[EAI Commentary] The 2018 US Midterm Elections Foreshadowing a Stalemate Between the Two Parties

[Editor's Note]

With the Democratic Party winning the House and the Republican Party securing the Senate in the US midterm elections held on November 6, a divided government has emerged for the first time in eight years. Considering this power structure, tangible legislative achievements for the Trump administration are unlikely for at least the next two years, according to Professor Son Byung-kwon of Chung-Ang University. While some level of agreement may be possible on issues where policy ideologies do not clash, such as domestic infrastructure investment and the US-China trade war, the Trump administration's desired additional tax cuts or the repeal of the Affordable Care Act will be fundamentally impossible to pursue due to the Democratic-controlled House, the author adds.

Context of the 2018 Midterm Elections

Since taking office in 2017, President Donald Trump has maintained the persona of a campaigning president rather than a president operating within established institutions, consistently pursuing policies with his conservative base in mind. It is well-known that shortly after taking office, President Trump ordered the withdrawal from the TPP and refused to participate in the Paris Agreement on climate change. Furthermore, in line with his "America First" policy, President Trump pressured Asian and European allies regarding defense cost-sharing, disregarded multilateral consultative bodies, and continuously sought transactions that would allow for the constant exercise of US sovereignty. In this vein, he urged the revision of the US-Korea Free Trade Agreement (FTA) and subsequently initiated a full-scale trade war with China, viewing the US trade deficit with China as cumulative and China's "Made in China 2025" initiative as a threat to US security. He also withdrew from the P5+1 multilateral nuclear negotiations with Iran, despite criticism from European allies, and moved the US embassy to Jerusalem, seemingly with domestic religious conservatives in mind. He also pursued the construction of a wall on the Mexican border, strengthened border security, and consistently adhered to strict immigration policies. Moreover, he appointed conservative judges to the Supreme Court and sought support from conservative forces by emphasizing religious freedom over equal civil rights.

The midterm elections of November 6, 2018, were also held within this "America First" context, characterized by unprecedented partisan division and animosity. President Trump actively participated in campaign rallies for Republican candidates in both House and Senate races, acting as the Republican Party's top campaigner. The narrow re-election victory of Senator Cruz in Texas can be seen as a result of President Trump's campaign support. President Trump also criticized mainstream liberal media outlets such as CNN, NBC, and The New York Times as "fake news" and continuously rallied his base and urged voter turnout through Twitter. Furthermore, he stoked fear among conservatives with unsubstantiated claims that the caravan of South American migrants approaching the US border from afar contained terrorists, and declared that force would be used to actively confront them if they neared the US border. While President Trump continued to lose support from minority voters, suburban residents, and highly educated women due to his racist and misogynistic remarks, he approached the election with a strategy of solidifying his conservative base, mindful of the already polarized US political landscape.

As President Trump's strategy focused on solidifying his conservative base, the mobilization of anti-Trump forces also became more pronounced. The success of a large number of female candidates in primaries and general elections, more than in any previous election, was possible amidst a social atmosphere of resistance to Trump's misogynistic remarks and behavior. Furthermore, in opposition to Trump's overtly nationalist rhetoric, minority voters participated more actively in the elections, further increasing the Democratic Party's chances of regaining the House.

The 2018 midterm elections, characterized by such intense efforts from both parties, yielded results that make it difficult to precisely gauge the public's mandate. The election outcomes for the 116th Congress suggest that both parties have grounds to claim victory.

Results of the 2018 Midterm Elections

Although the midterm elections of November 6 have concluded, the Senate race in Mississippi still has a runoff election, and manual recounts are ongoing in Florida. As of the writing of this article, election results for six congressional districts are still pending. However, based on the preliminary results, the Democratic Party has succeeded in regaining its majority status in the House of Representatives, which it lost after the 112th Congress in 2010. In the Senate elections, the Republican Party has already secured more than the 51 seats it held in the 115th Senate and is certain to remain the majority party. In fact, the runoff election in Mississippi is expected to be won by the Republican Party, and if the results of the Florida manual recount do not overturn the previous outcome, the Republican Party is projected to gain two Senate seats in the 116th midterm elections, bringing their total to 53 seats.

