US Midterms 2018: How will voters respond to sorry state of disunion at the midterm congressional elections?

It's a crucial time in the first term of the self-declared nationalist 45th President of the United States. His administration has done nothing but divide America. He goads and baits his progressive and even moderate opponents, while egging on the worst of his own supporters.

In Congress, the Republic Party (GOP) is in control, but still somehow presides over stagnation. So far, the most active use of their dominance in Congress has been to use it to back the President and his decisions - against even reasonable criticism - largely by inaction.

While the GOP is held in destructive unity, the Democrats are busily undergoing an internal struggle. The progressive wing of the party - symbolically represented by the Sanders Presidential campaign - is striving for a bigger part in the wider party, still controlled by pro-business moderates.

Midterm Congressional Elections

The midterm elections give voters a chance to take stock of this sorry state of disunion.

On 6th November, voters will go to the polls to vote on members of Congress - one third of seats in the Senate are up for grabs and all of the House of Representatives. In the Senate, there are two seats per state. In the House of Representatives, seats represent districts on the basis of state population.

This won't be a vote on the President directly, but it will shape the balance of power in Congress - through which any new bill he wishes to pass must navigate. Right now it is run by Republicans, but as things are at present that could well change tomorrow with a strong result for the Democrats.

So the Democrats will be pleased that so far news seems to be positive for them. It's good news for them that turnouts for early voting have been high. Low turnout tends to favour the GOP, because it is older, whiter, more affluent voters - conservative bread and butter - that are a reliable turnout.

On other fronts, there's good news for the Democrats too. Small donations tot he Democrats have come in at double of those to the GOP. Presidential approval, sitting at a twelve year midterms low of 40% - the lowest since, and second only too, George W Bush who sat on 37% at the 2006 midterms.

Democrats are also polling well. They sit at a 49% to 41% margin, wide enough to tip the election towards a landslide and rebalance Congress towards the Democrats. There are even indications that youth turnout, which as elsewhere leans heavily progressive, may also be high this time around.

But general polling can't tell us all we need to know about the individual races. In the House of Representatives there are plenty of Republcian seats up for grabs. However, in the House of Representatives there are just 35 seats up for re-election, of which just 9 are Republican - limiting how deeply inroads can be made. But taking five of those seats would be enough to tilt the balance towards the Democrats.

High water mark in Texas: Ted Cruz and Beto O'Rourke

So which seats are the ones to watch to see if Congress will swing heavily to the Democrats?

To look at one example: the most high profile Senate seat being defended is that of Republican Presidential candidate Ted Cruz in Texas. A deeply controversial figure who has wielded the backing of the Evangelical Christian movement.

He is facing a surprisingly tough race against the Democrat challenger Beto O'Rourke, who has served three terms in Congress as a Representative for El Paso. In stark contrast to Ted Cruz, O'Rourke is pro-LGBT rights, supports efforts to tackle climate change, women's right to an abortion and a meaningful reform of healthcare in America.

Contrasting the big money PAC support that Ted Cruz enjoys, O'Rourke focused on raising money from small donations from individuals - a stance that makes him stand out against a backdrop of big money lobbying in politics and appears to have served him well with impressive campign funding.

Even with an impressively run campaign and the signs of a strong turnout, it has to be said that it will be a major upset if Beto O'Rourke wins this seat.

But it is an important benchmark for Democrats across the country - in fact, likely to be the high water mark of a Democrat 'wave' (landslide electoral victory). If O'Rourke looks like getting even close to taking this Senate seat for Texas from Cruz, that could herald a strong night for the Democrats.

Restore a little hope

For two years, this President - a self-proclaimed nationalist and obvious narcissist with a hardcore following of white nationalists - has had nearly free rein in Washington thanks to Republican control of Congress enabling him. It's time to restore some of the checks and balances. It is time that he faced some meaningful opposition - faced some possibility of being held to account.

