The Only Way Republicans Can Avoid Another 2028 Election Defeat

There is an academic phrase for what Republicans endured Tuesday night: “a country ass whoopin.”

I am a Republican, and I wanted my party to prevail. But respecting voters means accepting their decision, especially when it is painful. This result should receive the full attention of Republicans in Washington, including President Donald Trump.

The next presidential race will be wide open, and it remains unclear who will ultimately lead the Republican ticket.

Anyone seeking that nomination should treat this defeat as a case study. The next nominee will need to say what Republicans learned Tuesday, what they intend to change and why Americans—particularly independents—should place their trust in the party again.

The clearest starting point is the cost of living. CNN’s exit poll found that roughly three-quarters of voters viewed the economy negatively. Six in 10 expressed serious concern about gasoline and diesel prices, while similar shares worried about groceries and health care. Voters were more than twice as likely to say their household finances had deteriorated as to say they had improved.

That does not mean Republicans had no accomplishments to tout. The U.S. economy grew at a 3.4 percent annualized pace in the third quarter, accelerating from 2.2 percent in the second. Manufacturing expanded for a 10th straight month in October, with new orders, production and employment all rising. Violent crime declined, and provisional figures showed overdose deaths falling. Trump also fulfilled his promise to close the border, a development that means safer communities and fewer families losing loved ones. Preserving those gains after the campaign ends will be crucial.

Yet voters can acknowledge improvement in one area while demanding immediate help in another. A safer neighborhood does not lower the cost of filling a car with gas, just as stronger manufacturing does not make a grocery receipt any smaller.

For many Americans, the gas station is the nation’s economic scoreboard. They see prices on the way to work and feel their impact when driving children to school. As the number climbs, people conclude that something is wrong—and positive developments elsewhere rarely outweigh what is displayed at the pump.

The simplest explanation for Tuesday’s outcome is that the costs of the president’s biggest risks appeared before the promised rewards. That is the timing gap. Tariffs and the war with Iran created tangible economic and political burdens, risks Trump understood and accepted because he believed a stronger industrial base and a safer world justified them. He may ultimately be proved correct, but voters received the bill first.

Audi’s proposed $4 billion Georgia plant, which is expected to generate about 4,500 jobs, represents precisely the kind of investment Trump said his trade policies would attract. Reported talks over tariff relief also illustrate his effort to use access to the U.S. market as leverage for domestic production. But the plant is not expected to begin producing until the early 2030s. A family paying higher prices today cannot spend wages from a factory that has not yet opened.

Iran presents an even larger test. Iran’s military has been devastated, its economy badly damaged and its currency weakened. Oil is leaving the Middle East at greater volumes than before the war, and the naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz has succeeded. By any reasonable standard, those are victories. Still, many Americans experience the conflict as unresolved because no one has clearly told them it is over. The White House has yet to claim the victory it is entitled to announce.

The central question throughout the year was whether the president could convert the sacrifices Americans made into benefits they could see—and how long voters would remain willing to wait. Tuesday’s answer was unmistakable: patience has limits, even when people believe the mission is justified.

The exit polls delivered another warning. About seven in 10 voters said Congress was not doing enough to check the president. Americans, it appears, still value checks and balances. Republican lawmakers cannot claim ownership of a Republican president’s achievements while insisting they are powerless when voters reject his policies. If those policies require adjustment, Congress has both the authority and the responsibility to help make it happen.

CHECK THIS OUT: What Happened to Natalee Holloway? Joran van der Sloot’s Confession Explained

Republicans should also examine the candidates who prevailed. Florida Governor-elect Byron Donalds is an obvious example. The state was not untouched by the Democratic surge, and Republican congressional ambitions there suffered setbacks despite favorable redistricting. Donalds nevertheless won the governor’s race and will become the first elected Black Republican governor in American history.

On a night when the Republican brand hurt candidates across much of the country, Donalds convinced Floridians to continue the party’s leadership in the state, building on the record left by Ron DeSantis. The lesson is that sustained public confidence in state governance can carry a candidate through an unfavorable national climate.

Kelly Ayotte’s re-election as governor of New Hampshire also deserves scrutiny, particularly the governing identity that helped her win.

Arkansas offers two other influential examples: Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders, who now has another term to strengthen her record, and Senator Tom Cotton, who remains a prominent voice on national security and the party’s future. Alongside better-known national figures such as Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, these leaders earned the confidence of their constituents on an otherwise difficult night. The next presidential race will demand that same ability.

Republicans nursing their wounds should remember 2010. Barack Obama’s Democrats lost 63 House seats and six Senate seats, prompting Obama to call the result a shellacking. Two years later, he won re-election. Political fortunes can shift dramatically between a midterm and a presidential contest—and they can shift again.

Which brings us back to Trump, and to the question of what he wants to do with the two years he has left.

Facing large Democratic majorities, he will have to decide where to fight and where to negotiate. He retains the veto and the powers of the presidency. Democrats will have the votes to block his legislative ambitions.

There will be investigations, confrontations and provocations. But the way to close the timing gap is to put points on the board that voters can see. Energy permitting reform, the farm bill and the National Defense Authorization Act could all be done in the lame-duck session, and each would deliver something real.

Democrats face a corresponding test, and they should exercise some humility about what they have won. Americans can be furious with Republicans without being enamored with Democrats. A voter who wants to punish the party in power has only one practical place to go, and casting that ballot does not mean he has endorsed every policy the opposition might pursue. 

‘It’s Trump’s fault’ was an effective campaign argument. It is insufficient as a governing agenda. If Trump offers a workable agreement that would materially improve Americans’ lives, will Democrats take it? Or will they reject anything coming from him as illegitimate, as has been their mantra for nearly a decade?

Trump has always presented himself as a dealmaker. His final two years may be his most demanding test.

Republicans earned this rebuke. Democrats now share responsibility for what happens next. Neither party should mistake the American people’s willingness to change their votes for a willingness to wait forever.