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

Updated October 22, 2026, 09:28 UTC

State legislatures › Oklahoma Senate

Oklahoma Senate District 42

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

5% chance of a Democratic win · Chris Jones (D), Brenda Stanley (R)

Oklahoma Senate District 42: ForecastOklahoma Senate 15: not up in 2026 (held by republican); 2024 president R+15Oklahoma Senate 17: chance of a Democratic win 6%Oklahoma Senate 28: chance of a Democratic win <1%Oklahoma Senate 41: not up in 2026 (held by republican)Oklahoma Senate 46: chance of a Democratic win >99%; 2024 president D+1Oklahoma Senate 48: chance of a Democratic win >99%Oklahoma Senate District 42: Forecast46414815172842
Safe DLean DToss-upLean RSafe RHatched: not up in 2026 (shaded by holder) · dashed: other state

District 42 is safe Republican. Of its 6 neighbouring districts, 2 favour Democrats, 4 favour Republicans.

StatusForecast
Chance of a Democratic win5%
Likely margin (80% range)R+56 to R+10, middle R+33
CandidatesChris Jones (D), Brenda Stanley (R)
Candidate list fromnews guide + filing book
Current memberBrenda Stanley

Who lives here

Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2019-2023.

This districtOklahoma
Median household income$72,231$63,603
Bachelor's degree or more (25+)29%28%
Median age3737
White (not Hispanic)65%63%
Black13%7%
Hispanic7%12%
Asian2%2%
Born abroad3%6%
Jobs in manufacturing6%9%
Jobs in farming or mining1%4%

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.