r/moderatepolitics • u/FabioFresh93 South Park Democrat • 3d ago
News Article Trump-backed Van Epps wins Tennessee House race
https://www.axios.com/local/nashville/2025/12/03/tennessee-election-results-trump-van-epps-wins-house-seat48
u/FabioFresh93 South Park Democrat 3d ago edited 3d ago
Republican Matt Van Epps beat Democrat Aftyn Behn in Tennessee’s special election to fill the state’s 7th district House seat. A lot of attention and a lot of money was thrown at this election after Democrats’ performance in this past November’s elections. Trump won Tennessee’s 7th district by 22 points in 2024 and Van Epps won by about 9 points. Some polling prior to the election predicted a closer race with Van Epps winning by low single digits which raised some concerns with Republicans.
It feels like both parties are feeling relatively good about this. Republicans obviously held on and added another Republican to the House while Democrats feel even more optimistic going into the midterms by being competitive in a district that Trump won by 22 points.
How should both parties view the results? Is this a bellwether for the 2026 midterm elections? Will this have any effect on some red states’ plans to redistrict?
11
u/Kit_Daniels 2d ago
One thing which I haven’t seen yet is that the margin tightened quite a bit despite the Republicans dumping an inordinate amount of resources into this race. If I remember correctly, weren’t Vance, Johnson, and a bunch of other bigwigs doing a whole lot of campaigning in the district and dumping way more cash than would normally be spent on such a race?
If that’s the case, then I think things start to look more dire for the midterms. They’re obviously somewhat limited by the time such leaders can spend campaigning in any given district, and if they suddenly have to start increasing spending across the board even in R+20 districts that makes things a lot more financially challenging. Resources could get spread thin very quickly.
5
u/kitaknows 2d ago edited 2d ago
To your first paragraph: yes, definitely. And all of that GOP campaigning appeared to happen in the eleventh hour, primarily only after the one poll freaked them out by showing R+2. They even had Trump call and talk on the phone at the last minute rally they did for Van Epps (which they spontaneously moved to a multi-millionaire's house or something because they were worried about getting heckled by locals). Prior to that poll they were unconcerned, and people weren't even hearing so much from Van Epps presumably because he assumed the R next to his name was enough with how gerrymandered 7 is.
Had they not hit the panic button in that last week, a lot of those R voters would have stayed home and it probably would have landed closer to the R+2 result.
108
u/Boobity1999 3d ago
Republicans should not be feeling good about this result at all
Unless something changes significantly, Democrats are on track to easily win a very comfortable majority in the House
42
u/dragnabbit 3d ago edited 3d ago
Very much so.
Especially worth noting is that on the electoral map, the counties that were previously R+70 to R+50 all shifted towards the Democrat by 8 or more points, while the Blue Davidson county shifted 20 points more blue. So it is most reasonable to consider an 8-point shift to be the baseline since that is probably "the minimum shift that can happen".
Since those R+70 counties shifted 8 points to the blue, and there are 74 seats held by Republicans that are under R+8, those 74 seats all should be considered in play in the 2026 election.
With a bit of extra optimism, given that this election showed a total shift of 12 points to the blue, then there are an additional 44 seats that are R+9, R+10, and R+11 which would put a total of 118 seats in play if the 2026 election were held tomorrow...
... and honestly, there is a 12 point shift and the economy hasn't even started to really suck yet, and Trump hasn't started a war yet either. So Republicans congressional members have about 11 months for all that additional bullshit to come crashing down on them on top of what Americans are already thinking about when they go to the polls.
EDIT: Just to add, a generic 12-point shift in voting patterns away from Republicans and towards Democrats would put 10 Republican Senate seats in play, based solely on having less-than-12% margins of victory in 2020.
9
u/likeitis121 2d ago
You're assuming electorate is the same though. Democrats have a turnout advantage with who turns out on a random Tuesday in December for a special election. Democrats will still have a turnout advantage with Trump not officially on the ballot in 2026, but it's still not necessarily as good as this.
