Illustration of Zach Lahn
Zach Lahn
Republican
The Polling Round

What the Polls
Actually Say

Every public Sand-Lahn poll we found, with the details that help make sense of it.

Our Read
What the qualifying polls show Sand +4.9
Rob Sand
48.1%
Zach Lahn
43.2%

Newer polls count more. Likely-voter polls receive slightly more weight than registered-voter polls. See the full calculation and its limitations in our methodology.

Illustration of Rob Sand
Rob Sand
Democrat

The Polls

Every poll has some wiggle room. The dot shows the reported result. The line shows the margin of error — the reasonable range around that number. These ranges don't include every possible source of error, and they shouldn't be used to call the race a statistical tie just because two ranges overlap.

Click a poll to see who paid for it, who was surveyed and how it was conducted.

We found 11 publicly released Sand-Lahn polls; 9 are included in the average. Sand is ahead in all 9 qualifying polls. Median qualifying margin: Sand +4.2. Latest qualifying poll: co/efficient, Sept. 16. Reviewed through Sept. 17, 2026.

YouGov is included with a disclosure caveat. Wedgewood and the Sand campaign's Global Strategy Group poll remain below for context but don't count toward the average, range or median.

co/efficient
Sept. 14, 2026–Sept. 16, 2026 · 831 LV
Methods published
Sand 46%
Lahn 42%
±3.39 points (margin of error)
SAND +4
SponsorNot disclosed
Sponsor alignmentIndependent public polling series; not sponsored by any candidate committee, party committee or outside group.
Field datesSept. 14, 2026–Sept. 16, 2026
Sample & population831 LV
Collection modeMobile text responses and landline interviews
Sample frameLikely general-election voters
WeightingAge, gender, race, education, congressional district, and community type, to reflect the likely 2026 general electorate
Ballot wordingIf the November 3rd general election for Governor of Iowa were held today, who would you vote for?
Question orderNot disclosed
Margin of error±3.39 points

The governor question is a secondary item on a page primarily about the U.S. Senate race; full toplines, mode, sample and weighting are published on the same page. The page itself states only "Released September 2026" without a specific day; Sept. 16, 2026 (first posted) is used as published_date per site editor confirmation.

See how this poll was done · Last verified Sept. 17, 2026

Cygnal
Sept. 9, 2026–Sept. 11, 2026 · 500 LV
Methods publishedPartisan/campaign sponsor
Sand 47.8%
Lahn 44.4%
±4.38 points (margin of error)
SAND +3.4
SponsorIowans for Tax Relief Foundation
Sponsor alignmentConservative/Republican-aligned policy organization.
Field datesSept. 9, 2026–Sept. 11, 2026
Sample & population500 LV
Collection modeLive phone and SMS
Sample frameProbabilistic survey of known registered voters, weighted to a likely general-election voter universe
WeightingWeighted to a likely general-election voter universe (full detail in published questionnaire)
Ballot wordingIf the general election for Governor was held today, and you had to make a choice, who would you vote for?
Question orderNot disclosed
Margin of error±4.38 points

Iowans for Tax Relief Foundation is a conservative-aligned policy organization. Its sponsorship is disclosed here. Cygnal published the questionnaire, toplines and basic methodology, so the poll counts toward the average. The published questionnaire lists Zach Lahn first and Rob Sand second; it does not state that candidate order was rotated. Release: https://itrfoundation.org/new-poll-iowa-voters-support-supermajority-requirement-to-raise-income-taxes/

See how this poll was done · Last verified Sept. 15, 2026

YouGov
Sept. 3, 2026–Sept. 8, 2026 · 2169 RV
Some details missing
Sand 50%
Lahn 39%
±3.5 points (margin of error)
SAND +11
SponsorNot disclosed
Sponsor alignmentNot stated in the released document. No client or sponsor is named.
Field datesSept. 3, 2026–Sept. 8, 2026
Sample & population2169 RV
Collection modeOnline, via YouGov's web-based survey system
Sample frameStratified random sample of Iowa registered voters, contacted by text message and interviewed online
WeightingGender, age, in-state geography, party registration, imputed education, and 2024 vote choice (raking)
Ballot wordingWho [did / will / would] you vote for in the election for Governor of Iowa?
Question orderNot disclosed
Margin of error±3.5 points

The released document does not name a sponsor and states two survey questions were not reported. Registered-voter result is the published topline used in summaries; the loose/strict likely-voter cuts are shown in poll detail only.

