One of the principles that guides our client work is to get to the why. It’s important to understand what is happening in public affairs, of course, but the what is insufficient. Our clients deserve something deeper: an analysis of the forces underpinning events. That’s the why.

This principle comes to mind with the midterms. There’s been a great deal of discussion of what happened in last month’s elections, but not as much focus on the why. What follows is our take, all with an eye to American politics in the lead-up to 2024. As always, we appreciate your feedback.

Dobbs & Democracy: Losses Loom Larger Than Gains

We wrote last summer that while Roe v. Wade might not have been settled law, it was indeed settled public opinion, with decades of broad and stable support. Admittedly, we took a wait-and-see attitude on the impact of the Dobbs decision on the midterms, but as devotees of behavioral economists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, we should have known better.

As part of their larger prospect theory, the pair introduced the concept of loss aversion. The gist is that the pain of losing something is psychologically twice as powerful as the pleasure of gaining something. We believe loss aversion has played a profound role in many Americans’ intense reactions to Dobbs, a ruling which took away a generations-old right. The Supreme Court’s action landed a powerful psychological blow.

Loss aversion might also underpin voters’ concerns about the state of American democracy. According to an Economist/YouGov survey of voters a week before the midterms, 68 percent of Democrats believed democracy is under threat, citing election deniers, Trump and extremism. And in the final two NBC News polls before the election, people chose threats to democracy as the most important issue facing the nation.

Dobbs and democracy are a powerful pair of motivators, especially for young people. We expect both issues to reverberate for years to come.

Can Democrats Lock in a New Generation of Voters?

Young voters are very concerned about the loss of rights. According to an October survey of young voters from Harvard Kennedy School’s Institute of Politics, 72 percent of 18-29-year-olds believe the rights of others are under attack. Fifty-nine percent believe their own rights are under attack.

When it comes to turnout, 27 percent of 18-to-29-year-old voters voted in the midterms, the second highest-rate in the past 30 years, according to Tufts University, and 63 percent of them voted for Democrats in House elections. The Tufts data also tells us that abortion was the top issue influencing young people’s votes, surpassing inflation and crime.

While we discourage extrapolating from any single example, it’s hard to ignore what happened at the University of Michigan. Ninety-three percent of voters in one university precinct voted for the Democratic ticket, according to analysis by Tom Bonier of Democratic data firm TargetSmart, many braving long, cold lines.

Arizona tells a similar story. In the state that gave us Barry Goldwater and John McCain, Democratic Senator Mark Kelly won 76 percent of the 18-to-29-year-old vote against 20 percent for his Republican opponent. That’s a startling result, and it suggests an opportunity that Democratic strategist Joe Trippi compares to President Reagan’s wooing of young voters some forty years ago. Many of those decades-old attachments persist today because partisan identification is sticky. Can Democrats take a page from the Reagan playbook and lock these young voters in?

Regardless of the partisan outcome, we hope that young voters continue to engage at higher rates. Voting participation has fallen for decades in part because people didn’t think their votes mattered. It stands to reason that a new generation that has experienced the power of participation would follow a path to greater engagement.

Where to Expect Political Overreach

Overreach. A phenomenon so predictable it should be a physical law of politics. Its basic cause is the human tendency toward confirmation bias – the interpretation of new evidence as confirmation of one’s existing views.

So, what are some of the likeliest sources of overreach today? The answers to that question can act as a roadmap for American politics.

House Republicans and the MAGA Base

It wasn’t long after Republicans learned they had won the House majority that they announced plans to impeach President Biden and Attorney General Garland – and of course investigate Biden family business dealings. These are actions for which Republicans have a mandate from the MAGA base but not from a wider, governing coalition. We expect this “damn the torpedoes” mentality to serve Republicans poorly over the course of the next two years.

It’s also worth noting that the incoming Republican majority likely protects Democrats from their own overreach. Had Democrats won a (narrow) House majority, many within the caucus would have interpreted it as a mandate from young voters for progressive policy action (and pressure on the Biden Administration).

Senate Democrats with Newfound Breathing Room

If Senator Raphael Warnock wins re-election in tomorrow's Georgia runoff, will Senate Democrats and the White House make too much of their perceived freedom from the filibuster-backed capriciousness of Senators Joe Machin and Kyrsten Sinema? This seems to be a likely outcome considering threats from progressive party leaders like Senator Elizabeth Warren to support primary challengers to these uncooperative colleagues.

Republicans Who Think Trump's Party Grip Has Loosened

Many Republicans are increasingly willing to criticize Donald Trump in the aftermath of the midterms, including potential 2024 rivals like Chris Christie. Should we take this to mean the former president’s control of the party is breaking?

Simply put, no. In October, sixty percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents said they feel warmly toward Trump, including 41 percent who feel very warmly. These numbers have dropped modestly since last summer, but who else can claim that sort of support within the party?

Combine that with the $100 million in Trump-affiliated PAC bank accounts and he is starting the presidential primary season with a big lead on his opponents. The larger the Republican field gets, the more difficult it is for any single candidate to compete with Trump’s plurality.

A final point, with a hat tip to journalist Ron Brownstein: the Mike Tyson rule. “Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.” How will Ron DeSantis, Nikki Haley and other challengers hold up to the Game of Thrones-style attacks Trump employed against Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio?

The Why of the Midterms — and What's to Come