Media coverage of United States Congress elections, 2018
From Ballotpedia
The media highlighted various events that potentially impacted the outcome of the 2018 mid-term elections. This included major policy developments, the outcome of certain interim or special elections, and noteworthy national and international events. Such stories assessed the impact of these major events on the 2018 elections for the U.S. House or U.S. Senate, and sometimes, both.
Here are brief summaries of the media narratives leading up to the 2018 elections from both parties’ perspectives.
October 2018
In the weeks before the November 2018 elections, political pundits discussed a number of high profile events, including the movement of a large group of Central American migrants toward the U.S.-Mexico border, a shooting at a synagogue in Pittsburg, and a string of attempted mail bombings aimed at prominent Democrats.
Democratic narratives
- John Cassidy wrote that Trump was attempting to distract voters ahead of the midterms in an article for The New Yorker (October 30, 2018):
- "By early afternoon on Tuesday, Donald Trump’s latest piece of political chicanery, Operation Midterms Diversion, could be considered a partial success. After a week in which the media narrative was focussed on pipe bombs, an alleged bomber who just happened to be an ardent supporter of Trump, and a racist massacre in a Pittsburgh synagogue, two of the three cable news channels—Fox and MSNBC—had reverted to subjects more to Trump’s liking: immigration, the southern border, and the allotment of U.S. citizenship. CNN, to its credit, was resisting the President’s effort to dictate the news agenda and stayed focussed on Pittsburgh, where the funerals of some of the victims of Saturday’s dreadful mass shooting were taking place, as the city was bracing for a visit from the President and his wife, Melania. The home pages of the New York Times and the Washington Post were both leading with the Pittsburgh story, too. But they were also featuring prominently Trump’s pledge, in an interview with the news site Axios, to abolish the right to U.S. citizenship for children born in the United States to parents who aren’t citizens. It was no accident at all that this announcement was made just a week before the midterm elections."[1]
- Matt Barreto wrote that Trump's immigration rhetoric was likely to demobilize voters ahead of the midterms in an article for The New York Times (October 24, 2018):
- "Over the past few weeks, on the campaign trail and at home in the White House, President Trump has made it clear that attacking immigrants is the main thrust of his midterm message. In 2016, his anti-immigrant campaign resonated with his core supporters and it may well again in 2018, but this year more people have been turned off by the reality of his anti-immigrant politics. As a result, Mr. Trump’s vile strategy is more likely to backfire this time..."
- "Recent election results suggest that attacking immigrants no longer works with the majority that candidates need to win. Instead, a majority of Americans favor a more welcoming approach to immigrants, not divisiveness. Analysis of data from Virginia showed that the false claims of Ed Gillespie, the Republican candidate for governor in 2017, that the Central American prison gang MS-13 was threatening Virginia’s way of life moved voters away from his camp and actually made them more likely to vote for his Democratic opponent. In a special election for the House in a mostly white district in Pennsylvania, another Republican candidate, Rick Saccone, made bashing sanctuary cities central to his campaign, and he lost. Same outcome for Kim Guadagno in New Jersey, who lost the governor’s race badly while attacking immigrants. In the suburbs of Kansas City, Mo., Kevin Corlew ran a slew of anti-immigrant radio ads and lost a special election by 10 points. The list goes on."[2]
- Raul Reyes wrote that Trump's claims about Central American migrants were misleading and intended to scare voters in a CNN article (October 28, 2018):
- "Trump has been pushing the false narrative that the caravan poses a threat to our country. Yet if these people reach the border, they can be processed like any other migrants and screened for asylum claims. The notion that they want to "invade our country" is a myth. The vulnerable people in the caravan hope to become part of our society, not to destroy it. The reason Trump is conflating the caravan with terrorists ostensibly has little to do with reality and everything to do with politics. With the midterms a little more than a week away, he sees fear-mongering as the best way to activate his base. What else does Trump have to talk about?
- His tax cuts are not popular with voters. His installation of Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court divided the country. Trump has not fulfilled his campaign promise of building a wall. So he is forging ahead with scare tactics. His advisers basically admit as much; referring to the president's mistruths about the caravan, one senior Trump administration official told The Daily Beast, 'it doesn't matter if it's 100% accurate. This is the play.'"[3]
Republican narratives
- Kalev Leetaru analyzed President Trump's claim that the media disproportionately covered mail bomber Cesar Sayoc, who targeted prominent Democrats, compared to acts of violence against Republicans in an article for Real Clear Politics (October 31, 2018):
- "President Trump argued Monday night that media coverage of mail bomber Cesar Sayoc was biased when compared with how news outlets treated James T. Hodgkinson’s shooting of Republicans practicing for the Congressional Baseball Game last year. According to the president, Sayoc’s admiration of Trump was heavily emphasized, whereas the coverage of Hodgkinson barely focused on his loyalty to Bernie Sanders. Some media outlets were quick to dismiss Trump’s assertion, but he raises an interesting question: Do the data show any validity to the president’s concerns?"
- "The shooter’s affiliation with Sen. Sanders reached a peak of 31 percent of coverage the following day, then rapidly dissipated as the media largely dropped mentions of Hodgkinson’s political affiliation....By Oct. 25, the day before any information was known about the bomber’s identity, nearly 70 percent of coverage of the bombs mentioned Trump. By Sunday, nearly 80 percent of coverage associated the bomber with Trump.
- In the end, while the president wasn’t entirely correct in claiming that the media didn’t associate the 2017 shooting with Sanders, his concerns about a media double standard are borne out. When a Sanders supporter and campaign volunteer opened fire on GOP members, the media quickly stopped mentioning the connection. Yet days before anything was known about last week’s bomber, the media had settled on Trump as the cause. Instead of reflexively dismissing any questions about bias, a bit of self-reflection on how the media covers the presidency in our increasingly divided world might be more productive."[4]
- Michael Brendan Dougherty wrote that Democrats were not committed to preventing Central American migrants from crossing the U.S.-Mexico border in an article for National Review (October 26, 2018):
- "Shouldn’t it be easy for Pelosi and Schumer to just say that the people in the caravan should not be allowed to walk right into the country, that any legitimate asylum claims will be processed according to the normal fashion, and that they advise anyone, especially vulnerable people, against making a 1,000-mile journey through Mexico with people they do not know? Maybe it should be easy to say that, but it isn’t. In a way, it’s odd that Democrats can’t at least pay lip service to immigration enforcement. After all, their recent promises on the matter have been taken in the same spirit as Hillary Clinton’s and Barack Obama’s onetime opposition to same-sex marriage. These are things Democrats feel compelled to say to appease a retrograde electorate, but they don’t mean it and they won’t follow through on it..."