See how this poll was done · Last verified Sept. 13, 2026

Emerson College Polling
Aug. 31, 2026–Sept. 1, 2026 · 750 LV
Methods published
Sand 49%
Lahn 46%
±3.6 points (credibility interval)
SAND +3
SponsorNexstar Media
Sponsor alignmentMedia company; not a partisan or campaign sponsor.
Field datesAug. 31, 2026–Sept. 1, 2026
Sample & population750 LV
Collection modeMMS/text-to-web voter-file outreach, supplemented by PureSpectrum panel interviews
Sample frameVoter file plus probability-based online panel, matched back to the voter file
WeightingGender, education, race, age, party registration, and region (Census + voter file targets)
Ballot wordingIf the election for Governor were held today, for whom would you vote?
Question orderNot disclosed
Credibility interval±3.6 points

Emerson reports a credibility interval (a modeled range based on its non-probability panel component), not a conventional probability-sample margin of error.

See how this poll was done · Methodology / crosstabs · Last verified Sept. 13, 2026

Wedgewood Polls
Aug. 27, 2026–Aug. 29, 2026 · 600 LV
Key details missing
Sand 51%
Lahn 46%
±4.6 points (credibility interval)
SAND +5
SponsorWedgewood Polls (self-funded)
Sponsor alignmentPollster states the survey was independently conducted and funded by itself; no outside client is named.
Field datesAug. 27, 2026–Aug. 29, 2026
Sample & population600 LV
Collection modeOnline opt-in panel
Sample frameIowa adults recruited through an online opt-in panel, screened for registration and vote likelihood; panel vendor not named
WeightingRecalled 2024 presidential vote (benchmarked to the pollster's own projected 2026 electorate model), then demographic raking on age, gender, race and education; design effect of 1.3 applied
Ballot wordingNot published
Question orderNot disclosed
Credibility interval±4.6 points

Why this poll is excluded from summary figures: Wedgewood disclosed its sample size, online collection method and general weighting approach. It did not identify the panel provider, publish the ballot wording or provide a checkable target for its projected 2026 electorate. The poll remains visible but does not count toward Iowa First Check's summary calculations.

See how this poll was done · Last verified Sept. 13, 2026

Suffolk University
Aug. 20, 2026–Aug. 23, 2026 · 500 LV
Methods published
Sand 47.8%
Lahn 43.6%
±4.4 points (margin of error)
SAND +4.2
SponsorSuffolk University Political Research Center
Sponsor alignmentAcademic research center; not a partisan or campaign sponsor.
Field datesAug. 20, 2026–Aug. 23, 2026
Sample & population500 LV
Collection modeLive telephone interviews (landline and cellphone)
Sample frameProbability-proportionate-to-size random-digit sample, with demographic and geographic quotas based on public population, election, and registration data
WeightingDemographic and geographic quotas (public population/election/registration data)
Ballot wordingFor governor, the candidates certified for the ballot are... At this point if the election were today, for whom would you vote or toward whom do you lean?
Question orderRotated candidate order
Margin of error±4.4 points

The marginals document's own header says Likely Voters, which is what's recorded here; a secondary summary of this poll had mislabeled it as registered voters. The 8.6% undecided figure combines the marginals' separately reported Undecided (7.8%) and Refused (0.8%) rows.

