It has been a long time since I have blogged on here. Admittedly, my inability to predict Trump's victory may have had something to do with that, but it is also probably due to the whirlwind of news, conspiracies, and outrage that make it more or less impossible to stay current in my blog. Nonetheless, I could not resist it when President Trump tweeted this out today:
The Freedom Caucus will hurt the entire Republican agenda if they don't get on the team, & fast. We must fight them, & Dems, in 2018!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 30, 2017
Yes, Donald Trump has declared war on members of his own party. His choice of enemy is curious in some ways, and completely predictable in other ways. While the House Freedom Caucus provided the strongest bloc of opposition to the proposed American Health Care Act (AHCA), they were, by no means, the only opponents of the bill. Polls unanimously showed that a majority of Americans opposed the bill, including a majority of Republicans. Democrats, of course, preferred Obamacare to the AHCA and few Republicans actually seemed to believe that the bill was any kind of improvement on Obamacare. Within the House, the Freedom Caucus, by and large, opposed the bill, but so did the centrist wing of the House, led by Pennsylvania Congressman, Charlie Dent (henceforth known as the Dentites) because they did not want to take away health care from their constituents who had benefited from Obamacare.
In short, Ryan and Trump tried a massively unpopular bill that would have almost certainly died in the Senate (at least 3 Republicans in Rand Paul, Mike Lee, and Tom Cotton were ready to vote no) and would have doomed the GOP in next year's midterms if it actually had passed.
Since then, the blame game has been going on non-stop. Trump and the GOP rank-and-file have largely turned their cannons on to the Freedom Caucus, while the Freedom Caucus and their allies in conservative media have largely blamed Ryan and Trump for writing a bad bill and, to a lesser extent, the Dentites for contributing to the bill's demise. It is far from an exaggeration to state that the House GOP is in serious disarray right now, and Trump is destroying the party that he supposedly heads.
Does the Freedom Caucus deserve the blame and Trump's wrath? Their tendency towards intransigence is hardly a secret; they have been a thorn in the GOP Leadership's backside for years now. They are living proof of Aldrich and Rohde's theory of Conditional Party Government (CPG), which posits that heterogeneous legislative majorities lead to weak speakers and party leaders. The logic of this is not difficult to see: a truly united party caucus will have fewer ideological caucuses and other such interests siphoning loyalty from their membership and competing for power. The current GOP is forcing Ryan to oftentimes choose between appeasing the HFC, the Dentites, and the mainstream of his party. Appeasing all three requires compromises and sacrifices that too few in the party seem willing to make anymore, especially among the HFC membership. So to answer the question, yes, the HFC does deserve a good portion of the blame.
All that said, Trump's crusade against the Freedom Caucus (to the point of putting them on par with Democrats!) seems futile. I developed a spreadsheet of the HFC membership that includes their 2016 vote share, margin of victory, and measures of the Republican strength of their Congressional district (which is measured by their expected vote share relative to the national GOP average. The mean of 12 indicates that the HFC members' districts, on average, do nearly 13 points better than the national average for Republicans.)
In short, Ryan and Trump tried a massively unpopular bill that would have almost certainly died in the Senate (at least 3 Republicans in Rand Paul, Mike Lee, and Tom Cotton were ready to vote no) and would have doomed the GOP in next year's midterms if it actually had passed.
Since then, the blame game has been going on non-stop. Trump and the GOP rank-and-file have largely turned their cannons on to the Freedom Caucus, while the Freedom Caucus and their allies in conservative media have largely blamed Ryan and Trump for writing a bad bill and, to a lesser extent, the Dentites for contributing to the bill's demise. It is far from an exaggeration to state that the House GOP is in serious disarray right now, and Trump is destroying the party that he supposedly heads.
Does the Freedom Caucus deserve the blame and Trump's wrath? Their tendency towards intransigence is hardly a secret; they have been a thorn in the GOP Leadership's backside for years now. They are living proof of Aldrich and Rohde's theory of Conditional Party Government (CPG), which posits that heterogeneous legislative majorities lead to weak speakers and party leaders. The logic of this is not difficult to see: a truly united party caucus will have fewer ideological caucuses and other such interests siphoning loyalty from their membership and competing for power. The current GOP is forcing Ryan to oftentimes choose between appeasing the HFC, the Dentites, and the mainstream of his party. Appeasing all three requires compromises and sacrifices that too few in the party seem willing to make anymore, especially among the HFC membership. So to answer the question, yes, the HFC does deserve a good portion of the blame.
All that said, Trump's crusade against the Freedom Caucus (to the point of putting them on par with Democrats!) seems futile. I developed a spreadsheet of the HFC membership that includes their 2016 vote share, margin of victory, and measures of the Republican strength of their Congressional district (which is measured by their expected vote share relative to the national GOP average. The mean of 12 indicates that the HFC members' districts, on average, do nearly 13 points better than the national average for Republicans.)
|
Measure
|
District GOP Strength (Cook)
|
2016 Vote Share
|
2016 Margin of Victory
|
|
Mean
|
12.94
|
67.3%
|
36.42
|
|
Median
|
12
|
65.10%
|
32.45
|
|
Minimum
|
-5
|
53.70%
|
6.6
|
|
Maximum
|
28
|
100%
|
100
|
|
Std. Dev
|
6.68
|
1.95%
|
1.9
|
The table indicates that nearly all of the districts held by Freedom Caucus members are extremely safe seats for the Republican Party. On average, these members won their races by margins of greater than 2:1! Even using the median score of 32.45% in place of the mean (due to a couple of uncontested races), shows that the Freedom Caucus members had almost unanimously easy races in 2016.
