With Democrats reeling from the defeats of 2016, much progressive enthusiasm has been turned to special elections that have taken place throughout 2017, both at the United States Congressional level and at the state legislative level. Thanks to Daily Kos Elections’ ambitious Pres. by CD and Pres. by LD project, we have a good idea of the shifts when it comes to these special elections. Thus, now that a bulk of the special elections are over, and since we have a bit of a lull until the fall, it’s time to examine what 2017’s special elections have taught us about 2018 and beyond, the future of our shifting politics.
KS-04 Special Election: Ron Estes (R) 52%, James Thompson (D) 46%
This was the most shocking special election result because it’s a district where Clinton and Obama both were beaten handily (27% and 26% margins, respectively). Yet Thompson managed to pull within 6. It was a very low turnout special and perhaps the only lesson is that GOP enthusiasm is below its usual point and that low turnout is a way for Dems to feast.
MT-AL Special Election: Greg Gianforte (R) 50%, Rob Quist (D) 44%
This is the first of a few specials that we’ll examine where Obama did discernibly better than Clinton in the given district (I define discernibly better as a >5 point difference between their margins). President 44 had a strong appeal in Montana despite its red state status, losing it by just 3 in 2008 and by 13 in 2012. Clinton meanwhile, lost by 20 in 2016. Quist’s performance despite being a baggage-ridden candidate with tax problems indicates a performance more in the mold of 2012 rather than 2016.
SC-05 Special Election: Ralph Norman (R) 51%, Archie Parnell (D) 48%
This was a fusion of the two we just mentioned. It flew under the radar and was very low turnout like KS-04, yet was another CD where Obama did significantly better than Clinton (-11% vs. -18%). And yet again, it was a massive overperformance by the Democrat.
GA-06 Special Election: Karen Handel (R) 52%, Jon Ossoff (D) 48%
The special election to end all special elections was the only one in this article where turnout was normal looking, mostly due to the extensive media coverage. GA-06 was framed as a litmus test for Democratic suburban support, yet in many ways was probably not the best test for a few reasons. Here’s a quick look at some suburban districts that will be in play in 2018:
Suburban Districts
District |
REpresentative |
2012 margin |
2016 margin |
CO-06 |
Mike Coffman |
Obama +5 |
HRC +9 |
VA-10 |
Barbara Comstock |
Romney +2 |
HRC +10 |
CA-39 |
Ed Royce |
Romney +4 |
HRC +9 |
CA-45 |
Mimi Walters |
Romney +12 |
HRC +5 |
ca-48 |
Dana Rohrabacher |
Romney +12 |
HRC +2 |
ca-49 |
Darrell Issa |
Romney +7 |
HRC +8 |
MN-02 |
Jason Lewis |
Obama +0.1 |
Trump +1 |
MN-03 |
Erik Paulsen |
Romney +1 |
HRC +9 |
IL-06 |
Peter Roskam |
Romney +8 |
HRC +7 |
NJ-07 |
Leonard Lance |
Romney +6 |
HRC +1 |
NJ-11 |
Rodney Frelinghuysen |
Romney +6 |
Trump +1 |
KS-03 |
Kevin Yoder |
Romney +10 |
HRC +1 |
GA-06 |
Karen Handel |
Romney +24 |
Trump +1.5 |
Among the many suburban districts that will be in play in 2018, Georgia’s 6th (and 7th, along with a few in Texas) is uniquely different than the others. While most suburban districts were pinkish in 2012 before shifting to Hillary in 2016, Georgia’s 6th was dark red before shifting dramatically. Thus, while the GA-06 result was disappointing to Democrats, the takeaway should not be that Dems cannot win in suburbs because comparing GA-06 to CO-06 or others is comparing apples to oranges. Rather, I think the biggest takeaway is that the democratic appeal that Hillary drummed up in southern suburban areas is probably here to stay. It would be tougher to make that conclusion if this was the usual type of special election (low turnout), but it wasn’t: with the attention it got and the insane spending, turnout was 58.16%, pretty similar to what you’d expect in 2018, for example. Thus, if a 2018 like turnout netted a result similar to Hillary’s margins, it confirms the belief that Dems are holding that suburban support, which is crucial.
