General Elections in the US Mark the Path to the White House

The U.S. general elections that took place on Tuesday, Nov. 5, particularly those in Virginia and New Jersey, reveal the state of the Republican Party’s strength, as well as the shape the immediate future of American politics. With Barack Obama more concerned with finding his spot in history and Hillary Clinton in the waiting room of her presidential candidacy, these elections will help us get to know the actual possibilities of a change in the party that occupies the White House.

Although there are still three years before the next presidential election, various circumstances have triggered interest in that moment: the political block provoked by the obstructionism of the opposition, the president’s weakness in implementing his program of change and the desire of the population to find a catalyst to rid the nation of the sensation of eternal crisis in which it finds itself.

A recent poll showed that more than 60 percent of Americans favor a complete change of all the representatives in Washington, D.C., including the ones that they elected. Congress has less than 10 percent approval. Neither of the big parties have 50 percent of the public’s approval. Obama’s approving rating is barely above 45 percent. Therefore, during any given opportunity, such as these general elections, the possibility to send a message about the need for change is taken into account.

Virginia is a fitting place to measure the direction of this change. A Southern state that in recent years has suffered a demographic change provoked by the development of high-tech industry and the arrival of Latino immigrants, Virginia has gone from completely conservative to politically unpredictable. Obama won the state in his two presidential elections, but Democrats lost the election for governor in 2009, which was the first wake-up call for the new president. In a certain way, Virginia has become the new Ohio; the state that reflects the electoral complexity of the country and that is necessary to win to get into the White House.

New Jersey, on the other hand, is a traditionally Democratic state, with many working-class voters. Also, due to its vicinity to New York, New Jersey is receptive to progressive proposals, such as the recent legalization of gay marriage. For Chris Christie, the Republican governor who went up for re-election, to serve for four years with good popularity indexes, it was necessary that he develop centrist and conciliatory politics capable of attracting electoral support from both parties.

This Tuesday in Virginia, two candidates measured up: Terry McAuliffe, a Democrat raised under the tradition of the Clinton faction, and Ken Cuccinelli, a pure product of the tea party who defended the recent closing of the government and who, due to his opposition to contraception and abortion, has won the rejection of many women.

The combination of Christie’s win in New Jersey and Cuccinelli’s loss in Virginia should clear up any doubts among Republicans about what the path to victory is. It should also transform Christie into the most likely presidential candidate for the conservatives in 2016. At the same time, McAuliffe’s success may be the confirmation that the last name Clinton continues to be relevant and full of energy to dominate the future Democratic Party.

All of this, of course, is subject to the many surprises found in politics that, without a doubt, will arise in the upcoming months. On one hand, it is difficult for the tea party to throw in the towel after its defeat in Virginia. In fact, it is already bringing together forces and collecting money to show its influence in the legislative election next year. On the other hand, nothing guarantees that Christie’s pragmatic centrism will count as a virtue in the future Republican primaries, which are normally controlled by the most radicalized bases.

In the Democratic camp, while substantiating the power of the Clintons, McAuliffe may also be proof that the ex-secretary of state is a typical product of the old political caste that voters say they hate. Furthermore, no one has said that Hillary Clinton does not face obstacles in her own party, beginning with Vice President Joe Biden, who has not hidden his intent to succeed Obama.

In any case, the early debate about that succession is a bad sign for Obama himself. The second terms for American presidents tend to be difficult. Richard Nixon sunk himself in the Watergate scandal; Ronald Reagan was also to the point of burying his legacy in the Iran-Contra affair; Bill Clinton had to go through the impeachment process over the Lewinsky affair; and George W. Bush overlaid his prestige in Iraq and with Hurricane Katrina. Obama has not gone through a scandal of that magnitude, but he continues to fight to bring about what would be the ultimate triumph of his presidency: health care reform.

With his international politics at an impasse and the economy failing to get into the needed rhythm, Obama runs the risk of becoming a lame duck before his time. This past election day is a reminder of up to what point the danger is real.

Christie’s victory makes him, at least, the leading figure at the moment. He is the favored object of the front page, a space that was once reserved for Obama. Christie’s ascent will also force movement within the Democratic Party, pushing Clinton toward both greater visibility and greater challenges.