Is Trump a Secret Asset of the DSCC?

Our most recent book is The Comeback: The 2024 Elections and American Politics. 

War and economic woes will hurt the GOP in November.  The only question is how much.

Jonathan Martin at POLITICO:

As the traditional start of the campaign season draws near, though, Republicans are increasingly worried they may be consumed by a worsening prairie fire.

“He’s in serious trouble in farm country,” Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) told me. “He being Trump — and Trump is us. I’m not very optimistic.”

The triple-whammy of tariffs, expensive diesel and fertilizer and now imported beef has created a crisis for agriculture-state Republicans.

...

The culprits are obvious: the exorbitant cost of living, Trump’s deep unpopularity with the political center and the massive enthusiasm gap Democrats enjoy over Republicans.

The fear, GOP officials tell me, is that these sentiments are increasingly becoming locked in with voters; that the grim political environment — caused by spiking gas prices after the ceasefire with Iran collapsed last month — is close to irreversible. Or to borrow from Haley Barbour, that sage of Mississippi: In politics, good gets better and bad gets worse.

For months, the shorthand conversation among political professionals has not been if this will be a difficult election for Republicans but whether it will be 2018 or 2006.

Which is to say: Will 2026 bring a backlash against the party in power, but one largely confined to House losses because of polarization, limiting Democratic strength in Senate races? Or will there be a greater wave that grows high enough to sweep out Republicans thought to be safe, flipping both chambers of Congress in the process?

Once Iran hostilities restarted and it became clear that there would be no Supreme Court vacancy, as there crucially was in 2018, the answer became clear. Republicans would not be able to get off defense and lacked the court fight that would hand them their best opportunity to go on offense.

 WSJ editorial: 

The November midterm elections will be in part a referendum on President Trump’s border taxes, and most polls show them losing. A new poll by Overton Insights and the Texas Public Policy Foundation finds that tariffs are unpopular in the Lone Star State, especially among Hispanics. Houston, Republicans have a tariff problem.

The survey, which was shared with us exclusively and will be released next Wednesday, shows that Texans overall disapprove of his tariffs, 54% to 46%. Texans who didn’t vote in a party primary—generally independents and folks who are less partisan—disapproved of them, 68% to 32%. Hispanics gave them the thumbs down, 69% to 31%.


The latter is especially notable because Mr. Trump won 55% of the state’s Hispanic vote in 2024, no doubt in part owing to frustration with Democrats’ handling of inflation. But Hispanics also strongly oppose the President’s blunderbuss border taxes targeting trade partners like Mexico and Canada, which raise costs for consumers and businesses.

The Texas economy is heavily exposed to tariffs because of its cross-border trade and integrated supply chains with Mexico. Texas traded $303 billion in goods with Mexico and overall exported $299 billion of manufactured products in 2025. The latter include electronics and computers ($71 billion), chemicals ($55 billion) and transportation equipment ($29 billion).

Because Texas is the largest state exporter of goods, it suffers a bigger brunt from retaliatory tariffs, such as those that Canada plans to levy on the U.S. in response to Mr. Trump’s tariff escalation. In case he hasn’t noticed, the tariffs have become an albatross for Republicans in close races across the country, including Texas.

Midsummer Intensity

Our most recent book is The Comeback: The 2024 Elections and American Politics. It includes a chapter on congressional and state elections.  

An Ipsos/WP poll shows Democrats with only a slight lead in the congressional generic ballot.

Chris Stirewalt at The Hill:

There is a lot of evidence to support the idea that both parties are unpopular, as that Ipsos/Washington Post poll affirms. And that’s what you’d expect in a nation in which voters increasingly see themselves as independents.

Still, the problem for the GOP is that Democrats and Democratic leaners who loathe their own party are still fired up to vote against Republicans.

Democrats in the Post poll enjoy a 10-point advantage over Republicans on voter enthusiasm, 8 points more than in 2018, when Democrats romped. “And more than 7 in 10 Democrats say it is ‘more important’ to vote in 2026 than in previous midterm elections,” says the Post, “compared with just over half of Republicans.”

Now think back to that tied generic ballot of July 2010. The same poll that boosted morale at the Obama White House showed Republicans with a double-digit lead on voter enthusiasm.

And it goes on from there. In July 2014, Democrats were actually ahead in generic congressional ballot polls, but the enthusiasm edge at the time belonged squarely to Republicans.