Legislative Specials
Contrary to popular belief, special elections do happen at the state level too, and they are very important. There are three main groups, seats where Clinton did better Obama, seats where Obama did better than Clinton, and seats where they did equally as bad. There are few Clinton > Obama seats at the state level, so it’s hard to extrapolate any conclusions. The above write up on GA-06 is as good as a look as we’re going to get. The equally as bad seats have been pretty consistent: generally an overperformance, with a few exceptions, but again, it’s tough to draw any conclusions other than the one we already know (Dems are performing much better than expected). Thus, the important grouping is the one we’ll take a look at:
Seats where Obama did significantly better than Clinton
DIStrict |
obama margin |
clinton margin |
type of district |
special election margin |
IA HD-82 |
2% |
-21% |
rural |
DEm by 9 |
MO SD-28 |
-38% |
-56% |
Rural |
GOP by 37 |
NY AD-09 |
-12% |
-23% |
WWC (Long Island) |
Dem by 16 |
OK HD-28 |
-37% |
-50% |
Rural |
GOP by 2 |
CT HD-115 |
39% |
18% |
Suburban/Urban |
Dem by 29 |
MN HD-32B |
-12% |
-29% |
Suburban/Rural |
GOP by 6 |
IA HD-89 |
27% |
11% |
Urban |
Dem by 45 |
IA SD-45 |
37% |
17% |
Urban |
Dem by 48 |
This table includes a number of places that swung hard to Trump in 2016, but there are two areas in particular that should get a lot of attention: the four Midwestern specials (three in Iowa, one in Minnesota) and the Long Island district. I’m planning a full diary looking at the Midwest in particular so I won’t go too in depth, but all four of these specials took place along the eastern side of the states, the Mississippi River area that loved Obama and then loved Trump in 2016. Iowa’s House District 89 and Senate District 45 elections took place in Scott County, Iowa, home of Davenport, and a place Democrats have to win big in order to win the state. Obama racked up the margins there in 2012, but Hillary fell far short. Seeing Democrats clobber those special elections was a big sign that perhaps the Trump swing in this area was temporary.
That notion was confirmed by the Minnesota House District 32B special, another taking place along the Mississippi border. Not a Democratic stronghold, but a competitive performance showed Democrats are ready to make a comeback in that area. However, the true litmus test, and the reason I held off on writing this piece until now, was the Iowa House District 82 special on Tuesday. No district better encapsulated the Obama/Trump swing in key white working class areas than this district. If Democrats are to take back the US house, state legislative chambers, and the White House, they need to start by winning places like this district. An open seat, one ancestrally Democratic, it was a prime GOP pickup opportunity after Trump won it by 21 points last fall. Yet, Democrats fielded a good candidate, ran on a message of local progressivism, and won the district by 9 points. The population center of the district is Jefferson County, Iowa, a southeast Iowa county that like so many others in the state, swung to Trump after a double digit Obama win in 2012. The last district that is important to look at is the New York Assembly District 9 election. This is a Long Island district located right on the border of Nassau County and Suffolk County. Suffolk swung to Trump and in many ways, resembles the makeup of Iowa in terms of the white working class. Once again, huge swings towards Democrats.
The reasonable conclusion from these specials is that there’s reason to believe entering 2018 that the Trump swing in white working class areas may have been a temporary one. Or, as I will argue in that later diary, that it was more based on a hatred for Hillary than anything else. Democratic success in places like Iowa is so crucial to not being locked out of the senate in the future. The importance of holding onto the Midwest cannot be understated and is why these results were so encouraging.
Conclusions
No one special election can be indicative of anything, but when taken together, a pattern may be observed. Indeed, outperforming Hillary and Obama in 23 of 31 and 24 of 31 special elections, respectively, is something of a pattern. When compared to 2013, where Democrats consistently ran behind Obama’s margins in special elections, an even starker difference is observed. That was a harbinger for what followed in the fall of 2014, another red wave. Now this does not mean that Democrats are going to for sure do well in 2018 or 2020, but it does suggest there’s a chance. More importantly, it confirms what polling is telling us about the national environment. Both Real Clear Politics and FiveThirtyEight agree that Democrats are looking at a favorable national environment and these special elections are the type of results that would jibe with that conclusion. All in all, Democrats have had a fine special election season and their appeal seems to be closer to Obama’s than Hillary’s, which, given the results of their respective runs for the presidency, is a very good thing.