Nebraska · U.S. Senate
Open this race on The Map ↗Pete Ricketts is slightly favored to win. Projected candidate margin: Pete Ricketts over Dan Osborn by 1.7 points. No two-party forecast is published for this race: this race is between an independent and a major-party candidate, so the forecast is published per candidate rather than as a two-party margin.
Show all others (1)
Mike Marvin
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: Dan Osborn (checked 2026-08-31); Mike Marvin (checked 2026-08-31).
high / low: vote share (%) in the middle 80 in 100 simulations · * incumbent
About this field
Independent Dan Osborn runs again; Nebraska Democrats endorsed him rather than field a candidate. A win would be Independent, not Democratic.
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.
Forecast history
Latest reading · Oct 23 · first published Oct 6 · Lead between the top two candidates, in points of all votes. Methodology
Hover the line, tap it, or use the arrow keys to read the lead on a day.
About this series
Reconstructed with the current model Aug 1 – Oct 5; published readings Oct 6 – Oct 23. 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 23 | R+1.7 | Pete Ricketts win 61.1% | Published forecast |
| Oct 22 | R+1.7 | Pete Ricketts win 60.6% | Published forecast |
| Oct 21 | R+1.7 | Pete Ricketts win 60.8% | Published forecast |
| Oct 20 | R+2.3 | Pete Ricketts win 65.0% | Published forecast |
| Oct 19 | R+2.4 | Pete Ricketts win 65.2% | Published forecast |
| Oct 18 | R+2.4 | Pete Ricketts win 65.4% | Published forecast |
| Oct 17 | R+2.4 | Pete Ricketts win 65.7% | Published forecast |
| Oct 16 | R+2.5 | Pete Ricketts win 65.9% | Published forecast |
| Oct 15 | R+2.5 | Pete Ricketts win 66.2% | Published forecast |
| Oct 14 | R+2.5 | Pete Ricketts win 66.4% | Published forecast |
| Oct 13 | R+2.6 | Pete Ricketts win 66.6% | Published forecast |
| Oct 12 | R+2.6 | Pete Ricketts win 66.6% | Published forecast |
| Oct 11 | R+2.6 | Pete Ricketts win 66.6% | Published forecast |
| Oct 10 | R+2.6 | Pete Ricketts win 66.8% | Published forecast |
| Oct 9 | R+2.7 | Pete Ricketts win 67.1% | Published forecast |
| Oct 8 | R+2.7 | Pete Ricketts win 67.3% | Published forecast |
| Oct 7 | R+2.7 | Pete Ricketts win 67.6% | Published forecast |
| Oct 6 | R+3.2 | Pete Ricketts win 69.3% | Published forecast |
| Oct 5 | R+3.2 | Pete Ricketts win 69.5% | Recomputed with the current model |
| Oct 4 | R+3.3 | Pete Ricketts win 69.6% | Recomputed with the current model |
| Oct 3 | R+3.3 | Pete Ricketts win 69.9% | Recomputed with the current model |
| Oct 2 | R+3.3 | Pete Ricketts win 70.1% | Recomputed with the current model |
| Oct 1 | R+2.3 | Pete Ricketts win 62.9% | Recomputed with the current model |
| Sep 30 | R+2.3 | Pete Ricketts win 63.1% | Recomputed with the current model |
| Sep 29 | R+2.3 | Pete Ricketts win 63.2% | Recomputed with the current model |
| Sep 28 | R+2.4 | Pete Ricketts win 63.5% | Recomputed with the current model |
| Sep 27 | R+2.3 | Pete Ricketts win 63.4% | Recomputed with the current model |
| Sep 26 | R+2.4 | Pete Ricketts win 63.6% | Recomputed with the current model |
| Sep 25 | R+2.4 | Pete Ricketts win 63.8% | Recomputed with the current model |
| Sep 24 | R+2.6 | Pete Ricketts win 64.0% | Recomputed with the current model |
| Sep 23 | R+2.7 | Pete Ricketts win 64.2% | Recomputed with the current model |
| Sep 22 | R+2.7 | Pete Ricketts win 64.4% | Recomputed with the current model |
| Sep 21 | R+2.8 | Pete Ricketts win 64.7% | Recomputed with the current model |
| Sep 20 | R+2.8 | Pete Ricketts win 64.9% | Recomputed with the current model |
| Sep 19 | R+2.8 | Pete Ricketts win 65.1% | Recomputed with the current model |
| Sep 18 | R+2.8 | Pete Ricketts win 65.1% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 17 | R+2.9 | Pete Ricketts win 65.3% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 16 | R+2.9 | Pete Ricketts win 65.6% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 15 | R+0.9 | Pete Ricketts win 54.3% | Recomputed with the current model |
| Sep 14 | R+0.9 | Pete Ricketts win 54.5% | Recomputed with the current model |
| Sep 13 | R+5.1 | Pete Ricketts win 70.6% | Recomputed with the current model |
| Sep 12 | R+5.2 | Pete Ricketts win 70.7% | Recomputed with the current model |
| Sep 11 | R+5.2 | Pete Ricketts win 70.8% | Recomputed with the current model |
| Sep 10 | R+5.3 | Pete Ricketts win 71.2% | Recomputed with the current model |
| Sep 9 | R+5.3 | Pete Ricketts win 71.3% | Recomputed with the current model |