See how this poll was done · Methodology / crosstabs · Last verified Sept. 13, 2026

Emerson College Polling
Aug. 2, 2026–Aug. 4, 2026 · 712 LV
Methods published
Sand 48.4%
Lahn 42.69%
±3.7 points (credibility interval)
SAND +5.7
SponsorNexstar Media
Sponsor alignmentMedia company; not a partisan or campaign sponsor.
Field datesAug. 2, 2026–Aug. 4, 2026
Sample & population712 LV
Collection modeVoter-file text-to-web (Aristotle), a probability-based text-to-web panel, and additional matched panel interviews (Consensus Strategies, PureSpectrum)
Sample frameVoter file plus probability-based online panel, matched back to the voter file
WeightingGender, education, race, age, party registration, and region (Census + voter file targets)
Ballot wordingIf the election for Governor were held today, for whom would you vote?
Question orderNot disclosed
Credibility interval±3.7 points

Emerson's article rounds the result to Sand 48%, Lahn 43% and 7% undecided. Its published crosstabs provide the decimal figures shown here. The source values total 100.02% because each figure was rounded separately.

See how this poll was done · Methodology / crosstabs · Last verified Sept. 13, 2026

Beacon Research / Shaw & Company Research
June 23, 2026–June 27, 2026 · 1003 RV
Methods published
Sand 53%
Lahn 44%
±3 points (margin of error)
SAND +9
SponsorFox News
Sponsor alignmentConducted jointly by a Democratic firm (Beacon Research) and a Republican firm (Shaw & Company Research); sponsored by Fox News, a media outlet.
Field datesJune 23, 2026–June 27, 2026
Sample & population1003 RV
Collection mode104 landline, 662 cellphone live interviews, and 237 online via text-message invitation
Sample frameRandom statewide voter-file sample, probability-proportionate-to-size
WeightingAge, race, education, and geography
Ballot wordingIf the Iowa election for governor were today, would you vote for: [ROTATE NAMES]
Question orderRotated candidate order
Margin of error±3 points

Fox reported other and wouldn't-vote as '*', meaning less than 0.5%. That's preserved as-is and left out of any chart requiring an exact point.

See how this poll was done · Last verified Sept. 13, 2026

Siena College Research Institute
June 15, 2026–June 27, 2026 · 600 LV
Methods published
Sand 48%
Lahn 47%
±4.7 points (margin of error)
SAND +1
SponsorThe New York Times
Sponsor alignmentMedia company; not a partisan or campaign sponsor.
Field datesJune 15, 2026–June 27, 2026
Sample & population600 LV
Collection modeLive telephone plus additional voter-file-matched cellphone outreach
Sample frameResponse-adjusted, stratified, probability-proportionate-to-size sample from the L2 voter file
WeightingNot disclosed
Ballot wordingIf this November's general election for Iowa governor were held today, which candidate would you be more likely to vote for?
Question orderNot disclosed
Margin of error±4.7 points

Confirmed directly against the published toplines page: "If this November's general election for Iowa governor were held today, which candidate would you be more likely to vote for?" Rob Sand 48%, Zach Lahn 47%, another candidate <.5%, don't know/refused 5%. The primary release itself reports whole-percent figures only, not decimals.

See how this poll was done · Methodology / crosstabs · Last verified Sept. 13, 2026

Cygnal
June 16, 2026–June 19, 2026 · 600 LV
Methods publishedPartisan/campaign sponsor
Sand 47.7%
Lahn 43.4%
±4 points (margin of error)
SAND +4.3
SponsorIowans for Tax Relief Foundation
Sponsor alignmentConservative/Republican-aligned policy organization.
Field datesJune 16, 2026–June 19, 2026
Sample & population600 LV
Collection modeLive phone and SMS
Sample frameProbabilistic survey of known registered voters, weighted to the likely general-election voter universe
WeightingWeighted to the likely general-election voter universe (full detail in published questionnaire)
Ballot wordingIf the general election for Governor was held today, who would you vote for?
Question orderNot disclosed
Margin of error±4 points

The sponsor, Iowans for Tax Relief Foundation, is a conservative-aligned policy organization. It's disclosed here rather than used to exclude the poll. Full questionnaire published.

