Call
the Map
Forecast5 days out
← SenateNovember 3, 2026

Louisiana · U.S. Senate

Julia Letlow is heavily favored to keep Louisiana’s Senate seat in Republican hands. Predicted margin: R+16.6.

Jamie Davis (D)4 in 10040.434.8–46.0
Julia Letlow (R)96 in 10057.051.3–62.6

Under each share, its likely range (80 in 100 simulations)

Background

Letlow defeated John Fleming in the June 27 Republican runoff after incumbent Bill Cassidy finished third in the May primary.

Likely ROpen seat

Forecast history

Steady0.0 pts · Oct 26 → Oct 28Louisiana U.S. Senate: steady — the published margin moved 0.0 points between the Oct 26 and Oct 28 editions (3 of 47 stored editions). This is movement of the published forecast between editions.
R+15R+20Aug 1Nov 3 · Election Day

Latest reading · Oct 28 · first published Sep 9 · 80% range · margin points R+27.8 to R+5.3. 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
DateMarginChance80% rangeReading
Oct 28R+16.6R win 96.3%R+27.8 to R+5.3Published forecast
Oct 27R+16.5R win 96.3%R+27.7 to R+5.3Published forecast
Oct 26R+16.5R win 96.3%R+27.7 to R+5.3Published forecast
Oct 25R+16.5R win 96.3%R+27.7 to R+5.3Published forecast
Oct 24R+16.5R win 96.3%R+27.7 to R+5.3Published forecast
Oct 23R+16.6R win 96.3%R+27.8 to R+5.3Published forecast
Oct 22R+16.5R win 96.3%R+27.7 to R+5.3Published forecast
Oct 21R+16.5R win 96.3%R+27.7 to R+5.3Published forecast
Oct 20R+16.6R win 96.4%R+27.8 to R+5.4Published forecast
Oct 19R+16.6R win 96.4%R+27.8 to R+5.4Published forecast
Oct 18R+16.6R win 96.4%R+27.8 to R+5.4Published forecast
Oct 17R+16.6R win 96.4%R+27.8 to R+5.4Published forecast
Oct 16R+16.7R win 96.5%R+27.9 to R+5.5Published forecast
Oct 15R+16.7R win 96.5%R+27.9 to R+5.6Published forecast
Oct 14R+16.8R win 96.5%R+27.9 to R+5.6Published forecast
Oct 13R+16.7R win 96.5%R+27.9 to R+5.6Published forecast
Oct 12R+16.7R win 96.5%R+27.9 to R+5.6Published forecast
Oct 11R+16.7R win 96.5%R+27.9 to R+5.6Published forecast
Oct 10R+16.7R win 96.5%R+27.8 to R+5.5Published forecast
Oct 9R+16.7R win 96.5%R+27.8 to R+5.6Published forecast
Oct 8R+16.7R win 96.5%R+27.8 to R+5.6Published forecast
Oct 7R+16.7R win 96.5%R+27.8 to R+5.6Published forecast
Oct 6R+16.9R win 96.7%R+28.0 to R+5.8Published forecast
Oct 5R+16.9R win 96.7%R+28.0 to R+5.8Published forecast
Oct 4R+16.8R win 96.7%R+27.9 to R+5.7Published forecast
Oct 3R+16.8R win 96.7%R+27.9 to R+5.8Published forecast
Oct 2R+16.9R win 96.7%R+27.9 to R+5.8Published forecast
Oct 1R+16.8R win 96.7%R+27.9 to R+5.8Published forecast
Sep 30R+16.8R win 96.6%R+27.9 to R+5.7Published forecast
Sep 29R+16.8R win 96.7%R+27.9 to R+5.8Published forecast
Sep 28R+16.8R win 96.7%R+27.9 to R+5.8Published forecast
Sep 27R+16.8R win 96.7%R+27.8 to R+5.7Published forecast
Sep 26R+16.8R win 96.7%R+27.8 to R+5.7Published forecast
Sep 25R+16.8R win 96.7%R+27.8 to R+5.7Published forecast
Sep 24R+16.8R win 96.7%R+27.9 to R+5.8Published forecast
Sep 23R+18.9R win 97.5%R+30.4 to R+7.5Published forecast
Sep 22R+19.0R win 97.6%R+30.4 to R+7.6Published forecast
Sep 21R+19.0R win 97.6%R+30.4 to R+7.6Published forecast
Sep 20R+19.0R win 97.5%R+30.4 to R+7.5Published forecast
Sep 19R+19.0R win 97.6%R+30.4 to R+7.6Published forecast
Sep 18R+18.9R win 97.5%R+30.3 to R+7.4Reconstructed with the stated inputs
Sep 17R+18.9R win 97.5%R+30.3 to R+7.4Reconstructed with the stated inputs
