Strategists Prepare for Post-Election Blame Game

Political strategists, known for their keen insights and intense rivalries, are already engaged in pre-election maneuvering, preparing to assign blame should their respective parties fall short in the upcoming midterm elections. This intra-party animosity often intensifies around election defeats, as strategists seek to safeguard their professional standing and future contracts by ensuring any catastrophe is perceived as foreseeable, preventable, and attributable to others.

With Election Day nearing, Democratic strategists report feeling optimistic, while their Republican counterparts range from uneasy to deeply concerned. The latter have begun sharing their potential post-election narratives with select audiences, including reporters. The core of the Republican argument, according to observers, centers on Donald Trump, who is seen as controlling the party. Advisers may suggest strategies, but Trump's unpredictability can undermine their delivery. A significant Republican loss would likely lead to a comprehensive indictment of Trump, citing his unpopularity, lack of discipline, economic policies, foreign entanglements, and even his recent enthusiasm for AI and data centers, which some believe alienates voters concerned about electricity bills and job security.

Supporters of Trump's team may argue they could not control him, but critics will counter that managing him was an inherent part of the job description. A few weeks before the election, Republican optimism had been plausible, buoyed by a divided Democratic party, a favorable Senate map, and a redistricting plan that appeared to be working. However, persistent voter concerns about economic issues like grocery prices, retirement savings, and housing affordability seem to overshadow presidential priorities or campaign themes that lack tangible connection to daily financial struggles. The Iran conflict has further complicated matters by potentially increasing energy costs and prolonging foreign entanglements, aspects that conflict with campaign promises to avoid such situations.

Republican leaders like House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune may face accusations that congressional Republicans failed to deliver memorable legislative achievements. Despite possessing financial resources, the party has struggled to articulate a national message persuasive enough to effectively utilize its campaign funds. Consultants are expected to point fingers at outdated campaign spots, recycled attacks, and late-stage advertising, or to challenge testing data that supported ineffective strategies. Turnout specialists might be questioned about their inability to re-engage Trump-loyal voters for elections not featuring him on the ballot, while candidate recruiters could be scrutinized for prioritizing loyalty over electability. Individual candidates may also be blamed for either aligning too closely with Trump or distancing themselves too quickly.

The media is also anticipated to be a target of blame, accused of amplifying Republican liabilities and making every candidate answer for Trump. On the Democratic side, any potential shortcomings, even a narrow House victory without winning the Senate, could be framed as evidence of malpractice if a larger victory was anticipated. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries might be criticized for weak leadership. Progressive factions could argue the party offered too little to excite voters, while moderates might contend that progressive policies provided Republicans with too much ammunition. Strategists who focused on Trump may be accused of neglecting household costs, and those who emphasized economic issues might be blamed for failing to convey the danger Trump poses. Billionaire donors in both parties could face accusations of either overspending or holding back funds.

The Democratic media narrative is expected to be the inverse of the Republican one, suggesting Trump was normalized while Democratic opponents were held to a higher standard. Ultimately, the intense competition for future contracts means that after-action reports are rarely neutral. However, these recriminations can still hold value, as frustrated individuals may possess a clearer understanding of failures, particularly when identifying the mistakes of political rivals. The strategists who prepare these post-election narratives will likely have ready explanations, anecdotal evidence, and witnesses, but may fall short of accepting sufficient personal blame.