Mississippi · U.S. Senate
Cindy Hyde-Smith is heavily favored to win. Projected candidate margin: Cindy Hyde-Smith over Scott Colom by 9.1 points. No two-party forecast is published for this race: a third candidate is on the ballot beside the Democrat and the Republican, so the forecast is published per candidate rather than as a two-party margin.
Show all others (1)
Official ballot sources: Ty Pinkins (checked 2026-08-31).
Under each share, its likely range (80 in 100 simulations) · * incumbent
Forecast history
Latest reading · Oct 28 · first published Oct 6 · Lead between the top two candidates, in points of all votes. Methodology
Aug 28: Ty Pinkins is forecast as a third candidate from this day; earlier readings are of the Democrat against the Republican alone.
About this series
Reconstructed with the current model Aug 1 – Oct 5; published readings Oct 6 – 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 | Lead | Chance | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 28 | R+9.1 | Cindy Hyde-Smith win 85.1% | Published forecast |
| Oct 27 | R+9.0 | Cindy Hyde-Smith win 85.1% | Published forecast |
| Oct 26 | R+9.0 | Cindy Hyde-Smith win 85.1% | Published forecast |
| Oct 25 | R+9.0 | Cindy Hyde-Smith win 85.1% | Published forecast |
| Oct 24 | R+9.0 | Cindy Hyde-Smith win 85.1% | Published forecast |
| Oct 23 | R+11.0 | Cindy Hyde-Smith win 88.6% | Published forecast |
| Oct 22 | R+11.0 | Cindy Hyde-Smith win 88.7% | Published forecast |
| Oct 21 | R+11.0 | Cindy Hyde-Smith win 88.6% | Published forecast |
| Oct 20 | R+8.5 | Cindy Hyde-Smith win 85.5% | Published forecast |
| Oct 19 | R+8.5 | Cindy Hyde-Smith win 85.5% | Published forecast |
| Oct 18 | R+8.5 | Cindy Hyde-Smith win 85.5% | Published forecast |
| Oct 17 | R+8.5 | Cindy Hyde-Smith win 85.6% | Published forecast |
| Oct 16 | R+8.6 | Cindy Hyde-Smith win 85.8% | Published forecast |
| Oct 15 | R+8.6 | Cindy Hyde-Smith win 85.8% | Published forecast |
| Oct 14 | R+11.2 | Cindy Hyde-Smith win 89.0% | Published forecast |
| Oct 13 | R+11.2 | Cindy Hyde-Smith win 89.0% | Published forecast |
| Oct 12 | R+11.2 | Cindy Hyde-Smith win 89.1% | Published forecast |
| Oct 11 | R+11.2 | Cindy Hyde-Smith win 89.1% | Published forecast |
| Oct 10 | R+11.2 | Cindy Hyde-Smith win 89.1% | Published forecast |
| Oct 9 | R+11.2 | Cindy Hyde-Smith win 89.0% | Published forecast |
| Oct 8 | R+11.2 | Cindy Hyde-Smith win 89.1% | Published forecast |
| Oct 7 | R+11.2 | Cindy Hyde-Smith win 89.1% | Published forecast |
| Oct 6 | R+11.3 | Cindy Hyde-Smith win 89.3% | Published forecast |
| Oct 5 | R+11.2 | Cindy Hyde-Smith win 88.9% | Recomputed with the current model |
| Oct 4 | R+11.2 | Cindy Hyde-Smith win 89.0% | Recomputed with the current model |
| Oct 3 | R+11.2 | Cindy Hyde-Smith win 89.0% | Recomputed with the current model |
| Oct 2 | R+11.2 | Cindy Hyde-Smith win 88.9% | Recomputed with the current model |
| Oct 1 | R+11.2 | Cindy Hyde-Smith win 89.0% | Recomputed with the current model |
| Sep 30 | R+11.2 | Cindy Hyde-Smith win 89.0% | Recomputed with the current model |
| Sep 29 | R+11.2 | Cindy Hyde-Smith win 88.9% | Recomputed with the current model |
| Sep 28 | R+11.2 | Cindy Hyde-Smith win 89.1% | Recomputed with the current model |
| Sep 27 | R+11.2 | Cindy Hyde-Smith win 89.1% | Recomputed with the current model |
| Sep 26 | R+11.2 | Cindy Hyde-Smith win 89.1% | Recomputed with the current model |
| Sep 25 | R+11.2 | Cindy Hyde-Smith win 89.1% | Recomputed with the current model |
| Sep 24 | R+11.2 | Cindy Hyde-Smith win 89.3% | Recomputed with the current model |
| Sep 23 | R+11.2 | Cindy Hyde-Smith win 89.2% | Recomputed with the current model |
| Sep 22 | R+11.3 | Cindy Hyde-Smith win 89.3% | Recomputed with the current model |
| Sep 21 | R+11.3 | Cindy Hyde-Smith win 89.3% | Recomputed with the current model |
| Sep 20 | R+11.3 | Cindy Hyde-Smith win 89.3% | Recomputed with the current model |
| Sep 19 | R+11.3 | Cindy Hyde-Smith win 89.3% | Recomputed with the current model |
| Sep 18 | R+11.3 | Cindy Hyde-Smith win 89.2% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 17 | R+11.3 | Cindy Hyde-Smith win 89.5% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 16 | R+11.3 | Cindy Hyde-Smith win 89.3% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 15 | R+11.3 | Cindy Hyde-Smith win 89.4% | Recomputed with the current model |
| Sep 14 | R+11.3 | Cindy Hyde-Smith win 89.5% | Recomputed with the current model |
| Sep 13 | R+11.3 | Cindy Hyde-Smith win 89.3% | Recomputed with the current model |
| Sep 12 | R+11.4 | Cindy Hyde-Smith win 89.6% | Recomputed with the current model |
| Sep 11 | R+11.4 | Cindy Hyde-Smith win 89.6% | Recomputed with the current model |
