Democrats win Ohio primary and Michigan special election amid Trump backlash

Democrat Chedrick Greene won Michigan's special state Senate election, preserving Democratic control as Trump's approval ratings sink nationwide.

Objective Facts

Democrat Chedrick Greene defeated Republican Jason Tunney in a special election for Michigan's 35th state Senate district, a seat Harris carried by less than 1 point in 2024, securing a 20-18 Democratic majority in the chamber. Greene, a Saginaw fire captain and former U.S. Marine, won with 60% of the vote. Heather Williams, president of the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, called Greene's win a decisive victory in one of the highest-stakes battleground districts in the country. This continues a trend of Democrats exceeding expectations and outperforming Republicans in special elections since Trump took office at the start of 2025, with a POLITICO analysis showing nearly every election since then has shifted towards the Democrats. Trump's job approval has fallen to around 40% while public disapproval has risen by 13 points, from 44% to 57%.

Left-Leaning Perspective

Left-leaning outlets framed the Michigan special election as evidence of voter backlash against Trump and Republican policies. Michigan Democratic Party Chair Curtis Hertel called the victory a rejection of Republican policies tied to Trump, stating that with gas prices spiking and grocery bills up, voters are fed up with Trump and Republicans' cost-raising agenda. Gov. Gretchen Whitmer tied Republican economic failures directly to Trump, saying the victory put a check on Republican policies that led to skyrocketing gas prices and higher costs of groceries, housing, and health care. Heather Williams, president of the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, asked rhetorically if Mar-a-Lago is vulnerable, and noted that gas prices are spiking, grocery costs are up, and families can't get by—it's clear voters are fed up with Republicans. Leftist analysis emphasized the broader pattern of Democratic overperformance and presidential unpopularity. Maddow Blog noted that Democrats have flipped 30 seats from red to blue since Trump returned to the White House. Brookings Institution reported the swings toward Democrats in recent special elections have been unusually large, likely reflecting sharp declines in Trump's approval ratings, the unpopularity of his immigration policies, and persistent frustration over high prices. Democratic strategists argued grassroots organization and voter backlash to Trump-era policies continue to fuel their advantage. Left-leaning coverage emphasized Trump's role in driving Democratic gains without fully exploring Republicans' argument that special election turnout patterns differ from general elections, or acknowledging Republican spending disadvantages in individual races.

Right-Leaning Perspective

Right-leaning outlets contested the significance of the special election while raising spending and turnout arguments. Michigan Republican Party Chairman Jim Runestad claimed Democrats outspent Republicans by roughly 10-to-1 in the race simply to retain an already Democrat-held seat, suggesting Democratic spending masked underlying weakness. Republican candidate Jason Tunney argued that special election low-turnout conditions favored Democrats and expressed confidence about November's general election with higher participation. Senate Minority Leader Aric Nesbitt criticized Gov. Whitmer for the 16-month delay in calling the election, suggesting fear of a Republican victory, framing Democratic success as dependent on favorable timing. Right-leaning observers invoked historical patterns to downplay special election predictive power. The Republican Party of Florida disputed that special elections are indicative of general elections, with political scientists noting that any particular special election is not necessarily a great predictor due to abnormally low turnout. Academic analysis noted that in 2022, Democrats running in special elections underperformed Biden's 2020 results by about 4 points on average, but in 2018 they overperformed Clinton's 2016 margins by 9 points—creating uncertainty about which pattern would hold. Right-leaning coverage emphasized structural Republican advantages and downplayed Trump's unpopularity by focusing on spending disparities and turnout mechanics rather than economic messaging.

Deep Dive

The Michigan special election occurs within a broader pattern of Democratic overperformance in off-year contests since Trump's second-term inauguration. In every special election held to date, Republicans lost ground compared to their 2024 results, even in districts they won, while Democrats improved upon their 2024 vote shares in every race they won. Democrats have improved upon their 2024 presidential election margins by an average of 11% in special elections in 2026 and roughly 13% since the start of 2025. The data suggests not a single anomalous race but a sustained trend. What each side gets right and what they leave out: Democrats correctly identify that Trump's approval has collapsed—from above 50% when he took office to around 40%, with disapproval rising from 44% to 57%—and that special elections typically break against the sitting president's party. However, they downplay legitimate uncertainty about whether low-turnout special elections fully predict November's higher-turnout environment, where different voter coalitions may mobilize. Republicans correctly note the historical pattern that special and general elections can diverge dramatically—2022 saw Democrats underperform in special elections yet still compete nationally, while 2018 saw overperformance that did translate. However, they struggle to account for the sheer magnitude and consistency of Democratic gains across 30+ special elections without offering a compelling counter-narrative about why these races are exceptional rather than predictive. What to watch: Highly educated voters tend to vote more regularly, especially in midterms, while Republicans may find it difficult to mobilize less-attached voters whom Trump brought off the sidelines when Trump is not on the ballot—creating the potential for a rerun of 2018, when anti-Trump Democratic mobilization combined with lower Republican enthusiasm produced a House majority shift. The critical variable is whether Trump's unpopularity proves durable through November or whether economic conditions (gas prices, inflation) improve enough to stabilize his standing. Democrats have a serious chance of flipping Republican-held seats in North Carolina, Maine, Alaska, and Ohio, while Iowa and Texas are no longer regarded as sure bets for Republicans. The Michigan result signals that even borderline districts may now favor Democrats, but the ultimate test remains whether this translates to the 15-point national swing needed for substantial House gains.

