US Midterm Elections and Rout of the Democrats
--Ziauddin Choudhury
The midterm US elections have yielded results that were largely anticipated, but not as devastating as these turned out to be for the democrats. Not only they have lost their hold on to the Senate by losing seven seats (the House of Representatives was already under republican control) the party has also lost out to republican contenders for governors in six states taking republican controlled states to thirty two out of fifty. The results have been so upsetting with so many states turning red (that is republican) that it makes the Democratic Party for now at least to be a minority party. Is this upset a referendum on the sitting President Obama and his policies, a repudiation of the democratic party by the voters, or an upsurge of conservative politics to trump the so-called moderate policies pursued by the current US administration?
The answer is as complex as the question itself. The mid-terms US elections (they are called mid-term as these are held in between two Presidential elections) are held to elect all 435 members of House of Representatives, one third of the Senate, about a third of the governors of fifty states and state legislatures, and other local offices. Unlike in a Presidential election where voter choice is limited to one out of two (in rare cases three) candidates from two major parties , the midterm elections for Congress, Governors, and local legislatures are contested by a plethora of candidates for these offices, and voter choices are for as many offices. While much of the contest and choice is from the two major parties, the issues on which the candidates fight for votes widely vary, from national to local economy, employment, social welfare, health, environment, law and order, and what have you. Larger national issues and policies do have a great bearing on these elections, but these are conjoined with the individual candidate’s appreciation and empathy with local problems. Therefore, although the elections are fought on a party basis, the final choice is on the voters’ assessment of the candidates past performance and contribution to local causes and their future capability to deliver.
Long before the midterm elections the media and political pundits had been predicting a democratic blow out blaming it on Obama’s falling popularity, ineffectiveness in global leadership, and failure to bring about a spectacular turn around in the economy. (Ironically, even though the overall economy has grown it has not benefited the bottom of the population, people Obama espoused for in his election.) The much touted health care reform has not been able to placate a good number of people despite its generous subsidies and other benefits. The immigration reform has stalled disappointing its advocates and Obama has not shown much tactical skills in resolving or countering the Congress on this issue.
The midterm elections were held against this negative background much of which the republicans used to their advantage. However, the election results this year are no more a reflection of voters’ dislike of Obama and his policies than their dislike of status quo. Typically, voters have turned against incumbent legislators in all last three midterms. In the early nineties (Clinton period) they turned a democratic majority into republican, in early 2000 they turned republican majority into democratic, and now they have again turned the table. If the anger was only against Obama, voters in six states (including Maryland) would not have brought in a republic governor, nor would they have brought in seven republican governors. The voters just wanted to change the incumbents.
There are also other stats that partly explain republican success. This mid-term more republicans voted than in 2010 (by about six percent), although the percentage of republicans voters was about equal to democrats (both around 36 percent). So the question despite this equality in terms of percentage is why the democratic debacle? One answer is that the overall turnout was 39%, six percent less than 2010, all due to less Democratic Party participation. So why did the democrats stay away from the elections? Was it because they no longer liked Obama, or because they became cynical about the whole process? It appears the answer lies partly in less than enthusiastic response by the young democrats, and the Hispanics. Both of these groups who were largely responsible for Obama victory in 2008 became disenchanted. Economy was the major reason for both groups, and the immigration reform debacle for the Hispanics. They abstained from voting, and some of them jumped the ship. Otherwise the debacle for the democrats could not have happened only with determined republican awakening.
President Obama, who has been described by some of his critics as too-cool-to-rule may have some responsibility for this debacle. This may be due to his seemingly less forceful leadership, both domestically and globally. He may not agree, but critics will point toward him as a principal losing factor. Only history will judge what and if at all he has to blame for this. But meanwhile he has to work with a Congress that will not look favorably on him.
There is, however, a ray of hope for the democrats even in this white wash of the party. The midterm democratic loss might be a good thing for the party for the Presidential election. If the tradition of the US voter’s predilection for one party for the Congress and another party for the White House holds, the democrats may hope to see one of their own to occupy that house in 2016. But one never knows.