These outcomes for both parties provide grounds for President Trump and the Democratic Party to each claim a degree of success. For the Republican Party, the gain of two Senate seats—assuming Republican victories in Mississippi and Florida—is the second instance since the 1974 midterm elections where the president's party has increased its Senate seats. This means President Trump's Republican Party has achieved the second-largest increase in Senate seats in a midterm election since 1974, and the largest increase in terms of seat numbers. This appears to be a noteworthy performance for a party whose president has a approval rating above 40% but below 50%. It suggests that President Trump's strategy of mobilizing the conservative base was effective in the Senate elections. However, the Democratic Party can take solace in the fact that out of the five Midwestern states (Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Indiana) that voted for Trump in the 2016 presidential election, they only lost Indiana to the Republican candidate, with incumbent Democratic representatives winning re-election in the remaining states.

Meanwhile, the Democratic Party also achieved a significant victory in the House elections compared to past Democratic wins. With 193 seats prior to the election, the Democratic Party has now secured 229 seats, not only regaining its majority status but also widening the gap with the Republican Party to approximately 36 seats. This represents the largest increase in House seats for the Democratic Party since 1974, when they gained 49 seats from the Republican Party in the wake of the Watergate scandal. Those who expected a more dramatic shift in party control, akin to the "wave elections" of 1994 or 2010, might not view this outcome favorably. However, considering the House districts were drawn unfavorably for Democrats after the 2010 census, the sustained economic boom in the US following the December 2017 tax cuts, the lack of prominent Democratic figures, and the strong mobilization efforts of the conservative base driven by President Trump's efforts, the Democratic Party's recapture of the House and their substantial victory margin cannot be dismissed as minor achievements.

Overall, as the vote counting progressed, the Democratic Party gained Senate seats in Nevada and Arizona, resulting in a narrower margin than initially anticipated. Considering the Democratic Party's strong performance in the House, it is difficult to accept a simplistic assessment of this election as solely driven by Trump. It is undeniable that the Republican Party, the president's party, increased its Senate seats by two, an unprecedented achievement in elections since 1974. However, the Democratic Party also gained two House seats in Michigan, two in Illinois, and three in Pennsylvania—states in the Midwest that voted for Trump in 2016—and achieved a nationwide increase in House seats, creating a divided government. The impact of the Democratic Party's success in securing a "House beachhead" as a counter-offensive against Trump should be considered, which becomes clear when one asks the hypothetical question: "What if it had resulted in a Republican-controlled divided government?"

Characteristics of the 2018 Midterm Elections

Regarding the characteristics of the 2018 midterm elections, there is no doubt that this election was centered on an evaluation of President Trump. This trend of presidential-centered congressional elections is not unique to this election. The results should be understood as a continuation of the nationalization and institutionalization of US congressional elections since 1994, as shown in the following table. However, it is accurate to say that this trend of elections focused on evaluating the president intensified in this particular election.

<Table 1> House Election Exit Poll Results Based on Presidential Support, 1994-2010 (Unit: %)

Source: Adapted from Samuel J. Best and Brian S. Krueger, 2012. Exit Polls: Surveying the American Electorate, 1972-2010, Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, p. 252: Table 5.3. This data was originally compiled by Best and Krueger based on polls conducted solely by CBS or jointly by CBS and The New York Times.

Looking at the exit poll responses for House elections from 1994 to 2010, midterm elections, particularly the 1994 election during President Clinton's term, marked a turning point, transforming House elections into a referendum on the president's popularity. The statement by Tip O'Neill, Speaker of the House from the late 1970s to the mid-1980s, that "All politics is local" has become obsolete. US congressional elections are now dominated by central political issues, such as the president's policies and the political climate in Washington, rather than local district concerns. This phenomenon is also confirmed in the following three tables.