See how this poll was done · Last verified Sept. 13, 2026

Global Strategy Group
April 23, 2026–April 28, 2026 · n/a LV
Campaign-fundedPartisan/campaign sponsor
Sand 50%
not published
Lahn 41%
not published
No margin of error published
SAND +9
SponsorRob Sand for Iowa (campaign)
Sponsor alignmentCandidate-sponsored: commissioned directly by the Sand campaign.
Field datesApril 23, 2026–April 28, 2026
Sample & populationn/a LV
Collection modeNot disclosed
Sample frameNot disclosed
WeightingNot disclosed
Ballot wordingNot published
Question orderNot disclosed
Margin of errorNot published

Why this poll is excluded from summary figures: This Sand campaign poll is the earliest publicly released Sand-Lahn matchup we found. The campaign memo provides the result and field dates but leaves out several details needed to evaluate the poll. It remains visible in the historical record and does not count toward the summary calculations.

The memo describes the result as a nine-point lead; no sample size, mode, sample frame, weighting or ballot wording has been released.

See how this poll was done · Last verified Sept. 13, 2026

Movement Over Time

Our polling average changes when a new qualifying poll is released. Switch views to see the reconstructed average or the individual polls behind it.

Sand +4.940%45%50%JunJulAugSepJune 19, 2026: Cygnal (June 19, 2026) added. Sand 47.7%, Lahn 43.4%, Sand +4.3. 1 qualifying poll included.June 19, 2026: Cygnal (June 19, 2026) added. Sand 47.7%, Lahn 43.4%, Sand +4.3. 1 qualifying poll included.July 1, 2026: Beacon Research / Shaw & Company Research (June 27, 2026) and Siena College Research Institute (June 27, 2026) added. Sand 49.4%, Lahn 45.0%, Sand +4.4. 3 qualifying polls included.July 1, 2026: Beacon Research / Shaw & Company Research (June 27, 2026) and Siena College Research Institute (June 27, 2026) added. Sand 49.4%, Lahn 45.0%, Sand +4.4. 3 qualifying polls included.Aug. 6, 2026: Emerson College Polling (Aug. 4, 2026) added. Sand 48.9%, Lahn 43.9%, Sand +5.0. 4 qualifying polls included.Aug. 6, 2026: Emerson College Polling (Aug. 4, 2026) added. Sand 48.9%, Lahn 43.9%, Sand +5.0. 4 qualifying polls included.Aug. 26, 2026: Suffolk University (Aug. 23, 2026) added. Sand 48.4%, Lahn 43.8%, Sand +4.7. 5 qualifying polls included.Aug. 26, 2026: Suffolk University (Aug. 23, 2026) added. Sand 48.4%, Lahn 43.8%, Sand +4.7. 5 qualifying polls included.Sept. 3, 2026: Emerson College Polling (Sept. 1, 2026) added. Sand 48.6%, Lahn 44.5%, Sand +4.1. 6 qualifying polls included.Sept. 3, 2026: Emerson College Polling (Sept. 1, 2026) added. Sand 48.6%, Lahn 44.5%, Sand +4.1. 6 qualifying polls included.Sept. 9, 2026: YouGov (Sept. 8, 2026) added. Sand 48.9%, Lahn 43.2%, Sand +5.7. 7 qualifying polls included.Sept. 9, 2026: YouGov (Sept. 8, 2026) added. Sand 48.9%, Lahn 43.2%, Sand +5.7. 7 qualifying polls included.Sept. 11, 2026: Cygnal (Sept. 11, 2026) added. Sand 48.7%, Lahn 43.5%, Sand +5.1. 8 qualifying polls included.Sept. 11, 2026: Cygnal (Sept. 11, 2026) added. Sand 48.7%, Lahn 43.5%, Sand +5.1. 8 qualifying polls included.Sept. 16, 2026: co/efficient (Sept. 16, 2026) added. Sand 48.1%, Lahn 43.2%, Sand +4.9. 9 qualifying polls included.Sept. 16, 2026: co/efficient (Sept. 16, 2026) added. Sand 48.1%, Lahn 43.2%, Sand +4.9. 9 qualifying polls included.Sand 48.1%Lahn 43.2%

Select an update point to see the exact figures.