- "The Democrats’ ability to kid themselves about their commitment to border enforcement is one of the reasons America’s debate about immigration is so deranged. Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer want to avoid the subject of the caravan for a very good reason. Because now it has become obvious. In order to pass legislation, they ask Republicans and restrictionists to believe their commitments to enforcement. Out of the other side of their mouth, to avoid primary challenges and hassle, they ask activists not to."[5]
- David Harsanyi wrote that Democrats exploited the synagogue shooting in Pittsburg for a political messaging opportunity in an article for The Federalist (October 28, 2018):
- "It was ironic to see many of the same liberals, who recently fought to prop up the world’s most powerful Jew-hating terror state, lecturing us on the importance of combating anti-Semitism. But there they were yesterday. The same Voxers who had long rationalized, romanticized, and excused the Jew-killing terror organization of the Middle East were now blaming the existence of the evil, anti-Semitic Pittsburgh shooter on Republicans. The same Obama bros whose echo chamber deployed anti-Semitic dual-loyalty tropes to smear critics of the Iran deal were now incredibly concerned about the Jewish community."
- "If you think Trump should bring down the temperature, you have a point. If you think Trump should turn down the temperature but you fail to mention that a progressive yelling about “health care” tried to assassinate the entire GOP leadership on a baseball field, you don’t really care about the temperature. If you fail to mention that Democrats have been accusing Republicans of wanting to the kill the poor and young, of trying to destroy the planet, of being “terrorists” after every school shooting, you don’t care about the temperature. If you rationalize mob behavior every time you don’t get your way in the electoral process, you don’t care about the temperature. And if your first instinct is to play politics with tragedy for partisan gain, you are part of the problem."[6]
September 2018
In September 2018, political observers argued over the Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Brett Kavanaugh, particularly after Christine Blasey Ford accused Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her while the two were in high school and testified in an open hearing in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Pundits disagreed about whether the Kavanaugh-Ford hearings would benefit Democrats or Republicans in the midterms.[7]
Kavanaugh hearings help Democrats
- LA Kauffman argued that the Kavanaugh hearings would mobilize women voters ahead of the midterms in an article for The Guardian (September 25, 2018):
- "If there’s cause for hope in these horror-show days, it’s this: the Republican party has no idea what’s about to hit it this November. Even the dimmest and most misogynist of Republican operatives must realize, by this point, that the supreme court nomination of Brett Kavanaugh and the handling of the sexual assault allegations against him will hurt their chances, especially with women voters, in the upcoming midterm elections. What they don’t seem to realize, though, is that huge numbers of women aren’t just mad – they’re organized and mobilized politically in a way we’ve never quite seen before. The key story of the midterms is the large number of progressive women – and to a lesser extent, progressive men – who have been taking on the crucial, unglamorous work that swings elections: registering voters, canvassing door-to-door, preparing to get people to the polls. The disdain for women that the Republicans have shown by continuing to rally behind Kavanaugh is only energizing them further."[8]
Kavanaugh hearings help Republicans
- James S. Robbins argued that the Kavanaugh hearings would lead to a backlash against Democrats in a USA Today article (September 26, 2018):
- "Have Democrats gone so overboard in trying to demonize Brett Kavanaugh that they risk a backlash from upstanding men and the women who love them? Let’s start with the premise that Democrats want to keep Judge Kavanaugh off the high court by any means necessary. Their modus operandi is to bring up alleged sexual assault charges late in the game to delay or derail the nomination process. They see it as a win-win: they either destroy Kavanaugh, discourage the Republican voter base, and deal a significant blow to the Trump presidency (the real target of all this); or Republicans hang together in the face of this political monsoon, confirm Kavanaugh, and alienate women voters in the process, leading to Democratic victories in the midterm election. Democrats seem to think this political game won’t cost them. But they have left the reaction of men out of the equation."[9]
August 2018
Democratic primaries
- Katrina vanden Heuvel discussed the state of the progressive insurgency in the Democratic Party in an Atlantic article (August 16, 2018):
- "How do you cover an insurgency like the one now roiling the Democratic Party? The mainstream media’s treatment would give readers a severe case of whiplash. The 2018 primaries had barely started when The New York Times announced the virtual demise of the movement sparked by Bernie Sanders. Then, when newcomer Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez eviscerated Joe Crowley, the fourth-ranking Democrat in the House, in a New York primary, the Times ran a story headlined There Is a Revolution on the Left, warning that 'a new generation of confrontational progressives has put Democrats at the precipice of a sweeping transition.'
- "To date, the reform movement has made its greatest gains in the war of ideas. This shouldn’t be surprising. The reforms that the activists are championing are bold, striking, and address real needs: Medicare for all, tuition-free public college, a $15 minimum wage, universal pre-K, a federal jobs guarantee, a commitment to rebuild America, a challenge to big-money politics, police and prison reforms, and a fierce commitment to liberty and justice for all."
- "Moreover, the media too often assume that if the movement candidate has lost, a 'moderate' has won. ... The media need to focus less on the horse races and more on what’s being built and what’s being discarded. The insurgency is neither on its deathbed nor about to sweep out the old. Indeed, Democrats are still in the early stages of a huge debate on the party’s direction. Insurgent candidates are only starting to build the capacity to run serious challengers."[10]
Republican primaries
- Jonathan Bernstein discussed the significance of Trump's endorsement in Republican primaries in a Bloomberg article (August 22, 2018):
- "I’ve been impressed with Trump’s recent successes in primary endorsements. After the fiasco in the Alabama Senate special election, he’s been picking likely winners who then won, making Trump look good — and he’s restrained himself and stayed out of some contests in which the winner was difficult to determine in advance or where the Trumpiest candidate seemed unlikely to win. That streak ends in Wyoming."
- "The first tangible consequence for Trump is that he’ll most likely have a Wyoming governor who resents the president’s attempt to defeat him."
- "But the real danger here is that Republican politicians begin to believe that Trump isn’t a threat to them after all. My guess — and it’s only speculation — is that this has been true all along. While a presidential endorsement might move quite a few votes in low-interest primary elections because voters are looking for any kind of cue about who the acceptable candidate might be, it’s a lot harder for endorsements to move votes against an incumbent. Not impossible, but difficult."[11]
June 2018
Democratic primaries
- Bill Barrow and Thomas Beaumont discuss the variety of candidates and messages being offered to Democratic primary voters as the party looks to win control of the House in an Associated Press article (June 11, 2018):
- "It’s not one size fits all, with every candidate checking every box wanted by the activists driving the opposition to President Donald Trump and the GOP Congress, and Democratic voters typically aren’t tapping the most liberal choices in targeted districts. But, taken together, the crop of nominees is trending more liberal than many of the 'Blue Dog' Democrats swept away in Republicans’ 2010 midterm romp."
- "That means voters now represented by a Republican will be asked to consider some or all of the mainstream Democratic priorities that may have been considered 'too liberal' in the past: more government involvement in health insurance, tighter gun laws, a path to citizenship for people in the country illegally, reversing parts of the GOP tax law, support for LGBTQ rights."
