David Budge, July 8, 2010

The midterm elections of the United States are probably the most important political event occurring this year, and have the capability to completely change the outlook and policies of the federal and state governments for the foreseeable future. The midterm elections happen every four years, in the middle of the sitting President’s term. In these elections, the entire House of Representatives and one third of the Senate seats are up for grabs, along with thousands of positions in state and local governments nationwide.

Historically, the midterm elections have served as a barometer for the faith that the American people have in their current President’s leadership. The President’s party almost always loses seats in the midterm elections, as House and Senate candidates of the President’s party do not have the tidal wave of excited party members rushing to the polling booth to vote for their party’s Presidential candidate, and members of the opposing party tend to be energized by the anger stemming from their defeat in the Presidential election two years before. However, if voters are confident in the current President’s abilities, then the President’s party tends to lose only a small number of seats. For example, during the 1986 midterm elections, the Republican party lost seats despite President Reagan’s 61 percent approval rating. However, if people are unhappy with the President’s leadership, the President’s party, or circumstances surrounding his term, far-reaching congressional shakeups can happen as in the elections of 1994 and 2006.

The year prior to the 1994 midterm elections had seen the proposal of President Clinton’s healthcare bill. It angered conservative Republicans and its failure disappointed liberal Democrats. Despite conservative anger and liberal ennui, a Republican victory in 1994 seemed like a long shot. Even Joe Gaylord, an advisor to then House majority leader Newt Gingrich, was skeptical: "There weren’t four people in America who thought we were going to win control of the House on election day." However the health care bill, combined with other factors such as the alienation of right-leaning independents over newly passed gun control laws, and a lower then usual number of incumbents due to retirements and redistricting, led to a Republican landslide victory. Republican gains totaled more than 54 seats in the House and 2 seats in the Senate, in what would later be known as the "Republican revolution." The resulting Republican majority would last twelve years, until the midterm election of 2006.

Like the Democratic party in the 1994 election, the Republican party in 2006 was in bad shape heading into November. However, unlike 1994, the precarious state of the Republican party was more obvious than that of the Democratic party, as weariness over the Iraq war, anger over the perceived mishandling of the aftermath of Katrina, and frustration over the unusually high summer gas prices, put an obvious sense of unease and anger into the public consciousness. This anger and frustration, combined with a new Democratic strategy of selecting more conservative candidates in order to snag votes from previously Republican areas, resulted in the Democrats gaining 30 seats in the House and seven in the Senate. This Democratic winning streak would continue into the 2008 election where the Democratic party would pick up even more House and Senate seats and also win the Presidential election.

But a winning streak of this magnitude is hard to maintain, and many factors point to a possible Democratic loss in 2010. Along with the usual midterm incumbent party loss, public outrage over the perceived lack of action in regard to the Gulf Coast oil spill, concerns over the recently passed health care bill, anxiety about the unhealthy state of the economy, and anger over immigration control issues could see a Republican victory in 2010. But a Republican victory is not guaranteed. The recent victory of the Democrats in the Pittsburgh special congressional election to fill the late John Murtha’s seat, despite the area’s low approval rating for President Obama, shows that the Republican party cannot afford to rest on its laurels. The Republican party must also be wary of the significant rise of anti-incumbent sentiment, which could cost the Republicans votes and oust currently seated Republicans.

While the events leading up to the upcoming 2010 election bear a resemblance to those of previous elections, it is important to remember that there are key differences between it and past elections. Most notable is the fact that the new Democratic-sponsored health care bill passed, which might give liberal voters enough faith to get out the vote this November. Also the wave of retirements that swept the Democratic party in the months before the 1994 election, and the mass redistricting that occurred are noticeably absent today. Another key difference is that while the 1994 assault weapons ban drove conservative voters into a frenzy, modern Democrats have wisely avoided going near the issue of gun control, at least for the time being.

Judging from historical and political trends, the Democratic party will most likely lose some seats this November. The Democratic party’s success or failure hinges on the state of the economy by the time November rolls around and the government’s handling of the Gulf Coast disaster. If the Democrats can fix these problems, or at least get them under control, they stand a chance of mitigating their losses in the upcoming election. The Republican party’s success depends on distancing themselves from their previous failures and successfully mobilizing angry conservatives to campaign and vote.

Whatever happens this November, there is no doubt that the 2010 midterm elections will have a momentous effect on the country and events for at least the next decade to come. It would be wise for both parties as well as the American people to pay close attention over the upcoming five months.