | R+14.4 to D+1.8 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 17 | R+7.5 | R win 87.2% | R+16.1 to D+1.1 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 16 | R+7.6 | R win 87.3% | R+16.1 to D+1.0 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 15 | R+7.6 | R win 87.7% | R+16.2 to D+0.9 | Published forecast |
| Sep 14 | R+7.6 | R win 87.7% | R+16.1 to D+0.9 | Published forecast |
| Sep 13 | R+7.6 | R win 87.7% | R+16.1 to D+0.9 | Published forecast |
| Sep 12 | R+7.6 | R win 87.8% | R+16.1 to D+0.9 | Published forecast |
| Sep 11 | R+6.7 | R win 83.1% | R+16.0 to D+2.5 | Published forecast |
| Sep 10 | R+6.8 | R win 83.3% | R+16.0 to D+2.4 | Published forecast |
| Sep 9 | R+11.5 | R win 92.1% | R+21.9 to R+1.2 | Published forecast |
| Sep 8 | R+11.5 | R win 92.2% | R+21.9 to R+1.2 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 7 | R+11.6 | R win 92.3% | R+21.9 to R+1.3 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 6 | R+11.6 | R win 92.3% | R+21.9 to R+1.3 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 5 | R+11.6 | R win 92.3% | R+21.9 to R+1.3 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 4 | R+11.6 | R win 92.4% | R+21.9 to R+1.3 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 3 | R+11.6 | R win 92.4% | R+21.8 to R+1.4 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 2 | R+11.6 | R win 92.4% | R+21.8 to R+1.4 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 1 | R+12.0 | R win 93.6% | R+21.9 to R+2.1 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 31 | R+12.0 | R win 93.6% | R+21.9 to R+2.1 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 30 | R+12.0 | R win 93.7% | R+21.9 to R+2.2 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 29 | R+12.0 | R win 93.7% | R+21.8 to R+2.2 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 28 | R+12.0 | R win 93.7% | R+21.8 to R+2.2 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 27 | R+12.0 | R win 93.7% | R+21.8 to R+2.2 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 26 | R+12.0 | R win 93.8% | R+21.8 to R+2.2 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 25 | R+12.0 | R win 93.8% | R+21.8 to R+2.2 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 24 | R+12.0 | R win 93.8% | R+21.8 to R+2.3 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 23 | R+12.0 | R win 93.8% | R+21.7 to R+2.3 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 22 | R+12.0 | R win 93.8% | R+21.7 to R+2.3 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 21 | R+12.0 | R win 93.9% | R+21.7 to R+2.3 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 20 | R+12.0 | R win 93.9% | R+21.7 to R+2.3 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 19 | R+12.0 | R win 93.9% | R+21.7 to R+2.3 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 18 | R+12.0 | R win 93.9% | R+21.6 to R+2.3 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 17 | R+12.0 | R win 94.0% | R+21.6 to R+2.3 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 16 | R+12.0 | R win 94.0% | R+21.6 to R+2.4 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 15 | R+12.0 | R win 94.0% | R+21.6 to R+2.4 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 14 | R+12.0 | R win 94.1% | R+21.6 to R+2.4 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 13 | R+12.0 | R win 94.1% | R+21.5 to R+2.4 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 12 | R+12.0 | R win 94.1% | R+21.5 to R+2.4 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 11 | R+12.0 | R win 94.1% | R+21.5 to R+2.4 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 10 | R+12.0 | R win 94.1% | R+21.5 to R+2.4 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 9 | R+11.9 | R win 94.2% | R+21.4 to R+2.5 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 8 | R+11.9 | R win 94.2% | R+21.4 to R+2.5 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 7 | R+11.9 | R win 94.2% | R+21.4 to R+2.5 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 6 | R+12.0 | R win 94.3% | R+21.4 to R+2.5 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 5 | R+12.0 | R win 94.3% | R+21.4 to R+2.6 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 4 | R+12.0 | R win 94.3% | R+21.4 to R+2.6 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 3 | R+12.0 | R win 94.4% | R+21.4 to R+2.6 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 2 | R+12.0 | R win 94.4% | R+21.3 to R+2.6 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 1 | R+12.0 | R win 94.4% | R+21.3 to R+2.6 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
The polls
Poll average R+6.6A 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 leaves the average it reads the same for this race. 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.25 recorded polls · 25 in the poll average
| Fieldwork | Added | Pollster | Result | Sample |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| from 2026-10-25 | 13h ago | St. Pete Polls ↗ | R+4.3D 44.7% · R 49% | 916 LV |
