Voters are connecting the dots — and it’s bad news for Republicans

Of all the dynamics threatening the GOP this year, the most menacing may be the unusually direct connection voters are drawing between their economic frustrations and the policies that President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans have implemented.

Presidents always suffer from proximity when Americans are discontented about the economy. But this year, Trump faces an additional level of vulnerability. A significant majority of voters consistently say in polls that they believe his policies — particularly surrounding tariffs and the Iran war — are exacerbating the problem that most concerns them: the high cost of living.

“It’s not just the underlying economy and (being) in a bad cycle,” says former GOP Rep. Tom Davis, who while in office served as the chair of the National Republican Congressional Committee. With tariffs and the war’s impact on gas prices, he says, “you’ve got two specific presidential actions” that most voters believe are intensifying the squeeze on their living standards.

That would be ominous enough for congressional Republicans. But their vulnerability is magnified because House and Senate Republicans have repeatedly voted, almost in unison, to support Trump’s policies on Iran and the war, as well as the cuts in federal medical spending that Democrats argue have contributed to higher health care costs.

In effect, at a moment when most Americans believe Trump’s agenda is deepening their financial distress, the congressional GOP has also left its fingerprints at the scene of the offense.

In the campaign’s final weeks, tightening that connection for voters has become the central theme of Democratic messaging. A new CNN analysis of AdImpact data shows that Democratic candidates are spending huge sums on ads targeting the Trump policies on tariffs, the war and on Medicaid spending that virtually all congressional Republicans voted to support.

Tying Republicans to those policies has become “the heart and soul of Democratic campaigns against Republicans incumbents,” says veteran Democratic pollster Geoff Garin. “And the hard fact of the voting record makes it harder for Republican incumbents to slip the punch.” Even GOP challengers, Garin adds, are finding it difficult to distance themselves from these unpopular choices because so many of them “have expressed support for Trump policies even if they were not in office to actually vote for them.”

Voters returned Trump to office above all because they believed he could relieve the squeeze in their living standards. But nearly two years later, polls show that most Americans have reached the unequivocal conclusion that his agenda has instead magnified the problem they elected him to solve.

In the latest Wall Street Journal poll , conducted last month by a bipartisan team of pollsters, 60% of registered voters said Trump’s policies have made the economy worse — more than double the 25% that said his actions have improved conditions. In the most recent AP/NORC poll , when asked why prices are “higher than usual,” 67% of voters blamed “Trump’s policies,” far more than the 32% that pointed to “factors outside Trump’s control.”

CNN/SSRS surveys released last week similarly found that likely voters in Ohio agreed, by an overwhelming 76% to 7% margin, that Trump’s policies have increased their costs rather than decreased them. In Iowa, likely voters agreed by 74% to 6%.

These conclusions draw extensive agreement even among groups that have provided the pillars of Trump’s electoral coalition. In the AP/NORC survey, most working-class white voters said prices are high because of Trump’s policies, not factors he couldn’t control. About half of self-identified Republican likely voters in Ohio and Iowa agreed Trump’s policies are increasing the cost of living, the CNN surveys found.

Celinda Lake, a longtime Democratic pollster, said the breadth of this negative verdict is unprecedented across her career in politics. “It is the broadest sense we’ve had that a president has failed,” she said. “It is broader than it was in 2018 for him, or even for George W. Bush in 2006.”

The direct link that most voters are drawing between higher costs and Trump’s policies would be dangerous for congressional Republicans in any circumstance. Attitudes toward the incumbent president have become a decisive factor in shaping the outcomes of midterm elections.

But congressional Republicans may be especially exposed because almost all of them have voted so often to uphold the specific policies that voters now blame for higher costs.

House Republicans have voted at least five times to support Trump’s tariff agenda. No more than six Republicans have ever supported the Democratic efforts to rescind Trump’s tariff authority. House Republicans have voted seven times to support the war, with no more than seven ever opposing Trump when a vote was called.

Nathan Howard/Reuters

The story is similar among Senate Republicans. They have voted eight times to back Trump’s tariffs, with only a handful of Republicans ever opposing him, and they voted 14 times to back the war; on the first six votes, every Senate Republican apart from Kentucky’s Rand Paul voted to support the war.

Republicans in both chambers were comparably united behind final passage of the reconciliation bill in 2025 that coupled large cuts in Medicaid and federal food assistance with sweeping tax cuts and a huge increase in federal funding for immigration.

