What We Should Take Away From the Midterms

The votes are in, the ballots have been counted, and the United States has a new—or not so new—set of representatives, senators, and governors. With the intense glare of current politics, the midterm observers noticed change at every level, including local and state ballot initiatives, county clerks and prosecutors, to state legislative races, to gubernatorial elections, to representatives for the House and Senate. Across so many contests, there was no single clear message, but there were signs about what’s to come, in the big picture of national politics and smaller changes, such as the successful referendum requiring jury verdicts to be unanimous in Louisiana, that will affect people’s lives.

So, how should we interpret the results? Members of New America’s Political Reform team recently discussed what, exactly, the midterms might mean in the months ahead.

What were some of the bigger takeaways from the midterms? For instance, were there as many close races this year as there seemed? Do they fit the trend of a “midterm backlash”?

Lee Drutman (LD): One, there were more close races than normal. But even so, if there were 70 or so close races for the House, that means five of six house races weren’t close. And that’s a competitive year! In a more typical cycle, there are at most 20 or 30 really close seats, out of 435. Two, all the coverage is on the close races, so we tend to magnify them in our minds. But if the coverage reflected the modal race, the modal report would be: “X will once again cruise to victory, with no real challenge. Once again, the votes of voters in X districts didn’t really matter, because the election was already a foregone conclusion from day one.”

Hollie Russon-Gilman (HRG): There’s no one-size-fits-all interpretation for an election. The contests didn’t exactly represent a “midterm backlash.” Nor were they the “blue wave” the media had told us about. Still, all available data shows that young people, people of color, and first-time voters came out in record numbers. For instance, in Tennessee alone, there was a 664-percent increase in early voting among young people. It was the same with Georgia and Texas, two states that also saw a record number of young people voting early. Data suggests that this energy wasn’t contained to young people—broadly, there were some 33 million early voters across the country as of early Tuesday morning, in comparison to 22 million early voters in 2014.

How might lawmaking change in the new Congress?

Heather Hurlburt (HH): The standard storyline we have tucked away for close midterm elections—and those in which the president’s party loses seats—is that they represent a call for bipartisanship from the voting public. But it’s not easy to discern bipartisanship as a strong motivator for either the GOP voters who responded to the president’s closing rhetoric and turned out to boost GOP numbers in the Senate, or the Democrats who flipped suburban districts. And indeed, within 12 hours of the polls closing, we had the president tweeting about House vs. Senate conflict. Elected officials will have little or no motive to cooperate on issues that were of high partisan salience, like immigration and health care. Where we might, paradoxically, see members take risks across party lines is on issues that voters had treated as lower priority—and thus where elected officials are less likely to face punishment in a primary for getting away from the party line. Criminal justice reform and energy policy—framed as energy policy, not climate—are two areas I’d watch.

LD: Wednesday, Nov. 7, was the first day of the 2020 election, and everything Democrats and Republicans do in Congress is geared toward that. Trump and Senate Republicans are going to be trying to put the focus on cultural and immigration issues they think will hurt the Democrats, and House Democrats are going to pass messaging bills on government ethics and health care that have no chance of passing the Senate but that make Republicans look bad. And there will be tons of House investigations. There will be budget standoff after budget standoff. We will very likely see the least productive Congress ever.

Mark Schmitt (MSS): Interestingly, the Democrats made few legislative promises. Most made health care their primary message, and the promise was to protect insurance coverage for preexisting conditions. As it happens, that’s the status quo under the Affordable Care Act, one of the few parts of the law that the Trump administration hasn’t undermined. They have few illusions that the long-postponed “Infrastructure Week” will ever come around, or that they’ll have the opportunity to work with Trump on that cause. The advantage of that position is that no one can credibly say that they over-promised when they, predictably, don’t get anything done. The problem will arise if and when there’s some kind of national crisis that demands a legislative response, like the banking crisis of 2008.

There’s been lots of talk about how things seem to be shifting at the state and local level before they do the same nationally. What can we learn about federalism, in light of the way the midterms have shaped up?

HH: If we’re smart, we’ll spend weeks and months parsing what happened at the local level for clues to what’s coming in 2020 and beyond. Somewhat lost in the national conversation are important local votes on criminal justice reform, re-enfranchisement, and non-partisan drawing of Congressional districts—initiatives that have chugged along at the local level without national oxygen, or even in opposition to national trends.