| from 2026-10-19 | 13h ago | The New York Times/Siena University ↗ | R+6.0D 44.32% · R 50.35% | 813 LV |
| from 2026-10-17 | 1d ago | ActiVote ↗ | R+6.0D 47% · R 53% | 400 LV |
| from 2026-10-16 | 1d ago | Echelon Insights ↗ | R+8.0D 43% · R 51% | 515 LV |
| from 2026-10-20 | 2d ago | RedBox Research (D) ↗ | R+7.0D 43% · R 50% | 4,832 LV |
| from 2026-10-18 | 7d ago | co/efficient ↗ | R+8.0D 40% · R 48% | 1,014 LV |
| from 2026-10-12 | University of North Florida ↗ | R+4.0D 45% · R 49% | 1,471 LV | |
| from 2026-10-02 | Univision/YouGov ↗ | R+9.0D 42% · R 51% | 825 RV |
Explore each poll’s weight in the average
Poll average R+6.6
- Published result
- R+6.0
- Weight in the poll average
- 0.54 · 2.7% of the average
- Fieldwork
- 17 Oct–27 Oct
- Sample
- 400 LV
- Sponsor
- Not listed
- Published result
- R+4.3
- Weight in the poll average
- 0.81 · 3.2% of the average
- Fieldwork
- 25 Oct–27 Oct
- Sample
- 916 LV
- Sponsor
- Not listed
- Published result
- R+6.0
- Weight in the poll average
- 0.75 · 6.9% of the average
- Fieldwork
- 19 Oct–25 Oct
- Sample
- 813 LV
- Sponsor
- Not listed
- Published result
- R+8.0
- Weight in the poll average
- 0.58 · 5.4% of the average
- Fieldwork
- 16 Oct–23 Oct
- Sample
- 515 LV
- Sponsor
- Not listed
- Published result
- R+7.0
- Weight in the poll average
- 0.94 · 8.7% of the average
- Fieldwork
- 20 Oct–23 Oct
- Sample
- 4,832 LV
- Sponsor
- Democratic sponsor · organization not listed
- Published result
- R+8.0
- Weight in the poll average
- 0.79 · 7.3% of the average
- Fieldwork
- 18 Oct–20 Oct
- Sample
- 1,014 LV
- Sponsor
- Not listed
- Published result
- R+4.0
- Weight in the poll average
- 0.90 · 6.3% of the average
- Fieldwork
- 12 Oct–19 Oct
- Sample
- 1,471 LV
- Sponsor
- Not listed
- Published result
- R+6.2
- Weight in the poll average
- 0.47 · 2.3% of the average
- Fieldwork
- 27 Sep–15 Oct
- Sample
- 400 LV
- Sponsor
- Not listed
How the margin was built
Tap an input for its calculation and source.
Displayed values are rounded.
All calculations & sources
How this state voted, 2024 −13.100 points
The state's presidential margin in 2024 as a share of all votes cast, from our own county sums — the same measurement the model's statewide terrain center is built from. Every pull below is measured from here, not from EVEN, which is why a landslide seat's listed pulls are small numbers and still land where the forecast does.
- 2024 presidential result for this state, as a share of all votes cast, from Call the Map's own county sums.
- Same source as Act I's 2024-president reference mark, so the origin lands on it.
National environment +3.187 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 +3.2 D.
- 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: +3.2 of this margin.
Fitted model, above the terrain shown +2.341 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 -10.759 minus starting point -13.100 = 2.341 points.
- For orientation, the presidential results here: 2024 R+13.1, 2020 R+3.4.
- The work: the −10.8 D fundamentals push is the sum of the dynamic formula's surviving variables for this race — each one's own contribution is listed below.
- 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)
- 9-term formula, held-out validated.
Structural safeguards −0.704 points
Bounded corrections that keep the model consistent with structural facts.
- Applied only when a safe state's dynamic fundamentals point in the same direction as its strong presidential lean but are materially compressed toward zero.
- The 25% correction toward that lean improved safe-race MAE in strict expanding-window validation without changing a historical call.
- The disclosed adjustment is −0.7 D.
This race’s polls −0.581 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.
- St. Pete Polls (2026-10-27, n=916): R+4.3 · weight 0.81 in the poll average
- ActiVote (2026-10-27, n=400): R+6.0 · weight 0.54 in the poll average
- The New York Times/Siena University (2026-10-25, n=813): R+6.0 · weight 0.75 in the poll average
- RedBox Research (D) (2026-10-23, n=4,832): R+7.0 · weight 0.94 in the poll average
- Echelon Insights (2026-10-23, n=515): R+8.0 · weight 0.58 in the poll average
- co/efficient (2026-10-20, n=1,014): R+8.0 · weight 0.79 in the poll average
- … and 19 more below.
- Poll average R+6.6, from 25 polls · 25 recorded polls. This is the polls’ own average, each poll at its published margin, the figure this page’s poll summary shows. 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 leaves the average it reads the same for this race. 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. The forecast gives the polls 98% of the weight against its structural prior for this race, which moves the margin 0.6 points toward Republicans from where it stood before the polls. Eligible polls: latest poll: 2026-10-27 (1 day old).
