Against the Grain

Voters Want Balance, Not Resistance

Democrats ride a suburban wave to win the House, but Republicans expand their Senate majority and win critical governorships.

Florida Democratic gubernatorial candidate Andrew Gillum gives his concession speech in Tallahassee on Tuesday.
AP Photo/Chris O'Meara
Nov. 7, 2018, 3:23 a.m.

The split-decision verdict that Americans rendered on a wild, unpredictable Election Night—Democrats sweeping the suburbs to win back the House, Republicans expanding their Senate majority and holding pivotal battleground governorships—is a clear sign that voters want a check on President Trump but don’t necessarily trust Democrats with full governing responsibility.

The decision by nearly all red-state Democratic senators to oppose Justice Brett Kavanaugh helped transform close contests into GOP blowouts. The nomination of true-blue progressives to swing-state governor’s races in Florida, Ohio, and Georgia prevented Democrats from winning enough swing voters to take charge. And a handful of vulnerable House Republicans clung to victory because they were facing Democratic challengers who ran well to the left of their district’s constituents.

The results have profound lessons for Democrats as party leaders mull over what type of candidate is best-positioned to defeat Trump in the 2020 presidential election. Progressives looked to candidates focused on turning out new, liberal voters—at the possible expense of suburban swing voters—to recreate the electorate in their states. Stacey Abrams, Beto O’Rourke, and Andrew Gillum weren’t just inspirational candidates looking to make history; they also offered a test of whether the best way to challenge Trumpism is with unapologetic progressivism. All three lost, and Gillum’s defeat came despite ample polling showing him ahead.

House Democrats took a different approach in their attempt to win back control of the lower chamber—and to check the president. They recruited military veterans and national security experts without partisan backgrounds. They understood that to win suburban areas where Republicans once dominated, they needed to reassure swing voters that they didn’t support single-payer health insurance, open borders, and a wild-eyed foreign policy. It’s why so many of the Democratic victors were running as apolitical outsiders.

By contrast, look at the few districts where House Democrats fell short of expectations. Despite Democratic domination in the Philadelphia suburbs, Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick was one of the few Clinton-district Republicans to prevail. He was running against Scott Wallace, a wealthy self-funder with tenuous ties to the district who held out-of-the-mainstream views on law enforcement and foreign policy. Despite running in a swing suburban district, Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska scored a victory over progressive activist Kara Eastman, who brought in some of the most liberal members to campaign for her. Even Rep. Mimi Walters of California, who looked like an underdog, maintained a narrow lead over Democrat Katie Porter, an Elizabeth Warren protégé who supports a single-payer health care system.

But even as voters showed a pragmatic streak, the results of this election enhance the polarization on Capitol Hill. Democrats ousted most of the Republicans representing swing districts, if they didn’t already retire before this year’s election. Red-state Senate Democrats are becoming extinct, with stalwarts like Missouri’s Claire McCaskill and Florida’s Bill Nelson falling to defeat. And even with a House Democratic caucus that will bring in a diverse set of voices, most of the party’s incoming committee chairs will be liberal lions unlikely to change their ideological perspectives.

Trump and an empowered Democratic House majority are headed for a high-stakes showdown over the next year, with each side hoping to use the other as a foil heading into the 2020 presidential elections. Democrats will try to uncover Trump’s scandals, while Trump will eagerly paint Nancy Pelosi (if she returns as House speaker) as an obstructionist. At stake: the hearts and minds of millions of mainstream voters trying to decide the least-worst option for the future.

What We're Following See More »
AVOIDS SHUTDOWN WITH A FEW HOURS TO SPARE
Trump Signs Border Deal
1 days ago
THE LATEST

"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.'"

Source:
REDIRECTS $8 BILLION
Trump Declares National Emergency
1 days ago
THE DETAILS

"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."

Source:
COULD SOW DIVISION AMONG REPUBLICANS
House Will Condemn Emergency Declaration
1 days ago
THE DETAILS

"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."

Source:
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, DRUG FORFEITURE FUND
Where Will the Emergency Money Come From?
1 days ago
THE DETAILS

"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."

Source:
TRUMP SAYS HE WILL SIGN
House Passes Funding Deal
2 days ago
THE DETAILS

"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."

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