Michigan · U.S. Senate
Abdul El-Sayed is slightly favored to keep Michigan’s Senate seat in Democratic hands. Predicted margin: D+1.3.
Under each share, its likely range (80 in 100 simulations)
Background
Open even-PVI swing state: Abdul El-Sayed (D) faces Mike Rogers (R).
Forecast history
Latest reading · Oct 28 · first published Sep 9 · 80% range · margin points R+6.4 to D+8.9. 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 | D+1.3 | D win 58.7% | R+6.4 to D+8.9 | Published forecast |
| Oct 27 | D+1.3 | D win 58.9% | R+6.4 to D+8.9 | Published forecast |
| Oct 26 | D+1.4 | D win 59.6% | R+6.2 to D+9.0 | Published forecast |
| Oct 25 | D+1.2 | D win 58.5% | R+6.4 to D+8.8 | Published forecast |
| Oct 24 | D+1.2 | D win 58.6% | R+6.4 to D+8.9 | Published forecast |
| Oct 23 | D+1.3 | D win 59.1% | R+6.3 to D+8.9 | Published forecast |
| Oct 22 | D+1.3 | D win 59.2% | R+6.3 to D+8.9 | Published forecast |
| Oct 21 | D+1.3 | D win 59.4% | R+6.3 to D+9.0 | Published forecast |
| Oct 20 | D+1.6 | D win 61.5% | R+6.0 to D+9.3 | Published forecast |
| Oct 19 | D+1.7 | D win 61.6% | R+5.9 to D+9.3 | Published forecast |
| Oct 18 | D+1.7 | D win 61.8% | R+5.9 to D+9.3 | Published forecast |
| Oct 17 | D+1.7 | D win 61.9% | R+5.9 to D+9.3 | Published forecast |
| Oct 16 | D+1.7 | D win 61.9% | R+5.9 to D+9.3 | Published forecast |
| Oct 15 | D+1.7 | D win 62.1% | R+5.9 to D+9.4 | Published forecast |
| Oct 14 | D+1.8 | D win 62.3% | R+5.9 to D+9.4 | Published forecast |
| Oct 13 | D+1.8 | D win 62.4% | R+5.8 to D+9.4 | Published forecast |
| Oct 12 | D+1.8 | D win 62.6% | R+5.8 to D+9.4 | Published forecast |
| Oct 11 | D+1.8 | D win 62.7% | R+5.8 to D+9.4 | Published forecast |
| Oct 10 | D+1.9 | D win 62.9% | R+5.8 to D+9.5 | Published forecast |
| Oct 9 | D+1.8 | D win 62.3% | R+5.9 to D+9.4 | Published forecast |
| Oct 8 | D+1.8 | D win 62.3% | R+5.9 to D+9.4 | Published forecast |
| Oct 7 | D+1.7 | D win 62.0% | R+5.9 to D+9.4 | Published forecast |
| Oct 6 | D+1.9 | D win 63.2% | R+5.7 to D+9.5 | Published forecast |
| Oct 5 | D+1.9 | D win 63.1% | R+5.7 to D+9.5 | Published forecast |
| Oct 4 | D+1.9 | D win 63.3% | R+5.7 to D+9.5 | Published forecast |
| Oct 3 | D+1.9 | D win 63.4% | R+5.7 to D+9.6 | Published forecast |
| Oct 2 | D+2.0 | D win 63.5% | R+5.7 to D+9.6 | Published forecast |
| Oct 1 | D+2.0 | D win 63.6% | R+5.7 to D+9.6 | Published forecast |
| Sep 30 | D+2.1 | D win 64.6% | R+5.5 to D+9.7 | Published forecast |
| Sep 29 | D+1.7 | D win 61.6% | R+6.0 to D+9.3 | Published forecast |
| Sep 28 | D+1.7 | D win 61.8% | R+5.9 to D+9.3 | Published forecast |
| Sep 27 | D+1.7 | D win 62.1% | R+5.9 to D+9.4 | Published forecast |
| Sep 26 | D+1.8 | D win 62.3% | R+5.9 to D+9.4 | Published forecast |
| Sep 25 | D+1.7 | D win 61.8% | R+6.0 to D+9.3 | Published forecast |
| Sep 24 | D+1.5 | D win 60.7% | R+6.1 to D+9.2 | Published forecast |
| Sep 23 | D+1.7 | D win 62.0% | R+5.9 to D+9.4 | Published forecast |
| Sep 22 | D+1.5 | D win 60.4% | R+6.2 to D+9.2 | Published forecast |
| Sep 21 | D+1.5 | D win 60.4% | R+6.2 to D+9.2 | Published forecast |
| Sep 20 | D+1.5 | D win 60.4% | R+6.2 to D+9.2 | Published forecast |
| Sep 19 | D+1.5 | D win 60.5% | R+6.2 to D+9.2 | Published forecast |
| Sep 18 | D+1.6 | D win 60.8% | R+6.1 to D+9.2 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 17 | D+1.6 | D win 61.0% | R+6.1 to D+9.3 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 16 | D+1.5 | D win 60.2% | R+6.2 to D+9.1 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 15 | D+1.5 | D win 60.1% | R+6.2 to D+9.1 | Published forecast |
| Sep 14 | D+1.5 | D win 60.4% | R+6.2 to D+9.2 | Published forecast |
| Sep 13 | D+1.5 | D win 60.4% | R+6.2 to D+9.2 | Published forecast |
| Sep 12 | D+1.5 | D win 60.5% | R+6.2 to D+9.2 | Published forecast |
