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

Updated October 22, 2026, 09:28 UTC

State legislatures › Maine Senate

Maine Senate District 1

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

1% chance of a Democratic win · Lucien Daigle (R), Vaughn McLaughlin (D)

Maine Senate District 1: ForecastMaine Senate 2: chance of a Democratic win <1%; 2024 president R+33Maine Senate 4: chance of a Democratic win <1%; 2024 president R+35Maine Senate 5: chance of a Democratic win 1%; 2024 president R+19Maine Senate District 1: Forecast2541
Safe DLean DToss-upLean RSafe RHatched: not up in 2026 (shaded by holder) · dashed: other state

District 1 is safe Republican. Of its 3 neighbouring districts, 3 favour Republicans.

StatusForecast
Chance of a Democratic win1%
Likely margin (80% range)R+37 to R+15, middle R+26
CandidatesLucien Daigle (R), Vaughn McLaughlin (D)
Candidate list fromofficial
Current memberSue Bernard

How it has voted

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

Legislature 2022D+5
Governor 2022R+11
Legislature 2024R+32
President 2024R+21
← RepublicanDemocratic →

Who lives here

Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2019-2023.

This districtMaine
Median household income$53,955$71,773
Bachelor's degree or more (25+)24%35%
Median age5145
White (not Hispanic)93%91%
Black1%2%
Hispanic2%2%
Asian0%1%
Born abroad6%4%
Jobs in manufacturing8%9%
Jobs in farming or mining6%2%

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.