G. Elliot Morris is a psephologist (polling analyst) in the USA. As he noted in a post I was notified of overnight:
Democratic candidate Taylor Rehmet has won a special election for Texas State Senate District 9 in Tarrant County — a seat Donald Trump carried by 17 points in November 2024, per The Downballot. As I'm writing this, approximately 99% of the vote has been counted, and Rehmet carried the seat 57.2% vs his Republican challenger, Leigh Wambsganss, at 42.8%. That's a 14.4-point margin, and a 31.4-point swing vs Harris's margin in 2024 (if you ignore votes for minor-party candidates, the swing rounds up to D+32).
This swing of 32 points from Trump's 2024 performance is the largest Democratic overperformance in a competitive special election since Trump took office.
As he notes, this is in effect a by-election in UK terms. The swing may be exceptional, but it is still extraordinary. After excluding the exceptional factors and attempting to forecast a broad-based swing, he projects a 7% swing to the Democrats. As he notes, that could be enough to swing hardcore Republican Texas to the Democrats.
He adds caveats, though:
Of course, lots of assumptions are being made here, so don't consider this a concrete prediction. I've done the same analysis in other special elections and it usually suggests something more D-leaning.
The point is: a big wave is gathering. For Democrats, tonight is another piece of evidence that the 2026 midterms are going to be a good year for them (if the elections are free and fair, which is not guaranteed).
So, four thoughts.
First, people have seen fascism, and they don't like it.
Second, this is now being confirmed in growing swings in real polls.
Third, what will the fascists do in response? We know that Trump is no fan of democracy. Will he let it happen?
Fourth, what if he does not, in the face of growing evidence that he will lose badly?
The fallout does not bear thinking about with ICE on the streets as Trump's Gestapo private army.
Additional note:
I have just noted that I am not the only person to comment on G. Elliott Morris' post on this election. Heather Cox Richardson, in her overnight Letter from an American, noted this:
Tonight, voters flipped a seat in the Texas Senate from Republican to Democratic in a special election. Democrat Taylor Rehmet, an Air Force veteran and machinist, defeated right-wing Republican Leigh Wambsganss for a seat that Republicans have held since the early 1990s. Robert Downen of Texas Monthly noted that in the final days of the campaign, the Wambsganss campaign spent $310,000 while Rehmet spent nothing, and Daniel Nichanian of BoltsMag posted that overall, Wambsganss spent nearly $2.2 million more than Rehmet in the campaign. Both Texas governor Greg Abbott and Trump himself publicly supported Wambsganss.
And yet, as G. Elliott Morrisof Strength in Numbers noted, voters flipped a district that Trump won in 2024 by 17 points to Rehmet, electing him by a 14.4-point margin. After removing the minor-party candidates in the vote, the swing from the Republican in 2024 was 32 points toward the Democrats. In Texas.
The spending data is significant: money cannot buy Trump love.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Have you noticed Labour are cancelling elections for fun over here to prevent Reform gaining more control in local government? What would you call that?
Corruption.
Hardly the same thing. For a start, the elections are being postponed rather than cancelled, and some of the councils are led by Conservatives, Lib Dems, or Independents. If the elections were to go ahead as scheduled, it’s a heck of a lot of money to elect people to zombie councils.
What is zombie about a council that can and does represent people – and which in most cases should not be abolished? What do you have against people being involved in government?
For me, this was always on the cards and still is. So, one January in the future, we may see another march onto Capitol Hill, similar to the one led by Trumpists in 2021. This time it might be on a really huge scale and much more bloody with the boot on the other foot with people wanting to know where their election is.
I’m afraid that this is highly likely to happen, and maybe – unfortunately – it has to. And afterwards, maybe Putin’s orange parrot will get the comeuppance he should have had? And just maybe, it will be the right time to get the rich the fuck out of American politics. I wish.
“Putin’s Orange Parrot”. Very funny.
Call him “PoP”:)))
DJ may appreciate the ad hominem angle, which has always been his natural line of discourse with those who oppose him.
I believe the number of constituency byelections that have been cancelled is 29……so far.
???
You mean council elections?
A real and concerning threat…but the only thing I’d comfortably predict during 2026 is volatility
Bill Clinton strategist James Carville famously coined the catchphrase, ‘It’s the economy stupid’. He was referring to the real economy as experienced my most people. Trump’s understanding of that mobilised his Maga base. The real economy has not improved and that will be being felt by those who got him elected.
Pitchfolk Economics has run some insightful analysis of what’s been happening with the US economy from the perspective of working american and the impact of declining population growth which has long supercharged that economy.
http://www.medium.com/civic-skunk-works/the-affordability-crisis-is-older-than-you-think-f272cee9a120
For good measure the article closed with a couple of egregious example of corporate welfare, in this case via means testing policy, has become a huge source of revenue for big business.
Apologies, yes Council elections…..30 so far.
The Observer has reported today on the Texas election. https://observer.co.uk/news/international/article/latino-fury-over-ice-could-see-texas-gerrymandering-backfire-on-trump
Apparently Texan Latinos, who voted overwhelmingly for Trump, are not liking the activities of ICE, now they see it in action.
