Call
the Map
FORECAST51 DAYS OUT
← Senate3 November 2026 · 51 days out

Michigan · U.S. Senate

Open this race on The Map ↗

Abdul El-Sayed has a slight edge to keep Michigan’s Senate seat in Democratic hands. Predicted margin: D+1.5.

Abdul El-Sayed (D)60 in 10060.4%49.6high 53.4 · low 45.7
Mike Rogers (R)40 in 10039.6%48.1high 51.9 · low 44.2

high / low: vote share (%) in the middle 80 in 100 simulations

About this field

Open even-PVI swing state. Michigan's official field confirms a competitive El-Sayed–Stevens Democratic primary; Rogers is the sole active Republican in the governed field.

Forecast share averages the simulated vote. Win chance counts how often a candidate wins. A wider range of outcomes can give a candidate a higher win chance despite a lower average share.

Tilt D80% range · margin points R+6.3 to D+9.4Open seat

Forecast history

Steady0.0 pts · Sep 11 → Sep 13
EVENAug 1Nov 3 · Election Day

Latest reading · Sep 13 · first published Sep 9 · 80% range · margin points R+6.3 to D+9.4. Methodology

Hover the line, tap it, or use the arrow keys to inspect its history.

About this series

This comparable series begins on September 9, 2026, when the model version changed to CTMM 2.2. Earlier readings remain in the archive and are not joined as voter movement; faded points before September 9, 2026 are reconstructions, not forecasts issued on those days.

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.

The polls

Ledger weighted average D+1.5Used by the forecast: 29 polls (60-day half-life) · measured D+1.9 · after the fitted poll-error shift D+0.330 recorded polls · 30 eligible for the aggregate · 29 with positive weight

FieldworkAddedPollsterResultSample
from 2026-09-073d agoTrafalgar Group ↗D+1.5D 46.3% · R 44.8%1,079 LV
from 2026-08-313d agoSSRS ↗D+3.0D 47% · R 44%843 LV
from 2026-08-313d agoCNN/SSRS ↗D+3.0D 47% · R 44%843 LV
from 2026-08-315d agoGlengariff Group, Inc. ↗R+1.4D 44.4% · R 45.8%600 LV
from 2026-08-26Abacus Data ↗D+5.0D 47% · R 42%332 LV
from 2026-08-22EPIC-MRA ↗D+4.0D 47% · R 43%600 LV
from 2026-08-10Michigan State University Institute for Public Policy and Social Research/YouGov ↗D+5.0D 50% · R 45%779 LV
from 2026-08-11Susquehanna Polling & Research, Inc. ↗D+7.0D 46% · R 39%800 RV
Explore poll adjustments

8 of 30 matching · 30 total

Ledger weighted average D+1.5

Trafalgar Group9 Sep · 1,079 LV · added 10 Sep
CNN/SSRS6 Sep · 843 LV · added 10 Sep
SSRS6 Sep · 843 LV · added 10 Sep
Glengariff Group, Inc.3 Sep · 600 LV · added 9 Sep
Abacus Data28 Aug · 332 LV · added 2 Sep
EPIC-MRA28 Aug · 600 LV · added 30 Aug
Michigan State University Institute for Public Policy and Social Research/YouGov20 Aug · 779 LV · added 1 Sep
Susquehanna Polling & Research, Inc.17 Aug · 800 RV · added 24 Aug
Explore all 30 polls for this race

How the margin was built

Follow each contribution to the margin. Wider ribbons mean more percentage points. Tap an input for its calculation and source.

Toward D+8.6
Toward R−7.0
Forecast marginD+1.5

The signed totals combine at the forecast. Displayed values are rounded.

All calculations & sources

How this state voted, 2024 −1.410 points

The state's two-party presidential margin in 2024, 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, two-party, 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 +6.499 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 5.089 minus starting point -1.410 = 6.499 points.
  • For orientation, the presidential results here: 2024 R+1.4, 2020 D+2.8.
  • The work: the +5.1 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 +1.988 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 2026-09-08: 52% generic-ballot aggregates (D+6.5) · 28% special-election overperformance (D+9.0 across 46 specials) · 20% approval-implied (D+8.6 from net approval -21.7).
  • Latest polls — generic ballot 2026-09-08 (5 days old), approval 2026-09-10 (3 days old).
  • Generic-ballot average D+6.5 · support factor 0.84 (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 — 16% of the weight is carried that way.
  • Blended national environment: D+7.6.
  • Applied at full strength to this chamber's races.
  • The work: national environment × 1 chamber strength = +2.0 D of this margin.
  • Blended national environment: D+7.6 (updated 2026-09-08).
  • Effective poll weight 84%; fundamentals share 16%, carried by the interval (×1.08) 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: +2.0 of this margin.

Structural safeguards +0.077 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 +0.1 D.

This race’s polls −5.618 points

What this race’s own recent polling adds beyond its prior, after each poll is weighted for recency, sample size and pollster quality.

