Adam Watson (00:00)
Welcome back to “Simplifying the State,” the podcast where we break down politics so you don’t have to scroll through the 50 notifications your news app sends you every five minutes. As always, I’m Adam Watson.

Nicholas Perrin (00:10)
And I’m Nicholas Perrin.

Adam Watson (00:11)
All right, before we begin, if you haven’t already, it would mean a lot if you took a minute to click the five-star rating on your podcast app. Leave a review and make sure you’re subscribed so you never miss an episode. And if you’re enjoying this podcast, please share it with a friend, because if you like it, they might like it too.

Okay, so Nicholas, what do Kevin McCarthy, Paul Ryan and Mike Johnson all have in common?

Nicholas Perrin (00:31)
Do they all have letters in their names?

Adam Watson (00:33)
Yes, they do. The answer I was looking for was that they are either former or current speakers of the House of Representatives from the Republican Party. And that kind of brings us to what we’re going to be talking about today—what direction the Republican Party might take, and what the future could have in store for them, both for the 2026 midterms and the 2028 presidential election, both post-Trump and post–Big Beautiful Bill.

So the context for the Big Beautiful Bill is basically that it’s the big piece of legislation Trump has been trying to push through Congress. Yesterday—well, two days ago, rather—the Senate voted yes on it. It was 50–50. Vice President Vance broke the tie. All Democrats voted against it. Three Republicans joined them: Sen. Rand Paul from Kentucky, Sen. Susan Collins from Maine, and Sen. Thom Tillis from North Carolina.

One unexpected vote, however, was from Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. She was a possible “no” vote, but it seems leadership managed to win her over. This was a surprise mainly because she’s been a vocal critic of President Trump for virtually all of his second term and also parts of his first term. Democrats were hoping she might be another “no” vote, which would have made it 51. But it passed.

It’s now in the House of Representatives, where it’s currently being debated. It looks like Speaker Johnson is going to force a vote tonight. That’s unclear how it will go. The Freedom Caucus—the far-right group of House Republicans—says they will not support it. Speaker Johnson seems to be calling their bluff.

We’ll see how that plays out, but it seems like the majority of Americans are not in favor of this legislation, just based on a few opinion polls:

• Quinnipiac: 55% oppose
• Fox: 59% oppose
• Washington Post: 42% oppose
• KFF: 64% oppose
• Pew: 49% oppose

So it doesn’t seem to have broad support. Even in the poll where it doesn’t have super high opposition, it doesn’t have high approval either—Quinnipiac had it at 29% approval, with 20% not offering an opinion.

Nicholas, what do you think the fallout from this bill might be? Obviously, it has a lot in it, but the main parts people are concerned about are that 11 million people could be kicked off their health care—that’s from a Congressional Budget Office estimate. It would also remove people from food stamps and Medicare. So, Nicholas, what do you think the fallout for Republicans could be?

Nicholas Perrin (03:37)
Well, a lot of things could happen. Most of the U.S. population likes healthcare, and severely limiting it and making it much harder to get for a lot of people is not going to bode well.

You also didn’t mention that it’s projected to add an extra $3 trillion to the national debt over the course of a few years. That’s going to affect a lot of fiscally conservative people and just ordinary Americans who are already worried about the debt.

Adam Watson (04:09)
Yeah, forgot about that.

Nicholas Perrin (04:22)
That in particular is going to continue to be on people’s minds, I believe, throughout the presidency. I’m not sure how much it’ll have an effect in the long term, but definitely in the short term, I feel like it’ll really—not tarnish—but limit what the Republican Party can do in terms of more unpopular things.

Adam Watson (04:42)
Right. So they’ll be expending a lot of their political capital on this. I think it might not hurt them a lot in the 2028 presidential race. This country doesn’t have a super long memory when it comes to stuff like this. It’s possible, but not super likely.

I’m not sure it’ll be—

Nicholas Perrin (04:46)
Yeah.

Adam Watson (05:03)
at the forefront of Democrats’ attacks on Republicans. But in the 2026 midterms, I think it’ll be a much more salient issue given the timing.

Right now, every House seat is up for reelection in 2026. It looks like Democrats are projected to most likely take back control of the House. Republicans only have a three-seat majority, and typically the party of the incumbent president doesn’t do well in the midterms.

There are varying degrees of how poorly they do, but if they lose four seats and Democrats hold all theirs, Democrats would then have a majority.

