The three kinds of midterm campaigns
Parties are either trying to consolidate control in a friendly state, engaging in a fair fight on neutral ground, or trying to pick off a seat in enemy territory.
It’s been about 40 years since then-House Speaker Tip O’Neill popularized the line that “all politics is local.” O’Neill passed away on Jan. 5, 1994, 10 months and three days before his Democratic Party’s 40-year run holding a majority in the House ended, and seven years and three days after O’Neill had retired from Congress.
With apologies to O’Neill, there is little reason to believe that the November election will be anything but a referendum on President Trump. With the first anniversary of Trump’s second inauguration arriving Tuesday, we’ve seen a flurry of new polls in recent days. Trump’s job-approval averages sit at 42 percent in both The New York Times and the Silver Bulletin averages. The RealClearPolitics average has him 1 point higher, at 43 percent.
While things in politics can certainly change, rarely are there major directional shifts during the year of a midterm election; it’s more about degree than direction.
In the Pew Research Center’s validated-voters survey from the 2024 election, 95 percent of self-identified Democrats voted for then-Vice President Kamala Harris, precisely the same as the 95 percent of self-identified Republicans who voted for Donald Trump.The numbers among independents who, when pressed, said they leaned more to one of the two major parties were almost as high: 91 percent of Democratic-leaners voted for Harris, and 87 percent of Republican-leaners cast their ballots for Trump.
Pew’s validated-voters survey of 2022 midterm voters showed even higher levels of partisan voting: 98 percent of Democrats and 97 percent of Republicans cast their ballots for their own party’s nominees for Congress. In the midterm four years earlier, 91 percent of Democratic-leaners voted for their side for Congress, and 88 percent of GOP-leaners voted Republican for the House. Never have voters been as locked in with their respective parties as they are today.
In six national polls released over the last week, Trump’s approval rating among Democrats averaged 4 percent (94 percent disapprove); among independents, 30 percent (64 percent disapprove); and among Republicans, 88 percent (11 percent disapprove).
That translates to hurricane-force headwinds facing the few Republicans in competitive races in blue states and districts, like the Senate races in Maine, Minnesota, and to a lesser extent, New Hampshire. The winds remain plenty stiff in the faces of GOP candidates in purple states and districts, such as Georgia, Michigan, and North Carolina. But those winds reverse in red states and districts; GOP candidates benefit from at least a modest breeze at their backs in Alaska, Iowa, Ohio, and Texas.
When parties are trying to take seats away from the opposite party, the difficulty of that challenge obviously depends upon the partisan tilt, if there is one, of that state.
Every Senate and House election can be put into one of three categories. The first is a consolidation attempt, to purge the opposition in one of your own states or districts—a Democrat trying to beat a Republican in a blue area, or a Republican trying to beat a Democrat in a red state or district. The second is a fair-fight race, taking place in a purple state or district. The third is a pickoff—a Republican attempting to upset a Democrat in a blue state or district, or a Democrat trying to win a seat in a red state or district. Obviously, a consolidation is the least difficult, pulling off an upset in the other party’s territory is the most difficult, and a fair-fight race in a purple state or district is somewhere in between.
In the House, Trump’s radioactivity in swing districts makes a Democratic takeover a very high probability. I’d put it at 75 percent. But the solidarity among Republican voters likely contains the losses the party might otherwise suffer. It is unlikely that GOP losses will exceed the 26 seats that is the post-World War II average for the party in the White House.
The Senate is more interesting. Recent turnovers in that chamber have been either consolidation wins—a seat that was basically in enemy territory—or fair-fight races. Too many voters are locked in for Republicans to capture a blue seat or Democrats a red seat; thus turnovers are consolidation or fair-fight situations.
Over the last five election cycles, Republicans have unseated eight Democratic senators. Three of those wins came in 2024: against Sherrod Brown in Ohio and Jon Tester in Montana, both red states; and against one in a purple state, Pennsylvania’s Bob Casey. In 2020, they unseated Doug Jones in Alabama, a very red state. In 2018, four Democrats lost reelection, all in red states: Heidi Heitkamp in North Dakota, Claire McCaskill in Missouri, Joe Donnelly in Indiana, and Bill Nelson in Florida. Notice that Republicans did not beat any Democratic incumbents in blue states.
Conversely, during the same five elections, Democrats defeated seven Republican senators. In 2016 Democrats defeated Mark Kirk in the blue state of Illinois and Kelly Ayotte in (relatively) blue New Hampshire; in 2018 they beat Dean Heller in Nevada; and in 2020 they unseated David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler in purple Georgia, Martha McSally in purple Arizona, and Cory Gardner in blue Colorado. Democrats did not beat any Republicans in red states.
That argues for the battlefield being much narrower than Democrats wish, as they defend Sen. Jon Ossoff in Georgia and the open seat in Michigan, while Republicans try to lift Sen. Susan Collins to a sixth term in blue Maine and defend the open seat in purple North Carolina.
The one state that keeps bugging me is New Hampshire, whether it is the least blue of the blue states or actually the eighth purple state. The Granite State is almost certainly a contest between Democratic Rep. Chris Pappas and former Republican Sen. John Sununu. I don’t give former Sen. Scott Brown, who represented Massachusetts, any real shot at the GOP nomination against Sununu.
This all works against Republicans having much of a shot in Minnesota, even though it is an open seat. But it also works against Democrats trying to knock off Sen. Dan Sullivan in Alaska or Sen. Jon Husted in Ohio, or making a real play for the open seat in Iowa.
As for Texas, there is a reason why the national GOP is trying to move heaven and earth for Sen. John Cornyn; they see him as a lock, and they see his GOP primary challengers, Attorney General Ken Paxton and Rep. Wesley Hunt, as risks. If Paxton wins the nomination, my theory will be put to the test, but I certainly see why the Republican Senate leadership does not want to take the risk.