- "In some instances, the liberal arguments come from candidates who can sell themselves as trustworthy messengers, even if the message is stereotyped as out of place."
- "The question is whether that path results in Democrats gaining the 23 new seats they need for a majority."[12]
Republican primaries
- Nate Silver identified factors which could impact whether Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy's retirement will be an advantage to Republicans in the 2018 elections in an analysis at FiveThirtyEight (June 28, 2018):
- "One way that Kennedy’s retirement could help Republicans is by narrowing the enthusiasm gap between Democrats and Republicans."
- "Despite that [polls suggesting 2016 presidential voters preferred Clinton on the issue of selecting Supreme Court justices], Gorsuch was a reasonably popular nominee last year. But he was replacing another conservative justice, whereas a replacement for Kennedy could potentially produce a big ideological shift in the court."
- "Another [factor] is that it could plausibly be to these [red state] Democrats’ advantage to demonstrate their centrist and independent streak by voting for Trump’s pick. Heitkamp, for instance, has already run ads bragging about how often she votes against Democrats and with Trump’s position."
- "On balance, Kennedy’s retirement probably offers more political upside than downside for Republicans, but it’s a long way from a slam dunk. And this is not a White House where things always — or usually — go so smoothly as they did with the Gorsuch pick."[13]
May 2018
Democratic primaries
- Paul Kane discussed the early May performance of what he referred to as the Democratic establishment in party primaries in an analysis for The Washington Post (May 9, 2018):
- "In the Senate, Democrats in Washington have essentially cleared the field in every remotely competitive race this fall, including several GOP-held seats where the party hopes to win and tip the majority in its direction. While they face an uphill battle for the chamber, defending 26 seats to Republicans’ nine, they point to a lack of damaging primary battles as an advantage as campaigns move from primaries to the general election."
- "The most bitter primaries are happening in House races, where a flood of candidates have been motivated by the energy of liberal protests against Trump. Several of them are shaping up as ideological battles that echo the 2016 Democratic presidential primary between Hillary Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), but party strategists suggest most of them just pit a glut of candidates in a primary and have no clear front-runner."
- "Part of the establishment’s strength comes from the party’s movement to the left on some core economic issues, co-opting potential primary challenges from the left."
- "While Democrats have largely avoided intraparty fights in big races, Republicans have deep concerns about potentially bitter primaries for statewide offices in Wisconsin, Arizona and Florida that fall in the late summer, with little time to unify ranks afterward for November."[14]
Republican primaries
- Alex Seitz-Wald examined the difference in campaign tactics and prospects of Republican candidates running for the House and the Senate, including reactions from national political observers, in an article on NBC News.com (May 6, 2018):
- "The House and Senate might as well be Mars and Venus this year. The House will be decided by transitional suburbs where Republicans are on defense; the Senate will be decided by red, rural states where Democrats on defense. It's the least overlap I've seen in my career covering this stuff." - Dave Wasserman, Cook Political Report analyst and NBC News contributor
- "The House and Senate typically move in tandem, with each party's strength rising and falling with the national mood. But thanks to a quirk in timing and geography, 2018 could be the first year in American history when a party gains control of one chamber while simultaneously losing seats in the other, according to Gary Jacobson, a professor at the University of California-San Diego who studies Congress."
- "On the House side, vulnerable Republicans are declining to appear with Trump in public, criticizing his rhetoric, defending the Trump-Russia probe and even floating impeachment."
- "On the other side of the Capitol, every Senate candidate is running as a Trump loyalist, with many adopting his attacks on 'Crooked Hillary' and the 'fake news' media."[15]
April 2018
Democratic primaries
- Z. Byron Wolf compiled reactions from national political figures in response to an emerging narrative that a 'blue wave' in November was increasingly likely in an analysis on CNN.com (April 9, 2018):
- "This is going to be a challenging election year. We know the wind is going to be in our face. We don't know whether it's going to be a Category 3, 4 or 5." - Sen. Mitch McConnell, (R-Ky)
- "In environments like this, we used to worry that high expectations would lead to voter complacency. But 2018 has generated the equivalent of nuclear energy for Democrats. They're not staying home on Election Day, they're rushing to the polls. What Republicans are doing is bracing their donors for the worst, so that anything better than catastrophe can be spun as a victory." - former Rep. Steve Israel, (D-NY)
- "Here's the bottom line: There's nothing easy about winning 23 seats under the current gerrymandered maps -- in the face of massive outside Republican spending -- and we're taking nothing for granted." - Tyler Law, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spokesperson
- "'If the elections were held tomorrow, I think we would take back the house,' said Rodell Mollineau, a former top Democratic Senate staffer and former president of the super PAC American Bridge 21st Century. But he cautioned that political winds can change and pointed to the 2014 midterms, when Democrats felt good early on but Republicans ultimately saw gains in the Senate and House."[16]
Republican primaries
- Former Rep. John LeBoutillier (R-NY) listed 17 reasons why he believed Republican losses in the mid-term elections would be larger than expected in an opinion column in The Hill (April 9, 2018). Among them were:
- "No Republican candidate can separate him or herself from Trump; they just can’t do it and few are even trying. The only elected GOP candidates who publicly criticize the president are those who are not running again;"
- "The passion differential is a template I use to predict elections. It is quite simple: which side is more ticked off? That is the side who will win;"
- "Happy, contented voters don’t come out in off-year or mid-term election at the rate they do in presidential years; but angry voters are dying to vote;"
- "It doesn’t take much: if 5 percent more Democrats bother to vote while 5 percent fewer Republican vote, then there is your passion differential;"
- "2018 is going be the exact same thing [as the 2010 and 2014 mid-terms]: anti-Trumpism is virtually the only energizing force. Trump himself only makes it worse for the GOP; his obsession with his 'base' precludes an effort to reach out to Independents, the crucial swing voters who determine election outcomes;"
- "The message voters are sending is simple: Trump is a disaster and has to go. That means his party has to go too. Period."
- "Thus the 2018 passion differential: big Democratic gains up and down the ballot. A huge rebuke to Trump and to his Republican Party."[17]
March 2018
Democratic primaries
- Emily Goodin and Adam Kelsey highlighted how Rep. Conor Lamb won a narrow victory over Rick Saccone in the closely watched special election in Pennsylvania's 18th Congressional District for ABC News (March 22, 2018):
- "Lamb, a 33-year-old former federal prosecutor and Marine, running in his first campaign for elected office, won in a momentous upset in a region that has been dominated by the GOP for nearly two decades. More significant than the seat itself, which Lamb will occupy only until January, is the tone the result sets for Democrats nationwide."
- "Lamb chose not to make his campaign about Trump, instead running a predominantly local race focused on issues like jobs, entitlement programs and the opioid epidemic, but the president’s fingerprints remained all over the special election. Trump visited the region twice in the two months prior to Election Day, most recently on the Saturday before the election when he stumped in support of Saccone, telling a raucous crowd that he was an 'extraordinary guy' and that Republicans 'needed him' in Washington."
