This is Predict Oregon's first scientific statewide poll — a live-telephone survey of 656 verified likely Oregon Republican primary voters drawn from the Secretary of State voter file. Fieldwork ran May 7–13, 2026, with data completion on May 14th, just five days before the May 19 primary election.
That means our poll took place inside the primary with votes already cast. Unlike other polls which measured solely voter intent — who someone is likely voting for — ours also measured actions. Who they did vote for; not a possible future action.
The headline finding is a statistical dead heat: Christine Drazan at 40.5%, Ed Diehl at 37.6% — a 2.9-point gap that falls inside the ±3.83% margin of error, meaning Diehl's actual support could statistically exceed Drazan's. Chris Dudley trails both at a distant 17.2%. Among the 295 respondents who had already returned their ballots at the time of the interview, Drazan leads by less than one point — essentially tied.
Respondents who named a candidate (Q2/Q3) plus undecided respondents who leaned toward a candidate when pressed (Q2A). Combined n=538. Percentages exclude those who refused to answer or had no preference after both questions.
The 2.9-point gap between Drazan and Diehl falls well within the ±3.83% margin of error, which means Diehl's true support could statistically exceed Drazan's — this is a genuine statistical tie. Either candidate could be ahead. The race is being decided in the margin. Both candidates are in the high 30s to low 40s; everything above 37.6% is contested terrain between two candidates running neck-and-neck statewide.
Dudley's 17.2% is the most stable number in the dataset. It appears in every sub-sample — decided voters only (16.5%), already-cast ballots (16.8%), not-yet-voted respondents (17.7%) — varying by less than a percentage point across each cut. When a number is that stable, it's not noise. It's where his support actually is.
At the time of interview, 295 of 656 respondents (45%) had already returned their mail ballot. These are locked-in, immovable votes. This is the most direct pre-election read available for this race.
| Candidate | Already Voted (n=295) | Not Yet Voted (n=243) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Drazan | 39.7% (117) | 41.5% (101) | +1.8 |
| Diehl | 39.0% (115) | 35.9% (87) | −3.1 |
| Dudley | 16.8% (50) | 17.7% (43) | +0.9 |
| Medina | 2.4% (7) | 3.2% (8) | +0.8 |
| Bethell | 2.0% (6) | 1.4% (3) | −0.6 |
Drazan's early-voting advantage is real but thin: among ballots already returned, Drazan leads by 0.7 points — two votes. Drazan's not-yet-voted number is actually her stronger side. Among those who haven't voted yet, she leads by 5.6 points, suggesting she may benefit from final-days turnout.
Diehl's strongest numbers are already in the pile — he runs 3 points higher among returned ballots than among those who haven't voted yet. Given the gap, Diehl will need his supporters who already cast their votes to convince others to do the same.
Dudley's numbers are consistent and stable — but at 17.2%, consistent and stable may not enough.
The actual outcome of this race will depend on which candidate's not-yet-voted supporters return their ballots in the final days before May 19. And whether supporters of the trailing candidates decide to use their vote strategically — backing their second choice rather than a candidate unlikely to win.
Q5 asked all 656 respondents who they think will win the primary — independent of who they personally support. This "wisdom-of-the-crowd" question measures perceived momentum, not personal preference.
| Candidate | Preference Share (Q2+Q2A) | Perceived Winner (Q5) | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Drazan | 40.5% | 43.6% | +3.1 |
| Diehl | 37.6% | 21.3% | −16.3 |
| Dudley | 17.2% | 8.5% | −8.7 |
| Medina | 2.8% | 1.3% | −1.5 |
| Bethell | 1.7% | 0.5% | −1.2 |
Dudley's supporters are voting for a candidate they themselves don't expect to win. His 17.2% preference share drops to 8.5% when you ask who will win — a 9-point gap. If his voters were making a strategic bet on electability, you'd expect that gap to run the other direction, with more people expecting him to win than personally supporting him. It runs the opposite way. They're voting conviction, not calculation.
