The midterm election of 2018 features several battlefronts. Normally, these fronts work together. In fact, if Hillary Clinton won the 2016 presidential race, we would not be having these debates.
History vs Structure
On one hand, history dictates that the President’s Party loses seats in a midterm election. There are rare exceptions to this trend but it is important to highlight that lost seats don’t always necessarily equate to lost chambers. The 1966 midterm election held in Lyndon Johnson’s presidency resulted in a 47-seat loss for Democrats but they retained the chamber. The 2010 election held in Obama’s first term resulted in a six-seat loss for Democrats but they still retained the Senate.
On the other hand, you have structure. Congressional and statehouse districts have been heavily gerrymandered, making Democratic victories extremely difficult to achieve. Look at Virginia’s House of Delegates race. In 2017, they won almost 54% of the generic statewide House ballot, which is as good as Democrats can ever get in the state. Yet they haven’t regained control of the House of Delegates. And I argued in a previous article that this is a bad omen for Democrats looking to retake the House.
Still on the issue of structure is the Senators standing for re-election. Twenty-six Democrats (including two independents who caucus with them) are on the ballot. That’s more than half the entire Democratic caucus. Some analysts note that the imbalance is unusually high in Democrats’ favour. But that’s not the kicker. Ten of those 26 happen to represent states that voted for Trump in 2016; he won some of those states by at least 20 points. Fivethirtyeight has argued that straight-ticket voting has become more prevalent. In other words, I don’t think the lopsided number of Democratic Senators per se is the problem, but the fact that a lot of them represents states he won. If Fivethirtyeight’s observation of straight-ticket voting continues to hold, we may be seeing a filibuster-proof Republican Senate majority in December.
Thus, the tension between history (i.e. president’s party losing seats), which tends to favour Democrats, and structure (i.e. gerrymandering, increased prevalence of straight-ticket voting), which tends to favour Republicans.
Incumbent Democrats vs Incumbent Republicans
Related to the history vs structure front is which incumbent will prevail. You will hear a lot of analysts say that it is premature to say a 20+-point swing in the special election to Democrats will mean outright victory. And that’s because in these special elections, there are no incumbents standing. November’s elections will be different: incumbency almost always serves as a headwind for the challengers. If you noticed the two-tier primary in California last Tuesday, particularly around Orange County, Democrats collectively scored over 50% in only one Orange County-district: the one that Daryl Issa is vacating. Most of the others will have incumbents (seePatrick Ruffini’s tweet below). California is arguably the heart of ‘resistance country’. If Democrats can’t oust incumbents in ‘friendly’ territory, what more when it comes to not-so friendly states?
Cumulative GOP percentage in California battlegrounds:
CA-10 52%
CA-21 63%
CA-25 53%
CA-39 54%
CA-45 53%
CA-48 53%
CA-49 48%No lockout, but these numbers can’t make the @dccc happy.
— Patrick Ruffini (@PatrickRuffini) 6 June 2018
On the other hand, the media is talking as if the Senate Democrats representing states Trump won do not have the same incumbency advantage as House Republicans. Historically, it is pretty rare for incumbent Senators who are not of the president’s party to lose seats. Then again, as I mentioned in my first point, polarisation and straight-ticket voting tendencies are what is different about then and now, and they’re making me think that Democrats indeed don’t have the incumbency advantage to cling on to.
Old vs Educated Voters
Midterm voters tend to feature an older and more educated electorate. In the past, both used to favour Republicans in such an environment. However, the 2016 election has shown an erosion of support for the Republican Party among university-educated voters, especially women. The latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll shows Trump and Republicans underwater with college-educated whites by double digits; Quinnipiac University’s poll shows Republicans trailing by just four, but still worse than where they historically have been. Older voters though continue to support Republicans more than younger voters though.
This will be an interesting tension to watch.
Approval Rating vs Economic Numbers
The latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll reports 53% disapprove of Trump’s performance and 44% approve of it. For sure, this is an improvement of five points from the previous poll but it is still historically under water. Presidents Reagan and Obama had similar approval numbers at this point in their presidency (1982 and 2010, respectively) and as a result, faced massive losses during their respective upcoming midterms.
However, the economic picture is rosier. The economy continues to add hundreds of thousands of jobs each month. If the economy improves under Republicans, it normally helps them.
My thought on this is that there usually is a delay in translating good economic news into political fortunes. Six in ten voters think the economy is doing quite well and more voters give Trump good marks on the economy. These numbers, and Trump’s approval rating were slightly lower months ago but in the NBC News/WSJ poll and other polls, voters are giving Trump more credit.
These are just some of the advantages. All-in-all, I think Trump and the Republicans have one advantage: time. They still have five months to build on the progress. Anything can happen. It is still a fluid situation.
My Politics and More 