Democrats May Be Down, but Their Appetite for Voting Hasn’t Dimmed

It can feel as if the Democratic Party has a lot of work to do before it is ready to win elections again. Its agenda appears exhausted. Its voters are disillusioned. Its politicians have struggled to muster vigorous opposition to President Trump.

But tonight — and on many Tuesday nights for the next few years — the election results might just make it easy to forget about the party’s woes.

Already, Democrats have fared well in special elections since Mr. Trump’s inauguration. On average, they’ve run 12 percentage points ahead of Kamala Harris’s showing across 11 special elections, according to data collected by The Downballot. This includes flipping two reliably Republican districts in Iowa and Pennsylvania.

The pattern of Democratic strength seems likely to continue today, when voters in Florida’s First and Sixth Districts go to the polls to replace Matt Gaetz and the beleaguered national security adviser Michael Waltz. Democrats are not expected to win these races, but there’s every indication of a competitive race in the Sixth District, where Mr. Trump won by 30 points in November. Democrats have even more reason for optimism in the regularly scheduled election for Supreme Court in Wisconsin.

If you’re a longtime reader, Democratic strength in special and off-year elections will not come as a complete surprise. Throughout the Trump era, Democrats have excelled in low- turnout elections, as the party appears to fare best among the most highly engaged, regular voters. This strength is partly attributable to the party’s advantages among college graduates, but the advantage runs even deeper than demographics.

A superior Democratic turnout seems to be behind the party’s strength yet again. In Florida’s special elections, the early voting has been significantly more Democratic — though Republican-leaning overall, given the lean of the districts — than it was in November, according to voter records analyzed by my colleagues. There’s no party registration data in Wisconsin, but our estimates nonetheless indicate that early voters are more Democratic-leaning than they were last November, and would have backed Ms. Harris by more than 20 points.

Over the last few years, we repeatedly emphasized that Democratic strength in these special elections doesn’t necessarily mean much for an election with big turnout. After all, it is driven by the sliver of highly engaged voters who are energized to “resist” Mr. Trump. They have the numbers to swing special electorates, but not a high-turnout presidential election. To take an example: By our estimates, the voters who turned out in previous Wisconsin Supreme Court races since 2016 would have supported Ms. Harris over Mr. Trump — even though Mr. Trump carried the state in 2024 — simply because more Harris voters would have turned out in these lower-turnout elections.

It is worth reiterating this cautionary note: Nothing about today’s results will change that the Democratic Party has major problems, from big-picture messaging and policy questions to its struggles among specific demographic groups, like young men and nonwhite voters.

Still, the continued Democratic strength in special elections is noteworthy. Most immediately, it will be a reminder that Democrats, despite their challenges, are probably going to win a lot of elections between now and November 2028. Mr. Trump simply arouses too much opposition from highly engaged voters, and a lot of Republicans will lose as a consequence.

This shouldn’t necessarily be a huge surprise — it’s what happened in Mr. Trump’s first term, after all. But until recently, Mr. Trump’s second term didn’t feel as if it would necessarily unfold like his first one. His first victory brought obvious signs of Democratic “Resistance.” His second victory brought talk of a “vibe shift” and Democrats “playing dead.” While there are indeed many differences between his two victories, it turns out that Democrats’ likelihood to vote is not among them.

In fact, Democrats’ strength in special elections so far this year is very similar to their strength in 2017 — and stronger than it was during the Biden years — according to The Downballot’s calculations.

The realization that Republicans are quite vulnerable in off-year elections is not without political consequence. Most immediately, it has already contributed to the Trump administration’s decision to withdraw Elise Stefanik’s nomination for U.N. ambassador. The party can no longer be confident that it would retain her strongly Republican upstate New York seat in a special election. With Republicans holding such a tenuous House majority, it’s even conceivable that retirements and subsequent special elections could cost the party control of the House of Representatives even before the 2026 election, as Eli McKown-Dawson of the Silver Bulletin points out.

Over the longer term, the party’s woes could risk eroding Mr. Trump’s support among congressional Republicans. While strength in special elections may not mean much for a high- turnout presidential election, these races probably do mean something for lower-turnout midterms. It certainly seemed that way in 2018 and 2022, when Democratic success and resilience was foreshadowed by special election strength.

As Republican members contemplate a challenging cycle, they might decide it’s in their interest to distinguish themselves from the president.