Dem
47
GOP
53
Republican politicians, at least those who are up in 2026, must feel like they are between a rock and a hard place right now. The rock is the demands imposed by Donald Trump; the hard place is the sentiments being expressed by voters. Both sides of that need to be kept happy (or, at least, placated). Whether or not that is even possible, however, is an open question.
The latest grim electoral news for Republicans (and, thus, excellent electoral news for Democrats) comes out of Miami, where officially-nonpartisan-but-everyone-knows-she's-a-Democrat Eileen Higgins trounced officially-nonpartisan-but-everyone-knows-he's-a-Republican Emilio T. Gonzalez yesterday, 59% to 41%, with 99% reporting. This is the first time the Democrats have won that city's mayoralty in nearly three decades, and Higgins not only won, she did so by 18 points.
Beyond the partisan flip, and the extent of Higgins' victory, there are two things here that should have Republicans very nervous. The first has to do with the fact that, as we have pointed out many times, "Latinos" are not a homogeneous voting bloc. Broadly speaking, you will find much more conservative Latinos in Miami and its outskirts, along the Texas/Mexico border, and in rural areas. And of those three groups, probably the most conservative are the Latinos in Miami, who are overwhelmingly Cuban. If those folks are not showing up to the polls, or are voting Democratic—and one of those two things must be the case, to produce a result like the one last night—then it's big trouble for the GOP. Either they aren't interested in what the red team is selling when Donald Trump is not on the ballot, or they are aggravated by what's happened since Trump took office, or both. And if even conservative Latinos are hopping off the S.S. Trump, that would specifically have implications for the new Texas district map, which assumes continued Latino support for Republican candidates, as well as for a potential new Florida map.
The second thing that should have Republicans scared is that Miami mayoral elections are not only officially nonpartisan, the candidates tend to take pains to obscure their true loyalties. But this year was different. Consider this from reader C.F. in Miami:
I am a political junkie. I am well-versed in the political morass of several countries and a couple of U.S. states. I've lived in Miami for nearly two decades. And I honestly did not know that Miami hadn't elected a Democrat in 30 years until just a few weeks ago.
The reason? Candidates are not allowed to state their political party. What this does is it allows candidates to carve out an agenda with less fear of reprisal from the national or state party. The whole "purity test" thing is nullified. Mayors can be urban Republicans sensitive to the needs and demands of a modern, global city, and not forced to be a Nebraska Republican like you see with the California GOP in the primaries.
In the entire time I've lived here, I always review the proposed program of the candidates, and the top candidates always direct their policies to those voters on the "opposite" side. As a progressive, I've always felt represented. I swear that I had no idea that the current mayor (Francis Suarez) was a Republican until he flirted with running for President
Except with this election. This one is quite clearly the typical Right vs. Left debate. I will add that I truly believe that Gonzalez's downfall was going pretty hard right with zero ambiguity and literally no policies that would distinguish an urban Republican from a Bible Belt conservative, along with his painting of his opponent as some communist pinko.
And for the record, in your breakdown of the key issues, most of Gonzalez' agenda indicates that corruption under his administration would continue and expand. (Miami gives New York City and Chicago a run for their money as the "Most Corrupt City in the US.")
In other words, Gonzalez (and Higgins) chose to nationalize this local election, and Gonzalez got himself clobbered. That is considerably more instructive than if, say, the Des Moines mayoral race is decided by debates over ethanol subsidies.
Beyond what happened in Miami, there is one other election result from yesterday that is of interest. State Rep. Marcus Wiedower (R) resigned his seat representing HD-121 in the Georgia state House, and voters headed to the polls to pick his replacement. Just over a year ago, Donald Trump won that district by 12 points. But in yesterday's contest, Eric Gisler (D) looks to have eked out a narrow victory over Mack "Dutch" Guest IV (R), 51%-49%, with 99% reporting.
Surely readers know that we are not enthusiastic about drawing broad conclusions from a special election, held in the winter, where fewer than 12,000 people cast ballots. That is a circumstance that has "wonky" written all over it. Nonetheless, the 12-point shift toward the Democrats is consistent with what's happened in other special elections over the past few months. Maybe MAGA voters are staying away with no Donald Trump on the ballot, maybe independents are disgusted by what they've seen from the administration, maybe Democrats are extra motivated to vote, maybe all of the above. In any event, what we have here is not just one result, it's an overall trend. And if it were to hold into next November (no guarantee, of course), it would spell disaster for the Republicans. The House would surely be lost, and the Senate might very well flip, too.
It's also notable that the result was in Georgia, since the two public commissioner seats decided there last month saw similar shifts toward the Democrats. Not only is Georgia a swing state, it also has a critical U.S. Senate election next year, as Jon Ossoff (D) tries to hold on to his seat. Based on the recent returns, Ossoff and the DSCC have to feel pretty good about his chances. And holding that seat is the first, critical step in flipping the upper chamber. (Z)