The polls in July 2018 turned out to be very predictive of the 8-point stomping Democrats delivered in House votes nationally on their way to the best midterm for their party since the Watergate washout of 1974. No surprise that they had the edge on enthusiasm, too.

Four years later, summertime polls in 2022 started cropping up in July showing Democrats actually in the lead on the generic ballot. And, yet again, the party in power started talking seriously about holding the House. And while the Republicans failed to deliver on their own overhyped promises of a red wave, the ripple was enough to take back the House.

The best evidence for the GOP’s fizzle wasn’t in the generic ballot but, again, in the measurement of enthusiasm. After the Supreme Court’s decision overturning Roe v. Wade, Democrats rallied and closed the gap with Republicans. They might not have been willing to come out to boost a faltering Joe Biden, but Democrats were absolutely willing to come vote against Republicans.

Just more than 100 days before the elections, can Republicans replicate a similar enthusiasm booster for a base dispirited by high prices, the Iran war, very swampy behavior in Washington and a president who’s still trying to settle old scores?

Whenever incumbent parties are losing, they say they want a “choice not a referendum.” That’s what Republicans are saying this time with their “hate election” business. The problem for that plan is that a lot of Democrats already hate their own party, but they definitely hate Trump more.

The Iran War is getting worse, and oil prices are rising again.  The economic outlook might brighten this fall, but for GOP fortunes, any improvement will be too little, too late.  Perceptions bake in by Labor Day.

Outsiderism 2024

Our latest book is titled Divided We Stand: The 2020 Elections and American Politics.  The 2024 race has begun.

Theodoric Meyer and Leigh Ann Caldwell at WP:

Five Senate Republican challengers have never held public office. In four of those states — Wisconsin, Ohio, Montana and Pennsylvania — the Democratic incumbents have served in public office for more than two decades. (The fifth state is Nevada, but Sen. Jacky Rosen is a relative newcomer to politics who is running for her second Senate term.)

Republicans bet this is an election in which voters will gravitate toward outsider candidates as congressional approval ratings have hovered at 15 percent for the past six months, according to Gallup.

“Voters are sick of do-nothing career politicians. That is going to be a real problem for these Democrat Senators who have been sitting in office for decades,” National Republican Senatorial Committee spokesman Mike Berg said.
...

The career politician attack has been used time and time again with mixed results — because of the strength of candidates and the mood of the electorate.

In 2018, the first election under President Donald Trump, annoyed voters kicked out incumbents. Nine percent of House incumbents lost, all of them Republicans except for two Democrats who lost their primaries, handing Democrats the majority. It was the third-lowest reelection rate of House members since 1994, according to OpenSecrets.

Indiana Republican Mike Braun sensed the mood in 2018. In his primary, the first-time candidate used the political outsider theme, catapulting him from behind to beat his challengers, Reps. Todd Rokita and Luke Messer (remember cardboard cutouts?). He went on to defeat Sen. Joe Donnelly (D) in the red state. (Donnelly voting not to confirm Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh also played a major role in his loss.)

It was less effective in 2022

But in the last election, in 2022, voters wanted little change despite a sour mood on the economy, Republican lobbyist and political consultant Bruce Mehlman wrote in a memo after the midterms, calling it the “least change-y change election since 2002.” Every Senate incumbent won reelection, and 94.5 percent of House incumbents won.

It’s too early to tell whether this year will be a change election. One big unknown is the how the top of the ticket — the candidates for president — will play into the career politician critique.

Biden was first elected to the Senate nearly 52 years ago. Trump bills himself as an outsider but is a former president. Both men are unpopular.

Flipped Districts

In Defying the Odds, we discuss state and congressional elections as well as the presidential race.   Our next book, title TBA, discusses the 2020 results.

Louis Jacobson at PolitiFact:

• Of 43 U.S. House seats that flipped from Republican to Democratic control in the 2018 midterms, 14 flipped back to GOP control in 2020, while 29 remained in Democratic hands.

• Though data is not yet complete, there are signs that these districts’ House vote in 2020 mostly mirrored their vote for president.

• Among these seats, Democrats were generally more successful in holding districts that were more affluent, better educated, and largely suburban and urban.

Battle for the House, August 2020

In Defying the Odds, we discuss state and congressional elections as well as the presidential race.

Nathan Gonzelez at Roll Call:

More than a decade ago, Democrats followed up a historic set of 2006 election results with more gains two years later. They’re poised to do the same thing this fall.