These Republican votes — the GOP fingerprints on the Trump agenda — have become the centerpiece of the Democratic case. “This has never been an economic argument that Democrats have been able to make in the last several election cycles: that the Republican (legislator) objectively made your life more expensive,” says CJ Warnke, communications director for House Majority PAC, the principal super PAC supporting the party’s House candidates.

That argument now echoes through Democratic stump speeches and on the debate stage. At an Iowa Senate debate last week, for instance, Democratic nominee Josh Turek pressed Rep. Ashley Hinson, the GOP Senate nominee, over that connection . She “has voted five times in favor of continuing these chaotic tariffs and seven times in favor of this war in Iran,” Turek said. “Both have hurt Iowa I believe more than any other state.”

Cody Scanlan/The Des Moines Register/Pool/AP

Republican votes for the war, the tariffs and the Medicaid cuts in the reconciliation bill are also the major chords in Democratic advertising. A CNN analysis of AdImpact data through the end of September found that Democratic candidates this year have spent $53.2 million on ads that mention tariffs, while Republicans have devoted less than $1 million to the subject. On Iran, Democrats have spent $51.1 million, compared with $2.2 million for Republicans. Democrats have spent the most on ads about health care, including more than 600 ads backed by $102 million that mention Medicaid. Republicans have devoted $22 million to ads mentioning Medicaid.

Often, Democratic ads have combined these votes to create a broader indictment. A House Majority PAC ad describes Colorado Rep. Gabe Evans as “Trump’s star student” because he voted “100%” for Trump’s tariffs, cuts in federal healthcare spending, and the Iran War. Democrats sometimes accuse Republicans of personally profiting from the Trump policies through stock trading, as challenger Paige Cognetti has done repeatedly against Rep. Rob Bresnahan in Northeast Pennsylvania.

In South Texas, Democratic House candidate Bobby Pulido has fused Republican Rep. Monica De La Cruz’ votes for the war, tariffs and increased immigration funding into an especially powerful spot . “While we pay record high diesel and gas prices, and out of control grocery bills, and families in our community are terrorized, Monica de la Cruz is silent… because she voted for this,” Pulido, a Tejano singing star, says before promising to use his own voice to “fight for you.”

An ad backed by more than $2 million from a Democratic super PAC targeting Iowa’s Senate race puts another fine point on the message: “Ashley Hinson was supposed to look out for us, but she’s voted 7 times for the war in Iran. Fertilizer costs are out of control. Diesel’s at record highs. It’s never been harder to run a farm.”

Lake says the fact that Republicans voted so repeatedly to endorse these policies make these attacks particularly powerful. While voters may say, “I don’t know that much about policy, I don’t know what is in these bills,” they feel that legislators are “ignoring us” because “time after time, after we’ve told you we don’t want it, (they) keep doing it,” Lake says.

Against this onslaught, Republicans have tried several responses.

In a few conspicuous cases, Republican candidates have broken with Trump. GOP Senate nominee Mike Rogers in Michigan recently called for an end both to the war in Iran and the economic conflict with Canada . Hinson has also said the war needs to end because Iowans “shouldn’t have to foot the bill at the pump or the checkout line.” Republican Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar spoke directly to the camera in a dramatic ad that declared Hispanics “feel betrayed” because some of Trump’s immigration enforcement efforts “have gone too far.”

Jim Vondruska/Reuters

In another sign of GOP trepidation, since the kickoff of general elections around the country after Labor Day, Republican advertisers have spent just $13 million on ads that explicitly mention Trump — while Democrats have spent more than $125 million.

But the separation strategy creates several obvious risks. One is pushback from Trump: He responded to Salazar’s broadside by reposting a succession of social media posts condemning her . David Kochel, a GOP strategist working for a Super PAC supporting Hinson in Iowa, says that any Republican must carefully weigh the potential cost on turnout from Trump’s MAGA base from openly distancing too far from him. “It’s a really tough balance to strike,” Kochel says.

The bigger problem may be that after so many months of supporting Trump these criticisms may strike voters as insincere. Democrats, for instance, have responded to Rogers’ shifts on Iran, Canada and tariffs by highlighting his fulsome earlier praise of Trump on all those fronts.

Similarly, in last week’s first Maine Senate debate , Democratic nominee Troy Jackson mocked Republican Sen. Susan Collins’ claims of independence by arguing that she had dissented from Trump’s agenda only at the margins, while otherwise providing critical support. When Collins took credit for persuading Trump to exempt road salt from his Canadian tariffs, Jackson landed his best counterpunch of the night : “What about everything else?” he declared. “I mean, we can’t eat road salt.”

