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

Updated October 22, 2026, 09:28 UTC

State legislatures › Wisconsin Senate

Wisconsin Senate District 20

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

Not up in 2026 (held by Republican)

Wisconsin Senate District 20: Not up in 2026 (held by Republican)Wisconsin Senate 13: chance of a Democratic win <1%Wisconsin Senate 19: chance of a Democratic win <1%Wisconsin Senate 33: chance of a Democratic win <1%Wisconsin Senate 8: not up in 2026 (held by democrat); 2024 president D+1Wisconsin Senate 9: chance of a Democratic win <1%Wisconsin Senate District 20: Not up in 2026 (held by Republican)8339191320
Safe DLean DToss-upLean RSafe RHatched: not up in 2026 (shaded by holder) · dashed: other state

District 20 is not up in 2026 (held by a Republican). Of its 5 neighbouring districts, 1 favours Democrats, 4 favour Republicans.

StatusNot up in 2026 (held by Republican)
Current memberDan Feyen

How it has voted

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

Legislature 2024R+40
President 2024R+30
← RepublicanDemocratic →

Who lives here

Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2019-2023.

This districtWisconsin
Median household income$89,676$75,670
Bachelor's degree or more (25+)32%33%
Median age4340
White (not Hispanic)92%79%
Black1%6%
Hispanic4%8%
Asian1%3%
Born abroad2%5%
Jobs in manufacturing23%18%
Jobs in farming or mining2%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.