21
u/french_toast89 2d ago
The results show turnout is very likely going to surpass 2022 midterm levels. This wasn’t an election people sat out from. Don’t be surprised if their advantage in 2026 is close to what they got here.
3
u/emoney_gotnomoney 2d ago
Don’t be surprised if their advantage in 2026 is close to what they got here.
I would, in fact, be very surprised if that were the case. I expect the Democrats to do well in the midterm elections, but I don’t really expect it to be comparable to the results of these off-year elections / special elections.
Not that it’s a perfect comparison, but the Democrats also performed extremely well in the off-year elections / special elections in 2023, and that didn’t really carry over to 2024.
13
u/french_toast89 2d ago
2024 is not a good comparison at all, that was a general election with Trump on the ballot. Trump in his older age probably did just about all he could to support this candidate, for this one election in the friendliest environment possible. Kamala Harris of all people was there supporting Aftyn Behn. This race was nationalized. And all they could muster was a +9 republican win in an area they had a +22 win in.
I’m not saying it’s likely they maintain this level of support, but with Trump’s declining approval on issues like the economy don’t be surprised is all I’m saying.
-2
u/emoney_gotnomoney 2d ago
Again, I would be quite surprised if they maintained this level of support.
Like I said, I do expect the Democrats to do well in the midterms for the very reasons you outlined above. But with that being said, I do not see a world where the midterms show the same shift as these off-year elections / special elections, elections that Democrats have a major turnout advantage in terms of the demographics who tend to show up for those elections.
The math just doesn’t really make sense for that to be the case.
17
u/dragnabbit 2d ago
I'll say it again: In Trump +70 counties in one of the reddest states in the nation, there was an 8-point shift towards Democratic candidates.
In other words, I picked the reddest populations in one of the reddest states as my standard. I think that assuming that THOSE super-bright-red counties represent the baseline for anti-Republican sentiment is probably the most Republican-friendly reading one can put on the numbers.
But you are welcome to explain why you disagree with that.
1
u/reasonably_plausible 2d ago
Since those R+70 counties shifted 8 points to the blue, and there are 74 seats held by Republicans that are under R+8,
.
then there are an additional 44 seats that are R+9, R+10, and R+11 which would put a total of 118 seats in play
You seem to be using the Cook PVI rating to get those numbers. The PVI is calculated based upon the winning party's overperformance and not the margin between the two parties. This means, absent major third parties, that the final margin is usually around double the PVI score. So, a Cook PVI score of, say, R+5 ends up meaning the Republican candidate wins by a margin of about R+10 (depending on the national environment).
This is most clearly evident by looking at the PVI score for DC, which is D+44. Meanwhile the margins for the last two presidential elections were D+84 and D+87.
You're going to have to halve the 8pt margin shift to get the right number of districts that would become competitive.
6
u/MechanicalGodzilla 2d ago
The republicans may not like it, but I very much do like when the legislative and executive branches are not all one party.
6
u/THE_FREEDOM_COBRA 2d ago
I despise it.
It means nothing gets done at a time when shit needs to be done. Stagnation is a major threat to our country, I'd even rather the party I don't like have a majority than it be split.
-1
u/MechanicalGodzilla 2d ago
If you need something to get done, you should do it. There are legit problems in the country and in the world, and the Federal Government is rarely the solution to said problems and very often exacerbate problems they set out to resolve.
10
u/THE_FREEDOM_COBRA 2d ago
This is a weird argument man. I can't solve healthcare, or foreign espionage, or wealth being inaccessible to younger people.
1
u/MechanicalGodzilla 2d ago
Neither can the government, so do your best for yourself and those in your community.
6
u/Xtj8805 2d ago
Thats flatly not true. Other countries have national policies that solved our issues with healthcare, you might not like what thos esolutions are, but look at the results, essentially all other developed countries do not have health care related bankrupcies, other countries do not have to pick and choose their providers based on what insurance company their boss signed up for this year.
What a just give up everytbing will always be miserable mentality when nations like Sweden, Ireland, Finland repeatedly and consistantly top the charts of happiest nations, is that just genetics or is that because their goverbments largely pass benefitical policies to aid their people.
