After the Midterms and Beyond

 

More Blue…

With only one House race still to be called, the tumultuous 2018 midterm election is all but done. Now that we have the results, we can access what we learned about this year, and importantly, consider what the results may say about the future.

Was It a “Wave” Election:

Yes.

My last blog post, written in the hours after the election, with many House and Senate seats to be called, suggested much smaller Democrat gains. But with the full breath of races concluded, it’s clear that this was a “Blue Wave.”

The new Congress that will be sworn in on January 3rd will have a net +39 new Democrat House Members. The balance will be 234-201, giving the new Democrat Speaker a 16 seat margin. While the GOP’s Senate majority expanded (52 or 53 seats, depending on Mississippi’s Senate run-off on Tuesday), the GOP lost two winnable Senate seats in Nevada and Arizona, and couldn’t overcome the popular appeal of two Democrat Senators in the deep Red states of Montana and West Virginia. 2018 was the year when the Senate map most favored the GOP, and the results failed to match the potential. The Democrats also netted seven governorships, restoring balance between Republicans and Democrats in the state houses, with the GOP leading 27-23.

But it is equally important to point out that this midterm wasn’t a tsunami, as had been predicted early in 2018. Back then, and even into the summer, there were predictions of Democrats adding +50 or +60 seats, in the House, and even taking the Senate. Nothing close to that occurred. Indeed there are silver linings here for the GOP.

While the loss of the House is real, the damage is more limited than it could have been. It impossible to evaluate Democrat gains without looking at the biggest factor in those gains. The GOP suffered from a mass of retirements – 36 House members and 3 Senators – which significantly evened the playing fiend for  Democrats, depriving the GOP of the incumbency advantage. However, even amid the record Democrat gains, the GOP did pick up seats; two in Minnesota and one in Pennsylvania. You wouldn’t expect Republicans to win in Blue states during a wave election.

In the Senate, Rick Scott prevailed in Florida, showing GOP competitiveness in the swingiest, swing state. Even in Red states where the GOP did not win, the margins were not excessive. McSally lost Arizona by less than 2 points. Both Tester and Manchin kept their seats by 3 points. And there are signs of competitiveness in Blue states when the GOP recruits excellent candidates. In Michigan, Stabenow kept her seat, but by a closer than expected margin of 6 points, against Republican candidate, John James.

While the GOP lost governorships, it kept control where it counted;  Florida, Ohio, Iowa, Georgia, Arizona and New Hampshire. Each of these states will be critical to 2020. As far as future redistricting, the GOP also maintained control in Texas, South Carolina and Tennessee, states that are likely to see added seats in redistricting.

These additional factors help put Election Day 2018 in perspective.

Geographic Political Alignment:

Another way to look at the midterms is to see it as a continuation of the “Great Partisan Sorting Out” of America. 2018 saw the continued consolidation of states by their presidential votes.

Consider that of the 50 state delegations that will be sworn into the House, only four will have a party balance of power that is different from the 2016 presidential results. Arizona, which voted for Trump, now has a state delegation that is 5-4 Democrat. Iowa, a critical win for Trump, is now 4-1 Democrat. Michigan and Pennsylvania, both of which Trump carried by the narrowest of margins, are tied; 7-7 in Michigan, 9-9 in Pennsylvania.

The consolidation of state by party was significant in the House. In reliably deep Blue states, Republicans were virtually wiped out. In California, the GOP will only have 8 of the 53 seats. Same in New York (21-6) and New Jersey (11-1). A bright spot for the GOP in this mix was in Ohio, where the GOP maintained a 12-4 edge in the state delegation.

The same holds true with senatorial and gubernatorial races. Indiana, Missouri, and North Dakota are consistent Republican states, and that was reflected in the Senate results. Democrat gubernatorial pick ups in Maine, New Mexico, and Nevada, aligned to those states with their presidential votes.

The Trump Effect:

There was a startling correlation between President Trump’s approval rating and the outcome of the midterms. In the next Congress, Republicans received 45 percent of the vote. According to Exit Polls, President Trump’s approval rating nationally on Election Day was 44 percent.

As noted above, Republicans were virtually wiped out in California, New York and NJ.  Trump’s approval in those states was 33, 36, and 41 respectively. The Virginia House delegation was turned upside down with losses to Democrats. Trump’s approval in Virginia was 43 percent.

