Dem
49
GOP
51
Politico's politics bureau chief Jonathan Martin has talked to a number of senior Republicans in Congress. On the record, they all support Donald Trump. Off the record, they fervently want Kamala Harris to crush Trump to get him out of the way so they can go back to being the party of Ronald Reagan, and maybe start winning elections consistently again starting in 2026 or 2028. His habit of backing losers because they swear fealty to him doesn't go over big with most of them, but they dare not say it. If he is absolutely crushed, especially if he loses Florida, it will be much easier for the grown-ups to take the party back. Of course, the congressional Republicans are also fervently hoping they win the Senate, so Harris will be completely hamstrung and won't be able to do anything. Then in 2028, they can blame her for not doing anything.
It's a nice thought, but if Harris wins and the Democrats fail to control both chambers of Congress, it would be the first time since 1884 that a Democrat was elected president without pulling in both chambers of Congress as well. It is more wishcasting than anything else. If Harris wins a massive victory, enough to give the congressional Republicans the backbone to tell Trump to go back to Florida and stay there (unless the Bureau of Prisons has other ideas), that means there was a blue wave. In a blue wave, the Democrats are almost certain to capture the House, although the Senate may hang on a single (deep-red) state: Montana.
What the congressional Republicans are thinking is that a massive Trump loss would make it easier to recruit candidates for the House and Senate in 2026 whose primary attribute would be their ability to win, rather than their desire to kiss Trump's [insert body part here]. One GOP senator said to Martin: "Who do you think would have a tougher 2026 reelection, Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-GA) under Harris or Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) under Trump?" Republican senators also think that taking back the House would be easier in 2026 under Harris than under Trump. They also think they could score big in the 36 gubernatorial elections in 2026 with Harris as president. Of course, these assumptions assume they can block Harris from actually governing. If the Democrats capture both chambers and either abolish the filibuster or make the Republicans actually filibuster for a couple of weeks on major bills until they physically drop, Harris could do popular things and the Democrats could campaign in 2026 on her achievements.
What Martin found surprising is that for most Republicans who don't belong to the Church of MAGA, the proposition that it is in their interest for Harris to win isn't even the slightest bit controversial. They are willing, even eager, to have a hamstrung Harris be president for 4 years so they can get Trump to meander off to the 19th hole somewhere and stay there. They know he won't go quietly, so his defeat has to be cataclysmic—say losing Florida, Ohio and Texas, so Republican governors there will go on television and say: "We had a fair election and Harris won my state. Period."
Not all Republican strategists think like this. Terry Sullivan said: "You're assuming Republicans have a top of the ticket problem and not a voter base problem. It's not like our leaders have been leading the voters to the wilderness against the voters' judgment." If Sullivan is right, Republican voters will demand a new Trump, not a new Reagan. Maybe Don Jr. Maybe J.D. Vance. Maybe Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO). Who knows? (V)