| Sep 11 | D+1.5 | D win 60.6% | R+6.2 to D+9.2 | Published forecast |
| Sep 10 | D+1.5 | D win 60.6% | R+6.2 to D+9.2 | Published forecast |
| Sep 9 | D+1.2 | D win 58.3% | R+6.5 to D+8.9 | Published forecast |
| Sep 8 | D+1.2 | D win 58.6% | R+6.5 to D+8.9 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 7 | D+1.2 | D win 58.7% | R+6.5 to D+8.9 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 6 | D+1.3 | D win 58.8% | R+6.4 to D+9.0 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 5 | D+1.6 | D win 60.9% | R+6.1 to D+9.3 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 4 | D+1.5 | D win 60.5% | R+6.2 to D+9.2 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 3 | D+1.5 | D win 60.6% | R+6.2 to D+9.2 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 2 | D+1.6 | D win 60.8% | R+6.1 to D+9.2 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 1 | D+1.4 | D win 59.6% | R+6.3 to D+9.1 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 31 | D+1.1 | D win 57.4% | R+6.7 to D+8.8 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 30 | D+0.8 | D win 55.5% | R+7.0 to D+8.5 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 29 | D+0.5 | D win 53.5% | R+7.3 to D+8.3 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 28 | D+0.5 | D win 53.6% | R+7.2 to D+8.3 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 27 | D+0.5 | D win 53.8% | R+7.2 to D+8.3 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 26 | D+0.6 | D win 53.8% | R+7.2 to D+8.3 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 25 | D+0.6 | D win 54.1% | R+7.2 to D+8.3 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 24 | D+0.7 | D win 54.7% | R+7.1 to D+8.4 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 23 | D+0.7 | D win 55.1% | R+7.0 to D+8.5 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 22 | D+0.8 | D win 55.3% | R+7.0 to D+8.5 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 21 | D+0.2 | D win 51.6% | R+7.5 to D+8.0 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 20 | D+0.3 | D win 51.9% | R+7.5 to D+8.0 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 19 | D+0.2 | D win 51.2% | R+7.6 to D+8.0 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 18 | R+0.9 | R win 56.4% | R+8.7 to D+6.8 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 17 | R+1.1 | R win 57.5% | R+8.8 to D+6.7 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 16 | R+1.1 | R win 57.3% | R+8.8 to D+6.7 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 15 | R+1.0 | R win 57.0% | R+8.8 to D+6.7 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 14 | R+1.2 | R win 58.3% | R+8.9 to D+6.5 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 13 | R+1.2 | R win 58.1% | R+8.9 to D+6.6 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 12 | R+0.8 | R win 55.7% | R+8.9 to D+7.2 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 11 | R+0.8 | R win 55.5% | R+8.9 to D+7.2 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 10 | R+0.8 | R win 55.3% | R+8.8 to D+7.3 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 9 | R+0.8 | R win 55.0% | R+8.8 to D+7.3 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 8 | R+0.7 | R win 54.8% | R+8.7 to D+7.3 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 7 | R+0.7 | R win 54.6% | R+8.7 to D+7.3 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 6 | R+0.7 | R win 54.7% | R+8.7 to D+7.3 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 5 | R+0.7 | R win 54.5% | R+8.6 to D+7.3 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 4 | R+0.6 | R win 54.3% | R+8.6 to D+7.3 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 3 | R+0.6 | R win 54.1% | R+8.5 to D+7.3 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 2 | R+0.5 | R win 53.0% | R+8.7 to D+7.8 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 1 | R+0.5 | R win 52.9% | R+8.8 to D+7.9 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
