Texas · U.S. Senate
Open this race on The Map ↗James Talarico is slightly favored to flip Texas’s Senate seat. Predicted margin: D+0.7.
High / low: vote share (%) in the middle 80 in 100 simulations
About this field
AG Ken Paxton beat Sen. Cornyn in the primary. His baggage makes deep-red Texas unexpectedly watchable in a blue year.
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 27 · first published Sep 9 · 80% range · margin points R+7.0 to D+8.4. Methodology
Hover the line, tap it, or use the arrow keys to read the margin on a day.
About this series
Reconstructed with the current model Aug 1 – Sep 8 and Sep 16 – Sep 18; published readings Sep 9 – Oct 27. 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 | Margin | Chance | 80% range | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 27 | D+0.7 | D win 54.9% | R+7.0 to D+8.4 | Published forecast |
| Oct 26 | D+0.9 | D win 56.0% | R+6.8 to D+8.5 | Published forecast |
| Oct 25 | D+0.9 | D win 56.0% | R+6.8 to D+8.5 | Published forecast |
| Oct 24 | D+0.8 | D win 55.3% | R+6.9 to D+8.4 | Published forecast |
| Oct 23 | D+0.7 | D win 54.8% | R+7.0 to D+8.4 | Published forecast |
| Oct 22 | D+0.7 | D win 54.7% | R+7.0 to D+8.4 | Published forecast |
| Oct 21 | D+0.7 | D win 54.6% | R+7.0 to D+8.3 | Published forecast |
| Oct 20 | D+0.6 | D win 54.5% | R+7.1 to D+8.3 | Published forecast |
| Oct 19 | D+0.6 | D win 54.4% | R+7.1 to D+8.3 | Published forecast |
| Oct 18 | D+0.7 | D win 54.7% | R+7.0 to D+8.4 | Published forecast |
| Oct 17 | D+0.7 | D win 54.6% | R+7.0 to D+8.4 | Published forecast |
| Oct 16 | D+0.6 | D win 54.5% | R+7.1 to D+8.3 | Published forecast |
| Oct 15 | D+0.7 | D win 55.2% | R+7.0 to D+8.4 | Published forecast |
| Oct 14 | D+0.6 | D win 54.6% | R+7.1 to D+8.4 | Published forecast |
| Oct 13 | D+0.9 | D win 56.2% | R+6.8 to D+8.6 | Published forecast |
| Oct 12 | D+0.9 | D win 56.0% | R+6.8 to D+8.6 | Published forecast |
| Oct 11 | D+0.9 | D win 56.0% | R+6.8 to D+8.6 | Published forecast |
| Oct 10 | D+0.8 | D win 55.8% | R+6.9 to D+8.5 | Published forecast |
| Oct 9 | D+0.8 | D win 55.7% | R+6.9 to D+8.5 | Published forecast |
| Oct 8 | D+0.9 | D win 56.5% | R+6.8 to D+8.6 | Published forecast |
| Oct 7 | D+1.0 | D win 57.1% | R+6.7 to D+8.7 | Published forecast |
| Oct 6 | D+0.9 | D win 56.3% | R+6.8 to D+8.6 | Published forecast |
| Oct 5 | D+0.9 | D win 56.2% | R+6.8 to D+8.6 | Published forecast |
| Oct 4 | D+0.9 | D win 56.1% | R+6.8 to D+8.6 | Published forecast |
| Oct 3 | D+0.7 | D win 55.2% | R+7.0 to D+8.5 | Published forecast |
| Oct 2 | D+0.7 | D win 55.1% | R+7.0 to D+8.4 | Published forecast |
| Oct 1 | D+0.6 | D win 54.5% | R+7.1 to D+8.4 | Published forecast |
| Sep 30 | D+0.7 | D win 55.2% | R+7.0 to D+8.5 | Published forecast |
| Sep 29 | D+0.8 | D win 55.5% | R+6.9 to D+8.5 | Published forecast |
| Sep 28 | D+0.8 | D win 55.5% | R+6.9 to D+8.5 | Published forecast |
| Sep 27 | D+0.8 | D win 55.7% | R+6.9 to D+8.5 | Published forecast |
| Sep 26 | D+0.9 | D win 56.4% | R+6.8 to D+8.6 | Published forecast |
| Sep 25 | D+0.9 | D win 56.1% | R+6.9 to D+8.6 | Published forecast |
| Sep 24 | D+0.9 | D win 55.9% | R+6.9 to D+8.6 | Published forecast |
| Sep 23 | D+0.8 | D win 55.8% | R+6.9 to D+8.6 | Published forecast |
| Sep 22 | D+0.6 | D win 54.3% | R+7.1 to D+8.4 | Published forecast |
| Sep 21 | D+0.6 | D win 54.3% | R+7.1 to D+8.4 | Published forecast |
| Sep 20 | D+0.6 | D win 54.3% | R+7.1 to D+8.4 | Published forecast |
