Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Which 2026 Senate races are considered toss-ups by Cook Political Report or Sabato in 2025?
Executive Summary
The Cook Political Report’s February 2025 ratings listed two 2026 Senate contests as Toss Ups: Georgia (Sen. Jon Ossoff’s seat) and the open Michigan seat created by Sen. Gary Peters’ surprise retirement, signaling immediate vulnerability for Democrats in those states [1]. Sabato’s Crystal Ball (Center for Politics) did not publish a clear, contemporaneous single-line “Toss Up” list in the provided materials; its most recent public update was noted as August 12, 2025, but the supplied text did not enumerate specific toss-up seats [2]. Other outlets—most notably Inside Elections—placed Georgia and Michigan in the toss-up bucket and added North Carolina as a toss-up in its July 25, 2025 ratings, reflecting a modest divergence among trackers over whether North Carolina should be listed alongside the Cook pair [3].
1. Why Cook singled out two Democratic-held seats and what that implies about 2026 battlegrounds
Cook’s February 11, 2025 ratings identify two Toss Ups, both associated with Democratic-held contests: Sen. Jon Ossoff’s Georgia seat and the Michigan seat vacated by Gary Peters, indicating Cook judges those two as the most immediately contestable races where control could plausibly flip in either direction [1]. That framing places particular emphasis on the vulnerability of incumbent Democrats in swing and Midwestern states, consistent with broader arithmetic that Democrats need a net gain to retake the Senate. Cook’s assessment reflects both candidate-level factors—Ossoff’s 2020 and 2022 margins, Michigan’s sudden open-seat dynamics—and state environments where partisan balance and turnout rules create narrow paths for either party to seize the advantage [1]. By categorizing only two races as Toss Ups, Cook signals a narrower set of true pickups than some other forecasters, which constrains the number of routes Republicans must defend to maintain their majority.
2. What Sabato’s absence of a clear toss-up list tells us about its 2025 posture
The provided Center for Politics material does not explicitly list which 2026 races it called Toss Ups in 2025; instead, it links to ongoing coverage and notes a last-update timestamp of August 12, 2025, without an embedded toss-up roster [2]. That absence can reflect either editorial caution—preferring narrative pieces over a static “Toss Up” column—or the timing of updates, since Sabato’s Crystal Ball often reworks its ratings as candidate fields and polling evolve. Sabato’s methodology historically blends statewide polling, candidate quality, fundraising, and structural indicators; the lack of a single-line toss-up list in the supplied text means users cannot treat Sabato as corroborating Cook’s two-seat toss-up view from the available excerpt [2]. This gap underscores the importance of checking the specific dated rating table on Sabato’s site for exact classifications at any point in 2025.
3. Where Inside Elections differs and why North Carolina matters to the narrative
Inside Elections’ July 25, 2025 update placed Georgia, Michigan, and North Carolina in the Toss Up column, adding North Carolina to the pair Cook identified and thereby widening the competitive map to three top-tier battlegrounds [3]. That difference matters because North Carolina’s inclusion expands the states most likely to decide control: while Cook’s two toss-ups point to a concentrated Democratic vulnerability, Inside Elections suggests Republicans also face a plausible loss in a traditionally close Southern battleground. Inside Elections explicitly groups those three as toss-ups within an eight-race competitive set that also includes states rated less volatile but still competitive; this broader lens implies more paths for either party to gain the four-seat swing Democrats need for a majority, or for Republicans to protect their edge [3]. The divergence illustrates how models vary depending on weight given to polling trends, retirements, and candidate quality.
4. What to watch next and how to reconcile differing trackers
Reconciling Cook, Sabato, and Inside Elections requires tracking three variables: candidate announcements and quality, polling trends as the 2026 cycle progresses, and state-level structural changes such as retirements or redistricting. Cook’s early-2025 toss-up designation spotlights immediate vulnerability in Georgia and Michigan [1]; Inside Elections’ July 2025 addition of North Carolina suggests volatility there as candidate fields solidified [3]. Sabato’s lack of a specific toss-up list in the provided excerpt means users must consult its dated ratings table to know whether it aligns with Cook or Inside Elections for a given update [2]. For a complete picture, compare contemporaneous rating tables from all three outlets on the same date; differences often reveal how much forecasters prioritize polling versus structural indicators, and they flag states where races are close enough that small shifts could change national control dynamics.