After losing a net of 40 seats and the House majority in 2018, Republicans convinced themselves that things couldn’t get any worse. But with less than three months to go before the elections, President Donald Trump has yet to regain his footing and Republicans are likely to sink deeper into the House minority.

As the current Congress convened, Republicans looking toward 2020 expected the parts of their base who sat out the midterms to surge back in districts Trump won in 2016 and turn Democrats in the class of 2018 into asterisks. But the cudgels they thought would rally voters to their side — Socialism! Impeachment! — did not have the power they expected them to have. Moderate voters have soured on the president’s response to the coronavirus and race-related issues. And new Democrats also proved to be extremely adept at fundraising, keeping voters awakened by Trump’s victory in 2016 engaged and willing to put their own money behind the Democratic majority.

Now, not only is the House majority all but completely out of reach for the GOP this fall, but several initial takeover targets are dropping completely off the list of competitive races, including Lauren Underwood of Illinois and Elissa Slotkin and Haley Stevens of Michigan.

A number of GOP pols are proving to be problematic for the party brand.

Melanie Zanona and Ally Mutnick at Politico:

House GOP leaders raced to disavow a Republican congressional candidate who made racist Facebook videos and embraced the QAnon conspiracy theory. But less than two months later, the party has done little to block Marjorie Taylor Greene from winning a seat in the House.

Now, Republicans could be days away from adding their most controversial member yet to the conference in a runoff election in Georgia on Tuesday — a scenario that some lawmakers say should have been entirely avoided.

Of the top three GOP leaders in the House, only House Minority Whip Steve Scalise of Louisiana has helped Greene’s opponent, neurosurgeon John Cowan, raise money and contributed to his campaign. Outside groups have not made any significant investments in the primary runoff for the solidly red seat, despite pleas from rank-and-file Republicans. And there hasn’t been a tweet from President Donald Trump that could signal to his supporters that they should oppose her.

POLITICO reported in June that Greene had posted hours of Facebook videos in which made a trove of racist, Islamophobic and anti-Semitic comments — including an assertion that Black people “are held slaves to the Democratic Party,” and that George Soros, a Jewish Democratic megadonor, is a Nazi.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy said in June — through his spokesman, Drew Florio — that he found those comments “appalling,” and he had “no tolerance for them.” But Florio said last week that McCarthy is remaining neutral and letting the primary process play out — a stance that likely does not signal urgency to donors or outside groups.

“This is the kind of race and kind of situation where you need those groups,” said Rep. Buddy Carter (R-Ga.), who is actively supporting Cowan. “So often, they only get involved when they have someone that they are trying to get in. But I think it’s just as important they get involved when there’s someone they’re trying to get out.”

Steve Harrison at NPR:

With another round of mapmaking on the line, there are battles this year for statehouse control in places such as Wisconsin and Florida — and in surprising states like Kansas, where Democrats are trying to break a Republican supermajority in the legislature. Texas is also a target, as Democrats hope to win a House majority.

And then there is one of the biggest prizes: North Carolina.

The state is expected to get at least one new seat in Congress. The party that controls the North Carolina General Assembly will draw that map.

...

Republicans in North Carolina seized power in the state legislature in 2010, after Democrats had controlled both chambers for most of the last century.

The GOP then drew new gerrymandered maps, both for state legislative seats and the state's 13 congressional districts.

...
 "I was in the Christmas parade in [the nearby town of] Pleasant Garden," recalled Nicole Quick, a Democrat running for a state House seat there. "You're riding through downtown Pleasant Garden in this parade. There are a lot of Trump signs. There are a lot of NRA hats, all of that."

...

The organizations are spending millions of dollars on races like Quick's around the United States. Future Now has spent more than $100,000 in North Carolina. The NDRC has spent more than $420,000 so far in the state.

Trump v. Obamacare, Continued

In Defying the Odds, we discuss the health care issue in the 2016 campaign.  the 2019 update includes a chapter on the 2018 midterms.

James Hohmann at WP:

President Trump insists on the campaign trail that he wants to protect insurance coverage for people with preexisting conditions. His legal team just told the Supreme Court otherwise.

http://www.epicjourney2008.com/2020/05/trump-tax-cut-still-yields-benefits-for.htmlThe 82-page brief submitted late Thursday night by Trump’s representatives states crisply that the president wants to get rid of every provision of the Affordable Care Act.
Solicitor General Noel Francisco packs in a string of rhetorical flourishes that may draw cheers at a Federalist Society legal conference but will inevitably appear as factual citations to back up attack ads that Democrats plan to run this fall against vulnerable Senate Republicans, in a redux of the messaging that proved so potent in the 2018 midterms.

