Yesterday, special elections were held for a State Supreme Court seat in Wisconsin and two congressional seats in Florida. While Republicans easily defended their seats in Florida’s deep red districts, liberal candidate Susan Crawford bested conservative Brad Schimel in Wisconsin, despite Elon Musk pouring millions of dollars into the race. In this Q&A,Thomas Giftexplains what these results means and whether they can be read as a barometer of support for the new Trump administration.
What are your initial reactions from the special elections in Wisconsin and Florida?
The outcome in Florida was largely expected. But liberal Susan Crawford’s win over conservative Brad Schimel in Wisconsin will certainly infuse Democrats with enthusiasm. It gives them a 4-3 majority on the state Supreme Court in what turned out to be the most expensive judicial race in America ever. The election shows the limits of outside money and the limits, particularly, of Elon Musk’s power to swing the outcome of elections with his checkbook. Democrats have been in the political doldrums since the November presidential election, and there have been infinite autopsies about what the party is doing wrong. So, they’ll certainly take stock of what went well in Wisconsin and try to spin it as positive momentum heading into the 2026 midterms. That optimism will be further fueled by Democratic Senator Cory Booker’s speech before the US Senate yesterday – the longest floor address in the chamber’s history – where he passionately rebuked Trump for over 25 hours.
What does the Wisconsin race say about how voters feel about Elon Musk?
Musk, always prone to exaggerating, declared prior to yesterday’s vote, “This Wisconsin Supreme Court race might decide the future of America and Western Civilization!” It’s one reason why it wasn’t just Musk who poured funds into the race – some $20 million through his America PAC and affiliated groups. It was also Democratic mega-donors like George Soros and Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker. Altogether, some $90 million was funneled into Wisconsin’s Supreme Court election by both sides. The race was really a microcosm of how localized races become nationalized through big money. Invariably, Democrats tried to make the race at least partially a litmus test on Musk, who’s become one of the most polarizing figures in American life. It’s hard to say they weren’t successful. Wisconsin voters seemed to bristle at the idea that Musk was trying to buy their votes.
What are the consequences of the Wisconsin election?
What was really at stake in Wisconsin is how districts might be redrawn in a way that makes it more likely for Wisconsin – a swing state – to elect more Democrats to the US House of Representatives. A couple of weeks ago, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said that the only pathway through which to challenge a “gerrymandered” congressional map in Wisconsin was having an “enlightened Supreme” adjudicating a petition about it. Republicans, of course, jumped on that comment to say it’s evidence that Democrats had their eyes set on rejiggering the congressional districts. That’s after Republicans have been accused of committing the same sin for years. Of course, the Wisconsin Supreme Court is technically non-partisan, but that’s in name only. So, advantage Democrats here. One caveat, however, is that Democrats didn’t totally run the table in Wisconsin yesterday. A permanent voter ID requirement, which Republicans pushed for, also passed and will be enshrined into the state’s constitution.
Is Wisconsin a national temperature check on the Trump administration?
Many experts are pointing to 2017, when in a series of special elections, Democrats outperformed expectations, which teed up gains in the 2018 midterms during Trump’s first term. But I do think it’s possible to over-interpret the extent to which these special elections are a bellwether. It’s natural to want to focus on these races, the first ones in a swing state with national consequences since Trump won in November. But much of the outcome distills down to candidate quality. It can’t just be read as a barometer of support for the new administration, even if special elections haven’t been awful predictors in the past of national elections. There are many idiosyncratic elements to special elections, and they may ultimately say less about how the US electorate feels about the White House than standard national polls.