| Sep 10 | R+11.5 | Cindy Hyde-Smith win 89.8% | Recomputed with the current model |
| Sep 9 | R+11.5 | Cindy Hyde-Smith win 89.7% | Recomputed with the current model |
| Sep 8 | R+11.5 | Cindy Hyde-Smith win 89.8% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 7 | R+11.5 | Cindy Hyde-Smith win 89.8% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 6 | R+11.5 | Cindy Hyde-Smith win 89.8% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 5 | R+11.5 | Cindy Hyde-Smith win 90.0% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 4 | R+11.6 | Cindy Hyde-Smith win 90.0% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 3 | R+11.6 | Cindy Hyde-Smith win 90.0% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 2 | R+11.6 | Cindy Hyde-Smith win 89.9% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 1 | R+11.5 | Cindy Hyde-Smith win 89.9% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 31 | R+11.5 | Cindy Hyde-Smith win 89.9% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 30 | R+11.5 | Cindy Hyde-Smith win 90.0% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 29 | R+11.5 | Cindy Hyde-Smith win 90.0% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 28 | R+11.5 | Cindy Hyde-Smith win 90.0% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 27 | R+16.3 | Cindy Hyde-Smith win 95.2% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 26 | R+16.4 | Cindy Hyde-Smith win 95.3% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 25 | R+16.4 | Cindy Hyde-Smith win 95.3% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 24 | R+16.4 | Cindy Hyde-Smith win 95.3% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 23 | R+16.4 | Cindy Hyde-Smith win 95.3% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 22 | R+16.4 | Cindy Hyde-Smith win 95.3% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 21 | R+16.4 | Cindy Hyde-Smith win 95.3% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 20 | R+16.4 | Cindy Hyde-Smith win 95.3% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 19 | R+16.4 | Cindy Hyde-Smith win 95.3% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 18 | R+16.4 | Cindy Hyde-Smith win 95.2% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 17 | R+16.4 | Cindy Hyde-Smith win 95.3% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 16 | R+16.4 | Cindy Hyde-Smith win 95.3% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 15 | R+16.4 | Cindy Hyde-Smith win 95.2% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 14 | R+16.5 | Cindy Hyde-Smith win 95.3% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 13 | R+16.5 | Cindy Hyde-Smith win 95.3% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 12 | R+16.4 | Cindy Hyde-Smith win 95.3% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 11 | R+16.5 | Cindy Hyde-Smith win 95.3% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 10 | R+16.4 | Cindy Hyde-Smith win 95.3% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 9 | R+16.4 | Cindy Hyde-Smith win 95.3% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 8 | R+16.4 | Cindy Hyde-Smith win 95.3% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 7 | R+16.4 | Cindy Hyde-Smith win 95.3% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 6 | R+16.6 | Cindy Hyde-Smith win 95.5% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 5 | R+16.6 | Cindy Hyde-Smith win 95.5% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 4 | R+16.6 | Cindy Hyde-Smith win 95.4% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 3 | R+16.6 | Cindy Hyde-Smith win 95.5% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 2 | R+16.7 | Cindy Hyde-Smith win 95.5% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 1 | R+16.6 | Cindy Hyde-Smith win 95.5% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
The polls
Polling average · 3 polls · newer and larger polls count for more
48.7Cindy Hyde-Smith44.2Scott Colom7.1Ty Pinkins
| Fieldwork | Added | Pollster | Result | Sample |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| from 2026-10-21 | 5d ago | Change Research ↗ | 48.3Cindy Hyde-Smith44.9Scott Colom6.7Ty PinkinsEvery candidate named | 842 LV |
| from 2026-04-08 | Impact Research ↗SPLC Action Fund | 48.3Cindy Hyde-Smith44.8Scott Colom6.9Ty PinkinsEvery candidate named | 500 LV | |
| from 2026-08-05 | Data for Progress ↗Way to Lead PAC | 49.4Cindy Hyde-Smith42.7Scott Colom7.9Ty PinkinsEvery candidate named | 1,018 LV |
How the forecast uses these polls
The polling average above is the polls’ own: every poll in this race’s poll average, newer and larger polls counting for more and each pollster once, with nothing adjusted. What the forecast does with the polls is a separate matter, set out here.