The Trump team’s core argument is that every Republican who voted for the tax cuts three years ago knowingly voted to destroy the 2010 law in its entirely, not just to get rid of the mandate that individuals buy health insurance. And, because the Supreme Court previously upheld the constitutionality of the law on the grounds that the individual mandate is a tax, Trump’s lawyers say that the whole system became invalid once Congress got rid of the penalty for not carrying health insurance.

“Nothing the 2017 Congress did demonstrates it would have intended the rest of the ACA to continue to operate in the absence of these ... integral provisions,” Francisco writes in his brief, which is co-signed by four other Trump appointees at the Justice Department. “The entire ACA thus must fall with the individual mandate.”

The brief is full of little gifts like this to Joe Biden and Democrats who hope to ride his coattails down the ballot. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) voted against repealing Obamacare in 2017, which she touts as evidence of her independence, but then she voted for the tax legislation. This brief can also be used as a cudgel to attack GOP Sens. Thom Tillis (N.C.), Joni Ernst (Iowa) and David Perdue (Ga.), who separately each voted to repeal the underlying law. Recent polls show those three senators are locked in tight races as they seek second terms. Appointed Sen. Martha McSally (R-Ariz.), who trails Democratic challenger Mark Kelly in multiple polls, also voted for the tax bill as a member of the House.

The tax bill, which Republicans saw as a genius move, has turned out to be a political disaster in several ways.

• First, as mentioned above, it provides Democrats with a way to blame Republicans for voting against health care.
• Second, voters disapproved of it because they correctly saw that most of the benefits went to the affluent. 
• Third, it helped blow up the deficit and the debt. 

Trump Albatross

In Defying the Odds, we discuss state and congressional elections as well as the presidential race.

A.B. Stoddard at RCP:

If there is one thing Senate Republicans trying hard to get reelected in November can count on, it’s that President Trump will make it even harder for them. From his gross mismanagement of a deadly pandemic to the nonstop, self-absorbed grievance parade he wants Senate Republicans to indulge during a deadly pandemic, Trump seems intent on making sure the out of control virus, the powerful issue of health care, and a tanking economy aren’t their only campaign headaches.

In just this past week Trump has threatened two states with extortion of federal funds, accused them of fictional crimes, continued firing inspectors general and publicly taunted Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell -- himself a candidate who was outraised last quarter by his challenger -- to “get tough” on former President Obama. He descended on the Senate GOP lunch Tuesday on short notice to lecture them on party unity and earth-scorching.

Andrew O. Ballard  Hans J. G. Hassell  Michael Heseltine, "Be Careful What You Wish For: The Impacts of President Trump’s Midterm Endorsements," Legislative Studies Quarterly
First published:19 May 2020 https://doi.org/10.1111/lsq.12284. Abstract:

We analyze the effects of President Trump’s endorsements on House and Senate elections in 2018. Previous work has argued that presidential endorsements are usually positive or, at worst, neutral for the recipient candidates. We find that President Trump was more likely to endorse candidates with a higher pre‐endorsement likelihood of winning and to endorse candidates in more competitive races, suggesting the president used endorsements strategically both to try and help Republican candidates win and to boost his reputation for helping candidates win. However, while President Trump’s public endorsements provided a financial boost to endorsed candidates, they also increased donor support of opposing candidates and were ultimately detrimental to candidates’ vote shares and likelihood of winning. This work provides evidence for potential backlash effects among opposition voters in response to presidential endorsement in a nationalized political environment and expands our understanding of the impact of presidential campaigning in congressional midterm elections.

Persuasion and Turnout

In Defying the Odds, we discuss the 2016 campaign. The 2019 update includes a chapter on the 2018 midterms. The 2020 race, the subject of our next book, is well under way.

Ruy Teixeira at WP:

[In 2018] the overwhelming majority of the Democrats’ improved performance came not from fresh turnout of left-of-center voters, who typically skip midterms, but rather from people who cast votes in both elections — yet switched from Republican in 2016 to Democratic in 2018. The data firm Catalist, whose numbers on 2018 are the best available, estimates that 89 percent of the Democrats’ improved performance came from persuasion — from vote-switchers — not turnout. In its analysis, Catalist notes, “If turnout was the only factor, then Democrats would not have seen nearly the gains that they ended up seeing … a big piece of Democratic victory was due to 2016 Trump voters turning around and voting for Democrats in 2018.”

