The GOP’s 2026 Dilemma

One of the most common refrains in every campaign cycle is that the problem is one of messaging. We just need the voters to understand things better. Having 50 years of experience may not make a dope such as me smart, but it at least affords the opportunity to share some observations. One of these would be that messaging should derive from the combination of what voters perceive as reality and the policies that individuals believe account for this perceived reality. In other words, the message comes second, not first.

The Core Question Every Election Cycle

Let’s start with anytime there is an incumbent and a challenger, the basic question is whether or not the incumbent deserves to remain in power, or is it time for a change? Various specifics come into play as the placeholders for that basic question—fix the economy, achieve peace, etc., but the overall question remains the same. It seems more than fair to argue that when your party controls the White House, Senate, and House of Representatives, you are seen as the incumbent. What does this all mean for Republicans in 2026?

A Reality Check for 2026

The right answer starts with recognizing the reality of where we are in time and space in the minds and hearts of the voters. For Republicans, the answer to that question is not one that ought to bring smiles to our faces at this time.

The data speaks for itself, like it or not. By 68-25 percent, according to the Real Clear Politics (RCP), Americans believe we are on the wrong track versus headed in the right direction. President Trump’s approval rating currently sits at 41 percent favorable, 57 percent unfavorable. Gas prices remain high (negating any chance of winning a comparison to the past). Reuters reports 35 percent approval for the War in Iran and 60 percent disapproval. No doubt numbers can change. However, there is always a lag time between reality changing and voters accepting the change as real and of some durability. So, unless these numbers change very soon, it will not matter all that much.

Four Messaging Options—Not Twenty-Five

By any definition of the term, these are not good numbers. The only positive number, and the one that will serve as the basis for what I recommend Republicans use to center our messaging, is the generic ballot (do you intend to vote for the Republican or the Democrat?), which remains statistically tied at 46 percent each. Back to the thesis of this column. What makes the most sense to be saying during this election cycle? My contention is that there are only four choices, not 25.

Option One: “Things Are Going Great”

Option one is the easiest and best. “Things are going great, and why would anyone want to turn back to the policies of the past?” This is predicated on voters agreeing with the description of things as being great. When George H.W. Bush won in 1988, the best predictor of his support was the approval rating for President Reagan. The truth is, Bush won a third Reagan term. The Bush Mafia may not like this, but it is nevertheless reality. Given the numbers, it seems this message would be roundly rejected in 2026.

Option Two: “We’ve Made Progress—Don’t Turn Back”

Option two is to argue “much needs to still be done, but we have made a good start, so let’s not turn back now.” Again, voters need to concur with the conclusion. This was the Obama message in 2012. Had it not been for the market crash on the watch of President George W. Bush, this message might not have worked, but the market did crash, and the message worked.

Option Three: “You’re Wrong—Things Are Better”

Option three comes down to “you need to pay more attention. Things are better than you think. Look at x, y, and z, and you will be compelled to conclude you have things pretty darn good, so keep voting for us.” It did not work for Republicans in 1982, and nothing had changed when it fell on deaf ears in 2018. The same can be said for Democrats in 1966, 1994, 2010, and 2014. Also, Biden was heading for defeat in 2024 using this message.

The easy way to say it would be that in my entire life, there is a total of zero times I have seen this messaging centered on telling voters they have it wrong work worth a damn. However, it does let the incumbents feel good about themselves and brag that they will always be on the offense. The technical political term, in my view, for this approach is horseshit.

Option Four: The Only Realistic Path

That leaves option four. It is not pleasant or intellectually pleasing to be sure. The message here is: “You may not like us, but the other guys are batshit crazy. They are even worse. Time after time, on things you care about, those folks favor choices you have denounced for many years. Voting for those clowns is a risk you cannot afford.”

In 2006, I argued this was the message that made the most sense. Let’s just say the idea was not well-received by the powers that be. So, despite its unbroken record of failure, they went with option three—you need to be smarter and agree with us. Record of never working remains intact.

Proving the Case to Voters

The key challenge is to prove two things at the same time. First, the other folks are batshit crazy. Second, they are that way on matters that voters, not political activists, agree are important. Too often, there is a tendency to emphasize the batshit crazy component rather than why it matters to individual voters. You have to do both to have hopes for success.

When This Strategy Has Worked Before

Reasonably, you may be asking just where it is that this fourth option has worked. Fair question. I would argue it did in 1998. Bill Clinton had already been impeached. The Silicon Valley boom was busting a bit. Still, Democrats held down their losses by turning the focus onto Republicans. Anyone who thinks 2026 is a year Republicans will gain seats needs to see their doctor and get a new prescription. There is nothing sinful about playing defense. You just have to be smart enough to know that is where you are and what makes sense to do about it.

Playing Defense in 2026

An eternal optimist, I will hope Republicans come to agree that option four is the only realistic choice to pursue in order to minimize losses and hopefully not lose control of both houses of Congress. Fingers firmly crossed.

Common Sense

Common Sense: In politics, advancing an argument the public disagrees with (options one and two) or that insults their intelligence (option three) is unlikely to produce positive results. So, it is time to turn Momma’s picture to the wall and commit to option four. Proving they are batshit crazy is the easy part. Connecting it to what voters care about is the tricky part. What do you think?