| Sep 19 | D+0.6 | D win 54.2% | R+7.1 to D+8.4 | Published forecast |
| Sep 18 | D+0.5 | D win 53.3% | R+7.3 to D+8.2 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 17 | D+0.5 | D win 53.2% | R+7.3 to D+8.2 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 16 | D+0.3 | D win 52.3% | R+7.4 to D+8.1 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 15 | D+0.2 | D win 51.5% | R+7.6 to D+8.0 | Published forecast |
| Sep 14 | D+0.2 | D win 51.6% | R+7.6 to D+8.0 | Published forecast |
| Sep 13 | EVEN | D win 50.3% | R+7.7 to D+7.8 | Published forecast |
| Sep 12 | EVEN | D win 50.2% | R+7.8 to D+7.8 | Published forecast |
| Sep 11 | EVEN | D win 50.0% | R+7.8 to D+7.8 | Published forecast |
| Sep 10 | EVEN | R win 50.2% | R+7.8 to D+7.8 | Published forecast |
| Sep 9 | R+0.2 | R win 51.6% | R+8.0 to D+7.6 | Published forecast |
| Sep 8 | R+0.3 | R win 51.8% | R+8.0 to D+7.5 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 7 | R+0.3 | R win 52.0% | R+8.1 to D+7.5 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 6 | R+0.3 | R win 52.0% | R+8.1 to D+7.5 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 5 | R+0.1 | R win 50.4% | R+7.8 to D+7.8 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 4 | R+0.1 | R win 50.5% | R+7.9 to D+7.7 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 3 | R+0.1 | R win 50.6% | R+7.9 to D+7.7 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 2 | R+0.1 | R win 50.7% | R+7.9 to D+7.7 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Sep 1 | R+0.1 | R win 50.7% | R+7.9 to D+7.7 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 31 | R+0.1 | R win 50.8% | R+7.9 to D+7.7 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 30 | R+0.1 | R win 50.9% | R+7.9 to D+7.7 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 29 | R+0.1 | R win 50.9% | R+7.9 to D+7.7 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 28 | R+0.1 | R win 51.0% | R+8.0 to D+7.7 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 27 | R+0.2 | R win 51.0% | R+8.0 to D+7.7 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 26 | R+0.3 | R win 52.0% | R+8.1 to D+7.5 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 25 | R+0.3 | R win 52.0% | R+8.1 to D+7.5 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 24 | R+0.4 | R win 52.7% | R+8.2 to D+7.4 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 23 | R+0.4 | R win 52.8% | R+8.2 to D+7.4 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 22 | R+0.6 | R win 53.9% | R+8.4 to D+7.2 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 21 | R+0.6 | R win 54.4% | R+8.4 to D+7.2 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 20 | R+0.6 | R win 54.5% | R+8.4 to D+7.2 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 19 | R+0.7 | R win 54.5% | R+8.4 to D+7.1 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 18 | R+0.7 | R win 54.5% | R+8.5 to D+7.1 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 17 | R+0.7 | R win 54.6% | R+8.5 to D+7.1 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 16 | R+0.7 | R win 54.7% | R+8.5 to D+7.1 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 15 | R+0.7 | R win 54.7% | R+8.5 to D+7.1 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 14 | R+0.7 | R win 55.0% | R+8.5 to D+7.1 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 13 | R+0.7 | R win 55.0% | R+8.5 to D+7.1 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 12 | R+0.6 | R win 