Only one Republican in the Freedom Caucus represents a district that has a Democratic advantage; Rep. Rod Blum of Iowa represents Iowa's First District, a district which, until 2014 was represented by Bruce Braley (who vacated the seat in a failed attempt to win Tom Harkin's open Senate seat). Donald Trump was able to squeak out a win in the district in 2016 (49-45), but failed to match Blum's 53-47 victory. This makes Blum the most (and only) Freedom Caucus member vulnerable next year in the general election, as the graphs below show.
Only one Republican in the Freedom Caucus represents a district that has a Democratic advantage; Rep. Rod Blum of Iowa represents Iowa's First District, a district which, until 2014 was represented by Bruce Braley (who vacated the seat in a failed attempt to win Tom Harkin's open Senate seat). Donald Trump was able to squeak out a win in the district in 2016 (49-45), but failed to match Blum's 53-47 victory. This makes Blum the most (and only) Freedom Caucus member vulnerable next year in the general election, as the graphs below show.
With such large margins of victory in such strong Republican districts, it appears that all of the Freedom Caucus members (with the exception of Blum) will be largely immune to what I believe to be a coming backlash against President Trump, next year. Gerrymandering is, of course, largely the cause of this- packed Republican districts ensure that the Republican is never defeated in a general election, but they also have a twin outcome, which is that closed district primaries should favor the ideologically extreme. As such, even if any of these figures would be defeated in a primary, it is likely that their challenger will be farther to the right than they are. This, in turn, means that any attempt Trump makes to replace these figures with more mainstream Republicans will likely be in vain, as he will be trading one Freedom Caucus member for another.
Here, again, is why Blum is the most vulnerable of the HFC members. Iowa, unlike most other states, does not gerrymander their congressional districts. They use an independent committee that is tasked with making the districts look as fair as can be (which means the state is divided into four sensible districts by geography and population density). Blum, therefore, is vulnerable to a moderate challenger in the Democrat-leaning district, as the lines were not drawn to benefit conservatives, and he is vulnerable in the general election for the same reasons. None of the other HFC members share this vulnerability.
Finally, we can make some predictions about the electoral vulnerability of these members. Using the shift in GOP fortunes from 2004 to 2006 as a baseline, in conjunction with district strength and 2016 totals, we can predict how the Freedom Caucus members will fare in their 2018 reelection bids.
Here, again, is why Blum is the most vulnerable of the HFC members. Iowa, unlike most other states, does not gerrymander their congressional districts. They use an independent committee that is tasked with making the districts look as fair as can be (which means the state is divided into four sensible districts by geography and population density). Blum, therefore, is vulnerable to a moderate challenger in the Democrat-leaning district, as the lines were not drawn to benefit conservatives, and he is vulnerable in the general election for the same reasons. None of the other HFC members share this vulnerability.
Finally, we can make some predictions about the electoral vulnerability of these members. Using the shift in GOP fortunes from 2004 to 2006 as a baseline, in conjunction with district strength and 2016 totals, we can predict how the Freedom Caucus members will fare in their 2018 reelection bids.
|
Mean
|
58.54
|
|
Median
|
57.5
|
|
Minimum
|
40.5
|
|
Maximum
|
73.5
|
|
Standard Deviation
|
1.17
|
These predictions are contingent upon an assumption that next year will be as bad for the Republican Party as the 2006 midterms were. Between 2004 and 2006, the Republicans lost 5.3% of the House vote, nationwide. Obviously, if the swing next year is even more dramatic than that, the outcomes will be lower and more Freedom Caucus individuals might be in the red or yellow zones, as shown above. However, a wave as bad as 2006 for the GOP will still only truly endanger Congressman Blum (he is the red point on the graph and the red bar). For those interested, the "yellow" Congressmen are Justin Amash (MI), Jim Jordan (OH), Scott Perry (PA), and Steve Pearce (NM). The lesson from all these graphs and data is simple: the Freedom Caucus members will not be leaving anytime soon, no matter how bad the national situation is for Republicans.
As such, it is somewhat puzzling as to why Trump would put the Freedom Caucus in the crosshairs. Actually, it is rather puzzling that he would target "his party" at all, given that the only president to ever attempt a similar purge failed dramatically (FDR targeting conservative southern Democrats in 1938). Assuming Trump is still president in 2019, the House Republican Caucus will certainly be diminished, possibly to the point of losing the majority. And if they hold a slim majority, it will be the Freedom Caucus who will make the difference on every single vote (I expect that it will be the Dentites who suffer the most losses next year, just as it was the Blue Dog Dems who were the casualties of 2010). And if the Freedom Caucus determines the success or failure of Trump's agenda, it would be wise not to upset them with shots like this:
As such, it is somewhat puzzling as to why Trump would put the Freedom Caucus in the crosshairs. Actually, it is rather puzzling that he would target "his party" at all, given that the only president to ever attempt a similar purge failed dramatically (FDR targeting conservative southern Democrats in 1938). Assuming Trump is still president in 2019, the House Republican Caucus will certainly be diminished, possibly to the point of losing the majority. And if they hold a slim majority, it will be the Freedom Caucus who will make the difference on every single vote (I expect that it will be the Dentites who suffer the most losses next year, just as it was the Blue Dog Dems who were the casualties of 2010). And if the Freedom Caucus determines the success or failure of Trump's agenda, it would be wise not to upset them with shots like this:
If @RepMarkMeadows, @Jim_Jordan and @Raul_Labrador would get on board we would have both great healthcare and massive tax cuts & reform.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 30, 2017
RSS Feed
