[EAI Commentary] Midterm Elections of the US Congress in 2018 Predicted a Stalemate between the Two Parties

[Editor's Note]

With the Democratic Party winning the House of Representatives 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, it is unlikely that the Trump administration will achieve any significant legislative successes 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, any further tax cuts desired by President Trump 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 image of a campaign-style president rather than a conventional one, consistently pursuing policies with his conservative base in mind. It is well-known that shortly after his inauguration, 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 ways to exercise US sovereignty. In this vein, he urged the revision of the ROK-US Free Trade Agreement and, seeing the US trade deficit with China and 'Made in China 2025' as threats to US security, launched a full-scale trade war against China. 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 to appeal to domestic religious conservatives. He pursued the construction of a wall on the Mexican border, strengthened border security, and consistently adhered to strict immigration policies. Moreover, he nominated conservative Supreme Court justices and emphasized religious freedom over equal civil rights to garner support from conservative forces.

The midterm elections on November 6, 2018, were also held within this 'America First' context, characterized by extreme partisan division and animosity, more so than any previous election. President Trump actively participated in campaign rallies to support Republican candidates in both houses, acting as the Republican Party's greatest campaign surrogate. 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 by making unsubstantiated claims that terrorists were mixed in with the migrant caravan approaching from South America, and stated that force would be used to deal with them if they approached the US border. While President Trump continued to lose the support of minority voters, suburban residents, and highly educated women due to his racist and misogynistic remarks, he approached this election with a strategy of consolidating his conservative base, mindful of the already polarized US political landscape.

As President Trump adopted a strategy of clinging to his conservative base, the mobilization of anti-Trump forces became more pronounced. The success of a large number of female candidates in both the primaries and general elections, more so than in any previous election, was possible amidst a social atmosphere resistant to Trump's misogynistic remarks and actions. Moreover, in opposition to Trump's almost overt white nationalism, minority voters participated more actively in the elections, further increasing the Democratic Party's chances of regaining the House of Representatives. Meanwhile, the Democratic Party focused its efforts on regaining the House, spending more campaign funds than in any previous midterm election.

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

Results of the 2018 Midterm Elections

Although the midterm elections on November 6 have concluded, the Senate race in Mississippi still has a runoff election, and a manual recount is underway in Florida. As of the time of writing, election results for six House districts have not yet been finalized. However, based on the preliminary results, the Democratic Party has succeeded in regaining its majority status in the House of Representatives, a position it lost after the 2010 midterm elections for the 112th Congress. In the Senate, the Republican Party has already secured more than the 51 seats it held in the 115th Congress 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 additional Senate seats in these 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, increasing its Senate seats by two – assuming Republican victories in Mississippi and Florida – as a result of President Trump's base mobilization strategy, is the second instance since the 1974 midterm elections where the president's party has increased its Senate seats. That is, President Trump's Republican Party has achieved the second-largest increase in Senate seats in a midterm election since 1974 and has become the leader in terms of the magnitude of seat increase. 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 consolidating the conservative base was somewhat 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 Trump won in the 2016 presidential election, they lost only Indiana to the Republican candidate, with incumbent Democratic representatives winning re-election in the remaining states.

Meanwhile, the Democratic Party also achieved a significant accomplishment compared to past Democratic victories in House elections. With 193 seats prior to the election, the Democratic Party has now secured 229 seats, not only regaining its majority status in the House but also establishing a lead of approximately 36 seats over the Republican minority. This represents the largest increase in seats for the Democratic Party in a House election since 1974, when they gained 49 seats from the Republican Party following the Watergate scandal. Those who had anticipated a 'wave election' with a much larger partisan seat shift, similar to the 1994 or 2010 midterm elections, might not view this achievement favorably. However, considering the House districts 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 figures within the Democratic Party, and the considerable mobilization power of conservatives due to President Trump's strong base consolidation efforts, the Democratic Party's recapture of the House and its significant victory margin cannot be dismissed as a minor achievement.

Overall, as the vote counting progressed, the Democratic Party gained Senate seats in Nevada and Arizona, resulting in a less significant gap than initially expected. Considering the Democratic Party's strong performance in the House, it is difficult to accept a simplistic assessment of this election as being 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's achievement of regaining the House, increasing its House seats by two in Michigan, two in Illinois, and three in Pennsylvania – states in the Midwest that Trump won in 2016 – and securing House seats across the country, thereby creating a divided government, also deserves recognition. The significance of the Democratic Party's achievement in securing a 'House beachhead' as a counterpoint to President Trump becomes clear when one considers 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, no one would dispute that this election was centered around a referendum on 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 ongoing trend of nationalization and congressional election focus on the president observed in US congressional elections since 1994, as shown in the following table. However, it is accurate to say that this trend of elections focusing on the president was further intensified in this election.

<Table 1> Exit Poll Results for House Elections Based on Presidential Approval, 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.

Exit poll responses for House elections from 1994 to 2010 show that midterm elections, particularly the 1994 election during President Clinton's term, marked a turning point, transforming House elections into a referendum on the voters' approval or disapproval of the president. 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 almost irrelevant, as US congressional elections have shifted from being influenced by local district conditions to being overwhelmingly dominated by central political issues such as the president's policies or the situation in Washington. This phenomenon is also confirmed in the following three tables.