53.9% | R+8.4 to D+7.2 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 11 | R+0.6 | R win 54.0% | R+8.4 to D+7.2 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 10 | R+0.6 | R win 54.0% | R+8.4 to D+7.2 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 9 | R+0.6 | R win 54.1% | R+8.4 to D+7.2 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 8 | R+0.6 | R win 54.2% | R+8.4 to D+7.2 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 7 | R+0.6 | R win 54.3% | R+8.4 to D+7.2 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 6 | R+0.9 | R win 55.9% | R+8.7 to D+7.0 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 5 | R+0.9 | R win 56.5% | R+8.7 to D+6.9 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 4 | R+0.9 | R win 56.5% | R+8.8 to D+6.9 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 3 | R+1.1 | R win 57.3% | R+8.9 to D+6.7 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 2 | R+1.1 | R win 57.4% | R+8.9 to D+6.7 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
| Aug 1 | R+1.1 | R win 57.8% | R+8.9 to D+6.7 | Reconstructed with the stated inputs |
The polls
Poll average D+2.1A 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.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 D+2.3. 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.63 recorded polls · 62 in the poll average
| Fieldwork | Added | Pollster | Result | Sample |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| from 2026-10-13 | 3h ago | YouGov ↗ | D+5.0D 50% · R 45% | 1,000 RV |
| from 2026-10-20 | 4d ago | Rasmussen Reports ↗ | EVEND 45% · R 45% | 965 LV |
| from 2026-10-15 | 4d ago | Pollfinity Research ↗ | D+5.0D 48% · R 43% | 278 RV |
| from 2026-10-15 | 4d ago | Slingshot Strategies ↗ | D+4.0D 51% · R 47% | 969 LV |
| from 2026-10-01 | 4d ago | Verasight ↗ | D+2.4D 47.6% · R 45.2% | 601 LV |
| from 2026-10-17 | 5d ago | Emerson College ↗ | D+1.5D 49.37% · R 47.83% | 1,000 LV |
| from 2026-10-17 | 6d ago | ActiVote ↗ | D+2.0D 51% · R 49% | 400 LV |
| from 2026-10-15 | 6d ago | Beacon Research/Shaw & Company Research ↗ | EVEND 49% · R 49% | 1,398 LV |
Explore each poll’s weight in the average
Poll average D+2.1
- Published result
- D+2.0
- Weight in the poll average
- 0.51 · 1.6% of the average
- Fieldwork
- 17 Oct–21 Oct
- Sample
- 400 LV
- Sponsor
- Not listed
- Published result
- EVEN
- Weight in the poll average
- 0.79 · 2.5% of the average
- Fieldwork
- 20 Oct–21 Oct
- Sample
- 965 LV
- Sponsor
- Not listed
- Published result
- D+5.0
- Weight in the poll average
- 0.80 · 1.0% of the average
- Fieldwork
- 13 Oct–21 Oct
- Sample
- 1,000 RV
- Sponsor
- Not listed
- Published result
- D+2.4
- Weight in the poll average
- 0.62 · 3.6% of the average
- Fieldwork
- 1 Oct–20 Oct
- Sample
- 601 LV
- Sponsor
- Not listed
- Published result
- EVEN
- Weight in the poll average
- 0.91 · 3.3% of the average
- Fieldwork
- 15 Oct–19 Oct
- Sample
- 1,398 LV
- Sponsor
- Not listed
- Published result
- D+1.5
- Weight in the poll average
- 0.78 · 2.2% of the average
- Fieldwork
- 17 Oct–19 Oct
- Sample
- 1,000 LV
- Sponsor
- Not listed
- Published result
- D+5.0
- Weight in the poll average
- 0.41 · 2.4% of the average
- Fieldwork
- 15 Oct–18 Oct
- Sample
- 278 RV
- Sponsor
- Not listed
- Published result
- D+4.0
- Weight in the poll average
- 0.76 · 1.6% of the average
- Fieldwork
- 15 Oct–18 Oct
- Sample
- 969 LV
- Sponsor
- Not listed
How the margin 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.