Sep 16R+18.9R win 97.5%R+30.4 to R+7.5Reconstructed with the stated inputs
Sep 15R+19.2R win 97.7%R+30.6 to R+7.8Published forecast
Sep 14R+19.1R win 97.6%R+30.5 to R+7.7Published forecast
Sep 13R+19.1R win 97.6%R+30.5 to R+7.7Published forecast
Sep 12R+19.2R win 97.7%R+30.6 to R+7.7Published forecast
Sep 11R+19.2R win 97.7%R+30.6 to R+7.8Published forecast
Sep 10R+19.3R win 97.8%R+30.7 to R+8.0Published forecast
Sep 9R+18.8R win 97.5%R+30.3 to R+7.4Published forecast
Sep 8R+19.4R win 97.8%R+30.8 to R+8.1Reconstructed with the stated inputs
Sep 7R+19.6R win 97.9%R+30.9 to R+8.2Reconstructed with the stated inputs
Sep 6R+19.5R win 97.9%R+30.9 to R+8.2Reconstructed with the stated inputs
Sep 5R+19.6R win 97.9%R+30.9 to R+8.2Reconstructed with the stated inputs
Sep 4R+19.6R win 97.9%R+31.0 to R+8.2Reconstructed with the stated inputs
Sep 3R+19.6R win 97.9%R+31.0 to R+8.3Reconstructed with the stated inputs
Sep 2R+19.6R win 97.9%R+31.0 to R+8.3Reconstructed with the stated inputs
Sep 1R+19.6R win 97.9%R+30.9 to R+8.2Reconstructed with the stated inputs
Aug 31R+19.5R win 97.9%R+30.9 to R+8.2Reconstructed with the stated inputs
Aug 30R+19.5R win 97.9%R+30.9 to R+8.2Reconstructed with the stated inputs
Aug 29R+19.5R win 97.8%R+30.8 to R+8.1Reconstructed with the stated inputs
Aug 28R+19.5R win 97.9%R+30.9 to R+8.2Reconstructed with the stated inputs
Aug 27R+19.5R win 97.8%R+30.8 to R+8.1Reconstructed with the stated inputs
Aug 26R+19.6R win 97.9%R+30.9 to R+8.2Reconstructed with the stated inputs
Aug 25R+19.5R win 97.9%R+30.9 to R+8.2Reconstructed with the stated inputs
Aug 24R+19.5R win 97.9%R+30.9 to R+8.2Reconstructed with the stated inputs
Aug 23R+19.5R win 97.9%R+30.8 to R+8.2Reconstructed with the stated inputs
Aug 22R+19.5R win 97.9%R+30.9 to R+8.2Reconstructed with the stated inputs
Aug 21R+19.5R win 97.9%R+30.9 to R+8.2Reconstructed with the stated inputs
Aug 20R+19.5R win 97.9%R+30.8 to R+8.2Reconstructed with the stated inputs
Aug 19R+19.5R win 97.9%R+30.8 to R+8.2Reconstructed with the stated inputs
Aug 18R+21.2R win 98.2%R+32.9 to R+9.5Reconstructed with the stated inputs
Aug 17R+21.2R win 98.2%R+32.9 to R+9.5Reconstructed with the stated inputs
Aug 16R+21.2R win 98.2%R+32.9 to R+9.5Reconstructed with the stated inputs
Aug 15R+21.2R win 98.2%R+32.9 to R+9.4Reconstructed with the stated inputs
Aug 14R+21.3R win 98.3%R+33.0 to R+9.6Reconstructed with the stated inputs
Aug 13R+21.3R win 98.3%R+33.0 to R+9.6Reconstructed with the stated inputs
Aug 12R+21.2R win 98.2%R+33.0 to R+9.5Reconstructed with the stated inputs
Aug 11R+21.3R win 98.3%R+33.0 to R+9.6Reconstructed with the stated inputs
Aug 10R+21.3R win 98.3%R+33.0 to R+9.5Reconstructed with the stated inputs
Aug 9R+21.3R win 98.3%R+33.0 to R+9.5Reconstructed with the stated inputs
Aug 8R+21.3R win 98.2%R+33.0 to R+9.5Reconstructed with the stated inputs
Aug 7R+21.3R win 98.2%R+33.0 to R+9.5Reconstructed with the stated inputs
Aug 6R+21.4R win 98.3%R+33.2 to R+9.7Reconstructed with the stated inputs
Aug 5R+21.5R win 98.3%R+33.2 to R+9.7Reconstructed with the stated inputs
Aug 4R+21.4R win 98.3%R+33.2 to R+9.7Reconstructed with the stated inputs
Aug 3R+21.5R win 98.3%R+33.2 to R+9.7Reconstructed with the stated inputs
Aug 2R+21.5R win 98.3%R+33.2 to R+9.8Reconstructed with the stated inputs
Aug 1R+21.5R win 98.3%R+33.2 to R+9.7Reconstructed with the stated inputs

