OFF TO THE RACES

Midterm Questions for the GOP

With an unpopular president and failures on Capitol Hill, Republicans worry about House and gubernatorial races while counting on a structural advantage to hold the Senate.

AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais
Charlie Cook
Add to Briefcase
Charlie Cook
July 10, 2017, 8 p.m.

Start­ing Tues­day, the House is in ses­sion 13 days and the Sen­ate 14 be­fore the Au­gust re­cess be­gins. As con­gres­sion­al Re­pub­lic­ans face their long list of to-do items, one thing will weigh heav­ily on their minds: What will they tell their base if they don’t re­peal and re­place Obama­care, pass a sig­ni­fic­ant tax cut or tax re­form, ap­prove a ma­jor in­fra­struc­ture bill, or build a “Great Wall” between the U.S. and Mex­ico? What if none of these things hap­pen, and they still have a messy fight over rais­ing the debt ceil­ing, al­low­ing the Treas­ury De­part­ment to con­tin­ue to is­sue bonds, or passing a budget be­fore Sept. 30 to keep the gov­ern­ment run­ning?

The Re­pub­lic­an Con­gress can point to no sig­ni­fic­ant le­gis­lat­ive ac­com­plish­ments this year and very little pro­gress on its big prom­ises, un­less you count the House passing a health care bill that only 30 per­cent of Amer­ic­ans in last month’s Kais­er Fam­ily Found­a­tion Health Track­ing Poll viewed fa­vor­ably. (By com­par­is­on, the much ma­ligned and def­in­itely flawed Af­ford­able Care Act had a fa­vor­ab­il­ity rat­ing of 51 per­cent.) In oth­er words, if law­makers suc­ceed only in keep­ing the lights on, the wa­ter run­ning, and the toi­lets flush­ing, voters may won­der why they sent them to Wash­ing­ton in the first place.

On health care, Re­pub­lic­ans must choose between break­ing their prom­ise to re­peal and re­place Obama­care or en­act a sub­sti­tute that people hate even more. And while passing a big tax cut would be very pop­u­lar in many quar­ters, what if it came at the cost of driv­ing up an already sky-high de­fi­cit? And what about the ex­pect­a­tion that the GOP will straight­en out the un­wieldy tax sys­tem?

Re­pub­lic­ans are like the dog that caught the car. Now what? Pres­id­ent Trump and con­gres­sion­al Re­pub­lic­ans raised their sup­port­ers’ ex­pect­a­tions so high that fail­ing to de­liv­er could have pro­found con­sequences. In­ter­est­ingly, con­sumer-con­fid­ence polling shows that Re­pub­lic­ans are very op­tim­ist­ic about tax cuts and eco­nom­ic policies while Demo­crats are very pess­im­ist­ic about policy changes and worry about where the eco­nomy is headed. What if the Re­pub­lic­an faith­ful fig­ure out that very little is hap­pen­ing and not much is likely to hap­pen? Will Re­pub­lic­ans in gen­er­al and Trump sup­port­ers in par­tic­u­lar vote in the 2018 midterm elec­tions, or will they be no-shows like the Obama voters in 2010 and 2014?

The stakes for the 2018 midterm states are huge. Re­pub­lic­ans won­der how badly they’ll do in House, gubernat­ori­al, and state le­gis­lat­ive elec­tions and how well they can do in Sen­ate races. Demo­crats have 25 Sen­ate seats at risk, five in states that Trump car­ried by 19 points or more and five oth­ers that he car­ried by less­er mar­gins, while the GOP has only nine seats up next year and only one in a state that Hil­lary Clin­ton car­ried. So 2018 should be a his­tor­ic op­por­tun­ity for Re­pub­lic­an gains in the up­per cham­ber. A Re­pub­lic­an pres­id­ent with job-ap­prov­al rat­ings in the low- to mid-50s would likely mean GOP gains of at least three to five seats, maybe more. But with a pres­id­ent whose job-ap­prov­al rat­ings av­er­age around 39 or 40 per­cent and a GOP Con­gress that has little to show for it­self, 2018 could be an op­por­tun­ity lost for Sen­ate Re­pub­lic­ans.

Keep in mind that the House is up in its en­tirety every two years and thus is most re­spons­ive to the na­tion­al polit­ic­al cli­mate. Gubernat­ori­al and Sen­ate races of­ten turn on how many and which seats are in play, and what happened the last time and even the pre­vi­ous time that these seats were up. Be­cause gov­ernors serve four-year terms (ex­cept in Ver­mont and New Hamp­shire, where they’re in of­fice for two years), the seats up for grabs in 2018 were last filled in the midterms dur­ing Pres­id­ent Obama’s second term. These midterms were al­most as big a dis­aster as his first midterms. (In 2010, Re­pub­lic­ans swept to a House ma­jor­ity, and in 2014 they re­gained con­trol of the Sen­ate for the first time since 2006.) So Re­pub­lic­ans are hugely over­ex­posed to po­ten­tial losses in the gubernat­ori­al races be­cause of their suc­cesses in the last two midterms. In the Sen­ate, with its six-year terms, the shoe is on the oth­er foot. Demo­crats are hugely over­ex­posed be­cause of their enorm­ous gains in 2006—Pres­id­ent Bush’s hor­rif­ic midterms dur­ing his second term—and in 2012, when Obama won reelec­tion over Mitt Rom­ney by a wider mar­gin than an­ti­cip­ated.

The op­er­at­ive ques­tions are: How bad will it be for Re­pub­lic­ans in the House and gubernat­ori­al races, and how good will it be for the GOP in the Sen­ate? The short an­swer is that Re­pub­lic­ans bet­ter have a pretty im­press­ive list of mean­ing­ful-sound­ing ac­com­plish­ments to make up for what’s likely to be a largely empty plate on the big-tick­et items.

What We're Following See More »
RYAN BOUNDS MADE RACIALLY INSENSITIVE REMARKS
McConnell Pulls Nomination of Circuit Court Judge
9 hours ago
THE LATEST
JUST AS SENATE VOTES ITS DISAPPROVAL
Trump Backtracks on Putin's "Incredible Offer"
9 hours ago
THE LATEST
BOLTON'S WORST NIGHTMARE
White House Planning Putin Visit To D.C.
10 hours ago
THE LATEST
ARMS CONTROL, SYRIA WERE DISCUSSED
Russians Refer to "Verbal Agreements" with Trump
1 days ago
THE LATEST

"Two days after President Trump’s summit with Russian President Vladi­mir Putin, Russian officials offered a string of assertions about what the two leaders had achieved. 'Important verbal agreements' were reached at the Helsinki meeting, Russia’s ambassador to the United States, Anatoly Antonov, told reporters in Moscow Wednesday, including preservation of the New Start and INF agreements," and cooperation in Syria.

Source:
WAS "GRUDGINGLY" CONVINCED
Trump Was Shown Proof of Russian Interference Before Inauguration
1 days ago
THE LATEST

"Two weeks before his inauguration, Donald J. Trump was shown highly classified intelligence indicating that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia had personally ordered complex cyberattacks to sway the 2016 American election. The evidence included texts and emails from Russian military officers and information gleaned from a top-secret source close to Mr. Putin, who had described to the C.I.A. how the Kremlin decided to execute its campaign of hacking and disinformation. Mr. Trump sounded grudgingly convinced, according to several people who attended the intelligence briefing. But ever since, Mr. Trump has tried to cloud the very clear findings that he received on Jan. 6, 2017, which his own intelligence leaders have unanimously endorsed."

×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login