- "Trump won the district in 2016 by nearly 20 points, largely on the back of his promises to protect American workers, a pledge that resonated with the region's blue-collar workforce that witnessed firsthand the impact of the fading steel and coal industries. Lamb successfully harnessed the organizing power of a substantial number of the district's union-members, earning the endorsement of the AFL-CIO, a strategy that served the district's previous representative, Republican Rep. Tim Murphy, well in his eight election victories."[18]
Republican primaries
- Nash Jenkins compiled the reaction of several congressional Republicans after Rick Saccone’s narrow loss to Rep. Conor Lamb in the closely watched special election in Pennsylvania's 18th Congressional District in Time magazine (March 15, 2018):
- "Clearly one of the messages is that candidates matter" – Sen. John Thune, (R-UT)
- "The assumption that you can win an election with less than ideal candidates — that’s just not something that happens a lot. Does this result, or the Alabama result before that, affect [someone else’s] district? Of course not. It’s race by race. But clearly you have to have candidates that are good candidates, and if not, it’s going to be a long day." – Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart, (R-FL)
- "I don’t think it’s a national movement or whatever. A national movement would have been Texas going blue. You had a combination of a candidate on the Democratic side who was really getting after it, and another one who — had a different style. The Democrat raised a little bit more money, and it’s a game of money." – Roger Williams, (R-TX)
- "It should be a wakeup call for conservatives and Republicans. Look, nobody likes to lose. But every now and then, in sports or in business, there’s an event that happens that reminds you to get back to the basics. And the basics for us are lower taxes and less government." - Williams[19]
February 2018
Democratic primaries
- Karen Tumulty identified the challenges Democrats face in winning control of the House of Representatives in a column in The Washington Post (February 6, 2018):
- "Off-year elections in a president’s first term nearly always cost his party some seats, and President Trump’s historically low approval ratings are an especially heavy weight for Republicans. The fact that so many GOP incumbents are in a rush to retire is no mere coincidence."
- "What should be more worrisome to Democrats — ironically enough — are some of the very forces that are working in their favor. They are on track to have a record number of candidates running, led by a surge of women and veterans."
- "All of that is a good thing for any party. Except when it leads to large, messy primaries."
- "In crowded primaries, Republicans will be rooting from the sidelines for the liberal base to pull all of the candidates leftward — forcing them to declare allegiance to single-payer health care, impeaching Trump, free college tuition. Those are October attack ads in waiting in many of the scattered pockets where Democrats need to win. Which is why national numbers matter so little. For an electoral wave to rise high enough to wash a majority-making two dozen House seats into the Democratic column, the party will have to take territory that Hillary Clinton could not."
- "Democrats also have to contend with two givens in Republicans’ favor — gerrymandered districts and outside spending by conservative groups."[20]
Republican primaries
- James Hohmann discussed how February polling pointed towards improving chances for Republicans in the November elections in an analysis in The Washington Post (February 8, 2018):
- "If it felt like a tsunami was headed for Republicans at the end of the year, now it’s looking more like a normal wave. Under the radar, a flurry of new public polls points to incremental improvements in GOP fortunes and challenges the narrative that has been gelling in most of the media’s campaign coverage."
- "There has been a small but significant rise in President Trump’s approval rating over the past month and a shrinking Democratic advantage in the generic congressional ballot, which is moving closer to a level where Republicans could hold onto the House."
- "Growing support for the tax bill, enacted just before Christmas, is a major factor. The State of the Union and the government shutdown may have also helped."
- "The election is still not for nine months, an eternity in Trump time. Continuing volatility in the polls is a safe bet. The president’s party almost always loses a lot of House seats during his first midterm election, and no Republican argues that won’t happen in 2018. The question is whether they’ll lose 24, which would cost them their majority."[21]
January 2018
Democratic primaries
- National publications highlight those primaries that might reveal the direction of the party:
- There were multiple articles about candidates who were challenging incumbent Democratic office-holders or races which highlighted ideological divisions within the party. Mother Jones identified seven 2018 primaries that it said “will shape the future of the Democratic party,” and stated that “Many of the debates that have dogged the party over the past few years (and beyond)—the role for pro-life Democrats, the power of big-money donors, and the future of the Bernie Sanders coalition—will be playing out once again in various races across the country.”[22]
- Mic.com also identified seven Democratic primaries it said “could determine the future of progressive politics in America,” contending that the races listed would “likely determine the fate of the growing progressive movement, and its role either within or outside of the Democratic Party beyond 2018.”[23]
- Three elections appeared on both lists. First, the Democratic primary in Illinois’ 3rd Congressional District, where Rep. Daniel Lipinski, who is a member of the Democratic Blue Dog Coalition, faced a more progressive challenger, Marie Newman. Both articles also highlighted the U.S. Senate race in California between 26-year incumbent Sen. Dianne Feinstein and state Senate President Kevin de León, who has received support from progressive organizations. The third race mentioned in both articles was the Democratic primary for Illinois’ Governor, where state Senator Daniel Biss, businessman Chris Kennedy, and Hyatt Hotel heir J.B. Pritzker were the most prominent candidates vying to challenge incumbent Republican Governor Bruce Rauner (R).[22][23]
Republican primaries
- David Weigel and Michael Scherer discussed what was driving conflict in GOP primaries, and where those fights were occurring, in a column in The Washington Post (January 6, 2018):
- "On the Republican side, contests will test the power of the establishment over a restless base, with conservative disrupters and donors seeking to upset the current balance of power within the party — and with Trump serving as an erratic referee. Some races that give Republicans the best chance to pick up seats have become GOP mud fights, while in others, the threat of incumbent defeats could complicate the party’s ability to retain its majorities in the fall."
- "Several Republican races — in Arizona, Nevada and an expected contest in Mississippi — have become proxy fights for the battle between Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and conservative activists, including former White House strategist Stephen K. Bannon. Other races have attracted multiple credible candidates, with some contests shaping up as ideological clashes and others featuring a jumble of infighting that has left some Republicans wondering whether the eventual nominees will emerge stronger or weaker in the general election."
- "White House intervention has had mixed results in recruiting Senate candidates; in nine of 10 Trump-won states where a Democratic senator is up for reelection, Republicans are facing free-for-alls with no obvious front-runners."[24]
December 2017
Democratic primaries
- Chris Cillizza on the impact of the Alabama U.S. Senate special election on Democratic hopes to win Senate control in 2018, CNN (December 13, 2017):
- "And while Jones' victory, at its most basic, brings Democrats one seat closer to the majority, it has other more far-reaching effects as well. It will put a major charge in Democratic fundraising -- for Senate races, yes, but likely for the House as well. It will also spur candidate recruitment for Democrats across the country in races from the Senate all the way down the ballot. You can just imagine a Democrat waking up this morning and thinking to herself: "If Doug Jones can win in Alabama, why can't I run and win in [fill in the blank] state?"
