Minnesota · U.S. Senate
Peggy Flanagan is favored to keep Minnesota’s Senate seat in Democratic hands. Predicted margin: D+3.5.
Show all others (2)
Marisa Simonetti · Rebecca Whiting
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: Marisa Simonetti (checked 2026-08-31); Rebecca Whiting (checked 2026-08-31).
Under each share, its likely range (80 in 100 simulations)
Background
Tina Smith's open seat: Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan (D) faces Michele Tafoya (R).
Forecast history
Latest reading · Oct 28 · first published Sep 9 · 80% range · margin points R+3.8 to D+10.8. 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+3.5 | D win 73.8% | R+3.8 to D+10.8 | Published forecast |
| Oct 27 | D+1.9 | D win 63.8% | R+5.5 to D+9.3 | Published forecast |
| Oct 26 | D+2.1 | D win 64.8% | R+5.3 to D+9.5 | Published forecast |
| Oct 25 | D+2.1 | D win 65.1% | R+5.3 to D+9.5 | Published forecast |
| Oct 24 | D+2.2 | D win 65.4% | R+5.2 to D+9.6 | Published forecast |
| Oct 23 | D+2.2 | D win 65.6% | R+5.2 to D+9.6 | Published forecast |
| Oct 22 | D+2.2 | D win 65.8% | R+5.2 to D+9.6 | Published forecast |
| Oct 21 | D+2.3 | D win 66.1% | R+5.1 to D+9.7 | Published forecast |
| Oct 20 | D+2.3 | D win 66.3% | R+5.1 to D+9.7 | Published forecast |
| Oct 19 | D+2.4 | D win 66.6% | R+5.0 to D+9.7 | Published forecast |
| Oct 18 | D+2.4 | D win 66.9% | R+5.0 to D+9.8 | Published forecast |
| Oct 17 | D+2.4 | D win 66.5% | R+5.0 to D+9.7 | Published forecast |
| Oct 16 | D+2.4 | D win 66.8% | R+5.0 to D+9.8 | Published forecast |
| Oct 15 | D+2.4 | D win 67.0% | R+5.0 to D+9.8 | Published forecast |
| Oct 14 | D+2.4 | D win 67.2% | R+4.9 to D+9.8 | Published forecast |
| Oct 13 | D+2.5 | D win 67.5% | R+4.9 to D+9.9 | Published forecast |
| Oct 12 | D+2.3 | D win 66.1% | R+5.1 to D+9.7 | Published forecast |
| Oct 11 | D+2.3 | D win 66.1% | R+5.1 to D+9.7 | Published forecast |
| Oct 10 | D+2.3 | D win 66.4% | R+5.1 to D+9.7 | Published forecast |
| Oct 9 | D+2.0 | D win 63.6% | R+5.6 to D+9.6 | Published forecast |
| Oct 8 | D+1.8 | D win 62.2% | R+5.9 to D+9.5 | Published forecast |
| Oct 7 | D+1.8 | D win 62.5% | R+5.9 to D+9.5 | Published forecast |
| Oct 6 | D+1.8 | D win 62.7% | R+5.8 to D+9.5 | Published forecast |
| Oct 5 | D+1.9 | D win 63.0% | R+5.8 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+2.0 | D win 63.6% | R+5.6 to D+9.5 | Published forecast |
| Oct 2 | D+2.0 | D win 63.4% | R+5.9 to D+9.9 | Published forecast |
| Oct 1 | D+2.0 | D win 63.7% | R+5.8 to D+9.9 | Published forecast |
| Sep 30 | D+2.6 | D win 66.5% | R+5.7 to D+11.0 | Published forecast |
| Sep 29 | D+2.7 | D win 66.3% | R+5.8 to D+11.1 | Published forecast |
| Sep 28 | D+2.7 | D win 66.6% | R+5.8 to D+11.2 | Published forecast |
| Sep 27 | D+2.8 | D win 67.2% | R+5.6 to D+11.2 | Published forecast |
| Sep 26 | D+2.8 | D win 67.2% | R+5.6 to D+11.2 | Published forecast |
| Sep 25 | D+2.8 | D win 67.4% | R+5.6 to D+11.2 | Published forecast |
| Sep 24 | D+2.8 | D win 67.6% | R+5.5 to D+11.2 | Published forecast |
| Sep 23 | D+2.9 | D win 67.8% | R+5.5 to D+11.2 | Published forecast |
| Sep 22 | D+3.0 | D win 68.6% | R+5.3 to D+11.3 | Published forecast |
| Sep 21 | D+3.0 | D win 68.6% | R+5.3 to D+11.3 | Published forecast |
| Sep 20 | D+3.0 | D win 68.6% | R+5.3 to D+11.3 | Published forecast |
| Sep 19 | D+3.0 | D win 68.8% | R+5.2 to D+11.3 | Published forecast |
| Sep 18 | D+3.1 | D win 69.2% | R+5.2 to D+11.3 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 17 | D+3.1 | D win 69.5% | R+5.1 to D+11.3 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 16 | D+3.1 | D win 69.7% | R+5.0 to D+11.3 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 15 | D+4.9 | D win 76.8% | R+4.0 to D+13.8 | Published forecast |
| Sep 14 | D+5.0 | D win 77.1% | R+3.9 to D+13.8 | Published forecast |