Crucially, Democrats in 2018, especially the successful ones, did not run on particularly radical programs but rather on opposition to Trump himself, and to unpopular GOP actions on economic policy and health care (tax cuts for the rich and efforts to repeal Obamacare’s protections, for example). In the end, the 2018 results do not support Sanders’s theories — not the central importance of high turnout, nor the supposed non-importance of changing mainstream voters’ minds, nor the most effective issues to run on.

What about the magic of higher turnout?

As Nate Cohn of the New York Times has noted after scrutinizing the data, it’s a mistake to assume that Democrats would benefit disproportionately from high turnout. Trump is particularly strong among white noncollege voters, who dominate the pool of nonvoters in many areas of the country, including in key Rust Belt states. If the 2020 election indeed has historically high turnout, as many analysts expect, that spike could include many of these white noncollege voters in addition to Democratic-leaning constituencies such as nonwhites and young voters. The result could be an increase in Democrats’ popular-vote total — and another loss in the electoral college.

And most voters say that they would not vote for a socialist. 

Student Turnout

In Defying the Odds, we discuss state and congressional elections as well as the presidential race. The update -- recently published -- looks at political and demographic trends through the 2018 midterm.

A release from  from the Institute for Democracy & Higher Education (IDHE) at Tufts University’s Tisch College of Civic Life.

College-student voting rates in the 2018 midterm elections doubled compared to the 2014 midterms, marking a watershed election year for student voter turnout, according to a report today from the Institute for Democracy & Higher Education (IDHE) at Tufts University’s Tisch College of Civic Life. The report, Democracy Counts 2018, is based on an analysis of the voting patterns of more than 10 million college students on more than 1,000 campuses participating in the National Study of Learning, Voting, and Engagement (NSLVE).

In 2018, the Average Institutional Voting Rate (AIVR) among campuses in the study was 39.1 percent, nearly 20 percentage points higher than 2014’s average turnout rate of 19.7 percent. Turnout increases were widespread, with virtually all campuses seeing an increase over 2014.

Major research findings include:​​

• In the 2018 midterm elections, college students turned out to vote at double the rate of the last midterm. Across all students in the study, the National Student Voting Rate (NSVR) in 2018 was 40.3 percent. Remarkably, this 2018 student turnout was closer to the NSLVE-estimated voting rate for the 2016 presidential election–51.3 percent–than to the previous midterm in 2014–19.3 percent;

• According to the U.S. Elections Project, the voting rate among all Americans increased 13 percentage points in 2018 as compared to the prior midterm. By comparison, the college and university National Student Voting Rate (NSVR) rose 21 percentage points;

• In 2018, the voting rates of 99 percent of campuses in the study increased from the 2014 midterms, and nearly half of all institutions saw their rate increase between 15-24 percentage points;

• Women in college continued to vote at higher rates than men in 2018, with black women maintaining their position as the most active voters on campus, and Hispanic women making the largest gains;

• The largest voting rate increase across racial/ethnic groups was among Hispanic students, up 22.5 percentage points and more than doubling–from 14 percent in 2014 to 36.5 percent in 2018;

• While older Americans historically vote at higher rates than their younger counterparts, 2018 data showed a trend toward age parity. The turnout gap between students over 30 and those under 22 narrowed from 22.3 percentage points to 16.9 points;

• There was relative consistency in voting rates between students attending two-year, four-year, public or private institutions. Women’s colleges continued to vote at the highest rates among institutional types, but two-year, four-year, public, and private institutions showed consistent upward movement between 2014 and 2018; and,

• Voting gaps between disciplines persisted in 2018. Turnout among students in STEM fields, as well as those majoring in business, lag behind students studying the humanities, social sciences, and education.

Pique Above Party

In Defying the Odds, we discuss congressional elections as well as the presidential race.  The update  -- recently published --includes a chapter on the 2018 midterms.

Presidents have often come into conflict with their congressional partisans:  such is the separation of powers.  But Trump is unusual in that he is willing to throw away a seat just for personal spite.

Jonathan Swan at Axios:

What's new: Tim Alberta, the chief political correspondent for Politico Magazine, has a book out this week that documents Trump's conquest of the Republican Party — the domination evidenced above. Axios obtained an advance copy of the book, "American Carnage," which is deeply reported and engrossing. The book reveals Trump's delight in tormenting Republicans who he views as weak or disloyal, and it helps explain the partywide silence on days like today.
...