For that role, the Democrats will do. They're far from the progressive ideal, but right now they represent a better, more inclusive vision of America - and they are engaged in internal reform that is pushing them to be something more. In that, there is hope. America could do with a little of that right now. All progressives, everywhere, could do with a little of that right now.

US Presidential Election 2016: Alexander Hamilton said it had fallen to America to prove citizens capable of unselfish government that served the public good

Alexander Hamilton, Founding Father of the United States and the chief champion of its constitution. Image: Alexander Hamilton from Marion Doss (License) (Cropped)

In The Federalist No.1, arguing for the ratification of America's then brand new constitution, Alexander Hamilton wrote that:

"It seems to have been reserved to the people of this country to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force."

Hamilton drew up an image of a grave responsibility having fallen upon America, as the symbol and example of citizen government, to prove that government by consent, by reason and by dispassionate and sound judgement was something of which ordinary people - once removed from the compulsions of force or fear or hierarchical and servial duties - were capable.

But Hamilton also warned of the prejudicial interests which the new Constitution must overcome to pursue that ideal. Not least the "perverted ambition" of those who seek to "flatter themselves with fairer prospects of elevation" or "aggrandise themselves by the confusions of their country".

Sound like anyone?

Donald Trump has, at every turn, taken the path of division and self-aggrandisement. At every turn he has taken the low road, driving wedges into the heart of the country to exploit fear, disenfranchisement and confusion.

As much as the citizens of the United States likes to see their country as something that stands apart, it has nonetheless remained on trend. The rise of the language of far right politics - sectarian, intolerant - is not unique to America. It is feeding on desperation and hopelessness wherever it can find it.

Around the world, opportunistic individuals are stoking confusion to aggrandise themselves and pursue perverted ambitions at the expense of the public good. Trump is part of that: someone who will use the people while they're useful, only to drop them and persecute them the moment they're not.

At the Presidential Election, and at the many Senate and Congressional and other elections happening this week, America faces a stark choice - almost nowhere else in the Western world has two-party politics so deeply embedded itself.

On the one hand, the Republican Party has been consumed by its own folly. Trump is just the vile symptom of a deeper sickness - the boil than alerts us to the plague hidden within. Intolerance and sectarianism were seized upon as electoral tools in the Sixties and the price is now come due: to be overthrown and subsumed beneath an egotistical populist.

For progressives, the failures of the Democrats are different. They are the product of compromise, of playing within the system, of trying to achieve gradual reform from the inside - that has left them tainted by association with those they have had to work with to build consensus.

Hillary Rodham Clinton symbolises those compromises to many on the Left, and beyond, perhaps more than any other Democrat. A life long career of those compromises have also made her perhaps the most qualified Presidential candidate in history.

That is the upside and down of trying to get things done from the inside: there is a cost to claims of being a reformer when you have been part of the establishment for so long. If a person spends long enough in the political arena, it becomes hard to see for what they actually.

But that is where the people come in: the activists, the radicals, the social reformers, ordinary citizens in thousands of constituencies. As Laurie Penny argues, those who want radical change always see those in power as an enemy and Hillary Clinton is the enemy she has wanted all her life.

Clinton is a centrist, a moderate, a woman, a political insider with a lifetime of experience: a graduate of Yale; a consistent campaigner for healthcare reform, achieving successes for children and reservists; as First Lady, she spoke in China to tell the world that Women's Rights were Human Rights; she built an international consensus to pull Iran in from the cold; and her name is cited as a leading campaigner for numerous reforming policies - like equal pay and care for 9/11 first responders.

For progressives, with narrow but stark options, voting for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 US Presidential Election is a vote for the public good. In his own time, Alexander Hamilton stood opposed to the political fortunes of Aaron Burr, because he believed him to serve no interest but his own. Between the pragmatic public servant and the self-serving egotist, there is no debate as to who the arch-Federalist Hamilton would have supported between Clinton and Trump. As Hamilton argued:

"Happy will it be if our choice should be directed by a judicious estimate of our true interests, unperplexed and unbiased by considerations not connected with the public good."

