2026-10-11T10:00:45.503Z / https://www.cnn.com/2026/10/11/politics/voters-trump-agenda-midterms
在今年所有威胁共和党格局的因素中，最具威胁性的或许是选民正在将他们的经济不满与唐纳德·特朗普总统和国会共和党实施的政策直接联系起来，这种关联异乎寻常地清晰。
当美国人对经济感到不满时，在任总统总会因此受到牵连。但今年特朗普面临的脆弱性程度更甚。民调 consistently 显示，绝大多数选民认为他的政策——尤其是围绕关税和伊朗战争的政策——正在加剧他们最担忧的问题：生活成本高企。
“这不仅仅是经济基本面和处于糟糕周期的问题，”前共和党众议员汤姆·戴维斯说道，他在任期间曾担任全国共和党国会委员会主席。他表示，加上关税和战争对汽油价格的影响，“有两项具体的总统行动”被大多数选民认为正在加剧他们生活水准的压力。
这对国会共和党人来说已经足够凶险了。但他们的脆弱性被进一步放大，因为参众两院共和党人几乎一致反复投票支持特朗普在伊朗和战争问题上的政策，以及民主党认为推高了医疗成本的联邦医疗支出削减方案。
实际上，在大多数美国人认为特朗普的议程正在加剧他们经济困境的当下，国会共和党人也在这场“罪行”现场留下了自己的痕迹。
在竞选的最后几周，为选民强化这一关联已经成为民主党竞选宣传的核心主题。美国有线电视新闻网（CNN）对AdImpact数据的最新分析显示，民主党候选人斥巨资投放广告，矛头直指特朗普的关税政策、战争政策，以及几乎所有国会共和党人都投票支持的医疗补助计划支出削减方案。
将共和党与这些政策绑定已经成为“民主党针对共和党现任议员竞选活动的核心和灵魂”，资深民主党民调专家杰夫·加林说道。“而投票记录的铁证让共和党现任议员难以搪塞过去。”加林补充道，即使是共和党挑战者也发现很难与这些不受欢迎的选择划清界限，因为他们中的许多人“即便没有实际投票支持，也都表达过对特朗普政策的支持”。
选民当初将特朗普送回白宫，最重要的原因是他们相信他能够缓解生活成本的压力。但近两年后，民调显示大多数美国人已经明确得出结论：他的议程非但没有解决他们当初选举他来解决的问题，反而加剧了这一问题。
在上个月由两党民调团队开展的最新《华尔街日报》民调中，60%的登记选民表示特朗普的政策让经济形势变得更糟——是认为他的行动改善了经济状况的25%的两倍多。在最新的美联社/NORC民调中，当被问及为何物价“比往常更高”时，67%的选民将其归咎于“特朗普的政策”，远多于32%认为是“特朗普无法控制的因素”的受访者。
上周公布的CNN/SSRS民调同样发现，俄亥俄州的潜在选民以压倒性的76%比7%的比例认为，特朗普的政策推高了他们的生活成本，而非降低了成本。在艾奥瓦州，这一比例为74%比6%。
即使是在构成特朗普选举联盟支柱的群体中，这些结论也得到了广泛认同。在美联社/NORC的民调中，大多数工薪阶层白人选民表示物价高企是因为特朗普的政策，而非他无法控制的因素。CNN的民调发现，在俄亥俄州和艾奥瓦州，约一半自认为是共和党人的潜在选民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工作的塞琳达·莱克表示，这种负面评判的广度在她的政治生涯中是前所未有的。“这是我们所见过的对总统失败最广泛的认知，”她说，“其广度超过了2018年对他的评价，甚至超过了2006年乔治·W·布什时期的情况。”
在任何情况下，大多数选民将高生活成本与特朗普政策直接挂钩的情况，对国会共和党人来说都是危险的。对在任总统的态度已经成为决定中期选举结果的决定性因素。
但国会共和党人可能面临的风险尤其大，因为他们中的几乎所有人都多次投票支持那些如今被选民归咎为推高生活成本的具体政策。
众议院共和党人至少五次投票支持特朗普的关税议程。支持民主党废除特朗普关税权限的共和党议员从未超过六人。众议院共和党人七次投票支持战争，在发起投票时反对特朗普的共和党议员从未超过七人。
参议院共和党人的情况类似。他们八次投票支持特朗普的关税政策，只有少数共和党议员曾投下反对票；他们14次投票支持战争；在前六次投票中，除肯塔基州的兰德·保罗外，所有参议院共和党人都投票支持战争。
参众两院的共和党人同样一致支持2025年和解法案的最终通过，该法案将医疗补助计划和联邦食品援助的大幅削减与全面减税以及联邦移民资金的大幅增加捆绑在一起。
