Originally published in the Mischiefs of Faction blog.

By Jonathan M. Ladd
​
Here are a few things to keep in mind about the next week's midterm elections.

Let me start with a preface. The Democrats could do fairly badly on Tuesday yet still better than presidential parties have historically performed in similar situations. This could be true without the election providing a clear message about which party or ideological faction is following the best political strategy. Pundits and politicians like election results to send a clear message about which political factions are right and wrong. People want elections to provide lessons. I'm not sure this one will. We'll see. There are many potential results "in the middle," where Democrats lose seats but not as many as parties in their position usually do, which won't provide an unambiguous lesson.

​But regardless, the bottom line is that the president’s party always loses House seats when presidential approval is in the 40s. Since modern polling was invented, presidents have only gained seats in midterms when their approval was in the 60s. However, there are two unusual things happening in 2022 that lead me to think it is at least possible that 2022 will fit the historical pattern poorly. Or it might fit the pattern perfectly! Who knows! Either way, these two things greatly increase uncertainty.

First, no one knows exactly how much the Republicans' new lower education, lower social trust voting base will turn out without Trump on the ballot or in the White House. Will relying on these voters make it harder for Republicans to get the typical midterm out-party bump? Can only Trump, or the excitement of a presidential campaign, get them to the polls in high numbers? Usually, part of the out-party advantage is that they are relatively more energized than the in-party. Will this advantage be smaller because Republicans now rely more on Trump voters?

Second, another typical reason that the out-party has an advantage in midterms is that the president’s party has moved policy in its direction in the past 2 years. This creates a type of “thermostatic” backlash, in political science terminology. Both policy preferences and political participation react against policy change. No one knows if the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade will disrupt this. But it might. Despite the Democrats controlling the presidency and Congress (albeit precariously in the Senate), one of the major policy changes since Biden took office was in the conservative direction, with many states using their new discretion to pass much more conservative abortion laws. It is rare for policy to move so far against the preferences of the president’s party on such a salient topic. We don’t know how that will disrupt the normal pattern of thermostatic midterm backlash.

These two sources of uncertainty make it especially hard to predict races that are very close in the polls. Small differences in turnout and enthusiasm could determine whether there is a “polling error” in the Democrats' or Republicans’ favor. This is why Nathaniel Rakich is correct when he says that, with polls as they are, this election could plausibly be a significant win for either party.

Originally published in the Mischiefs of Faction blog.

By Matt Green, Gregory Koger, Jonathan M. Ladd, Seth Masket , Hans Noel, Richard Skinner, Amy Erica Smith, and Jennifer Victor

We at the Mischiefs of Faction join our colleagues in political science in calling for the immediate and constitutional removal of Donald Trump from office.

We hasten to note that we are all committed to unbiased research and education and that we are reticent to endorse candidates or advocate the appointment or removal of government officials. However, as this week’s actions at the U.S. Capitol and elsewhere make clear, this is not a matter of preferring one party or candidate or another, but rather of protecting American democracy from a very clear, present, and ongoing danger.

It was one thing for Trump to claim that his election loss last November was fraudulent; he claims this about every contest he loses. It was one thing for Republican elected officials and conservative news personalities to baselessly echo the President’s false assertions about the election; they have done this about a great many of Trump’s statements.

But on the morning of January 6, Donald Trump addressed a long-planned gathering of his supporters near the White House, declaring that he would never concede the election, calling on them to show “strength” and to march on the Capitol as members of Congress were counting Electoral Votes, and pressuring the President of the United States Senate to act outside his prescribed Constitutional role and overturn the presidential election two weeks before his term ends. He told attendees he would walk with them as they marched. 

Trump’s supporters followed his instructions, marching to the Capitol in vast numbers, overwhelming Capitol Police, breaching the building, occupying members’ offices and legislative chambers, causing widespread destruction of property, and resulting in at least four deaths, all while carrying the flag of an enemy nation. Reports also indicate that President Trump initially blocked the Defense Department from sending the National Guard to protect the safety of members of Congress and the Vice President. This was an insurrection. It was an attempted coup. The end of yesterday’s occupation of the Capitol should not give us relief. And until its participants, leaders, and collaborators are brought to justice, the insurrection is ongoing.

We recognize that there are less than two weeks remaining in Donald Trump’s term. However, he has demonstrated that he can not be trusted with the office, and he will continue to perceive personal advantage in promoting insurrection. The person inciting insurrections can not also be the person in charge of federal law enforcement. This is how democracies die. To boot, one government watchdog group has already downgraded the US to a status that is below the threshold for democracy. Trump cannot be trusted to step down peacefully on January 20th. 

There are two constitutional and peaceful ways to remove him from office, either of which we support. One would be via the impeachment and removal process, by which a majority of the House would impeach (again) and two-thirds of the Senate would vote to convict and remove. The Constitution is vague on the explicit processes for running this procedure and it could certainly be done within a day should a sufficient portion of the Congress support doing so.

The other method would be via the 25th Amendment, by which a majority of the Cabinet would vote to remove Trump. This amendment was certainly not intended for the removal of a conscious president. Trump could appeal the decision and it would require two-thirds of both chambers of Congress to sustain his removal. However, given the short remainder of Trump’s term, it would potentially be possible to postpone this appeal until January 20th, or to invoke the 25th while Congress proceeds with impeachment and removal.

We do not make claims about the feasibility of these solutions. To be sure, no president has been removed by them previously. But these are not ordinary times. The President instigated an assault--a literal, physical assault--on the U.S. Congress and on the American electoral system. For the system to simply try to run out the clock is insufficient and would tell future would-be authoritarians that there is no price to pay for insurrection. 

Moreover, if those who participated in the insurrection avoid consequences, then there is no reason to expect it will not be repeated. To be clear, without punishment, we will likely see more of what we saw on Wednesday. In addition, if elected officials who condoned the insurrection face no accountability, the government will have blessed its own demise. In this way, the insurrection remains an active threat to the nation.

Democracies maintain rights and freedoms for their citizens through publicly accountable institutions. The US will remain on insecure ground until our institutions are reinforced and those who violate the rules and norms of democracy are held accountable through elections or legal action.