In a speech before cheering supporters, Democrat Taylor Rehmet dedicated his victory “to everyday working people.”

Democrats scored a major upset on Saturday, as machinist union leader Taylor Rehmet easily defeated Republican opponent Leigh Wambsganss in a state senate special election held in a deep-red district that Donald Trump carried by 17 percentage points in 2024.

With nearly all votes counted, Rehmet holds a 14-point lead in Texas’ Senate District 9, which covers a large portion of Tarrant County.

Republican opponent Wambsganss conceded defeat in the race but vowed to win an upcoming rematch in November.

“The dynamics of a special election are fundamentally different from a November general election,” Wambsganss said. “I believe the voters of Senate District 9 and Tarrant County Republicans will answer the call in November.”

  • HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    59
    ·
    2 days ago

    Republican opponent Wambsganss conceded defeat in the race but vowed to win an upcoming rematch in November.

    Rematch??

    • TryingSomethingNew@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      46
      ·
      2 days ago

      This was a special election to fill a spot. The prior person (Kelly Hancock) quit to become state comptroller. These two will be running in the fall, though I wonder if the groups (including some with ties to white nationalism) that spent $2.5m on her will do so again in the fall. He raised $380k, mostly small donors.

      Fun fact - Texas senate doesn’t meet this year, so he might not have a ton to do before the next election, but he’ll run as an incumbent, will be getting ready for next year’s session, and it’s also a nice pants-shitting moment for the Tarrant county Republican Party which is already in the midst of a party purity jihad.

      (Seriously, they’re suing and being sued by other republicans about being removed from republican primaries, as well as suing to have democrats removed from Democrat primaries)

      • vortic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        2 days ago

        The hell? The Texas senate only meets for 140 days in odd years? How do they get anything done?

        • TryingSomethingNew@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          21
          ·
          2 days ago

          It’s even crazier than that. If I remember right, every single law is a change to the Texas constitution.

          There is also a saying that we would be better off if it were held for two days every 140 years. And there have been some bills that have died (DMCA, IIRC) because they couldn’t get through committee in time, so the “have to be passed this year” had to wait 2 more years.

          But they can and will call “special session” for the sorriest of reasons.

          • Triasha@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            18 hours ago

            It’s not that all laws have to be constitutional amendments, but our constitution is so long and detailed and a lot of things were written into it to make them hard to change later, so way more laws have to be constitutional amendments than would be in other states.

          • baronvonj@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            22 hours ago

            It’s even crazier than that. If I remember right, every single law is a change to the Texas constitution.

            No, changes to the state constitution have to pass a 2/3 vote in the state house and senate and then become a ballot measure for the public to vote on. We have a ridiculous number of incredibly specific things in it, though, so we tend to have like a dozen amendments to vote on every time. But we also have a regular statutory code that is altered by regular bills passing the legislature and gubernatorial signature.

        • Tollana1234567@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          they do it to avoid questioning from thier constituents in case things goes bad, like the texas freeze or the power grid failing and to prevent Dems from getting things done.

      • Tollana1234567@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        haha, republicans sure are karens, they do love to sue. in any case thier own voter suppression methods is probably hurting THE GOP more than the dems(which incudes gerrymandering other ways of excluding dems from running fairly)_, since they dont have real power in the state to begin with(the dems).

      • Avid Amoeba@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        2 days ago

        It is a game for people who can spend over $2M on a campaign like this and probably do it again a few months later.

          • HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 days ago

            As TryingSomethingNew said above he might jusy get lucky, because without the Texas Senate sitting before Nov the GOP will have little cannon fodder to blast him with.

            One would almost wish there were more upcoming elections like this.

            • Bronzebeard@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              19 hours ago

              What is even the point of holding a special election for a position that doesn’t actually have anything to do before the actual election?

                • Bronzebeard@lemmy.zip
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  48 minutes ago

                  That doesn’t actually answer my question, it just kicks the can down to: why was there a law requiring there to be an election when there also exists a law about there not being any reason for an election to be held?