- Then there is the effect that Jones' win will have on Republicans. It's no secret that being a Republican elected official on Capitol Hill isn't much fun in the age of Trump. We've already seen a slew of retirements among the so-called "governing wing" of the GOP, including Sens. Bob Corker of Tennessee and Jeff Flake of Arizona as well as House members like Charlie Dent of Pennsylvania, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida and Dave Reichert of Washington. That exodus is likely to continue or even speed up following what happened Tuesday in Alabama.
- Even before Tuesday Democrats already had some momentum in their unlikely push for the Senate majority next year. In Tennessee, former Gov. Phil Bredesen, a Democrat, shocked most people in the state by announcing he would run for the open seat left behind by Corker. A popular two-term governor, Bredesen is, without question, the strongest Democratic candidate and likely the only one who could possibly win in this GOP-leaning state."[25]
Republican primaries
- Cathleen Decker on the impact of the Alabama U.S. Senate special election on Republican campaigns in 2018, Los Angeles Times (December 12, 2017):
- "The key races next year will take place in states that are far less favorable to Trump than Alabama. Related to Trump’s broad unpopularity is the fact that his party is fractured. Those divisions began with the primary battle, which the president’s former chief strategist, Stephen K. Bannon, who strongly backed Moore, helped turn into a referendum on the party’s Senate leader, Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.
- The splits only deepened after the Washington Post published accusations that Moore had fondled and kissed girls as young as 14 when he was a local prosecutor in his 30s. The Republican National Committee and the party’s Senate campaign committee pulled its backing from Moore after the Post story. When Trump, urged on by Bannon, decided to endorse Moore, the national committee returned to support him. The Senate committee declined to follow suit.
- On election night, Moore’s chief strategist, Dean Young, took off not against Jones or even the typical targets, Rep. Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco and Sen. Charles E. Schumer of New York, but against McConnell. “I tell Sen. McConnell this: The people of Alabama are having an election tonight, and he should not overturn the people of Alabama,” Young said, anticipating that a victory by Moore might be followed by a Senate Ethics Committee investigation. On Tuesday night, it was clear that the bitter feelings among Republicans are likely to carry over to 2018 and beyond."[26]
November 2017
Democratic primaries
- Charles S. Pierce on the impact of the 2016 Democratic presidential primary, Esquire (November 3, 2017):
- "At precisely the wrong time, Donna Brazile’s upcoming book has kickstarted the feud all over again, with the Republicans gleefully joining in to support the unfounded—and, generally, pretty stupid—claim that the primary process was 'rigged' against Bernie Sanders. That the DNC at least had half-a-thumb on the scale was common knowledge almost from jump; I remember writing about the danger inherent in 'clearing the field' for Hillary Rodham Clinton long before the process even really began. ...
- In any event, instead of taking Brazile’s book simply as one person’s view of what happened, the Democrats promptly (and predictably) have lost their minds over it. ...
- I honestly believe that the Democratic Party does not yet appreciate the fact that it is the only viable political vehicle capable of resisting the existential threat that is Trumpism, nor does it realize that time is growing very short. At the moment, it can’t get out of its own way and the clock is ticking ever louder."[27]
- Robert Draper on Trump's messaging vs. Democrats' messaging, The New York Times (November 1, 2017):
- "Krystal Ball, now president of the People’s House Project — which seeks to elect Democratic congressional candidates in G.O.P. districts — insists that the primary motivation of these voters is economic. 'People who are holding onto their livelihoods by their fingernails thought that at least Trump gave a crap,' she says. 'Maybe it was a pack of lies he was selling them, but at least he didn’t hold them in contempt. And frankly there’s a lot of contempt from certain corners of our party. And a billion dollars’ worth of ads saying we’re not elitists won’t change that.'"[28]
Republican primaries
- Alex Isenstadt and Elena Schneider on Bannon and the National Republican Congressional Committee, Politico (November 3, 2017):
- "Top House GOP campaign strategists met with former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon on Friday morning — an indication party leaders are attempting to avert the divisive primaries that Bannon is organizing against Senate Republicans.
- National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Steve Stivers (R-Ohio) and John Rogers, the organization’s executive director, went to the Capitol Hill townhouse that serves as a base of operations for Bannon and his Breitbart News website. Bannon pledged to Stivers and Rogers that his focus is not on toppling establishment-oriented House incumbents in the 2018 midterm elections, according to two people familiar with the meeting, but rather on waging an all-out war against Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. ...
- Behind the scenes, Bannon has been telling conservative leaders to focus on primaries in the Senate and not the House. He has framed Senate primaries — beginning with this fall’s Alabama GOP runoff — as headline-grabbing, climactic battles that will determine the direction of the Republican Party during the Trump era. ...
- On Friday morning, NRCC officials told Bannon they would not go out of their way to impede his efforts to elect conservatives in safely Republican open seats, explaining it was the committee’s policy not to get involved in races in vacant districts."[29]
- Eliana Johnson on the effect of a Bannon endorsement, Politico (November 3, 2017):
- "The Alabama Senate primary between Senator Luther Strange and Roy Moore raised questions about how powerful the endorsements of President Donald Trump and his former chief strategist, Steve Bannon, are on the campaign trail. Though Moore, Bannon’s candidate, bested the Trump-backed Strange, a new poll suggests that among voters in the upcoming midterm elections, Bannon’s endorsement will make little difference. The survey, conducted by Firehouse Strategies and Optimus Consulting, found that just 13 percent of Republican voters said Bannon’s endorsement made them more likely to support a candidate. Precisely the same number said the backing of the Breitbart chief would make them less likely to support a given candidate."[30]
- Kimberley A. Strassel on Republican candidates' relationship with Trump and voters, The Wall Street Journal (November 2, 2017):
- "In [Jeff] Flake’s new book, 'Conscience of a Conservative,' he compares Mr. Trump’s politics to a 'late-night infomercial.'
- This sweeping reproof was a sign to Trump supporters in Arizona that Mr. Flake either didn’t know or didn’t care why they support this president. So they wrote him off—much as he wrote off Mr. Trump. Mr. Flake was never going to get Democratic support, and once he alienated half of his state’s Republican voters, of course his path to re-election was narrow. Mr. Flake blew himself out of office, and he is now in a much poorer position to make any difference in the shape of Washington policies or the future of his party. Contrast this approach to that of Ed Gillespie, whom the Never Trumpers are branding a sellout. ...
- The Never Trumpers are also accusing Mr. Gillespie of cowardice for failing to disown the president. Why should he? Mr. Gillespie has diligently focused his campaign on the local jobs-and-economy issues that matter most to Virginians. Beyond that, he has offered criticism of specific Trump actions and praise of others. Call them as you see them. That’s a fair approach in the age of Trump.