The Senate, though, is trickier. There are maybe four or five swing states: Michigan, North Carolina, Georgia, and Maine are definite. Then, depending on who you ask, states like Alaska, Ohio, Iowa and Nebraska might be in play. That will depend heavily on the popularity of Republicans and who the candidates are.

Democrats face an uphill battle here, since most seats up for reelection are in safe Republican states—Idaho, Mississippi, Arkansas, Texas. Nicholas, what do you think about Democrats’ chances of taking back both the House and Senate?

Nicholas Perrin (06:38)
I mean, I think it’s possible, but can you remind me of the numbers—like the difference in the majority?

Adam Watson (06:49)
You mean the majority?

So in the Senate, Republicans have a 53-seat majority. In the House, they have 218 or 219, something like that.

Nicholas Perrin (07:05)
Yeah, so in the Senate, a three-seat majority is going to be very hard to break. I’m not sure which seats would be up in 2026, but yeah, three is tough. In the House, it’s more manageable since, like you said, it’s only a one- or two-seat majority.

I think it might be fairly likely that Democrats will break the trifecta, but to completely take back both chambers, I’m not entirely sure.

Adam Watson (07:39)
Yeah, so the Senate seats that are in play: Michigan and Georgia, where Democrats will be on defense.

In Georgia, Sen. Jon Ossoff is fairly popular. Gov. Brian Kemp said he won’t run, and that would’ve been a huge deal. He’s extremely popular with both Democrats and Republicans.

In Michigan, the current senator is retiring, so it’ll be a competitive race. I think the best pick-up opportunities for Democrats are North Carolina and Maine.

In North Carolina, Sen. Tillis is retiring. North Carolina’s a battleground state, and Democrats have shown they can win there—they did in the 2024 governor’s race.

Maine is interesting because they have a Republican senator, Susan Collins, and an independent, Angus King. Maine has voted Democratic in presidential races, and Collins’ votes may hurt her. She voted against this bill, which might’ve helped her politically, but even without that, Democrats still have material to use.

Other potential pickups: Alaska, Ohio, Iowa and Nebraska.

In Iowa, Sen. Joni Ernst is up. She made headlines as the “we’re all going to die” lady when talking about health care. That didn’t go over well. She also voted for this bill, and Iowa has a decent share of people on Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps—so that’s a race to watch.

In Ohio, someone was appointed to fill JD Vance’s seat after he became vice president. The Democrat who lost in 2024 lost by a slim margin, so with the right candidate, it’s possible.

In Nebraska, Dan Osborne is running again as an independent. He didn’t come super close in 2024, but the midterm electorate may be more favorable to Democrats.

And Alaska—always tricky. Not super red, but just red enough to lean Republican. Their senators voted for this bill, which could be used against them. But we’ll see.

Nicholas, thoughts?

Nicholas Perrin (11:01)
Yeah, I think it’s more possible for Democrats to reduce the GOP majority. Bringing it back to 50–50 or even getting a slight majority? I’m not sure.

Alaska, for example, even for a popular Democrat like Barack Obama, it was never really close. So I’m not sure they’d go blue in a Senate race either. But it depends on the senator’s popularity. I’m doubtful.

Adam Watson (11:48)
Right. Their presidential elections have never been close, but statewide elections are different. Not long ago, their at-large House seat was held by a Democrat. So it’s possible, though tough.

Looking ahead to 2028—first name that comes to mind is JD Vance, the current vice president. Many have said he’s being groomed as a successor. But here’s the tricky part:

Trump has joked—maybe not-joked—about running for a third term. Constitutionally, he can’t. That’s the 22nd Amendment, the so-called Roosevelt Amendment, passed after FDR’s four terms.

Trump has said JD Vance isn’t his successor, but it might just be too early to name one. There’s no clear successor, and that leaves Republicans with a 2028 problem: Who replaces Trump?

Whether you like him or not, Trump is a dynamic and charismatic candidate. He connects with voters in a way few politicians can. Vance doesn’t have that same charisma.

Polls show Vance at 45%. Then:

• Donald Trump Jr.: 19.5%
• Marco Rubio: 9.6%
• Ron DeSantis: 9%
• RFK Jr.: 4.8%
• Nikki Haley: 4.1%
• Chris Christie: 4%

Below 4%: Ramaswamy, Lake, Scott, Noem, Cruz, Abbott, Gabbard, Huckabee Sanders.

What do you think about that list?

Nicholas Perrin (15:15)
Well, first, on Trump saying Vance isn’t his successor—from what I heard, it was more like he said it’s too early to name one.

