Election forecasts you can inspect.Tested models, shown with their sources and their uncertainty.

Updated October 22, 2026, 09:28 UTC

State legislatures › Georgia Senate

Georgia Senate District 36

2026 forecast · Updated October 22, 2026, 09:28 UTC

>99% chance of a Democratic win · Katie Corkren (R), Nan Grogan Orrock (D)

Georgia Senate District 36: ForecastGeorgia Senate 34: chance of a Democratic win >99%; 2024 president D+64Georgia Senate 39: chance of a Democratic win 99%; 2024 president D+71Georgia Senate 44: chance of a Democratic win 99%; 2024 president D+78Georgia Senate District 36: Forecast39443436
Safe DLean DToss-upLean RSafe RHatched: not up in 2026 (shaded by holder) · dashed: other state

District 36 is safe Democratic. Of its 3 neighbouring districts, 3 favour Democrats.

StatusForecast
Chance of a Democratic win>99%
Likely margin (80% range)D+42 to D+88, middle D+65
CandidatesKatie Corkren (R), Nan Grogan Orrock (D)
Candidate list fromofficial
Current memberNan Orrock

How it has voted

On its current lines. Legislative contests and the top-of-ticket vote inside the district.

Legislature 2024uncontested (D)
President 2024D+78
← RepublicanDemocratic →

Who lives here

Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2019-2023.

This districtGeorgia
Median household income$75,695$74,664
Bachelor's degree or more (25+)54%34%
Median age3437
White (not Hispanic)35%50%
Black48%31%
Hispanic8%11%
Asian4%4%
Born abroad8%11%
Jobs in manufacturing5%10%
Jobs in farming or mining0%1%

Initial version. This model was tested on every state legislative election from 1994 to 2024 before publication, forecasting each as if it had not happened. It beat the simple rule “the party that holds the seat keeps it”, and its chamber seat counts were off by 2.9 seats on average (target: under 3). Districts with no two-party race last time are read from their own presidential vote, a change tested in advance that cut their average error from 17 to 13 points. It missed one of its five accuracy targets: in 2024, the calmest year on record, its ranges were wider than they needed to be (92% of results fell inside its 80% ranges; target: at most 88%). Treat the ranges as cautious. The full test record and code.