Democratic and Republican strategists on what worked and what didn’t in midterm campaigns

Judy Woodruff:

And we know that last night brought a host of surprises, including, as we have been reporting, to Democrats' ability to minimize their expected losses across the board, as we have been discussing here.

To talk about what worked and what didn't for each of the parties, I'm joined by Democratic strategist Guy Cecil and Sarah Longwell, a Republican strategist. She's also the founder of the Republican Accountability Project.

Welcome back to the "NewsHour" to both of you.

Guy Cecil, I'm going to start with you.

How did Democrats do it? I mean, there was this sense going in that there would be a red wave, that it would be a good night for Republicans. They're not off the table. They could still take the House and the Senate, for that matter. But how did Democrats do as well as they did?

Guy Cecil, Chairman, Priorities USA:

Well, I think there were warning signs for Republicans that Democrats ended up taking advantage of.

And when I say warning signs, it was just last year that Mitch McConnell failed to recruit Republican governors in Arizona and New Hampshire and Maryland, all three of whom would have transformed the map for the Republican Party. And then, on top of that, they ended up with the most extreme candidates in many of these races, similar to what happened in gubernatorial races around the country.

And I think Amy actually hit the nail on the head. Republicans were actually — or Democrats, rather, were actually able to make this a choice between a Democratic Party that was actually working to try to solve America's greatest problems vs. extreme Republicans running for the House, for the Senate, and for governor's races around the country, who were more focused on election denialism and restricting the right of a woman to choose, and, frankly, didn't offer any compelling solutions to how they would actually solve the very problems that they were criticizing Democrats for.

Judy Woodruff:

So, Sarah Longwell, if that's what Democrats were able to do, to a degree, what is it that Republicans were not able to do to have a better night last night?

Sarah Longwell, Founder, The Republican Accountability Project:

Yes, well, look, it really all started with the Republican primaries, where Donald Trump was able to sort of bring his base together to push across a bunch of really extreme candidates who ultimately became the nominees and then were really poison for swing voters.

I talk to swing voters in my focus groups all the time. And despite the fact that they were frustrated with Biden, despite the fact that they cared about the economy, when it came down to vote choice, when they had to choose between a guy like Josh Shapiro or a guy like Doug Mastriano, who was at January 6, who didn't believe in any exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother, you see a guy like Josh Shapiro winning by 14 points, absolute blowouts.

And I got to say, it was a really good night for democracy. The thing that had been keeping me up at night was the idea that these sort of governor's races and secretary of state races could get swept up in this red wave, and you would have a bunch of people certifying elections in 2024 who didn't believe in certifying the actual results.

But, in Wisconsin, in Pennsylvania, in Michigan, we had — there were very good nights where the Democrats won and they kept out these election deniers. But it was a very bad night for Donald Trump and his candidates that he had sort of put forward.

Judy Woodruff:

So, Guy Cecil, one of the things we have noticed is, again, there was a lot of money poured in to these races.

What did you see there? How did that make a difference for Democrats this time, do you think?

Guy Cecil:

Well, I think if you want to know how candidates think they can win elections, you look at how they spend their money.

And when you look at how Republicans were spending their money online, for example, most of the money they were spending wasn't actually focused on abortion. It was focused on crime, policing, and then a smattering of economic messages, whereas Democrats were focused on the economy, on health care, on abortion, on three issues that the public was telling us they really cared about.

And I think Democrats are able to stay competitive not because of outside money, but, frankly, because our candidates, Senate candidates, gubernatorial candidates, House candidate, secretaries of state candidates, were able to raise significantly larger amounts of grassroots money online, which really powered a lot of the campaign, particularly early on in the cycle.

Judy Woodruff:

Sarah, do you see money making a difference? I mean, Democrats did raise a lot of money, and certainly so did Republicans, especially these so-called outside groups.

Sarah Longwell:

Oh, money absolutely made a difference.

One of the things that sort of strikes me in the focus groups is how much people's sort of opinions are shaped by the television advertisements. People will tell you that they hate the TV advertisements, they're so sick of hearing about them, and yet the early money that Democrats spent defining the Republican candidates as very extreme on abortion, when I would do the focus groups in the beginning, and I would ask, how do you think things are going in the country, like I said, they'd be frustrated.

They would talk about crime. They would talk about the economy. They talk about inflation. But when it came to vote choice in a Whitmer vs. Tudor Dixon, like in Michigan, for example, everybody knew that Tudor Dixon had said that, if a young woman was raped, she should still have to carry the baby to term.

Democrats did a great job. They spent a lot of money early. They defined candidates on these issues. And by the time it came down to vote choice in this election, the swing voters knew how extreme these Republican candidates were. And, ultimately, that made a ton of difference.

I know people like to talk about money in politics being a bad thing, but this is the — running TV, running radio, billboards, that is how you persuade. And there was a lot of persuasion that happened in this election.

Judy Woodruff:

So, Guy Cecil, back on this question I think both of you have raised about messaging from each party, do you — do we come away saying, OK, these are the messages that they should have talked about, and are they messages that are going to translate into a productive Congress in the next — in the next two years?

Guy Cecil:

Well, I think the only thing that will make Congress more productive is if the Republican Party deals with the extremist elements.

I mean, we already have extreme members of the Republican Caucus today who are threatening with all sorts of threats about how they're going to disrupt the next Congress. I mean, the reality is there are Democrats like Michael Bennet who are willing to work across the aisle. We have seen Raphael Warnock work with Ted Cruz, of all people, to try to solve the country's problems.

But we have an extreme element of the Republican Party, particularly in the House. And the reality is, until the Republican Party deals with that element, it will be almost impossible for Democrats and Republicans to work constructively to solve the biggest problems that our country faces, despite the fact that President Biden has tried over and over again to do just that.

Judy Woodruff:

And, Sarah, I mean, it — how do you — I mean, how does somebody like you, who cares about the Republican Party, see Republicans dealing with that in the next couple of years?

Sarah Longwell:

Well, as somebody who's been extremely alarmed to watch the Republican Party's descent into conspiracy theories and election denialism, I'm, frankly, thrilled to see such a repudiation of a lot of the election deniers in these key swing states.

That being said, the party continues to radicalize. And a lot — there are a lot of election deniers that won last night. They're just all in safer areas. And so I remain deeply concerned about the state of the Republican Party.

But I do think it's good, it's a good sort of early green shoot sign that Donald Trump didn't get his way. And it would be nice to see the Republican Party — and I think you're seeing a little bit of this — start to say, you know what, we cannot let this guy back in, although the Republican Party has tried this before, and Donald Trump has always found a way.

He has a very tight grip on his base, and that base is quite large. And until — you have got to deliver sustained electoral defeats. That is the only way the Republican Party ultimately reforms itself. And, also, you got to beat Donald Trump. He's got to lose in Republican primary or he's going to have to lose again in a general election if he runs again.

It's the only way to ever bring the Republican Party back to some kind of sanity.

Judy Woodruff:

Sarah Longwell, Guy Cecil, we so appreciate the inspired and wise observations of both of you.

Thank you very much.

Guy Cecil:

Thank you.

Sarah Longwell:

Thank you.