Nov 14, 2017 4 min read

One definition of a “trilemma” is “a difficult choice (among) three options, each of which is … unacceptable or unfavorable.”

A trilemma is essentially a dilemma on steroids. Open any door and it doesn’t matter, because all of them are the wrong door.

In the aftermath of this month’s elections, it appears national Republicans are confronting such a challenge as they prepare for the 2018 midterm contests.

In point of fact, Republicans would be playing defense in 2018 regardless of the outcome of this year’s elections. Recent midterms have been referendums on the sitting president, and President Trump is deeply unpopular. Indeed, midterms since the Civil War have generally bruised and battered the president’s party, handing the incumbent party an average loss of 32 seats in the House.

However, the results of the Nov. 7 election seem to raise the normal midterm stakes exponentially. National Republicans may be facing a “wave” election, entailing huge losses in both the House and the Senate, as well as electoral reversals in the 36 states that will elect governors.

Driving the sense of alarm is Republican shock in the aftermath of sharply increased Democratic turnout almost two weeks ago, an increase that both baffled and surprised many observers. The surge was seen most dramatically in suburbs in Virginia and New Jersey, where Democrats won both gubernatorial contests. But even more significant, perhaps, was the rolling tsunami of Democratic voters in local elections around the country.

Most prominent was the turnout in Pennsylvania, notably in the four suburban “collar” counties outside of Philadelphia, where Democrats registered historic gains.

In Delaware County, the party won seats on the county council, something they had not done since county home rule was adopted decades ago. In Bucks County, Democrats won four of the county row offices, and four in Chester County as well. These countywide results were replicated in dozens of townships and boroughs across the Philadelphia metro area.

Trump was not on the ballot in Virginia, New Jersey, Pennsylvania or anywhere else in the country. But his presence was very much part of the environment that motivated Democratic voters across the country.

The “Trump factor” now dominates all electoral calculations. Trump is not only a deeply polarizing figure, but also a deeply paradoxical figure. His staunch support among perhaps 35 percent of the electorate, especially among working-class Democrats, clashes violently with his disapproval ratings, which in most polls approaches 60 percent. He is the most unpopular first-term president in modern American history.

Republicans must confront this stark political reality: Trump is simultaneously the most loved and most reviled president in decades. Thus the GOP’s trilemma, with its three options, each fraught with political peril.

The first option is to run all out with Trump, fully articulating support for his presidency and his agenda. This might be thought of as the Steve Bannon solution. The second option is to run as far away from Trump as possible. Some prominent establishment Republicans are beginning to talk about this publicly, and many more privately. The last option is to do both, while appearing to do neither. Basically, this eschews any open campaigning with Trump, while supporting much of his policy agenda. This option was the approach utilized by former George W. Bush adviser Ed Gillespie in his loss in the Virginia gubernatorial election.

Each option summons the very definition of a trilemma: a tough choice, offering three options, none of which seems workable.

The first option requires full-throated support for a deeply unpopular president. In a presidential election, that might work as an Electoral College strategy, firming up the support of Trump’s core supporters. But in congressional and Senate races, the math is awful, even in the grotesquely gerrymandered districts of today.

Option two could be worse. If Republicans run away from the president, his core voters will abandon the party. Without Trump on the ballot, they may stay home or even vote Democratic, leaving the GOP without much of a base.

The final option, which is ditching Trump but embracing his agenda, sounded good until it was actually tried by Gillespie in Virginia. It certainly did not help Gillespie with Trump supporters.

It is possible that Republicans will adopt all three of these strategies, tailoring each to local conditions and challenges. In the balkanized politics of contemporary America, it might work. What won’t work, however, is for the GOP to move into 2018 with no coherent strategy to deal with the Trump factor. Doing nothing is not an option.