Each update uses only the qualifying polls publicly available at that time. Between new polls, the average remains unchanged.

This is a reconstructed history using Iowa First Check's current formula and inclusion rules. These figures were not necessarily published on the dates shown.

View the reconstructed history as a table
Public release datePoll(s) addedQualifying pollsSand avg.Lahn avg.Margin
June 19, 2026Cygnal147.7%43.4%Sand +4.3
July 1, 2026Beacon Research / Shaw & Company Research, Siena College Research Institute349.4%45.0%Sand +4.4
Aug. 6, 2026Emerson College Polling448.9%43.9%Sand +5.0
Aug. 26, 2026Suffolk University548.4%43.8%Sand +4.7
Sept. 3, 2026Emerson College Polling648.6%44.5%Sand +4.1
Sept. 9, 2026YouGov748.9%43.2%Sand +5.7
Sept. 11, 2026Cygnal848.7%43.5%Sand +5.1
Sept. 16, 2026co/efficient948.1%43.2%Sand +4.9

Straw Polls and Other Snapshots

Some events let visitors cast a ballot for fun. Those results can be interesting, but they do not measure Iowa voters the way a scientific poll tries to.

Iowa State Fair Straw Poll — 2026 Iowa State Fair · Lahn/Wulf 63.68%, Sand/Muhlbauer 36.32% Unscientific straw poll
OrganizerIowa Secretary of State
Event2026 Iowa State Fair
ParticipationVoluntary and self-selected
Participants in this contest2,759
Lahn/Wulf1,757 votes — 63.68%
Sand/Muhlbauer1,002 votes — 36.32%
Representative sampleNo
WeightingNone published
Margin of errorNone
Included in Iowa First Check averageNo

Why this is excluded: Fairgoers chose whether to participate. They were not selected to represent Iowa's statewide electorate. The result tells us how the people who took part voted. It cannot reliably tell us where the governor's race stood across Iowa.

Straw polls can draw people who are more politically engaged, more aware of the event or more motivated to support a particular candidate. Because participation is self-selected, a larger number of votes does not make the result representative.

View the official Iowa Secretary of State results · Last verified Sept. 14, 2026

Before the nominees were selected

Earlier in the cycle, pollsters tested Rob Sand against U.S. Rep. Randy Feenstra, who ran for the Republican nomination before Zach Lahn won it on June 2, 2026. These are not Sand-Lahn polls and are kept out of every figure above.

Echelon Insights — April 9, 2026 · Sand 51%, Feenstra 39% Methods published
SponsorNetChoice
Sponsor alignmentNetChoice is a technology-industry trade association with a policy interest in the race, not a neutral sponsor.
Field datesApril 3, 2026–April 9, 2026
Sample & population377 LV
Collection modeOnline and text message
Sample frameNot disclosed
WeightingNot disclosed
Ballot wordingNot published
Question orderNot disclosed
Margin of error±6.6 points

Why this poll is excluded from summary figures: This is a Sand-vs-Feenstra matchup, tested before Iowa's June 2, 2026 primary made Lahn the Republican nominee. It belongs to the 'before the nominees were selected' series and must never be counted in Sand-Lahn summary calculations.

The sponsor, NetChoice, is a technology-industry trade association with a policy interest in the race.

See how this poll was done · Last verified Sept. 13, 2026

GBAO — March 16, 2026 · Sand 50%, Feenstra 42% Methods published
SponsorModSquad PAC
Sponsor alignmentDemocratic-aligned firm and sponsor (ModSquad PAC supports moderate Democratic candidates).
Field datesMarch 10, 2026–March 16, 2026
Sample & population1200 LV
Collection modeNot disclosed
Sample frameNot disclosed
WeightingNot disclosed
Ballot wordingNot published
Question orderNot disclosed
Margin of error±2.8 points

Why this poll is excluded from summary figures: This is a Sand-vs-Feenstra matchup, tested before Iowa's June 2, 2026 primary made Lahn the Republican nominee. It belongs to the 'before the nominees were selected' series and must never be counted in Sand-Lahn summary calculations.

