Opinion writer

President Trump’s full impact on the fortunes of the Republican Party will get tested in the GOP midterms in 2018. Judging by his impact so far, however, he has been the Democrats’ best ally, and not simply because he made deals with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.).

The Post-ABC News poll reports that 69 percent of Americans and 73 percent of registered voters disapprove of the way Republicans in Congress are performing. Sixty-nine percent of independents disapprove, as do 56 percent of Republicans. In a worrisome sign for 2018, older voters — who vote more regularly than younger voters — disapprove slightly more than do younger voters (70 percent of those aged 50 to 64 disapprove, while 75 percent of those 65 and older do). House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) registers 54 percent disapproval from registered voters, with only 34 percent approval.

CNN likewise reports, “Fewer than three in 10 Americans — 29% — hold a favorable view of the Republican Party according to a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS. That is down 13 percentage points from March and is the lowest mark for the GOP since CNN began asking the question in 1992.” In addition, “Just 39% of Republicans approve of the job GOP leaders are doing. House Speaker Paul Ryan’s favorability has dipped to 32%, a six-point drop since April, while Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell stands at 20% favorability, a seven-point dip since spring.” That translates to lousy numbers, for now, in advance of the midterms:

Nearly a quarter of Democrats — 24 % — say they are extremely enthusiastic about voting next year, with another 20% saying they are very enthusiastic. Just 14% of Republicans say they are extremely enthusiastic, with another 20% saying they are very enthusiastic about voting. Democrats also lead in the generic congressional ballot among all Americans by nine percentage points, 50% to 41%, though the midterm electorate traditionally leans more Republican.

You can understand why Republicans are held in such disrepute. Democrats and #NeverTrump Republicans see them as enablers of Trump, albeit incompetent ones. Trump cultists deplore Republicans for not giving Trump whatever he wants. Independents see acrimony, incompetence and hyper-partisanship.

Moreover, we’ve not come close to the end of the Russia investigation, which delivers daily new evidence of Russian tampering with our election, Trump associates’ contacts with Russian officials and the president’s abuse of his powers to protect himself. In some instances, one can only laugh at the hypocrisy of a president who excoriated his predecessor and his campaign opponent as virtual criminals. (The Post reports: “President Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner has used a private email account to conduct and discuss official White House business dozens of times, his lawyer confirmed Sunday.” Didn’t Trump have a chant about that sort of thing?) Meanwhile, most House Republicans remain devoted to running interference for the president.

Republicans have made things infinitely worse for themselves by returning again and again to a losing effort on health care. Each time they try and fail, Democrats are reminded how fixated they are on slashing Medicaid; Trumpkins are reminded how unwilling to cooperate with Trump they are. Regardless of party, voters’ jaws drop at the haphazard process, indifference to facts and inability even to defend their own proposals. Seeing Sens. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.) flounder as they were pressed on the lack of guaranteed, affordable coverage for those with preexisting conditions would convince most alert voters that these people have no idea what they are doing.

Martha Raddatz utterly flummoxed Cassidy:

RADDATZ: Senator Cassidy, let’s get down to this in a little more detail. Senator Graham mentioned Susan Collins. Susan Collins, whose vote you’re trying to get, says she’s reading the fine print and said it doesn’t protect people with preexisting conditions. You had the same argument from Jimmy Kimmel, as you know, because their premiums could be so high that it wouldn’t be affordable. How is this someone who’s going to come around? SEN. BILL CASSIDY (R), LOUISIANA: One, that’s absolutely incorrect. President Trump has said he will not sign a bill which does not protect those with pre-existing conditions. I’m a physician who worked in a public hospital for 25 years caring for those with pre-existing conditions. Our language says that if a state wishes to do something different, as they do something different, they must first establish that those with pre-existing conditions have access to affordable and adequate coverage. Two things more. Affordable — how do you define it, people ask? It means able to afford. Now, contrast that with status quo. If you’re not getting subsidies right now on the exchanges, your premiums, with deductibles, can be $30,000 to $45,000… RADDATZ: And how is that decided, who can afford it? How is that decided? That’s what is missing in the bill. What is adequate and affordable care? That’s what people are complaining about.

Cassidy could only answer that’d you’d know “affordable” when you see it. But then White House legislative liaison Marc Short fared even worse on “Fox News Sunday”:

CHRIS WALLACE: Marc, isn’t [Jimmy] Kimmel right? . . . SHORT: No, this bill continues to protect preexisting conditions. Bill Cassidy is a doctor. His wife is a doctor. They know how to structure. Bill Cassidy is exactly right. But I want to go back to the point you made about winners and losers in this, because the reality is today, Chris, over 30 percent of ObamaCare dollars go to California and New York. It is not a level playing field. And states — WALLACE: There are 34 states that lose money. SHORT: States with nearly equal population, Florida and Texas, get less than 10 percent. It is not equitable now, so what we’re doing is by — WALLACE: Well, that’s because some states refuse to expand Medicaid and others did, and that was a decision by those states. SHORT: When you actually make it equitable — WALLACE: But the fact is 34 states will lose money. SHORT: No, that is not accurate that 34 lose money. When you actually distribute the dollars actually based upon population, there are states that the ObamaCare already made winners and losers. We are leveling out the playing field. That is not necessarily — that is not in my view is — (CROSSTALK) WALLACE: They get less money than they would have under ObamaCare and the reason that they’re going to get less is because they — it wasn’t that the ObamaCare law chose winners and losers. It was that the states chose. They decided whether to go with Medicaid expansion or not.

In an admission they could not defend the bill as drafted and had to further bribe key senators, the sponsors released even more changes on Sunday night. Some additional monies (though not enough to make Alaska whole) were added to try to snare Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), and Maine got more, too. (Are senators from West Virginia, Ohio and Nevada so incompetent as to not get their own goodies before voting for a losing bill?) Certainly neither the Congressional Budget Office, whose score is needed for reconciliation, nor U.S. senators will have any time to digest the latest changes to possibly the most embarrassing legislation in Senate history. Schumer issued a scathing statement:

Despite an attempt to appear to add money for a select few states, this bill is just as bad for those states and the rest of the states because it still contains a massive cut to Medicaid, and would throw our health insurance system into chaos while raising premiums. It still takes away protections for those with preexisting conditions and further weakens consumer protections. Rather than making haphazard, last-minute changes to a partisan bill that won’t be scored by the CBO in time for a vote, we should resume the bipartisan negotiations between Senators Murray and Alexander. We Democrats remain ready and eager to work with our Republican colleagues to improve our health care system

The impression one gets is that news hosts (not to mention late-night hosts) devoting a reasonable amount of time to figuring the bill out know more than its proponents. Such legislative dereliction of duty, including one more set of unscored legislative changes, is precisely why the GOP majorities in both houses are at risk.