Elena Souris (ES): One of the benefits of our federalist system is that local areas can try new political ideas or structural reform before the rest of the country does. Watching how experiments like same-day registration, campaign finance laws, and redistricting models work there gives organizers important data and feedback on what reforms actually work. And after these midterms, there’s going be a lot more data.

To highlight a few major changes: Colorado, Michigan, and Missouri approved independent redistricting commissions, which will impact how congressional and state legislative districts are drawn. Portland passed a big campaign finance overhaul with strict limits and increased disclosure by a huge margin—87 percent to 12 percent. Michigan is enacting automatic voter registration, same-day registration, and no-excuse absentee voting.

And for the change I’m most excited about: Florida voted to give ex-felons who’ve served their time the right to vote. Based on a 2016 estimate, this could impact over a million people, or 9.2 percent of the voting-age population. Because black Floridians are disproportionately arrested, this also means that of black potential voters, 17.9 percent could now have new access to the ballot box. Previously, Florida was one of three states (including Kentucky and Iowa) that blocked felons from regaining their right to vote—even after leaving prison and finishing parole.

MSS: As someone who’d been raised to be skeptical of ballot initiatives—seeing them often as a vehicle for reaction, such as restrictions on state taxes and spending or the anti-LGBTQ initiatives that were prevalent in the 1990s—I was happily surprised by how many promising ideas or overdue reforms were enacted by initiative on Tuesday, including Medicaid expansion in three states, minimum wage increases, and notable criminal justice reforms. I was particularly pleased that several political reform measures passed, including redistricting reform, because these complex measures often have a difficult time on the ballot because voters reflexively vote no. That’s a strong affirmation that the public is willing to look at big changes to fix democracy, and appropriately, a democracy reform package will be one of the House Democrats’ first priorities.

I’ll also be interested to see whether the 10 new Democratic governors, particularly in the Upper Midwest, will be able to work together with other governors in the Northeast and on the West Coast on ideas such as interstate compacts to reduce carbon emissions. Federalism will be most successful when states do more than just act on their own, but can act together and learn from one another.

It’s tempting to put domestic and foreign policy into neat, almost entirely distinct categories, but we know that’s not the case. How might these elections impact the foreign policy-making process in the immediate future?

HH: Much of Trump’s closing argument on behalf of the GOP amounted to a claim that foreign or alien forces are threatening the security, prosperity, and identity of American communities. This isn’t a view of foreign policy that professionals embrace—in no small part because it was filled with animus and falsehoods—but it’s an extension of the role international affairs has come to play in our politics since 9/11, a period in which it went from being among the least polarized policy issues to among the most. From Russian interference in our democracy, to how to prioritize the costs and benefits of trade, to immigration and refugee policy, to climate change, huge international issues are now entangled with the identity conflicts gripping our domestic politics. And that’s going to make policy-making very difficult.

The campaign, especially its concluding weeks, saw a breathtaking amount of ethnic and cultural fear-mongering. Voters in a district with an Asian-American challenger received mailers proclaiming “Something’s fishy” in an “Asian” script. A candidate of Palestinian heritage—who had previously held a security clearance to work in the White House—was accused of trying to “infiltrate Congress,” having ties to terrorism, and being supported by the Muslim Brotherhood. Campaign literature called him a “national security threat” who may send classified military intel to foreign enemies. And the president repeatedly made factually incorrect and inflammatory claims about Central American migrants.

We’ll be trying to understand the effects of these appeals for years, but while they appeared to have fallen short in purple districts, voters in red states and districts seem either not to have penalized candidates for using them or even to have been energized by them to vote. That poses a significant problem for how the rest of the world views the United States, and how long we remain a cultural superpower. It poses an even larger problem for social cohesion at home, as we trend toward being a majority-minority country where large minorities of voters believe that non-whites aren’t truly “one of us.” Or, as one attack ad, narrated by a series of white people, claimed, that a black candidate’s voice “definitely can’t be my voice.”

We saw a big focus this year on civic engagement and organizing centered on frustration with the current administration. Were those developments actually new or somehow unique? Or were they standard for a midterm cycle?

