The Forecasting MachineOpen interactive report

Which party will win the 2026 US Senate election in Minnesota?

The election will be held on November 3, 2026. The major party nominees are Peggy Flanagan (Democratic Party) and Michele Tafoya (Republican Party). Note that although Flanagan is a technically member of the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party, she is considered a member of Democratic Party for the purpose fo this question.

Forecasted on

Forecast probabilities

  • Democratic Party: 91.3%
  • Republican Party: 8.5%
  • Other Party: 0.2%

Reasoning

Peggy Flanagan and the Democratic Party are strong favorites, with a 91.3% chance of winning; Michele Tafoya and the Republican Party have an 8.5% chance, while another party has a 0.2% chance. The late polling, Minnesota’s Senate history, and a favorable national environment point toward Democrats, though the fraud issue and tighter surveys leave room for an upset.

Democratic Party — 91.3%: A durable lead, with some late uncertainty

Minnesota’s long Democratic Senate streak is a meaningful starting point: Democrats have won every Senate race there since 2002. Flanagan also benefits from the broader political climate, with Democrats leading the national generic ballot and late-cycle forecaster changes moving decisively in their direction [a12, a14] [e930, e977, e978]. The record pace of early voting, including a reported Democratic advantage among early voters, adds some evidence of strong participation, though it is not a guarantee of who will turn out on Election Day [e950, e975].

Most late polls favor Flanagan, but the size of her lead is uncertain. The New York Times/Siena survey put her 14 points ahead, while other late results were narrower: the Star Tribune showed a four-point lead, another survey put her ahead by seven, and a more recent poll showed a four-point margin with many voters undecided [e899, e858, e948, e970]. Taken together, these results make a Democratic win the clear favorite without justifying certainty.

Republican Party — 8.5%: A credible challenger and a live vulnerability

Tafoya is not a routine challenger: she has name recognition, resources, and a moderate position on abortion that may help her reach beyond the Republican base [a2]. The Feeding Our Future fraud scandal has given Republicans a specific line of attack, and it contributed to the Cook Political Report moving the race from *Likely Democratic* to *Lean Democratic* [a4, a14] [e855]. Reports of suburban voters splitting their tickets over fraud concerns suggest this issue could matter beyond campaign rhetoric [e974].

The evidence for a Tafoya upset is real but limited. The RealClearPolling average showed a closer race than the strongest Flanagan poll, and reporting described the contest as tightening [e857, e947]. Republican spending and turnout efforts could also help close the gap [e983, e980]. But the available late polls still show Flanagan ahead, and Tafoya would likely need both a substantial polling miss and a favorable turnout pattern to win.

Other Party — 0.2%: No visible path

There is no sign in the available reporting of a third-party candidate with the support, organization, or polling presence to contend for the seat. The race is being fought between Flanagan and Tafoya, leaving another party with only a remote possibility.

Why the balance favors Democrats

The forecast gives the most weight to the consistent direction of the late polling, Minnesota’s partisan history, and the national environment, while recognizing that poll margins vary and the fraud issue creates a plausible route for Tafoya. The evidence supports a strong Democratic favorite rather than a foregone conclusion: 91.3% Democratic, 8.5% Republican, and 0.2% Other Party.

Update summary

New reports show record early voting in Minnesota and acknowledge a Republican turnout challenge, while Republicans also held a late-cycle advertising spending advantage [e975, e980, e983]. National polling and a GOP prediction about Minnesota pull in opposite directions, leaving the race’s overall outlook largely intact [e972, e978].

Cited evidence