How Hated Is TrumpCare? Hated Enough To Destroy The GOP House Majority... By A Lot

There were 9 states where Trump had landslide victories over Clinton, mostly poorly educated, backward states with small populations.

• Wyoming- 70.1% to 22.5%
• West Virginia- 68.7% to 26.5%
• Oklahoma- 65.3% to 28.9%
• North Dakota- 64.1% to 27.8%
• Alabama- 62.9% to 34.6%
• Kentucky- 62.5% to 32.7%
• South Dakota- 61.5% to 31.7%
• Tennessee- 61.1% to 34.9%
• Arkansas- 60.4% to 33.8%

But not even in these states is their majority support for TrumpCare. Even in the state where it is viewed most sympathetically, Oklahoma, the people who don’t like it (45%) significantly outnumber the people who do (38%). And 38% is the high-water mark. In 3 major Trump states with large rural ignorant populations and incredible numbers of people strung out on prescription drugs—West Virginia, Arkansas and Tennessee— only 40% oppose TrumpCare but, respectively, only 36%, 32% and 35% support Congress passing it. And that’s where Trump is strongest politically. Take states where Trump won narrowly and the picture is much starker. Look at these half dozen swing states Trump won narrowly:

• Wisconsin- 54% oppose, 29% support
• Michigan- 49% oppose, 27% support
• Pennsylvania- 49% oppose, 30% support
• Florida- 48% oppose, 35% support
• Ohio- 51% oppose, 29% support
• Iowa- 53% oppose, 27% support

But look at a state like Massachusetts, highly educated, healthy, prosperous… Trump only took 33.5% of the vote there but TrumpCare support is even lower—22% with 59% opposed. A couple of days ago Christopher Warshaw did a piece in the NY Times, GOP Senators Might Not Realize It, but Not One State Supports the A.H.C.A., asserting that TrumpCare “is the most unpopular piece of major legislation Congress has considered in decades— even more unloved than TARP (the bailout), and much more unpopular than the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.” Nationally, approval for TrumpCare is 29%.

Will Republican senators vote yes on a bill this unpopular? To hang on to their jobs, senators have to keep only voters in their own states happy, not the whole nation. Perhaps red-state senators, or even some senators in swing states, might think their states are friendlier to the bill than the nation as a whole.

Our research indicates that is not the case. To get a sense of support by state, we combined recent polls to estimate support for the A.H.C.A. in every senator’s home state. Our estimates indicate that not one state favors it.

…We found that Republicans have produced a rare unity among red and blue states: opposition to the A.H.C.A.

For example, even in the most supportive state, deep-red Oklahoma, we estimate that only about 38 percent of voters appear to support the law versus 45 percent who oppose. (Another 17 percent of Oklahomans say they have no opinion.) Across all the states that voted for President Trump last year, we estimate that support for the A.H.C.A. is rarely over 35 percent. A majority of Republican senators currently represent states where less than a third of the public supports the A.H.C.A. By comparison, President Trump received 33 percent of the vote in Massachusetts.

How many senators might lose their seats as a result of supporting the bill? A recent study found that Democrats who supported Obamacare lost about six percentage points in the vote in 2010— a dangerous omen for the 15 sitting Republican senators who won their most recent elections by less than that number. For example, if the A.H.C.A. costs Republicans as much support as Obamacare cost Democrats, senators like Jeff Flake of Arizona and Dean Heller of Nevada might be in danger of losing their seats. We estimate that only 28 percent of the public in Nevada supports the A.H.C.A., while only 31 percent of Arizonans support it.

With this said, it’s hard to know just how politically damaging supporting the A.H.C.A. would be. On the one hand, no major bill this unpopular has passed in decades, but some voters might forget about the A.H.C.A., or change their opinions, by the time some senators face re-election.

But the picture of public support is bleak in the home states of many reported G.O.P. swing votes on the bill. In Susan Collins’s Maine, Lisa Murkowski’s Alaska, Mr. Flake and John McCain’s Arizona, Cory Gardner’s Colorado, Bill Cassidy’s Louisiana, Rob Portman’s Ohio, Lindsey Graham’s South Carolina and Mr. Heller’s Nevada, we estimate that public support is under a third, and clear pluralities oppose.