- The important part: It gives Mr. Gillespie a fighting chance—and, should he win, a powerful perch from which he can help navigate his party through the Trumpian gales. It all might not be as cathartic as an emotional Senate speech. But it will go a lot further to help conservatism survive this presidency."[31]
October 2017
Coverage this month focused on the ideological divide within each party, including the formation of coalitions and how fundraising was being impacted by the party divide.
Democratic primaries
- Elena Schneider on fundraising for Democratic House candidates, Politico (October 23, 2017):
- "Animated by opposition to President Donald Trump and the Republican congressional majorities, at least 162 Democratic candidates in 82 GOP-held districts have raised over $100,000 so far this year, according to a POLITICO analysis of the latest FEC data. That’s about four times as many candidates as House Democrats had at this point before the 2016 or 2014 elections, and it’s more than twice as many as Republicans had running at this point eight years ago, on the eve of capturing the House in the 2010 wave election. Nearly three dozen Republican incumbents were outraised by Democratic challengers in the third quarter of this year – a stunning figure. Nine GOP incumbents already trail a Democratic opponent in cash on hand, increasing the likelihood that many veteran incumbents will face tough opposition for the first time in years. ... 'That’s something that should get every Republican’s attention in Washington,' said Jason Roe, a Republican strategist who works on House races. 'These first-timers are printing money.'"[32]
- Gabriel Debenedetti and Edward-Isaac Dovere on Democratic Party cash flow issues, Politico (October 22, 2017):
- "The financial challenges reflect a broader struggle at a committee led by a chairman who is new to party politics — and on a steep learning curve at a time when national Democrats are still searching for an identity after a historic loss. ... Much of the immediate anxiety centers on the State Party Innovation Fund, a planned $10.5 million competitive grant program that DNC leadership has made available to interested state parties over the next year. The money is meant to pay for organizing, ground operations and other mechanics seen as essential to countering Republican National Committee investments that helped elect Donald Trump and a slew of other other [sic] Republican candidates in 2016, leapfrogging Democrats in the process. The planned funding is on top of the $10,000 each state party receives from the DNC every month. But entering October, the DNC had just $7 million in its main account, which also has to cover its central responsibilities and salaries."[33]
- Carla Marinucci and David Siders on Dianne Feinstein and California politics, Politico (October 10, 2017):
- "In California, a lodestar for the left in the era of President Donald Trump, the Democratic establishment is besieged and fighting to hang on. The state Democratic Party, until recently, has been caught in the throes of a bitter dispute over the chairmanship, pitting party veterans against the activist 'Berniecrat' wing. There are calls for Nancy Pelosi to step down as House Democratic leader. And Dianne Feinstein is now the target of progressives determined to prevent her from winning a fifth Senate term. The simmering conflict has implications that reach far beyond the state’s borders. The outcome stands to shape the national party’s leadership, its ideological bent and even its finances, given California’s status as the party’s essential fundraising hub."[34]
- Kenneth P. Vogel on party organizing, The New York Times (October 7, 2017):
- "Just as the new forces on the right are threatening primary challenges to establishment Republicans, some groups on the left have begun talking about targeting Democratic incumbents in the 2018 midterm elections. Entrenched Democratic groups are facing growing questions about the return on the hundreds of millions of dollars they have spent over the years. Groups affiliated with Mrs. Clinton 'spent so much money based on a bad strategy in this last cycle that they should step aside and let others lead in this moment,” said Quentin James, a founder of a political committee called the Collective PAC that supports African-American candidates. Mr. James’s committee is among more than three dozen outfits that have started or reconfigured themselves since the election to try to harness the surge in anti-Trump activism. In addition to political committees, grass-roots mobilization nonprofits and legal watchdog groups, there are for-profit companies providing technological help to the new groups — essentially forming a new liberal ecosystem outside the confines of the Democratic Party."[35]
Republican primaries
- Annie Karni on Bannon's definition of anti-establishment, Politico (October 17, 2017):
- "But Bannon’s interest in [Matt] Rosendale — as well as many of the other candidates on his dance card — also has some Washington GOP power brokers confused by his definition of 'anti-establishment.' For months, the National Republican Senatorial Committee has been media training Rosendale, according to a person close to the campaign. In addition to any help he gets from Bannon, Rosendale is a client of the consulting firm On Message, one of the most 'establishment' consulting firms in Washington, which is running his media and digital operations."[36]
- Matthew Nussbaum and Cristiano Lima on Trump and Bannon, Politico (October 16, 2017):
- "President Donald Trump, who in 2016 ran as the nontraditional, nationalist insurgent riding roughshod over the establishment, on Monday expressed skepticism about Steve Bannon’s attempt to produce a wave of such candidates in coming Republican primaries. 'Some of the people he may be looking at, I'm going to see if we talk him out of that,' Trump said during a Rose Garden news conference when asked about Bannon’s pledge to recruit primary challengers to all but one sitting Republican senator in 2018. ... Trump’s stance was muddied, however, because roughly two hours earlier he appeared to voice support for Bannon's avowed war on establishment figures, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Trump told reporters that Bannon 'is a friend of mine' and is 'very committed to getting things passed' when asked about the Breitbart News chief's criticism of McConnell and other GOP leaders who have failed to pass his legislative agenda."[37]
- Mike Allen and Jonathan Swan on Bannon's criteria for support, Axios (October 11, 2017):
- "Bannon's plans are more ominous than publicly known, sources tell Jonathan Swan and me: Some of Bannon's candidates for Republican primaries have privately pledged they'll oppose Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. It's becoming a de facto litmus test in Bannon's recruitment. ... 'Steve views this thing as a coalition,' says a source familiar with his plans. 'It's a coalition of populists, constitutional conservatives and more libertarian types. But they all agree on Bannon's core issues of trade and immigration.'"[38]
- Eric Bradner on Trump and Bannon, CNN (October 9, 2017):
- "In Wyoming, Bannon is attempting to recruit Erik Prince, the founder of security contractor Blackwater and the brother of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, to run against Barrasso, a source familiar with Bannon's thinking said. Another potential candidate, Republican mega-donor Foster Friess, told The Washington Post he is considering running. 'Normally, over the years, I've dismissed these urgings,' Friess told the newspaper in an email. 'But due to the stature of the people requesting, I sense a responsibility to prayerfully explore the possibility." Friess did not immediately respond to CNN's request for comment. Bannon's efforts to unseat Barrasso are an indication that he is willing to break from Trump."[39]
- Jennifer Jacobs and Bill Allison on Bannon's goals, Business Insider (October 8, 2017):
- "A key goal for Bannon is a long-shot bid to change Senate rules that currently require a 60-vote super-majority to end debate on most issues -- a rule that can allow members to block votes by filibustering. That rule limits the power of the GOP’s current 52-vote majority in the chamber; it complicated the Senate’s ability to repeal Obamacare and is expected to complicate plans for tax legislation this year. Trump has repeatedly called for the Senate to change the rule. McConnell himself won’t be up for re-election until 2020, but by targeting his supporters, Bannon might be able to force him from leadership in the Senate."[40]
- Gabriel Debenedetti on Democratic strategy in Republican primaries, Politico (October 6, 2017)
- "Democrats are looking to revive a little Todd Akin magic in 2018. With Republican Senate primaries from West Virginia to Montana promising to pit Trump-inspired insurgents against more mainstream candidates, Democrats are considering ways to step in and wreak some havoc. The idea: Elevate the GOP’s most extreme option in each race, easing Democrats’ path to victory in a range of states tilted against them. ... Possibilities abound to revive the strategy next year, Democrats say. They’re exploring states, including Arizona, where Kelli Ward, a challenger to Sen. Jeff Flake, said Sen. John McCain should vacate his seat 'as quickly as possible' after his brain cancer diagnosis. They’re looking at Nevada, where frequent candidate Danny Tarkanian — who once mused about 'pretend[ing] we’re black,' referring to his African-American opponent — is running against Sen. Dean Heller."[41]
- Alex Isenstadt and Gabriel Debenedetti on Republican fundraising, Politico (October 5, 2017)
- "With the GOP’s agenda at a virtual standstill on Capitol Hill, the party is contending with a hard reality. Some of the party's most elite and influential donors, who spent the past eight years plowing cash into the party’s coffers in hopes of accomplishing a sweeping conservative agenda and undoing Barack Obama’s legislative accomplishments, are closing their wallets. The backlash is threatening to deprive Republicans of resources just as they're gearing up for the 2018 midterms. Party officials are so alarmed that North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis, who oversees fundraising for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, told his colleagues at a recent conference meeting that donations had fallen off a cliff after the Obamacare flop. The committee’s haul plummeted to just $2 million in July and August, less than half of what it raised in June."[42]
September 2017
One of the primary lenses through which the media considered the 2018 elections in September was questioning the amount of power congressional party leaders Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) would be able to maintain within internally divided parties.