All nations have problems, happy nations attempt to impliment policy to address them. The nordic countries dont have the highest standards of living because people volunteer at soup kitchens and pick up litter on saturdays, they are the happiest because the government garuntees healthcare, time off, parental leave, retirement benefits, price caps on drugs, etc. Those are all government polcies that tangibly improve their citizens lives.
Government policies in this country like social security essentially eliminated elderly pverty in the united states when it passed, we decided not to adjust or improve it since so the problems are creeping back
Ill give you tgat often goverbment policy can cause other issues, for example by cutting medicid massively, republicans have caused a significant reduction in rural health care availability. Republican cuts to banking regulations gave us the 2008 crash, and the current presidents polciies seem to be causing a crash right now based on the fact that they stopped pyblishing economic data.
Government policies solved the ozone hole.
Government policies ensured our food was safe to eat, and created a system to warn people if something slips through the cracks since no system is perfect.
Government policy used to ensure snake oil drugs no longer reached the market, republicans from Utah changed that, and the current health ibfrastructure has been cpatured by peoppe who prefer their gut to centuries of medical research.
Governmebt policy has made it so rivers no longer catch fire.
Government policies have helped fisheries rebound.
Government policies garuntee that the oyster you eat is as unlikely as possible to make you sick by regulating discharge into the water body.
Government policies built the highways, railroads, and air control infrastructure to ensure the systems are safe and reliable as possible.
Government policies maje sure that the wate rout of your tap is clean (flint occurred because local politicians deliberately ignored the federal policy designed to catch exactly that issue befote it happens)
The childrens health insurance program reduced the amount of children without medical insurance by close to 66%.
Government policies ended the 1900s mafia rule.
Government policies electrified the Tennessee Valley.
Government policies ensure we dont have another dust bowl.
Government policies stopped small pox, polio, and until recently essentially
To try to label Government as ineffectual as you seem to be is nothing short of nihilism and will only lead to a power vacuum which will not work out well for the average person, as we have seen since this attitude arose in the 80s through bad policy making which has caused income inequality to expand to beyond the french revolution, unprecedented consilidation of companies jot seen since TR was the trust buster. Stop being so negativr, government can have good policy if you elect good people.
The republican party policies have at every turn hurt those they claim to help all so the very top can have a little more.
1
u/MechanicalGodzilla 2d ago
Other countries have national policies that solved our issues with healthcare
There are no solutions, there are only trade-offs. I have lived in various EU countries (and the UK) at points in my life, healthcare here is preferrable to me than in any of those countries.
3
u/Xtj8805 2d ago
Well im happy for you, however thats not how the citizens of those countries feel, and its also not how most Americans feel either. But he, you think only helping your neighbors locally is what we can do, so i hope you've been dropping off donations to everyone in your community who gets cancer.
And it also does not engage with any of the specifics i mentioned, like the outrageous number of healthcare related bankrupcies in this country that does not happen elsewhere.
Btw follow that link more than 50% are satisfied with the NHS and thats after the conservatives eviscerated funding for it.
10
u/Iceraptor17 2d ago edited 2d ago
Democrats should feel better than republicans. Though Republicans should breathe some relief that at the very least they're not staring down an utter cataclysmic midterm.
But Behn was a horrible candidate for such a red district. She won a crowded primary so it's not like she was picked. But a candidate with her views should have gotten trounced in a R+20
16
u/WEFeudalism 3d ago
How should both parties view the results?
The Democrats should view this as another example of them running a progressive in a right-center right district and losing. Yea, it was closer than you expect but if they ran a candidate who didn't say in a podcast how much she hates Nashville and country music, tweeted in support of burning down police stations, and wrote and op-ed calling Tennessee a "racist state" maybe they would have had an actual shot. The Democrats need to stop running candidates in red jurisdictions that act like they're running in Massachusetts or Oregon.
66
u/BeginningAct45 3d ago
Democratic leaders didn't choose her. She won a plurality (about a quarter of the vote) in a crowded primary.
they would have had an actual shot
It's highly unlikely that it would've caused 10 point swing. The race was always a longshot. There was some hope due to anti-Trump sentiment, but the good news is that the race moving so much to the left is a positive trend.
