Key Findings
The governor’s race is effectively even: Jackson leads Bottoms by 0.5 point, 43.2% to 42.7%, with 14.1% undecided. The Senate contest is close but less evenly divided. Ossoff leads Collins by 3.8 points, 46.7% to 42.9%, with 10.4% undecided.
President Donald Trump’s job approval is 7.7 points underwater: 45.1% approve and 52.8% disapprove. The result provides context for the political environment, though the survey does not establish how much presidential approval shapes either state contest.
Voters outside the partisan bases distinguish the two contests more clearly than the statewide results do. Bottoms leads Jackson by 8.6 points among independents and 26.9 points among moderates. Ossoff’s advantages with those groups are larger: 21.2 points among independents and 35.0 points among moderates. Subgroup estimates carry more uncertainty, but Ossoff also posts the clearer advantages on candidate qualities.
Economic pessimism is broader than either candidate coalition. “Getting worse” leads “getting better” by 35.6 points statewide. The governor candidates remain closely matched on managing the economy, while Ossoff leads Collins by 11.1 points on lowering costs for Georgia families.
The Governor’s Race Remains Tied
Jackson’s 0.5-point lead is well within the survey’s margin of error. The differences among voter groups are clearer than the statewide result: Jackson leads by 11.7 points among men and 15.7 points among voters age 65 and older, while Bottoms leads by 10.0 points among women and 15.9 points among voters ages 18 to 34. Jackson also performs better in small towns and rural areas; Bottoms does better in urban and suburban areas.
The follow-up with undecided voters does not break the tie. Nearly two-thirds, 65.0%, remain undecided. The small shares who choose a major-party lean divide almost evenly between Bottoms and Jackson, 12.1% to 11.9%; another 11.0% lean toward someone else.
Bottoms’ strongest advantages also occur in groups with the most uncertainty. She leads by 8.6 points among independents, where 22.1% are undecided; by 26.9 points among moderates, where 24.3% are undecided; and by 15.9 points among voters ages 18 to 34, where 20.8% are undecided. The direction of those leads is clear, but their eventual size is less settled.
Bottoms is better known, but neither candidate has a strong image advantage
Bottoms has an 8.6-point familiarity advantage: 15.5% have never heard of her or have no opinion, compared with 24.1% for Jackson. Her favorable rating exceeds her unfavorable rating by 4.0 points, 44.3% to 40.3%. Jackson’s image is almost exactly even, 38.0% favorable to 37.8% unfavorable. Bottoms is more defined, but that familiarity has not produced a statewide ballot lead.
Jackson’s positive-trait leads are narrow; his elite rating is not
Jackson leads Bottoms by 1.1 points on strong leadership, 2.7 points on managing the state’s economy, and 2.0 points on keeping Georgia communities safe. His largest statewide lead is on a negative description: Jackson leads Bottoms by 10.5 points as the candidate who serves the interests of the wealthy and powerful elite.
The contrast is sharper among independents. They give Bottoms leads of 4.5 points on strong leadership, 3.8 points on the economy, and 5.6 points on community safety, but identify Jackson as the elite-serving candidate by 25.3 points. Republicans also select Jackson over Bottoms on that negative description, by 6.6 points. These advantages have not put Bottoms ahead statewide. Jackson’s support among Republicans, older voters, men, and rural voters is enough to keep the race tied.
Ossoff’s Senate Lead Extends Beyond the Ballot
Ossoff leads Collins by 3.8 points, 46.7% to 42.9%, with 10.4% undecided. Unlike the governor’s race, every candidate quality measured points in the same direction. Ossoff leads by 7.5 points on strong leadership, 11.1 points on lowering costs, 8.8 points on putting Georgia ahead of either party, and 9.5 points on fighting for people like you.
Ossoff’s largest ballot advantages are among voters outside the Republican and Democratic bases. He leads by 21.2 points among independents and 35.0 points among moderates. He also leads by 10.5 points among women and 16.9 points among voters ages 18 to 34. Collins leads by 3.6 points among men and 8.2 points among voters age 65 and older, and performs better in small towns and rural areas.
Ossoff leads moderates by at least 35 points on every quality tested
Among independents, Ossoff leads by 20.2 points on strong leadership and by 24.3 to 25.8 points on the other three traits. Among moderates, his leads range from 35.0 to 39.8 points. The largest is on fighting for people like you, while his advantage on lowering costs is nearly as large at 38.8 points, 55.8% to 17.0%.
Costs produce the clearest economic difference between the races
Ossoff’s 11.1-point lead on lowering costs is much larger than Jackson’s 2.7-point lead on managing the state’s economy. The questions use different wording and compare different candidates, so this is not a direct measure of which party voters trust more. It does show that Ossoff has a more clearly defined advantage on the economic question asked in his race.
Ossoff also has a 14.6-point familiarity advantage. Only 8.4% have never heard of him or have no opinion, compared with 23.0% for Collins. Ossoff’s net favorable rating is +6.1; Collins’ is +3.8. Collins has room to become better known, but this survey cannot determine whether greater familiarity would help or hurt him.
Economic Pessimism Dominates the Issue Environment
“Getting worse” leads “getting better” by 35.6 points on the economy. Cost of living leads nuclear risk by 25.3 points in the question about Iran. Views on Muslim immigration are much closer: “too many” and “about the right amount” are separated by only 1.2 points.