Democratic primaries
- Joe Perticone on Democratic leadership, Business Insider (September 30, 2017):
- "Several months after a handful of House Democrats attempted to replace Nancy Pelosi as Minority Leader, who has been exercising her dealmaking skills with President Donald Trump as of late, the conference's most critical voices of the longtime California lawmaker remain sour on her leadership. ... The frustration with Democratic leadership from their younger voices continued when none of the special elections vacated by Trump's Cabinet picks were flipped from red to blue — especially in the expensive race in Georgia's 6th congressional district, where Jon Ossoff lost to Republican Karen Handel. Months later, those critical Democrats say nothing has changed. New York Rep. Kathleen Rice told Business Insider 'the internal workings of the caucus and the stranglehold that [Pelosi] has on top makes it very difficult for anyone to get the experience to be able to be in leadership positions.' 'And I still think that 2018 is going to be more difficult than people think for Democrats,' Rice added. 'We have to have an economic message and we have to have effective messengers.'"[43]
- Gabriel Debenedetti on Democrats' goals in 2018, Politico (September 29, 2017):
- "Democrats have long been terrified that the Sanders-Clinton slugfest of 2016 would set off a prolonged civil war in the party, forcing incumbents to fight off primary challengers from the left in Senate and gubernatorial races. It hasn’t happened. In a surprising reversal of the post-2008 dynamic — when Republicans were shut out of power, then saw a raft of tea party primary challengers take on their incumbents — Democrats have largely been spared of that predicament. ... 'What Democrats right now care about more than anything is winning,' veteran Democratic pollster Jefrey Pollock said of divisive Democratic primaries. 'I don’t think the ultra-progressives have abandoned their principles — not at all — but I think they looked at the challenge and said, This is not the right place.'"[44]
- Philip Elliott on Democratic strategy, TIME (September 21, 2017):
- "Which leaves the party confronting a puzzle. The momentum may be on the left, but picking up the 24 seats required to retake the House, and the three states needed for control of the Senate, will mean luring back blue collar workers in places like Ryan's Mahoning Valley district, where the steel plants are shells of their former selves, small businesses are boarded up and payday lenders seem to be on every corner. This used to be a Democratic stronghold, but Trump won three of the five counties in Ryan's district. If Democrats don't refine their pitch to alienated white voters, Trump could win re-election with ease. "The resistance can only be part of it," Ryan says. 'We have to be on the offense too.' It's not clear who has the influence or inclination to spearhead that shift. Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer and House minority leader Nancy Pelosi are seasoned dealmakers who can raise Brink's trucks full of cash."[45]
Republican primaries
- Jessica Taylor on potential impact of Bannon's involvement in races, NPR (September 30, 2017)
- "It's not just in taking on incumbents where Bannon and his allies could give D.C. Republicans heartburn. With an incredibly favorable map featuring 10 Democratic incumbents in states Trump carried in 2016, if weak nominees come out of the primaries, those once winnable races could evaporate from the lists of possibilities. Just look back at nominees like Todd Akin of Missouri in 2014 and Christine O'Donnell in Delaware and Sharron Angle in Nevada in 2010 who all lost what many thought were winnable races."[46]
- Eliza Collins on Bannon and McConnell, USA Today (September 29, 2017)
- "Steve Bannon and other Trump-aligned conservatives are feeling empowered by Roy Moore's Senate primary win in Alabama, upsetting the White House's favored candidate. And now they’re planning to try it again in other GOP races. Flush with victory, Bannon and his Breitbart news outlet as well as other spinoff groups— those who want to fight the 'establishment GOP' — plan to dig up dirt on other GOP incumbents who they feel might betray Trump's agenda, and try to replace them in 2018 Senate races. 'Bannon is plotting a strategy to launch an all-out assault on the Republican establishment,” said Andrew Surabian, a political strategist who worked under Bannon at the White House and now is a senior adviser to a pro-Trump advocacy group. 'I think it’s fair to say that if you’re tied to (Senate Majority Leader) Mitch McConnell, any of his henchmen in the consulting class or were a Never-Trumper during the campaign, you're not safe from a primary challenge.'"[47]
- Alexander Burns & Jonathan Martin on Bannon and McConnell, The New York Times (September 27, 2017)
- Republicans increasingly worry that their base’s contempt for Mr. McConnell is more potent than its love for Mr. Trump. Mr. McConnell could be an anchor around incumbents in the same fashion as Representative Nancy Pelosi, the House Democratic leader, who is routinely used to undermine Democratic candidates. The loudest applause Mr. Moore received during an election-eve rally came when he declared, 'Mitch McConnell needs to be replaced.' In a memo about the Alabama election that circulated among Republican donors, Steven Law, president of the Senate Leadership Fund, a “super PAC” closely allied with Mr. McConnell, said primary voters were intensely angry and inclined to blame Republicans for dysfunction in Washington. 'The Republican Congress has replaced President Obama as the bogeyman for conservative G.O.P. primary voters,” Mr. Law wrote, cautioning that the president was helping to amplify that point of view: 'This narrative is driven by Trump himself, and it resonates with primary voters who believe the Republican Congress "isn’t doing enough" (as we frequently heard in focus groups) to advance the president’s agenda.'"[48]