Votes for other candidates +0.140 points
Every step above is measured between the two major-party candidates alone, as if nobody else were on the ballot. The forecast sets 1.6% 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. | −10.76 |
| National environmentThe national environment’s contribution to the prior. Polling can attenuate its influence; this value is not the national polling margin. | +3.19 |
| Structural terrain safeguardA bounded pull toward presidential terrain in heavily partisan states. | −0.70 |
| This race's pollsAdmitted head-to-head polls of this race, recency- and quality-weighted. | −0.58 |
| Other factors | 0.00 |
Where the votes are
The map of this race loads here.
The money
Ashley Moody ↗
R$11.3Mraised
$8.5M cash on hand
Angie Nixon ↗
D$975Kraised
$265K cash on hand
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 Angie Nixon$4.3M
7 spending groups
| Group | For | Against |
|---|---|---|
| AB PAC | $2.5M | $0 |
| STRONGER SAFER NATION | $0 | $1.7M |
| Dream Defenders Fight PAC | $25K | $0 |
| Indivisible Action | $17K | $0 |
| THE CONSERVATIVE CAUCUS DBA AMERICANS FOR CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTY | $0 | $15K |
| Neighbor Voices | $2K | $0 |
| EQUALITY FLORIDA ACTION INC. | $13 | $0 |
For and against Ashley Moody$1.7M
9 spending groups
| Group | For | Against |
|---|---|---|
| STRONGER SAFER NATION | $786K | $0 |
| SLF PAC | $280K | $0 |
| SENATE CONSERVATIVES FUND | $244K | $0 |
| National Association of Realtors Political Action Committee | $115K | $0 |
| BLACK VOTERS MATTER ACTION PAC | $0 | $100K |
| SENATE CONSERVATIVES ACTION | $84K | $0 |
| LAW ENFORCEMENT FOR A SAFER AMERICA PAC | $55K | $0 |
| Out Of The Swamp PAC | $0 | $51K |
| Neighbor Voices | $0 | $2K |
Includes primary spending. Opposition is recorded against its named target; no benefit to another candidate is assumed.
$84K in outside spending on earlier candidates.
FEC filings · through 07/29/2026 · Definitions & method
Race context
- Turnout, 2018 midterm
- 53.5% 8,318,824 ballots
- Turnout, 2022 midterm
- 48.2% 7,796,916 ballots
- 2024 presidential margin
- R+13.2between 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
7 quotes
- There’s been a ton of discourse on the Minnesota senate race with little public polling to back up (or disprove) any of it.
The NYT is just the 3rd nonpartisan pollster to test it this fall, & finds Flanagan leading 54/40.
Other NYT Senate polls:
—South Carolina: 48/48
—Florida: Moody +6 ↗
Taniel · Analysis · 14h ago
curated downballot analyst · recent Bluesky post · named-race match · election-topic match - Gov. Ron DeSantis' administration diverted $10 million from a Medicaid settlement to the Hope Florida Foundation. Sen. Ashley Moody was attorney general at the time, and her office OK'd the settlement.
Here's what to know about the controversy. ↗
WUSF · Official · 1d ago
curated state newsroom · recent Bluesky post · named-race match - “This is the free state of Florida, where people come to escape communists and not to elect them,” he said. “The Sunshine State is not going to send a Marxist maniac to the Senate.” He later referred to Nixon as “a lunatic.” floridaphoenix.com/2026/10/23/t... ↗
Florida Phoenix · Official · 5d ago
curated state newsroom · recent Bluesky post · named-race match - The U.S. Senate contest between Democratic state Rep. Angie Nixon & Republican Sen. Ashley Moody is shaping up as a clash between two very different political coalitions. @alexmar.bsky.social breaks down how the Nov. 3 special election could significant change the status quo in deep-red Florida. ↗
Prism · Official · 5d ago
curated newsroom · recent Bluesky post · named-race match - Angie Nixon joins "Florida Matters Live & Local" to discuss her campaign and what she hopes to change in Washington.
Listen: www.wusf.org/podcast/flor... ↗
WUSF · Official · Oct 21
curated state newsroom · recent Bluesky post · named-race match - Florida Sen. race pits Angie Nixon's grassroots organizing against Ashley Moody's GOP coalition, @alexmar.bsky.social reports. Nixon is running on affordability, healthcare & labor rights, while Moody touts public safety, economic growth & backing from law enforcement, firefighter & business groups. ↗
Prism · Official · Oct 20
curated newsroom · recent Bluesky post · named-race match - “I know many people now who are struggling to live here in Florida. I want to vote for a change.”
Florida Senate race pits Angie Nixon’s grassroots organizing against Ashley Moody’s GOP coalition. @alexmar.bsky.social breaks down the candidates' competing strategies on how to win deep-red Florida. ↗
Prism · Official · Oct 19
curated newsroom · recent Bluesky post · named-race match
Forecast as of October 28, 2026: Call the Map currently has Ashley Moody ahead of Angie Nixon by R+8.7, with a 93 in 100 chance to win. The seat is currently held by a Republican. That result would keep the seat with Republicans. The current poll average is R+6.6; 25 public polls are recorded.