“Getting worse” outpaces “getting better” by 35.6 points
Statewide, 57.8% say the economy is getting worse, 22.2% say it is getting better, and 20.0% say it is staying about the same. The worse-minus-better gap expands to 55.5 points among independents and 62.6 points among moderates. Republicans are the exception: among them, “getting better” leads “getting worse” by 9.6 points.
Cost of living leads nuclear risk by 25.3 points
Asked which concern about the conflict with Iran weighs more heavily, 58.9% choose prices and the cost of living, 33.6% choose the risk of nuclear weapons, and 7.5% are unsure. The cost-of-living advantage reaches 40.7 points among independents and 45.1 points among moderates. Republicans reverse the result, choosing nuclear risk by 9.9 points; very conservative voters do so by 28.1 points.
“Too many” and “about the right amount” are nearly tied
Statewide, 44.8% say the United States admits too many Muslim immigrants and 43.6% say it admits about the right amount; 11.6% say too few. The topline masks a large partisan divide. Among Republicans, “too many” leads “about right” by 47.7 points. Among Democrats, “about right” leads by 42.4 points; among moderates, it leads by 28.2 points. Voters ages 18 to 34 stand out because 25.9% say too few, more than twice the statewide share.
Economic pessimism crosses party lines far more than views on Iran or Muslim immigration do. Most voters emphasize prices in the Iran question, but Republicans and very conservative voters are more concerned about nuclear risk. The near tie on Muslim immigration reflects opposing partisan views, not broad agreement. The survey does not establish which issue will matter most by Election Day.
Familiarity and Turnout Leave Room for Movement
Nearly a quarter of likely voters do not know enough about Jackson or Collins to rate them, substantially more than for Bottoms or Ossoff. Younger voters, independents, and moderates also combine lower voting certainty with larger undecided shares.
Jackson and Collins have the largest familiarity gaps
The unfamiliar or no-opinion share is 24.1% for Jackson and 23.0% for Collins, compared with 15.5% for Bottoms, 8.4% for Ossoff, and 5.1% for Gov. Brian Kemp. Kemp has the strongest net favorable rating at +26.5. Among the candidates, Ossoff is +6.1, Bottoms is +4.0, Collins is +3.8, and Jackson is +0.2.
The gap is wider among voters who could be especially important in close races. Among moderates, 35.8% have never heard of Jackson or have no opinion of him, and 31.3% say the same of Collins. Among voters ages 18 to 34, the shares are 34.4% for Jackson and 29.6% for Collins. Opinions may change as these voters learn more, but the survey cannot indicate the direction of that change.
Younger and moderate voters report less certainty
Voters ages 18 to 34 are 13.2 points less likely than the electorate overall to say they are absolutely certain to vote, 59.9% compared with 73.1%. The gap is 10.2 points among moderates, 11.4 points among voters with a high school education or less, and 5.8 points among independents.
Democrats report 6.6 points more certainty than Republicans, 79.4% to 72.8%. Self-reported intention is not a turnout forecast. It does add uncertainty to ballot advantages among younger voters, independents, and moderates, because those groups combine relatively high undecided shares with lower certainty about participating.
The Pollster’s Read
The data ends here. What follows is a read, not a result: judgment drawn from decades of measuring public opinion and watching elections confirm the numbers, defy them, and everything in between. We think it is worth having. We would never call it math.
Bottoms has the stronger profile among independents, but it has not produced a ballot lead. Independents give her the advantage on all three positive qualities, while identifying Jackson as the candidate who serves the wealthy and powerful by 25.3 points. Statewide, however, Jackson’s support among Republicans, older voters, men, and rural voters keeps the race tied at 43% to 43%. Jackson also has more room to grow: 24.1% of voters do not know enough about him to offer an opinion, 8.6 points more than for Bottoms. That is an opportunity for Jackson to consolidate support, and for Bottoms to define him before he does. Our read remains that Jackson could move to a modest lead as voters learn more, but the negative impression among independents is a real vulnerability.
Ossoff’s 3.8-point ballot lead is supported by the rest of the survey. He leads Collins on all four candidate qualities by 7.5 to 11.1 points statewide, by at least 20 points among independents, and by at least 35 points among moderates. The strongest statewide result is on lowering costs, the issue most closely connected to voters’ economic concern. Ossoff’s shift toward a costs, families, and Georgia-first message appears to be registering. Collins needs to narrow more than the ballot margin; he also must change how voters compare the candidates on those qualities.
A more favorable Republican environment could tighten both races, but this survey does not show that movement yet. Democrats are 6.6 points more likely than Republicans to say they are absolutely certain to vote, and Collins trails on the ballot and every candidate quality tested. Self-reported certainty is not a turnout forecast, but it is a reason not to assume that the broader political environment will close either race on its own. The next wave should show whether Jackson becomes better known without the elite-serving impression hardening, whether Collins narrows the cost gap, and where the remaining undecided voters move.
Methodology
The GA Statewide Poll was conducted June 27–30, 2026, using a text-to-web survey of 1,175 likely voters in Georgia’s 2026 general election. Results were weighted. The margin of error for the full sample is ±2.9 percentage points.
Subgroup estimates have wider margins of error than the statewide results. Article chart labels round non-ballot percentages and most spreads to the nearest whole number; candidate-image favorability differences retain one decimal. Ballot charts, tables, and detailed results also retain one decimal. Derived spreads use the published one-decimal components; calculations from unrounded weighted values may differ by 0.1 point. Percentages may not add to 100% because of rounding. Full question wording, topline results, and crosstabs are available in the survey resources.