The forecast reads this race two ways and publishes a figure halfway between the two. First, a weighted average of the 3 polls above that named every candidate: Cindy Hyde-Smith ahead by 6.4 points. Newer and larger polls count for more. A poll paid for by a party or a campaign counts for a quarter as much and has the gap between Scott Colom and Cindy Hyde-Smith moved 2.0 points against the side that paid for it. Second, the forecast’s usual method, which also counts polls that asked about Scott Colom and Cindy Hyde-Smith alone, corrects for how polls have missed in past elections and blends in past results and the national mood: Cindy Hyde-Smith ahead by 11.8 points. The two readings count equally, which gives Cindy Hyde-Smith ahead by 9.1 points.
In these polls Ty Pinkins averages 7.1%. With this little polling the forecast does not take Ty Pinkins’s 7.1% at face value: candidates of this kind have typically finished near 1.2%, and it counts Ty Pinkins at 2.2%, between the two. The difference returns to the other candidates. The forecast then simulates the election many times and publishes the average result: Cindy Hyde-Smith 52.8%, Scott Colom 43.7% and Ty Pinkins 2.2%, a lead of 9.0 points for Cindy Hyde-Smith.
Poll average R+3.9A 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+5.9. 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.3 recorded polls · 3 in the poll average
Plain average, as the forecast took it: 7.1Ty Pinkins · 3 polls
Each poll’s figures are shares of the people who picked a candidate. Undecided voters are left out, so the numbers run a little higher than the poll’s own headline figures, and a candidate who has since left the race is not counted.
How the candidate lead was built
Tap an input for its calculation and source.
Displayed values are rounded.
The two-party D-versus-R coordinate, step by step
The walk above decomposes the published candidate lead. The model also carries a latent Democrat-minus-Republican coordinate, which is the quantity chamber seat and control arithmetic runs on. It is shown here at the same steps as a secondary reading, not as this race’s published forecast margin.
| After this step | D−R coordinate |
|---|---|
| Fundamentals | R+16.5 |
| National environment | R+13.3 |
| Campaign finance | R+13.3 |
| This race’s polls | R+10.3 |
| Election rules & guards | R+11.8 |
| Historical calibration | R+11.8 |
| The candidate field | R+11.8 |
All calculations & sources
National environment +3.075 points
How much of the national climate reaches this race’s leader-versus-runner-up gap.
This race’s polls +2.879 points
What this race’s admitted polls move the leader-versus-runner-up gap by.
The candidate field +2.395 points
What the field itself contributes: the third principals on the ballot and the election rule, which a two-party coordinate has nowhere to put.
Fundamentals −15.884 points
What the fitted structural model contributes to the gap between the leader and the runner-up, before any of this cycle’s evidence.
Election rules & guards −1.490 points
Certified election-mechanics terms — ballot rules, guards and locks — as they bear on these two candidates.
These are the fitted model’s named contributions to the partisan coordinate, before the candidate-field calculation.
| Named factor | Contribution |
|---|---|
| FundamentalsThe admitted fitted baseline. Its surviving variables differ by office; the source detail above identifies those used for this race. | −16.46 |
| 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. | +2.98 |
| Structural terrain safeguardA bounded pull toward presidential terrain in heavily partisan states. | −1.54 |
| 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+10.0 | 1,311,354 |
| 2014 · U.S. Senate ↗ | R+22.0 | 631,858 |
| 2008 · U.S. Senate ↗ | R+22.9 | 1,247,026 |
| 2002 · U.S. Senate ↗ | Not a D–R contestThe ballot was not a Democrat versus a Republican; a D/R margin cannot identify the winner. | 630,495 |
Margins are the Democrat’s share of all votes cast minus the Republican’s.
