Beyond Both Sides: 2026 Political Predictions for Michigan

There is a time-tested cliché in politics that every election is the most important one. It’s usually an exaggeration. Familiar language for familiar stakes.

But Michigan in 2026 is different in a way that is not rhetorical.

For the first time in modern history, Michigan voters will face an open governor’s race and an open U.S. Senate seat at the same time. That combination has not happened here since the direct election of senators began in 1916. No incumbent governor. No incumbent senator. Two of the most powerful offices on the ballot, fully up for grabs.

That alone changes the math.

It means unprecedented spending. Michigan’s last open governor’s race in 2018 cost roughly $93 million dollars. The 2024 Senate race, with an incumbent, drew about $144 million when outside spending is included. In 2026, those two dynamics collide. National money. National attention. And a political environment where the stakes are not just partisan, but structural.

It also means an unusually wide and serious field of candidates.

But this election is not just about personalities or party control. It is about direction.

On our “predictions episode” of Beyond Both Sides, the three of us came into the conversation with different instincts, different readouts on the electorate, and one key shared belief: Michigan is heading into a volatile cycle where the usual rules may not apply. With an open governor’s seat, an open Senate seat, and a rare independent candidacy hovering over everything, the state could be on the verge of an election that doesn’t merely swap personalities, it reshapes coalitions.

The Governor’s Race: A Three-Way Fight That Breaks the Map

Let’s start with the biggest question: who will be Michigan’s next governor?

Allie Walker went first—and didn’t mince words. Her prediction is that Jocelyn Benson wins. Her case is built on two forces she thinks will overwhelm the field: a bruising Republican primary and a Democratic turnout machine supercharged by national politics. She sees Benson as uniquely positioned to emerge from a Democratic primary with minimal damage, having threaded the needle between being aligned with Governor Whitmer’s legacy while not being overly tethered to it.

Ryan Gajewski made the contrarian play: Mike Duggan, as an independent, wins by less than three points. His argument is not that Duggan dominates, but that he survives. In a fractured race, Ryan believes the Republican nominee won’t replicate the durable base associated with the presidential ticket, while the Democratic nominee risks being tagged as “establishment.” Duggan, in this framing, becomes the lane between two candidates that repel just enough swing voters to open a narrow path.

I made sure that we had three different perspectives. A Republican will win the governorship. Not because of a single dominant Republican candidate today’s field is unsettled, but because of the structure of the race itself. If Duggan and the Democratic nominee split core Democratic geographies, the Republican nominee can win without capturing a majority. I pointed to one particularly telling data point: Duggan winning Detroit in polling is not necessarily a victory condition if he wins it with 50-something percent instead of the 80-plus percent that typically powers Democrats statewide. If Detroit, Oakland, and Washtenaw are divided, the path gets steep quickly.

The Senate Race: A Democratic Fight Over the Future

If the governor’s race is test of how an independent candidate will fare, the Senate race is a referendum on the Democratic Party’s identity.

Ryan’s prediction is the “least hot take”: Mallory McMorrow wins the Democratic primary. He credits early statewide name recognition and strong positioning in the political marketplace. I agreed with Ryan and added that McMorrow is better suited for the modern social-media driven communications environment and is building a donor base that can be re-tapped repeatedly as the campaign accelerates.

Allie disagreed. She predicts Haley Stevens wins. Her case is that Stevens has broader infrastructure, relationships, and a profile that resembles how Michigan has historically chosen U.S. senators: steady, credible, institutionally fluent. Allie also argued that outside money and national support—particularly in a cycle defined by national pressure—could grow into a decisive advantage.

The shared view across the table is that the Democratic nominee has the advantage in the general election. The debate is about who best represents Michigan Democrats in a moment when voters want sharper contrasts and clearer identity.

The Legislature: A Recipe for Gridlock, Either Way

The final major prediction was control of the Michigan House and Senate, which is likely to remain razor thin.

I predicted Democrats reclaim both chambers, driven by national midterm dynamics and a backlash cycle. Ryan largely agreed, expecting narrow Democratic control—though he also warned that tight margins can still produce dysfunction.

Allie’s prediction wasn’t about who wins so much as what happens: dysfunction. Her view is that voters may not reward unified Democratic control after a session that felt unproductive, but she also doubts a clean Republican sweep. The most likely outcome, in her read, is split control—one chamber red, one blue—ensuring that Lansing struggles to do big things.

And here’s the uncomfortable truth we all acknowledged: our own predictions don’t line up neatly. A Republican governor with a Democratic legislature? A Democratic governor with a Republican chamber? In a normal year, those combinations would be unlikely. In 2026, they may be the point. Ticket-splitting isn’t Michigan’s default behavior, but the “Duggan of it all,” plus national volatility, may scramble the usual logic down-ballot.

The one prediction we could all agree on was that 2026 won’t feel like a normal election. It will feel intense and all consuming.