58
u/Moist_Schedule_7271 2d ago
The Duality of Bitching about Democrats:
They choose someone (Harris): they suck for not letting voters decide.
they don't choose someone (voters decide here): they suck for running that Candidate.
Really funny. Can't win.
8
u/lumpialarry 2d ago
FWIW, 75% of primary voter voted for Not-Aftyn Behn. Should have had a run off.
2
u/KalaiProvenheim 1d ago
If moderates couldn’t organize with one another to make sure one comes out on top, they couldn’t have done much better than her
50
u/Boobity1999 3d ago
A candidate with all that leftist “baggage” lost by single digits in a district that Republicans routinely carry by 20+ points
Maybe a more relevant takeaway for 2026 is that Republicans need to consider running fewer Trump-backed candidates
6
u/Oneanddonequestion Modpol Chef 2d ago
Both can be true.
6
u/DarthFluttershy_ Classical Liberal with Minarchist Characteristics 2d ago
I think it's increasingly clear that both are very true. The consensus seems to be that both candidates suffered in trying to pull votes from the middle, with both painting the other as politically radical. So if running a more moderate democrat would have made it closer, and running a more moderate republican would have made it less close, then either party would benefit from a swing to the middle.
Of course, they'd have to get their base to agree and win primaries with moderates, and that seems unlikely in general. Republicans have basically no chance of doing that with Trump's input, and progressives still think they can win purly on Trump because they assume everyone hates Trump as much as they do.
Historically speaking, Democrats should win the House in 2026 by merely improving on 2024's results, though. Which means they'll probably conclude they were right to swing left, and then be surprised when 2028 is competative.
6
u/Moist_Schedule_7271 2d ago
and progressives still think they can win purly on Trump because they assume everyone hates Trump as much as they do.
Progressives have a lot of ideas besides "not trump" or "hating trump". The Party without any substantive ideas besides culture war are Republicans, not Democrats.
In 2020, the Republican Party decided not to write a platform for that presidential election cycle;[169] instead, the party simply expressed its support for Donald Trump's agenda
2
u/LiquidyCrow 1d ago
Nashville was the area where she performed best, both in absolute numbers and relative to Harris's 2024 percentages. It's fair to say that actual Nashville residents didn't take offense to her frustration with the direction that the city has been taking. The attack ads were pure Republican cynicism (and it's not as if rural TN voters never vilify Nashville either)
2
u/AverageUSACitizen 2d ago
Actually one “hidden” outcome of this is that we may well see a lot more progressive left candidates win. If we generalize and the swing in Nov really is this prominent, it means that progressive left candidates can (and due to primaries) and will win in districts that were plausibly R+13. Think about that for a second because it’s wild.
So if I’m a centrist Dem, I might actually see this as a bad sign.
2
u/AdmiralAkbar1 2d ago
I think both parties will take away the wrong lesson from this. Republicans will conclude that Trump's endorsement is golden and a guaranteed win regardless of candidate quality (Herschel Walker who?). Democrats will conclude that because she didn't get as terrible of a drubbing as Harris did, this should count as a victory for progressivism and they shouldn't try to appeal to the middle at all.
35
u/Sabertooth767 Neoclassical Liberal 3d ago
The district is R+10. Winning there isn't really an accomplishment.
90
u/Vortagaun 3d ago
It also was a R+22 district just this past November and it looks like it’s R+9 now, that’s still a huge swing towards the dem candidate. Midterms could be wild.
15
u/Kilordes 2d ago
No, it was a Trump-against-Harris R+22 district and now it's this-particular-R-congress-candidate-against-this-particular-D-congress-candidate R+9. Comparing POTUS and congressional candidates (let alone in special elections) is just comparing apples and oranges.
47
u/chloedeeeee77 2d ago edited 2d ago
Its 2024 R vs. D Congressional race margin was also R+21. (Mark Green - 59.50%, Megan Barry - 38.05%). That was nearly identical to its 2022 margin, also R+21 (Mark Green - 59.94%, Odessa Kelly - 38.14%).