| Sep 8 | R+5.3 | Pete Ricketts win 71.4% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 7 | R+5.4 | Pete Ricketts win 71.6% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 6 | R+5.4 | Pete Ricketts win 71.6% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 5 | R+5.4 | Pete Ricketts win 71.6% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 4 | R+5.4 | Pete Ricketts win 71.7% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 3 | R+5.4 | Pete Ricketts win 71.7% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 2 | R+5.4 | Pete Ricketts win 71.7% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 1 | R+5.4 | Pete Ricketts win 71.6% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 31 | R+5.3 | Pete Ricketts win 71.5% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 30 | R+5.3 | Pete Ricketts win 71.5% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 29 | R+5.3 | Pete Ricketts win 71.4% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 28 | R+5.3 | Pete Ricketts win 71.5% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 27 | R+5.3 | Pete Ricketts win 71.4% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 26 | R+5.3 | Pete Ricketts win 71.6% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 25 | R+5.7 | Pete Ricketts win 71.9% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 24 | R+5.7 | Pete Ricketts win 71.8% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 23 | R+5.7 | Pete Ricketts win 71.8% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 22 | R+5.7 | Pete Ricketts win 71.8% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 21 | R+5.7 | Pete Ricketts win 71.8% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 20 | R+5.7 | Pete Ricketts win 71.8% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 19 | R+5.6 | Pete Ricketts win 71.6% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 18 | R+5.6 | Pete Ricketts win 71.6% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 17 | R+5.6 | Pete Ricketts win 71.6% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 16 | R+5.6 | Pete Ricketts win 71.5% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 15 | R+5.5 | Pete Ricketts win 71.4% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 14 | R+5.6 | Pete Ricketts win 71.7% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 13 | R+5.6 | Pete Ricketts win 71.7% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 12 | R+5.5 | Pete Ricketts win 71.5% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 11 | R+5.5 | Pete Ricketts win 71.5% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 10 | R+5.5 | Pete Ricketts win 71.5% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 9 | R+5.5 | Pete Ricketts win 71.4% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 8 | R+5.5 | Pete Ricketts win 71.4% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 7 | R+5.5 | Pete Ricketts win 71.4% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 6 | R+5.6 | Pete Ricketts win 71.8% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 5 | R+5.6 | Pete Ricketts win 71.8% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 4 | R+5.6 | Pete Ricketts win 71.8% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 3 | R+5.6 | Pete Ricketts win 71.8% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 2 | R+5.6 | Pete Ricketts win 71.9% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 1 | R+5.6 | Pete Ricketts win 71.8% | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
The polls
Poll average R+0.3A poll’s weight halves every 60 days and grows with its sample, up to one and a half times a 600-interview poll. Each pollster counts once, at its best release. Every poll is counted at its published margin, and a poll sponsored by a party or campaign counts like any other here.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+0.3. 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.17 recorded polls · 14 in the poll average
| Fieldwork | Added | Pollster | Result | Sample |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| from 2026-10-18 | 9h ago | GBAO ↗ | I+1.0I 46% · R 45% | 800 LV |
| from 2026-10-14 | 21h ago | Impact Research ↗ | R+2.0I 48% · R 50% | 600 LV |
| from 2026-10-15 | 1d ago | National Public Affairs ↗ | R+3.0I 47% · R 50% | 598 LV |
| from 2026-10-02 | 4d ago | National Public Affairs ↗ | R+3.0I 46% · R 49% | 800 LV |
| from 2026-09-24 | YouGov ↗ | I+1.0I 48% · R 47% | 1,808 LV | |
| from 2026-09-28 | co/efficient ↗ | R+3.0I 44% · R 47% | 1,113 LV | |
| from 2026-09-08 | SurveyUSA ↗Grant Forbes, LLC | I+4.0I 46% · R 42% | 503 LV | |
| from 2026-09-03 | GBAO ↗Working Class Majority PAC | I+1.0I 47% · R 46% | 800 LV |
How the partisan coordinate was built
Follow each contribution to the margin. Wider ribbons mean more percentage points. Tap an input for its calculation and source.