这些共和党人的投票——共和党在特朗普议程上留下的痕迹——已经成为民主党竞选主张的核心。“过去几个选举周期，民主党从未能够提出这样的经济论调：共和党（议员）实实在在地让你的生活成本变高了，”众议院多数党政治行动委员会（House Majority PAC）的通信主管CJ·沃克克说道，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。
如今这一论调在民主党竞选演讲和辩论舞台上反复响起。例如在上周艾奥瓦州参议院辩论中，民主党候选人乔希·图雷克就这一关联向共和党参议院候选人阿什利·辛森施压。图雷克说：“她曾五次投票支持继续这些混乱的关税政策，七次支持这场伊朗战争。我认为这两者对艾奥瓦州的伤害比其他任何州都要大。”
共和党人在战争、关税和和解法案中削减医疗补助的投票，也是民主党广告的主要攻击点。CNN对截至9月底的AdImpact数据分析发现，今年民主党候选人已花费5320万美元投放提及关税的广告，而共和党在这一主题上的投入不足100万美元。在伊朗问题上，民主党花费了5110万美元，相比之下共和党仅为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条广告，涉及金额达1.02亿美元，提及医疗补助计划。共和党在提及医疗补助的广告上投入了2200万美元。
民主党广告常常将这些投票结合起来，形成更广泛的指控。众议院多数党政治行动委员会的一则广告将科罗拉多州众议员加布·埃文斯描述为“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政策、联邦医疗支出削减方案和伊朗战争。民主党有时还会指责共和党通过股票交易从特朗普政策中牟取私利，就像 challenger 佩奇·科格内蒂在宾夕法尼亚州东北部多次针对众议员罗布·布雷斯纳汉所做的那样。
在南得克萨斯州，民主党众议院候选人鲍比·普利多将共和党众议员莫妮卡·德拉·克鲁兹对战争、关税和增加移民资金的投票融合成一则尤其有力的广告。“当我们支付创纪录的柴油和汽油价格，以及失控的食品账单时，我们社区的家庭感到恐慌，莫妮卡·德拉·克鲁兹却默不作声……因为她投票支持了这一切，”身为特哈诺音乐明星的普利多说道，随后他承诺将用自己的声音“为你们而战”。
一个支持艾奥瓦州参议院竞选的民主党超级政治行动委员会斥资200多万美元投放的广告，为这一信息增添了更明确的细节：“阿什利·辛森本应保护我们的利益，但她七次投票支持这场伊朗战争。化肥成本失控，柴油价格创下历史新高。经营农场从未像现在这样艰难。”
莱克表示，共和党人反复投票支持这些政策的事实让这些攻击尤其有力。尽管选民可能会说“我不太了解政策，我不知道这些法案里有什么”，但他们觉得立法者“无视我们”，因为“一次又一次，在我们告诉你们我们不想要这些政策之后，（他们）仍在继续推行”，莱克说道。
共和党候选人试图另辟蹊径
面对这场攻势，共和党人尝试了多种应对方式。
在少数显眼的案例中，共和党候选人与特朗普划清了界限。密歇根州共和党参议院候选人迈克·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，战争必须结束，因为艾奥瓦州人“不应该在加油站或结账时为此买单”。共和党众议员玛丽亚·埃尔维拉·萨拉扎尔在一则引人注目的广告中直接对着镜头宣称，拉美裔“感到被背叛”，因为特朗普的一些移民执法行动“做得太过火了”。
另一个显示共和党人不安的迹象是，自劳动节后全国范围内的大选竞选启动以来，共和党广告商仅花费1300万美元投放明确提及特朗普的广告，而民主党在这方面的投入超过1.25亿美元。
但这种划清界限的策略带来了几个明显的风险。其中之一是特朗普的反击：他在回应萨拉扎尔的批评时，转发了一系列谴责她的社交媒体帖子。为艾奥瓦州支持辛森的超级政治行动委员会工作的共和党策略师大卫·科赫尔表示，任何共和党人都必须仔细权衡公开与特朗普拉开太大距离，可能会对特朗普的“让美国再次伟大”（MAGA）基础选民的投票率造成潜在损失。“这是一个非常难以把握的平衡，”科赫尔说道。
更大的问题或许是，在支持特朗普这么久之后，这些批评在选民看来可能显得虚伪。例如，民主党人针对罗杰斯在伊朗、加拿大和关税问题上的转变，突出了他此前在所有这些问题上对特朗普的全面赞扬。
同样，在上周缅因州的首场参议院辩论中，民主党候选人特洛伊·杰克逊嘲笑共和党参议员苏珊·柯林斯自称独立的说法，称她只是在边缘问题上反对特朗普的议程，其余时间则提供了关键支持。当柯林斯声称自己说服特朗普免除了公路用盐的加拿大关税时，杰克逊打出了当晚最有力的反击牌：“那其他的一切呢？”他说道，“我的意思是，我们总不能吃公路用盐吧。”