The polls
Poll average D+2.7A 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.54 recorded polls · 53 in the poll average
| Fieldwork | Added | Pollster | Result | Sample |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| from 2026-10-19 | 1d ago | Glengariff Group, Inc. ↗ | D+6.3D 51.4% · R 45.1% | 600 LV |
| from 2026-10-02 | 2d ago | Michigan State University Institute for Public Policy and Social Research/YouGov ↗ | D+2.5D 48% · R 45.5% | 836 LV |
| from 2026-10-20 | 2d ago | RedBox Research (D) ↗ | D+5.0D 49% · R 44% | 2,696 LV |
| from 2026-10-21 | 5d ago | InsiderAdvantage ↗ | D+1.2D 47.2% · R 46% | 1,200 LV |
| from 2026-10-15 | 7d ago | Marist University ↗ | D+2.0D 50% · R 48% | 1,185 LV |
| from 2026-10-12 | Rasmussen Reports (R) ↗ | D+2.0D 46% · R 44% | 798 LV | |
| from 2026-10-06 | The Tyson Group ↗ | R+2.0D 44% · R 46% | 600 LV | |
| from 2026-09-24 | The Tyson Group ↗ | D+1.0D 44% · R 43% | 600 LV |
Explore each poll’s weight in the average
Poll average D+2.7
- Published result
- D+5.0
- Weight in the poll average
- 0.94 · 5.8% of the average
- Fieldwork
- 20 Oct–23 Oct
- Sample
- 2,696 LV
- Sponsor
- Democratic sponsor · organization not listed
- Published result
- D+6.3
- Weight in the poll average
- 0.62 · 1.8% of the average
- Fieldwork
- 19 Oct–22 Oct
- Sample
- 600 LV
- Sponsor
- Not listed
- Published result
- D+1.2
- Weight in the poll average
- 0.88 · 2.1% of the average
- Fieldwork
- 21 Oct–22 Oct
- Sample
- 1,200 LV
- Sponsor
- Not listed
- Published result
- D+2.5
- Weight in the poll average
- 0.71 · 2.9% of the average
- Fieldwork
- 2 Oct–19 Oct
- Sample
- 836 LV
- Sponsor
- Not listed
- Published result
- D+2.0
- Weight in the poll average
- 0.83 · 2.8% of the average
- Fieldwork
- 15 Oct–18 Oct
- Sample
- 1,185 LV
- Sponsor
- Not listed
- Published result
- D+2.0
- Weight in the poll average
- 0.65 · 4.0% of the average
- Fieldwork
- 12 Oct–14 Oct
- Sample
- 798 LV
- Sponsor
- Republican sponsor · organization not listed
- Published result
- D+2.3
- Weight in the poll average
- 0.77 · 1.9% of the average
- Fieldwork
- 9 Oct–10 Oct
- Sample
- 1,200 LV
- Sponsor
- Not listed
- Published result
- R+2.0
- Weight in the poll average
- 0.53 · 1.7% of the average
- Fieldwork
- 6 Oct–8 Oct
- Sample
- 600 LV
- Sponsor
- Republican sponsor · organization 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 −1.410 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 +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 +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.
Structural safeguards +0.064 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 −7.084 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.
- RedBox Research (D) (2026-10-23, n=2,696): D+5.0 · weight 0.94 in the poll average
- InsiderAdvantage (2026-10-22, n=1,200): D+1.2 · weight 0.88 in the poll average
- Glengariff Group, Inc. (2026-10-22, n=600): D+6.3 · weight 0.62 in the poll average
- Michigan State University Institute for Public Policy and Social Research/YouGov (2026-10-19, n=836): D+2.5 · weight 0.71 in the poll average
- Marist University (2026-10-18, n=1,185): D+2.0 · weight 0.83 in the poll average
- Rasmussen Reports (R) (2026-10-14, n=798): D+2.0 · weight 0.65 in the poll average
- … and 48 more below.
- Poll average D+2.7, from 53 polls · 54 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+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. The forecast gives the polls 98% of the weight against its structural prior for this race, which moves the margin 7.1 points toward Republicans from where it stood before the polls. Eligible polls: latest poll: 2026-10-23 (5 days old).