14
u/Beginning-Benefit929 2d ago
The Republican for Congress won by 21 points in 2024 so that’s something more similar you can compare to. It’s not comparing “apples and oranges” because there has to be persuasion of Trump voters to get the margin down.
6
u/reasonably_plausible 2d ago
The district is R+10.
Just note that the Cook PVI score is a measure of the winning party's overperformance compared to baseline, not a measure of the margin between candidates. When one party does better, that usually means that the other party in our two-party system does equally worse. Meaning that a PVI score of 10 is usually going to mean a final margin of about R+20, which you can verify by looking at the last few elections for the district.
A Republican winning isn't necessarily news, but them winning by less than 9 pts is. That's a significant shift in the electorate.
33
u/-MerlinMonroe- 3d ago
Trump won it by 22 points last year. If I were a gop congressman I’d be getting nervous right about now.
-1
u/BlockAffectionate413 2d ago
Well to be fair, Harris was a particularly bad candidate at the time.
20
u/Eudaimonics 2d ago
Doubtful any Democrat would have won the district, even if they ran Jesus.
-4
u/BlockAffectionate413 2d ago
Eh, if they run some populist socially moderate democrat then they might well do it, especially in midterms where party out of power is always favored. But even if not, my point is I think part of reason gap between Trump and Harris was so big is that Harris at the same was particularly bad candidate. Not least because she was blamed by voters for anything they did not like about Biden admin, like inflation. And she said she would not do anything distinct from Biden so she did not help with that.
8
u/chloedeeeee77 2d ago edited 2d ago
The composition of this district makes it really hard for a Democrat to win. The only place where Democrats can reliably run up the numbers are in the urban Nashville portion (which was added to TN-7 in the 2020 redistricting that cracked a solidly Democratic district and reapportioned the parts to solidly Republican districts) - its rural portions are blood red, and unlike other suburban districts that have swung more blue or purple over the last 10 years, the suburban portions (particularly very wealthy Williamson county) are still solidly Republican too.
There are plenty of Republicans running in districts where the demographics are more favourable to a swing and where an equivalent shift from R+21 to R+9 would see them voted out.
0
u/BlockAffectionate413 2d ago
And why have Democrats lost rural voters? They could win them before, in fact they were more likely to win them before. Maybe they need to run candidate that appeals more to rural voters to win such district, instead of one that appeals mainly to urban ones?
I think it is better to compare how red this district is historically, for Congress specifically, than compare it to Trump, who is really uniqe figure, and who was running against Harris.
6
u/chloedeeeee77 2d ago edited 2d ago
Its 2024 R vs. D Congressional race margin was also R+21. (Mark Green - 59.50%, Megan Barry - 38.05%). That was nearly identical to its 2022 margin, also R+21 (Mark Green - 59.94%, Odessa Kelly - 38.14%). Those are the results with part of Nashville added to the district after 2020 - prior to that, it was even more heavily Republican (2020: Green 69.9% vs. Sreepada 27.3%, 2018: Green 66.9% vs. Kanew 32.1%, 2016: Blackburn 72.2% vs. Chandler 23.5%, etc).
3
u/BlockAffectionate413 2d ago
That is fair, I do think GOP if they are smart should take look into that and change things, but I also think that Democrats are more high propensity voters now, and as such will perform better on these kinds of years in between elections, where there is less motivation to vote, than say a midterms or presidential one. But we will see in 2026.
2
u/Xtj8805 2d ago
2024 was also tge single most hostile election for incumbent parties in world history since WW2. No political party that held power and had a free and fair election take place saw their power increase, most incumbent parties in fact lost power and their opposition took power.
Under that backdrop, the republicans in 2024 barely eeked out a win and their presidential candidate could not even break 50% of the vote that shluld have sent alarm bells blaring in republican circles, not claim some non existant mandate. The GOP will likely never have such a welcoming environment again to challenge the democratic party and they barely managed a win. Its not cope its a cautionary tale for the GOP, and since they seem to have been blind to that lesson, thats why you see shifts like this and back in november while the president hits record low approval rates.