<Table 2> Meaning of House Elections: For President Bush

출처: 2006년 중간선거 CNN 출구조사

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

<Table 3> Meaning of House Elections: For President Obama

출처: 2014년 중간선거 CNN 출구조사

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

<Table 4> Meaning of House Elections: For President Trump

출처: 2018 중간선거 CNN 출구조사

https://edition.cnn.com/election/2018/exit-polls(이하 도표도 같은 출처임)

The responses to CNN exit poll questions asking whether House elections serve as a referendum on the president indicate a 'yes' answer for the midterm elections held during the presidencies of Bush, Obama, and Trump (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 in cases where voters expressed approval or disapproval of the incumbent president, the proportion of voters who chose House candidates from the respective parties in line with those sentiments exceeded 90%, reaching up to 95%. Even more noteworthy is that this proportion was most pronounced in the 2018 midterm elections. That is, the proportion of those viewing the 116th midterm elections as an evaluation of the president, either positively or negatively, was 64%, significantly higher than in the previous two elections. Furthermore, those who considered this midterm election as a presidential evaluation chose House candidates from the respective parties in line 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 heart of Americans' approval or disapproval of the current political landscape. The record-breaking campaign fundraising, the large number of female candidates, and the high level of voter turnout all appear to be byproducts of voters' approval or disapproval of President Trump.

Outlook After the 2018 Midterm Elections

Immediately after the midterm elections on November 7, then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in a press conference, mentioned bipartisan cooperation with the Republican Party and the Trump administration, while also clearly signaling an offensive stance against the Republican administration of President Trump. Firstly, regarding oversight of the administration, the Democratic Party appears poised to investigate various alleged wrongdoings of the Trump administration, such as illicit enrichment and conflicts of interest through abuse of power, via the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform once the 116th Congress convenes. The intention is to rigorously investigate whether President Trump, as the chief executive of the United States, has continuously pursued private business interests. President Trump has reacted extremely nervously to these Democratic offensives, along with the findings of Special Counsel Robert Mueller regarding the Russia connection, and has expressed a strong will to confront them. If the determination of the Democratic Party, which has secured a beachhead for congressional counterattacks against the Trump Republican administration, clashes head-on with the president's refusal to tolerate any such actions, the next two years in US politics are likely to descend into an endless stalemate.

Given the emergence of a divided government with the Democratic Party regaining its majority in the House and the ensuing partisan confrontation, significant legislative achievements by 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, any further tax cuts desired by President Trump or the repeal of the Affordable Care Act will be fundamentally impossible to pursue due to the Democratic-controlled House.

The tax cut bill passed by President Trump in December 2017 heavily benefited the upper-income bracket while offering relatively smaller benefits to the middle and lower classes. Therefore, the Democratic Party is likely to oppose any additional tax cuts if they maintain tax reductions for high earners. The CNN exit poll for this midterm election 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 this House election. Aware of this, it is unlikely that the Democratic Party will easily agree to President Trump's new tax cut proposals.

Meanwhile, the issue of healthcare, which garnered significant voter attention in this election, has resurfaced strongly. According to CNN exit poll data, 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. Considering that healthcare was the most important issue in this midterm election, 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 majority 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 abuses of power by President Trump. As widely reported in the media before and after the midterm elections, the Democratic Party considers the Trump administration's Singapore summit with North Korea a failed policy where 'the US was deceived by North Korea' and plans to pressure the Trump administration by demanding regular situation reports regarding North Korea policy. In fact, during the 115th Congress, the Democratic minority already expressed considerable dissatisfaction with Secretary of State Pompeo's lack of engagement in dialogue with them. Now that the Democratic Party holds the majority in the House, it is highly likely that they will actively scrutinize the Trump administration using their investigative powers, reporting requirements, and budgetary authority within standing committees related to foreign affairs and defense.

On the other hand, the ongoing trade war between the US and China falls into the policy area where bipartisan cooperation is most likely. The strong performance of Senator Bernie Sanders, who was considered an outsider during the 2016 Democratic primaries, was due to the support of blue-collar workers who had keenly felt the negative effects of free trade. The Democratic Party, unable to escape the pressure from these workers, is unlikely to express significant disagreement with the Republican Party regarding trade pressure on China, especially with the 2020 presidential election in mind. Like President Trump, the Democratic Party is concerned about China's state-led economic model and the security risks posed by Chinese companies' expansion into the US. 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 intellectual property rights. Furthermore, whether intentionally or unintentionally, President Trump's trade pressure on China did not emerge as a major factor influencing the election, except in some regions that export grain to China. Although President Trump tweeted on November 1, prior to the midterm elections, about having had a 'long and very good conversation' with President Xi Jinping regarding trade issues, with the Democratic Party controlling the House and facing re-election in 2020, President Trump finds himself in a position where he cannot easily back down from the trade war he initiated with China, 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 anxiety for 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 liberal immigration policies and view American society as an open society as elites out of touch with the public, can serve as an appropriate ideological tool for conservative politicians seeking to capitalize on the anxieties of white voters amidst a trend of declining white population share. However, it remains uncertain whether figures of 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 employ this strategy of fear politics and 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 main research areas include American politics, US foreign policy, and comparative legislative and party politics. Recent publications include 'Causes of Distrust and Conflict in the ROK-US Alliance: With a Focus on the Roh Moohyun Era' (2016), 'Legislative Systems 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 Researcher at EAI

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

[EAI Commentary] is a commentary series planned to provide a platform for experts from various fields to offer in-depth analyses 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 claims and opinions expressed in reports, journals, and books published by EAI are not attributable to EAI and represent solely the views of the respective authors.