UNITED STATES: Democratic win will have muted impact

Analysis

The Democratic Party has won control of the House and will probably command a majority on the order of 230-232 to 203-205 for the Republicans, a relatively comfortable margin. The outcome in the Senate is more ambiguous, with calls for recounts and potential legal disputes in Virginia and Montana. Nevertheless, the Democrats have unseated Republican Senate incumbents in Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. The Senate will either effectively be tied, with its business decided by the casting vote of Vice President Dick Cheney, or with a one-vote (51-49) Democratic majority dependent on the support of Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut. (Lieberman won re-election as an Independent after having been defeated in the Democratic primary).

Key factors. The results were worse than the White House expected. While the advent of a Democratic House was not a surprise, the margin was wider than anticipated, and turnout cannot be cited as an explanation:

• Independent voters. Suburban voting was comparatively high by the standards of a mid-term election, but members of the middle class (especially Independents) switched their preferences from the 2004 contest.
• Midwestern tide. The election also had a distinct geographical pattern, with voters in the South and West more reluctant to abandon the Republicans, while electors in the Northeast and Midwest embraced the Democrats.
• Centrist Democrats. Another crucial factor was the Democrats' recruitment of a set of moderate candidates in pivotal House and Senate races.

The new House. The Democratic victory in the House will not bring the sweeping change associated with the Republican triumph of 1994. The party ran on a vague platform, and pledged not to invite confrontation with President George Bush during the remaining two years of his term:

1. Speaker Pelosi. The new Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, will want to cement the Democratic majority in the 2008 poll -- which means avoiding overly acrimonious, politically motivated investigations of the executive branch. She must also take account of a group of centrists, now approximately 20 strong, in her own caucus who will not want to endanger their re-election prospects through aggressive partisanship. Pelosi knows that the Democrats will not possess a reliable majority in the Senate, and that presidential vetoes will prove very difficult to override.
2. Legislative agenda. Therefore, the Democrats are likely to be cautious (see UNITED STATES: Divided government would stymie Bush - October 12, 2006):
   • They will press hard for a minimum wage increase, a initiative that the White House may feel it is unable to block.
   • They will seek to amend the president's expanded Medicare prescription drug legislation, increasing benefits.
   • Democrats may also attempt to shift tax policy, benefiting middle-income taxpayers at the expense of the wealthy. This may be the most intense area of conflict between the executive and the House.
   • Passing a version of the comprehensive immigration reform bill, which was blocked by the House earlier this year, will also be a priority. As the president's position on immigration is closer to the Democratic leadership's views than those of many House Republicans, the bill may pass.
3. Republican introspection. The House Republicans are destined for a period of considerable introspection. The large number of moderate Republican congressman defeated in the Northeast means that the remaining Republican caucus is more uniformly conservative. There will be a purge of the existing House leadership in favour of individuals who will emphasise fiscal conservatism -- particularly restraining domestic discretionary spending -- and a new ethical code of conduct to offset the impact of recent scandals.

Senate outlook. The political outlook in the Senate is more complicated, irrespective of whether the Democrats or the Republicans achieve nominal control. The individualistic nature of the Senate, the less partisan ethos, and the collegiate character of committees mean that a dramatic shift of direction is highly unlikely:

1. Weak Democrats. If the Democrats do achieve nominal control, they will be dependent on a moderate-conservative Independent (Lieberman) and some even more conservative members of their caucus, such as Ben Nelson of Nebraska.
2. Incremental policy change. As a consequence, policy change in the Senate is likely to be highly incremental. Many senators from both parties would be perfectly content with legislative gridlock, meaning that neither liberals nor conservatives could fulfil their agenda. That is especially true on economic policy issues. As control of the Senate could change again in 2008, neither the Democratic nor the Republican leadership will wish to imperil their prospects.
3. New leadership. While there will need to be fresh elections for the Senate Republican leadership (Majority Leader Bill Frist has retired and the number three figure, Rick Santorum, was heavily defeated in Pennsylvania), this struggle will be more about personalities than ideology. The White House will gravitiate towards a closer alliance with the Senate Republican caucus, as the best device for maximising its influence over domestic politics.

Foreign policy impact. In ordinary circumstances, a White House that suffered a stinging defeat in mid-term elections would typically focus on foreign policy. However, the situation in Iraq makes this shift of focus difficult for Bush:

1. The Iraq albatross. The unpopularity of the enduring conflict there is probably the most significant reason why the Republican defeat was relatively severe. While the president's public line will be that the election result will not alter his stance on Iraq, both political parties will press Bush for a change.

2. Strategic shift? Therefore, the White House's foreign policy strategy is likely to shift in a number of ways.

   • It will be difficult for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to remain in place once the Democrats take control of the House in January. Bush will probably allow Rumsfeld to determine the precise timing and the manner of his departure over the next two months, but his exit may be necessary to secure bipartisan backing for the president's policies.
   • The forthcoming recommendations of the commission headed by former Secretary of State James Baker, which were always likely to be embraced in some form by the White House, are now more certain to be adopted. Washington will put intense pressure on the Iraqi government to crack down on Shia militias and accept more responsibility for security, so that substantial numbers of US troops may be withdrawn in 2007.

Ramifications for 2008. Assuming that both the House Democratic leadership and the White House respond cautiously to the election results, the 2008 presidential race remains wide open. Republicans may be more inclined to look for a contender who cannot be closely associated with the Bush White House, which would benefit Senator John McCain. Conservatives who are suspicious of McCain's maverick streak may decide that his long-standing opposition to pork-barrel spending and ethical misconduct more than compensates for his occasional dissent from the White House line. On the Democratic side, the election outcome probably strengthens Hillary Clinton's already commanding position -- although she could face a strong challenge from Senator Barack Obama (see UNITED STATES: Obama's stock rises among Democrats - November 6, 2006).