All calculations & sources
How this state voted, 2024 −13.690 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 +9.672 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 -4.018 minus starting point -13.690 = 9.672 points.
- For orientation, the presidential results here: 2024 R+13.7, 2020 R+5.6.
- The work: the −4.0 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.
National environment +3.205 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 (13 days old), approval 2026-10-14 (13 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 +3.2 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: +3.2 of this margin.
This race’s polls +1.514 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.
- Rasmussen Reports (2026-10-21, n=965): ±0.0 · weight 0.79 in the poll average
- ActiVote (2026-10-21, n=400): D+2.0 · weight 0.51 in the poll average
- YouGov (2026-10-21, n=1,000): D+5.0 · weight 0.80 in the poll average
- Verasight (2026-10-20, n=601): D+2.4 · weight 0.62 in the poll average
- Emerson College (2026-10-19, n=1,000): D+1.5 · weight 0.78 in the poll average
- Beacon Research/Shaw & Company Research (2026-10-19, n=1,398): ±0.0 · weight 0.91 in the poll average
- … and 57 more below.
- Poll average D+2.1, from 62 polls · 63 recorded polls. This is the polls’ own average, each poll at its published margin, the figure this page’s poll summary shows. 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 D+2.3. 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 98% of the weight against its structural prior for this race, which moves the margin 1.5 points away from Republicans from where it stood before the polls. Eligible polls: latest poll: 2026-10-21 (6 days old).
Structural safeguards +0.013 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 +0.0 D.
Votes for other candidates −0.014 points
Every step above is measured between the two major-party candidates alone, as if nobody else were on the ballot. The forecast sets 1.9% of the vote aside for other candidates and write-ins, so as a share of every vote cast the gap between the two is smaller by that much. This step is exactly that: the two-party margin times the share going to other candidates. It is the same arithmetic that turns the two-party margin into the two shares printed at the top of the page.
The components this edition publishes for this race, in points. “Other factors” closes the sum to the two-party structural lean exactly. The margin the page prints is a share of every vote cast, so the “Votes for other candidates” row carries the exact difference between the two-party lean and that margin; with it, the walk sums to the printed margin exactly.
| Named factor | Contribution |
|---|---|
| FundamentalsThe admitted fitted baseline. Its surviving variables differ by office; the source detail above identifies those used for this race. | −4.02 |
| National environmentThe national environment’s contribution to the prior. Polling can attenuate its influence; this value is not the national polling margin. | +3.21 |
| This race's pollsAdmitted head-to-head polls of this race, recency- and quality-weighted. | +1.51 |
| Structural terrain safeguardA bounded pull toward presidential terrain in heavily partisan states. | +0.01 |
| 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+9.6 | 11,144,040 |
| 2014 · U.S. Senate ↗ | R+27.2 | 4,648,358 |
| 2008 · U.S. Senate ↗ | R+12.0 | 7,912,075 |
| 2002 · U.S. Senate ↗ | R+12.0 | 4,514,012 |
Margins are the Democrat’s share of all votes cast minus the Republican’s. Nonstandard ballots are labeled separately.