Faced with these challenges, most Republicans have responded by trying to change the subject to issues where Democrats remain vulnerable, especially in red states.

Smiley N. Pool/The Dallas Morning News/Getty Images

The CNN AdImpact analysis found that Republican candidates this year have spent $164 million on ads that mention the border, $151 million on ads mentioning immigration, and $66 million on ads mentioning crime. The party also $87 million on ads about transgender issues, a major point of emphasis since Trump successfully used it as a wedge issue against former Vice President Kamala Harris in 2024.

GOP ads accuse Democrats of supporting taxpayer benefits for undocumented immigrants and undermining Trump’s actions to regain control of the southern border, and reprise the “(Democrat) is for they/them” attacks on transgender issues that boosted Trump in 2024 . And like the Democrats, Republicans sometimes combine these issues to portray a Democrat as ideologically incompatible with red-state voters.

More than anything, Republicans want to talk about taxes. The party spent more than $890 million on ads mentioning tax policy through the end of September, proudly touting the fulfillment of 2024 campaign promises to cut taxes on tips, overtime, and Social Security, while delivering customary warnings about Democratic tax hikes.

“In just 18 months, I cut taxes on tips, overtime, and Social Security so you can keep more of what you earn. I’ll fight every day to make life more affordable,” says a top ad from Republican Sen. Jon Husted in Ohio, facing one of the most competitive races in the country down the final stretch.

In effect, GOP candidates are trying to shift voters’ focus from what Trump and the Republican Congress have done in the past two years to what a Democratic Congress might do in the next two.

“I think that all these campaigns that are going to be successful are going to do so by making it a choice, not a referendum,” says Kochel. “Because there is no way to rehabilitate the Trump numbers in the time that we have left.”

For decades, parties struggling with the undertow of an unpopular president have insisted they can convince voters to treat the election as a choice, not just a referendum on the incumbent-and usually failed. The GOP may succeed somewhat more with that strategy than usual this year, because the map is so concentrated on red places where “the Democratic agenda is also very unpopular,” as Kochel puts it.

In last week’s CNN polling, for instance, 29% of the voters who said Trump’s agenda was raising prices still said they would vote Republican for Senate in Ohio, as did 31% in Iowa. Across many of the red states, Democratic candidates are also failing to win quite as many voters who disapprove of Trump as they did in exit polls during his first term, with the drop-off particularly noticeable in the white working class. Such residual, even if conflicted, partisan loyalty could allow the GOP to build a firewall that stops Democratic gains short of the reddest terrain.

But Dan Sena, who ran the Democratic congressional Campaign Committee during the party’s 2018 sweep, predicts that in more competitive places, Republicans won’t succeed in shifting the focus to Democrats. “The problem is because the Republican ownership of higher prices is so stuck to them, voters can’t get past that to listen to the other arguments they are making,” he says.

And, in fact, most often in contemporary politics, attitudes toward the president and current conditions have shaped midterm outcomes far more than assessments of the party out of power . Tom Davis, the former NRCC chair, says awareness of that connection helps explain why congressional Republicans voted so reliably for the Trump agenda. “I think they wanted to give their president latitude, and they felt rightly or wrongly that their future was tied to his,” Davis says. “The problem with that is when you get in a tough cycle it’s hard to differentiate yourself.”

That may be especially true this year. Whether Republicans flee Trump’s agenda or defend it in these final weeks, they have all left fingerprints behind in the rooms where it was forged.

今年威胁共和党的各种因素中，最具威胁性的可能是选民们将他们的经济挫败感与唐纳德·特朗普总统和国会共和党人实施的政策联系起来的这种异常直接的现象。

当美国民众对经济不满时，总统总是会面临困境。但今年，特朗普面临着更深层次的脆弱性。民调显示，绝大多数选民始终认为他的政策——尤其是关税和伊朗战争政策——加剧了他们最关心的问题：高昂的生活成本。

“这不仅仅是经济基本面的问题，也不仅仅是经济周期的问题，”曾任共和党全国国会委员会主席的前众议员汤姆·戴维斯说道。他表示，关税和战争对汽油价格的影响，“是总统的两项具体举措”，大多数选民认为这两项举措正在加剧他们生活水平的下降。

