OFF TO THE RACES

Trump’s Tap Dance With Chuck and Nancy Comes at a Price

By striking a deal with top Democrats, the president drives a wedge between his supporters and mainstream Republicans that could endanger GOP majorities in 2018.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi
AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana
Charlie Cook
Add to Briefcase
Charlie Cook
Sept. 18, 2017, 8 p.m.

There seems little question that President Trump has enjoyed his September dalliance with the two top Democratic leaders in Congress, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. Aside from the Supreme Court confirmation of Neil Gorsuch, which isn’t technically legislation, this is the only significant legislative victory the president has had this year.

But the long-term wisdom of this relationship remains to be seen. When the chips are down, are Chuck and Nancy likely to stay by his side? Who will he need? The answer is more likely to be Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan, even if he seems to dislike the former and has little chemistry with the latter. The president’s surprising coziness with Schumer and Pelosi was an alliance of convenience: It suited both parties to move quickly to set a debt limit, keep the government funded, and approve disaster relief. Sure, it would have been better to get an 18-month debt-limit increase (instead of three months) and fund the government for a full year (instead of through December), but Trump needed to get something done and wasn’t going to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. That said, cutting off his own party’s congressional leaders without warning is apt to cause Trump grief down the road.

The deal with Schumer and Pelosi adds to the damage to the GOP brand that was already occurring with Trump’s disparagement of congressional Republicans and their leadership, which has driven a wedge between the Trump base and the rest of the GOP Congress.

Recall that in 2008, when Barack Obama first ran for president, he attracted young and minority voters as well as others who were drawn to his personality and message. Obama Democrats gained 21 seats in the House and eight in the Senate. But two years later, Obama’s name wasn’t on the ballot, his voters didn’t go to the polls, and Democrats lost 63 seats in the House (and their majority) and six in the Senate. In the 2012 election, with Obama again at the top of the ticket, he was reelected by a slightly wider margin than expected and his party gained eight House and two Senate seats. But in 2014, his voters again didn’t show up for the midterms, and Democrats lost 13 House seats and, more importantly, nine Senate seats and control of that chamber. As Democratic pollster Fred Yang put it, “they didn’t call them Obama voters for nothing.”

There is no question that Trump appeals to different social and economic constituencies than Republicans normally do, notably downscale whites. By trashing congressional Republicans and their leaders, people he needs to get reelected a little over 13 months from now, he is undercutting his own ability to get his base to vote for those Republicans.

So who loses if a slice of Trump supporters behave like Obama voters and stay home anytime their guy’s name isn’t on the ballot? Well, let’s start with the House. I think it’s pretty close to an even-money bet whether Republicans retain their majority. Life will get harder for Trump if he loses 23 or fewer seats, and it will get really hard if he loses 24 or more—which would normally happen to the party of a president with a sub-50 percent approval rating (currently 37 percent with little fluctuation). In that event, Democrats would gain control of the House and have the power to subpoena White House aides, department and agency officials, campaign operatives, and Trump Organization executives. And Trump thinks things are tough now?

A Senate loss would be even tougher. The GOP can afford to lose only two seats, and even then, on party-line votes, Vice President Mike Pence would be needed to break 50-50 ties. By trashing GOP Sens. Dean Heller of Nevada and Jeff Flake of Arizona, making them vulnerable in their primaries to far less electable opponents, or hurting them so badly that their general-election hopes are diminished, Trump is flirting with a 50-50 Senate, unless Republicans can knock off some Democrats elsewhere, which looks a little less promising now than it did a few weeks ago. If anything goes awry with the seven other GOP incumbents, Trump can probably kiss his Senate majority goodbye. Then he’ll not only be fending off subpoenas but also giving his veto pen a major workout. And we haven’t even uttered the word impeachment, which becomes imaginable if Republicans lose their control of both chambers. Will GOP lawmakers stand loyally by his side given the shabby way he’s treated them?

What we are seeing is another example of Trump following his instincts and emotions, acting tactically rather than strategically. I am reminded of the chorus of the great song first recorded in 1960 by The Shirelles and later by Carole King: “Will you still love me tomorrow?” The answer for Trump is certainly no for Chuck and Nancy. For Mitch and Paul, it’s getting more doubtful every day.

What We're Following See More »
DISCUSSED THE MATTER FOR A NEW BOOK
Steele Says Follow the Money
1 hours ago
STAFF PICKS

"Christopher Steele, the former British intelligence officer who wrote the explosive dossier alleging ties between Donald Trump and Russia," says in a new book by The Guardian's Luke Harding that "Trump's land and hotel deals with Russians needed to be examined. ... Steele did not go into further detail, Harding said, but seemed to be referring to a 2008 home sale to the Russian oligarch Dmitry Rybolovlev. Richard Dearlove, who headed the UK foreign-intelligence unit MI6 between 1999 and 2004, said in April that Trump borrowed money from Russia for his business during the 2008 financial crisis."

Source:
BRITISH PUBLICIST CONNECTED TO TRUMP TOWER MEETING
Goldstone Ready to Meet with Mueller’s Team
1 hours ago
THE LATEST

"The British publicist who helped set up the fateful meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and a group of Russians at Trump Tower in June 2016 is ready to meet with Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller's office, according to several people familiar with the matter. Rob Goldstone has been living in Bangkok, Thailand, but has been communicating with Mueller's office through his lawyer, said a source close to Goldstone."

Source:
SPEAKING ON RUSSIAN STATE TV
Kislyak Says Trump Campaign Contacts Too Numerous to List
2 hours ago
THE LATEST

"Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak said on Wednesday that it would take him more than 20 minutes to name all of the Trump officials he's met with or spoken to on the phone. ... Kislyak made the remarks in a sprawling interview with Russia-1, a popular state-owned Russian television channel."

Source:
MADE REMARKS ON ISLAM, AFRICAN AMERICANS
DHS Resigns Over Racially Charged Comments
3 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"Rev. Jamie Johnson resigned Thursday as the head of faith-based and neighborhood partnerships at the Department of Homeland Security," following a CNN report on "inflammatory past comments he made about the black community and Islam. In past radio appearances, Johnson had said the black community was responsible for turning major U.S. cities into 'slums' and argued that Islam's only contribution to society was 'oil and dead bodies.'"

Source:
“A VECHICLE FOR MONEY LAUNDERING”
Trump-Branded Tower in Panama Linked to Organized Crime
4 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"An NBC News investigation into the Trump Ocean Club, in conjunction with Reuters, shows that" a high-end condo project in Panama, to which Donald Trump licensed his name, "was riddled with brokers, customers and investors who have been linked to drug trafficking and international crime. Ceballos, who investigated the project, went as far as to call the skyscraper 'a vehicle for money laundering.' The investigation revealed no indication that the Trump Organization or members of the Trump family engaged in any illegal activity, or knew of the criminal backgrounds of some of the project’s associates. But [they] never asked any questions about the buyers or where the money was coming from."

Source:
×
×

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