Senate gains for the GOP were directly tied to Trump’s approval. In Missouri, Indiana, and North Dakota, Trump’s ratings were 53, 55, and 62 respectively. Rick Scott prevailed in Florida where Trump’s approval was 51 percent.  Ted Cruz’ “near death” experience in the Texas Senate race could be attributed to Trump’s 50 percent rating in the Lone Star state. Dean Heller lost in Nevada, where Trump’s rating was 47 percent. The anomalies were in Montana (Approval 50 percent), Arizona (Approval 52 percent), and West Virginia (Approval 63 percent).

2020:

Continued control of the House is not assured for the Democrats in 2020. Democrat leadership will have a 16 seat margin. In addition to causing “Tea Party” type headaches for the new Speaker over the next two years, the narrow winning margins of new Democrat freshman make them most vulnerable in the next cycle. 23 Democrats won by five points or less. 18 of those Democrats won by three points or less. Gains here are offset by Republican vulnerabilities. Seven GOPers won by 3 points or less, making these seats prime targets for the Democrats. Barring a collapse at the national level, control of the House in the next Congress is likely to continue to be close.

In 2020, it is the GOP that will be playing defense in the Senate. 23 Republican seats are up, versus 10 seats for the Democrats. Defending a two or three seat majority, McConnell has five competitive/vulnerable incumbents in Arizona (the McCain seat), Colorado, Iowa, Maine and North Carolina. The two best opportunities for the GOP among the 10 Democrats seats up are in Michigan, where John James could try again, and New Hampshire, where Jeanne Shaheen is up.

New Battleground States?:

On the presidential level, it appears that the dynamics of swing states is changing, based on an analysis of the results of 2016 and 2018.  The perennial swing states of Nevada and Ohio, appear to be aligning by party, with Nevada going Blue and Ohio, Red. The same holds true with Virginia, which was a solid Red state in 2004, before it’s swing state status during the Obama years. It is now reliably Blue, with a Democrat governor, two Democrat senators and a 7-4 Democrat House delegation. Virginia has voted Democrat at the presidential level in three election cycles, outside the margin of error.

Florida, Iowa, Colorado and New Hampshire are still swing states, though the last two seem to be bending more permanently Blue. Surprisingly you can add Georgia and Texas to the list of potential swing states.  Trump won Georgia by only five points. In his losing bid for the presidency, Romney won Georgia by eight points.  Add in the very narrow win in this year’s governor’s race, where turnout almost matched 2016’s and you have the makings of a Democrat opening.

The same is true in Texas. Though predictions of the Long Horn state turning Blue are over hyped, Democrat encroachment is real. Trump barely won Texas with 52 percent of the vote (against Hillary Clinton). In his re-election bid this year, Cruz won with only 51 percent. The GOP has a bubbling problem in Texas that must be addressed before 2020.

The other question is whether the Democrats have repaired the “Blue Wall” in the Upper Midwest and Pennsylvania, losses from which cost Clinton the presidency. It is almost certain that the 2020 Democrat nominee will not make the heinous mistakes of the Clinton campaign in taking Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota for granted, and will redouble efforts on organization and turn out, but will it be enough?

In Minnesota, Pennsylvania and Michigan, Democrat wins at the gubernatorial level were convincing. Wisconsin less so, with Walker losing by a point. However, two of the three seats the GOP picked up in the House were in Minnesota, and as mentioned, John James came closer than anyone expected in challenging Stabenow.

Still, Trump will have work to do. The President’s Exit Poll approval on Election Day was 44 percent in Michigan, 45 percent in Minnesota and Pennsylvania, and 47 percent in Wisconsin.

Conclusion:

Predictions about the possible outcomes in 2020 are comical at this point. But 2016 and 2018 do point to trends that bear watching.

The most pronounced is how static the Trump coalition actually is. In the 2016 Republican primaries, Trump claimed the nomination with only 44 percent of the vote. He claimed the presidency with only 46 percent of the vote. In both cases – delegate selection rules and the Electoral College – provided the margin for victory by winning strategically. Since becoming President, Trump has never had an approval rating above 50 percent, and continues to play exclusively to his base.

Democrat mobilization in 2018 showed that they can grow their coalition and win, even at a time when the US is experiencing economic growth and low unemployment.. The GOP was able to effectively turn out their base, but in many instances it was not enough, or only barely enough. A General Election with this dynamic will have very different results.

That is a troubling harbinger for the GOP in 2020.