As Republicans in Congress struggle to settle on a megabill they can all agree on, they might want to familiarize themselves with the story of Marjorie Margolies. Her political career stands as a warning to GOP lawmakers, especially those thinking of risking their seats to save President Donald Trump’s legislative agenda.
Three decades ago, Margolies (then Margolies-Mezvinsky) briefly became the most famous first-term member of the House of Representatives. She was elected in 1992 to represent Pennsylvania’s 13th Congressional District — a swing district in Philadelphia’s suburbs — by just 1,373 votes.
The following summer, President Bill Clinton was struggling to push his first budget through the Democratic-controlled Congress. Though the budget raised taxes only on the wealthy, Margolies had promised during her campaign that she wouldn’t vote for any tax increases. In the run-up to the crucial vote, Margolies restated her opposition. But in a phone call with Clinton just before the vote, she told him that if her support was absolutely needed, she would stand with her party.
It won’t be easy for Democrats to duplicate the sweep of 1994 in 2026.
When it became clear that Margolies’ vote was, in fact, absolutely necessary, she walked down the aisle to cast a “yes” ballot. “One Democrat after another hugged her, patted her on the back and touched her as if she were Joan of Arc,” The New York Times reported at the time. “As she finally voted aye, her Democratic colleagues cheered as the Republicans jeered, ‘Goodbye Marjorie.’”
The GOP never let her constituents forget her critical vote, and she lost her re-election bid the next year. But Margolies wasn’t the only Democrat to lose her seat. When the 1994 midterms took place, Clinton’s approval was about where Donald Trump’s is today. He had gone through a bruising two years of legislative battles over his budget, a bill to ban the sale of assault weapons and a failed attempt at health care reform. And while the U.S. economy was growing, the 1990s boom that buoyed Clinton’s popularity was still a few years away.
The average voter was mildly disgruntled; the Republican base was enraged. Democrats ceded control of the House after 40 uninterrupted years in the majority. They lost 54 seats in the chamber and eight in the Senate, as well as 10 governorships. It was the most lopsided midterm defeat for a president’s party in modern U.S. history.
Clinton’s 1993 budget was, in many ways, good policy: It increased the earned income tax credit while raising taxes on the rich. But it was unquestionably bad politics. The bill Republicans are now working to pass, on the other hand, is terrible politics and even worse as a matter of policy. If Democrats can get their act together, they can make its depredations a centerpiece of their 2026 campaign and give themselves the best chance at a blue wave.
It won’t be easy for Democrats to duplicate the sweep of 1994 in 2026. Increased gerrymandering has decreased the number of true swing districts, and the Senate map is highly unfavorable for Democrats. But taking back one or even both houses of Congress isn’t out of reach, especially if, as in 1994, the public is upset and the president’s opposition is mobilized.
In 2024, 15 Republicans in the House won their seats by less than 5 points; 23 won by less than 10. All of them are targets for Democrats and vulnerable in a bad year for the GOP. And Democrats need to net three Republican seats to win back control.
Swing-district Republicans are increasingly nervous about the budget bill, especially the Medicaid cuts. The Senate, with its 53-47 Republican majority, will be a tougher lift — but there, too, a Democratic landslide could deliver the chamber. Republicans will be defending 22 seats to the Democrats’ 13, and while most of those 22 are in safe red states, there are vulnerable GOP incumbents in North Carolina, Maine and possibly Ohio. If scandal-tainted far-right state Attorney General Ken Paxton defeats Sen. John Cornyn in the primary, a seat in Texas could become competitive, and in a real blowout other results could surprise. In addition, whereas Democrats in 1993 had a large enough majority that dozens could vote against Clinton’s budget, nearly every Republican will have to vote for Trump’s agenda — which means they can all be held responsible for what it does. No component of the bill is likely to get more attention than the brutal cuts to Medicaid that Republicans are planning. In a recent KFF poll, 76% of respondents said they opposed major cuts to Medicaid. Should the bill pass, the news will most likely be full of stories about millions of people losing their health coverage. The cuts will also almost certainly lead to widespread layoffs among people who work in health care; entire hospitals that rely on Medicaid could be forced to close. That’s in addition to cuts to SNAP benefits and an array of other programs. And the reason for all these cuts is to (partly) offset tax cuts that mostly benefit the wealthy. Most of these tax cuts were political duds when they were first passed early in Trump’s first term. How will voters react this time, when the price is ripping away Americans’ health insurance? Swing-district Republicans are increasingly nervous about the budget bill, especially the Medicaid cuts. But Trump and their congressional leadership will do everything they can to strong-arm them into voting for it. If they do, just as Republicans constantly reminded Marjorie Margolies’ constituents of her vote 30 years ago, Democrats need to never let today’s voters forget this bill. After losing her re-election race, Margolies became a teacher, an advocate for women and even Chelsea Clinton’s mother-in-law. But though she ran for other elected offices several more times, she was never successful. That should be the fate of any Republicans who support this abominable budget, and they should be terrified of what will happen if they vote for it. At the very least they ought to be made to pay a price the next time they come before the voters.
Paul Waldman is a journalist and author focused on politics and culture. 
