Americans have become obsessed with interpreting elections. Special elections have become especially engrossing, as they offer symbolic indicators without the high stakes of national contests. Political observers stayed up late on Tuesday night, only to find that Pennsylvania’s race was too close to call.

As of Wednesday morning in the US, it appears that the Democratic candidate Conor Lamb has won a narrow victory in a red district that will cease to exist soon because of a court-ordered redrawing of Pennsylvania districts. Control of the legislature does not hang in the balance. Yet this victory illustrates the symbolic importance that special elections have taken on in the Trump era.

Here are three takeaways for the Democrats.

Geography matters

Much of the story about Democrats winning Pennsylvania’s 18th congressional district was that it has been Republican for so long. Trump won in the district by 20 percentage points. For both parties, picking up votes in unlikely locales is key to telling a story about what their victories mean. Democrats have won seats in Alabama and now western Pennsylvania.

Pennsylvania election results should frighten Republicans in November Read more

This comes after Trump’s surprise victories in Michigan and Wisconsin helped him win the presidency. These results have left politicians and analysts wondering if the basic political geography of the country is shifting.

In the shorter term, Democratic victories in Republican strongholds may indicate that a Democratic “wave” is coming in the November midterms. And while geography matters a great deal for parties and narratives, there’s evidence that congressional elections are becoming increasingly national, with presidents and their policy agenda crowding out the local issues that once drove Congressional races.

The direction of the party

After the unexpected 2016 loss, Democrats looked for explanations. While the “Bernie would have won” trope suggested a move to the left on economic issues, others urged the party to move to the center. Questions arose about whether Democrats had focused too much on issues of “identity” rather than economic policies.

The Pennsylvania special election doesn’t render a clear verdict on these questions, but it illustrates how an ideologically diverse slate of candidates can be useful. Victories for candidates like Conor Lamb highlight the challenge of fielding candidates who break with party lines on issues like guns and who promise to oppose controversial figures in the party establishment like the House minority leader, Nancy Pelosi.



For congressional elections, the Democrats can run different candidates in different districts, building on Howard Dean’s 50-state strategy from a decade ago. But turning this into a governing agenda and a presidential nomination in 2020 may prove more challenging in an age of nationalized, polarized politics. Democratic leaders will have to figure out how to offer an alternative to Trump Republicanism while still being an ideologically diverse party.



Managing expectations

Mandate narratives thrive on surprise outcomes. For special elections in Republican areas, this has worked out well for Democrats. But the talk of a wave in November might set the party up for unnecessary difficulties. Once you’ve created a narrative that an election is yours to lose, the costs of falling short can be high.

If the Democrats had lost in this week’s Pennsylvania race – or if they do in a possible recount – then the limits of the “Democratic wave” possibilities might be clearer. But as it is, it seems the expectations are rising, especially with Trump’s relatively low approval rating. It’s an advantageous moment for Democrats, but they face a number of pressures and questions going into elections in 2018 and 2020.

