By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Delaware Democrats Dan Cruce and Ray Seigfried won landslide victories in Saturday’s special Senate elections for Districts 1 and 5, respectively. Cruce, focusing on the economy, education, and community engagement, defeated Republican Steven Washington and non-partisan Riley Figliola in District 1. Seigfried, emphasizing early childhood education, small business support, and transparency, secured the District 5 seat against Republican Brent Burdge. Both races filled vacancies left by recently departed state officials.
Read the original article here
Democrats secured victories in two Delaware State Senate special elections held on Saturday, solidifying their existing majority in the chamber. Dan Cruce and Ray Seigfried, both Democrats, won their respective races, maintaining the Democrats’ comfortable 15-6 advantage.
These wins are particularly noteworthy given the context of the elections. The seats were vacated by prominent figures, US Representative Sarah McBride and Lieutenant Governor Kyle Evans Gay, highlighting the importance of these special elections for the Delaware Democratic party.
The Democratic candidates significantly outperformed their November election results. In fact, across all special elections held in Delaware in 2025, Democratic candidates have exceeded their November performance by an average of 10 percent. This pattern suggests a potential trend favoring the Democratic party in special election scenarios.
The outcome in Delaware carries considerable weight given the state’s significant role in US corporate law. A substantial majority of publicly traded companies, including a significant portion of Fortune 500 firms, are registered in Delaware, adhering to its laws. While these companies might have their headquarters elsewhere, Delaware’s legal framework remains crucial to their operations. This aspect amplifies the political importance of maintaining a stable and predictable legislative environment in Delaware, which the Democratic victories help ensure.
The significant overperformance by the Democratic candidates in these special elections compared to the November general election results warrants closer examination. One potential explanation is the differing turnout patterns between general and special elections. It’s speculated that voters with lower political engagement, who may be less likely to participate in special elections, tend to favor one party over another in specific elections. The argument is that this segment of the electorate might not always turn out in significant numbers for special elections, leading to a disproportionate outcome favoring a specific party.
Another perspective suggests that different voter motivations between general and special elections might explain the results. General elections often attract high turnout due to higher-profile candidates and more extensive media coverage, while special elections may see a more engaged group of voters who may be more inclined to support specific candidates.
Another factor to consider is the absence of high-profile national figures on the ballot. Special elections, by their nature, tend to focus on local issues and candidates, possibly leading to a different voter response compared to general elections where national-level figures and issues could sway voter decisions. This absence of divisive national-level figures on the ballot in these special elections likely contributed to the Democrats’ success.
The Delaware results are seen by some as a positive indicator for Democrats, potentially suggesting greater reliability amongst Democratic voters in special and off-year elections. This interpretation contrasts with past observations where the opposite pattern seemed to prevail. Conversely, some view this outcome as less significant, arguing that these were already secure Democratic seats and that the results don’t provide a strong indication of broader political trends.
Some analysts, however, are focusing their attention on upcoming elections in other states, such as Virginia’s gubernatorial race, specific legislative races in New Jersey, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court elections as better indicators of broader political shifts and voter sentiment. These elections are considered more representative of the overall political landscape than the Delaware special elections, given the latter’s inherently limited scope and the generally secure nature of the seats in question.
Regardless of interpretations, the Democratic wins in Delaware’s special elections offer a snapshot of the political dynamics at play. The differing turnout and participation rates between general and special elections, along with the potential impact of specific local issues and candidates, all contribute to the complexity of analyzing election results and their broader implications for the future political landscape. While the significance of these wins is debatable, they nonetheless reinforce the Democrats’ control of the Delaware State Senate.