But it doesn't stop there. One person alone does not make the future. No President, no leader, of no country, not even America, wields that kind of power. That is the work of movements. Progressives must find theirs and with it their voice. Remember: politics doesn't end with an election.

Vote Hillary, but don't do so expecting that you can just leave everything in her lap. Hillary Rodham Clinton is not a perfect candidate. No candidate is. She is human and flawed. So progressives voters must be prepared to hold her to account, to provide scrutiny and be critical, prepared to demand excellence at every turn.

Presidential Illness: An acknowledgement of the grave seriousness of the role

It has been said that there has never been a candidate more qualified for the Presidency that Hillary Clinton. Her recent illness is perhaps another indicator of what sets her apart from her opponent Donald Trump. Photograph: Hillary Clinton speaks at a rally at UW-Milwaukee by WisPolitics (License) (Cropped)

The latest twist in the chaotic US Presidential campaign came ten days ago, when Hillary Clinton had to leave a 9/11 memorial due to feeling unwell. It was later revealed that she was ill with pneumonia.

Of course, her opponents pounced on the opportunity to question her suitability and her capacity to serve as President. But Presidential illness is far from unusual - a number of Presidents have even died in office due to illness. Taking it as a mark of weakness on the part of the candidate is a very narrow and limited interpretation that ignores some important facts.

Probably the most famous President to be carrying an illness was Franklin D Roosevelt, who for over twenty years of his political career strove to cover up paralysis caused by Polio. Yet, despite illness, Roosevelt was President four times - the most of any candidate in US history - and steered the US through the Great Depression and the Second World War.

But perhaps more relevant to Hillary Clinton's situation are the illness and death of both President William H Harrison and President Warren G Harding.

William H Harrison, an old man by the standards of 1841 - in his late 60s, second oldest President on taking office after Ronald Reagan - died from pneumonia. In fact, the former US Army General died just thirty two days into his Presidency, following a punishing initial schedule that left little time for recuperation - and created, in the process, a constitutional crisis over the Presidential succession and the role of the Vice President, leading to the the 25th amendment.

Warren G Harding's death was also linked to pneumonia. Harding was, however, also suffering from a heart condition when he fell ill on a busy cross-country tour, ahead of the post-midterm legislative session. With high levels of stress, a poor diet and an incomplete recovery from the flu, he became tired and fatigued. The Republican died only two years into his first term, to be succeeded by his Vice President Calvin Coolidge and then his Treasury Secretary Herbert Hoover.

While the role of pneumonia, an inflammation of the lungs caused by infection, has been profound, the role of stress  - which hinders the immune system and makes people more susceptible to illness - is perhaps greater.

There are few more obvious indicators of the stress facing prominent figures than the famous greying of world leaders. From George Bush and Tony Blair, to Barack Obama, the role that the stress of office plays in seemingly prematurely ageing people should not be dismissed.

This all raises an important point. Being President of the United States should be a grave honour. If you are not being killed by it, perhaps you are not fully appreciating the gravity of what you're doing. If a candidate doesn't view the role of chief executive of a country as a stressful job, then maybe that candidate doesn't actually understand, comprehend or appreciate the true nature of the job.

Perhaps in this case, illness is not a sign of weakness but one of grave comprehension. Maybe, the real worry should be about the seemingly stress free, unconcerned, gurning and blasé candidate who shows no recognition of the gravity of the undertaking.

Road to Super Tuesday: The US Presidential Primaries have so far been a tale of outsiders rocking the establishment

Texas, with the most delegates, will be the key battleground come Super Tuesday. Photograph: Texas State Capitol in Austin from Pixabay (License) (Cropped)

Tuesday 1st of March marks a key moment in the long and winding US Presidential election. So-called Super Tuesday will see more than ten states, including key state Texas, declare their choices for Democratic and Republican candidates for the Presidency (Weiland, 2016).

