New House GOP campaign chairman starts with a lead

The party that controls the White House typically loses dozens of congressional seats during a new president’s first midterm election.

But don’t tell that to Ohio Rep. Steve Stivers.

{mosads}The new House GOP campaign chief, fresh off his successful leadership race, knows the next election cycle will be challenging for Republicans.

His party just won the White House, which historically has led to midterm losses in the House.

House Republicans have “defied expectations” before, he noted in an interview.

Under Chairman Greg Walden (R-Ore.), the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) grew the GOP majority to a record 247 seats in 2014, then limited losses to single digits in last week’s historic election.

Stivers, a Walden deputy at the NRCC, easily defeated Rep. Roger Williams (R-Texas) 143 to 96 in this week’s race to become the next NRCC chairman.

Over coffee at a Starbucks near the Capitol, Stivers told The Hill what Republicans need to do to protect their 47-seat advantage, why he doesn’t like the idea of running ads bashing Trump, and where he sees pick-up opportunities for his party in 2018. Some of his answers have been edited for clarity.

Question: You entered the race for NRCC chairman when most campaign prognosticators predicted that Hillary Clinton would be elected president. Trump won instead. Your job just got a lot tougher, didn’t it?

Answer: We are the party of the incumbent president at a midterm. Historically, that means we could lose seats. We have to wake up every day and say how can we protect our majority and how can we grow our majority. There have been exceptions to the rule where an incumbent president’s party has gained during the midterm, 2002 for example. Now that was right after 9/11, and George Bush and Republicans kind of wrapped themselves in the flag and gained seats, so it can happen. But it involves getting things done that the American people care about.

Q: Republicans now control the White House and both chambers of Congress. What does your party specifically need to do in the next two years to prevent big losses at the polls in 2018?

A: I’m hopeful that No. 1, we can come together and get things done, but No. 2, I hope we can not overreach and help people who are scared in America about the new Republican unified government, help them understand that we are going to make America better, that we are going to bring jobs back. We are going to focus on infrastructure. We are going to focus on addressing problems that Americans face in their daily lives, like the high cost of healthcare …

I would rather do it right than rush it. We are going to be thoughtful as we pursue policy choices and we are going to address real problems that Americans face. … This huge increase in the cost of healthcare that came out in October right before the election. I would argue that that was one of the silent drivers of the election outcome.

We need to be thoughtful and not overreact as we deal with it, and make sure we have policy solutions, not knee-jerk reactions. That will be the temptation, and that’s when we’ll need to take a deep breath occasionally and listen.

Q: After the Trump “Access Hollywood” tape, there was talk that House Republicans could lose as many as 20 seats. You managed to limit your losses to just six. How surprised were you by the election results?

A: Our polls were right about where we ended up. I kept asking people, “These numbers sound too good to be true,” but they were dead on in almost every case. I feel really good about the data and analytics we have. …

I knew from early voting Nevada was going to be really bad, and indeed that’s how it turned out. We lost Joe Heck’s seat and we lost Cresent Hardy. We knew early that Nevada was not looking good. And, indeed, that trajectory never changed.

Florida really turned around about two to three weeks out and it started to look very good. When you looked at early voting, Ohio looked good the whole time for the presidential race. That’s how I knew Trump was probably going to win Ohio.

Q: You led the NRCC’s Patriot Program for endangered Republicans. Are there lessons from the 2016 cycle that you can apply next time, especially when it comes to how vulnerable members handle Trump?

A: For Will Hurd, Carlos Curbelo, Barbara Comstock, Martha McSally, John Katko, there were actually negative coattails [from Trump]. We were able to hang onto some of those seats, because they were prepared for the battle that came and ran on their own record. … Some of those candidates were at different places on Trump individually, but they didn’t focus on the presidential; they ran their own races.

There are people who have worked their way off the Patriot Program: Bruce Poliquin [R-Maine] may have worked his way off by winning by 10 points in a district like that. Carlos Curbelo [R-Fla.], to win by 10 points when Trump loses there by 20, may have worked his way off the Patriot Program. That district had flipped at every presidential cycle; now it hasn’t.

Q: Will 2018 mainly be about playing defense, or are there places where Republicans can go on offense?

A: I absolutely think the John Mica [R-Fla.] seat is a pick-up opportunity. The seat that Scott Garrett lost is a pick-up opportunity. I think there were be opportunities that will be made clear very quickly. I think you’ll see is some Democratic members of Congress appointed to the [Trump] administration and you may see some special elections in seats that may see some special elections.

I wouldn’t be surprised. I think there may be some people who may take [the job]. You might see one or two.

Q: An ad from the NRCC’s super PAC got a lot of attention this cycle because it praised Rep. Bob Dold (R-Ill.) as “an independent voice who stood up to Donald Trump.” Would you support more of these types of NRCC ads that attack the president of your own party?

A: I’m not allowed to coordinate with the NRCC’s independent expenditure. Generally, we should be together, and I would be apprehensive myself about having NRCC resources used to attack one of our other candidates for office. I don’t know that it helped make a difference. I talked about uniting our country; we also need to unite our party. Anything that divides our party is bad, and quite frankly it didn’t help Bob Dold get across the line and win. Obviously those kind of dividing tactics don’t always work and I would be reticent to use them personally.

Q: You were one of Walden’s top deputies. Should we view your victory over Williams as a sign that things will largely remain unchanged at the NRCC?

A: I think a lot of the systems that Greg Walden put in place will absolutely remain. Roger Williams was talking about different ideas around fundraising, but I was talking about different ideas around fundraising too. I’ll be an agent of change where we need it but I will keep the things that make sense. I’ve been an Army guy for 30 years. I learned that you always want to improve your foxhole so I’m going to improve our foxhole on fundraising. I’m going to work to improve our foxhole on member services, making sure our members are treated the way they should be treated and are given the type of service they expect from a membership driven organization. I’m going to make sure there is value to each member, including the value of helping dues-paying incumbent members in primaries.

Q: As NRCC chair, you now have a vote on the Steering Committee that selects committee chairmen. Have you decided whether you’re backing Walden or Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) for Energy and Commerce chairman?

A: I haven’t thought about it. We’re lucky to have two really qualified people trying to be chairman of our Energy and Commerce committee and they are both incredible leaders and either one would be a fabulous chairman for that committee. But I’m sure I’ll be hearing from both of them. I’ve made no promises to anybody.