Are midterms 'merely' a referendum on the president?

To what extent are midterm elections merely a referendum on the performance of the President?

Midterm elections are indeed a referendum on the president as it is ultimately the record of the president that is being judged. A CBS News exit poll found that during the 2014 midterms 54% of voters said the president Obama’s record ultimately influenced their vote and 34% said they wanted to make a statement in opposition to Obama. The 2010 midterms were also a referendum on the president whereby through the Republicans Pledge to America agenda it was Obama’s record on Obamacare that was being judged, similar ‘referendums’ have also taken place during Bill Clinton’s and George W. Bush’s presidency.

Midterms are merely a referendum on the president since their outcome impacts upon the President’s standing authority. The fate of the President’s legislative agenda, appointments and other plans he may have all rests on the composition of Congress. If the electorate are pleased with the presidents record they will ‘reward’ him by voting for his party, however, as witnessed by the 2014 midterms the electorate were disappointed by Obama’s record and handed the Senate (6 seats lost from the Democrats) and House of Representatives (lost 13 seats) to the Republican party. According to surveys during the 2014 midterm elections it was Obama’s record on the economy, which many Americans still think is lagging, healthcare reform came in second place and the issue of illegal immigration and strategy against ISIS in the Middle East landed fourth and second place. On the other hand, arguably the midterm elections are a reflection of the national mood in the country rather than a referendum on the President. For instance, in 2002 the coattails effect was most evident when Bush’s Republicans made significant gains in Congress rather than followed the typical trend whereby the President’s party makes losses two years in. This ‘national mood’ was reflective of the national unity in the aftermath of the September 11^th terrorist attacks in New York City. However, even the ‘national unity’ justification for GOP gains in 2002 were seen as a referendum on the President since the electorate were arguably rewarding President Bush for his immediate and authoritative response to the terror attacks through a ‘war on terror’ as well as the introduction of the PATRIOT Act.

The low turnouts at midterm elections illustrate the very fact that midterm elections are a referendum on the president. The 2014 midterms turnout was just at 36.3% (state wise, the highest was in Maine at 59% and lowest in Indiana at 32%). These low turnouts illustrate voter apathy is a consequence of dissatisfaction with the President given the fact that the turnouts are nation wide, not just limited to a number of smaller states – it is ultimately the whole nation that is judging the President. However, the simple fact remains that during the midterm elections the electorate is voting for a representative in Congress, not the President. Voters are judging the record of their incumbent and in recent years there has been a lot of dissatisfaction with Washington politicians particularly because of increasing polarisation and gridlock as illustrated by the 2013 government shutdown, with Congress only having an 11% approval rating. This has led to wide disillusionment towards Congress nation wide, this disillusionment can arguably seen by the fact that the front runners at the 2012 presidential election were not Washington insiders but outsiders instead – Obama having served only 3 years in the Senate and Romney as governor of Massachusetts. So, it’s disillusionment with Congress that is causing the low turnouts – not the President’s record. However, voter apathy is nation wide and so it implies that it’s a national referendum on the president. Moreover, incumbency rates in the House and Senate remain incredibly high at 95% and 82% respectively suggesting that voters are not dissatisfied with Congress but are with the President, hence the low turnouts.

The increasingly nationalised nature of midterm elections suggests that they are a referendum on the president as the opposition party tends to campaign on issues surrounding the president’s record. There has been an increase in ‘wave elections’ driven by national concerns since 1994 when there was widespread distrust of Bill Clinton and the Republicans fought the midterms with the Contract With America, in 2006 there was the Democratic Six for 06 agenda which judged George W. Bush’s slow and poor response to Hurricane Katrina and his justification for the Iraq war and in 2010 republicans fought with the Pledge to America in which Obama’s record on Obamacare was judged. The 2014 midterms have also gone down in history as being the most nationalised, concerning the economy in particularly. However, as former House Speaker Tip O’Neill once said ‘all politics is local’, and this certainly remains true today regardless of nationalised elections. Midterm elections are largely fought on local issues concerning the state or district, for example, this is epitomised by initiatives and propositions, which has nothing to do with the President whatsoever. During the 2014 midterms several states, such as Alaska, held propositions to legalise marijuana. During midterm elections members of Congress campaign as independent candidates; rarely ever mentioning the party’s name, this is because the elections are fought on local – not national issues concerning the president. So, although there is indeed a local element, there is also a national element whereby the electorate very often judges the president.

Midterms are a referendum on the president because of the fact that the rate of incumbency has decreased in recent years. If incumbency rates were high it would mean representatives in Congress are being judged approvingly, ut since they’re low less representatives are keeping seats leading to a change in the composition of Congress which effectively impacts upon the President’s agenda. Incumbency rates have only decreased slightly, they still in fact remain exceptionally high and have done so since the 190s. In 2014 the incumbency rate in the Senate was at 82% and 95% in the House of Representatives. The fact incumbency rates are high is a clear sign that voters are not judging the President but are in fact expressing their approval for their current state or representative.

To conclude, midterms are indeed ‘merely’ a referendum on the president. While a lot of the time they seem to be judging the record of the president, particularly through wave elections, they also have many other elements which are not concerned with the president such as propositions and initiatives and ultimately judging the record of their congressional representative.