Diehl's gap runs the other direction and is even larger: 37.6% of respondents support him, but only 21.3% expect him to win. His voters are confident in their choice but uncertain the rest of the electorate will follow. In a primary with early low-turnout numbers, the candidate whose supporters feel most certain they're backing a winner often benefits from that confidence in the final days.
One test of polling data quality is whether headline numbers hold up across independent sub-samples. When a number is consistent across multiple cuts of the data, it's signal, not noise.
| Measure | Drazan | Diehl | Dudley |
|---|---|---|---|
| Decided + leaners (n=538) | 40.5% | 37.6% | 17.2% |
| Decided only (n=507) | 41.0% | 38.0% | 16.5% |
| Already voted (n=295) | 39.7% | 39.0% | 16.8% |
| Not yet voted (n=243) | 41.5% | 35.9% | 17.7% |
Dudley's number ranges from 16.5% to 17.7% across every independent slice of the data — a spread of 1.2 points across four different measurement cuts. Drazan and Diehl are similarly stable, each within roughly 2 points of their headline number in every sub-sample. When numbers are this consistent across independent measurements, it is not a quirk of the sample. It is where the electorate actually is.
Two other polls were publicly released during this race. Here's how Predict Oregon's results compare.
| Pollster | Field Dates | n / MoE | Drazan | Diehl | Dudley |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Predict Oregon | May 7–13, 2026 | 656 / ±3.83% | 40.5% | 37.6% | 17.2% |
| Hoffman Research Group | April 23–24, 2026 | 620 / ±3.93% | 35% | 18% | 14% |
| Nelson Research | April 14–17, 2026 | 515 / ±4.3% | 31.1% | 15.6% | 14.8% |
* Hoffman Research ballot test listed only Drazan, Diehl, Dudley, and "some other candidate" — Bethell and Medina were not offered as named options. Nelson Research included all five candidates. Hoffman's 25% undecided and Nelson's 29.9% undecided mean candidate percentages in both earlier polls are calculated on a smaller base than Predict Oregon's. All three polls are directionally comparable but not identical in question design or methodology.
The Crosstabs/Hoffman poll (April 24) explicitly flagged Diehl as having the highest conversion rate in the field and noted that his only constraint was name ID. Three weeks later, our data shows Diehl gained roughly 12 points. That trajectory is consistent with, not in conflict with, the earlier poll — name ID resolved, support consolidated. The Nelson poll (April 14–17) is the outlier; its methodology and sample frame have been questioned separately.
Predict Oregon's poll is the most recent, the closest to Election Day, and conducted via live telephone interviews of verified likely voters from the Secretary of State voter file.
Full Results Packet — Download Any or All
Five documents covering every dimension of this poll — from the one-page headline to full crosstabs
How This Poll Was Conducted
Sample source: Oregon Secretary of State voter file with demographic and phone appends. Respondents were stratified across three likely-voter tiers — highly likely (HLV), very likely (VLV), and likely (LV) — with tier shares calibrated to expected primary electorate composition.
Method: Primarily live telephone interviews conducted by Predict Oregon volunteer interviewers and by an independent professional research firm under contract with Predict Oregon. A small portion (fewer than 20) of respondents unable to complete a live interview were offered a secure one-time access link to complete the survey online.
Fieldwork: May 7–13, 2026. n=656 completed interviews.
Margin of error: ±3.83% at 95% confidence.
Weighting: Results are weighted by gender to a 51.5% male / 48.5% female benchmark consistent with peer-pollster electorate composition. Age raking was tested and produced movement under 0.2 percentage points on every candidate; age weighting was not applied.
Geography: 34 of Oregon's 36 counties represented. Gilliam and Wheeler are not represented.
Funding: This poll was privately funded. It was not sponsored by, paid for by, or coordinated with any candidate, campaign, party, or donor. No candidate knew it was happening until the results were publicly announced.
Respond to bad-faith attacks with facts. Here are straight answers to the questions circulating about this poll.