It was a little comical when President Trump claimed the Republicans won the 2018 midterms considering Nancy Pelosi had just rode a Democratic wave of 41 seats to reclaim her spot as the Speaker of the House, but he had a point when it came to the Senate. There were some bright spots for Senate Democrats, notably reelecting Joe Manchin and Jon Tester, and winning Jeff Flake’s seat in Arizona and Dean Heller’s seat in Arizona. On the whole, however, it was a disastrous night, as Democratic incumbents Heidi Heitkamp, Claire McCaskill, Joe Donnelly, and Bill Nelson all lost, and the Democrats failed to topple Ted Cruz or win an open seat in Tennessee.

It was a tale of two midterms, and it should be remembered by any Democrat who thinks Joe Biden is on a glide path to win the presidency or who is overconfident that Mitch McConnell will be ousted as Senate Majority Leader. As Josh Kraushaar of the National Journal reports, Trump’s small post-convention bounce was still big “enough to draw Trump closer to Joe Biden in battleground states and give Republicans a fighting chance to hold their Senate majority.”

This is because Trump further polarized the electorate, making blue areas bluer, but also making red areas redder. The bottom line numbers are virtually unchanged, but it became harder for the Democrats to take over Republican territory. That’s important not just because Biden needs to win several Trump states in order to win the Electoral College, but also because the Democrats are hoping to win Senate seats in states like Alaska, Montana, Kansas, Texas, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, and (two in) Georgia.

Remember, it doesn’t help Joe Biden and Cal Cunningham win North Carolina if all their suburban and Research Triangle gains are wiped out by bigger rural margins for the president. I’ve been warning about this possibility since a couple of days after the last election. It’s a nightmare scenario I first detected in a July 2013 piece: The GOP is Moving in the Wrong Direction. Consider that the following excerpt was written before I had any inkling that Donald Trump would be a candidate in 2016:

It appears that most Republicans are dropping the idea that they need to do better with Latinos and adopting the idea that they need to do even better with white voters…

…The most obvious way is to pursue an us vs. them approach that alternatively praises whites as the true, patriotic Americans, and that demonizes non-whites as a drain on the nation’s resources. This is basically the exact strategy pursued by McCain and especially Romney. It’s what Palin was all about, and it’s what that 47% speech was all about.

…Accusing the Democrats of socialism, which is a race-neutral way of accusing the party of being beholden to the racial underclasses, has been proven insufficient. The only hope for a racial-polarization strategy is to get the races to segregate their votes much more thoroughly, and that requires that more and more whites come to conclude that the Democratic Party is the party for blacks, Asians, and Latinos.

That is, indeed, how the party is perceived in the Deep South, but it would be criminal to expand those racial attitudes to the country at large.

The Republicans are coalescing around a strategy that will, by necessity, be more overtly racist than anything we’ve seen since segregation was outlawed.

Basically, I was hoping that the GOP wouldn’t go full-Trump before I even knew that full-Trump existed. What I saw was that it was the direction they were headed and that, though unconscionable, it had the potential to work.

And it can still work. Its effectiveness depends on some quirks in the system, like the Electoral College and the distribution of support between the Democrats (dense and narrow) and the Republicans (diffuse and broad). The white racial appeal works best on non-college educated whites and older generations, so states with low education levels or aging populations are Trump’s best targets.

It’s not easy to defend against this strategy, because it often operates a zero sum game. Hillary Clinton lost Michigan and Wisconsin because black turnout was down sharply in Detroit and Milwaukee, but also because she was slaughtered by unprecedented numbers in rural areas. Picking Kamala Harris as his running mate has the potential to solve the first problem while exacerbating the second. If it’s a wash, then it benefits the Republicans because a more polarized electorate makes easier for incumbents to win. This is why the Senate races suddenly looks like a harder lift for the Democrats, and it also probably explains a narrowing lead for Biden in Pennsylvania.

The Democrats had four years to figure out a way to avoid another bloodbath in the sticks, but they’re enamored with their suburban strategy. It gave them the House, after all, and it has Biden up considerably in the national polls. It still might not be good enough.