| Sep 13 | D+5.0 | D win 77.1% | R+3.9 to D+13.8 | Published forecast |
| Sep 12 | D+5.0 | D win 77.2% | R+3.9 to D+13.8 | Published forecast |
| Sep 11 | D+6.1 | D win 79.7% | R+3.6 to D+15.8 | Published forecast |
| Sep 10 | D+6.0 | D win 79.5% | R+3.7 to D+15.8 | Published forecast |
| Sep 9 | D+5.9 | D win 79.0% | R+3.8 to D+15.6 | Published forecast |
| Sep 8 | D+6.0 | D win 79.5% | R+3.6 to D+15.7 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 7 | D+6.6 | D win 80.8% | R+3.4 to D+16.6 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 6 | D+6.6 | D win 80.8% | R+3.4 to D+16.6 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 5 | D+5.9 | D win 80.2% | R+3.3 to D+15.1 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 4 | D+5.9 | D win 80.3% | R+3.2 to D+15.0 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 3 | D+5.9 | D win 80.4% | R+3.2 to D+15.0 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 2 | D+5.9 | D win 80.5% | R+3.2 to D+15.0 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 1 | D+5.9 | D win 80.6% | R+3.1 to D+15.0 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 31 | D+6.0 | D win 80.8% | R+3.1 to D+15.0 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 30 | D+6.0 | D win 80.9% | R+3.1 to D+15.0 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 29 | D+6.0 | D win 81.1% | R+3.0 to D+15.1 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 28 | D+6.0 | D win 81.2% | R+3.0 to D+15.0 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 27 | D+6.1 | D win 81.3% | R+2.9 to D+15.1 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 26 | D+6.1 | D win 81.4% | R+2.9 to D+15.0 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 25 | D+6.1 | D win 81.6% | R+2.8 to D+15.1 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 24 | D+6.1 | D win 81.7% | R+2.8 to D+15.1 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 23 | D+6.0 | D win 81.0% | R+3.1 to D+15.1 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 22 | D+6.1 | D win 81.1% | R+3.0 to D+15.1 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 21 | D+6.1 | D win 81.2% | R+3.0 to D+15.1 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 20 | D+6.1 | D win 81.3% | R+2.9 to D+15.1 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 19 | D+6.1 | D win 81.5% | R+2.9 to D+15.1 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 18 | D+10.3 | D win 87.7% | R+1.2 to D+21.8 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 17 | D+10.3 | D win 87.6% | R+1.2 to D+21.8 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 16 | D+10.3 | D win 87.6% | R+1.2 to D+21.8 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 15 | D+10.3 | D win 87.7% | R+1.2 to D+21.8 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 14 | D+10.2 | D win 87.4% | R+1.3 to D+21.7 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 13 | D+10.2 | D win 87.4% | R+1.4 to D+21.7 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 12 | D+10.2 | D win 87.5% | R+1.3 to D+21.7 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 11 | D+10.2 | D win 87.4% | R+1.3 to D+21.7 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 10 | D+10.2 | D win 87.4% | R+1.3 to D+21.6 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 9 | D+10.1 | D win 87.4% | R+1.3 to D+21.6 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 8 | D+10.1 | D win 87.4% | R+1.3 to D+21.6 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 7 | D+10.1 | D win 87.4% | R+1.4 to D+21.6 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 6 | D+10.0 | D win 87.0% | R+1.5 to D+21.4 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 5 | D+9.9 | D win 87.0% | R+1.5 to D+21.4 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 4 | D+9.9 | D win 87.0% | R+1.5 to D+21.4 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 3 | D+9.9 | D win 87.0% | R+1.5 to D+21.4 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 2 | D+9.9 | D win 86.9% | R+1.6 to D+21.3 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 1 | D+9.9 | D win 86.9% | R+1.6 to D+21.3 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
