Nov 24, 2018 6 min read

Prior to the midterms, most commentators predicted the Democrats would win the House, and possibly the Senate, as part of a Blue Wave, fueled by opposition to President Trump. Trump (as well as some other Republicans) tried to dismiss that narrative, and even spoke of a Red Wave. Initially, the results seemed mixed, with Democrats clearly taking the House, but not by as much as they’d hoped, and failing to take the Senate while losing in some very high profile elections in Texas, Florida and Georgia. But a lot of late-breaking results (especially in California) turned a number of “too close to call” House races for the Democrats, leading to a decisive Democratic win.

It is normal for the president’s party to lose some seats in the midterm election, which has happened to every president but two since 1934 (Bush in 2004 after 9/11, Clinton in 1998 during the Republican impeachment efforts). This year, the Democrats picked up more seats (at least 37) than they have since 1974, when Watergate provided some help. Since 1974, only three times has the opposition party picked up a greater number of seats (during Watergate the Democrats picked up 48 in 1974; the Republicans picked up 54 in 1994,  and 63 in 2010, when the Tea Party was at the height of its power).

It is especially impressive that the Democratic gains in this election were made in spite of a strong economy (which favors the incumbents), and with districts that were gerrymandered to favor the Republicans. The highly respected political polling organization FiveThirtyEight (run by Nate Silver) predicts that over the long term, based on historical voting patterns, the way the current districts are drawn the Republicans should win 234 districts while the Democrats should win 201 (giving the Republicans a 33-seat natural advantage), making the Democratic gains even more impressive. After the election, Trump declared that the results were “close to a complete victory.” If this is a win, the Trump supporters may already be tired of winning.

The only basis for Trump’s optimism was that the Republicans did pick up at least one Senate seat, and the party holding the presidency only added Senate seats five times in the last 105 years. But the Senate electoral map was historically difficult for the Democrats this year. Democrats not only had to defend 26 seats to the Republicans’ nine, 10 of the Democratic Senate seats were in states that Trump carried in 2016 (only one of the Republican seats was in a state Clinton carried). So the Democrats had a much more challenging task, since essentially they were competing on Trump’s turf. The Democrats successfully defended six of the 10 seats in states Trump won; the Republicans lost the only seat they defended in a state Clinton carried (NV), and they also lost Arizona. In 2020, the map will be much more favorable to the Democrats, as they will only have to defend 12 seats compared to 22 for the Republicans.

In typical Trump fashion, he claimed credit for Republican victories and blamed any losses on the individual candidates. Trump was very active on the campaign trail, where he urged supporters to vote as if he were on the ballot. He campaigned three times in Montana, a state he won by more than 20 points, but could not unseat the Democratic incumbent (Jon Tester). In some places, he hurt the Republicans; he bragged about driving Jeff Flake (senator from Arizona) out of the Senate, and campaigned for the primary opponent of Mark Sanford (former governor of S.C. running for Congress), and the Democrats flipped both of those seats.

Three darlings of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party also lost. Beto O’Rourke, who ran for Senate against incumbent Ted Cruz in Texas, Staci Abrams and Andrew Gillum who ran for governor in Georgia and Florida, respectively. While these were all losses, they were all very close, and remember, these candidates ran unabashedly progressive campaigns in traditionally conservative states.

This election was vital for the Democrats, because the Republicans have had control of both houses of Congress and the presidency for two years, and now have a solid conservative majority on the Supreme Court. Surprisingly, the only major legislation the Republicans were able to pass was a bill that cut taxes for corporations and the wealthy, which has turned out not to be particularly popular. While they were in a position to steamroll the Democrats, the Republicans could not even repeal Obamacare, which they had been threatening to do for years. Largely, this is because Obamacare has become quite popular, as people see its positive effects (preventing insurance companies from denying coverage due to pre-existing conditions, e.g.). It was almost farcical to see Republican candidates claiming to support Obamacare, even as they had voted against it, or in some cases, were actively participating in lawsuits that would destroy it. For the most part, voters saw through their efforts to obfuscate the issue and punished them in the voting booth. Democratic control of the House now means that any legislation that passes will have to have bipartisan support. There might be some opportunities (prison reform, infrastructure), but repealing and replacing Obamacare will no longer be an issue.

Democrats controlling the House will also allow Congress to engage in oversight of the executive branch, a constitutional obligation it had ignored while the Republicans controlled the agenda. Now, instead of Republican committee chairmen preventing efforts to investigate potential scandals in the administration, the Democrats will be able to exercise some real oversight.

Finally, the size of the Democratic win is important because it is a rebuke of the Trump administration, and demonstrates that all those energized Democratic voters who had never been involved before but had given their time and money to Democratic candidates, and some of whom even ran for office, made a difference. It demonstrates that our political system is still able to respond to the will of the voters, which is vitally important in a world where many people have turned to authoritarian governments that have eroded their democratic institutions. In order to thrive, a democracy needs to channel the will of the people, and this election has demonstrated that in spite of the efforts to undermine it, our democratic institutions still work.

Kent James is an East Washington resident and has degrees in history and policy management from Carnegie Mellon University.