To what extent are midterm elections merely a referendum on the performance of the president.
Yes they are:
Paragraph 1 - Correlations Losses
Since 1900, the president’s party has lost seats 20 out of 29 mid-term elections in both house and
senate elections
This is especially the case in the president’s sixth year in office, known as the ‘6 year itch’ - and was seen
in both the democrat’s loss in the senate in 2014 after 6 years of Obama and the republican’s loss of the
house, in 2006, 6 years of president Bush.
This is 6 year itch is also due to a decline in approval ratings seen in the lame-duck period → Obama
(40%) + Bush (38%) → people blame the president for many of the issues that may even be out of his
control
Many candidates try to distance themselves from Obama in order to keep their incumbency or win
election → This is clear evidence that the vote is influenced by what people think of the president
EX: Mary Landrieu aired ads claiming she thought Obama’s policies on energy were ‘simply wrong’ → as
she was fighting for incumbency in her Louisiana seat (she ultimately lost)
Paragraph 2 - Correlations gains
There have been times when a popular president has made gains in midterm elections.
EX: in 2002 the republicans gained 8 house seats and 2 senate seats. At the time, president Bush had
approval ratings of 70%, as people had rallied behind him during the September the 11th attacks in
2001, and enthused his military action in Afghanistan
EX: in 1998, the democrats gained 5 house seats. Opinion polls showed that most voters did not wish to
see Clinton impeached (as a result of his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, and did not approve of the
aggressive tactics used against him by the republican leadership → at the time, Clinton had a 66%
approval rating, whereas House speaker John Boehner was viewed negatively by 49% of Americans.
Paragraph 3 - Nationalised Mid-Terms:
The recent nationalising of elections had lead to people voting on party platforms as opposed to their
local issues.
In the past, mid-terms were focused around local issues such as state education → introduction of
national party platforms has gained its focused.
EX: Contract for America (Rep.) 1994 - aimed to unite Rep. against Clinton’s healthcare proposals
(Attacking Clinton) → Dems lost 54 house seats + 8 Senate seats → They voted on the basis of the
platform.
EX: Six for 06 (Dems) capitalised on widespread unpopularity of Bush → Reps lost 31 House seats + 6
senate seats (Attacked Bush)
EX: Pledge to America → Republicans 2010 showed opposition to Obama’s policies inc. Obamacare →
Dems lost 63 House seats + 6 Senate seats → Referendum on Obama rather than local issue (Attacked
Obama)
No they aren’t
Paragraph 4 - More to do with candidates than the president:
Congressional elections are decided based off the candidates - not a referendum on the president
Yes they are:
Paragraph 1 - Correlations Losses
Since 1900, the president’s party has lost seats 20 out of 29 mid-term elections in both house and
senate elections
This is especially the case in the president’s sixth year in office, known as the ‘6 year itch’ - and was seen
in both the democrat’s loss in the senate in 2014 after 6 years of Obama and the republican’s loss of the
house, in 2006, 6 years of president Bush.
This is 6 year itch is also due to a decline in approval ratings seen in the lame-duck period → Obama
(40%) + Bush (38%) → people blame the president for many of the issues that may even be out of his
control
Many candidates try to distance themselves from Obama in order to keep their incumbency or win
election → This is clear evidence that the vote is influenced by what people think of the president
EX: Mary Landrieu aired ads claiming she thought Obama’s policies on energy were ‘simply wrong’ → as
she was fighting for incumbency in her Louisiana seat (she ultimately lost)
Paragraph 2 - Correlations gains
There have been times when a popular president has made gains in midterm elections.
EX: in 2002 the republicans gained 8 house seats and 2 senate seats. At the time, president Bush had
approval ratings of 70%, as people had rallied behind him during the September the 11th attacks in
2001, and enthused his military action in Afghanistan
EX: in 1998, the democrats gained 5 house seats. Opinion polls showed that most voters did not wish to
see Clinton impeached (as a result of his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, and did not approve of the
aggressive tactics used against him by the republican leadership → at the time, Clinton had a 66%
approval rating, whereas House speaker John Boehner was viewed negatively by 49% of Americans.
Paragraph 3 - Nationalised Mid-Terms:
The recent nationalising of elections had lead to people voting on party platforms as opposed to their
local issues.
In the past, mid-terms were focused around local issues such as state education → introduction of
national party platforms has gained its focused.
EX: Contract for America (Rep.) 1994 - aimed to unite Rep. against Clinton’s healthcare proposals
(Attacking Clinton) → Dems lost 54 house seats + 8 Senate seats → They voted on the basis of the
platform.
EX: Six for 06 (Dems) capitalised on widespread unpopularity of Bush → Reps lost 31 House seats + 6
senate seats (Attacked Bush)
EX: Pledge to America → Republicans 2010 showed opposition to Obama’s policies inc. Obamacare →
Dems lost 63 House seats + 6 Senate seats → Referendum on Obama rather than local issue (Attacked
Obama)
No they aren’t
Paragraph 4 - More to do with candidates than the president:
Congressional elections are decided based off the candidates - not a referendum on the president