The polls
Poll average D+4.3A 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+4.6. 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.20 recorded polls · 19 in the poll average
| Fieldwork | Added | Pollster | Result | Sample |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| from 2026-10-21 | 8h ago | Victory Insights ↗ | D+3.4D 47.8% · R 44.4% | 1,194 LV |
| from 2026-10-19 | 13h ago | The New York Times/Siena University ↗ | D+13.9D 54.21% · R 40.31% | 752 LV |
| from 2026-10-20 | 6d ago | Rasmussen Reports (R) ↗ | D+3.0D 48% · R 45% | 1,182 LV |
| from 2026-10-13 | Trafalgar Group ↗ | D+3.5D 48.1% · R 44.6% | 1,079 LV | |
| from 2026-10-09 | SurveyUSA ↗KSTP-TV Minneapolis | D+3.0D 45% · R 42% | 718 LV | |
| from 2026-10-05 | Mason-Dixon Polling & Research, Inc. ↗KARE 11 | Minnesota Star Tribune | D+4.0D 47% · R 43% | 800 LV | |
| from 2026-10-02 | Morning Consult ↗The Daily Agenda | D+4.0D 45% · R 41% | 1,000 RV | |
| from 2026-10-05 | Rasmussen Reports (R) ↗ | D+3.0D 48% · R 45% | 856 LV |
Explore each poll’s weight in the average
Poll average D+4.3
- Published result
- D+13.9
- Weight in the poll average
- 0.73 · 8.4% of the average
- Fieldwork
- 19 Oct–26 Oct
- Sample
- 752 LV
- Sponsor
- Not listed
- Published result
- D+3.4
- Weight in the poll average
- 0.88 · 10% of the average
- Fieldwork
- 21 Oct–22 Oct
- Sample
- 1,194 LV
- Sponsor
- Republican sponsor · organization not listed
- Published result
- D+3.0
- Weight in the poll average
- 0.86 · 5.7% of the average
- Fieldwork
- 20 Oct–21 Oct
- Sample
- 1,182 LV
- Sponsor
- Republican sponsor · organization not listed
- Published result
- D+3.5
- Weight in the poll average
- 0.77 · 8.8% of the average
- Fieldwork
- 13 Oct–15 Oct
- Sample
- 1,079 LV
- Sponsor
- Republican sponsor · organization not listed
- Published result
- D+3.0
- Weight in the poll average
- 0.61 · 3.2% of the average
- Fieldwork
- 9 Oct–12 Oct
- Sample
- 718 LV
- Sponsor
- KSTP-TV Minneapolis
- Published result
- D+4.0
- Weight in the poll average
- 0.60 · 6.9% of the average
- Fieldwork
- 5 Oct–7 Oct
- Sample
- 800 LV
- Sponsor
- KARE 11 | Minnesota Star Tribune
- Published result
- D+4.0
- Weight in the poll average
- 0.68 · 7.7% of the average
- Fieldwork
- 2 Oct–7 Oct
- Sample
- 1,000 RV
- Sponsor
- The Daily Agenda
- Published result
- D+3.0
- Weight in the poll average
- 0.62 · 4.2% of the average
- Fieldwork
- 5 Oct–7 Oct
- Sample
- 856 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 +4.260 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 +6.023 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 10.283 minus starting point 4.260 = 6.023 points.
- For orientation, the presidential results here: 2024 D+4.3, 2020 D+7.1.
- The work: the +10.3 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.
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.
Structural safeguards +0.433 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 +0.4 D.
This race’s polls −10.234 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.
- The New York Times/Siena University (2026-10-26, n=752): D+13.9 · weight 0.73 in the poll average
- Victory Insights (2026-10-22, n=1,194): D+3.4 · weight 0.88 in the poll average
- Rasmussen Reports (R) (2026-10-21, n=1,182): D+3.0 · weight 0.86 in the poll average
- Trafalgar Group (2026-10-15, n=1,079): D+3.5 · weight 0.77 in the poll average
- SurveyUSA (2026-10-12, n=718): D+3.0 · weight 0.61 in the poll average
- Mason-Dixon Polling & Research, Inc. (2026-10-07, n=800): D+4.0 · weight 0.60 in the poll average
- … and 14 more below.