这对国会共和党人来说已经足够不妙了。但他们的脆弱性被进一步放大，因为众议院和参议院的共和党人几乎一致地多次投票支持特朗普在伊朗问题和战争上的政策，以及削减联邦医疗支出——民主党人认为这些削减导致了医疗保健成本的上升。

事实上，在大多数美国人认为特朗普的政策正在加深他们的经济困境之际，国会共和党人也在这一事件中留下了自己的印记。

在竞选的最后几周，加强与选民的联系已成为民主党宣传的核心主题。CNN对AdImpact数据的一项最新分析显示，民主党候选人正斥巨资投放广告，抨击特朗普在关税、战争和医疗补助支出方面的政策，而几乎所有国会共和党人都投票支持这些政策。

资深民主党民调专家杰夫·加林表示，将共和党人与这些政策联系起来，已成为“民主党挑战共和党现任议员的核心策略”。“而投票记录这一残酷现实，也让共和党现任议员更难摆脱困境。”加林补充说，就连共和党挑战者也发现，他们很难与这些不受欢迎的政策划清界限，因为他们中的许多人“都曾公开表示支持特朗普的政策，即便他们当时并未在任，无法实际投票支持这些政策。”

选民们之所以再次选举特朗普，最主要的原因是他们相信他能够缓解民众生活水平的下滑。但近两年过去了，民调显示，大多数美国人已经得出明确的结论：他的施政纲领反而加剧了他们当初选举他来解决的问题。

在《华尔街日报》上个月由两党民调团队进行的最新民调中，60%的登记选民表示特朗普的政策使经济状况恶化——这一比例是认为他的政策改善了经济状况的25%的两倍多。在美联社/NORC公共事务研究中心最近的民调中，当被问及物价为何“高于往常”时，67%的选民将原因归咎于“特朗普的政策”，远高于认为是“特朗普无法控制的因素”导致物价上涨的32%。

上周发布的CNN/SSRS民调也显示，俄亥俄州的潜在选民以压倒性的76%比7%的比例认为，特朗普的政策增加了他们的成本，而不是降低了成本。在爱荷华州，这一比例为74%比6%。

即使在特朗普选举联盟的支柱群体中，这些结论也得到了广泛的认同。美联社/NORC的调查显示，大多数工薪阶层白人选民认为物价高企是特朗普政策造成的，而非他无法控制的因素。CNN的调查也发现，在俄亥俄州和爱荷华州，约有一半自认为是共和党的潜在选民也认同特朗普的政策正在推高生活成本。

长期从事民主党民调的塞琳达·莱克表示，这种负面评价的范围之广，在她从政生涯中前所未有。“这是我们所感受到的对一位总统失败的最广泛的评价，”她说，“比2018年他（指特朗普）的遭遇，甚至比2006年小布什的遭遇都要严重。”

大多数选民将高昂的生活成本与特朗普的政策直接联系起来，这对国会共和党人来说在任何情况下都是危险的。选民对现任总统的态度已成为影响中期选举结果的关键因素。

但国会共和党人可能尤其容易受到牵连，因为他们几乎都曾多次投票支持某些政策，而选民现在却将这些政策归咎于成本上升。

众议院共和党人至少五次投票支持特朗普的关税政策。支持民主党撤销特朗普关税授权的共和党人不超过六人。众议院共和党人七次投票支持这场战争，每次投票表决时反对特朗普的共和党人也不超过七人。

内森·霍华德/路透社

参议院共和党人的情况也类似。他们曾八次投票支持特朗普的关税政策，只有极少数共和党人反对过他；他们还曾十四次投票支持战争；在前六次投票中，除了肯塔基州的兰德·保罗之外，所有参议院共和党人都投了赞成票。

两院的共和党人相对团结一致，支持在 2025 年最终通过预算协调法案，该法案将大幅削减医疗补助和联邦食品援助与全面减税以及大幅增加联邦移民资金结合起来。

这些共和党人的选票——特朗普议程上的共和党印记——已成为民主党论据的核心。“在过去的几届选举中，民主党人从未能够提出过这样的经济论点：共和党（议员）客观上增加了你的生活成本，”众议院多数党政治行动委员会（House Majority PAC）的通讯主管CJ Warnke说道。该委员会是支持民主党众议院候选人的主要超级政治行动委员会。

