One of the most remarkable aspects of the current political era is how hotly contested control of all parts of the federal government is these days.
It’s not just the presidency that’s on a knife’s edge, but the House and even the Senate are also highly competitive, though a GOP takeover seems increasingly inevitable this cycle.
We could see all three parties change control in the same election cycle without all of them being in the hands of the same party – that would be a pretty amazing and unprecedented outcome. However, as unusual as it is, in another way, given how polarized and tightly divided we are as a country, it would be kind of par for the course.
The most critical House races to decide control occur in very blue states (think California and New York), while the most critical races to decide control of the Senate occur in red states (Montana, Ohio, West Virginia) and the House, Senate, and White House. this potential oddity of all the changing party hands – without the final results being correlated – is more likely than many people think.
Ultimately, while I don’t believe a majority of voters prefer divided government, they do prefer divided government to the alternative of seeing a party they don’t fully trust take full control of three select segments of Washington.
So perhaps anxious centrists or moderates should take solace in the unusually high probability of a split government in this campaign. That should put a damper on how much we should expect the next president to accomplish, especially if the division is between the House and the White House.
There is a big difference in how the government is divided, depending on whether the House and the White House are controlled by the same party or different parties. Two words send chills to the heart of every president who finds the “other” party in control of the House: subpoena.
Given the existing incentive structures in both parties, using the subpoena power of the House majority as a political weapon to essentially neutralize the president of the opposition party would be quite attractive. And that should make people hope that in either scenario, either Donald Trump is elected in a Democratic House (he’s been impeached twice by House Democrats) or Kamala Harris is elected in a Republican House.
Big ideas like the child care tax credit or rewriting the tax code would be nearly impossible if the White House were to deal with a House controlled by the other party. Simply passing the budget without causing a government shutdown would be a tall order.
One thing we’ve learned in decades of battles between the embattled opposition House and the White House is that when it comes to “blame games” about who is the most unreasonable in budget debates, the president can eventually get the upper hand. , simply engaging in constant partisan warfare with members of Congress keeps presidents from ever accumulating political capital and high approval ratings. After all, this is not how the president can win a second term. Both Trump and Joe Biden saw the second half of their terms (after losing control of the House) paralyzed by the opposition House.
It’s easier to be a first-term president in a divided government, where the House and the White House are controlled by the same party, but the Senate is held by the opposition. This is the most likely scenario if Harris wins. It would reduce the size and scope of some of its capabilities, but it would go a long way towards doing something big – such as extending the permanent child tax credit. But without the House on his side, simply keeping the ship of government afloat would be a tough ask.
As for Trump, it’s hard to imagine him winning without a GOP Senate majority behind him, but with Democrats taking over the House, he’s not far off and actually seems more likely than Harris winning the presidency with Republicans. occupies the house. Why? Most of the crucial House seats that will determine control are not in swing states, but in places like New York and California. So whether Harris wins or loses, there are expectations that his candidacy will help Democratic House candidates in blue states more than Biden.
Since the Civil War, only three first-term presidents have faced divided government because voters chose an opposition Congress with them: Richard Nixon in 1968, Ronald Reagan in 1980, and most recently George HW Bush in 1988. It was a time of conservatives. Southerners still identify as Democrats, even if ideologically many of those Democrats vote like today’s Republicans, giving the party a long-term lock on the House.
But working with them still required compromise, and arguably, Bush paid a high price for working with House Democrats. He reneged on his “no new taxes” pledge to reach a budget deal with congressional Democrats, helping to lead to a conservative primary challenge in 1992, a third-party populist general election challenge, and ultimately defeat instead of a second term.
Since then, Bill Clinton, Bush, Barack Obama, Trump, and Biden have all won the presidency, along with their party winning (retaining) the House of Representatives. In fact, except for those two decades from Nixon to Bush, it was almost a given that the new president would be accompanied to Washington by a House of Representatives held by his party.
But if Trump wins the Electoral College and Harris wins the popular vote, it’s probably a safe bet that Democrats will take the House because of the blue leanings of California and New York. Under the scenario of a Harris victory (as we’ve seen quite a bit in 2020), there’s a chance that some of his voters could only vote Democratic at the top of the ticket and then Republican the rest of the way to challenge Trump. If he wins the popular vote, will he be able to spend his party in the House? Maybe, but not possible.
But the bigger point of this whole House control exercise is this: I can’t stress enough how hard it is for presidents to get much done if their own party doesn’t control the House. Ultimately, the difference between a presidency that never gets off the ground and one that has a chance to get something done is control of the House of Representatives.
While we’re at it, let me leave you with a few not-so-impossible nightmare scenarios.
First, it could be two or three weeks before we know exactly the makeup of Congress in 2025 because California House races will determine overall House control.
Second, when votes are so close in the chamber, a majority of one or two seats for either side, subject to a recount or two, is a distinct possibility.
Third, while Democrats should have an easy time picking a speaker, should they win the House if Republicans can’t pick a speaker in time for Electoral College certification on January 6?
We will all rightly be paying attention to the very close nail-biter that is developing between Harris and Trump. But whether either has a chance at the presidency will be determined by an even tighter fight for control of the chamber with the right to recall: the House of Representatives. Good luck to America!