<Table 2> Meaning Attributed to House Elections: The Case of President Bush

Source: 2006 CNN Exit Polls for Midterm Elections

http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/US/H/00/epolls.0.html

<Table 3> Meaning Attributed to House Elections: The Case of President Obama

Source: 2014 CNN Exit Polls for Midterm Elections

http://edition.cnn.com/election/2014/results/race/house/#exit-polls

<Table 4> Meaning Attributed to House Elections: The Case of President Trump

Source: 2018 CNN Exit Polls for Midterm Elections

https://edition.cnn.com/election/2018/exit-polls (The following tables also use the same source)

The responses to the CNN exit poll question, "Does the House election serve as a referendum on the president?" indicate a "yes" answer for the midterm elections held during the presidencies of Bush, Obama, and Trump in 2006, 2014, and 2018, respectively. The proportion of voters who responded that the incumbent president was not a variable in their choice, regardless of their approval or disapproval, was 39%, 45%, and 33% in the three elections, respectively, falling far short of half. Particularly noteworthy is that among voters who expressed approval or disapproval of the incumbent president, the proportion who voted for the respective party's House candidate in line with that sentiment exceeded 90%, reaching up to 95% in some cases. Even more noteworthy is that this proportion was most pronounced in the 2018 midterm elections. That is, the proportion viewing the 116th midterm elections as an evaluation of the president was 64%, significantly higher than in the previous two elections. Furthermore, those who considered this midterm election as an evaluation of the president voted for the respective party's House candidates in alignment with that evaluation, with proportions reaching as high as 94% and 95%.

In summary, the 2018 midterm elections most strongly revealed their characteristic as an election centered on the evaluation of President Trump, who stood at the core of Americans' approval or disapproval of the current political landscape. The record-breaking fundraising, the large number of female candidates, and the high voter turnout all appear to be byproducts of voters' approval or disapproval of President Trump.

Outlook Following the 2018 Midterm Elections

Immediately after the midterm elections concluded on November 7, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in a press conference, mentioned bipartisan cooperation with the Republican Party and the Trump administration, while also clearly stating an offensive stance against the Trump Republican administration. Regarding oversight of the administration, the Democratic Party is poised to investigate various alleged wrongdoings by the Trump administration, such as abuse of power for personal enrichment and conflicts of interest, through the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform once the 116th Congress convenes. The investigation aims to strictly examine whether President Trump, as the chief executive of the United States, continuously pursued private corporate interests. President Trump has reacted extremely nervously to the Mueller special counsel's investigation into the Russia connection and the Democratic Party's offensive, expressing his strong will to confront them. If the resolve of the Democratic Party, which has secured a beachhead for congressional counter-offensives against the Trump Republican administration, clashes head-on with the President's unwavering opposition, the political landscape in the US for the next two years is highly likely to descend into an endless stalemate.

Given the advent of a divided government with the Democratic Party regaining its majority in the House and the ensuing partisan confrontation, significant legislative achievements for the Trump administration in the 116th Congress are unlikely. While some level of agreement may be possible on issues where policy ideologies do not clash, such as domestic infrastructure investment, the Trump administration's desired additional tax cuts or the repeal of the Affordable Care Act will be fundamentally impossible to pursue due to the Democratic-controlled House.

The existing tax cut bill passed in December 2017 heavily benefited high-income earners while offering relatively smaller benefits to middle and lower-income groups. Therefore, the Democratic Party will clearly oppose any new tax cut proposal that maintains tax reductions for high-income earners. The CNN exit polls from the midterm elections showed that only 29% of respondents felt the December 2017 tax cuts were helpful; the rest responded that they were not helpful (22%) or had no significant impact (45%). The vast majority of those who responded negatively (83% and 62%, respectively) supported Democratic candidates in the midterm elections. Aware of this, it is unlikely that the Democratic Party will easily agree to President Trump's new tax cut proposal.

Meanwhile, the issue of healthcare, which garnered significant attention from voters in this election, has resurfaced strongly. According to CNN exit polls, when asked which party is better suited to maintain health insurance benefits for individuals with pre-existing conditions, 57% responded that the Democratic Party is more suitable than the Republican Party. Given that healthcare was the most important issue in the midterm elections, the Democratic Party is likely to actively block the Republican Party's efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act based on this voter sentiment.