  • 30 matchup-validated, sample/recency/grade-weighted poll(s), latest 2026-09-09
  • Trafalgar Group (2026-09-09, n=1,079): D+1.5 · weight 1.26
  • SSRS (2026-09-06, n=843): D+3.0 · weight 1.00
  • CNN/SSRS (2026-09-06, n=843): D+3.0 · weight 1.00
  • Glengariff Group, Inc. (2026-09-03, n=600): R+1.4 · weight 0.77
  • Abacus Data (2026-08-28, n=332): D+5.0 · weight 0.47
  • EPIC-MRA (2026-08-28, n=600): D+4.0 · weight 0.63
  • … and 24 more below.
  • Adjusted poll-bank aggregate D+1.5 · 30 recorded polls · 30 eligible for the aggregate · 29 with positive weight. The sealed model records a net polling contribution of −5.6 D. Observation weights are not the final model blend weight. Eligible polls: latest poll: 2026-09-09 (4 days old).
  • Adjusted poll-bank aggregate D+1.5 · 30 recorded polls · 30 eligible for the aggregate · 29 with positive weight; recorded polling contribution −5.6 D. These observation weights must not be read as the model’s final prior-versus-polling weight. Eligible polls: latest poll: 2026-09-09 (4 days old).

The components this edition publishes for this race, in points. “Other factors” closes the sum to the two-party structural lean exactly. Here the structural lean IS the published margin, so the walk sums to the projection exactly; nothing is left over.

Named factorContribution
This race's pollsAdmitted head-to-head polls of this race, recency- and quality-weighted.−5.62
FundamentalsThe admitted fitted baseline. Its surviving variables differ by office; the source detail above identifies those used for this race.+5.09
National environmentThe national environment’s contribution to the prior. Polling can attenuate its influence; this value is not the national polling margin.+1.99
Structural terrain safeguardA bounded pull toward presidential terrain in heavily partisan states.+0.08
Other factors−0.00

Recent elections

ElectionResultVotes cast
2020 · U.S. Senate ↗D+1.75,479,720
2014 · U.S. Senate ↗D+13.83,121,771
2008 · U.S. Senate ↗D+29.94,848,620
2002 · U.S. Senate ↗D+23.13,129,287

Margins compare Democratic and Republican vote totals. Nonstandard ballots are labeled separately.

The money

Bar length compares reported receipts in this race; the tick marks cash on hand. A missing filing stays blank rather than becoming $0.

One more fundraising reportCall the Map · $0

The candidates are comfortably out-fundraising the website covering them. A little rude, perhaps, but statistically unsurprising.

Received so far
$0
Measured compute
$26,188.58

Ko-fi and Buy Me a Coffee receipts are counted through Sep 1, 2026. 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.

Ko-fi ↗Buy Me a Coffee ↗

See the public support ledger →

Outside spending

Support + opposition · separate from receipts

For and against Abdul El-Sayed$36.5M

27 spending groups
GroupForAgainst
UNITED DEMOCRACY PROJECT (UDP)$0$20.1M
SLF PAC$0$9.7M
The Sentinel Action Fund$0$1.2M
Americans for Prosperity Action, Inc. (AFP Action) DBA CVA Action and DBA LIBRE Action$0$1.1M
FIGHTING FOR MICHIGAN PAC$807K$0
America PAC$0$730K
GLCF, INC.$0$512K
National Nurses United for Patient Protection$490K$0
AMERICAN PRIORITIES (AP)$372K$0
Common Defense Action Fund$290K$0
CFFE PAC$237K$0
LCV Victory Fund$189K$0
Working Families Party PAC$163K$0
A Stronger Michigan$0$150K
MoveOn.org Political Action$105K$0
Progress Action Fund$65K$0
CITIZENS AGAINST AIPAC CORRUPTION$58K$0
WORKERS VOTE$52K$0
WinSenate$50K$0
UNITY & JUSTICE FUND$44K$0
Field Team 6 Inc.$42K$0
SF SOLIDARITY PAC$27K$0
MILLIONS OF MICHIGANIANS$25K$0
Forward Blue PAC$19K$0
EMGAGE FEDERAL POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$17K$0
Indivisible Action$8K$0
RED SENATE$0$6K

For and against Mike Rogers$35.4M

14 spending groups
GroupForAgainst
Americans for Prosperity Action, Inc. (AFP Action) DBA CVA Action and DBA LIBRE Action$10.0M$0
GLCF, INC.$9.5M$0
WinSenate$0$5.9M
The Sentinel Action Fund$2.4M$0
EDF Action Votes$0$1.8M
LCV Victory Fund$0$1.5M
Giffords PAC$0$1.0M
AFSCME WORKING FAMILIES FUND$0$1.0M
FIRST PRINCIPLES DIGITAL$811K$0
America PAC$723K$0
Senate Leadership Fund$645K$0
MILLIONS OF MICHIGANIANS$0$100K
RED SENATE$15K$0
THE CONSERVATIVE CAUCUS DBA AMERICANS FOR CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTY$4K$0

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

$35.7M in outside spending on earlier candidates.

FEC filings · through 07/15/2026 · Definitions & method

Race context

Forecast votes cast
4,272,400
Forecast turnout
56.1% of the voting-eligible population
2024 presidential margin
R+1.4

Statewide, 57.5% of the voting-eligible population is projected to cast a ballot; the lower figure above is the share projected to vote in this race.

Population profile Select a measure for its source and denominator

White alone · 75.7%7,617,085 of 10,057,921 · Residents2022 Census · matched race geography
Demographic source and limits

U.S. Census Bureau, 2022 American Community Survey 5-year estimates ↗

Coverage

21 stories · 3 quotes

All coverage and full posts on the Wire →