The U.S.: A Different Midterm Election

In a few hours, Americans will vote in a midterm election of significant projections. With a significantly polarized society, maybe like never before. A society visibly anxious about overcoming one of the hardest consequences of the economic crisis that burst out in 2008: the persistently high unemployment rate, above even 10 percent. According to recent polls, Republicans have the possibility of winning important victories. Some anticipate a sort of political tsunami in favor of the opposition. However, there are also some that believe that this might not necessarily happen.

In order to gain control of the lower chamber, Republicans need to win 39 seats. Projections suggest they could win about 50. If this happens, they will lead all committees in the House and force President Obama to negotiate every government measure that requires legislative approval. To make things even more complex, even for Democrats, this time Republicans could also win gubernatorial seats in over 31 states in the Union.

The Senate’s case looks different. Polls anticipate that Democrats could retain control of the Senate but tightly. That is, with a margin of only two senators. If this happens, it’ll be important to observe how Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman (now independent) and Nebraska’s conservative Democrat Ben Nelson vote subsequently. Both used to vote with great autonomy, beyond partisan positions. If this should happen, President Obama will face uncertainty regarding positions in the Senate in each case.

For some, these elections are a sort of referendum on the Obama administration, which seems to have frustrated the expectations of insiders and outsiders. It has not been able to materialize the promised transformation or secure the opposition’s support it had announced it would seek in order to lead the country with a firm hand through one of the worst economic crisis it has ever faced. This leads to the possibility of an apocalyptic defeat for Democrats. On the other hand, a defeat could be favorable for the president’s re-election options in 2012, because it would allow him to a) point at Republicans as responsible for the immobility he is being accused of or b) to move forward with the bipartisan consensus he has not achieved so far. The truth is, with Hillary Clinton at the Department of State, somewhat isolated from the harshest criticism, not even the upcoming Democratic primary will be easy for Barack Obama.

The result of this intermediate election will determine if Obama is on the same path once traveled by Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, who lost their respective midterm elections and were re-elected regardless, or instead is on the path of Jimmy Carter, who never recovered from the failure he suffered in the midterm elections.

There are special elections that must be observed. For example, the one concerning Harry Reid from Nevada, current Senate majority leader. Projections are not favorable, but he is used to always winning by narrow margins. It’s also important to follow the election concerning the controversial Speaker of the House, Californian Nancy Pelosi. She doesn’t seem in danger of losing her seat. But if Republicans gain control of the House, she would not only stop being speaker for the majority but possibly not be speaker for the minority. The two previously mentioned Representatives seem to have generated an important rejection rate among voters. It’s important to see what could finally happen to the Senate seat that used to belong to Obama himself, where Republican Mark Kirk could defeat Alexi Giannoulias, basketball partner of the current United States president. Obama ended his participation in the campaign with an endorsement of Giannoulias. Some doubt if this was a positive move or not. A similar situation may occur in the state of Ohio, so far Democratic territory, though it may switch sides.

Republican candidates — who ran a hard, confrontational campaign, aiming to change economic policy — have not only garnered very important economic support to fund their campaigns, but have also built a Republican determination to vote more that looks stronger than the Democratic voting determination. In a country where voting is free, this attitude of compromise toward a campaign — or of coldness regarding it — is certainly not indifferent at the time of deciding any election’s result.

This is how things look. Soon the aforementioned unknowns will be unveiled.

The author was the Argentine ambassador to the United Nations.