Votes for other candidates −0.030 points
Every step above is measured between the two major-party candidates alone, as if nobody else were on the ballot. The forecast sets 2.3% 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 |
|---|---|
| This race's pollsAdmitted head-to-head polls of this race, recency- and quality-weighted. | −7.08 |
| 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. | +3.20 |
| Structural terrain safeguardA bounded pull toward presidential terrain in heavily partisan states. | +0.06 |
| 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 ↗ | D+1.7 | 5,479,720 |
| 2014 · U.S. Senate ↗ | D+13.3 | 3,121,771 |
| 2008 · U.S. Senate ↗ | D+28.8 | 4,848,620 |
| 2002 · U.S. Senate ↗ | D+22.7 | 3,129,287 |
Margins are the Democrat’s share of all votes cast minus the Republican’s.
The money
Abdul El-Sayed ↗
D$14.5Mraised
$2.6M cash on hand
Mike Rogers ↗
R$10.9Mraised
$4.5M 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 Abdul El-Sayed$85.2M
57 spending groups
| Group | For | Against |
|---|---|---|
| UNITED DEMOCRACY PROJECT (UDP) | $0 | $20.2M |
| NO GOING BACK PAC INC. | $0 | $19.4M |
| Americans for Prosperity Action, Inc. (AFP Action) DBA CVA Action and DBA LIBRE Action | $0 | $8.5M |
| SLF PAC | $0 | $8.3M |
| WinSenate | $4.8M | $0 |
| America PAC | $0 | $3.5M |
| TOGETHER FOR MICHIGAN | $0 | $3.4M |
| The Sentinel Action Fund | $0 | $2.8M |
| AB PAC | $1.6M | $0 |
| GLCF, INC. | $0 | $1.4M |
| RJC Victory Fund | $0 | $1.3M |
| FIGHTING FOR MICHIGAN PAC | $807K | $0 |
| CFFE PAC | $756K | $0 |
| Lower Costs Now | $735K | $0 |
| American Principles Project PAC | $0 | $611K |
| LCV Victory Fund | $590K | $0 |
| AMERICAN PRIORITIES (AP) | $510K | $0 |
| National Nurses United for Patient Protection | $490K | $0 |
| BlackPAC | $485K | $0 |
| Relentless PAC | $469K | $0 |
| UNITY & JUSTICE FUND | $446K | $0 |
| Progress Action Fund | $419K | $0 |
| Working Families Party PAC | $414K | $0 |
| MAGA INC. | $0 | $354K |
| Somos PAC | $321K | $0 |
| Common Defense Action Fund | $290K | $0 |
| Progressive Turnout Project | $270K | $0 |
| HIGH PLAINS PAC | $0 | $258K |
| AMERICA NEXT INC | $0 | $250K |
| WORKERS VOTE | $169K | $0 |
| Forward Blue PAC | $166K | $0 |
| A Stronger Michigan | $0 | $150K |
| MoveOn.Org Political Action | $131K | $0 |
| Community Change Voters | $106K | $0 |
| End Citizens United | $101K | $0 |
| The Front Line Action | $0 | $92K |
| Planned Parenthood Votes | $88K | $0 |
| Field Team 6 Inc. | $66K | $0 |
| CATHOLICVOTE.ORG CANDIDATE FUND | $0 | $60K |
| For Michigan Action Fund | $60K | $0 |
| CITIZENS AGAINST AIPAC CORRUPTION | $58K | $0 |
| HUNTER ACTION FUND (HAF) | $0 | $45K |
| ASIAN AMERICANS VOICES FUND | $32K | $0 |
| BUILDING MICHIGAN PAC | $0 | $31K |
| For Our Future | $29K | $0 |
| THE CONSERVATIVE CAUCUS DBA AMERICANS FOR CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTY | $0 | $28K |
| SF SOLIDARITY PAC | $27K | $0 |
| Neighbor Voices | $26K | $0 |
| MILLIONS OF MICHIGANIANS | $25K | $0 |
| DEMOCRATIC MESSAGING PROJECT | $20K | $0 |
| EMGAGE FEDERAL POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE | $17K | $0 |
| United We Can | $11K | $0 |
| Indivisible Action | $8K | $0 |
| RED SENATE | $0 | $6K |
| Working America | $5K | $0 |
| Thomas Paine Society, L.L.C. | $4K | $0 |
| Gun Rights America | $0 | $4K |
For and against Mike Rogers$68.8M
34 spending groups
| Group | For | Against |
|---|---|---|
| WinSenate | $0 | $17.5M |
| Americans for Prosperity Action, Inc. (AFP Action) DBA CVA Action and DBA LIBRE Action | $14.5M | $0 |
| GLCF, INC. | $10.7M | $0 |
| Defend The Vote | $0 | $4.6M |
| The Sentinel Action Fund | $3.1M | $0 |
| NO GOING BACK PAC INC. | $2.9M | $0 |
| America PAC | $2.5M | $0 |
| Lower Costs Now | $0 | $2.3M |
| EDF Action Votes | $0 | $1.8M |
| LCV Victory Fund | $0 | $1.5M |