The various elections that have been won by the democrat party in the USA, begs the question: what will they do locally (state), what will they do nationally (Federal). Don’t hear much talk about policy, don’t hear much talk about regaining control over the constitution or its “guardians” the so-called “supreme court” (serveral appointed by the organge utan-in-chief).
The Dems live to disappoint.
Like Labour.
I disagree with that assessment – please see my longer comments further down the chain.
The post by G. Elliott Morris confuses the margin change with the swing; the swing is actually 15.7%.
Trump is gradually getting backed into a corner. The recent Epstein files don’t read well for him, in fact any human being. I thought it was just fake stuff, but the Victoria Derbyshire (a BBC journalist no less, maybe the last one?) posted them as well.
Here
https://www.threads.com/@vicderbyshire/post/DUMLOysjGcH?
I suspect stopping elections is the least of the worry of the US population.
Maybe Trump is the man that brings the house down, like you discussed regarding Farage today, before full blown racism?
There may be more to come on this
Here’s what I see.
1. Some potential for a palace coup – Vance, Miller, Bannon, Musk – It’s announced that president is in hospital… then 25th Amendment or demise. Vance becomes president, Speaker Mike Johnson becomes VP, Steve Scalise becomes Speaker, but much as Vance would like to commit ethnic cleansing throughout the nation, he will be blocked – and he can’t command Congress the way the current Occupant does.
2. The probability of federal interference with mid terms is fair to middle.
3. Probably because of mainstream news ignoring them, the Democratic Party’s leaders and policies are not well known and are ignored among Democratic voters.
4. The Democrats’ policies are clear.
A. Undo the perversion and castration of federal agencies – for example, No more ICE funding until DHS and Border Patrol are withdrawn from US cities and strict reforms are in place, firing Bondi, restoring attorneys, etc. .
B. Rehire federal employees fired under DOGE, with benefits restored, across government.
C. Fire Kennedy and restore science to HHS.
D. Restore funding to USAID, NASA, etc.
E. Restore membership and funding UN climate treaties, NATO, restoring weapons and funding to Ukraine, releasing frozen Russian assets to Ukraine, signing High Seas treaty,
Et cetera. What are the magic words: Fair, honest, affordable, neighbors.
Who are the Democratic leaders:
Senator Chris Murphy, D- Connecticut
Senator Mark Kelly, D-Arizona
Senators Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley, D-Oregon
Congressman Bennie Thompson, D-Mississippi
Congressman Jamie Raskin, D-Maryland
Governor Maura Healy, Massachusetts
Governor Kathy Hochul, New York
Governor Tim Walz, Minnesota
Progressives with niche followings – Jasmine Crockett, AOC, Bernie Sanders, Katie Porter. I am certainly in the niche.
That’s how it looks to me.
But those aren’t policies. They are merely about restoring and then maintaining a failed status quo. Hence my description of the Democrats.
I think the failed status quo is about the marketocracy, the purchase of governments by the wealthy. In the US, this precedes but is validated by a 2010 Supreme Court decision called Citizens United. I think the policies of the Democratic party are good for the earth and good for Democracy. In order to overturn Citizens United, it’s necessary to have a Democratic majority, House and Senate, and to achieve that, it’s necessary to have enough donors to counter the fascism donors, such as Tim Cook, Peter Thiel, Jeff Bezos, etc.
The Democrrats have had amply opportunity to at leaast seek to overturn Citzens United.
They have not.
I conclude they do not wish to do so.
Are the Democratic Party good for the earth and democracy? About as much as labour are i.e. very little or not at all as far as I can see.
I see Trump offered to get his ICE goons out of Minnesota in exchange for their… state voter records! And I think yesterday signed another of his Executive orders enforcing all states to hand over their voter records… a rather transparent move to..um… what.. just have something to read on a slow evening or something more nefarious?? I’m sure that even Trump is not too dim to understand that he is unlikely to win the midterms if he continues the way he’s going so messing with the voter records is the next best thing.
Since May 2025, the Justice Department has demanded full, unredacted voter rolls — which would include driver’s license and partial Social Security numbers — from at least 44 states and the District of Columbia. Most have refused to provide these records and have instead provided publicly available versions of their voter files. Since September, the DOJ has sued 24 of those jurisdictions for refusing to hand over their voters’ sensitive information. Courts in California and Oregon have already rejected the DOJ’s claims that it is entitled to the unredacted voter files.
In the states where the administration has attempted to articulate “the basis and the purpose” for these sweeping requests, it has claimed that it needs the voter files to ensure compliance with the National Voter Registration Act and the Help America Vote Act. But it fails to explain how these statutes provide the required basis and purpose to obtain sensitive information such as driver’s license and Social Security numbers. Both laws require states to conduct general programs of list maintenance that make a reasonable effort to remove people who should no longer be voting.
Make no mistake about what these actions represent: an attempt to take over election administration, a role that the Constitution grants to states, not the federal government.