--Ziauddin Choudhury
The midterm US elections have yielded results that were largely anticipated, but not as devastating as these turned out to be for the democrats. Not only they have lost their hold on to the Senate by losing seven seats (the House of Representatives was already under republican control) the party has also lost out to republican contenders for governors in six states taking republican controlled states to thirty two out of fifty. The results have been so upsetting with so many states turning red (that is republican) that it makes the Democratic Party for now at least to be a minority party. Is this upset a referendum on the sitting President Obama and his policies, a repudiation of the democratic party by the voters, or an upsurge of conservative politics to trump the so-called moderate policies pursued by the current US administration?
The answer is as complex as the question itself. The mid-terms US elections (they are called mid-term as these are held in between two Presidential elections) are held to elect all 435 members of House of Representatives, one third of the Senate, about a third of the governors of fifty states and state legislatures, and other local offices. Unlike in a Presidential election where voter choice is limited to one out of two (in rare cases three) candidates from two major parties , the midterm elections for Congress, Governors, and local legislatures are contested by a plethora of candidates for these offices, and voter choices are for as many offices. While much of the contest and choice is from the two major parties, the issues on which the candidates fight for votes widely vary, from national to local economy, employment, social welfare, health, environment, law and order, and what have you. Larger national issues and policies do have a great bearing on these elections, but these are conjoined with the individual candidate’s appreciation and empathy with local problems. Therefore, although the elections are fought on a party basis, the final choice is on the voters’ assessment of the candidates past performance and contribution to local causes and their future capability to deliver.
Long before the midterm elections the media and political pundits had been predicting a democratic blow out blaming it on Obama’s falling popularity, ineffectiveness in global leadership, and failure to bring about a spectacular turn around in the economy. (Ironically, even though the overall economy has grown it has not benefited the bottom of the population, people Obama espoused for in his election.) The much touted health care reform has not been able to placate a good number of people despite its generous subsidies and other benefits. The immigration reform has stalled disappointing its advocates and Obama has not shown much tactical skills in resolving or countering the Congress on this issue.
The midterm elections were held against this negative background much of which the republicans used to their advantage. However, the election results this year are no more a reflection of voters’ dislike of Obama and his policies than their dislike of status quo. Typically, voters have turned against incumbent legislators in all last three midterms. In the early nineties (Clinton period) they turned a democratic majority into republican, in early 2000 they turned republican majority into democratic, and now they have again turned the table. If the anger was only against Obama, voters in six states (including Maryland) would not have brought in a republic governor, nor would they have brought in seven republican governors. The voters just wanted to change the incumbents.
There are also other stats that partly explain republican success. This mid-term more republicans voted than in 2010 (by about six percent), although the percentage of republicans voters was about equal to democrats (both around 36 percent). So the question despite this equality in terms of percentage is why the democratic debacle? One answer is that the overall turnout was 39%, six percent less than 2010, all due to less Democratic Party participation. So why did the democrats stay away from the elections? Was it because they no longer liked Obama, or because they became cynical about the whole process? It appears the answer lies partly in less than enthusiastic response by the young democrats, and the Hispanics. Both of these groups who were largely responsible for Obama victory in 2008 became disenchanted. Economy was the major reason for both groups, and the immigration reform debacle for the Hispanics. They abstained from voting, and some of them jumped the ship. Otherwise the debacle for the democrats could not have happened only with determined republican awakening.
President Obama, who has been described by some of his critics as too-cool-to-rule may have some responsibility for this debacle. This may be due to his seemingly less forceful leadership, both domestically and globally. He may not agree, but critics will point toward him as a principal losing factor. Only history will judge what and if at all he has to blame for this. But meanwhile he has to work with a Congress that will not look favorably on him.
There is, however, a ray of hope for the democrats even in this white wash of the party. The midterm democratic loss might be a good thing for the party for the Presidential election. If the tradition of the US voter’s predilection for one party for the Congress and another party for the White House holds, the democrats may hope to see one of their own to occupy that house in 2016. But one never knows.