Iowa · U.S. Senate
Ashley Hinson is slightly favored to keep Iowa’s Senate seat in Republican hands. Predicted margin: R+0.9.
Show all others (1)
Thomas Laehn
Other is a combined forecast; individual estimates are not published.
Ballot eligibility alone supplies no quantitative estimate. Other is a collective share, not any named candidate’s forecast. Official ballot sources: Thomas Laehn (checked 2026-08-31).
Under each share, its likely range (80 in 100 simulations)
Background
Rep. Ashley Hinson vs. state Rep. Josh Turek for Ernst's open seat; D special-election overperformance keeps it interesting.
Forecast history
Latest reading · Oct 28 · first published Sep 9 · 80% range · margin points R+8.5 to D+6.6. 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+0.9 | R win 56.5% | R+8.5 to D+6.6 | Published forecast |
| Oct 27 | R+1.0 | R win 57.1% | R+8.5 to D+6.6 | Published forecast |
| Oct 26 | R+1.2 | R win 58.7% | R+8.8 to D+6.3 | Published forecast |
| Oct 25 | R+1.2 | R win 58.8% | R+8.8 to D+6.3 | Published forecast |
| Oct 24 | R+1.2 | R win 58.8% | R+8.8 to D+6.3 | Published forecast |
| Oct 23 | R+1.1 | R win 57.6% | R+8.6 to D+6.5 | Published forecast |
| Oct 22 | R+1.1 | R win 57.6% | R+8.6 to D+6.5 | Published forecast |
| Oct 21 | R+1.2 | R win 58.3% | R+8.7 to D+6.4 | Published forecast |
| Oct 20 | R+1.3 | R win 59.0% | R+8.8 to D+6.3 | Published forecast |
| Oct 19 | R+1.0 | R win 56.8% | R+8.5 to D+6.6 | Published forecast |
| Oct 18 | R+1.0 | R win 56.8% | R+8.5 to D+6.6 | Published forecast |
| Oct 17 | R+1.0 | R win 56.8% | R+8.5 to D+6.6 | Published forecast |
| Oct 16 | R+1.0 | R win 56.8% | R+8.5 to D+6.6 | Published forecast |
| Oct 15 | R+1.0 | R win 56.8% | R+8.5 to D+6.6 | Published forecast |
| Oct 14 | R+0.8 | R win 56.0% | R+8.4 to D+6.7 | Published forecast |
| Oct 13 | R+0.8 | R win 56.0% | R+8.4 to D+6.7 | Published forecast |
| Oct 12 | R+0.8 | R win 56.0% | R+8.4 to D+6.7 | Published forecast |
| Oct 11 | R+0.8 | R win 56.0% | R+8.4 to D+6.7 | Published forecast |
| Oct 10 | R+0.8 | R win 56.0% | R+8.4 to D+6.7 | Published forecast |
| Oct 9 | R+0.8 | R win 56.0% | R+8.4 to D+6.7 | Published forecast |
| Oct 8 | R+0.8 | R win 55.8% | R+8.4 to D+6.8 | Published forecast |
| Oct 7 | R+0.6 | R win 54.2% | R+8.2 to D+7.0 | Published forecast |
| Oct 6 | R+0.8 | R win 56.0% | R+8.4 to D+6.7 | Published forecast |
| Oct 5 | R+0.9 | R win 56.0% | R+8.4 to D+6.7 | Published forecast |
| Oct 4 | R+0.8 | R win 56.0% | R+8.4 to D+6.7 | Published forecast |
| Oct 3 | R+0.8 | R win 55.5% | R+8.4 to D+6.8 | Published forecast |
| Oct 2 | R+0.8 | R win 55.7% | R+8.4 to D+6.8 | Published forecast |
| Oct 1 | R+0.9 | R win 56.6% | R+8.5 to D+6.7 | Published forecast |
| Sep 30 | R+0.6 | R win 54.3% | R+8.2 to D+7.0 | Published forecast |
| Sep 29 | R+0.6 | R win 54.4% | R+8.2 to D+7.0 | Published forecast |
| Sep 28 | R+0.6 | R win 54.4% | R+8.2 to D+7.0 | Published forecast |
| Sep 27 | R+0.7 | R win 55.1% | R+8.3 to D+6.9 | Published forecast |
| Sep 26 | R+0.7 | R win 55.1% | R+8.3 to D+6.9 | Published forecast |
| Sep 25 | R+0.7 | R win 55.1% | R+8.3 to D+6.9 | Published forecast |
| Sep 24 | R+0.7 | R win 55.2% | R+8.4 to D+6.9 | Published forecast |
| Sep 23 | R+0.8 | R win 55.3% | R+8.4 to D+6.9 | Published forecast |
| Sep 22 | R+1.8 | R win 62.8% | R+9.4 to D+5.7 | Published forecast |
| Sep 21 | R+1.8 | R win 62.8% | R+9.4 to D+5.7 | Published forecast |
| Sep 20 | R+1.8 | R win 62.7% | R+9.4 to D+5.7 | Published forecast |