The money
Cindy Hyde-Smith ↗
R$3.8Mraised
$2.5M cash on hand
Scott Colom ↗
D$2.4Mraised
$847K cash on hand
Ty Pinkins ↗
I$98Kraised
$5K 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 Scott Colom$3.1M
10 spending groups
| Group | For | Against |
|---|---|---|
| Fulcrum PAC | $995K | $0 |
| Government That Works PAC | $699K | $0 |
| BLACK VOTERS MATTER ACTION PAC | $508K | $0 |
| UNITED FUTURES PAC | $449K | $0 |
| BlackPAC | $411K | $0 |
| VOTE COURAGE 4 DEMOCRACY FUND | $12K | $0 |
| Field Team 6 Inc. | $11K | $0 |
| Mississippi Democratic Party | $11K | $0 |
| NEW SOUTHERN MAJORITY IE PAC | $8K | $0 |
| AB PAC | $4K | $0 |
For and against Cindy Hyde-Smith$3.2M
6 spending groups
| Group | For | Against |
|---|---|---|
| AB PAC | $0 | $1.7M |
| NEW SOUTHERN MAJORITY IE PAC | $0 | $711K |
| AMERICAN MISSION | $495K | $0 |
| UNITED FUTURES PAC | $0 | $150K |
| Conservative Leaders of America | $99K | $0 |
| Government That Works PAC | $0 | $39K |
Includes primary spending. Opposition is recorded against its named target; no benefit to another candidate is assumed.
No outside spending matched: Ty Pinkins.
FEC filings · through 06/30/2026 · Definitions & method
Race context
- Turnout, 2018 midterm
- 43.3% 961,025 ballots
- Turnout, 2022 midterm
- 32.5% 709,100 ballots
- 2024 presidential margin
- R+23.1between 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
3 stories · 7 quotes
- Photos | President Donald Trump Rallies in Mississippi to Encourage Republican Voter Turnout ↗
Mississippi Free Press · Oct 28
- Former President Bill Clinton to campaign in Mississippi for Scott Colom ↗
Mississippi Today · Oct 28
- Pete Buttigieg calls for Mississippi to elect Scott Colom to US Senate, send ‘shockwaves’ ↗
Mississippi Today · Oct 28
- 🟡 NEW: Senate Democrats’ campaign arm is spending $500,000 with Mississippi Democratic Senate candidate Scott Colom in a coordinated ad buy.
www.semafor.com/article/10/2... ↗
Semafor · Official · 6h ago
curated newsroom · recent Bluesky post · named-race match - Former President Bill Clinton to campaign in Mississippi for Scott Colom
The former Democratic president's trip to Mississippi will be the latest in a string of appearances by…
https://mississippitoday.org/2026/10/28/former-president-bill-clinton-to-campaign-in-mississippi-for-scott-colom/ ↗
Mississippi Today · Official · 6h ago
curated state newsroom · recent Bluesky post · named-race match - President Donald Trump visited Corinth, Mississippi, on Oct. 26 to rally Republican voters to support U.S. Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith and U.S. Rep. Trent Kelly.
Here are some photos from the event.
buff.ly/gihgE6D ↗
Mississippi Free Press · Official · 8h ago
curated newsroom · recent Bluesky post · named-race match · election-topic match - Over the past year, Colom has spearheaded an aggressive barnstorming campaign across Mississippi, vouching for his hope for Mississippi and criticizing his main opponent, incumbent Republican U.S. Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith.
buff.ly/5qHbVXr ↗
Mississippi Free Press · Official · 8h ago
curated newsroom · recent Bluesky post · named-race match - Pete Buttigieg calls for Mississippi to elect Scott Colom to US Senate, send ‘shockwaves’
Former U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg campaigned on the Mississippi Gulf Coast for Democrat Scott…
https://mississippitoday.org/2026/10/27/pete-buttigieg-scott-colom-us-senate-mississippi/ ↗
Mississippi Today · Official · 23h ago
curated state newsroom · recent Bluesky post · named-race match
Forecast as of October 28, 2026: Call the Map currently has Cindy Hyde-Smith ahead of Scott Colom by 9.1 points, with an 85 in 100 chance to lead. The seat is currently held by a Republican. That result would keep the seat with Republicans. The forecast reads 3 polls that named every candidate in this race, listed under “The polls”. The current poll average is R+3.9; 3 public polls are recorded.