The Special Election Era: Trump, Turnout, and the Price of Polarization
“Early voting center at Bauer Drive Community Recreation Center in Rockville, Maryland” by Ben Schumin is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
Oftentimes little more than a formality, special elections have been a part of American politics since the country’s inception. However, Trump’s presidencies have brought a considerable level of attention to what would otherwise be undiscussed, insignificant races up and down the ballot. Both Democratic hopes to steal otherwise unwinnable races and Republican desires to win regardless of subpar non-Trump turnout have led to extreme scrutiny and absurd levels of funding for races that should frankly be left relatively undisturbed.
Three major examples of special elections (and one that didn’t end up happening) epitomizing these characteristics have occurred in just the last few weeks. A Democrat won a Pennsylvania senate seat that a Republican had won by 33 points in 2018. Trump won the district in November by over 15 points. A Democratic judge won a Wisconsin Supreme Court seat by 10 points in a race that featured tens of millions of dollars in outside funding, including millions from Elon Musk. Lastly, two Republicans won congressional races in Florida with substantially smaller margins than the Republican victories in November. Democrats called it “historic” improvement. The two Democratic candidates raised nearly $16 million combined.
Lastly, and most interestingly, Congresswoman Elise Stefanik, Trump’s nominee for Ambassador to the United Nations, had her nomination pulled due to Republican concerns about a special election in a district Stefanik won by 18 points. The decision reflects not only concerns about another Republican winning an election in her district but also anxieties surrounding the razor-thin Republican congressional majority.
These anxieties will only be exacerbated later this year when two vacant safe Democratic seats are filled via more special elections. In fact, Republicans even attempted to delay one of the elections, with Minority Leader Jeffries threatening to sue Texas Governor Abbott over his refusal to set an election date. Abbott has since announced November 4th as the election date, meaning the Texas House seat will be open for eight months. Understanding where they currently lie, Republicans are willing to play games to protect their interests.
Ultimately, special elections have rarely “mattered.” Less than 15% of House special elections since 2017 have resulted in a flipped seat. Yet that is a drastic increase compared to the 5.4% rate of flips in the last four general elections. The rate would be even lower if it were not for a substantial Democratic wave in 2018, as seen below:
2018 - 43 flipped seats (9.9%)
2020 - 17 flipped seats (3.9%)
2022 - 17 flipped seats (3.9%)
2024 - 17 flipped seats (3.9%)
It is clear on both sides that these elections are worth fighting for. The Democratic Party has performed remarkably well in low-turnout elections during the Trump era, meaning Republicans have to fight extra hard. The funding and attention are obviously worthwhile for the parties. Ultimately, this is just another consequence of an era marred by increased polarization and incredible increases in political spending.
It is easy to take away a number of things from this conversation. There's too much money in politics. Wide congressional margins are important. Turnout is fickle. But I think the most important takeaway among all of this is just how peculiar Trump has been as a candidate. And while I don’t have an explanation—and frankly I think after the last nine years everybody is as perplexed as I am—the United States would be better off if we returned to an era where a state Supreme Court election didn’t cost nearly $100 million.
At the end of the day, it would be in the United States’ best interest to reform the way that campaign finance works. Every two years, hundreds of millions of dollars are “wasted” as candidates and their supporters engage in massive campaigns. Politics should not be about who has the wealthiest pockets or the best fundraising skills. Politics should be about solving problems for the American people. But this becomes a lot harder to do when politicians have to appease their donors to stay in office while spending much of their time campaigning, not governing.
Maybe in the post-Trump era we will see a return to normalcy. Maybe these issues are simply a fixture of modern politics. But without tangible efforts from those at the top to create reform and make politics better, America—and Americans with it—will continue to flounder.