The Briefing, Vol. XIII, Issue 48
Dec. 1, 2025
This week:
- Why presidents are so bad at midterms
- Republicans concerned as Tennessee-7 special looms tomorrow
- Spoilers? Cornyn makes a weak argument to clear the field.
Outlook
One reason the president’s party (no matter who is president) usually does poorly in midterm elections is that a party in power is a party without grounds for any serious grievance. Not only are its voters more complacent (and the opposition vexed to the point of rage), but the set of issues works against the incumbent, even if his term is working out splendidly.
Republicans in 2022 and 2014, like Democrats in 2006 and 2018, had the luxury of a president and a whole set of supposedly harmful policies to run against.
The opposition has a built-in advantage. It gets to present its agenda as an antidote to problems that cannot be tested in real time. As a theoretical plan of action, their agenda is harder to rebut than an administration’s actions that are perceived as or framed as failing in real time. This is why it is so easy to turn a midterm election into a referendum against the president.
This was especially clear under former President Joe Biden. His handling of the border, crime and the economy (particularly inflation) presented an easy opportunity for Republicans to offer a fix. Whether they could actually fix the problems they identified didn’t matter in the moment, although it does now.
The situation under Biden ultimately became bad enough (or at least was perceived as bad enough) that we felt confident he would lose re-election as early as February 2024. Biden’s reaction to problems was to downplay them — to tell voters they never had it so good. This backfired spectacularly, and Kamala Harris was not able to put distance between herself and Biden’s failures.
Midterm focus: Trump, on the other hand, is not failing — at least not yet. But his voters are dangerously complacent. Also, he has definitely kicked the hornet’s nest in terms of upsetting the opposition at every opportunity, whether it be through layoffs of federal employees and dismantling of some agencies, the abolition of DEI programs, the use of military force against drug traffickers, the mass deportations, the attempts at Republican-friendly redistricting, the deployment of the National Guard to crime-addled cities etc. This has helped drive Trump’s approval ratings to very low levels compared to previous presidents at this point in their second terms.
Although not all conservatives agree on all of Trump’s most controversial actions, they tend to view most of them as outside-the-box thinking that might just solve real problems. But that’s just the conservative view. Each of those actions on its own is enough to make liberals rage, and it has them agitated and excited in a way that will improve Democratic turnout tomorrow in Tennessee and in 2026.
In short, a sufficient mass of liberals and fellow travelers have become convinced that voting against Trump’s agenda is an antidote to something that is killing America. To succeed against him, they need only keep repeating this message, and there is very little pressure on them to do more. With the exception of a few sitting governors angling to become president, they have little agency in terms of policymaking.
Trump, meanwhile, can only win by making his presidency a resounding success in a way people can feel. No amount of message discipline or campaign mechanics can accomplish such a thing.
Trump has a good story to tell about securing the border and deporting (or, in D.C. and Memphis, arresting and incapacitating) accused, convicted, and wanted criminals. But as we noted last week, solving problems like immigration and public safety are a necessary but not sufficient condition for Trump’s succeess. Once people no longer feel afraid in their own communities, they very quickly come to expect more. Trump now has to tackle the same problem of affordability that sank Biden, and that just got socialist Zohran Mamdani elected mayor of New York City. If it could do both of those things, it is obviously a very powerful issue.
House 2025
Tennessee-7: Republicans are apprehensive about tomorrow’s special election to replace former Rep. Mark Green (R). Although Army veteran Matt Van Epps (R) leads in every poll released publicly, the margin against state Rep. Aftyn Behn (D) is too close for comfort (just two points in a poll last week) in a district that President Trump carried by more than 22 points. This insecurity is the reason Republicans have been spending so much more time than you would otherwise expect attacking Behn for her careless comments on various topics.
Democrats are energized about this race because they want to see Trump lose at something. Meanwhile, it seems many Republicans in the district are unaware that there’s even an election going on. The election is not well-timed for them either, coming off the Thanksgiving holiday.
This race is critical for Republicans’ hopes of maintaining the House with a functional majority until the next general election. It would also be a huge black eye for Republicans if they were to drop such a safe seat — something Democrats would surely use to gin up their base ahead of the 2026 midterms.
Senate 2026
Texas: Whatever Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) decides to announce next week on the Democratic side (she promised an announcement by next Monday, Republicans are still trying to get their act together, and it’s a bit messy.
The loudest and best-funded establishment voices want Rep. Wesley Hunt (R) to drop out of the Republican Senate primary, in which Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) is challenging incumbent Sen. John Cornyn (R).
These voices treat this race as if Hunt were a potential spoiler in the race, who might let Paxton through. But of course, this is not true at all. Texas primaries require candidates to win 50 percent majorities to win statewide nominations, and so they cannot ever be “spoilers.”
The reality: There is no poll showing Cornyn winning renomination with the 50 percent of the vote he will need. In fact, Hunt may be the establishment’s only chance of stopping Paxton, a proven winner in Texas whose personal baggage nonetheless makes him a more challenging candidate to elect statewide.
Hunt has released his own internal poll suggesting that Cornyn would lose against either Hunt or Paxton head to head. Although it is his own poll and therefore deserves skepticism, its general content is not unlike what other polls have shown.
Hunt’s poll has him leading Cornyn by a single point to win a place in a May runoff (Paxton 36 percent, Hunt 26 percent, Cornyn 25 percent) after a three-way March primary.
That fits the general trend, but it is new for Cornyn to come in third. More importantly, and more in consonance with the general story of the race, the survey suggests that either Hunt or Paxton would crush Cornyn in a runoff — 51 to 34 percent or 52 to 29 percent, respectively. Again, although this is a pro-Hunt poll, this result is the most consistent one so far.
Finally, the polling memo asserts that “even with a Trump endorsement, Cornyn cannot be saved” — although the survey does find that such an endorsement could make it a much closer (44 to 41 percent) race. The baseline result for a Paxton-Hunt runoff is 41 to 40 percent, a very close race that could tip in Hunt’s favor as he builds name recognition.
