The2010 Mid-terms and the Future of the Obama Presidency

Which political bodies were involved?

At the Federal level: Both Houses of Congress

At the State level:-State legislatures-Governors-Many other statewide posts

At the Local level:-Some mayors of large cities-Many other locally elected positions: county judges, sheriffs, etc.

Both the House and the Senate have high incumbency rates. In 2010, the number of Senate retirees was high: 5 Democrats were retiring as compared to 6

Republicans

ResultsSenate : Democrats 53* (-7)

Republicans 47 (+7)

House : Democrats 186 (-62)

Republicans 240 (+62)

Governor: Democrats 18 (-8)

Republicans 29 (+7)

*includes two independents (Joe Lieberman (Conn) and Bernie Sanders (Vermont) who vote with the Democrats

2010 Results: the Senate – geographical distribution

Note the solid Democratic representation in the West and the strong Republican representation in the Mid-west and South

House: Geographical distribution

Note the similar pattern to the Senate, but the considerable inroads made by the Republicans in the

Mid-west, Atlantic states and the industrial North East. This largely restores the Republicans to their pre-2006

position

Governors (Republicans 29; Democrats 19)

Who voted for Whom?

-Almost a clean sweep towards the Republicans, especially among independents, women, older people and among all age groups (particularly notable)

but note:

African Americans – solidly Democratic

Latinos and Asians – still largely Democratic

Young – only a small shift to Democrats among 18-29 year olds

all these groups may be significant in 2012

Table 1: Distribution of Vote by Social Group, 2006 and 2010

Table 2: Voting and Issues, 2010

Table 3: Voting and Attitudes to Obama, 2010

Table 4: The Economy and Voting 2006, 2010

Table 5: Attitudes towards the Te Party, 2010

Voting and Issues

It’s the Economy Stupid!

Chart 1 shows how Democrats and Republicans fared in relation to their support for the Obama legislative agenda (health care reform, cap and trade and the

economic stimulus). Note the number of members who lost who voted for all these measures.

Historical ContextIncumbent party losses at mid term to be expected – only three times since Civil War has President’s party NOT lost at mid term

Even so, by some measures the greatest mid term loss since 1938, yet not as earth shattering as 1994 when the incumbent Democrats lost both houses which was uexpected

- though the figures are almost identical

Tempting therefore to compare what

happened to Clinton after 1994 to what might

happen to Obama in 2012

Table 6: Mid term Losses of President’s Party Selected

Elections 1930-2010*includes Independents

Year President President’s party

Net gain/loss presidents partyHouse seats Senate seats

2010 Obama D D-62* D-7

2006 Bush R R-30 R-6

1994 Clinton D D-54 D-8*

1982 Reagan R R-26 0

1974 Ford R R-48 R-4

1966 Johnson D D-48 D-3

1958 Eisenhower R R-48 R-12

1946 Truman D D-54* D-12*

1942 Roosevelt D D-45 D-8

1938 Roosevelt D D-72 D-7

1930 Hoover R R-52 R-8

Prospects for 2012: In Obama’s favour

Republicans are on ascendant but are seriously split – Tea Party v moderates. Would have won more Senate seats but for Tea party candidates – Sharron Angle (Nevada), Christine

O’Donnell (Delaware) who both lost

Democrats have Demography, race/ethnicity advantage – turnout will probably be 20 points higher in 2012 than 2010 and young and

ethnic minorities will be overrepresented • Republicans have no front runner candidate Palin almost certainly not electable, all the others

have some disadvantage. Last one term presidents (Carter, Bush 41) had Reagan & Clinton in the wings. There is no equivalent candidate today

But, Obama faces…..

Economy is the key – so far prospects don’t look good In December 2010 unemployment remained at9.8% with little sign of rapid improvement especially in comparison with 1938, 1982, 1994 when mid term defeats were followed by rapid recoveries. Also, the public mood is fiercely anti-incumbent

Barack Obama is not Bill Clinton. Clinton was a natural communicator and brilliant campaigner. To many Americans Obama appears aloof and detached. Clinton’s victory in 1996 after being thrashed at he mid-terms may not be repeated by Obama in 2012.

Republican Speaker Boehner is relatively moderate – very different from Speaker Newt Gingrich and Majority Leader Dick Armey whose antics may have helped Clinton in 1996. In that year the House Republicans were combative and came over as extreme offering a new ‘Contract with America.’. In 2011 and 12 the House Republicans are more likely to obstruct Obama’s programme rather than offer their own.

Conclusions: OTB? (One Term Obama)

Recent research suggests that election outcomes a shifting mix of Party identification, and voters’ perceptions of issues and political leaders. 2010 results confirm this.

As Table 7 and Chart 3 show there has been a shift to the Republicans and especially among independent voters who flocked to him in 2008. Much therefore depends on his ability to woo this group.

Obama is in serious trouble with respect to both issues and leadership quesion. His only hope is for one or or a combination of three developments – A foreign policy rally event 9/11 style (God forbid); A dramatic economic turnaround within 18 months (highly unlikely); a truly hopeless Republican candidate (unlikely, but with the primaries and internet campaigning it’s possible).

Republicans now control 3/5ths of state legislatures – most since 1928. Via gerrymandering in 2011 census gives them a substantial edge in Congress – even if Obama wins a second term

Americans are confused and angry. There is no clear consensus about future policies. Things can change very fast – look at 2008-2010, but they are unlikely to change in the president’s favour

Chart 3 Party ID, 2004-2010

Table 7: Party Identification, 2009-

2010