| Sep 19 | R+1.8 | R win 62.9% | R+9.4 to D+5.7 | Published forecast |
| Sep 18 | R+1.9 | R win 63.3% | R+9.5 to D+5.7 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 17 | R+1.9 | R win 63.3% | R+9.5 to D+5.7 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 16 | R+1.9 | R win 63.3% | R+9.5 to D+5.7 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 15 | R+1.4 | R win 59.5% | R+9.0 to D+6.2 | Published forecast |
| Sep 14 | R+1.3 | R win 59.4% | R+8.9 to D+6.3 | Published forecast |
| Sep 13 | R+1.3 | R win 59.4% | R+8.9 to D+6.3 | Published forecast |
| Sep 12 | R+1.4 | R win 59.5% | R+9.0 to D+6.3 | Published forecast |
| Sep 11 | R+2.2 | R win 64.3% | R+10.1 to D+5.8 | Published forecast |
| Sep 10 | R+2.2 | R win 64.4% | R+10.1 to D+5.8 | Published forecast |
| Sep 9 | R+2.3 | R win 65.4% | R+10.3 to D+5.6 | Published forecast |
| Sep 8 | R+2.3 | R win 65.0% | R+10.2 to D+5.7 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 7 | R+2.3 | R win 65.2% | R+10.2 to D+5.6 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 6 | R+2.3 | R win 65.2% | R+10.2 to D+5.6 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 5 | R+2.3 | R win 65.5% | R+10.2 to D+5.5 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 4 | R+2.3 | R win 65.6% | R+10.2 to D+5.5 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 3 | R+2.3 | R win 65.7% | R+10.2 to D+5.5 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 2 | R+2.1 | R win 63.7% | R+10.0 to D+5.9 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 1 | R+2.0 | R win 63.4% | R+9.9 to D+5.9 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 31 | R+2.0 | R win 63.3% | R+9.9 to D+5.9 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 30 | R+3.0 | R win 68.8% | R+11.1 to D+5.2 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 29 | R+2.9 | R win 67.3% | R+11.4 to D+5.7 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 28 | R+2.9 | R win 67.4% | R+11.4 to D+5.7 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 27 | R+2.9 | R win 67.4% | R+11.4 to D+5.7 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 26 | R+2.9 | R win 67.5% | R+11.4 to D+5.6 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 25 | R+2.2 | R win 63.0% | R+11.3 to D+6.8 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 24 | R+2.2 | R win 63.1% | R+11.3 to D+6.8 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 23 | R+2.2 | R win 63.1% | R+11.3 to D+6.8 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 22 | R+2.2 | R win 63.0% | R+11.4 to D+6.9 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 21 | R+2.4 | R win 64.7% | R+11.1 to D+6.3 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 20 | R+2.4 | R win 64.7% | R+11.1 to D+6.2 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 19 | R+2.4 | R win 64.7% | R+11.1 to D+6.2 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 18 | R+2.4 | R win 64.7% | R+11.1 to D+6.2 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 17 | R+2.4 | R win 64.8% | R+11.1 to D+6.2 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 16 | R+2.4 | R win 64.8% | R+11.0 to D+6.2 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 15 | R+2.4 | R win 64.8% | R+11.0 to D+6.2 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 14 | R+2.4 | R win 65.0% | R+11.0 to D+6.1 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 13 | R+2.4 | R win 65.0% | R+11.0 to D+6.1 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 12 | R+2.4 | R win 