如今，这种论点在民主党的竞选演讲和辩论台上反复出现。例如，在上周爱荷华州参议院的一场辩论中，民主党候选人乔什·图雷克就此问题向共和党参议员候选人阿什利·欣森施压。图雷克说：“她五次投票支持继续实施这些混乱的关税，七次投票支持这场伊朗战争。我认为这两项政策对爱荷华州的伤害比其他任何州都大。”

科迪·斯坎伦/《得梅因纪事报》/Pool/美联社

共和党在预算协调法案中投票支持战争、关税和削减医疗补助，这些也成为民主党广告宣传的主要焦点。CNN对AdImpact截至9月底的数据进行分析后发现，今年民主党候选人在提及关税的广告上花费了5320万美元，而共和党在这方面的投入不足100万美元。在伊朗问题上，民主党花费了5110万美元，而共和党仅花费了220万美元。民主党在医疗保健广告上的投入最多，其中包括超过600条提及医疗补助的广告，总投入高达1.02亿美元。共和党在提及医疗补助的广告上投入了2200万美元。

民主党的竞选广告经常将这些投票记录结合起来，以进行更广泛的指控。例如，众议院多数党政治行动委员会的一则广告称科罗拉多州众议员加布·埃文斯是“特朗普的得意门生”，因为他“百分之百”投票支持特朗普的关税、削减联邦医疗保健支出以及伊朗战争。民主党有时还会指责共和党人通过股票交易从特朗普的政策中牟利，就像挑战者佩奇·科涅蒂在宾夕法尼亚州东北部多次指控众议员罗布·布雷斯纳汉那样。

在德克萨斯州南部，民主党众议员候选人鲍比·普利多将共和党众议员莫妮卡·德拉克鲁兹在战争、关税和增加移民拨款方面的投票记录巧妙地融合在一起，发表了一番极具说服力的言论。“在我们支付着创纪录的柴油和汽油价格，以及失控的食品杂货账单，在我们社区的家庭生活在恐惧之中时，莫妮卡·德拉克鲁兹却保持沉默……因为她投票支持了这些政策，”身为德克萨斯裔歌星的普利多说道，并承诺将用自己的声音“为你们而战”。

一则由民主党超级政治行动委员会斥资超过200万美元，针对爱荷华州参议员竞选的广告，进一步强调了这一信息：“阿什利·辛森本应为我们着想，但她却7次投票支持伊朗战争。化肥价格失控，柴油价格创历史新高，经营农场从未如此艰难。”

莱克表示，共和党人多次投票支持这些政策，使得这些攻击格外有力。选民或许会说：“我对政策了解不多，不知道这些法案的内容是什么”，但他们会觉得立法者“无视我们”，因为“我们一次又一次地告诉你们我们不想要这些政策，（他们）却依然我行我素，”莱克说道。

面对这波猛攻，共和党人尝试了多种应对措施。

在一些引人注目的案例中，共和党候选人与特朗普决裂。密歇根州共和党参议员候选人迈克·罗杰斯最近呼吁结束伊朗战争和与加拿大的经济冲突。辛森也表示，这场战争必须结束，因为爱荷华州居民“不应该在加油站或超市收银台为战争买单”。共和党众议员玛丽亚·埃尔维拉·萨拉查在一则引人注目的广告中直接对着镜头宣称，由于特朗普的一些移民执法措施“做得太过火”，西班牙裔美国人“感到被背叛”。

吉姆·冯德鲁斯卡/路透社

共和党人感到不安的另一个迹象是，自劳动节后全国各地大选开始以来，共和党广告商在明确提及特朗普的广告上只花费了 1300 万美元，而民主党人则花费了超过 1.25 亿美元。

但这种分离策略显然会带来一些风险。其中之一是来自特朗普的反击：面对萨拉查的猛烈抨击，他转发了一系列谴责萨拉查的社交媒体帖子。在爱荷华州支持欣森的超级政治行动委员会工作的共和党策略师大卫·科切尔表示，任何共和党人都必须仔细权衡公开与特朗普保持距离过远可能对特朗普“让美国再次伟大”（MAGA）支持者投票率造成的潜在影响。“这确实是一个很难把握的平衡点，”科切尔说道。

更大的问题或许在于，在支持特朗普数月之后，这些批评可能会让选民觉得缺乏诚意。例如，民主党人就曾强调罗杰斯此前在伊朗、加拿大和关税问题上对特朗普的全力赞扬，以此回应他在这些问题上的立场转变。