| TOGETHER FOR MICHIGAN | $1.2M | $0 |
| Giffords PAC | $0 | $1.0M |
| AFSCME WORKING FAMILIES FUND | $0 | $1.0M |
| FIRST PRINCIPLES DIGITAL | $811K | $0 |
| FIGHTING FOR MICHIGAN PAC | $0 | $746K |
| Senate Leadership Fund | $645K | $0 |
| Progress Action Fund | $0 | $354K |
| HIGH PLAINS PAC | $258K | $0 |
| BLACK VOTERS MATTER ACTION PAC | $0 | $250K |
| Working Families Party PAC | $0 | $250K |
| MILLIONS OF MICHIGANIANS | $0 | $164K |
| Forward Blue PAC | $0 | $147K |
| AMERICAN PRIORITIES (AP) | $0 | $138K |
| End Citizens United | $0 | $101K |
| DRIVING FORCE ACTION | $98K | $0 |
| RED SENATE | $78K | $0 |
| For Michigan Action Fund | $0 | $50K |
| Neighbor Voices | $0 | $49K |
| Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. Political Action Committee (ABC PAC) | $46K | $0 |
| HUNTER ACTION FUND (HAF) | $45K | $0 |
| THE CONSERVATIVE CAUCUS DBA AMERICANS FOR CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTY | $15K | $0 |
| Guardrails Action Inc. | $0 | $8K |
| Working America | $0 | $5K |
| NRA VICTORY FUND, INC. | $2K | $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
- Turnout, 2018 midterm
- 56.6% 4,341,340 ballots
- Turnout, 2022 midterm
- 58.9% 4,500,400 ballots
- 2024 presidential margin
- R+1.4between 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
8 stories · 11 quotes
- Ted Cruz calls El-Sayed a "jihadist leprechaun" at campaign stop ↗
CBS News Politics · Oct 28
- As the President and his party launch a wave of bigoted attacks on Abdul El-Sayed, Bishara Bahbah, the founder of Arab Americans for Trump, says he may have been naïve. www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a... ↗
The New Yorker · Official · 55m ago
curated newsroom · recent Bluesky post · named-race match - Ted Cruz: "Everything Abdul El-Sayed has said and done his entire life leads one to conclude that hates Israel and he hates Jews. If there is one Jewish voter in Michigan who votes for him, that is like forming a club called 'Chickens for KFC.'" ↗
The Bulwark · Official · 2h ago
curated newsroom · recent Bluesky post · named-race match · election-topic match - Ted Cruz: “If Abdul El-Sayed becomes senator...there is nothing to stop Schumer from placing [him] on the Senate Intelligence Committee...If I am correct that he is a passionate supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood, there is a very real risk that Americans will die." ↗
The Bulwark · Official · 2h ago
curated newsroom · recent Bluesky post · named-race match - Michigan U.S. Senate 🚗
As of Oct. 28, 2026
Total mail votes: 1,365,269 (+82,432)
30.6% of projected final turnout.
Estimated share of cast votes:
🔵 Abdul El-Sayed: 53.2–61.8%
🔴 Mike Rogers: 35.7–44.3%
Remaining votes in Michigan will be more Republican. VoteHub rates the race as Lean D. ↗
VoteHub · Analysis · 3h ago
curated poll aggregator · recent Bluesky post · named-race match · election-topic match - Abdul El-Sayed tones down the bravado in closing days of Michigan Senate race
politi.co/4eDI9en ↗
Politico · Commentary · 7h ago
curated political commentary · recent Bluesky post · named-race match - VP Vance focuses on Rogers vs. El-Sayed Senate race at Livingston County Republican rally ↗
Michigan Public · Oct 27
- The *actual* poll out of Michigan is in our brand-new Poll Pile. Democrats Abdul El-Sayed and Jocelyn Benson each lead 51-45 for Senate and governor, respectively.
www.the-downballot.com/i/222251137/... ↗
The Downballot · Analysis · 1d ago
curated downballot newsroom · recent Bluesky post · named-race match · election-topic match
Forecast as of October 28, 2026: Call the Map currently has Abdul El-Sayed ahead of Mike Rogers by D+1.3, with a 59 in 100 chance to win. This is an open seat. That result would keep the seat with Democrats. The current poll average is D+2.7; 54 public polls are recorded.