65.0% | R+11.0 to D+6.1 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 11 | R+2.4 | R win 65.1% | R+10.9 to D+6.1 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 10 | R+2.4 | R win 65.1% | R+10.9 to D+6.0 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 9 | R+2.4 | R win 65.1% | R+10.9 to D+6.0 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 8 | R+2.4 | R win 65.1% | R+10.9 to D+6.0 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 7 | R+2.4 | R win 65.2% | R+10.9 to D+6.0 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 6 | R+2.5 | R win 65.5% | R+10.9 to D+5.9 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 5 | R+2.0 | R win 61.5% | R+11.0 to D+7.0 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 4 | R+2.0 | R win 61.6% | R+10.9 to D+7.0 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 3 | R+2.0 | R win 61.6% | R+10.9 to D+7.0 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 2 | R+2.0 | R win 61.7% | R+10.9 to D+7.0 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 1 | R+2.0 | R win 61.7% | R+10.9 to D+7.0 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
The polls
Poll average D+0.5A 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+0.6. 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.35 recorded polls · 35 in the poll average
| Fieldwork | Added | Pollster | Result | Sample |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| from 2026-10-16 | 1d ago | Echelon Insights ↗ | D+2.0D 45% · R 43% | 403 LV |
| from 2026-10-21 | 5d ago | InsiderAdvantage ↗ | R+1.5D 45.5% · R 47% | 1,200 LV |
| from 2026-10-09 | 7d ago | New River Strategies/GS Strategy Group ↗ | D+2.0D 46% · R 44% | 602 LV |
| from 2026-10-08 | National Public Affairs ↗ | R+1.0D 47% · R 48% | 678 LV | |
| from 2026-10-15 | co/efficient ↗ | R+3.0D 45% · R 48% | 863 LV | |
| from 2026-10-13 | Trafalgar Group ↗ | R+1.7D 44.2% · R 45.9% | 1,094 LV | |
| from 2026-10-08 | Marist University ↗ | D+3.0D 48% · R 45% | 1,100 LV | |
| from 2026-10-06 | YouGov ↗ | D+1.0D 47% · R 46% | 2,245 LV |
Explore each poll’s weight in the average
Poll average D+0.5
- Published result
- D+2.0
- Weight in the poll average
- 0.52 · 4.3% of the average
- Fieldwork
- 16 Oct–23 Oct
- Sample
- 403 LV
- Sponsor
- Not listed
- Published result
- R+1.5
- Weight in the poll average
- 0.88 · 4.7% of the average
- Fieldwork
- 21 Oct–22 Oct
- Sample
- 1,200 LV
- Sponsor
- Not listed
- Published result
- R+3.0
- Weight in the poll average
- 0.72 · 4.0% of the average
- Fieldwork
- 15 Oct–19 Oct
- Sample
- 863 LV
- Sponsor
- Not listed
- Published result
- R+1.7
- Weight in the poll average
- 0.77 · 4.1% of the average
- Fieldwork
- 13 Oct–15 Oct
- Sample
- 1,094 LV
- Sponsor
- Republican sponsor · organization not listed
- Published result
- D+2.0
- Weight in the poll average
- 0.56 · 5.2% of the average
- Fieldwork
- 9 Oct–13 Oct
- Sample
- 602 LV
- Sponsor
- Not listed
- Published result
- R+1.0
- Weight in the poll average
- 0.59 · 5.4% of the average
- Fieldwork
- 8 Oct–12 Oct
- Sample
- 678 LV
- Sponsor
- Republican sponsor · organization not listed
- Published result
- D+1.0
- Weight in the poll average
- 0.83 · 4.6% of the average
- Fieldwork
- 6 Oct–12 Oct
- Sample
- 2,245 LV
- Sponsor
- Not listed
- Published result
- D+3.0
- Weight in the poll average
- 0.74 · 3.9% of the average
- Fieldwork
- 8 Oct–11 Oct
- Sample
- 1,100 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 −13.260 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.
