Early conclusions after the election night – the article was originally published in Romanian on November 9
Election night is over, but the count continues and control over the US Congress is still in the balance. A few preliminary conclusions can, however, emerge after an election that has so far refuted many expectations.
The first unconfirmed expectation is about who votes and how. These midterms reiterated the valuable lesson that voters should never be underestimated, much less the American voters rooted in a culture of participation and respect for rights. The American electorate has provided an example of democracy and normality, expressed both by a record turnout and by the rejection of the most radical candidates (those supported by Donald Trump who refused to accept the 2020 election result and made a campaign issue out of it). More than 45 million ballots were cast in advance or by mail, exceeding the early voting in 2018, and the trend was confirmed by the high turnout on election day. Images showing long queues at the polls in competitive states constantly ran on American news television.
These numbers are all the more spectacular considering in the last two years 21 states, mostly Republican, have enacted 42 laws that restrict or suppress voting (making it harder to vote by mail, limiting early voting or election day registration, changing the rules, changing the locations of the polling stations to make access more difficult for certain communities, etc.).
Although a number of analysts see polarization as the source of a high turnout, the first results of the midterms actually confirm the extraordinary moderating, balancing ability of the American electorate, who rejects extremes and regroups towards the center. While in the past opinion polls had failed to capture the dissatisfaction of a “silent majority” that embraced a populist discourse and Donald Trump, this time the polls and analyses underestimated another type of silent majority – the one disturbed by the attack on abortion rights and by conspiracy theories, the moderate majority that embraces normalcy.
The second unfulfilled expectation is related to the result itself. Even though we do not yet have the final configuration of the next Congress, and Republicans maintain the first chance to control the House, the so-called midterms fundamentals have been shattered by voters. The first fundamental expects the presidential party to lose the midterm elections and not anyway, but by significant margins. Historically, the party in the White House has lost 26 House seats on average. In 2018 Republicans lost 40, in 2010 Democrats lost 63. In addition, the size of the loss was usually correlated with a low job approval for the incumbent president.
Only twice in history, under very special circumstances, has the presidential party managed to win the midterm elections – in 1998 under Bill Clinton after impeachment and with a solid economy, and in 2002 under George W. Bush after September 11, and both presidents were viewed favorably by a majority of voters.
This time all the premises were against the Democrats: a low job approval rate for President Biden, an economy impacted by inflation, uncontrollable circumstances (the war in Ukraine, the gas price, etc.). Despite such circumstances, the Democrats avoided the “red wave” predicted by everyone and predictable based on the past. This makes the result historical.
Even if they end up taking over the House, the Republicans did not receive from voters the blank cheque they hoped for. In the Senate, so far the Democrats flipped Pennsylvania (with John Fetterman defeating Dr. Oz), the Republicans kept Ohio (with J.D. Vance, the author of Hillbilly Elegy), while races in Arizona and Nevada are too close to call, and Georgia is heading to a run-off.
Third, the bet on the economic message and the belief that voters would be moved to the polls by the anger over inflation proved unsuccessful. The concern with economy and inflation did not automatically translate into GOP votes and was not the only mobilizing factor. The economy matters, but so do abortion rights and democracy. According to exit polls, a third of the voters mentioned inflation as a decisive factor in their electoral choice, and 28% the right to abortion, followed by gun control, immigration and crime. Previous measurements also showed the future of democracy as an important matter for voters.
Opinion polls and pre-election analyses underestimated the “Dobbs effect” and the strong reaction to overturning Roe v. Wade, and overplayed the effect of inflation. Abortion rights issue allowed the Democrats to reduce the “enthusiasm gap”. On this occasion, voters in California, Michigan and Vermont enshrined the right to abortion in their Constitutions, while those in Kentucky, a conservative state, rejected an amendment that would have prohibited that right. And this comes after Kansas, where citizens voted during the summer to protect the right to abortion.
Last but not least, the Republicans have to thank Donald Trump for underperforming, to say the least. The electorate said “no” to the most extreme Trump-backed candidates. Instead, moderate Republicans, who escaped the Republican primaries, had no problem getting reelected. In Georgia, Governor Brian Kemp and Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, who rejected Trump’s big lie and validated Biden’s victory, won without a sweat. So did the New Hampshire Republican Governor Chris Sununu. In contrast, governors’ races in Michigan, Maine, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin brought clear victories to the Democrats, against the most radical election deniers endorsed by Trump.
The days to come will bring the conclusion of these midterm elections and, with it, the new distribution of legislative power in Washington. Until then, both parties and interested observers of American politics have important conclusions to draw and useful lessons to apply in the future. More to come soon.
