The complete idiot's guide to midterm elections
Democrats are on track to not do well in the November elections. People are unhappy about where the country is headed and are downbeat on the economy. Biden has a low approval rating because of it. That and the fact that Democrats have an extremely narrow majority in Congress means the odds are they will likely lose the House and probably the Senate. Things would have to turn around fairly significantly between now and November for that to change.
I have lost count of how many hot takes I have read about why Democrats are poised to lose in November. Almost all of them follow the same pattern: Democrats are struggling because they did things I do not like, if Democrats do things I like then all of their problems will be solved. I will come back to that in a bit, but it is obviously self-serving and also completely false.
The reason for Democrats’ struggles is very simple. It has nothing to do with culture war issues, legislation passed or not passed, the legislative sausage making process, sniping at each other by members of Congress or Democrats elsewhere, etc. It is not even because of school issues, crime or immigration. No, it is because voters are not happy with the economy, particularly inflation. It is important to remember that when economists discuss inflation they are talking about many different things. When regular people talk about it, they are referring to food and gas prices. Both of those are high right now. There are also still disruptions left over from the pandemic, i.e., labor shortages, quarantine rules, mask mandates. Those are letting up and should continue to, but the effects of them will probably still be around in November.
What happens with gas and food prices is anyone’s guess. As long as there is a war in Ukraine, they will probably remain high. The release of oil from the strategic petroleum reserve that Biden announced yesterday may help some, but it probably will not lower gas prices substantially. It is the worst of both worlds for Biden and Democrats because food and gas prices are not their fault, but they are their problem.
That is a downside of being the party in the White House. Anytime people are unhappy you will bear the brunt of it. It is not Biden’s fault that inflation is high even though there is some debate about how much the American Rescue Plan contributed to it. Still, even without it, inflation would be higher than usual (and growth lower), pandemic disruptions still would have happened, Russia still would have invaded Ukraine and supply chain disruptions still would be a problem. That is to say the moment Biden was elected, Democrats were guaranteed to bear the brunt of all those things even though they did not cause them and there is not much they can do about them.
It has always been that way for the party in the White House. Herbert Hoover did not cause the Great Depression, Jimmy Carter did not cause the Iran Hostage Crisis or stagflation, Barack Obama did not cause the financial crisis and Donald Trump did not cause the pandemic. But all of them had to deal with those problems. Obama was re-elected, but the rest were not. Being president has a lot of perks, but can be a thankless job sometimes. Preventing things from being worse does not get you any credit (see the 2009 stimulus), but bad things that happen make everyone mad at you. Biden has been dealt a bad hand, particularly with Russia invading Ukraine. It is not his fault and he has been handling Ukraine well, but the domestic effects of higher gas prices are his problem and Democrats will probably bear the brunt of it even if voters do not blame them for it.
The phenomenon of leaders being blamed for things beyond their control is not unique to the US. Voters in Germany in the 1930s who were upset threw out the Weimar Republic and elected the Nazis. A more recent, and less consequential, example is the Labour Party in the UK. They were last in charge when the financial crisis hit and have been out of power ever since even though they did not cause it.
More sobering is that even if the economy was great, Democrats would still be on track to lose seats. The fact is the economy has very little bearing on midterm elections with respect to how the party in the White House does. Examples of the economy being good or decent and the party in the White House still losing include midterms in 1986, 1994, 2006, 2014 and 2018. It’s not the economy, stupid.
Back to the self-serving hot takes. In the case of 2022, most of them involve saying Democrats should do things like not be woke, oppose defunding the police, not take far-left positions, distance themselves from the furthest left elements in their party, pass legislation, etc. I do not disagree with any of that on substance, but the idea that it will make a difference in November is pure fantasy. The question to ask about those things is will they reduce food and gas prices? If the answer is yes, then let’s keep talking. If the answer is no, then they will not make any difference and that is the ballgame. None of those things will lower food and gas prices and so they will not matter for November even if they will help later on.
Even if they did lower food and gas prices and people were happy about the economy, they would find something else to be unhappy about. In the most recent midterm in 2018, people were happy with the economy. But they were unhappy with Trump and so Republicans lost the House in a rout. In 2006, voters were not unhappy with the economy, but they were unhappy about the push for Social Security privatization, Hurricane Katrine, scandals in DC and the war in Iraq so Republicans lost Congress. Voters in 2014 were not unhappy about the economy, but were unhappy about foreign policy and were just in a crappy mood all around and so Democrats lost the Senate and more seats in the House.
My favorite line in reading hot takes is when the author says that Democrats (it was Republicans in 2018) have to “prove they can govern” to be able to win. I just laugh when I read that because it tells me all I need to know about how knowledgeable the author is. They are screaming at you that they have no clue. Anyone who thinks that is suffering from a severe case of DC brain. DC brain is a very serious disease that almost every pundit is afflicted with. Its defining symptoms include thinking that ordinary voters are paying attention to what happens in Congress, that they follow every single 5 second development, that they pay attention to DC gossip and that they are deeply familiar with how Congress works and the processes involved in legislating. If you see someone showing any of those symptoms, run for your life. DC brain is extremely contagious and has no cure.