Chayenne Polimédio (CP): The religious right has invested a lot of money in the midterms. Faith and Freedom Coalition, a conservative religious advocacy group, ramped up spending on digital ads from $7 million in 2014 to $18 million this year. The coalition texted members to urge them to vote—a first for the coalition. Other groups, like Watchmen on the Wall, a project tied to the Family Research Council, also encouraged pastors to push their congregations to cast ballots. The role of the religious right in politics isn’t necessarily new, but the scale of participation and influence, I’d argue, seems unprecedented, especially when it comes to things like data-mining, ministry consulting, and the use of translators to reach non-English speakers.

But what is new is the revival of the religious left. From high-profile faith leaders gathering for a get-out-the-vote prayer rally, with support from progressive leaders, to a “Moral Revival” tour of cities across the United States, the left is increasingly challenging the notion that mixing religion with politics is something that only the right does. Figures Rev. William Barber II and Rev. Traci Blackmon—a pastor of a church in Ferguson, Mo., and a rising star within the religious left—are just some of the most prominent figures to take part in the revival. They’re joined by longtime leaders of the progressive religious movement like U.S. Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) and Rev. Jesse Jackson.

Maresa Strano (MAS): Notably, women are helping women get elected. Opensecrets.org, for instance, revealed that 2018 is the first year in which Democratic female congressional candidates outraised men. This increase has especially favored Democratic female candidates, as women are contributing to their campaigns at record levels—for example, donations from women accounted for 48 percent of fundraising for Democratic female Senate candidates—but it’s a hopeful sign for the Democratic Party in general, as women are much more likely to associate with the party than men.

MSS: From the first day after the last election, we’ve seen tremendous innovation in organizing, starting with the Women’s March and the creation of Indivisible, and it’s built from there. The Obama campaign was a revolution in organizing, drawing on old and new models, but 2016 to 2018 was probably even more important, because there was intense organizing, led by women, in hundreds of congressional districts and even around state legislative seats and ballot initiatives. I’m looking forward to reading a full account of how these groups have changed the model of organizing, integrated online and in-person organizing, and built movements that, unlike Obama for America, aren’t centered on one heroic figure.

A disappointment of the campaign, though, was that some of the campaigns that put the biggest emphasis on organizing, as opposed to traditional media-heavy campaigns for mainstream Democrats, had far more success in primaries than they did in the general election, with Stacy Abrams and Andrew Gillum both standing out as examples. Still, their strategies as candidates working to mobilize the base of people most systematically disenfranchised and economically vulnerable probably “worked,” in that they came closer than familiar candidates who would follow a traditional broadcast ad campaign model likely would have done—at least measured by other recent Democratic statewide candidates in those two complex states.

What’s something you think got overlooked—or was under-discussed—in the midterms?

CP: How faith, as an identity, continues to be a good predictor of voter behavior. According to recent polling from the Public Religion Research Institute, 67 percent of black American Protestants said that they were “absolutely certain” to vote compared to 55 percent of white Evangelicals voters and 57 of white mainstream Protestants. Less than half of Latino Catholics and Protestants said they would vote, compared to 63 percent of white Catholics. The data from PRRI also shines light on how the connection between white evangelicalism and support for Trump: Almost seven in 10 white evangelical Protestants have a favorable view of Trump. With the exception of white evangelical Protestants, strong majorities of every major religious group believe that Trump has damaged the dignity of the presidency. Exit poll data reported by NBC News shows that 75 percent of white voters who describe themselves as evangelical or born-again Christians voted for Republican House candidates in 2018. In comparison, seven in 10 religious “nones” voted Democrat.

And as the Pew Research Center shows, though more non-religious people voted in 2018 than in previous elections, and though the number of religiously affiliated people who cast a ballot dropped slightly, faith continues to be a big driver of turnout in American elections.

HRG: Trump has gone from telling on average five lies a day to an average of 30, according to The Washington Post. While the Democrats have made a large push to not take Trump’s bait, we’re still in an information environment in which Trump can say whatever he wants with little accountability. How can we use the levers of democracy to hold him accountable?

Further, it’s clear that we, as a country, need to address the voter disenfranchisement that plagued the midterms, from purged voting rolls in Georgia to antiquated voting laws in Ohio, where missing one election puts someone at risk of being removed from voting rolls. There are also some 6 million recently incarcerated Americans who are unable to vote. This may be the moment to discuss online voting via a secure digital ID system through blockchain technology. While it may seem like a pie-in-the-sky idea, the reality is that current voting technology is rife with problems, from long lines at the polls to ballot omissions. We have neither convenience nor security in our current system—it's time for innovative ideas.