"In one case, Trump endorsed as a means of punishment. Having heard that Minnesota congressman Erik Paulsen was distancing himself from the White House in the hope of holding his seat in the Twin Cities' suburbs, the president stewed and asked that the political shop send a tweet of support for Paulsen — thereby sabotaging the moderate Republican's efforts.

When his aides demurred, Trump sent the tweet himself, issuing a 'Strong Endorsement!' of the congressman in a late-night post that left Paulsen fuming and his Democratic opponent giddy. [Note: Paulsen lost his re-elect.]"

Recruiting Women Candidates

In Defying the Odds, we discuss state and congressional elections as well as the presidential race.   The update  -- recently published --includes a chapter on the 2018 midterms.

Maggie Astor at NYT:

For Republican women, 2018 was rock bottom. At least, that’s how Julie Conway, a Republican consultant, described it to students attending the Women’s Campaign School at Yale.

The tally: They sank from 23 representatives in the House to 13, a drop more than twice as sharp as House Republicans’ over all. They account for 31 percent of women in state legislatures, down from 38 percent last year. The Senate is a semi-bright spot, with a record eight Republican women — but Democrats have 17.

“Let’s just get it out there,” Ms. Conway said. “Now we can move on.”

And Republican women are moving on: As of last month, 187 had filed paperwork or expressed interest in running for the House in 2020, said Representative Susan Brooks of Indiana, the National Republican Congressional Committee’s recruitment chairwoman. In the entire 2018 election cycle, 120 ran.

The surge is largely because of how dismal 2018 was — or, more to the point, because of how dismal it wasn’t for women on the other side of the aisle. As their own losses poured in, Republicans watched Democratic women make historic gains and decided to adopt the Democrats’ strategy for themselves.

Culture Over Economics?

 In Defying the Odds, we talk about the social and economic divides that enabled Trump to enter the White House. . The update  -- recently published --includes a chapter on the 2018 midterms.

Ron Brownstein at CNN:

National surveys now routinely find a huge falloff between the share of Americans satisfied with the economy and the percentage that approve of Trump's performance as President. And new academic research has concluded that attitudes about the economy were much less powerful in driving voters' decisions in 2016 and 2018 than their views about fundamental cultural and social changes, particularly race relations and shifting gender roles.

Each of these dynamics underscores how the economy's role in politics may be shifting as the basis of each party's political coalition has evolved. Increasingly, the parties are bound together less by class than by culture. As I've argued, the fundamental dividing line between the parties has become their contrasting attitudes toward the underlying demographic, cultural and economic changes remaking American society.

...
Brian Schaffner, a Tufts University political scientist, says a bad economy can still threaten a president and his party, as it did when the financial crash helped Barack Obama breeze to the presidency after President George W. Bush's two terms in 2008. But a good economy, he believes, may no longer be enough to dislodge the entrenched battle lines over these underlying cultural preferences.

"One thing you see in the two most recent presidencies, the Obama and Trump presidencies, is neither of them get much credit for good economies," Schaffner said in an interview. "They had different ceilings (of support), but they both had ceilings."

...
In a study of the 2016 election using data from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study, a large-scale pre- and post-election national survey, Schaffner and two co-authors found that economic satisfaction and dissatisfaction was much less important in predicting support for Trump or Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton than attitudes about race and gender relations. The more likely voters were to believe that racial discrimination is not a systemic problem and that women complaining about sexism were actually seeking unfair advantage over men, the more likely they were to support Trump. (That pattern was as powerful among women as it was among men.)

...
In a paper published last month, Schaffner found these trends intensified in the 2018 election.

Trump Cowers Before Putin, Says He Is with Kim

In Defying the Odds, we discuss Russian involvement in the 2016 campaign.   The update  -- just published --includes a chapter on the 2018 midterms.

A 5/3 press availability:

Q Mr. President, did you address the election meddling issues that came up in the Mueller Report with Mr. Putin today?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: We discussed it. He actually sort of smiled when he said something to the effect that it started off as a mountain and it ended up being a mouse. But he knew that because he knew there was no collusion whatsoever. So, pretty much, that’s what it was. It started off —

Q Did you tell him not to meddle, Mr. President? Did you tell him not to meddle in the next election?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Excuse me. I’m talking. I’m answering this question. You are very rude.

So we had a good conversation about many different things. Okay?

