US Elections Analysis: No Victory, Only Stalemate

UPDATE 1605 GMT: Amongst all the post-mortems, I was struck by this conclusion from Alexander Cockburn: "By 1996 Clinton had outmaneuvered the Republican leadership and won reelection. Today the economic situation is far worse than it was in 1994. No effective political and economic strategy for recovery is on the cards in the current atmosphere. As always, these days in America, our last best friend will be gridlock."

---

Nobody won on Tuesday evening in the US elections.

That might seem a strange statement, giving the biggest Republican gains in the House of Representatives since 1948 and some high-profile victories in the Senate as well as state Governor's campaigns. It certainly doesn't fit with the repetitive theme of "stunning defeat" (CNN) and "dismal night" (BBC) for President Obama.

But walk a bit further beyond the 65-seat swing to the GOP, giving them a majority of 51 in the lower house of the Congress.

At the start of the night, the Republicans were almost a lock to win six Senate seats from the Democrats, with a favourite's chance of taking eight. In the end, they may get only five, so the Democrats --- with two allied Independents --- will still have 54 of 100 members in the upper house, and their leader, Harry Reid, will unexpectedly return to Washington, having retrieved an almost-lost race against the Tea Party's Sharron Angle.

Indeed, the most misleading headline of the night is that "The Tea Party Won". True,  the insurgent movement put some of its people into the House of Representatives and claimed a hand in a big prize in the Florida Senate race. Elsewhere, however, their favoured candidates fell at the last hurdle, with only Rand Paul in Kentucky and Ron Johnson in Wisconsin claiming victory besides Marco Rubio in Florida. Besides, Angle's setback, Christine O'Donnell in Delaware was defeated heavily and Ken Buck of Colorado now appears to have narrowly lost.

Perhaps the most dramatic --- and telling --- storyline is being written in Alaska. In the Republican primary, Tea Party insurgent Joe Miller surprised Governor Lisa Murkowski to claim the nomination. But Murkowski fought back by standing as an Independent in the general election, and she now appears to have claimed victory. That's bad news not only for the Tea Party, but for Sarah Palin: the former Vice Presidential candidate was hoping to lay the platform for a 2012 Presidential run by backing Tea Party hopefuls, but now she faces the humiliation of Miller losing in her home state.

So the night is far from dismal for President Obama. The Democrats took a heavy blow in the House of Representatives, but in the upper house, they not only retain a majority but one likely to be greater than expected.

Equally importantly, advances come with a price tag for the Republicans. To cement their political position, they have to move from being a party of opposition to one with some control and thus responsibility in Congress. If, as in 1994, they decide to be obstructionist --- blocking the Federal government's budget, for example --- rather than negotiating with the Democrats to achieve part of their agenda, they could well see blame for continued economic woes put on their shoulders.

(It's notable that the biggest Republican surge came in the "Rust Belt" states from Pennsylvania through Ohio and Michigan as well in the Midwest. The GOP will need to do more than claim that the Democrats/Obama and only Democrats/Obama carry the burden for the state of the economy if they are to retain their position, let alone advance further.)

What's more, the Republicans have to meet this challenge without a figure --- so far --- who can match Obama in terms of national leadership and with a divided party. The emergence of the Tea Party has come at the expense of established GOP politicians and activists who not only disagree with some of the tone and substance of the insurgents but suffered losses to them in Republican primaries. As Murkowski's likely victory in Alaska shows, the fight between different groups for pole position in defining what "Republican" means is likely to be a long one.

But beyond the numbers and the politics between and within the parties, "Nobody Won" more appropriately --- and worryingly --- fits American politics far beyond Tuesday night.

With the notable exceptions of health care reform and financial regulation, the situation in Washington has been one of stalemate, with the Republicans blocking Obama's legislation --- even in the limited success on health care, not one GOP Senator voted for the bill --- but lacking the strength or willingness to make deals with the Democrats to put forth their own measures.

That situation has not changed. So the best prospect is to try and keep the American economic ship on the water, rather than under it, amidst protracted recession and unemployment. (And, although this was largely forgotten in campaign coverage, to do so while keeping large numbers of troops in Iraq and fighting a war in Afghanistan and Pakistan.)

The Democrat/Obama strategy will be to present this pragmatic "stay the course" approach, appealing to the good sense --- political and economic --- of an American centre. It is unlikely they could do more, even if they wanted to take the risk. No prospect of climate change legislation, no campaign reform measures, no further moves on health care. And unless the Republicans do more than put forth a vague "Pledge for America", unless the Tea Party can move beyond the appealing but illogical mantra --- given the existence of programmes like Medicare and Social Security, let alone US defense --- of "slash taxes, slash Government", they will not be putting forth any significant programme for progress.

So the ultimate outcome of Tuesday night is stalemate. And as even a beginner chess player will tell you, that's not a win.