The Forecasting MachineRead report

Loading shared forecast

The Forecasting MachineOpen interactive report

Will John Hickenlooper (D) win the Colorado U.S. Senate election on November 3, 2026?

Resolves Yes if John Hickenlooper (D) is certified as the winner of the Colorado U.S. Senate seat contested on November 3, 2026, and No otherwise. If the contest is not decided on election night — because of a runoff, a ranked-choice tabulation, or a recount — it resolves on the final certified result. Declared candidates: John Hickenlooper (D); Mark Baisley (R).

Forecasted on

Forecast probabilities

  • Yes: 97.7%
  • No: 2.3%

Reasoning

Hickenlooper is a strong favorite: the aggregated forecast puts his chance of winning at 97.7%, versus 2.3% for a loss. Colorado’s Democratic lean, his large campaign and name-recognition advantages, and a national environment favoring Democrats outweigh the real uncertainty created by the lack of a direct race poll and the presence of an independent candidate.

Yes — 97.7%: The advantages reinforce one another

The outside view is favorable to Hickenlooper. Democrats have held Colorado’s state government for years, and Republicans have not won a statewide race there since 2016; Hickenlooper also won this Senate seat in 2020 [a1, a5, a7]. He enters the contest as the incumbent against Republican Mark Baisley, with four minor-party candidates also on the ballot [e184].

The resource gap is unusually large. Hickenlooper reported $11.49 million raised and $2.34 million in cash on hand, compared with $138,210 raised and $28,160 on hand for Baisley [e6]. Hickenlooper has also spent nearly $2 million on television and digital ads in the closing stretch, while Baisley acknowledged debate missteps [e177, e93]. The Durango Herald editorial board endorsed Hickenlooper, and his closing ad framed the race as a chance to help Democrats regain control of Congress [e77, e176].

The broader political climate supplies another tailwind. Recent national generic-ballot polling gives Democrats leads ranging from about four to eight points, and a late-October Reuters/Ipsos survey found President Trump’s approval at 32% [e182, e186, e188, e192]. Economic dissatisfaction is pronounced, with many voters naming cost of living as a top concern [e193, e194, e202]. That issue could hurt incumbents, but the evidence points more directly to discontent with Trump and the national Republican environment than to a specific weakness for Hickenlooper.

Colorado’s early voting picture is supportive but not decisive. Democrats returned ballots at a higher rate earlier in October, and voters with Democratic primary histories outnumbered those with Republican histories [e4, e132]. Later returns showed a substantial unaffiliated share and slightly more Republicans than Democrats in raw counts, so turnout figures alone cannot tell us how people will vote [e179, e180]. Still, they do not offer a clear warning sign for Hickenlooper.

No — 2.3%: Upset paths exist, but lack visible support

The main uncertainty is that the available evidence includes no head-to-head general-election poll. Hickenlooper’s favorability has also been mixed, and high prices and fuel costs give Baisley an opening to challenge the incumbent’s record [a9, a2, a3]. Those concerns matter, but they have not produced a reported polling deficit or a strong showing for Baisley.

Independent candidate Bob Chew adds uncertainty to the vote split, having raised substantially more than Baisley [e6, e7]. Yet the evidence does not show that Chew is drawing enough support to create a likely path for the Republican challenger. Nor does Baisley’s defense of the Iran war appear an obvious fit with voters’ affordability concerns [a3, e194].

Why the probabilities are so far apart

The forecast gives substantial weight to the convergence of state partisan history, incumbency, a pronounced fundraising and advertising advantage, and a Democratic-leaning national climate. The absence of a direct Senate poll, mixed favorability data, and uncertainty about unaffiliated and third-party voters justify retaining some chance of an upset—but they are weaker signals than the forces favoring Hickenlooper. That balance supports 97.7% Yes and 2.3% No.

Update summary

Later ballot returns show a substantial unaffiliated share and slightly more Republican than Democratic ballots in raw counts, adding limited uncertainty without indicating how those voters will vote [e179, e180]. Hickenlooper’s campaign also reported nearly $2 million in closing-stretch advertising, reinforcing his existing resource advantage [e177].

Cited evidence