With A.H.C.A. support in the subbasement, Republican senators have indicated they hope to make changes to the law. Although we can’t be sure exactly what they will change or how it might influence public support, the YouGov data indicate that Republicans in the House had little success softening the public’s opposition with their own modifications. In fact, support for the A.H.C.A. was even lower in the three YouGov polls after the House made its changes than in the two YouGov polls conducted before it.

Cynics might worry that senators care too much about their donors or primary voters to pay heed to general public opposition in their states. But evidence shows that when politicians learn that a majority of their constituents oppose a bill, many change their votes as a result. In one study, academics randomly assigned some legislators to receive information on public opinion in their districts, and found that legislators were much more likely to vote along with constituency opinion when they were informed of it.

But critics of the bill shouldn’t assume Republican senators know where their states stand. Research shows that politicians are surprisingly poor at estimating public opinion in their districts and states, Republicans in particular. G.O.P. politicians tend to overestimate support for conservative health care views by about 20 percentage points— meaning Senate Republicans might see their states as just barely supporting the A.H.C.A. Our analysis indicates this view would be mistaken.

There is no such breakdown for congressional districts, but it’s safe to estimate that if support for GOP candidates drops by 5% from Trump’s win in 2016— and that’s half the loss in support experienced in the Kansas special election— a generic Democrat (so, not necessarily some crap candidate the DCCC digs up and foists on the voters) would beat 72 incumbent Republicans. These— in theory— are the Republican incumbents who would be out trolling K Street looking for lobbyist jobs if the fall-off is just 5%:

• Martha McSally (AZ)
• David Schweikert (AZ)
• Tom McClintock (CA)
• Paul Cook (CA)
• Jeff Denham (CA)
• David Valadao (CA)
• Devin Nunes (CA)
• Steve Knight (CA)
• Ed Royce (CA)
• Mimi Walters (CA)
• Dana Rohrabacher (CA)
• Darrell Issa (CA)
• Duncan Hunter (CA)
• Mike Coffman (CO)
• Dennis Ross (FL)
• Brian Mast (FL)
• Mario Diaz-Balart (FL)
• Carlos Curbelo (FL)
• Rob Woodall (GA)
• Rod Blum (IA)
• David Young (IA)
• Peter Roskam (IL)
• Rodney Davis (IL)
• Randy Hultgren (IL)
• Kevin Yoder (KS)
• Andy Barr (KY)
• Bruce Poliquin (ME)
• Justin Amash (MI)
• Fred Upton (MI)
• Mike Bishop (MI)
• Dave Trott (MI)
• Jason Lewis (MN)
• Erik Paulsen (MN)
• Ann Wagner (MO)
• George Holding (NC)
• Robert Pittengert (NC)
• Ted Budd (NC)
• Don Bacon (NE)
• Frank LoBiondo (NJ)
• Tom MacArthur (NJ)
• Leonard Lance (NJ)
• Rodney Frelinghuysen (NJ)
• Steve Pearce (NM)
• Mark Amodei (NV)
• Peter King (NY)
• Dan Donovan (NY)
• John Faso (NY)
• Tom Reed (NY)
• John Katko (NY)
• Steve Chabot (OH)
• Mike Turner (OH)
• Steve Russell (OK)
• Ryan Costello (PA)
• Pat Meehan (PA)
• Brian Fitzpatrick (PA)
• Charlie Dent (PA)
• Lloyd Smucker (PA)
• Mark Sanford (SC)
• Ted Poe (TX)
• John Culberson (TX)
• Mike McCaul (TX)
• Lamar Smith (TX)
• Pete Olson (TX)
• Will Hurd (TX)
• Kenny Marchant (TX)
• Pete Sessions (TX)
• Scott Taylor (VA)
• Tom Garrett (VA)
• Dave Brat (VA)
• Barbara Comstock (VA)
• Jaime Herrera Beutler (WA)
• David Reichert (WA)
• Paul Ryan (WI)

Now imagine the losses if the fall off is the same as it was in KS-04, 10 points. Even the DCCC couldn’t lose a cycle like that! It would be a rout-- a testament to the toxicity of both Señor Trumpanzee and House Speaker Paul Ryan, who wouldn't be around the be chastised by his colleagues, since he would be in line to lose his own seat as well.