The signed totals combine at the forecast. Displayed values are rounded. This is a modeled partisan coordinate.
Pete Ricketts leads Dan Osborn by 1.7 points (forecast share difference). The named candidate forecast also accounts for the field and election rules; its lead is a separate quantity from the partisan coordinate above.
All calculations & sources
How this state voted, 2024 −20.570 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 +7.979 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 -12.591 minus starting point -20.570 = 7.979 points.
- For orientation, the presidential results here: 2024 R+20.6, 2020 R+19.1.
- The work: the −12.6 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.
This race’s polls +7.893 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.
- GBAO (2026-10-22, n=800): D+1.0 · weight 0.76 in the poll average
- Impact Research (2026-10-20, n=600): R+2.0 · weight 0.64 in the poll average
- National Public Affairs (2026-10-18, n=598): R+3.0 · weight 0.63 in the poll average
- National Public Affairs (2026-10-05, n=800): R+3.0 · weight 0.63 in the poll average
- YouGov (2026-10-03, n=1,808): D+1.0 · weight 0.79 in the poll average
- co/efficient (2026-09-30, n=1,113): R+3.0 · weight 0.70 in the poll average
- … and 11 more below.
- Poll average R+0.3, from 14 polls · 17 recorded polls. This is the polls’ own average, each poll at its published margin, the figure this page’s poll summary shows. 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+0.3. 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 96% of the weight against its structural prior for this race; the recorded polling contribution is +7.9 D. Eligible polls: latest poll: 2026-10-22 (2 days old).
National environment +3.088 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 (10 days old), approval 2026-10-14 (10 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 +3.1 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: +3.1 of this margin.
Structural safeguards −0.112 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.
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. | −12.59 |
| This race's pollsAdmitted head-to-head polls of this race, recency- and quality-weighted. | +7.89 |
| National environmentThe national environment’s contribution to the prior. Polling can attenuate its influence; this value is not the national polling margin. | +3.09 |
| Structural terrain safeguardA bounded pull toward presidential terrain in heavily partisan states. | −0.11 |
| 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+38.3 | 930,012 |
| 2014 · U.S. Senate ↗ | R+32.9 | 540,337 |
| 2008 · U.S. Senate ↗ | R+17.5 | 792,511 |
| 2002 · U.S. Senate ↗ | R+68.1 | 480,217 |
Margins are the Democrat’s share of all votes cast minus the Republican’s. Nonstandard ballots are labeled separately.
The money
Pete Ricketts ↗
R$11.2Mraised
$6.9M cash on handFiling through 06/30/2026
Dan Osborn ↗
I$5.8Mraised
$2.4M cash on handFiling through 06/30/2026
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 · $315
The candidates are comfortably out-fundraising the website covering them. A little rude, perhaps, but statistically unsurprising.
- Received so far
- $315
- 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 6 more.