GBAO's memo reportedly did not test Sand against any Republican besides Feenstra. Polling memo dated March 31, 2026; first widely reported by Politico on April 13, 2026.

See how this poll was done · Last verified Sept. 13, 2026

Z to A Research — Oct. 13, 2025 · Sand 45%, Feenstra 43% Some details missing
SponsorNot disclosed
Sponsor alignmentNo client named in the released memo ('TO: Interested Parties').
Field datesOct. 9, 2025–Oct. 13, 2025
Sample & population1351 LV
Collection modeOnline survey, recruited via SMS and targeted online advertising
Sample frameIowa likely 2026 midterm voters recruited via SMS/targeted online ads
WeightingNot disclosed
Ballot wordingNot published
Question orderNot disclosed
Margin of error±2.67 points

Why this poll is excluded from summary figures: This is a Sand-vs-Feenstra matchup, tested before Iowa's June 2, 2026 primary made Lahn the Republican nominee. It belongs to the 'before the nominees were selected' series and must never be counted in Sand-Lahn summary calculations.

Tests Sand against Randy Feenstra, not Zach Lahn. Some polling aggregators have shown this era's Sand-Feenstra results on current Sand-Lahn pages; this record is kept in a separate race series to prevent that mislabeling here.

See how this poll was done · Last verified Sept. 13, 2026

Margin of Error, in Plain English

Every result comes with some wiggle room.

Suffolk University · 500 likely voters

Sand 47.8%

Polling range: 43.4%–52.2%

Lahn 43.6%

Polling range: 39.2%–48.0%

Suffolk's weighted sample put Sand at 47.8% and Lahn at 43.6%, a difference of 4.2 points. That is the poll's best estimate of voter opinion during its field dates.

With a margin of error of ±4.4 points, Sand's individual polling range is about 43.4%–52.2%. Lahn's is about 39.2%–48.0%. The ranges overlap, so the poll cannot rule out a tie or a Lahn lead caused by sampling error.

Pairing the farthest endpoints would put Lahn ahead by 4.6 points, but that is only a rough illustration. The two results came from the same respondents, so calculating uncertainty around the lead requires separate math that Suffolk did not publish.

Pollsters publish the reported percentages because they are what the weighted sample found. The margin of error shows the uncertainty around that finding. Numbers near the reported result are more plausible than numbers at the far ends of the range.

What we check before using a poll

Before a poll appears above, we look for:

  • Who conducted it, and who paid for it
  • When it was in the field, and who was surveyed (adults, registered voters, or likely voters)
  • How respondents were selected and how interviews were conducted
  • How the sample was weighted
  • What question was asked, and in what order
  • Whether complete results or crosstabs were released

A partisan or campaign sponsor gets disclosed, not disqualified. Missing information about recruitment, weighting, or the ballot question itself counts for more, since it makes the result harder to evaluate at all.

We don't reduce any of this to a letter grade or star rating. The statuses used throughout this page describe what we know, not a score:

  • Methods published — We found the poll's sample, dates and methodology.
  • Some details missing — The result is public, but part of the methodology is unavailable.
  • Campaign-funded — A candidate or affiliated organization paid for the poll.
  • Key details missing — Some methodology is public, but essential pieces are missing.

Read our full polling methodology and average calculation →

The poll that counts

Polls give us a read on the race. The count that decides it comes on Election Day.

Make sure you're registered, make a plan and vote.

Get voter ready →
Sources and updates

Check our work

Each poll links to its original release, methodology or crosstabs when available. We update this page as new polling is reviewed. The reviewed-through date appears near the top.

Registered-voter and likely-voter polls measure different groups. Their results can move as opinions and turnout expectations change.

Found an error in a figure or a source link? See our corrections policy or contact us.