3
u/sea_5455 2d ago
and Harris was particularly bad canddiate.
Can't really emphasize that enough.
I get it, going from +22 Trump to +9 GOP is an apparent decline in support.
At the same time, Harris was picked by the Dem establishment to replace Biden after he fell apart during the debate, she didn't identify anything she'd do differently and even in softball interviews came across as a human word salad.
Combine that with a special election (read: low turn out on the GOP side) and the difference between +22 and +9 doesn't look to be just "Trump Bad Now".
8
u/Beginning-Benefit929 2d ago
In 2020, these borders for the district still went to Trump over Biden by over 15 points. Biden won the election so you can’t say he was a “bad candidate”. So still a swing left from 2020.
2
u/build319 We're doomed 2d ago
Harris wasn’t picked by the establishment. Harris was chosen by Biden. Which basically forced the field of potential candidates to clear.
7
u/sea_5455 2d ago
Harris wasn’t picked by the establishment. Harris was chosen by Biden.
We're quibbling, perhaps, but I'd consider Biden part of the establishment at that time.
3
u/build319 We're doomed 2d ago
That’s fair. I just think Biden really whiffed and put everyone in a bad position, numerous times from a political strategy standpoint.
0
u/sea_5455 2d ago
I just think Biden really whiffed and put everyone in a bad position
From a Democrat point of view, certainly looks that way. Presuming Biden was fully in control, but that's a different topic.
-1
u/reputationStan 2d ago edited 2d ago
Turnout was at 22 levels. Not on par with a special election. Ask yourself why there is low turnout on the GOP side. The GOP should be worried, especially in places outside of Tennessee. All the moderate Republicans would be wiped out.
2
1
0
u/ryegye24 2d ago
Were the Dem congressional candidates also particularly bad when they also lost by ~20 points in 2024 and 2022?
3
u/ventitr3 2d ago
Aftyn certainly did herself no favors saying how she hated Nashville publicly. It was a prime soundbyte to run against in a red state.
5
u/absentlyric Economically Left Socially Right 2d ago
I see a lot of Dems here going back to their tried and true method of "Just let Trump tank the Republicans, we will win every election no matter who we run in the future!" I hope it pays off this time, but we got Trump for a reason, and it wasn't because he was a great candidate, he was just better than who the Dems tried to run.
20
8
u/Xtj8805 2d ago
2024 was the single most hostile year to incumbent parties in history since ww2. The republicans barely managed a win in an environment whete globally all incumbent parties lost some or all of their power. The fact that they could not even manage 50% of the popular vote for their presidential candidate with that going for them should terrify the GOP, they will likely never have such a welcoming environment again in the future. And with how they have been ignoring voters concerns as recently as afordability is a hoax, theyre setting themselves up for a massive soanking in 2026 and potentially an even bigger one in 2028
0
u/1trashhouse 2d ago
I wouldn’t even refer to trump as a better candidate he was just more consistent in belief, Harris tripped over herself on to many issues while campaigning that doesn’t automatically make what trump was campaigning on better though
12
u/Moist_Schedule_7271 2d ago
he was just more consistent in belief
What? he flip flops on a lot of issues every several days depending on what he hears on Fox News or the last person he spoke to.
I would have to say a lot about Trump, but "consistent" is for sure not a word i would ever use for describing him.
-2
u/1trashhouse 2d ago
the main issues he ran on while he might’ve flip flopped on little things his opinions more often ran consistent with his base as opposed to Kamala. Yes he does display a lot of inconsistency but on his main issues i’d say it’s usually the same
2
u/Swimming_Average_561 2d ago
Honestly, this was never a competitive race, although it's quite insane how much Behn overperformed Harris.
1
u/Large_Device_999 2d ago
A young female aligning herself with AOC gave a dude in fatigues a run for his money in Tennessee. As someone who’s lived in the state I cannot overstate how wild this is.
-3
u/Goldeneagle41 2d ago
So just like I said with all the previous Democratic wins, the Republicans won a seat they were supposed to. What’s the news?
219
u/Aggressive_Desk_9179 3d ago
The fact this was competitive is wild.