- Poll average D+4.3, from 19 polls · 20 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+4.6. 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 10.2 points toward Republicans from where it stood before the polls. Eligible polls: latest poll: 2026-10-26 (2 days old).
Votes for other candidates −0.174 points
Every step above is measured between the two major-party candidates alone, as if nobody else were on the ballot. The forecast sets 4.7% 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. | +10.28 |
| This race's pollsAdmitted head-to-head polls of this race, recency- and quality-weighted. | −10.23 |
| 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. | +0.43 |
| 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+5.2 | 3,214,256 |
| 2014 · U.S. Senate ↗ | D+10.2 | 1,981,528 |
| 2008 · U.S. Senate ↗ | EVEN | 2,887,646 |
| 2002 · U.S. Senate ↗ | Multiple-candidate ballotAt least one party total combines several candidates. It is not an individual candidate's result. | 2,254,636 |
Margins are the Democrat’s share of all votes cast minus the Republican’s.
The money
Peggy Flanagan ↗
D$6.5Mraised
$1.1M cash on hand
Michele Tafoya ↗
R$5.3Mraised
$1.4M 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 Peggy Flanagan$11.1M
10 spending groups
| Group | For | Against |
|---|---|---|
| NORTH STAR DAWN PAC | $0 | $6.6M |
| AB PAC | $1.4M | $0 |
| DLGA | $1.1M | $0 |
| UNITE TO WIN | $0 | $1.0M |
| MINNESOTA FORWARD | $0 | $783K |
| CLEAR VOICE MINNESOTA | $133K | $0 |
| Indivisible Action | $32K | $0 |
| National Nurses United for Patient Protection | $25K | $0 |
| Service Employees International Union Political Education & Action Fund | $9K | $0 |
| Christopher Street Project PAC (Csp PAC) | $4K | $0 |
For and against Michele Tafoya$486K
3 spending groups
| Group | For | Against |
|---|---|---|
| Sheepdog PAC | $0 | $444K |
| THE CONSERVATIVE CAUCUS DBA AMERICANS FOR CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTY | $22K | $0 |
| MINNESOTA FORWARD | $20K | $0 |
Includes primary spending. Opposition is recorded against its named target; no benefit to another candidate is assumed.
$12.4M in outside spending on earlier candidates.
No filing matched: Marisa Simonetti, Rebecca Whiting.
FEC filings · through 07/22/2026 · Definitions & method
Race context
- Turnout, 2018 midterm
- 63.1% 2,611,365 ballots
- Turnout, 2022 midterm
- 60.5% 2,526,646 ballots
- 2024 presidential margin
- D+4.3between 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
6 quotes
- A New York Times/Siena poll released Wednesday puts Democratic Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan 14 points ahead of Republican Michele Tafoya in Minnesota’s U.S. Senate race. ↗
Minnesota Star Tribune · Official · 2h ago
curated newsroom · recent Bluesky post · named-race match · election-topic match - Democratic Senate nominee Peggy Flanagan says her vision for the federal government’s relationship with tribes is straightforward: honor the treaty rights and uphold trust responsibilities.
Straightforward, she concedes, is not the same as simple. See less minnesotareformer.com/2026/10/26/w... ↗
Minnesota Reformer · Official · 9h ago
curated state newsroom · recent Bluesky post · named-race match - 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 - That Minnesota result is nuts, most polls have been showing Flanagan around +4 ↗
Chris Ingraham · Commentary · 14h ago
curated political commentary · recent Bluesky post · named-race match · election-topic match - President Donald Trump threatened Minnesotans in a social media post in support of Republican Michele Tafoya, saying "Don’t allow them to play with the votes after the race is over. The federal government will be watching closely." ↗
Minnesota Star Tribune · Official · 1d ago
curated newsroom · recent Bluesky post · named-race match - As lieutenant governor, Peggy Flanagan helped reshape state government’s relationship with the 11 tribal nations in Minnesota. Now, she promises to bring that experience to Congress. | by Max Nesterak, Minnesota Reformer mainemorningstar.com/2026/10/26/r... ↗
Maine Morning Star · Official · 1d ago
curated state newsroom · recent Bluesky post · named-race match
Forecast as of October 28, 2026: Call the Map currently has Peggy Flanagan ahead of Michele Tafoya by D+3.5, with a 74 in 100 chance to win. This is an open seat. That result would keep the seat with Democrats. The current poll average is D+4.3; 20 public polls are recorded.