The money
James Talarico ↗
D$68.6Mraised
$21.5M cash on handFiling through 06/30/2026
Ken Paxton ↗
R$9.2Mraised
$1.8M 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 · $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
Support + opposition · separate from receiptsFor and against James Talarico$230.3M
57 spending groups
| Group | For | Against |
|---|---|---|
| TEXAS PAC | $0 | $111.9M |
| MAGA INC. | $0 | $30.1M |
| America PAC | $0 | $28.7M |
| LONE STAR LIBERTY PAC | $0 | $16.5M |
| DEFEND US PAC | $0 | $10.5M |
| Lone Star Rising PAC | $6.6M | $0 |
| Lower Costs Now | $5.8M | $0 |
| AB PAC | $3.8M | $0 |
| Truth and Courage PAC | $0 | $3.7M |
| NO GOING BACK PAC INC. | $0 | $2.8M |
| EVANGELICALS FOR A BETTER FUTURE | $1.5M | $0 |
| PROTECTING AMERICA'S FUTURE | $0 | $1.2M |
| CFFE PAC | $841K | $0 |
| New American Jobs Fund | $810K | $0 |
| Somos PAC | $729K | $0 |
| Government That Works PAC | $638K | $0 |
| NRA VICTORY FUND, INC. | $0 | $529K |
| FORWARD TEXAS | $0 | $500K |
| Texas Organizing Project PAC | $448K | $0 |
| DIGITAL FREEDOM FUND | $0 | $393K |
| Progressive Turnout Project | $390K | $0 |
| Stronger Nation | $217K | $0 |
| JEFFERSON RISING | $0 | $200K |
| LUPE VOTES FEDERAL SUPER PAC, INC. | $125K | $0 |
| Field Team 6 Inc. | $120K | $0 |
| The Collective Super PAC | $118K | $0 |
| Latino Victory Fund | $83K | $0 |
| HUNTER ACTION FUND (HAF) | $0 | $77K |
| Progress Action Fund | $76K | $0 |
| JDCA PAC | $60K | $0 |
| SEIU COPE (Service Employees International Union Committee On Political Education) | $57K | $0 |
| Mijente PAC | $54K | $0 |
| RED SENATE | $0 | $53K |
| WinSenate | $51K | $0 |
| Forward Blue PAC | $50K | $0 |
| NAKASEC ACTION FUND | $44K | $0 |
| Win it Back PAC | $0 | $43K |
| UnidosUS Action PAC | $40K | $0 |
| Thomas Paine Society, L.L.C. | $35K | $0 |
| Way To Lead PAC | $35K | $0 |
| Indivisible Action | $32K | $0 |
| Double Tap PAC | $27K | $0 |
| THE EDGE ACTION FUND | $25K | $0 |
| ASIANS FOR PROGRESS | $21K | $0 |
| Community Change Voters | $17K | $0 |
| THE CONSERVATIVE CAUCUS DBA AMERICANS FOR CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTY | $0 | $17K |
| PIVOT VICTORY FUND | $14K | $0 |
| DEFEND TEXAS FUND | $0 | $11K |
| ITALIAN AMERICAN DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP COUNCIL | $11K | $0 |
| EVERY STATE | $10K | $0 |
| Disrupt | $9K | $0 |
| Gun Rights America | $0 | $8K |
| WorkMoney, Inc. | $7K | $0 |
| NATIONAL RIGHT TO LIFE VICTORY FUND | $0 | $5K |
| Texas Forever | $3K | $0 |
| Neighbor Voices | $2K | $0 |
| LCV Victory Fund | $1K | $0 |
For and against Ken Paxton$182.1M
49 spending groups
| Group | For | Against |
|---|---|---|
| TEXAS PAC | $69.7M | $0 |
| TEXANS FOR A CONSERVATIVE MAJORITY | $0 | $24.8M |
| Lone Star Rising PAC | $0 | $24.1M |
| Texas Forever | $0 | $19.4M |
| Lower Costs Now | $0 | $8.2M |
| MAGA INC. | $7.5M | $0 |
| America PAC | $5.0M | $0 |
| LONE STAR LIBERTY PAC | $4.4M | $0 |
| LCV Victory Fund | $0 | $3.0M |
| NO GOING BACK PAC INC. | $2.8M | $0 |
| DEFEND US PAC | $2.6M | $0 |
| FELLOWSHIP PAC | $2.3M | $0 |
| EDF Action Votes | $0 | $2.0M |
| Government That Works PAC | $0 | $1.7M |
| Moment of Truth PAC Inc. | $0 | $1.6M |
| Texans Demanding Accountability | $0 | $618K |
| CONSTITUTIONAL VANGUARD SUPER PAC | $409K | $0 |
| CFFE PAC | $0 | $361K |
| Texas Organizing Project PAC | $0 | $226K |
| Stronger Nation | $0 | $217K |
| RED SENATE | $191K | $0 |
| DIGITAL FREEDOM FUND | $166K | $0 |
| TEXANS FOR CONSERVATIVE VALUES | $0 | $125K |