面对这些挑战，大多数共和党人试图转移话题，转向民主党仍处于弱势的议题，尤其是在红色州。
CNN对AdImpact的分析发现，今年共和党候选人已花费1.64亿美元投放提及边境问题的广告，1.51亿美元投放提及移民的广告，6600万美元投放提及犯罪的广告。该党还在跨性别问题相关广告上投入了8700万美元，这是自特朗普在2024年将其作为对抗前副总统卡玛拉·哈里斯的楔子议题以来的重点宣传内容。
共和党广告指责民主党为无证移民提供纳税人福利，破坏特朗普为重新控制南部边境所采取的行动，并重现了2024年帮助特朗普获胜的“（民主党）支持他们/她们”的跨性别议题攻击。与民主党一样，共和党有时也将这些议题结合起来，将民主党议员描绘成与红州选民格格不入的人。
最重要的是，共和党人希望谈论税收问题。截至9月底，该党已花费超过8.9亿美元投放提及税收政策的广告，自豪地宣扬兑现了2024年竞选承诺，削减了小费、加班费和社会保障税，同时照例警告民主党会加税。
“在短短18个月里，我削减了小费、加班费和社会保障税，这样你就能保留更多自己赚来的钱。我将每天都为让生活更负担得起而奋斗，”俄亥俄州共和党参议员乔恩·赫斯特德的一则顶级广告说道，他正面临着全国竞争最激烈的竞选之一，目前处于竞选最后阶段。
实际上，共和党候选人正试图将选民的注意力从过去两年特朗普和共和党国会的所作所为，转移到未来两年民主党国会可能采取的行动上。
“我认为所有能成功的竞选活动都将做到将选举变成一种选择，而非公投，”科赫尔说道，“因为在我们仅剩的时间里，不可能扭转民众对特朗普的负面看法。”
几十年来，在不受欢迎的总统的负面影响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，而非仅仅是对在任总统的公投——但通常都失败了。今年共和党在这一策略上或许能比往常取得更大成功，因为选举地图高度集中在红色州，正如科赫尔所说，“在这些地方，民主党议程也非常不受欢迎”。
例如在上周的CNN民调中，29%认为特朗普的议程推高了物价的选民仍表示会投票给共和党参议院候选人，在艾奥瓦州这一比例为31%。在许多红色州，民主党候选人也未能像特朗普第一任期出口民调那样，赢得所有不认可特朗普的选民，这种差距在白人工薪阶层中尤为明显。这种残留的、哪怕是矛盾的党派忠诚度，可能会让共和党筑起一道防火墙，阻止民主党在最红的地盘取得进展。
但曾在2018年民主党横扫国会期间担任民主党国会竞选委员会主席的丹·塞纳预测，在更具竞争力的地区，共和党人无法成功将话题转移到民主党身上。“问题在于，共和党人已经被牢牢绑定在了高生活成本的责任上，选民无法抛开这一点去听他们提出的其他论点，”他说道。
而实际上，在当代政治中，对总统的态度和当前局势对中期选举结果的影响，远比对在野党的评估要大得多。前全国共和党国会委员会主席汤姆·戴维斯表示，意识到这一关联有助于解释为何国会共和党人如此一致地支持特朗普的议程。“我认为他们想要给予总统行动自由，而且他们不管对错都觉得自己的未来与他的未来绑在了一起，”戴维斯说道，“问题在于，当竞选周期变得艰难时，你很难将自己与他区分开来。”
今年的情况可能尤其如此。无论共和党人在最后几周是逃离特朗普的议程，还是为其辩护，他们都在这场议程的酝酿过程中留下了自己的痕迹。
Voters are connecting the dots — and it’s bad news for Republicans
2026-10-11T10:00:45.503Z / https://www.cnn.com/2026/10/11/politics/voters-trump-agenda-midterms
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.
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.”
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.
GOP candidates try to create their own lanes
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.”
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.
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.