In terms of foreign policy related to the Korean Peninsula, the Democratic Party in the House is expected to actively check the President's policies through committees such as the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Armed Services Committee to prevent the Trump administration's overreach. As widely reported in the media before and after the midterm elections, the Democratic Party views the Trump administration's Singapore summit as a failed policy where "the US was deceived by North Korea" and is expected to exert pressure by demanding regular situation reports from the Trump administration regarding North Korea policy. Indeed, during the 115th Congress, the Democratic Party, as the minority party, already expressed considerable dissatisfaction with Secretary of State Pompeo's lack of active engagement in dialogue with them. Now, as the majority party in the House, the Democratic Party is certain to actively scrutinize the Trump administration using its investigative powers, reporting requirements, and fiscal authority within standing committees related to foreign affairs and defense.

Conversely, the ongoing trade war between the US and China is considered the most suitable policy area for bipartisan cooperation. The strength of Senator Bernie Sanders, who was an outsider during the Democratic primaries in the 2016 presidential election, was due to the support of blue-collar workers who keenly felt the negative impacts of free trade. The Democratic Party, unable to escape the pressure from these workers, is unlikely to express significant differences with the Republican Party regarding trade pressure on China, especially with the 2020 presidential election in view. Like President Trump, the Democratic Party is concerned about China's state-led economic model and the security implications for the US arising from Chinese companies' expansion into the US market. They also harbor significant dissatisfaction with the increasing market share of low-cost Chinese manufactured goods in the US and the Chinese government's inadequate protection of US-owned intellectual property. Furthermore, whether intentionally or unintentionally, President Trump's trade pressure on China did not appear to be a major factor influencing the election, except in some regions exporting grain to China. Although President Trump tweeted on November 1, prior to the midterm elections, about having had a "very long and very good conversation" with President Xi Jinping regarding trade, with the Democratic Party controlling the House and facing a re-election bid in 2020, President Trump finds himself in a situation where he cannot easily back down from the trade war with China that he initiated, even if he wished to. While some compromise between the US and Chinese leaders is expected, premature concessions to President Xi at the G20 summit in Argentina at the end of November could provide the Democratic Party with grounds for criticism.

Finally, the "fear tactic" of exaggerating immigration issues as a threat to white identity and a source of instability in American society, and using this for electoral gain, is likely to remain a useful tactic for the Republican Party. In this regard, populism, which attacks those who advocate for liberal immigration policies and view American society as an open society as elites out of touch with the populace, can serve as an appropriate ideological tool for conservative politicians seeking to capitalize on the anxieties of white voters amidst a declining white population. However, it remains uncertain whether figures employing authoritarian populism, who exploit immigration issues and white fear in extreme ways like President Trump, will continue to emerge within the US Republican Party. Nevertheless, Republican politicians who have observed President Trump's mobilization capabilities are unlikely to be entirely free from the temptation to utilize such fear politics and the strategy of pitting elites against the populace during election campaigns.

■ Written by: Son Byung-kwon_ Professor of Political Science and International Relations at Chung-Ang University. He holds a Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Michigan. His primary research areas include American politics, US foreign policy, and comparative legislative and party systems. His recent publications include "Causes of Distrust and Conflict in the ROK-US Alliance: With a Focus on the Roh Moohyun Era" (2016), "The Parliamentary System of a Unified Korea" (2015), and "The Tea Party Movement and the Reshaping of Republican Conservatism" (2013).

■ Managed and Edited by: Choi Soo-yi, Senior Research Fellow at EAI

Inquiries: 02 2277 1683 (ext. 105) I schoi@eai.or.kr

[EAI Commentary] is a commentary series designed to provide a platform for experts from various fields to offer in-depth analysis and policy recommendations on major domestic and international issues. Please cite the source when quoting. EAI is an independent research institution, independent of any partisan interests. The views and opinions expressed in reports, journals, and books published by EAI are not attributable to EAI and represent solely the views of the individual author.