ON NOVEMBER 6, Americans went to the polls in record numbers to vote in the first midterm election of the Donald Trump presidency. The result was a split in the control of Congress and, likely, a long next two years for the private club industry’s priorities.
The House of Representatives
The House of Representatives breakdown is now 235 Democrats to 200 Republicans. That provides Democrats with a 17-seat voting majority, which is smaller than the previous Republican voting majority of 23.
This is the third change in control of the House since the Republicans took over after the 1994 midterm elections. Democrats last wrested control of the House from Republicans in 2006 (the final midterm election of the George
W. Bush presidency). After that win, Democrats held the Speaker’s gavel for four years but ceded it to Republicans in 2010 (the first midterm of the Barack Obama presidency).
Democrats gained a net total of 40 seats—a figure above the historical pat- tern for losses incurred by the party holding the White House in midterm elections. The average pick-up by the party not in the White House has been 33 seats in 18 of the last 20 midterm elections. So, the blue wave materialized in the House.
A number of factors helped propel the Democrats to victory in the House. On the fundraising front, more than 100 Democratic challengers outraised their Republican incumbent opponents in the third quarter of the year. That fact alone placed Democratic candidates on an equal (or better) financial footing for the home-stretch of their campaigns. And the impact of that money enabled Democratic candidates to hammer home their messages far more effectively than in previous midterm elections.
In addition to the money, there was a surge in voter interest that has rarely been seen in a non-presidential election year. In states across the country, the voter turnout made the difference in close races. In Texas and Nevada, the early voting numbers surpassed what took place in 2014 (the last midterm election), and a number of long-term incumbents lost because of it. This pattern showed up almost in every state that Democrats won against entrenched Republican incumbents. While Republicans also saw an increase in their voter turnout, it was not enough to overcome the Democratic surge in the general election.
Another major issue for Republicans in the House was the large number of retirements. More than 40 Republican incumbents decided to call it a day. The last time that many sitting House members did not seek re-election was in 1994 when nearly 30 Democratic incumbents retired and helped to give Republicans control for the first time in more than forty years.
Finally, this midterm election saw a remarkable difference between suburban and rural voters. A significant number of races that flipped from red to blue were based in suburban areas that Republicans had held for years. Most of those voters were affluent and well-educated and they were not as comfortable with some of the issues Republican incumbents voted for during the last two years.
It was not that those issues did not resonate with these voters, but it was more because Democrats running in those districts were able to define the issues in an effective way and turn those traditionally Republican voters away from the incumbents. The vote to repeal Obamacare was a prime example.
Republicans running for the House in 2016 made clear they would support repealing and replacing Obamacare with a bill that protects those with pre-existing conditions. Having passed the repeal bill, it seemed those Republicans would be rewarded with re-election in 2018. However, by not passing a replacement bill they were susceptible to the charge that they did not want to protect those with pre-existing conditions. It was a charge that stuck in the minds of many who had voted for them two years earlier.
This reality hit home with Rep.
Karen Handel (R-Ga.). She represented
a northern Atlanta suburban district. Traditionally, voters in that district sup- ported candidates who were opposed to Obamacare. Indeed, the seat had been held by former House member and Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom
Price (R) who was the architect of the repeal plan. However, Handel lost by less than 1 percentage point.
In addition to that Georgia seat, the displeasure coming from suburban district voters was felt by Reps. Pete Session (R) from the Dallas area, Dan Donovan (R) from New York City, Mike Coffman (R) from the Denver suburbs and Mike Bishop (R) from the Detroit area. These members had served in office from 4 to 22 years, yet voters abandoned them on election day.
In the end, these voters and these districts provided the basis for the Democratic victory in the House.
The Senate
While the election results produced a change of control in the House of Representatives, that was not the case in the Senate. The Republican majority actually increased its numbers by a net of two new members. The balance of power is now 53–47.
This will be the largest Republican majority in the Senate since 2014 when they had 54. Of course, such a majority will not provide them any real room to maneuver legislatively. They will still need 60 votes to bring bills to the floor for a vote and few Democrats will be interested in working with them to reach that 60 threshold—especially as the presidential election cycle begins.
Though the result was encouraging for the majority, it was not achieved without some losses. Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) was the lone Republican incumbent to lose. Former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton won Nevada in 2016, so this was not a total surprise. Republicans also lost the seat that retiring Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) held. To offset these losses, Republican candidates in Florida, Indiana, Missouri and North Dakota all defeated Democratic incumbents.
The main story from election night was the ability of Republicans to flip those four blue seats. While those seats were in states that President Trump won in 2016—and it was likely they were going to turn red—it was close, especially in Florida.
Two other states that the president won in 2016—West Virginia (by 42%) and Montana (by 21%)—were also on track to flip, but the incumbent Democrats held on with some tremendous grass-roots campaigning and shrewd political decision-making leading up to the election.
As with the House elections, the results in the Senate can largely be attributed to the split in voter reaction in suburban and rural areas. Throughout the final days of the campaign, President Trump spent a great deal of time stumping for candidates in rural areas across the country—not in the cities or suburbs.
The energy and excitement he brought to counties outside of major suburban enclaves in Florida, Indiana, Missouri and North Dakota helped to generate more voter engagement. In essence, these senate races showed that rural voters could come out in enough numbers to offset the suburban voters who worked against candidates supported by the president. With a larger statewide base, that strategy worked in a way that could not work in many House races.
While this tactic worked in those four states, the rural vs. suburban juxtaposition will be one worth watching as we head into the 2020 election cycle.
The Next Two Years
After all of the campaign commercials, debates and fundraisers, we now have divided government in Washington, D.C.
With Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) regaining the Speaker’s gavel, it seems that a number of NCA’s priorities will have little opportunity to succeed in the House—at least that was the case the last time she served as Speaker. Of course, we have seen how hard it has been for Republicans to pass anything in the House with a 23-seat majority. When the 116th Congress is sworn-in on January 3, the Democrats will be working with a 17-seat majority and could encounter the same kind of issues as Republicans did. So, we will have to wait and see how Nancy Pelosi handles her second stint as the leader of the House.
As for the Senate, it seems the upper chamber of Congress may be NCA’s last, best hope to ensure that the current pro- club legislative climate is maintained. While Republican victories may have grown the majority’s ranks the same 60-vote threshold problem could again cause much in the Senate to be stymied.
As always, we will look to find common ground with allies from both sides of the aisle to move initiatives that help our member clubs prosper and succeed. With these election results, it may be a bit more difficult road to hoe than we have had in the last two years. But, with your continued support, NCA will be up to the task.