Trump and Vance in intense campaign rounds: Challenges for the Republican Party before the midterm elections

The extensive tours of US President Donald Trump and his vice president, J.D. Vance, in Republican states before the midterm elections are gaining significance beyond the usual mobilization. About a month before the November 3 vote, the Republican Party is forced to fortify areas that were supposed to give it a safe margin, while fears expand of its loss in the House of Representatives and the threat to its majority in the Senate. Between rising prices, the repercussions of the Iran war, and objections to deportation campaigns, Republicans face a double dilemma: winning back voters frustrated by the administration’s policies, and attracting independents whose dissatisfaction with Trump does not necessarily mean they are convinced of the Democratic alternative.

Insider alarm

Choosing “red states” as a starting point for the tours reflects the priority of preventing base erosion. Trump intends to organize five to seven rallies per week during the month of October, with the program remaining subject to modification, at a time when his support reached 38 percent in an average of recent polls.

But the stations do not have the same meaning. In Oklahoma, Trump answered the call of an ally who is running in a comfortable race for governor, while Republicans face tougher competitions in Ohio, Nebraska, and Alaska, which are among his expected moves. Thus, the round combines rewarding allies and protecting threatened seats.

In Florida, where Vance spoke on Thursday, the cost of living and housing and objections to deportation narrowed some contests, according to Politico, despite the Republicans’ advantage by more than 1.5 million registered voters. The danger is that voters who voted for Trump personally may be absent when his name is absent from the ballot paper, so he urges them to vote as if he were a candidate.

Prices defy discourse

Trump links the issue of decline to a problem in presenting his achievements. At the Peterbilt truck factory in Denton, Texas (Thursday), he praised the performance of his management, and held weak promotion responsible for its faltering image. He had given his administration an “excellent” rating in the economy and other fields, announcing that he would personally explain what had been achieved. However, the gap between this assessment and voters’ experience appears wide. Politico quotes an Associated Press/NORC poll showing that only 26 percent support his economic management, and 17 percent support his treatment of the cost of living, while 65 percent believe that his policies contribute to rising prices.

The tension extends to the most loyal base. In a poll reported by Politico last August, 44 percent of Trump voters who belong to the MAGA movement said that the war had increased their costs. This is a weakness of the mobilization strategy, as it needs to mobilize voters who in turn suffer the consequences of the policies they are being asked to defend.

In the face of this dissatisfaction, Trump, during an election rally at the Mitchell Center at the University of South Alabama in Mobile, on Friday, provided a direct defense of the cost of the war. He considered the rise in oil prices a “small price” compared to preventing Iran from possessing a nuclear weapon, and said that its issue would end immediately after the elections, with an agreement or military action, while acknowledging that he did not really know who should be dealing with in Tehran.

The letter reveals an electoral dilemma: The president asks voters to accept the current burdens as a security necessity, and to renew confidence in his party before the promised relief is achieved. Also, keeping the military option open does not give them certainty about when the confrontation will end or prices will fall.

In parallel, after the “Group of Seven” agreed to release 100 million barrels of diesel and crude oil from its stocks within four months, Trump praised the step, ruling out a ban on the export of American diesel after he had supported the idea. This gives him a concrete measure to address high prices, but its electoral impact is linked to the speed with which it is reflected in household bills.

Identity and fear mobilization

In Texas, Trump combined economic promotion with defense of Republican Senate candidate Ken Paxton, stressing his need to win and mentioning his support for him. He then moved on to the issues of child transgenderism, men's participation in women's sports, and open borders, in an attempt to redirect competition toward issues that irritate the conservative base. The New York Times reports that he repeated the incorrect claim that his Democratic rival, James Tallarico, is a vegetarian, using cultural differences to redraw the priorities of the competition.

In Lakeland, Florida, Vance took a similar tack, calling for a vote to confront the “radical left,” and accusing Democrats of threatening freedom, security, and prosperity. He attacked Democratic Senate candidate Angie Nixon “because of her association with socialism,” calling on her to leave the country. She responded that Florida is her homeland, and that demanding cost reductions is not a departure from American values.

Vance's speech was not without live messages, as he talked about tax relief, lowering drug prices, and combating fraud, and supported gubernatorial candidate Byron Donalds' pledges to address the cost of mortgage insurance. Donalds acknowledged that Florida's success was accompanied by its high cost of living, which highlights the difficulty of simply defending the party's record to reassure voters. But the intensity of the ideological attack raises a question about its ability to convince a hesitant voter waiting for a direct answer about the high cost of living.

Independents and mobilization limits

Here the dilemma for Republican candidates arises. They need Trump to mobilize his base, but some of them fear that his presence will alienate persuadable voters. Politico reveals that campaigns in competitive constituencies refused to host him, while Republican Senator Thom Tillis believes that the president's job is to get his supporters out to the ballot, while leaving room for candidates to distinguish themselves from him.

The immigration issue makes this balance more difficult, as the New York Times/Siena poll showed that 64 percent of independents likely to vote objected to Trump’s management of the file. Thus, an issue that helped him win became a potential source of losing votes that his party needed.

However, these data do not prove that the Democrats have overcome their crisis or gained the trust of independents in a stable manner. Voting to punish the administration is different from giving the opposition a positive mandate. Republicans also have an important advertising advantage, as The New York Times reported data indicating expected spending amounting to $365 million compared to $230 million for the Democrats in the final weeks of the Senate battle.

Therefore, the rounds may succeed in reducing the enthusiasm gap, especially in conservative strongholds, but they do not guarantee that the gains resulting from the mobilization will compensate for the losses of independents. Its impact will depend on the ability of Republicans to connect mobilization with convincing answers, and the ability of Democrats to transform anger into confidence in their candidates.