Unless you’re politically tone-deaf, you’re by now aware that there are ugly storm clouds ahead for Republicans in this midterm election, now just 43 days away. But how big the storm is and where the destruction will take place is still unknowable. While many have long predicted that Democrats will enjoy a “blue wave” election, I think of it more as a “red undertow,” which will pull many Republicans under and significantly trim the margins for many others.
A blue wave implies an endorsement or affirmation of Democrats and their policies. But Democrats’ brand is still in tatters from 2021-2025, particularly 2021 and 2022, when they not only had President Biden in the White House but also majorities in the Senate and House. Fortunately for Democrats, this election will in most cases not be about them.
It will, of course, be mostly about the occupant of the White House. Over the last 90 days, President Trump’s political standing has transitioned from very unpopular to toxic and now to radioactive. Yet, because of the MAGA contingent that remains loyal to Trump, many GOP candidates are reticent to put much distance between themselves and their party leader, even as the war with Iran has triggered spikes in the prices of gasoline, diesel fuel, and fertilizer, and soon, heating oil in the northern states. Tariffs and trade wars in general have driven up the cost of living, the very set of issues that cost Democrats their House majority in 2022 and the Senate and presidency in 2024; ownership of that issue has conveyed to the GOP. More broadly, Trump seems to be prioritizing redecorating the White House, renovating monuments in Washington, renaming things after himself, and starting a new round of fights with the White House press corps.
Do disaffected Republican voters stay home, or do they choose to send Republicans a message to get Trump’s attention? History over the last 40 years has seen very few partisans on either side stray and actually vote for the opposition-party candidate. But they may stay home, while independents vote overwhelmingly to change the course.
Let me offer a couple of words of caution as you parse information about the elections for the next six weeks. First off, we’re seeing a glut of sloppy, poorly designed, and badly administered polls that are more worthy of lining hamster cages than offering clues about public opinion. I see dozens of these polls every single day, and get asked about them as if they were the findings of a legitimate survey-research firm with a record of quality results. The internet magnifies the problem, as do political fundraising pitches via email and text to potential donors, urging them to “kick in” just a little more money to save or pick off a seat. Many of these flawed polls are polluting the poll averages and affecting how those races are perceived.
Second, be careful about reading too much into the generic congressional ballot test, which asks voters their preference for a Democrat or Republican for Congress. There are few if any journalists who, over my 40 years of political analysis, have cited the generic ballot question more than I have, and it is still something that I keep an eye on. But I am watching and writing about it less than in the past because the share of congressional districts that are actually competitive, or even potentially competitive, has shrunk.
Those that remain are hardly representative of the country as a whole or of the universe of all of those interviewed in a national or even statewide survey. The latest ratings by The Cook Political Report with Amy Walter, Inside Elections with Nathan Gonzales, and Sabato’s Crystal Ball show, respectively, just 37, 46, and 43 competitive House races today (toss-up, lean or tilt Democrat, lean or tilt Republican), roughly a tenth of the House. Even if we widen the aperture to include the likely-Democrat and likely-Republican columns, the numbers are 70, 71, and 80, fewer than a fifth of all of the seats.
Consider that this year, the competitive and potentially competitive columns contain far redder, Republican-leaning seats than those that tilt Democratic, meaning they are hardly a cross-section of the country and thus not effectively measured by the generic ballot test. Over-reliance on this question, particularly in quantitative models, is a significant shortcoming. The pool of districts and states that will determine control of Congress does not look like the country as a whole.
It’s a strange situation indeed for the Democratic Party to be competitive in Republican bastions like Alaska, Iowa, Kansas, Ohio, and Texas, while they worry about races in blue states like Maine, New Hampshire, and Minnesota, and purple Michigan.
While former Rep. Mike Rogers is a solid Republican nominee in Michigan, if Rep. Haley Stevens or state Sen. Mallory McMorrow had won the nomination, Democrats would be strong favorites to win. But nominee Abdul El-Sayed is struggling and may come up short.
In Maine, had Democrats not gone all in on their fling with Graham Platner and ended up with third-place gubernatorial finisher Troy Jackson, their nominee likely would have been Gov. Janet Mills, who would be the favorite.
El-Sayed and Jackson might hang on, but I have my doubts. The same could be said for Minnesota Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan, who is a little far away from the center in that light-blue state; signs suggest she is encountering more resistance than a more-centrist Democrat would. New Hampshire is different; it is not that Rep. Chris Pappas, the Democratic nominee, is flawed; it’s just that people in the Granite State know that a Sununu, in this case former Sen. John E. Sununu, is not a Trump; it’s harder to pin that Trump label to him than it would be to pin it on another Republican.
The bottom line is that when Trump is the focal point in a race, Republicans underperform; when Democrats nominate candidates vulnerable to becoming the focus themselves, it diminishes the negative Trump effect on the GOP candidate