Wendy Davis, who looks likely to lose her bid to be Texas governor. Photo: Stewart F House/Getty
Show Hide image

The US Midterms: the races you need to watch

Rarely has an election elicited a louder national cry of “meh”. But there are some important races buried beneath the banality.

America is abuzz with excitement today as it goes to the polls to elect a third of the Senate and all of the House of Representatives, as well as 38 governors of states or territories.

Well, no, actually, it isn't. In fact, despite the fact that more money will be spent on campaigns this year than in any other midterm election in America’s history, rarely has an election elicited a louder national cry of “meh”. Polls show that interest is record-breakingly low, and especially so among the undecided voters.

Americans are turned off by what many see as a choice between two fundamentally unappealing options: the Democrats, who have largely spent the campaign trying desperately to wriggle out of any suggestion of ties to the Obama administration; and the pretty much equally unpopular Republicans, including the extremist Tea Party.

The odd thing about all that is that actually this election is pretty important. Particularly, a couple of key races could decide whether the Democrats keep control of the Senate – the upper house of Congress – the balance of control of which currently relies on the narrowest of margins.

Then there are the gubernatorial races, which by and large have caught the media’s attention less. Wendy Davis, the Texas state legislator who held that incredible filibuster on reproductive rights last year, is looking likely to lose to current state Attorney General Greg Abbott. Wisconsin’s race is closer – Scott Walker, tipped as a possible Presidential contender in 2016, has the slimmest of leads. Florida, where former Governor Charlie Crist is trying to win back his old job against the genuinely alarming-looking current governor Rick Scott, is also close.

But the Senate is the really important thing about today’s election. Holding on to the upper house of Congress is crucial for the legislative possibilities of Obama's final two years in office, and the results today will shape the country in serious ways. The Republicans already control the House of Representatives; if they take the Senate too they will have carte blanche to pursue a right-wing legislative agenda.

The balance in the Senate could rest on a few key races; these are the ones that will receive the most coverage tonight:

 

Kentucky

The race between challenger Alison Lundergan Grimes and current Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell may not be looking as close now as it was a few weeks ago, but there’s still a chance Grimes could unseat the man who is otherwise the secont-most powerful Republican in the country. McConnell isn’t particularly popular, and has had trouble with his pledge to repeal Obamacare – mainly because Obamacare’s rollout in Kentucky has been a spectacular success. But Grimes has also suffered from an embarrassing episode in which she refused to say whether or not she voted for Obama in previous elections.

 

New Hampshire

Former Massachusetts senator Scott Brown has parachuted in to the state as something of a carpetbagger, but is currently neck-and-neck with incumbent Jeanne Shaheen, and the race is too close to call.

 

Alaska

The state that gave us Sarah Palin is a toss-up between incumbent Mark Begich and challenger Dean Sullivan. It’s a long way West, so polls don’t even close until 5AM GMT, so this will be one of the last races to be called – and last time around when Begich won, it was by so slim a margin that his Republican opponent didn’t concede until a full fortnight after election day.

 

Louisiana

Another popular Democratic incumbent, Mary Landrieu, is struggling to fend off a challenger. But under Louisiana’s electoral system, there can be multiple candidates from each party. If one candidate fails to get 50 per cent on the first ballot – which seems likely – then the state goes to a run-off election. There are two Republicans on the ballot, so once they combine, Landrieu could well be out of a job. But this one will run late.

 

South Dakota

A few weeks ago, nobody thought this was going to be interesting. But some recent polling has shown that an independent candidate, Larry Pressler, might be able to pull off an electoral miracle, beating both the Democrat and the Republican challengers. The incumbent is retiring, so the race is wide open. If the people of South Dakota opt for the outsider, it will be strongly emblematic of the people’s disgust with both parties.

 

Iowa

This one’s the big one. Obviously, each party wants to win as many Senate races as possible, but most election models portray Iowa as the bellwether. Polling has Democrat Bruce Braley running neck-and-neck with Republican Joni Ernst – who gained nationwide fame earlier in the campaign with this astonishing campaign ad.

