Off to the Races

Big Stakes and Small Margins in Battle for the Senate

Huge amounts of money will be spent in a fight that could be decided by very few votes—and yield a result that’s close to the status quo.

Sen. Jon Tester
AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite
June 11, 2018, 8 p.m.

We will find out for sure in a little less than five months, but at this point, it looks more likely than not that Republicans will lose control of the House while retaining their Senate majority.

Democrats appear poised to gain between 20 and 40 seats in the House; a net gain of 23 or more would tip the majority. In the Senate, currently split with 51 Republicans and 49 Democrats, we could see anything from a net gain of two seats for Democrats to a two-seat gain for the GOP. The two-seat gain for Democrats would give them the barest possible majority; the other four possible outcomes in that range would keep the majority in Republican hands with 50 (plus the vice president’s tie-breaking vote) to 53 seats.

The irony is that we could see up to a billion dollars spent on Senate races this year with no net change at all. A recent study of Kantar Media/CMAG data by the Wesleyan Media Project shows that the number of television ads aired in Senate, House, and gubernatorial races combined so far is 86 percent above the level in 2014. In Senate races, 270,615 ads have aired, 20 percent above the level at this point four years ago. The Senate seats up this cycle include some very big states, so the dollar value will end up being substantially more than in 2014.

But looking at the assortment of lightly populated states with very competitive Senate races—like Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, and West Virginia—we could easily see control of the Senate turn on fewer than 100,000 votes. Remember that even though 137 million people voted in the 2016 election, it was effectively decided by fewer than 80,000 votes spread across three not-small-at-all states: Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Look back at 1982: That year Republicans won four Senate seats, preserving their newly-won majority, by a total of 39,923 votes with victories in Vermont (5,110 votes), Nevada (5,657), Rhode Island (8,212) and Delaware (20,944 votes). Throw in Wyoming (22,259) and the GOP won five seats by 62,182 votes.

The interesting question is whether President Trump or Democrats are better off with either the House or Senate or both flipping in November. On one hand, no one in the Trump orbit ought to want to hand Democrats the power to call congressional hearings and issue subpoenas. That could be a nightmare for lots of people, starting with Trump himself. And then there is the impact on his legislative agenda. Nothing has come easy since he took office; imagine if the GOP didn’t have a majority in both chambers.

But a case can be made that Trump’s reelection chances might well improve if Democrats have a majority in at least one chamber. First, there’s the chance of Democrats overreaching legislatively—say, passing single-payer health care in the House or embarking on their own Benghazi-style sham investigations of Trump-related matters. And having Democrats in control of at least one chamber gives Trump the opportunity to use them as a foil, in much the way that President Clinton used Republicans’ newly won majorities to help get reelected in 1996. Right now, and if Republicans somehow retain their majorities, Trump and his party have total responsibility for running and funding the government, for deficits, for anything coming out of Washington that anyone doesn’t like, even if they don’t actually have the capability to pass their preferred legislation. If Democrats have shared responsibility, that changes things for 2020.

Of course, elections have many moving parts and there are other things that will matter in 2020, not the least of which is the economy. With unemployment down to 3.8 percent in May and news that there were actually more job openings than unemployed, things are looking pretty great now. But keep in mind that according to the National Bureau of Economic Research, the current economic expansion began in June 2009 and is now 108 months old, the second-longest continuous period of expansion since the end of World War II. The average postwar expansion is 59 months; the postwar record is 120 months (March 1991-March 2001). Hoping that this expansion continues for two-and-a-half more years is like betting that a 105-year-old person, however healthy, is going to make it to 108. A world-class economist told me this past week that he put the odds of a recession between now and 2020 at 45 percent.

The bottom line is that elections are complicated. How much governing responsibility will Democrats have in 2020, and whom do they nominate? How is the economy doing? What will come of these Trump investigations? No single one of these questions, but all of them combined, will dictate the results.

What We're Following See More »
Trump Signs Border Deal
2 days ago

"President Trump signed a sweeping spending bill Friday afternoon, averting another partial government shutdown. The action came after Trump had declared a national emergency in a move designed to circumvent Congress and build additional barriers at the southern border, where he said the United States faces 'an invasion of our country.'"

Trump Declares National Emergency
2 days ago

"President Donald Trump on Friday declared a state of emergency on the southern border and immediately direct $8 billion to construct or repair as many as 234 miles of a border barrier. The move — which is sure to invite vigorous legal challenges from activists and government officials — comes after Trump failed to get the $5.7 billion he was seeking from lawmakers. Instead, Trump agreed to sign a deal that included just $1.375 for border security."

House Will Condemn Emergency Declaration
2 days ago

"House Democrats are gearing up to pass a joint resolution disapproving of President Trump’s emergency declaration to build his U.S.-Mexico border wall, a move that will force Senate Republicans to vote on a contentious issue that divides their party. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said Thursday evening in an interview with The Washington Post that the House would take up the resolution in the coming days or weeks. The measure is expected to easily clear the Democratic-led House, and because it would be privileged, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) would be forced to put the resolution to a vote that he could lose."

Where Will the Emergency Money Come From?
2 days ago

"ABC News has learned the president plans to announce on Friday his intention to spend about $8 billion on the border wall with a mix of spending from Congressional appropriations approved Thursday night, executive action and an emergency declaration. A senior White House official familiar with the plan told ABC News that $1.375 billion would come from the spending bill Congress passed Thursday; $600 million would come from the Treasury Department's drug forfeiture fund; $2.5 billion would come from the Pentagon's drug interdiction program; and through an emergency declaration: $3.5 billion from the Pentagon's military construction budget."

House Passes Funding Deal
3 days ago

"The House passed a massive border and budget bill that would avert a shutdown and keep the government funded through the end of September. The Senate passed the measure earlier Thursday. The bill provides $1.375 billion for fences, far short of the $5.7 billion President Trump had demanded to fund steel walls. But the president says he will sign the legislation, and instead seek to fund his border wall by declaring a national emergency."


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.