Fitted model, above the terrain shown +9.638 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 -3.622 minus starting point -13.260 = 9.638 points.
- For orientation, the presidential results here: 2024 R+13.3, 2020 R+8.2.
- The work: the −3.6 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.
National environment +3.197 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.
This race’s polls −0.509 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.
- Echelon Insights (2026-10-23, n=403): D+2.0 · weight 0.52 in the poll average
- InsiderAdvantage (2026-10-22, n=1,200): R+1.5 · weight 0.88 in the poll average
- co/efficient (2026-10-19, n=863): R+3.0 · weight 0.72 in the poll average
- Trafalgar Group (2026-10-15, n=1,094): R+1.7 · weight 0.77 in the poll average
- New River Strategies/GS Strategy Group (2026-10-13, n=602): D+2.0 · weight 0.56 in the poll average
- National Public Affairs (2026-10-12, n=678): R+1.0 · weight 0.59 in the poll average
- … and 29 more below.
- Poll average D+0.5, from 35 polls · 35 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 puts the average it reads at D+0.6. 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. The forecast gives the polls 98% of the weight against its structural prior for this race, which moves the margin 0.5 points toward Republicans from where it stood before the polls. Eligible polls: latest poll: 2026-10-23 (5 days old).
Structural safeguards −0.018 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 −0.0 D.
Votes for other candidates +0.032 points
Every step above is measured between the two major-party candidates alone, as if nobody else were on the ballot. The forecast sets 3.4% 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. | −3.62 |
| National environmentThe national environment’s contribution to the prior. Polling can attenuate its influence; this value is not the national polling margin. | +3.20 |
| This race's pollsAdmitted head-to-head polls of this race, recency- and quality-weighted. | −0.51 |
| 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+6.5 | 1,700,130 |
| 2014 · U.S. Senate ↗ | R+8.3 | 1,129,700 |
| 2008 · U.S. Senate ↗ | D+25.4 | 1,502,918 |
| 2002 · U.S. Senate ↗ | D+10.4 | 1,023,075 |
Margins are the Democrat’s share of all votes cast minus the Republican’s.
The money
Ashley Hinson ↗
R$10.2Mraised
$6.7M cash on hand
Josh Turek ↗
D$6.3Mraised
$2.4M cash on hand
Thomas Laehn ↗
D$32Kraised
$8K 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 Josh Turek$37.4M
26 spending groups
| Group | For | Against |
|---|---|---|
| VoteVets | $9.8M | $0 |
| Americans for Prosperity Action, Inc. (AFP Action) DBA CVA Action and DBA LIBRE Action | $0 | $5.0M |
| FIGHT ON IOWA | $0 | $4.8M |
| Win it Back PAC | $0 | $3.8M |
| Lower Costs Now | $3.4M | $0 |
| America PAC | $0 | $2.1M |
| SLF PAC | $0 | $2.0M |
| One For All Committee | $1.3M | $0 |
| Government That Works PAC | $939K | $0 |
| NO GOING BACK PAC INC. | $0 | $823K |
| AB PAC | $645K | $0 |
| Fund for a Working Congress | $0 | $644K |
| CFFE PAC | $519K | $0 |
| DIGITAL FREEDOM FUND | $0 | $425K |
| PLAINS PAC | $0 | $258K |
| HIGH PLAINS PAC | $0 | $258K |
| Progressive Turnout Project | $223K | $0 |
| MAGA INC. | $0 | $190K |
| PROJECT BULLHORN PAC | $128K | $0 |
| WinSenate | $54K | $0 |
| THE CONSERVATIVE CAUCUS DBA AMERICANS FOR CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTY | $0 | $15K |
| Thomas Paine Society, L.L.C. | $13K | $0 |
| DEMOCRATIC MESSAGING PROJECT | $13K | $0 |
| Gun Rights America | $0 | $4K |
| VOTERS OF TOMORROW PAC | $580 | $0 |