MAS: The high-stakes, zero-sum binaries of this election cycle left little room for discussion of third-party candidates. In many ways, this isn’t surprising, since third-party candidates seldom attract broad attention in the run-up to general elections (save for the occasions when they’re accused of spoiling a close election by siphoning away votes from a major party candidate). Still, it’s important to keep an eye on these candidates and the various ways in which they can influence smaller political contests. For instance, on Monday—the eve of the general election—Independent Greg Orman’s campaign treasurer, Tim Owens, quit Orman’s campaign, citing fears that his presence on the ballot might spoil Democrat Laura Kelly’s chances of defeating Republican hardliner Kris Kobach in Kansas. And those tracking Georgia’s nailbiter of a gubernatorial contest between Republican Brian Kemp and Democrat Stacey Abrams—and Libertarian Ted Metz, whose 0.9 percent vote share could’ve swung the vote Tuesday night—might sympathize with the “spoiler” view of third-party candidates.

The win record for third parties in state-level elections is pitifully low; indeed, Americans are much more likely to vote for a candidate with ties to white supremacist groups than they are for a third-party candidate. As it stands, only two of the 538 seats in Congress are held by third-party candidates: Senators Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Angus King of Maine. The only non-major party governor, Alaska Governor Bill Walker, was unseated on November 6. And yet, this apparent aversion to voting outside the two major parties belies the public’s fondness for the idea of breaking free from the two-party system. In 2017, Gallup reported that 42 percent of Americans identified as independents (compared to the high 20s for Republicans and Democrats). Another Gallup survey reported that 61 percent of Americans believe that U.S. politics needs a third major party to adequately represent the people. A 2017 NBCnews poll revealed that 71 percent of Millennials said that a third major party is needed (as opposed to 26 percent that say that Republicans and Democrats do an adequate job). Millennials aren’t a reliably active voter bloc, but they are the largest, and they turned out this year. If they decide to get more involved, it could be a harbinger of increased third-party legitimacy going forward.

How do these elections fit into the bigger picture?

CP: One way to think about voting is as the the culmination of civically-minded behavior. Put another way, people who are already engaged in their communities are more likely to cast a ballot come Election Day. So elections tend to take the pulse on, among other things, the state of social capital in any given society. Often, social capital—in the form of norms, values, and trust—is formed and cultivated in day-to-day activities, like going to church, participating in a town hall meeting, or joining a protest. But when institutions that foster social capital—like the church, political parties, and unions—are weak, political participation suffers. So the bigger picture, here, is that elections aren’t isolated events, but rather reflections of larger phenomena that play an important role in connecting people, building social capital, and making politics into something that’s reflective of people’s everyday lives, not a once-every-two-years event.

HRG: It’s important to ask: How do we create more demand-driven civic engagement, such that elections aren’t the only way people engage? Ideally, we’d have multiple opportunities for people to engage daily—whether in their parks, at their libraries, or through neighborhood groups. In addition, people would engage directly with their city hall and tap into the energy and innovation we’re seeing through things like participatory budgeting. Overall, it’s key to further fuel a sense of shared responsibility for the places we live.

Likewise, there were lots of first-time voters in the midterms. How do we keep these voters “hooked” on the political process? Pew research suggests that local civic engagement is strongly tied to local news consumption. But at a time when time local news is on the decline, how do we create an ecosystem in which this sort of citizen engagement can thrive?

MSS: I’ve used a three-part test to look at the new politics that has emerged as a reaction to Trump: Is it (1) Majoritarian? (2) Mobilizing? (3) Sustainable? By majoritarian, I mean, is it focusing on a broad set of issues that mostly have majority support or that in combination build a majority coalition. Most of the new progressive agenda, even more experimental ideas such as a jobs guarantee, meet this criteria. But politics can be mobilizing and not get people excited enough to vote, volunteer, and donate. Yet record turnout for a midterm, on both sides, suggests that voters were mobilized. Is it sustainable—that is, is there a path to build out these ideas, bring a new set of leaders to the forefront post-Obama and post-Clinton, and undertake a project that will take years to rebuild the foundations of functioning democracy and responsible, multi-party policy-making? That’s a question that one election night can’t answer.