Both the poll memo and toplines can be found below:

• Memo
• Toplines

Both the poll memo and toplines can be found below:

• Memo
• Toplines

Both of those races have gone into a runoff on the Republican side, and JMC polled the Republican runoff races for both Governor and Senate. Both the poll memo and toplines can be found below:

• Memo
• Toplines

Poll Toplines

Poll Summary

JMC polled both the (Republican primaries for the) Governor and Senate race. The poll and its crosstabs can be found here

These changes are scheduled to take effect with party primaries on April 18, 2026 for “top of the ballot” offices. However, depending on how the US Supreme Court rules in a pending redistricting case, there is the possibility of changes to Congressional district lines, and with qualifying set to begin on January 14 for those April primaries, those primary dates may be problematic. Therefore, Governor Landry has called a special session scheduled to start on October 23 with the stated purpose of legislating “election dates, election deadlines, and election plans for the 2026 election cycle.”

With the possibility of changes being made to election laws for the 2026 election cycle, JMC Analytics and Polling was recently commissioned by Unite America to poll Louisianians about the state’s primary system/making changes to the implementation dates of party primaries. Major takeaways from that poll are as follows:

(1) Louisiana’s open primary system remains overwhelmingly favored by voters – regardless of the respondent’s party affiliation,

(2) There remains minimal voter appetite for changing to a closed primary (in fact, voters overwhelmingly want to return to open primaries),

(3) overwhelming majorities favor either delaying or repealing the closed primaries,

(4) An absolute majority of voters is still less likely to favor an elected official who wants to change from the current open primary system (conversely, an elected official who wants either to repeal or delay implementation of closed primaries would get overwhelming support from voters)

The actual poll itself can be found here.

Major takeaways from the poll are as follows:

1. Most of the elected officials polled are fairly popular,
2. Sheriff Susan Hutson’s poll numbers are abysmal, and
3. Helena Moreno is dominating in the Mayor’s race.

The actual poll itself can be found here.

(1) Concerns about the economy are causing respondents to be sensitive about the cost of healthcare (particularly prescription drugs),
(2) These cost concerns do not create a positive impression of the pharmaceutical industry, and
(3) Cost concerns create a mindset where saving money/not paying additional costs overrides any other considerations, whether it be protecting local pharmacies or wanting additional benefit options.

The actual poll itself can be found here.

There has been chatter about adding statewide elected officials to those subject to the “semi closed primary” system, and JMC Analytics and Polling was recently commissioned by Unite America to poll Louisianians about the state’s open primary system/making additional modifications to that current system. Major takeaways from that poll are as follows:

(1) Louisiana’s open primary system remains overwhelmingly favored by voters – regardless of the respondent’s party affiliation,

(2) There is minimal voter appetite for changing to a closed primary for any additional offices,

(3) An absolute majority of voters would still be less likely to favor an elected official who wants to change from the current open primary system, and

(4) a minority (only 34%) of voters are even AWARE of modifications made to the open primary system last year. This creates the possibility of substantial confusion about the new rules for the April 2026 primary.

The actual poll itself can be found here.

JMC did similar analyses after both the 2016 and 2020 Presidential election cycles, and just like before, he is interested in seeing both (1) how accurate the polls were with regards to the national popular vote, and (2) how accurate the polls were with the vote in each of the swing states. In performing this analysis, JMC used both certified election results and publicly released polling data available from both Realclearpolitics.com and fivethirtyeight.com for the final seven days before Election Day.

ANALYSIS #1: NATIONAL POLLING

Even though the national popular vote (thanks to the Electoral College) does not truly matter in the election of a President, national polls are nevertheless a frequently used metric to evaluate which candidate is ahead/behind, or trending in either direction.

An examination of the average of all polls where fieldwork concluded between October 29 and November 4 (in other words, the final week before Election Day) shows a narrow Harris lead of 0.5% (in other words, a 48.9-48.4% lead in the national popular vote). Since the final margin was 49.7-48.2% for Trump over Harris (or a 1.5% margin), the Trump percentage was understated by 1.3%, while the Harris percentage was overstated by 0.7%. This is actually an improvement over 2020, when the Trump national popular vote was understated 3.3%/the Biden vote was overstated 0.3%.

 ANALYSIS #2: SWING STATE POLLING

What actually elects a President, however, is the popular vote from each of the 50 states (as well as the District of Columbia), and that vote (with nuances, like the Congressional district vote in Maine and Nebraska) is represented via a candidate’s slate of electors in a “winner take all” format for each state. JMC examined the state vote for each of 17 states not considered to be securely Democratic/Republican, then compared those results against polling averages for each state where polls were publicly released between October 29 and November 4.

When a similar analysis was performed in 2020, two states (Florida and North Carolina) were incorrectly “called” from an average of final week polling (in other words, the average of final week polling showed Biden ahead, when ultimately Trump won those two states). This time, two states were also “incorrectly called” from polling data, but the two states this time were Michigan and Wisconsin (in 2016, five states were “incorrectly called”: Florida, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin). However, the average of national polls showed a small Harris lead, when it was Trump who won the national popular vote by nearly two percentage points.

So by this metric, the “number of correctly called states” was a bit worse than 2020 if you were to take the national popular vote into account, although it’s worth noting that the average of final week polls also “missed” Michigan and Wisconsin both in 2016 and 2024.

A more salient issue is the extent to which the average of polls consistently understated the Trump percentage relative to the Harris percentage: in all 18 jurisdictions (national + 17 states), the Trump percentage was understated, with an understatement between 1% (in Minnesota) and 5.7% (in Iowa, largely due to a last week Des Moines Register poll showing Kamala Harris LEADING in Iowa 47-44% (Iowa actually voted for Trump 56-42.5%, so this poll was off 16.5%)).

The Harris percentage was overstated in 8 jurisdictions (7 states and nationally), and was understated in 10 states between 0.2% (in Nevada) and 2.4% (in New Mexico).

Even with these under/overstatements, “polling misses” (which JMC defines as missing the Trump/Harris margin by more than 3.0%) only occurred in four states, which is a big improvement relative to 2020, when 12 states “missed the mark” by 3 or more percentage points. Given this level of improvement at the state level, it’s worth asking whether the incorporation of new polling firms since 2020 into the polling averages was the driving force behind higher quality aggregate polling data.

Swing state/national poll results v actual vote

CONCLUSION

While a consistent underpolling of the Trump vote has been an issue all three times he has been on the general election ballot, final week polling did somewhat improve relative to 2020.