State of the midterms; Trump: often imitated, never duplicated
We are now two months away from the midterm elections. According to 538, Republicans have a roughly 75% chance of winning the House while Democrats have a roughly 66% chance of keeping the Senate as of today. On the generic congressional ballot, Democrats lead Republicans by roughly one point. Biden’s approval rating, while still negative, has improved substantially from its summer lows.
The change in Democrats’ fortunes can probably be attributed to several things. With respect to Biden’s approval rating, the decrease in gas prices is most likely the biggest cause. True, he has had a lot of legislative success recently. While that probably helps some, it is most likely with his base. On top of those things, the overruling of Roe v Wade in June has undoubtedly fired up Democrats and likely many Democratic-leaning and even some Republican-leaning independents.
Since the Dobbs ruling, there have been 5 special elections for House seats and Democrats have overperformed in all of them relative to how Biden did in those districts in 2020. Most notably, Democrats won the House seat in Alaska last week, which hardly anyone expected. All of those special elections have some caveats. They were low turnout affairs, as all special elections are, and so Democrats may have enjoyed a stronger turnout advantage than they will in November. Some of the districts included very liberal college towns that turned out at a very high rate. In the case of Alaska, the Democrat winning had more to do with Sarah Palin being a toxic candidate than anything going on nationally.
Caveats notwithstanding, it is still instructive that Democrats have been doing consistently better in special elections. It is usually the party not in the White House who does better. With respect to Sarah Palin being a toxic candidate, it would be one thing if she was the only problematic Republican candidate running, but that is not at all the case. In many if not most key statewide races this cycle, Republicans have nominated candidates ranging from bad to radioactive.
When it comes to fundraising, Democrats at all levels are doing very well. Republican candidates have been struggling to catch up and have had to rely on Super PACs to come to their aid. Many Republican candidates, even those who are likely to win, have been running lackluster campaigns, which has required Super PACs to spend on their behalf. That is money that could be spent on more competitive races. The New York Times had a great article over the weekend on the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) discussing their dire financial situation. Long story short, the NRSC had raised nearly $180 million over the course of a year as of August, but has spent almost all of it with little to show for their efforts. Maybe putting in charge someone who presided over a major healthcare fraud case was not such a great idea.
When it comes to fundraising disparities, the case of the Arizona Senate race is very illuminating. The Democratic incumbent, Mark Kelly, finished the last quarter with roughly $25 million cash on hand. His opponent, Blake Masters, had a drop over $1 million cash on hand. Because of that disparity, Masters is having to rely heavily on Super PACs to support his campaign, but even that is only going so far. Recently, a Republican Super PAC cancelled several million worth of ads there. Mitch McConnell has begged Peter Thiel, a major donor, to rescue Masters, who he had boosted in the primary, but he has declined to do so.
The Arizona Senate race is one that Republicans should be favored to win. Mark Kelly is a good candidate, but he is facing strong national headwinds. Arizona is also a state that has long favored Republicans. Republicans had plenty of candidates, including the outgoing governor, who could have been strong contenders. Here, Trump is to thank/blame for what has happened. He promoted election deniers very hard in Arizona and did everything he could to stop the outgoing governor from running. Republicans now have a nominee with very little money, likely bad favorability ratings and who is on record advocating for privatizing Social Security and banning abortion nationally.
On the gubernatorial level, the same trend seems to be happening. For example, as of last month, Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan had $14 million cash on hand while her opponent had roughly $500,000. In Pennsylvania, Josh Shapiro, the Democratic candidate, had spent more than $10 million as of last month while his opponent had spent a tiny fraction of that and had barely raised any money. There is plenty of precedent for candidates who were outspent still winning, but I do not think many of them were outspent 20-1.
There is still time for Republican candidates to increase their fundraising and odds are they will do so. Super PACs will still spend on their behalf regardless because the alternative is to forfeit many key races. That will narrow the spending gap some, but Democrats will continue to raise lots of money and have their own Super PACs that will likely be spending plenty as well. While Super PACs can technically spend an unlimited sum, in reality their resources are finite. They also do not get the kind of discounts on advertising that campaigns get. In other words, a Super PAC is nice, but it is no substitute for a campaign.
I really hate it when someone says, “If the election was held today, X, Y and Z would happen.” It annoys me to no end. It is a useless hypothetical and does not prove anything. By definition, the election is not being held “today,” so whatever point whoever says that is trying to make is meaningless.
With that out of the way, if the election was held today, I would think Republicans would win the House while Democrats would keep the Senate. The Republican majority in the House would probably be narrow and not significantly bigger than what Democrats have now. In the Senate, Democrats would likely net one seat or keep their current majority of fifty. For key gubernatorial races, I would expect Democrats to keep the governors’ mansions in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Maine, New Mexico and probably Wisconsin. Arizona, Kansas, Oregon and Nevada could go either way.
None of that matters because the election is not being held today. While Democrats’ fortunes have improved substantially since the early summer, they are not out of the woods by any means. The party in the White House almost always loses seats in midterms. Gas prices have come down and hopefully will keep going down, but if they surge again it will be Democrats who suffer. Biden’s approval rating is still not good and that will have a negative effect for Democrats if it is still where it is today in November, let alone worse. Despite Republicans nominating bad candidates, if the national environment is bad enough, they can still win.