| American Principles Project PAC | $10K | $100K |
| SENATE CONSERVATIVES FUND | $99K | $0 |
| THE LOWDOWN | $0 | $98K |
| HUNTER ACTION FUND (HAF) | $77K | $0 |
| Progress Action Fund | $0 | $76K |
| SENATE CONSERVATIVES ACTION | $58K | $0 |
| Cedar Key Progress | $0 | $50K |
| WinSenate | $0 | $38K |
| Way To Lead PAC | $0 | $30K |
| OFF SCRIPT | $0 | $22K |
| Club for Growth PAC | $12K | $0 |
| DEFEND TEXAS FUND | $11K | $0 |
| Building Together | $0 | $10K |
| WorkMoney, Inc. | $0 | $7K |
| GUARDRAILS ACTION INC. | $0 | $5K |
| Turn Left PAC | $0 | $5K |
| NATIONAL RIGHT TO LIFE VICTORY FUND | $5K | $0 |
| Back the Bold | $0 | $4K |
| Gun Rights America | $3K | $0 |
| LONE STAR VOICES | $0 | $2K |
| COURAGEOUS CONSERVATIVES PAC | $2K | $0 |
| Montgomery County First PAC | $721 | $0 |
| StarkFreedom PAC | $0 | $654 |
| Working America | $0 | $250 |
| NRA VICTORY FUND, INC. | $178 | $0 |
| Early Vote Action PAC | $0 | $0 |
Includes primary spending. Opposition is recorded against its named target; no benefit to another candidate is assumed.
$30.0M in outside spending on earlier candidates.
FEC filings · through 06/30/2026 · Definitions & method
Race context
- Turnout, 2018 midterm
- 45.1% 8,375,000 ballots
- Turnout, 2022 midterm
- 41.9% 8,151,590 ballots
- 2024 presidential margin
- R+13.9between 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
9 stories · 15 quotes
- In fourth El Paso stop, James Talarico takes aim at Paxton mega donor Elon Musk ↗
El Paso Matters · Oct 27
- The Port Arthur stop marks the secretary of state’s first midterm appearance alongside the president, who is campaigning for Ken Paxton in a tight Senate race against James Talarico. ↗
HuffPost · Official · 17m ago
curated newsroom · recent Bluesky post · named-race match · election-topic match - In 2020, Ken Paxton’s office spent more than 22,000 hours on voter fraud cases. The result was 16 prosecutions.
“That’s 16 cases in a state of 17 million registered voters,” Marc Elias says.
The rules for voting keep changing. Follow us so nothing catches you off guard. ↗
Democracy Docket · Official · 23m ago
curated newsroom · recent Bluesky post · named-race match · election-topic match - Running for Senate in Texas, Democrat James Talarico must convince some voters that he isn’t too liberal to represent the state. ↗
The Wall Street Journal · Official · 11h ago
curated newsroom · recent Bluesky post · named-race match · election-topic match - Running for Senate in Texas, Democrat James Talarico must convince some voters that he isn’t too liberal to represent the state on.wsj.com/4yGWQ7C ↗
The Wall Street Journal · Official · 12h ago
curated newsroom · recent Bluesky post · named-race match · election-topic match - Talarico for Texas is a messaging machine.
His ability to efficiently frame an argument and deliver it to an audience is why he is leading the scandal-plagued Republican attorney general Ken Paxton in the polls (the plague of scandals has also helped). ↗
Mother Jones · Official · 12h ago
curated newsroom · recent Bluesky post · named-race match · election-topic match - When James Talarico was Jimmy, he played in the sandbox of student politics at UT Austin ↗
Texas Public Radio · Oct 26
- Inside the New AI Slop Era of Texas Politics ↗
Texas Observer · Oct 26
Forecast as of October 27, 2026: Call the Map currently has James Talarico ahead of Ken Paxton by D+0.7, with a 55 in 100 chance to win. This is an open seat. That result would flip the seat to Democrats. The current poll average is D+2.1; 63 public polls are recorded.