Jokes aside, proving you can govern is meaningless. If you define governing as being able to pass legislation, not only does not that not make a difference in midterms, but often results in even bigger losses. In the 1965-66 Congress, Medicare, Medicaid, Head Start and the Voting Rights Act were passed by Democrats and signed by Lyndon Johnson. That was the most legislative action since the New Deal. The result? Republicans gained 47 seats in the House. In 2010, Democrats in Congress passed and Barack Obama signed the ACA, Dodd-Frank and the 2009 stimulus package. It was the most productive Congress since the 1965-66 session. The result? Democrats lost 63 House seats and 6 Senate seats. They would have lost even more Senate seats if Republicans had not nominated lunatics in some key races.
To use one more example, in 1986, on a bipartisan basis, comprehensive tax reform was passed by Congress and signed by Ronald Reagan. It was a Herculean effort and took a year to get done, but it was a true miracle that it happened. No comprehensive tax reform bill has been passed since. The result? Republicans lost 8 Senate seats and the majority with it. Biden has accomplished quite a bit and has gotten it done on a bipartisan basis for the most part. He may still be able to cut a deal with Joe Manchin, too, and get something solid done on energy/climate change. That would be great and will not make a penny’s worth of difference come November.
But, wait a minute! How can Republicans win back Congress if they do not have a message? They have nothing to offer on inflation nor do they have any substantive agenda of any sort that they have spelled out. Surely, there is no way they can win back Congress without telling people what they will do, right? Wrong. The party that is not in the White House does not need any kind of agenda or message. The only thing Republicans have to say about November is, “Biden sucks and we’re not him.” That was the Democrats' “message” in 2018, just substitute the name Trump for Biden. It was the Republicans’ “message” when Obama was president. It almost always works. I wish it was the case that the party not in the White House would have to explain what they want to do to be able to win, but that is not how it works. We have two parties and when one of them struggles the other does well by default. It has always been like that and always will.
The reality for the party in the White House is that midterms almost always work against it and there is almost nothing that can be done about it. People will almost always find something to be mad about. If it is not the economy, then it is something else. The only elections where the party in the White House gained seats in midterms were in 1962, 1998 and 2002. What was going on then? 2002 was right after 9-11 and Bush was still riding high on the huge outpouring of support that he got from it. 1998 saw Clinton with an approval rating in the 60s and Republican overreach on impeachment. Despite slight gains by Democrats, Republicans still kept control of Congress. 1962 was three weeks after the Cuban Missile Crisis. So, that is what it takes for the party in the White House to win a midterm, a major terrorist attack followed by a global war on terror, a very popular president who the opposition party impeaches despite public opinion being steadfastly against it or a nuclear standoff.
I get that it is very disconcerting to read all that. To think that the moment a party gets in the White House, the deck is stacked almost insurmountably against it in the coming midterm is not exactly comforting. Absent a traumatic or highly unusual event, the party in the White House will lose seats no matter what. It is almost a law of nature and completely beyond their control. They could do things that would make their situation worse, but it is hard to make it better and almost impossible to reverse that trend altogether.
That means, in 2022, Democrats will almost certainly lose seats and lose Congress because their majority is so narrow. There is almost nothing they can do about it. I think it would be good if they distanced themselves from the activist wing of the party, but that will only pay dividends later on. Their major problems right now have nothing to do with that. I do think they should try to govern successfully by enacting legislation, but that is because passing legislation is good and will improve people’s lives, not because it will save them in November. A great example of that is the ACA. It did not save Democrats in 2010, but it improved the lives of millions of people. Since the ACA was passed, Democrats have lost Congress and the White House and gained them back. All the while, the ACA was still there and is now here to stay. If Biden can get a deal done with Joe Manchin on climate change, it will do good things and will likely endure no matter who wins the next election.
The best things Democrats could hope for to reverse their fortunes for November are beyond their control. The only major thing they can control is raising money for their incumbents. The rest is out of their hands.
Democrats could catch some lucky breaks. Republicans could nominate lunatics or candidates who are not ready for primetime. Democrats have gotten lucky in that none of their Senate incumbents who are vulnerable are facing top-tier challengers. Still, a not great or bad candidate can win if the national environment is bad enough for the party in the White House. Georgia is a great example of that. Raphael Warnock is a great candidate and Herschel Walker is awful. The only reason the latter can win is because of the bad national environment for Democrats. Anything less than that and Warnock would be the runaway favorite.
One possibility is that the Supreme Court reverses Roe v Wade over the summer. That may be something that helps out Democrats, at least in some races. At a minimum, it would raise the salience of abortion. It is seldom an issue many people vote on, but if Roe v Wade was reversed that number would increase. If nothing else, Democrats would be much better off talking about abortion than gas prices. Abortion may also have the effect of motivating some Democrats to vote who were not going to and convincing voters inclined to vote Republican to reconsider.
So, that is basically it. Democrats have very little control over what happens in November. That is virtually always true for the party in the White House. They can do everything right and picture perfect and still lose seats. The party not in the White House does not have to do anything other than exist. As long as they do not run lunatics in every race, they are almost certain to gain seats. Even if they do run lunatics, if the national environment is bad enough for the party in the White House it may not matter.
Long story short, if you want to do well in a midterm election, there is one simple trick: don’t be the party in the White House. That is it. That is all there is to it. It really is that simple. Forget the hot takes about governing and having a message. Forget the complicated, self-serving formulas pundits come up with for what will determine the outcome. If you want to know which party has a definitive advantage in a midterm election, just ask yourself which party is not in the White House and you will know the answer.