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

Updated October 22, 2026, 09:28 UTC

State legislatures › Wisconsin Assembly

Wisconsin Assembly District 99

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

Decided: only a Republican is running · Barbara Dittrich (R)

Wisconsin Assembly District 99: Decided: only a Republican is runningWisconsin Assembly 38: chance of a Democratic win <1%; 2024 president R+31Wisconsin Assembly 97: chance of a Democratic win <1%; 2024 president R+34Wisconsin Assembly 98: chance of a Democratic win <1%; 2024 president R+36Wisconsin Assembly District 99: Decided: only a Republican is running98973899
Safe DLean DToss-upLean RSafe RHatched: not up in 2026 (shaded by holder) · dashed: other state

District 99 is safe Republican. Of its 3 neighbouring districts, 3 favour Republicans.

StatusDecided: only a Republican is running
CandidatesBarbara Dittrich (R)
Candidate list fromwikipedia
Current memberBarbara Dittrich

How it has voted

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

Legislature 2024uncontested (R)
President 2024R+32
← RepublicanDemocratic →

Who lives here

Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2019-2023.

This districtWisconsin
Median household income$121,916$75,670
Bachelor's degree or more (25+)52%33%
Median age4640
White (not Hispanic)89%79%
Black1%6%
Hispanic4%8%
Asian2%3%
Born abroad3%5%
Jobs in manufacturing17%18%
Jobs in farming or mining1%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.