Bannon's challenge to establishment Republicans
Former White House chief strategist and Breitbart chair Steve Bannon pledged to work to remove establishment Republicans from Washington, D.C., through competitive primaries. "We’re going after these guys tooth and nail. We are declaring war on the Republican establishment that does not back the agenda that Donald Trump ran on. This agenda works. The American people voted for it," Bannon said during an interview on October 10, 2017.[49] Axios reported that Bannon planned to back the following possible and declared candidates:[50]
- Rep. Marsha Blackburn in Tennessee
- Patrick Morrisey in West Virginia
- Matt Rosendale in Montana
- Josh Hawley in Missouri
- Danny Tarkanian in Nevada
- Kelli Ward in Arizona
- Chris McDaniel in Mississippi
- Rick Scott in Florida
- Roy Moore in Alabama
- Erik Prince in Wyoming
- Ann LePage in Maine
See also
- United States Senate elections, 2018
- United States House of Representatives elections, 2018
- United States Congress elections, 2016
Footnotes
- ↑ The New Yorker, "Donald Trump Launches Operation Midterms Diversion," October 30, 2018
- ↑ New York Times, "Even for Trump, There Is Such a Thing as Too Far," October 24, 2018
- ↑ CNN, "Don't be fooled by Trump's caravan misinformation campaign," October 28, 2018
- ↑ Real Clear Politics, "Data Show Trump Is Right About Mail Bomber Coverage," October 31, 2018
- ↑ National Review, "The Caravan Exposes the Democrats," October 26, 2018
- ↑ The Federalist, "The Left’s Response To The Mass Shooting Of Jews Is An Act Of Bad Faith," October 28, 2018
- ↑ New York Magazine, "Everyone Lost at the Ford-Kavanaugh Hearings," September 28, 2018
- ↑ The Guardian, "The Republican party is about to face the wrath of women," September 25, 2018
- ↑ USA Today, "Despite new accusers, Democrats war on Brett Kavanaugh could cost them midterm elections," September 26, 2018
- ↑ The Nation, "The Democratic Insurgency Is Winning the War of Ideas," August 26, 2018
- ↑ Bloomberg, "Trump Endorsements No Longer Look Like a Golden Touch," August 22, 2018
- ↑ The Seattle Times, "Democrats test liberal messages in midterm House elections," June 11, 2018
- ↑ FiveThirtyEight, "Will Kennedy’s Retirement Help Republicans At The Midterms?" June 28, 2018
- ↑ The Washington Post, "The Democratic establishment shows its strength where it most needs it," May 9, 2018
- ↑ NBC News.com, "Endangered House GOP members are running away from Trump. In the Senate, it's different." May 6, 2018
- ↑ CNN.com, "Should Democrats worry that a blue wave is being treated like a sure thing?" April 9, 2018
- ↑ The Hill, "2018 midterm defeat will be even worse than Republicans let on," April 9, 2018
- ↑ ABC News, "Republican Rick Saccone concedes to Democrat Conor Lamb in Pennsylvania special election," March 22, 2018
- ↑ Time, "Republicans in Congress Don't See a Broader Lesson in Pennsylvania Special Election," March 15, 2018
- ↑ The Washington Post, "Taking back the House will be harder than Democrats think," February 6, 2018
- ↑ The Washington Post, "The Daily 202: Improving poll numbers give Republicans hope that the midterms might not be so bad," February 8, 2018
- ↑ 22.0 22.1 Mother Jones, “These 7 Primary Fights Will Shape the Future of the Democratic Party,” January 10, 2018
- ↑ 23.0 23.1 Mic, “These 7 Democratic primaries could determine the future of progressive politics in America,” January 12, 2018
- ↑ The Washington Post, "The 2018 midterms are fast approaching. First up: Primary fights for both parties’ future." January 6, 2018
- ↑ CNN, "The Senate is now very much in play in 2018," December 13, 2017
- ↑ Los Angeles Times, "In stunning 2017 defeats, Republicans see vision of difficulties in 2018," December 12, 2017
- ↑ Esquire, "The Democratic Party Is Finding a Way to F*ck This Up," November 3, 2017
- ↑ The New York Times, "A Post-Obama Democratic Party in Search of Itself," November 1, 2017
- ↑ Politico, "Bannon pledges not to go to war vs. House Republicans," November 3, 2017
- ↑ Politico, "Poll: Bannon's endorsement doesn't help among GOP voters," November 3, 2017
- ↑ The Wall Street Journal, "A Tale of Two Republicans," November 2, 2017
- ↑ Politico, "Democrats’ early money haul stuns GOP," October 23, 2017
- ↑ Politico, "DNC enters 2018 in cash panic," October 22, 2017
- ↑ Politico, "California’s old guard Democrats under siege," October 10, 2017
- ↑ The New York Times, "The ‘Resistance,’ Raising Big Money, Upends Liberal Politics," October 7, 2017
- ↑ Politico, "Bannon's army includes candidates backed by the GOP establishment," October 17, 2017
- ↑ Politico, "Trump expresses wariness of Bannon’s war on GOP establishment," October 16, 2017
- ↑ Axios, "Inside Bannon's plans for a GOP civil war," October 11, 2017
- ↑ CNN, "Bannon expands his list of Senate Republican targets for 2018," October 9, 2017
- ↑ Bloomberg, "Bannon Plans to Back Challengers to Most GOP Senators Running in 2018," October 8, 2017
- ↑ Politico, "Democrats look to wreak havoc in GOP primaries," October 6, 2017
- ↑ Politico, "Angry GOP donors close their wallets," October 5, 2017
- ↑ Business Insider, "Democrats still seem in a mood of revolt toward Pelosi even after her deals with Trump," September 30, 2017
- ↑ Politico, "Bernie backers give Dem incumbents a pass in 2018," September 29, 2017
- ↑ TIME, "Divided Democratic Party Debates Its Future as 2020 Looms," September 21, 2017
- ↑ NPR, "Bannon's 'War' With GOP Has Only Just Begun," September 30, 2017
- ↑ USA Today, "Steve Bannon's Breitbart is going to war against GOP incumbents," September 29, 2017
- ↑ The New York Times, "Roy Moore’s Alabama Victory Sets Off Talk of a G.O.P. Insurrection," September 27, 2017
- ↑ Newsweek, "Steve Bannon Declares War on Republicans, Calls for Trump Critic Bob Corker to Resign," October 10, 2017
- ↑ Axios, "Steve Bannon's next victims," October 8, 2017
