The US Mid Term Elections: A Complete Analysis

ANALYSIS by Sam Neagus

So Obama has suffered an irreversible setback. Well you’d think so wouldn’t you? I don’t buy into that argument at all. Yes, the Democratic Party’s appeal has so quickly dissipated since Barack Obama’s election to the White House in 2008, but the Republican’s success certainly does not mean that they are to go on and effectively challenge for the Presidency, or even come together as a united force to block anything Obama wants to pass through Congress.

This election has certainly been characterized by the extraordinary rise to prominence of the Tea Party Movement, a right-wing grass-roots movement who have policies such as anti-abortion, restoration of traditional moral values, and perhaps most importantly anti-tax (as a way of reducing the size and scope of the Federal government). Needless to say they are vehemently opposed to Obama’s plans to increase the welfare state and health-care coverage. Supporters of the movement have openly called Obama a dictator with communist ideas.

Whilst this group have enjoyed considerable success during this mid-term cycle: Rand Paul of Kentucky and Marco Rubio of Florida have ensured that the movement is represented in Congress, which has certainly caused a headache for Obama as he seeks to continue to push through his left-wing agenda, he however

must be encouraged to see that some Tea Party-backed candidates have failed to achieve electoral success: Christine O’Donnell, the extreme right wing candidate who has extreme views such as anti-masturbation and sees any sort of welfare state as socialist, was defeated by a Democrat in Delaware (a traditionally liberal state) despite electoral support from the heroine of the Tea Party movement, none other than Momma Grizzly (Sarah Palin).

All 435 seats from the House of Representatives were up for re-election (except one seat filled by Puerto Rico, which has a four year term), and the results make for depressing reading for any Democrat sympathiser or supporter. The party lost more seats at any election since 1938, and their healthy majority has been replaced by a Republican-controlled House.

So why have the American population lost faith in Obama’s Party, especially since there was so much faith in them just two years ago? There is no simple answer to this. Whilst on one hand, almost a third of Americans in a CNN Poll think that they would suffer should Obama (a liberal Democrat) pass his full agenda and continue to plow money into his economic recovery plans, most do not blame him for the rapid decline in American prosperity. Many conservative American activists have exploited this and effectively shown the danger in allowing the Democrats to continue their dominance of the Federal government in Washington D.C.

The figures for the Senate paint a different picture: whilst the staggered elections (where Senators serve a six-year term) meant that only thirty-seven seats were up for election, voters gave the Democrat Party a (razor-thin) majority. Whilst not all the results have been announced when this article was written the Democrats have reached 51 seats in total); it has baffled many pollsters and analysts that this has happened.

However, to fully understand the reasons for this one must look at the unicameral powers of the upper, arguably more influential chamber on Capitol Hill. The Senate has extensive powers relating to foreign affairs and ratifying Presidential appointees to influential positions throughout the Federal government, thus I would speculate that many voters see the Democrats as a responsible force in this field, and one might even argue that they are pleased with Obama (and the Democratic Party’s) progress in taking decisive action in foreign crises and international relations in general.

As many outlets in the press have argued, the importance of these mid-term Congressional elections has been that they have been a referendum on the progress of Obama’s administration in its first couple of years. I would once again take a sceptical view of their importance: the turnout in elections has been typically lower than those in Presidential elections showing that many voters are still not willing to negatively judge Obama, and will perhaps give him longer to prove himself in improving the economic situation.

Undoubtedly, the 112^th Congress (which begins on January 3^rd 2011) will have lengthy, and bitter disputes with the President, and ultimately try to make his life exceptionally difficult. The reduced Senate majority makes it possible for an individual Senator to filibuster a Bill (taking up all the floor-time available for debate talking about trivial matters) but perhaps even Republican Senators will realise that the sole purpose of the stimulus packages are for the greater good of the nation, and taking a ‘laissez-faire’ could prove disastrous and put any sort of recovery in jeopardy.

Whilst Obama might be concerned about his party’s poor performance in the polls, he should not be too worried about his own electoral prospects just yet. Let us not forget that Bill Clinton faced exactly the same problem in the 1994 mid-terms when the Republicans, led by Newt Gingrich’s and his ‘Contract with America’ made life difficult for him, and some even suggested the prospect of his defeat in 1996. Of course, as history recalls this did not happen, and after Clinton changed his priorities and electoral promises, he will be remembered as a strong personality and one who was hugely successful.

Even more importantly, his opposition have yet to come up with a credible opponent. There are talks of Sarah Palin putting herself forward for the Republican nomination. This could prove to be disastrous for the party, as there is every possibility that she will alienate the GOP’s more moderate supporters. No need for Barack Obama to run scared just yet. In fact, Obama needs to stand his ground and ensure that his programme has every chance of being passed by taking decisive action and use strong rhetoric.