Remember “I regard it as completely unimportant who in the party will vote and how, but it is extremely important who will count the votes and how.”–Josef Stalin
Thanks
Democrats have consistently sought to overturn the Citizens United Supreme Court decision through various legislative efforts, including introducing constitutional amendments and supporting reform bills. Major Democratic figures and groups have championed bills to overturn the ruling, aiming to restore limits on campaign spending and empower Congress to regulate election financing, although these efforts have faced significant roadblocks, as noted by sources like the Brennan Center for Justice.
Democrats have repeatedly sponsored amendments, such as the “Democracy for All Amendment,” to overturn Citizens United and grant Congress and states authority to set campaign finance rules. Democrats support laws to increase transparency for political spending and limit the influence of Super PACs and dark money. Democrats at the state level have also pushed for resolutions and referenda challenging the decision. Examples: January 2019 Congressman Ted Deutch (D-FL), Congressman Jim McGovern (D-MA), Congressman Jamie Raskin (D-MD), and Congressman John Katko (R-NY) introduced a bipartisan constitutional amendment to get big money out of politics and restore democratic power to the American people. Senators Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), led the entire Senate Democratic Caucus in introducing the Democracy for All Amendment, a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United v. FEC. It also failed. These attempts fail because of the Senate rules, and because GOP members prosper massively from Citizens United.
The other way to overturn Citizens United is a wealth tax, being introduced in states. For more information and analyses, I recommend the Roosevelt Institute report https://rooseveltinstitute.org/publications/citizens-united-15-years-later/
Hang on: are you referring to efforts by the Party, or individual members? I know individuals have tried. But has the Party? THere3 have been 10+ years of Dem Presidents since 2010 and no change. How does your claim stack?
In the US, there are elected representatives at state, federal, and local levels. These individuals are registered as Republicans, Democrats, or Independents. In both houses of Congress, members of each Party caucus together. Each caucus in each house elects a Party Leader, a Party Whip, other officers.
Each party has a national party organization, the Republican National Committee (RNC) and the Democratic National Committee (DNC). The National Committees should not be conflated with the elected Congressional party members. For example, if one asks “has the Party done X?” the question might mean The Democratic National Committee or it might mean the Democratic Party in Congress.
The DNC does not have authority over elected Democrats. It does not formulate policy positions – called party platforms. It’s the service organization for the party, organizing conventions at local, state, and federal levels, providing support and promotion for party platform- basically a convention structure.
The Democratic Party policies are fairly well described in this Wikipedia article if you only need the philosophy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_the_Democratic_Party_(United_States)#:~:text=Democrats%20support%20a%20more%20progressive,spending%20less%20on%20the%20military.
The Democratic Party in Congress is where the sausage is made, and when I wrote “the entire Senate Democratic Caucus in introducing the Democracy for All Amendment, a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United v. FEC,” that means the entire Democratic Party in the Senate. Because of the rules of Congress (do not go there), this means that the Democratic Caucus in the House of Representatives would also support in full.
Do note also- due to Citizens United, if the GOP raises zillions it can destroy the ability of Democrats to buy ad time on media, support candidates, etc. Therefore the Democrats must also raise zillions. This is called race to the bottom.
Thanks
But I am still unpersuaded they really want to change this. Biden did nothing.
Actually, a president has very little influence in this. And as I said above:
Do note also- due to Citizens United, if the GOP raises zillions it can destroy the ability of Democrats to buy ad time on media, support candidates, etc. Therefore the Democrats must also raise zillions. This is called race to the bottom.
The Citizens United ruling enabled concentrated economic power to bend politics to its will, amplifying the preferences of a small, ultra-wealthy minority at the expense of the vast majority of the American people. The decision was part of a coordinated effort to shift the balance of power in the US toward the wealthy.
There is another way to resolve the problem of money in politics in the USA. Constitutional Amendment is a non starter. Congressional legislation is a non starter. But two recent elections, the 2025 Wisconsin Supreme Court election and the 2025 New York City Democratic mayoral election, show a different strategy. Both elections broke outside spending records. The state supreme court election in Wisconsin attracted around $57 million in outside spending, while the New York City mayoral drew $28 million in independent expenditures. In both elections, the candidate with an outside-spending disadvantage and overall-spending disadvantage won.
Both winning candidates made outside spending an issue in their campaign, criticizing their opponent for relying so heavily on independent expenditures from billionaires. Second, there was sustained media attention on the amount and sources of independent expenditures in both races.
Candidate favorability drops significantly when voters are informed that the candidate received support from super PACs or groups that do not disclose their donors (Goodliffe and Townsend 2024; Rhodes et al. 2019). Voters across the political spectrum punish candidates for receiving support in the form of undisclosed independent expenditures, even when the candidate is aligned with them on policy (Wood 2023).
The strongest form of this strategy would involve candidates or party organizations voluntarily eschewing outside spending, forcing their opponents to either do the same or justify their dependence on wealthy donors to voters.
Noted, and thanks. I think we have discussed this enough now.