Bipartisanship Could have Saved Republicans.

The Democrats gained seats in the House in the 2024 election. It didn’t received much mention in the media, who have endless ink for the presidency, plenty for the Senate, but neglects the House other than speakership fights and the power-players.

Why was the House so close? Normally, in a presidential-year general election, with a change in party in the executive, the House should go to the president’s party without much trouble. It didn’t in 2024. It only barely made it.

In 2024, the electors wanted the House to be in opposition to the president. Enough people thought Donald John Trump would win so they voted for Democrats, while enough thought Kamala Harris would win so they voted for Republicans. But here’s the key: if the House elections were staggered out by a month—held after the presidency had been decided—the Democrats would have taken the House easily.

That insight tells you what you need to figure out how Republicans could have saved their majority in 2026. If they had taken an oppositional role to Donald John Trump in his second term, at times acting with Democrats and negotiating with them, they would be even in their chances in the House this year, and they would have been favorites in the Senate.

Donald John Trump does not know how to lead, so by failing to be oppositional and independent, the majority in Congress leaves the Republic rudderless, drifting. It would have been simple enough for Republicans to assert themselves and steer the executive in better directions. For all the executive actions, there have been no real legislative follow-ups, meaning that as soon as the next transition, the policies vaporize.

What would it have cost the Republicans? It might have cost them tax cuts. The Senate Republicans would have been more scrupulous about confirmations, which would have taken up more time. But they would likely have avoided other fights with Democrats, allowing for plusher bills than they got outside of reconciliation. And they would have avoided the economic mayhem of tariffs, among other chaos from the administration.

While Donald John Trump would have supported some primary opponents, that’s always been a mixed bag, where he has not shown a general strength. Do Republicans prefer to avoid it? Sure. But was capitulation the right move? Not if they believe having and using a majority in the legislature matters.

It would have gained them the freedom to make our government better, not worse. They could have blocked a lot of the stupider acts of the administration and saved lives in doing so. USAID would be spreading the blessings of liberty, rather than laying in pieces. ICE would have focused on deportation of criminals not regular folks. The economy wouldn’t have spent a year choking on tariffs. The smaller tax cuts they might have passed would have been paid for, and more Americans would have more affordable healthcare.

What about now? The primaries are underway and the election is in about seven months. A lot of damage is already done. But if the Republicans started today, they would be better off. If they actually showed themselves able to thwart real harms continually, and not as a one-off, people would give them some credit for it. But to-date they have shown no taste for it.

The golden rule stands as much in politics as elsewhere: bipartisanship pays, but it takes Republicans being willing, and they seldom are. The country is always worse for that, but under Donald John Trump it makes the Republicans worse for themselves.