OMITTED

What the news leaves out.

← Omitted front page

Democrats Hold Narrow Leads in Uncalled Senate Races

21 sources · updated 2026-11-07
Left 38% Center 38% Right 24%
8 left · 8 center · 5 right

What happened

Days after the 2026 U.S. midterm elections, two Senate races remained uncalled. In Mississippi, Democrat Scott Colom led Republican incumbent Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith by roughly 1,100–1,800 votes as of Thursday, with about 95.6 percent of ballots counted; Secretary of State Michael Watson said an estimated 3,600 absentee mail ballots could still be counted if received by November 10 and postmarked on or before Election Day, certified results are due November 13, and an unknown number of affidavit ballots still required processing. In Alaska, former Democratic Rep. Mary Peltola led Republican incumbent Sen. Dan Sullivan by fewer than 700 votes, with a substantial share of ballots still outstanding through a November 18 counting deadline, after which ranked-choice tabulation would begin if no candidate reached 50 percent. A third candidate, retired teacher Daniel J. Sullivan, had received about 3,600 votes; an October New York Times report said he had met with Democratic operatives and members of Peltola’s campaign staff to encourage him to run, Peltola denied any involvement, and the Justice Department opened an investigation in July. Both campaigns in each race said they expected to prevail, and the outcomes will affect the size of the Democratic Senate majority.
Sourcing check · Partly on the record · 21 articles

5 of 13 articles cite a named source for the story. It started with unnamed sources; a named source appeared the next day.

What these terms mean and how they're counted
On the record · names a source 5 of 13
On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: Decision Desk HQ, Sen. Dan Sullivan, Alaska Division of Elections, Donald Trump, Michael Watson and Sullivan campaign memo
Primary evidence · cites a document or data 2 of 13
Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: campaign memo, voter file, unofficial results, official update
Credits another outlet 0 of 13
The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: Each article presents its own reporting.
Unnamed sources 0 of 13
The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this.
How it developed
When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Nov 3, 14:15 UTC by Fox News, with no named source. First named source the next day, from CBS News. First document the next day, from Breitbart (campaign memo).
Not counted 8
Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
Omitted — what each side leaves out

Unpacked

Left-leaning and right-leaning coverage split Alaska's second Dan Sullivan into two different stories, so readers never see both the spoiler allegations and the ranked-choice math in one account. Peltola is likely to keep her lead from ballots she would accumulate from his supporters, according to the New York Times. Right-leaning coverage instead reports that he had already drawn 3,600 votes, more than the margin between the front-runners. A Justice Department investigation into the candidacy and her denial of involvement appear in Fox News, without that ranked-choice conclusion. Fox News labels him "Decoy Dan"; the New York Times calls him "the other Dan Sullivan." How many of the same-name candidate's voters ranked the incumbent second, and how many ranked Peltola?
Bottom line

A New York Times reader would think the extra Dan Sullivan helps Peltola; a Fox News reader would think his 3,600 votes are why Alaska is still uncalled.

The receipts — 2 facts one side's coverage lacks
  • Daniel J. Sullivan had garnered 3,600 votes, more than five times the 637-vote margin numberin Fox News · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • The U.S. Justice Department opened an investigation into Daniel J. Sullivan in July contextin Fox News · absent from left-leaning coverage
The Left View
Left-leaning coverage treated the contests as Democrats still holding narrow leads that could enlarge their Senate majority, with remaining votes yet to be tallied. The New York Times argued that ranked-choice ballots are “unlikely to be enough for Dan Sullivan,” concluding Peltola is “likely to keep her lead” in part from second-choice support she would receive from backers of the other Dan Sullivan. NBC News and The Hill similarly framed the story around uncalled races and whether Democrats would expand their majority, rather than around alleged ballot confusion.
The Right View
Right-leaning outlets stressed “razor-thin” margins and a remaining Republican path, while centering an alleged spoiler scheme involving the third-place Alaska candidate they called “Decoy Dan.” Fox News noted that his vote total was more than five times the Peltola–Sullivan gap, quoted a voter who said he “definitely intended to vote for the real Dan Sullivan,” and reported President Trump’s demand that those votes “should be immediately given to the REAL Dan Sullivan.” The Daily Wire pointed to Mississippi mail-in and affidavit ballots that could still exceed Colom’s lead, a National Republican Senatorial Committee letter telling county officials to separate and secure affidavit ballots, and Sullivan’s campaign claim that outstanding Alaska votes cast after the Times story would benefit him; both outlets flagged likely legal challenges and the continuing Justice Department inquiry.
Our Take (balanced)
The left’s strongest argument is that the tabulated leads, combined with Alaska ranked-choice transfers, favor the Democratic candidates—supported most directly by the Times analysis that Peltola would pick up second-choice votes from the other Dan Sullivan’s supporters. The right’s strongest argument is that uncounted ballots still outnumber those leads and that a same-named third candidate drew more votes than the Alaska margin, raising the possibility of voter confusion or an engineered spoiler effect, as suggested by the Times’s own account of his contacts with Democratic operatives, the voter who described intending to back the incumbent, and the open federal investigation. The central unresolved tension is whether the remaining counts and ranked-choice process will lock in the present Democratic advantages, or whether outstanding ballots and the third Sullivan candidacy will flip a race or sustain a legal challenge to the result.

21 sources

More stories

The week's bottom lines, in your inbox

One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.