There is also the problem of polls being wrong. That has been a problem in several of the last election cycles, most notably in 2020. It would be one thing if polling errors were random, but they have overestimated Democrats far more than Republicans during the last few election cycles. One caveat to the problem of polling errors is that they tend to be primarily concentrated in the midwestern states. In contrast to polling in some midwestern states last election, polling in Georgia in 2020 and 2021 was spot on. Polling errors have also been greatest when Trump* is on the ballot, which he will not be this year. That does not mean polling errors have gone away though and I am not nearly as confident in polls as I was two years ago.
The good news for Democrats is abortion is clearly a strong motivator for them and that will still be true in November. Some states may have abortion initiatives on the ballot, which should help drive up turnout and maybe affect statewide and other downballot races. Abortion not only motivates Democrats, but by raising the salience of the issue, Dobbs may have changed the calculus of some swing voters. There are likely many such voters out there who were inclined to vote Republican because of the economy or some other issue, but now with abortion being front and center are having second thoughts.
There is only one Trump
A major problem that Republicans have run into this cycle, which is entirely of their own making, is that they have nominated a slew of very bad candidates. Many of them seem to combine the worst of both worlds when it comes to Trump. They are trying their best to act like him, but they do not have his appeal.
For all his toxicity, Trump had some strong electoral appeal. He has a certain kind of charisma and while his behavior turns off many people, by presenting himself as an enemy of elites he gained many followers. His attitude of not caring what anyone thinks and not caring about offending anyone resonates with a significant number of people even if they do not like some of the particulars.
There is also another aspect of his appeal that almost nobody notices. Trump, on policy, was a comparatively moderate Republican. He disavowed previous Republican efforts to cut Medicare and Social Security. He denounced trade deals and promoted industrial policy, especially bringing back manufacturing jobs. On rhetoric, he spoke about jobs and fighting for workers, not business owners and founders. That is what enabled him to win support in many areas that had long voted for Democrats.
Maybe I have not looked hard enough, but I do not see any Republican candidates in key races disavowing any of the party’s most unpopular positions. For example, there are candidates running who advocate for privatizing Social Security and for banning abortion nationally with no exceptions. On top of that, many if not most of the Republican candidates running in key races deny that Trump lost the 2020 election. They are essentially combining Trump’s personality with Paul Ryan’s agenda.
Trump is also in a league of his own when it comes to his ability to get press coverage. Before he ran in 2016, his name recognition was already very high. He had been on TV before and knew how to manipulate it for maximum attention. He also had the advantage of running for president, which gets national attention, unlike races for other offices. In 2016, he gained so much free press coverage he did not even need to raise much money. The Republican candidates running this cycle do not have those luxuries. While a few Republican candidates have TV experience and some name recognition, most do not. Even the ones with name recognition are having serious authenticity issues, i.e., Dr. Oz. A candidate for any office who is known by very few (or is known but disliked), cannot generate constant press coverage, lacks the money to get their message out and alienates a whole swath of voters with their behavior is going to find themselves in a deep hole.
Another thing that makes Trump’s appeal so unique is that he was the first candidate to act the way he does. His behavior was awful in every way, but it certainly stood out and got him attention. He also was authentic. By that, I do not mean he was honest. What I mean is that the way he acts is who he really is. He lies like it is oxygen, lacks a conscience, is cruel, petty, narcissistic and has the maturity of a preschooler. But you are getting the real deal with him. He is not faking much of anything.
Because he was the only one acting that way, it was novel and nobody had seen anything like it before. If everyone had acted that way, nobody would have cared that he was doing it. There are others out there who try to imitate him and claim to be just like him, but that is not possible. Someone trying to imitate him is just that, an imitator, and is usually very bad at it.
That is why, as much as I think Trump is a threat and should not be anywhere near the White House again, I am not worried about Trumpism becoming a lasting phenomenon. Trumpism at its core is a personality cult. It is not about ideas or policies. It is about one man and his grievances. When Trump goes away, it will go away with him.
To be sure, that does not mean everything will be wonderful and great. There will still be people spreading lies and conspiracy theories and acting horribly. There will continue to be candidates who try to act like Trump. None of those people though will have his appeal and most of them will probably wind-up flopping either in the primary or the general election.
Trump has made things worse in almost every way. What he did not do is create anything new. He took advantage of forces that were already out there and brought them out into the open. That is something only he can do. Nobody else has the name recognition that he does nor do they have the ability to command non-stop press attention. Nobody else has anywhere near the fervent following that he does. Plenty of other people will try to do those things, but they will be unlikely to succeed.
Going forward, if other candidates for president try to act like Trump, they will probably be seen as fake and calculating. It is possible that Republicans could find the candidate who manages to thread the needle and keep the voters Trump brought in while not alienating the voters he drove away. It is just as possible, if not more likely, they could wind up with the worst of both worlds and still alienate the voters he turned off while losing some of the voters he brought in. A candidate who tries to act like Trump, but lacks his appeal will probably wind up doing the latter.
*Another example of how polling tends to go wrong when Trump is on the ballot, but can be good otherwise is Wisconsin. In 2020, the polls in Wisconsin were horrible. Biden was ahead by nearly 7 points and wound up winning by less than 1. In the Senate race in 2018, polls were outstanding. Tammy Baldwin was ahead by nearly 11 points and that is exactly how much she won by. I do not know how accurate polls there will be this year, but it just goes to show that they can be accurate and are not (yet) broken beyond repair.