The Senate · West Virginia
Projected turnout: 472,082 votes · model estimate, not counted votes.
Displayed shares include the model's Other-vote allowance and therefore add to 100%. Interval endpoints are the model's 10th and 90th percentiles, not a polling margin of error.
SURE — · not yet rateable
How reliable is the evidence behind this race's number — not who wins. A safe seat with no polls can score low while its forecast is easy.
No public poll of this race has been fielded yet. SURE rates poll evidence, so it has nothing to rate here — this is an absence of evidence, not a judgement that the evidence is weak.
Limited evidence: zero polls. The fitted race-error distribution widens automatically; no manual score penalty or race override is applied.
| Effective poll evidence | 0.00 |
|---|---|
| Race-specific error SD | 14.5 points |
| Historically calibrated 80% half-range | ±15.8 |
| Model treatment | Senate exact-production calibration |
| ✓ Fundamentals✓ Environment✗ Polls✗ Money (FEC)✓ Roster settled | |
SURE v3 — historically calibrated evidence-conditioned uncertainty · generated 2026-07-27. SURE rates the EVIDENCE behind a race's number, not the outcome: a safe seat with no polls can score low while its forecast is easy. Never a second win probability. It changes only idiosyncratic uncertainty, never the center. Senate marginal intervals are historically calibrated under the stated 0-120 day assumptions; House/Governor conditioning is provisional and widen-only until chamber-specific history passes the same gates.
County by county
Counties colored by the projected margin — the 2024 result shifted by the state's projected swing, summing exactly to the forecast above. Hover a county for its numbers.
| County | Margin | Rachel Fetty Anderson | Shelley Moore Capito | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kanawha | R+15.9 | 18,998 | 26,426 | 46,589 |
| Berkeley | R+34.1 | 11,014 | 22,857 | 34,739 |
| Monongalia | R+2.9 | 12,144 | 12,882 | 25,668 |
| Wood | R+41.7 | 6,452 | 16,075 | 23,105 |
| Cabell | R+20.3 | 8,472 | 12,918 | 21,938 |
| Raleigh | R+52.7 | 4,294 | 14,402 | 19,175 |
| Harrison | R+39.5 | 5,297 | 12,510 | 18,264 |
| Jefferson | R+14.0 | 7,534 | 10,069 | 18,054 |
| Putnam | R+44.8 | 4,488 | 12,119 | 17,033 |
| Marion | R+29.9 | 5,158 | 9,715 | 15,254 |
| Mercer | R+55.8 | 3,047 | 11,192 | 14,604 |
| Ohio | R+24.8 | 4,209 | 7,074 | 11,572 |
All 55 counties, largest projected vote pool first. Projected: the 2024 result shifted by the state's projected swing, summing exactly to the forecast above. Model estimate, not counted votes.
State of the race
Call the Map currently has Capito ahead of Anderson by R+40.4, with a 99 in 100 chance to win. The seat is currently held by a Republican. That result would keep the seat with Republicans. No current nominee-matched poll average is available, so the forecast is leaning on the non-polling evidence shown below.
Not competitive.
- CTM forecast
- Solid R hold · 99 in 100
- Seat
- Rep.-held · projected hold
- Forecast range
- R+51.8 to R+29.0
How the race is moving
99%R win probability today
Since the Jul 21 edition: margin 9.0 pts toward R · win probability unchanged
Tracked editions only. The pale segment marks the time remaining to Election Day; it is not fabricated future data. Hover, tap, or focus a chart and use the arrow keys for each edition's exact values.
How the margin was built
Five contributions, summing to the forecast R+40.4. Every model adjustment is published here — including candidate-quality shifts. Read how the whole margin is built →
TWIN neighbours
TWIN means Typology-Weighted Inference from Neighbors, Call the Map’s comparable-unit matching engine for any kind of race. It borrows poll residuals only—never centers, terrain, or outcomes. Similarity is demographic and behavioural, not geographic, and each contribution decays with similarity distance. Borrowed evidence always has lower precision than a race’s own polling.
| Race | Role | Similarity | Residual contributed | Direction |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SEN-KY | Fellow recipient | 0.452 | ±0.000 pts | none |
| SEN-AR | Lender (polled) | 0.386 | −3.100 pts | toward R |
| SEN-ID | Lender (polled) | 0.332 | −3.400 pts | toward R |
| SEN-ME | Fellow recipient | 0.329 | ±0.000 pts | none |
| SEN-OK | Fellow recipient | 0.327 | ±0.000 pts | none |
| SEN-TN | Fellow recipient | 0.313 | ±0.000 pts | none |
| SEN-MT | Lender (polled) | 0.311 | −4.400 pts | toward R |
| SEN-WY | Fellow recipient | 0.290 | ±0.000 pts | none |
| SEN-IA | Lender (polled) | 0.285 | +3.500 pts | toward D |
| SEN-SD | Lender (polled) | 0.284 | −1.000 pts | toward R |
Signals at a glance
- 2024 presidential
- R+41.9
- Ratings consensus
- Cook: Solid R · Sabato: Safe R · Inside Elections: Solid R
- Historical match quality
- 84/100 — How closely this race matches its eight historical analogues; not a win probability.
Recent polling
No polls yet for this race — the forecast rests on fundamentals only (partisan lean, fundraising, incumbency).
What would change this forecast
Computed from the model's own mechanicsThis race is rated Solid R at R+31.6. Its win probability is separately 1%. These are the concrete, checkable events that would move that rating — computed by inverting the model's own poll blend and environment elasticity, not asserted. If one happens and the rating doesn't move, the model was wrong in public.
No single poll can re-rate this Likely R — the blend would need a poll at D+108, which no real poll shows.
The environment alone can't plausibly do it (it would have to reach D+42.9).
Poll and environment levers reverse the current blend (K=6) and environment sensitivity (0.6); rating lines use the same published point-margin bands as every race hero, map, and table. Win probability remains a separate quantity. Method on the methodology page. These are illustrations; they do not change the published forecast.
Money in this race
Candidate filings and outside spending
FEC receipts · independent expendituresCandidate fundraising and independent expenditures answer different questions, so they are kept separate here. Receipts are money raised by the candidate committees; the air-war bars are outside groups spending for or against a nominee.
Outside spending over time
Independent expenditures reported to the FEC, by the month the money flew. Pre-primary bars can be intra-party spending, so the monthly shape is more informative than one undifferentiated total.
Show PAC and outside-group detail
No outside spending recorded for this side yet.
Source: FEC independent-expenditure records ↗
The available FEC data here does not include candidate disbursements, cash on hand, or booked broadcast and digital reservations, so this page does not infer those measures from receipts or outside spending.
Who does this money help? These are independent expenditures — spending by groups that are not the campaigns and may not coordinate with them. Each dollar is reported either supporting one candidate or opposing another, and both can help the same person, so the table below nets them out per candidate. It lists everyone with reported activity in this cycle's FEC filings — which can include primary candidates who are no longer on the ballot.
| Candidate | Supporting them | Opposing them | Net for them |
|---|---|---|---|
| Shelley Moore Capito RNominee | $337.6K | — | +$337.6K |
Direct PAC support
- SHELLEY MOORE CAPITONominee$1.7M
Top outside spenders
Campaign videos & ads
Official FEC independent expenditures. Cycle totals may include primary spending. Direct PAC totals include governed committee contributions and in-kind contributions. Campaign-video embeds are metadata-only editorial context from exact, reviewed channels; inclusion does not establish paid placement. Outside spending and campaign videos have zero forecast weight; direct PAC activity is reporting only.