With the ballot boxes open for nearly 100 million Americans, the world is looking forward to the results of the midterm congressional elections, not only as a measure of the new balances between the Republican and Democratic parties, but also as a very important turning point for the domestic and foreign policies adopted by President Donald Trump.
Early voting witnessed record numbers reaching more than 56 million in the 50 states on the eve of the elections, which include choosing all 435 seats in the House of Representatives, and about a third of the seats (35 seats this year) in the Senate, in addition to 36 state governors.
Until the last hours before the polls opened after exhausting campaigns, the Silver Bulletin average indicated a Democratic lead of about 9 points in public polls, which is higher compared to its counterpart at this point in 2018, when it reached 7.2 points.
The midterm elections are often considered a referendum on the American president and his policies, and this is what Trump established when he made the vote a test of support for his administration, calling on voters to deal with him as if he were a candidate. This strategy can motivate his supporters, but it also gives those dissatisfied with his administration a direct opportunity to voice their opposition.
President's numbers
President Trump enters this referendum with low numbers; 37.3 percent of supporters, compared to 59.9 percent of those who rejected, according to the Silver Bulletin, 36 percent versus 59 percent in the New York Times poll with Siena College, and 40 percent versus 60 percent in the NBC News poll, the highest percentage of rejection of him in the network’s polls, while his support reached 32 percent in the Reuters poll with Ipsos, an increase of one point from the lowest level. Record it.
Before Americans put their votes in the ballot boxes, an NBC News poll showed that 52 percent of registered voters preferred Democratic control of Congress, compared to 45 percent for Republicans. In a Reuters poll with Ipsos on October 26, Democrats led by 47 percent versus 36 percent among registered voters, and 53 percent versus 44 percent among likely voters. A national poll conducted by The New York Times and Siena College gave them a 10-point lead in House races, and a 5-point lead in states holding Senate elections.
Although they vary, the averages confirm the same trend. The On Point Politics average recorded 53.4 percent for Democrats compared to 41.4 percent for Republicans, a difference of 12 points, while the Bull Check average for Monday recorded 51 percent versus 42.7 percent, a difference of 8.3 points.
Battle of the Senate
If Republicans now control the Senate by 53 seats to 47, Democrats need to gain a net 4 seats, because Vice President J.D. Vance settles any tie. The most notable developments came from the latest round of New York Times polls with Siena, which showed the lead of the Democratic candidates in 7 states that could determine the fate of the House.
In Michigan, Abdel-Rahman Al-Sayed led Mike Rogers by 53 percent to 42 percent. In Texas, Representative James Talarico led Attorney General Ken Paxton by 50 percent to 43 percent. In Maine, Troy Jackson led Senator Susan Collins by 51 percent to 45 percent. In Kansas, Adam Hamilton led Senator Roger Marshall by 49 percent to 44 percent. In Ohio, Sherrod Brown led John Hasted for the same. As for Alaska, it witnessed Mary Peltula leading Senator Dan Sullivan by 48 percent versus 46 percent, and Iowa was closest, with Josh Turek leading Ashley Henson by 48 percent versus 47 percent.
In a separate poll published on October 28, Democrat Peggy Flanagan led Michelle Tafoya in Minnesota by 54 percent to 40 percent, while Republican Ashley Moody led Angie Nixon in Florida by 50 percent to 44 percent. In South Carolina, Democrat Annie Andrews tied with Republican Darlene Graham, appointed to the Senate to succeed her late brother Lindsey Graham, at 48 percent.
The Bull Check model, updated on November 2, gave Democrats a 68 percent chance of controlling the chamber, compared to 29 percent for Republicans and 3 percent for no party to control. But Republicans may benefit if polls underestimate their support.
High prices and war in the battle of the “Representatives”
The House of Representatives appears closer to the Democrats' reach. The Wall Street Journal expected them to win 224 seats. That is, an increase of 6 seats over the 218 seats needed for a majority. The Cook Political Report classified 222 seats in categories that lean toward Democrats, compared to 195 for Republicans, with 18 swing districts remaining, 14 of which are held by Republicans.
The high cost of living remains the greatest weakness of President Trump’s administration in these elections. In the New York Times poll with Siena, only 29 percent supported Trump’s handling of the cost of living, compared to 69 percent of those who rejected it, and 24 percent supported his handling of gasoline prices, compared to 73 percent. A Reuters poll with Ipsos found that 73 percent believe that these costs are going in the wrong direction, while 37 percent preferred the Democratic approach to the economy, compared to 33 percent of Republicans.
Voters expressed their dissatisfaction with both parties, but Democrats were considered more capable of addressing issues such as the economy, health care, corruption, and foreign wars, while Republicans maintained their superiority on the immigration file.
President Trump currently enjoys a wide margin in foreign policy. He will not be greatly affected by the results of these elections, except when the new Congress begins its work at the beginning of next January. But Congress controls the money, reviews arms deals, and can force a vote on war powers, and a Democratic majority in the House of Representatives would pressure the administration on the costs of the Iran war and tariffs. If Republicans maintain their majority, they will give President Trump a freer hand in his final two years.
Unlike many countries where elections are tied to Sunday, the United States used to hold its elections on Tuesday, a tradition dating back to the 19th century.
What do we know about this tradition and what are its origins?
According to the American network NBC, this tradition dates back to 1845. At that time, the majority of the United States population lived in rural areas, and transportation conditions were radically different from what they are today, which made moving from rural areas to polling stations take hours or days sometimes.
In addition, each state could hold its presidential elections on different dates over several weeks. This created a problem; The results of states that vote early could have affected voters in states that have not yet gone to the polls.
As a result, Congress decided to organize this process, so it issued a law on January 23, 1845 setting a unified date for the election: the Tuesday following the first Monday of November.
This rule still applies today.
Why Tuesday in November specifically?
The month of November was chosen for economic and climatic considerations. In the nineteenth century, agriculture was the backbone of the economy, and many voters lived on farms far from urban centers. So, lawmakers had to choose a date that would allow people to cast ballots without significantly impacting their farm businesses.
November provided a convenient advantage; In most parts of the country, the fall harvest had ended by this month, while the harshness of winter had not yet begun, making this a relatively good time for travel.
As for the choice of Tuesday, it came as a result of religious, social and economic considerations. Sunday was designated for rest and religious practices among a large segment of the Christian population, which made travel on that day inconvenient, while Monday was not appropriate because voters needed a day to travel and reach the polling stations. Wednesday was also often “market day” in many agricultural communities, where farmers sold their crops, making Tuesday the most appropriate choice.
Also, the first day of November was avoided, due to the possibility that it coincided with “All Saints’ Day” in America, in addition to its connection with the dates of commercial accounts held by merchants.
Demands to change the election date
Although choosing Tuesday was appropriate for the circumstances of the nineteenth century, this date has become a challenge for some voters today, especially those who work long hours or have jobs during which it is difficult for them to take time off, in addition to people who have family responsibilities or face difficulties in transporting to polling stations.
Some members of the Latino community face these difficulties in particular, given that many of them work in the restaurants, hotels, construction, cleaning, transportation, and health care sectors, areas where it may sometimes be difficult to obtain permission to be absent for a few hours.
On various occasions, proposals were raised to move the elections to the weekend, or to consider polling day as an official federal holiday, but none of these proposals changed the general date of the federal elections.
