What Did Texas Special Election Really Mean?

To read most mainstream news headlines Sunday about the Texas special election the day before, one might conclude that the decisive 57% victory of Democrat Taylor Rehmet for the state Senate in a historically Republican, pro-Trump district with more than 1 million residents was a sign the days of Donald Trump and the Republican Party are numbered.

 "Democrat Upset in Deep Red Texas District Rattles Republicans," blared a New York Times headline shortly after results were in from the northern Tarrant County (Fort Worth) district, which was last represented by a Democrat in the 1990s.

"Why Democrats' Upset In a Texas State Senate District Is a Big Deal," chorused CNN.

To be sure, the victory of local union leader and U.S. Air Force veteran Rehmet over Republican Leigh Wambsganss — heartily endorsed by the president on Truth Social — in a district Trump carried with 59% in 2024 is arguably a big deal.

Wambsganss was long involved with Christian conservatives and their efforts to take over local school boards. There was post-election speculation that more "establishment" Republicans eschewed supporting the controversial GOP nominee, although she outraised Rehmet by $2.5 million to $400,000. In addition, turnout Saturday was under 100,000 — compared with more than 180,000 voters in a recent special U.S. House election in Tennessee won by a Republican, CNN noted.

To be sure, winning in such a solidly Republican district with a population larger than the average U.S. House district is likely to bolster Democrat campaign coffers. The Democratic National Committee raised $145 million in 2025 and is now $17 million in debt, compared with the Republican National Committee's $172 million raised in 2025 and $95 million on hand.

Moreover, coming amid ongoing controversies over Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Trump's interest in Greenland, Democrats can argue the result signals a potential resurgence in the midterm elections and an improved chance of winning a U.S. Senate seat in Texas.

"We are seeing too much dramatic evidence in these special elections to avoid recognizing that a massive GOP bloodbath, including even the loss of a Senate seat from Texas, is possible," said David Pietrusza, author of six books on presidential election years. He noted that a string of special elections for state legislative seats throughout the U.S. last year yielded several Democrat wins in traditionally unfriendly turf.

In Pietrusza's words, "a shot glass full of Trumpism may have indeed been palatable to the electorate, but 100-proof Trumpism, as we have seen for the last year, may indeed soon prove toxic to the GOP."

Henry Olsen, a senior fellow at the Center for Ethics and Public Policy and a syndicated columnist, told Newsmax that "they point directionally at what will likely happen but are not reliable as to the magnitude of that shift."

But Chapman University professor Luke Nichter, author of the critically acclaimed 1968; "The Year That Broke Politics," sees the outcome in Texas' 17th as suggesting something different.

"The decline of the Republican party has been greatly exaggerated," Nichter told Newsmax. "The question is not whether Trump or Republicans have become unpopular. The key question is simple: is Trump a movement, or simply a man?"

Specifically, Nichter observed that "Trump has already changed the Republican Party. While Reagan conservativism outlived both Bushes, MAGA conservatism overtook them all and became the predominant strain.

"However, much of Trump's support comes from independents and disaffected Democrats. They might return to their ancestral home if Democrats get better about talking about their issues. National leadership seems to have little concern about reaching voters in the heartland, but candidates in pockets of the country certainly do.

"The challenge for Trump's heirs is figuring out how to ensure Trumpism continues beyond Trump."