Q Did you ask him not to meddle? Q Did you tell him not to meddle in the next election?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: We didn’t discuss that. Really, we didn’t discuss it. We discussed five or six things. We also — we went into detail on various things, especially, I would say, the nuclear. Especially, maybe, Venezuela. We talked about North Korea at great length, and pretty much that’s it.

Also discussed trade. We intend to do a lot of trade with Russia. We do some right now. It’s up a little bit. But he’d like to do trade and we’d like to do trade.

And getting along with Russia and China, getting along with all of them is very good thing, not a bad thing. It’s a good thing. It’s a positive thing. Getting along with other countries — including your country, by the way — but getting along with countries is a good thing. And we want to have good relationships with every country.

A week ago, FBI Director Chris Wray told the Council on Foreign Relations:

Foreign influence—malign foreign influence—we usually use to describe the fairly aggressive campaign that we saw in 2016 and that’s described in the special counsel’s report, and that has continued pretty much unabated, is the use of social media, fake news, propaganda, false personas, et cetera, to spin us up, pit us against each other, sow divisiveness and discord, undermine Americans’ faith in democracy. That is not just an election-cycle threat; it’s pretty much a 365-days-a-year threat. And that has absolutely continued. We saw that, therefore, continue full speed in 2018, in the midterms. What we did not see in 2018 was any material impact or interference with election infrastructure or, you know, campaign infrastructure.

Very good call yesterday with President Putin of Russia. Tremendous potential for a good/great relationship with Russia, despite what you read and see in the Fake News Media. Look how they have misled you on “Russia Collusion.” The World can be a better and safer place. Nice!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 4, 2019

Anything in this very interesting world is possible, but I believe that Kim Jong Un fully realizes the great economic potential of North Korea, & will do nothing to interfere or end it. He also knows that I am with him & does not want to break his promise to me. Deal will happen!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 4, 2019

NYT:

 Saturday’s weapons tests were the most serious by the North since the country launched its Hwasong-15 intercontinental ballistic missiles in November 2017. Although North Korea has not gone so far as to renege on its moratorium on nuclear and ICBM tests, which its leader, Kim Jong-un, announced last year, the Saturday launch indicated that Mr. Kim was toying with the idea of lifting the moratorium, analysts said.

Turnout in 2018

In Defying the Odds, we discuss state and congressional elections as well as the presidential race.   The update  -- just published --includes a chapter on the 2018 midterms.

Jordan Misra at the Census Bureau:

The November 2018 election is widely recognized for its high voter turnout. Census Bureau data released today show who is behind the historic 11 percentage point increase from the last midterm election in 2014.

Voter turnout went up among all voting age and major racial and ethnic groups. Fifty-three percent of the citizen voting-age population voted in 2018, the highest midterm turnout in four decades, while the 2014 election had the lowest.

Among 18- to 29-year-olds, voter turnout went from 20 percent in 2014 to 36 percent in 2018, the largest percentage point increase for any age group — a 79 percent jump.

Data from the Current Population Survey’s Voting and Registration Supplement out today provide insight into the characteristics of those that cast their ballots in this record-breaking midterm election

Who is Behind the Historic Increase?

Voter turnout went up more in some groups than others from 2014 to 2018:

• Among 18- to 29-year-olds, voter turnout went from 20 percent in 2014 to 36 percent in 2018, the largest percentage point increase for any age group — a 79 percent jump.
• Among men and women, voter turnout increased by 11 and 12 percentage points respectively.
• Voter turnout increased among non-Hispanic Asians by 13 percentage points, a 49 percent increase.
• Among Hispanics, voter turnout increased by 13 percentage points, a 50 percent increase in Hispanic voter turnout.
• Non-Hispanic black voter turnout increased by 11 percentage points.
• Those with higher levels of education had higher levels of voter turnout in 2018.  Those with less than a high school education had the smallest increase in voter turnout (5 percentage points). Those with a high school diploma or equivalent had the second-lowest increase (8 percentage points).
• Voting by native-born and naturalized citizens both increased by 12 percentage points. This increase is not significantly different between native-born and naturalized citizens.
• Unlike the 2014 midterm election, voter turnout among those living in nonmetropolitan areas (up 8 points) was lower than for those living in metropolitan areas (up 12 points).

Demographic Gaps and the House

In Defying the Odds, we discuss demographic gaps in the 2016 election.     The update  -- just published --includes a chapter on the 2018 midterms.

