Congress GOP candidates give up on Trump and run against Clinton Congressional Republicans dig up their 1996 strategy and run as a check on a Clinton White House.

Republicans, desperate to salvage their congressional majorities amid Donald Trump’s collapse, are increasingly presenting themselves as checks on a Hillary Clinton presidency — a final argument that, if only implicitly, concedes the White House to Democrats.

The offensive, which has been under discussion for months and is only now being unleashed, is designed to win over voters who want to see Clinton’s powers curtailed — even as she closes in on a potentially sweeping national victory.


The message is taking different forms in different parts of the country. In Minnesota’s Iron Range, Republican Stewart Mills has begun airing a TV commercial that says his opponent, Democratic Rep. Rick Nolan, is “standing with Hillary Clinton, not Minnesota families.” Nolan, the ad says, “would give Hillary a blank check to run up trillions in new debt and job-destroying taxes.”

In upstate New York, the National Republican Congressional Committee has been running a TV ad that says a Democratic candidate, Kim Myers, would “fast-track” Clinton’s agenda in the House. It urges voters to support Republican Claudia Tenney — who will “stand up to Hillary Clinton.” Another spot warns that Myers and an independent candidate, Martin Babinec, would “rubber-stamp Hillary Clinton’s agenda in Congress.”

Republican Sen. John McCain, facing the toughest reelection fight of his political career, is taking a similar approach. Following his primary victory, McCain released a face-to-camera video in which he called his Democratic opponent, Ann Kirkpatrick, a “good person,” but added: “If Hillary Clinton is elected president, Arizona will need a senator who will act as a check, not a rubber stamp, for the White House.”

Elsewhere, the assault is less direct. In Missouri, for example, the Senate Leadership Fund, the main super PAC devoted to preserving the Republican majority in the upper congressional chamber, is out with a spot detailing the “many ways” Democratic candidate Jason Kander “is just like Hillary Clinton” — while showing Kander’s face morphing into hers.

“One Hillary in Washington would be bad enough,” it concludes.

It’s an approach that hasn’t gone into use since 1996, when Republicans, confronting an inevitable loss in the presidential race, aired blank-check ads warning of the perils of handing then-President Bill Clinton Democratic majorities in Congress. “What would happen if Democrats controlled Congress and the White House?” one NRCC commercial that year asked gloomily.

It worked: While Republican Bob Dole lost to Clinton in a landslide, the party maintained its hold over the House and Senate. The strategy went into effect in late October of that year — nearly 20 years ago to the day.

More is on the way. Later this week, Congressional Leadership Fund, the main super PAC charged with protecting the House GOP majority, is slated to begin airing a TV commercial in Central Michigan accusing a Democratic candidate, Suzanna Shkreli, of being a Clinton rubber stamp.

The NRCC, the House GOP’s campaign arm, is urging others to get involved. While it can’t legally coordinate with outside groups, it can communicate to them through public means. The committee recently updated an opposition research Web page on Montana Democrat Denise Juneau, noting that she has enthusiastically backed Clinton’s presidential bid. “Juneau supports Hillary Clinton and would be a blank check if Clinton were to become president,” the website declares.

While Clinton may be on a glide path to victory, Republicans contend it has more to do with Trump’s toxicity than any positive feelings toward her. Voters, they say, aren’t eager to provide her with control of Congress.

“In every single district, when you ask people if they would rather have someone who wants to help Hillary Clinton or to stop her, stop her wins every day,” said Mike Shields, Congressional Leadership Fund’s president.

Shields said the check-and-balance message was proving potent even in areas where Clinton is performing strongly, such as Northern Virginia, where GOP Rep. Barbara Comstock is locked in a hard-fought reelection race. It is evidence, he argued, that the public wants to limit Clinton’s power.

Senior party strategists, some of whom have wanted to cut Trump loose for weeks, are signing on. They describe a perilous sink-or-swim political environment in which Republicans need to fight for survival — even if it means writing off the presidential nominee.

“If there’s ever a time for a check-and-balance argument, it’s now. You’ve got an underperforming Democratic candidate people feel compelled to vote for, not because they want to, but because they have to,” said Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.

Former Virginia Rep. Tom Davis, a past NRCC chairman and one of his party’s top strategists, said it would help Republican congressional hopefuls, some of whom hadn’t expected to find themselves in competitive races, make inroads with voters who’ve been turned off by Trump and are considering taking out their distaste all the way down the ballot.

“You have a top of the ticket that’s extremely undisciplined, can’t keep a message, and that’s not doing anything to generate turnout in a meaningful way,” Davis said. “These members have no help from the top of the ticket.”

GOP nominee Bob Dole addresses a late-season rally in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, on Nov. 2, 1996. | AP Photo

The parallels to 1996 are imperfect. That year, the Republican National Committee and other party leaders agreed that down-ballot candidates would be free from punishment to concede the loss at the top of the ballot and pursue a blank-check strategy. This year, the RNC has steadfastly stood by Trump.

And two decades ago, Dole, an amiable figure, was popular enough that he could ditch his own campaign plans in order to stump for down-ballot colleagues whom he could help. This year, the party’s nominee is widely disliked and has an antagonistic relationship with the congressional wing of the GOP. In recent weeks, he has repeatedly sparred with House Speaker Paul Ryan.

“It’s totally different from ‘96. Dole went around the country in the final 96 hours and boosted turnout in House and Senate races,” said Scott Reed, who managed Dole’s campaign that year. “He didn’t attack the speaker.”

Graham pointed to another difference — unlike 1996, both parties are fielding nominees who are deeply unpopular. Hillary Clinton’s high negatives, he argued, is what would make the check-and-balance strategy work this time around.

On Monday, Democrats began to fire back — casting Republicans as obstructionists.

"It is really important that we push back and defeat this argument that somehow, the duly elected president of the United States should simply be blocked from doing anything by the opposition party,” President Barack Obama said at a Democratic Party fundraiser in La Jolla, California, according to pool remarks. “They're OK with gridlock, but you know what, we can do so much better than that," he said.

Appearing in New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton praised a number of the state’s Democratic down-ballot hopefuls. “We've got to break through the gridlock and the dysfunction that has unfortunately marred Washington,” she said.

Not all Republicans love the new approach. Some GOP strategists say Clinton’s poll numbers have improved amid Trump’s free-fall, making a check-and-balance message less palatable. Others say it risks angering Republican voters who don’t want the party to throw in the towel.

Still others say it’s a hard case to prosecute with so little time remaining until the election — and that it’s better to establish contrasts with Democrats.

“A check-and-balance message can help, but has limits,” said Robert Blizzard, a GOP pollster who is working on a number of down-ballot contests. “The most efficient, effective way to stop voters from supporting your opponent is to tell those voters how bad your opponent is and why they'd be a poor choice. Voters want to know who will be better for them and their families, not who will be better at standing up to Hillary Clinton.”