Outside spending
Support + opposition · separate from receiptsFor and against Dan Osborn$13.4M
11 spending groups
| Group | For | Against |
|---|---|---|
| CORNHUSKER MAJORITY | $0 | $6.9M |
| WORKING CLASS MAJORITY PAC, INC | $2.9M | $0 |
| Win it Back PAC | $0 | $2.1M |
| UNITED FUTURES PAC | $652K | $0 |
| AB PAC | $326K | $0 |
| NEBRASKA VALUES PAC | $315K | $0 |
| SLF PAC | $0 | $100K |
| Progressive Turnout Project | $67K | $0 |
| THE CONSERVATIVE CAUCUS DBA AMERICANS FOR CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTY | $0 | $51K |
| Gun Rights America | $0 | $2K |
| Neighbor Voices | $690 | $0 |
For and against Pete Ricketts$12.2M
11 spending groups
| Group | For | Against |
|---|---|---|
| NEBRASKA VALUES PAC | $0 | $8.6M |
| WORKING CLASS MAJORITY PAC, INC | $0 | $2.5M |
| FELLOWSHIP PAC | $350K | $0 |
| DEFENDING OUR VALUES PAC | $263K | $0 |
| AMERICA FIRST ACTION FUND | $200K | $0 |
| SLF PAC | $157K | $0 |
| CORNHUSKER MAJORITY | $132K | $0 |
| United Futures PAC | $0 | $18K |
| NEBRASKA FREEDOM AND LIBERTY SUPER PAC | $9K | $0 |
| NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND | $1K | $0 |
| Neighbor Voices | $150 | $680 |
Includes primary spending. Opposition is recorded against its named target; no benefit to another candidate is assumed.
$562K in outside spending on earlier candidates.
No filing matched: Mike Marvin.
FEC filings · through 06/30/2026 · Definitions & method
Race context
- Turnout, 2018 midterm
- 50.8% 706,652 ballots
- Turnout, 2022 midterm
- 48.5% 682,716 ballots
- 2024 presidential margin
- R+20.8between the two parties
Turnout is ballots cast statewide as a share of the voting-eligible population. Source: University of Florida Election Lab ↗
Population profile Select a measure for its source and denominator
U.S. Census Bureau, 2022 American Community Survey 5-year estimates ↗
Coverage
1 story · 7 quotes
- ICYMI: The 2026 candidates for Legislative District 48, in western Nebraska, are state Sen. Brian Hardin of Gering and Jessica M. Landers of Scottsbluff. buff.ly/E6rBIcb ↗
Nebraska Examiner · Official · 5h ago
curated state newsroom · recent Bluesky post · named-race match - ICYMI: State Sen. Danielle Conrad of Lincoln is running unopposed for a fourth nonconsecutive four-year term to Legislative District 46, in central Lancaster County. nebraskaexaminer.com/voter-guides... ↗
Nebraska Examiner · Official · 6h ago
curated state newsroom · recent Bluesky post · named-race match · election-topic match - State Sen. Brad von Gillern and Cindy Maxwell-Ostdiek are in a rematch for Douglas County’s Legislative District 4 as both candidates say affordability, taxes and divisiveness ring top of mind for voters.
From Zach Wendling buff.ly/PCcKr6f ↗
Nebraska Examiner · Official · 7h ago
curated state newsroom · recent Bluesky post · named-race match · election-topic match - ICYMI: State Sen. Teresa Ibach of Sumner is running unopposed for a second four-year term to Legislative District 44, in west-central Nebraska. nebraskaexaminer.com/voter-guides... ↗
Nebraska Examiner · Official · 8h ago
curated state newsroom · recent Bluesky post · named-race match · election-topic match - ICYMI: The 2026 candidates for Legislative District 42, in west-central Nebraska, are state Sen. Mike Jacobson of North Platte and Shaylee S. Scranton of Thedford. buff.ly/uTtyjSU ↗
Nebraska Examiner · Official · 9h ago
curated state newsroom · recent Bluesky post · named-race match - Pete Ricketts once said losing his 2006 Senate race after throwing down $12 million of his fortune taught him it looks like "you’re trying to buy the race ... Ultimately, that’s not a successful strategy." nebraskaexaminer.com/2022/02/03/h... ↗
The Downballot · Analysis · 1d ago
curated downballot newsroom · recent Bluesky post · named-race match - Dan Osborn in Nebraska is one of four independent candidates for U.S. Senate this year who are the main opponents of incumbent Republican senators, Jonathan Shorman reports. iowacapitaldispatch.com/2026/10/20/r... ↗
Iowa Capital Dispatch · Official · 3d ago
curated state newsroom · recent Bluesky post · named-race match - Can the Democrats’ Dan Osborn Strategy Work on the State Legislative Level? ↗
CNalysis · Oct 8
Forecast as of October 23, 2026: Call the Map currently has Pete Ricketts ahead of Dan Osborn by 1.7 points, with a 61 in 100 chance to win. The seat is currently held by a Republican. That result would keep the seat with Republicans. The current poll average is R+0.3; 17 public polls are recorded.