midterm elections

Last week, Marine commented an article, posted on the website of the NewYorker.

This article deals with the midterm election, which will happen the third of November in the United States of America.

At first she reminded what midterm elections are: they take place two years after the election of the new president (quadrennial elections) and members of the Congress are elected: 435 seats in the House of Representative and 33 seats in the Senate.

Secondly she pointed out what is at stake in this election: This election could be a u-turn in its history if Republicans win because democrats have a majority for forty years.

More over the fallouts of this election would be important: A republican majority could be a burden for Mr Obama to go at lengths of his policy and his pledges. American policy would be an eternal battle of wills between Republicans and Democrats.

She also underlined that this midterm election gives rise to another struggle between two candidates (to win a seat in the Congress): Mr Kirk, a republican, has to ride out Mr Giannoulias a Democrat. Both have a history soiled by scandals: the first one because he lied about his military curriculum vitae and the other one because he was involved in a financial scandal and has close relationships with the former governor of Illinois who was accused of corruption.

All these elements undermine the image of the American policy and politicians, which enhance the weight of the Tea party movement led by Glenn Beck which can have a say in this election.

Then, Marine questioned students about the aftermaths of the election if Republicans win the majority.

The answer was clear: it would be a burden for Mr Obama to achieve his policy and his promises. To some extent the example of the health care reform is interesting: We all have seen Mr Obama’s difficulties to pass his bill despite a democrat majority. So we can imagine his future difficulties to pass other bills, but this time, without his majority. Furthermore I believe that a Republican victory would foreshadow grim outlooks for the next presidential election for democrats. Indeed at this time of his presidency Mr Obama has not achieved all his promises and all the hopes he gave rise to. So a second part of his presidency with a republican majority can’t be better and the next election could be a huge failure for democrats.

The second question deals with the debate about the mosque in New York, on the ground zero site.

Obama agreed with this proposition, but what can we think about it? Is it a strategy or clumsiness?

On my opinion i believe it was clumsiness: The president shouldn’t answer this question or has to blur it because this question is a deadlock: if he agrees the majority of Americans (who is strongly patriotic, and who hasn’t forgot the dramatic event yet) will be discontent; and if he disagrees, Muslim international community will be chocked whereas the president try to stop the war between Israel and the Arabic world, it seems complicated. That’s why I believe Mr Obama should have been more skilful with his answer.