同样，在上周缅因州参议院的首场辩论中，民主党候选人特洛伊·杰克逊嘲讽了共和党参议员苏珊·柯林斯的独立性，他认为柯林斯只是在边缘问题上反对特朗普的政策，而实际上她提供了关键的支持。当柯林斯声称自己说服特朗普将道路用盐从对加拿大征收的关税中豁免时，杰克逊当晚使出了他最精彩的反击：“那其他东西呢？”他质问道，“我的意思是，我们又不能吃道路用盐。”

面对这些挑战，大多数共和党人采取的应对措施是试图将话题转移到民主党人仍然薄弱的领域，尤其是在共和党占优势的州。

Smiley N. Pool/达拉斯晨报/Getty Images

CNN AdImpact 的分析发现，今年共和党候选人在提及边境问题的广告上花费了 1.64 亿美元，在提及移民问题的广告上花费了 1.51 亿美元，在提及犯罪问题的广告上花费了 6600 万美元。该党还在跨性别议题的广告上花费了 8700 万美元，这已成为该党重点关注的领域，因为特朗普在 2024 年成功地利用跨性别议题攻击前副总统卡马拉·哈里斯。

共和党的竞选广告指责民主党人支持用纳税人的钱补贴非法移民，破坏特朗普重新控制南部边境的行动，并重拾2024年特朗普在跨性别议题上“（民主党人）是为他们/她们服务的”的攻击策略。与民主党人一样，共和党人有时也会将这些问题结合起来，把民主党人描绘成在意识形态上与红州选民格格不入。

共和党人最想谈论的莫过于税收问题。截至9月底，该党在有关税收政策的广告上花费了超过8.9亿美元，大肆宣传其在2024年竞选期间削减小费、加班费和社会保障税的承诺，同时照例警告民主党人将提高税收。

“短短18个月内，我就削减了小费、加班费和社会保障金的税收，这样你们就能保留更多收入。我会每天努力让生活更实惠。”这是俄亥俄州共和党参议员乔恩·赫斯特德在竞选广告中的一句重点宣传语。赫斯特德正面临着全国竞争最激烈的选战之一，目前已进入最后冲刺阶段。

实际上，共和党候选人正试图将选民的注意力从特朗普和共和党控制的国会在过去两年中的所作所为，转移到民主党控制的国会在未来两年中可能采取的行动上。

科切尔说：“我认为所有能够取得成功的竞选活动，都会将选举变成一种选择，而不是一次公投。因为在剩下的时间里，我们已经没有办法挽回特朗普的支持率了。”

几十年来，那些在不受欢迎的总统阴影下苦苦挣扎的政党一直坚称，他们能够说服选民将选举视为一种选择，而不仅仅是对现任总统的一次公投——但通常都以失败告终。今年，共和党或许能比往年更成功地运用这一策略，因为选情版图上红色区域占据了很大比例，而正如科切尔所说，“民主党的议程也同样非常不受欢迎”。

例如，在上周CNN的民调中，尽管有29%的选民认为特朗普的政策推高了物价，但他们仍然表示会在俄亥俄州的参议院选举中投票给共和党，爱荷华州的这一比例为31%。在许多共和党占优势的州，民主党候选人赢得的反对特朗普的选民数量也远不及特朗普第一任期出口民调中显示的数量，尤其是在白人工薪阶层中，这种下降尤为明显。这种残存的、即便存在矛盾的党派忠诚度，可能使共和党得以构筑一道防火墙，阻止民主党在最保守的地区取得进展。

但曾在2018年民主党横扫国会后担任民主党国会竞选委员会主席的丹·塞纳预测，在竞争更激烈的选区，共和党人将难以把选民的注意力转移到民主党身上。“问题在于，共和党人对高物价的指责根深蒂固，选民们无法忽略这一点，也就听不进他们提出的其他论点。”他说道。

事实上，在当今政治中，选民对总统和当前形势的态度往往比对在野党的评价更能左右中期选举的结果。前全国共和党国会委员会主席汤姆·戴维斯表示，意识到这种联系有助于解释为什么国会共和党人如此坚定地支持特朗普的政策议程。“我认为他们想给总统更大的自主权，而且他们觉得，无论对错，他们的未来都与总统息息相关，”戴维斯说。“问题在于，当选举周期陷入困境时，很难脱颖而出。”

今年尤其如此。无论共和党人在最后几周是抛弃特朗普的政策议程还是为其辩护，他们都在政策制定过程中留下了不可磨灭的印记。