What If…?

At RealClearPolitics Sean Trende rains a little on the Democrats’ parade. Comparing the Democrats’ situation now to that in 2006, when they successfully recaptured the House while a Republican sat in the White House, he writes:

By the summer of 2006, the Republicans were in dire shape. George W. Bush’s job approval sat at 36.4 percent; it improved to 39 percent by Election Day. Over the course of the month of May, the Democrats’ lead in the generic ballot was 11.4 percentage points, and was around 15 points for much of October before closing to around 10. The results were awful for Republicans. They lost 30 seats, including ones that no one had believed were vulnerable at the beginning of the year. They also lost control of the Senate.

So why might this model not be enough for Democrats? There are three reasons. First, at least for now, Republicans are polling considerably better than they were in 2006. As of today, President Trump’s job approval sits at 44 percent in the RCP poll average – nearly eight points higher than Bush’s – while the Democrats’ lead on the generic ballot is in the mid-single digits. This suggests that despite the similarities, Republicans tend to be performing at least somewhat better.

Second, 2006 can’t be analyzed without acknowledging that it involved a number of fluke-ish victories for Democrats. These include: Tom DeLay (resigned under scandal, Republicans were unable to place a different name on the ballot); Bob Ney (convicted in a coin-trading scheme shortly before the election); Don Sherwood (accused of choking his mistress); Mark Foley (accused of having sexual relationships with pages); Sue Kelly (caught on camera running into the shrubs to avoid questions about Foley); and John Sweeney (accusations of domestic battery arising shortly before the election). There were also a number of semi-flukes, such as Curt Weldon having his congressional office raided by the FBI before the election, or Richard Pombo, who was caught up in the Jack Abramoff scandal. Regardless, if one doesn’t count the six “clear” flukes, the Democrats’ actual gain was 24 seats, which would barely be enough for them to win the House today.

Finally, there is the issue of exposure. Put simply, if a party enters an unfavorable election environment holding a large number of seats that are dispositionally inclined toward the other party, they will probably suffer worse losses. This is why Bill Clinton’s and Barack Obama’s job approval ratings – which were in the mid-40s over the summers of 1994 and 2010, when their parties lost 54 and 63 seats, respectively – don’t provide the best guidance.

Unmentioned: presently the trends are all moving in the opposite direction they were in 2006. GDP was starting to rise more slowly, we were taking substantial casualties in Iraq. Not only was President Bush’s approval rating on election day lower than President Trump’s today, Trump’s approval rating is slowly rising. Although it may seem incredible to those whose opinions are formed by the continuous loop of anti-Trumpism dispensed by so many media outlets, it is quite possible that the Republicans may hold the House. We don’t elect representatives at large.

Mr. Trende doesn’t speculate on the likely political outcome should that eventuality happen but I will. If the Republicans hold the House, the volume and intensity of the complaints from the most virulently anti-Trumpers will increase. Ironically, that may actually strengthen Mr. Trump’s hand in 2020.

My view of the Democrats’ best strategy continues to be that they should support House candidates most likely to win and best able to represent the districts they’re running in regardless of how their views fit in with the emerging national ideology of the party. I trust they’ll ignore that advice.