OBJ SPEAKING

Create StoryTimelinesVoter ToolsRegional AnalysisPolicy GuideAll StoriesCommunity PicksUSWorldPoliticsBusinessHealthEntertainmentTechnologyAbout

Democrats win Ohio primary and Michigan special election amid Trump backlash

Democrat Chedrick Greene won Michigan's special state Senate election, preserving Democratic control as Trump's approval ratings sink nationwide.

May 6, 2026
What's Going On

Democrat Chedrick Greene defeated Republican Jason Tunney in a special election for Michigan's 35th state Senate district, a seat Harris carried by less than 1 point in 2024, securing a 20-18 Democratic majority in the chamber. Greene, a Saginaw fire captain and former U.S. Marine, won with 60% of the vote. Heather Williams, president of the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, called Greene's win a decisive victory in one of the highest-stakes battleground districts in the country. This continues a trend of Democrats exceeding expectations and outperforming Republicans in special elections since Trump took office at the start of 2025, with a POLITICO analysis showing nearly every election since then has shifted towards the Democrats. Trump's job approval has fallen to around 40% while public disapproval has risen by 13 points, from 44% to 57%.

Left says: Michigan Democratic Party Chair Curtis Hertel framed Greene's victory as voters rejecting Trump's policies and favoring candidates focused on lowering costs and protecting working-class interests. Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee President Heather Williams stated that if Mar-a-Lago is vulnerable, imagine what's possible in November.
Right says: Republicans argued Democrats overwhelmingly outspent them to retain an already Democratic seat, and candidate Tunney predicted a stronger showing in November with higher general election turnout.
✓ Common Ground
Both left and right acknowledge the race functions as a bellwether—political groups from both parties framed the contest as an early test of voter sentiment heading into the 2026 midterms.
Both candidates and observers across the aisle recognized cost-of-living concerns as central to voters' decision-making—Greene campaigned on lowering costs and affordability, while exit interviews showed voters cited economic pressure.
Even Republican candidate Tunney acknowledged that rising gas prices had not helped his campaign, representing agreement that economic conditions were headwinds for Republicans regardless of policy positions.
Both parties treat the special election as having genuine predictive significance for fall 2026 performance in Michigan and nationally.
Objective Deep Dive

The Michigan special election occurs within a broader pattern of Democratic overperformance in off-year contests since Trump's second-term inauguration. In every special election held to date, Republicans lost ground compared to their 2024 results, even in districts they won, while Democrats improved upon their 2024 vote shares in every race they won. Democrats have improved upon their 2024 presidential election margins by an average of 11% in special elections in 2026 and roughly 13% since the start of 2025. The data suggests not a single anomalous race but a sustained trend.

What each side gets right and what they leave out: Democrats correctly identify that Trump's approval has collapsed—from above 50% when he took office to around 40%, with disapproval rising from 44% to 57%—and that special elections typically break against the sitting president's party. However, they downplay legitimate uncertainty about whether low-turnout special elections fully predict November's higher-turnout environment, where different voter coalitions may mobilize. Republicans correctly note the historical pattern that special and general elections can diverge dramatically—2022 saw Democrats underperform in special elections yet still compete nationally, while 2018 saw overperformance that did translate. However, they struggle to account for the sheer magnitude and consistency of Democratic gains across 30+ special elections without offering a compelling counter-narrative about why these races are exceptional rather than predictive.

What to watch: Highly educated voters tend to vote more regularly, especially in midterms, while Republicans may find it difficult to mobilize less-attached voters whom Trump brought off the sidelines when Trump is not on the ballot—creating the potential for a rerun of 2018, when anti-Trump Democratic mobilization combined with lower Republican enthusiasm produced a House majority shift. The critical variable is whether Trump's unpopularity proves durable through November or whether economic conditions (gas prices, inflation) improve enough to stabilize his standing. Democrats have a serious chance of flipping Republican-held seats in North Carolina, Maine, Alaska, and Ohio, while Iowa and Texas are no longer regarded as sure bets for Republicans. The Michigan result signals that even borderline districts may now favor Democrats, but the ultimate test remains whether this translates to the 15-point national swing needed for substantial House gains.

◈ Tone Comparison

Democratic messaging used language like "backlash to Trump-era policies" and "voters are fed up" to link economic grievances directly to Trump's leadership. Republican messaging emphasized spending disparities and special election mechanics—using phrases like "outspent by 10-to-1" and "low turnout"—to question whether the result reflected real voter sentiment or procedural advantages.