Going into Super Tuesday, the primaries for both parties are much closer than previously predicted. The tight races are largely thanks to their being contested by the outsider candidates Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, who are upsetting prior expectations and putting the old two-party system to the sword.

The 2016 US Presidential race was supposed to be a straight race between two clear favourites - one from each party. From amongst the Democrats there was Hillary Clinton, while from the Republicans there was Jeb Bush.

Hillary was a former First Lady, as wife of Bill, and in her own right Secretary of State and a long time Senator. Jeb is the son of one President and the Brother of another, with executive experience as Governor of Florida. The rest appeared to be a formality.

Contrary to first impressions, however, the supporters of neither party where in the mood for a coronation. There were, from the first, insurgent candidacies, but they were paid little heed and given long odds.

Commentary watching the Republican nomination race, in particular, found something between fascination and amusement in how long the list of candidates for the GOP nomination was becoming (Gabbatt, 2015). Where analysis fell on the respective lists in depth, some where given more credibility than others.

Early runner Scott Walker was one such candidate. The Governor of Wisconsin has a controversial record that has proven popular with fiscal conservatives in the GOP (Pilkington & Sullivan, 2015) - including spending cuts and confrontations with unions.

Walker's run for the Republican Party nomination certainly made a lot of sense. As one part of a Wisconsin trio, along with GOP House Speaker Paul Ryan and GOP Party Chairman Reince Priebus, that are trying to set the agenda for the modern Republican Party (Balz, 2011; Healy & Martin; 2015).

The Democrat's version was Martin O'Malley - who was famously the inspiration for the Baltimore-based TV show The Wire. O'Malley entered as the third runner alongside, and 'moderate' alternative to, democratic socialist Sanders and the scandal mired Clinton, clearly hoping to be seen as someone more acceptable to a broader middle ground of voters (Tabor, 2015).

However, all bets were upset by Trump and Sanders.

There is little to be said about Donald Trump from a progressive view, other than to note the apparent popularity of his brand of being offensive to people from almost every demographic group.

Bernie Sanders started the Democratic race with isolated support in only a few Northeastern states and lay nearly 60 points behind Clinton (Daily Kos, 2015). Yet by the Nevada caucus the Vermont Senator was just 5 points adrift (Lewis et al, 2016).

Yet both outside runners still face barriers beyond the Democratic-Republican establishment itself.

Trump's divisive message has kept him stuck in the mid 30s in the percentage polls - although in Nevada on Saturday he did break the 40% barrier (The Guardian, 2016). Meanwhile the more 'mainstream' candidates have together pulled in over 50% over numerous polls.

Coming from almost the opposite direction, Sanders has struggled to get his message out beyond his core of young and working class voters. South Carolina showed this with abundant clarity as Hillary Clinton won 74% of the vote and overwhelmingly with voters who were not white (Walsh, 2016). Clinton, backed overwhelming by the party elite, has campaigned smartly and is so far holding back the rising popular tide.

Regardless of the barriers in their way, the outsiders have none-the-less shaken up the establishment.

This is demonstrated most clearly in the Republican race where mainstream favourite Jeb Bush's campaign ended in complete failure in South Carolina (BBC, 2016), when he dropped out with little to show for millions in fundraising. Marco Rubio, the next to be annointed by the GOP mainstream, inherits a deficit to Trump that it will take huge momentum to overhaul (Stokols & Palmer, 2016).

Super Tuesday will give the first major indications of whether the insurgent candidacies will have the momentum to topple their respective party establishments. Even if the party elite see off the challengers, there doesn't seem to be a positive outcome likely for them.

At best for the Democratic-Republican establishment, it will likely see off a strong opposition run only to be fatally undermined. As seen elsewhere, like in France, the mainstream will limp on hounded by outside forces that sense weakness and opportunity. At worst, the two-party system that has governed the US will not have been broken apart, but rather hacked and hijacked.