 

Nicky Woolf is a writer for the Guardian based in the US. He tweets @NickyWoolf.

Getty
Show Hide image

Leader: Trump and an age of disorder

Mr Trump’s disregard for domestic and international norms represents an unprecedented challenge to established institutions.

The US presidency has not always been held by men of distinction and honour, but Donald Trump is by some distance its least qualified occupant. The leader of the world’s sole superpower has no record of political or military service and is ignorant of foreign affairs. Throughout his campaign, he repeatedly showed himself to be a racist, a misogynist, a braggart and a narcissist.

The naive hope that Mr Trump’s victory would herald a great moderation was dispelled by his conduct during the transition. He compared his country’s intelligence services to those of Nazi Germany and repeatedly denied Russian interference in the election. He derided Nato as “obsolete” and predicted the demise of the European Union. He reaffirmed his commitment to dismantling Obamacare and to overturning Roe v Wade. He doled out jobs to white nationalists, protectionists and family members. He denounced US citizens for demonstrating against him. Asked whether he regretted any part of his vulgar campaign, he replied: “No, I won.”

Of all his predilections, Mr Trump’s affection for Vladimir Putin is perhaps the most troubling. When the 2012 Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, warned that Russia was the “number one geopolitical foe” of the US, he was mocked by Barack Obama. Yet his remark proved prescient. Rather than regarding Mr Putin as a foe, however, Mr Trump fetes him as a friend. The Russian president aims to use the US president’s goodwill to secure the removal of American sanctions, recognition of Russia’s annexation of Crimea and respect for the murderous reign of the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad. He has a worryingly high chance of success.

Whether or not Mr Trump has personal motives for his fealty (as a lurid security dossier alleges), he and Mr Putin share a political outlook. Both men desire a world in which “strongmen” are free to abuse their citizens’ human rights without fear of external rebuke. Mr Trump’s refusal to commit to Nato’s principle of collective defence provides Mr Putin with every incentive to pursue his expansionist desires. The historic achievement of peace and stability in eastern Europe is in danger.

As he seeks reconciliation with Russia, Mr Trump is simultaneously pursuing conflict with China. He broke with precedent by speaking on the telephone with the Taiwanese president, Tsai Ing-wen, and used Twitter to berate the Chinese government. Rex Tillerson, Mr Trump’s secretary of state nominee, has threatened an American blockade of the South China Sea islands.

Mr Trump’s disregard for domestic and international norms represents an unprecedented challenge to established institutions. The US constitution, with its separation of powers, was designed to restrain autocrats such as the new president. Yet, in addition to the White House, the Republicans also control Congress and two-thirds of governorships and state houses. Mr Trump’s first Supreme Court appointment will ensure a conservative judicial majority. The decline of established print titles and the growth of “fake news” weaken another source of accountability.

In these circumstances, there is a heightened responsibility on the US’s allies to challenge, rather than to indulge, Mr Trump. Angela Merkel’s warning that co-operation was conditional on his respect for liberal and democratic values was a model of the former. Michael Gove’s obsequious interview with Mr Trump was a dismal example of the latter.

Theresa May has rightly rebuked the president for his treatment of women and has toughened Britain’s stance against Russian revanchism. Yet, although the UK must maintain working relations with the US, she should not allow the prospect of a future trade deal to skew her attitude towards Mr Trump. Any agreement is years away and the president’s protectionist proclivities could yet thwart British hopes of a beneficial outcome.

The diplomatic and political conventions embodied by the “special relationship” have endured for more than seven decades. However, Mr Trump’s election may necessitate their demise. It was the belief that the UK must stand “shoulder to shoulder” with the US that led Tony Blair into the ruinous Iraq War. In this new age of disorder, Western leaders must avoid being willing accomplices to Mr Trump’s agenda. Intense scepticism, rather than sycophancy, should define their response.

This article first appeared in the 19 January 2016 issue of the New Statesman, The Trump era