| Neighbor Voices | $413 | $0 |
For and against Ashley Hinson$54.0M
26 spending groups
| Group | For | Against |
|---|---|---|
| WinSenate | $0 | $20.8M |
| Americans for Prosperity Action, Inc. (AFP Action) DBA CVA Action and DBA LIBRE Action | $7.1M | $0 |
| VoteVets | $0 | $6.5M |
| FIGHT ON IOWA | $4.5M | $0 |
| AB PAC | $0 | $4.1M |
| American Meat Producers PAC | $0 | $2.5M |
| Government That Works PAC | $131K | $2.1M |
| LCV Victory Fund | $0 | $1.6M |
| Lower Costs Now | $0 | $1.4M |
| Fund for a Working Congress | $615K | $0 |
| SLF PAC | $550K | $0 |
| Moms for Safe Neighborhoods, Inc. | $494K | $0 |
| CFFE PAC | $0 | $314K |
| WFW ACTION FUND INC | $260K | $0 |
| CLEARPATH ACTION FUND, INC. | $191K | $0 |
| America PAC | $186K | $0 |
| AFSCME WORKING FAMILIES FUND | $0 | $178K |
| ANIMAL WELLNESS ACTION | $0 | $159K |
| DIGITAL FREEDOM FUND | $146K | $0 |
| PROJECT BULLHORN PAC | $0 | $128K |
| Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. Political Action Committee (ABC PAC) | $46K | $0 |
| NRA VICTORY FUND, INC. | $19K | $0 |
| THE CONSERVATIVE CAUCUS DBA AMERICANS FOR CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTY | $12K | $0 |
| MISSION IOWA | $11K | $0 |
| Duty and Country | $0 | $2K |
| Neighbor Voices | $0 | $292 |
Includes primary spending. Opposition is recorded against its named target; no benefit to another candidate is assumed.
$165K in outside spending on earlier candidates.
No outside spending matched: Thomas Laehn.
FEC filings · through 06/30/2026 · Definitions & method
Race context
- Turnout, 2018 midterm
- 56.9% 1,334,279 ballots
- Turnout, 2022 midterm
- 52.0% 1,230,417 ballots
- 2024 presidential margin
- R+13.4between 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
2 stories · 4 quotes
- Tens of millions of Americans have already made their way to the ballot box as early voting is underway in a midterm election that will determine control of the House and the Senate, Ariana Figueroa and Shauneen Miranda report. iowacapitaldispatch.com/2026/10/27/r... ↗
Iowa Capital Dispatch · Official · 22h ago
curated state newsroom · recent Bluesky post · named-race match · election-topic match - US SENATE RACE IN IOWA: Josh Turek ad on transgender issues draws bipartisan criticism www.newsfromthestates.com/article/josh... ↗
Jane Norman · Commentary · 1d ago
curated political commentary · recent Bluesky post · named-race match - Josh Turek is running a radically centrist campaign ↗
Semafor · Oct 26
- Yesterday, Josh Turek released one of the worst anti-transgender ads to come from a Democrat this election cycle.
It called for a federal funding ban on gender affirming care, which would impact countless trans Americans.
Here is our article on the ad you have all undoubtedly seen by now. ↗
Erin Reed · Official · 3d ago
curated newsroom · recent Bluesky post · named-race match - Trump rallies his Iowa base as Republicans face tougher statewide races ↗
Iowa Public Radio politics · Oct 23
- Oct 6-12 YouGov poll of 2,245 Iowa likely voters (±3.1 points)
U.S. Senate
Josh Turek (D) 47%
Ashley Hinson (R) 46%
Governor
Rob Sand (D) 50%
Zach Lahn (R) 44%
d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/tt... ↗
YouGov America · Analysis · Oct 15
curated pollster · recent Bluesky post · named-race match · election-topic match
Forecast as of October 28, 2026: Call the Map currently has Ashley Hinson ahead of Josh Turek by R+0.9, with a 57 in 100 chance to win. This is an open seat. That result would keep the seat with Republicans. The current poll average is D+0.5; 35 public polls are recorded.