Mike Allen at Axios:

Chris Krueger of Cowen Washington Group has a stark reminder of one of the biggest 2020 issues not named Donald Trump:

• There are 13 House Republicans who are women (out of 197 — 7%).
• There are 14 House Republicans named Greg or Mike.

...
Hillary Clinton won women 54% to 42%, while Trump took 53% of white women voters.

In last year's midterms, the WashPost's Dan Balz saw a "revolt among suburban women ... that played out in district after district."
...

Another GOP impediment in suburbs is racial diversity, as the country grows more non-white. National Journal's Josh Kraushaar frames it bluntly:

• "As Democrats have rapidly diversified their ranks in the last several elections, Republicans have grown more homogeneous."
• "Only 11 of the 255 Republican members of Congress are nonwhite."

Republicans Keep Losing on Taxes

In Defying the Odds, we discuss the tax issue in the 2016 campaign.  The update  -- just published --includes a chapter on the 2018 midterms. and explains why the Trump tax cut backfired on Republicans,

Zach Montellaro at Politico:

According to the Wesleyan Media Project, taxes were the most popular issue in pro-GOP ads (promoting the tax law as a middle-class tax cut) and the second-most popular issue for pro-Democratic ads (saying the law was a raw deal for most and a payout for the rich).

Opinions on the Trump tax law have more or less crystalized. A new Pew Research Center poll found that 49 percent of Americans disapprove of the tax law, while 36 percent approve — almost no change from a January 2018 Pew poll. If anything, Republicans have gotten a bit less enthusiastic about the bill, with the number who strongly approve dropping 14 points from January 2018 to last month (overall GOP support is roughly the same).

And expect taxes to be a major issue in 2020. About 60 percent of Americans feel that corporations and the wealthy don’t pay their fair share of taxes, and it bothers them “a lot.” Just 32 percent of Democrats and Democratic leaners say the tax system is very or moderately fair — partially explaining the emphasis Democratic hopefuls like Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) have placed on instituting new taxes on the ultra-rich. Compare this to 64 percent of Republican and Republican leaners who think the American tax system is fair, and who are still broadly supportive of the president’s tax policy.

CA 2018

In Defying the Odds, we discuss state and congressional elections as well as the presidential race. The forthcoming update will include a chapter on the 2018 midterms.  California is an important part of the story.

Paul Mitchell at Capitol Weekly:

—Turnout was high, but not presidential level high. At 65%, the electorate was about 10 points higher than we have seen in recent similar gubernatorial elections, but still about 12 points lower than what we expect to see in 2020.

—The partisanship of the electorate was a key factor in the outcomes. It will surprise many that despite higher raw Democratic votes, the Democratic share of the votes cast was the same as it has been in similar elections going back to 2002. What changed significantly was a spike in non-partisan voting to a record high, and a drop in the Republican share of the votes cast to a record low.

–The electorate was significantly more Latino than we have seen in similar elections. In raw numbers, Latinos exceeded many expectations. Over 2.6 million Latinos voted, more than double the 1.1 million that voted in 2014, and among Latinos aged 18-34, there was a 400% increase, from 214,000 in 2014 to 838,000 in 2018. All that said, Latinos were still under-performing relative to their rate of registration. Statewide, 21% of votes cast came from Latinos, compared to the 26% share of the voter file that was Latino.

–-Age was a significant factor. Turnout by voters aged 18-24 grew 30 points, from 16% in 2014 to 46% in 2018. Among those 25-34, it grew by 33-points, from 17% to 50%. The raw numbers are staggering: In 2014, only 282,000 voters aged 18-24 voted, while in 2018 it was 948,000 – more than tripling the total votes by this traditionally low-turnout population.

John Wildermuth at SF Chronicle:

The blue wave that drowned California Republicans in the November election had a distinctly greenish tinge.

Six of the seven Democrats who flipped GOP-held House seats out-raised their Republican opponents, some by an order of 3 to 1, newly released federal campaign finance reports show. Long-entrenched Republican incumbents and first-time office-seekers alike were confronted by Democratic challengers with unusually large cash advantages, fueled by a party base eager to knock President Trump’s allies out of Congress.

And that doesn’t even count the tens of millions of dollars independent expenditure groups pumped into those Democratic races. According to figures assembled by Open Secrets, a nonpartisan campaign finance website, outside groups spent more than $41 million on Democratic campaigns for those seven seats — about $3 million more than comparable groups raised for Republicans.