The polls

Poll average R+4.0A 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 R+6.0. 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.2 recorded polls · 2 in the poll average

FieldworkAddedPollsterResultSample
from 2026-07-21Public Policy Polling ↗R+4.0D 37% · R 41%518 RV
from 2026-09-17Hart Research Associates ↗R+4.0D 44% · R 48%500 LV
Explore all 2 polls for this race

How the margin was built

Tap an input for its calculation and source.

Toward D+7.9
Toward R−24.5
Forecast marginR+16.6

Displayed values are rounded.

All calculations & sources

How this state voted, 2024 −22.010 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 (15 days old), approval 2026-10-14 (15 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 +2.597 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.

  • Hart Research Associates (2026-09-19, n=500): R+4.0 · weight 0.39 in the poll average
  • Public Policy Polling (2026-07-22, n=518): R+4.0 · weight 0.20 in the poll average
  • Poll average R+4.0, from 2 polls · 2 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 R+6.0. 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 27% of the weight against its structural prior for this race, which moves the margin 2.6 points away from Republicans from where it stood before the polls. Eligible polls: latest poll: 2026-09-19 (40 days old).

Fitted model, above the terrain shown +1.709 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 -20.301 minus starting point -22.010 = 1.709 points.
  • For orientation, the presidential results here: 2024 R+22.0, 2020 R+18.6.
  • The work: the −20.3 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 −2.475 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 −2.5 D.

Votes for other candidates +0.446 points

Every step above is measured between the two major-party candidates alone, as if nobody else were on the ballot. The forecast sets 2.6% 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 factorContribution
FundamentalsThe admitted fitted baseline. Its surviving variables differ by office; the source detail above identifies those used for this race.−20.30
National environmentThe national environment’s contribution to the prior. Polling can attenuate its influence; this value is not the national polling margin.+3.19
This race's pollsAdmitted head-to-head polls of this race, recency- and quality-weighted.+2.60
Structural terrain safeguardA bounded pull toward presidential terrain in heavily partisan states.−2.47
Other factors0.00

Where the votes are

The map of this race loads here.

Recent elections

ElectionResultVotes cast
2020 · U.S. Senate ↗Multiple-candidate ballotAt least one party total combines several candidates. It is not an individual candidate's result.2,071,543
2014 · U.S. Senate ↗Multiple-candidate ballotAt least one party total combines several candidates. It is not an individual candidate's result.3,523,183
2008 · U.S. Senate ↗D+6.41,896,574
2002 · U.S. Senate ↗Multiple-candidate ballotAt least one party total combines several candidates. It is not an individual candidate's result.2,481,629

Margins are the Democrat’s share of all votes cast minus the Republican’s.

The money

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.

See the public support ledger →

Outside spending

Separate from what the campaigns raised

For and against Julia Letlow$13.0M

9 spending groups
GroupForAgainst
ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT INC$9.5M$0
AMERICAN MISSION$1.2M$0
SAVE AMERICAN FREEDOM$763K$0
LOUISIANA FREEDOM FUND$0$658K
HIGH PLAINS PAC$365K$0
FELLOWSHIP PAC$350K$0
HOPE IN ACTION PAC$74K$0
RED BAYOU PAC$0$45K
HUNTER NATION ACTION INC.$17K$0

Includes primary spending. Opposition is recorded against its named target; no benefit to another candidate is assumed.

$1.8M in outside spending on earlier candidates.

No outside spending matched: Jamie Davis.

FEC filings · through 06/30/2026 · Definitions & method

Race context

Turnout, 2018 midterm
44.4% 1,519,405 ballots
Turnout, 2022 midterm
42.1% 1,410,466 ballots
2024 presidential margin
R+22.4between the two parties

Turnout is ballots cast statewide as a share of the voting-eligible population. Source: University of Florida Election Lab ↗

Population profile

White alone · 59.4%2,758,714 of 4,640,546 · Residents2022 Census · matched race geography

Coverage

Forecast as of October 28, 2026: Call the Map currently has Julia Letlow ahead of Jamie Davis by R+16.6, with a 96 in 100 chance to win. This is an open seat. That result would keep the seat with Republicans. The current poll average is R+4.0; 2 public polls are recorded.