Adam Watson (15:20)
I might have misread that then.

Nicholas Perrin (15:33)
Trump mentioned Rubio and Vance as possible candidates. He also praised his cabinet but didn’t name names.

Vivek Ramaswamy won’t be a factor—he dropped out and is running for governor.

Ultimately, JD Vance is probably the most popular candidate by 2028.

Adam Watson (16:22)
He’s also running for governor of Ohio, so that may complicate things.

Nicholas Perrin (16:33)
Yeah, and Marco Rubio has critics who see him as unfit or too critical of Trump, though that’s ironic, given JD Vance’s history.

Adam Watson (16:52)
Right. Just running through the candidates polling at or above 4%:

JD Vance
Pros: He has a high name ID as the sitting vice president and could get a Trump endorsement.
Cons: He’s not Trump. That goes for everyone. Trump pulled together a unique coalition, and I don’t think other candidates can keep that together. Vance also doesn’t have Trump’s level of charisma or ability to connect with voters.

Donald Trump Jr.
Pro: He has the Trump name.
Con: He’s inexperienced in politics. His only real advantage is the name, and that might carry him with die-hard MAGA voters—but I don’t see him becoming the nominee.

Marco Rubio
Pro: He ran for president in 2016 and has some national recognition.
Con: He took heavy hits from Trump back then. The “Little Marco” stuff stuck, and I’m not sure that baggage is gone.

Ron DeSantis
Ran in 2024. It didn’t go well. Trump attacked him pretty hard, and I don’t think he’s viewed favorably by the MAGA base anymore.

Nikki Haley
Same story. Ran in 2024, made it further than most, but ultimately didn’t win. Faced criticism from Trump, and I don’t think she’s popular enough with the GOP base.

Chris Christie
This would be his third run. I doubt he’ll try again.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Pro: The Kennedy name.
Con: Too Democratic for a lot of Republicans. Also, he upset a lot of his own base recently by suggesting people wear activity-tracking wristbands—sounded too much like government surveillance to some. He’s in hot water with that crowd now.

As for the candidates polling below 4%—Ramaswamy, Lake, Scott, Noem, Cruz, Abbott, Gabbard, Huckabee Sanders—I don’t think they have a high enough name ID. Could something surprising happen? Sure. But right now, JD Vance looks like the most likely candidate.

How well would he do in a national election? That’s still very much up in the air. But like I said, we’ll need to wait and see who Trump endorses. That will carry more weight than any modern political endorsement, simply because of how loyal his base is.

Whoever he endorses will likely inherit that base. And I have a feeling most of Trump Jr.’s support is from that group—if Trump tells them to back someone else, they probably will.

What do you think?

Nicholas Perrin (20:46)
Yeah, that analysis is pretty accurate. JD Vance definitely looks like the favorite. I mean, he had a massive lead—like 44%—while no one else even broke 10%.

Things could change over the next few years. If the Trump presidency goes seriously downhill, that VP tie could become a liability.

Adam Watson (21:23)
Right. That’s what happened with Kamala Harris. Being vice president only helps if the administration is viewed positively—at least in national races. In primaries, it carries more weight.

Nicholas Perrin (21:35)
Yeah. I mean, Harris also didn’t do enough to distance herself from the Biden administration. JD Vance might try to do more than that, if he’s politically smart, but it’s hard. That kind of distance is tough to pull off without abandoning what got you there.

Adam Watson (21:56)
Right. In the Republican primary, I think Vance will want to be as close to Trump as possible—unless Trump has, like, a 2% approval rating, which I doubt.

In the general election, though, if Trump is unpopular, that connection might become a silver bullet against Vance.

Right now, Trump’s approval is about -13 net—underwater. That’s been going down steadily since January. If this bill ends up being as unpopular as it looks in the polls, and if more issues pile up in the administration, the Trump endorsement might become more of a liability than an advantage.

So yeah, if all that happens, the Republican Party could be pretty damaged going into 2026, and by 2028, a Trump endorsement might be more of a noose, as you put it.

Do you have anything else to add?

Nicholas Perrin (23:36)
No, I think that covers everything.

Adam Watson (23:38)
All right, thanks for listening to “Simplifying the State.” We’ll be back next week with our next episode, so make sure to stay tuned for that. Nicholas will be solo hosting next week—I’ll be out of town and won’t be able to record—but he’ll be here, and I can’t wait to hear what he has in store. All right, see you next time.