IN THE U.S. mid-term elections of 2010, the Republican Party crushed the Democratic Party of which U.S. President Barrack Obama is a key figure. The Democratic Party lost six seats in the Senate, 52 seats in the House of Representatives, six governorships, and about 700 seats in State legislatures. The 2010 mid-term elections were the largest Republican victory since 1946, handing Obama a minority government.
Some commentators claimed that Obama lost the mid-term elections largely because he did not revive an ailing economy, and that he continued to press forward with national healthcare reform and other liberal policy measures.

Trende (2010) provided three reasons for Obama’s devastating loss at the 2010 elections. One was exposure, that is, the number of seats Democrats held above that party’s norm. In fact, prior to the election at 2010, there were 60 House Democrats from districts that would normally vote for the Republican Party; and that was ‘exposure’ that worked against Obama at the 2010 election. And at that election, 52 democrats lost their seats in the House of Representatives.
Two, the economy was in bad shape with the international financial meltdown that confronted Obama in 2008, but which remained a significant hurdle for the Democratic Party at the mid-term 2010 elections. The unemployment figure was at its highest in any mid-term election since 1982; then the presumed recovery of 2009 and 2010 was too lethargic to have aided the GDP figures that were very low when they were released just prior to the mid-term elections. The poorer the economy, the greater would be the presidential party losses.
And three, issues associated with the people’s evaluation of the President’s policy agenda. Democrats thought that the many promises emanating from the stimulus package and healthcare reform would have boosted their chances in the 2010 midterm; this did not happen and many Democrats on the stumps stayed well away from the stimulus package as well as healthcare reform.
In fact, the Washington Post/ABC News Poll showed that 68% of Americans felt that the stimulus package was a waste of taxpayers’ money. And Professor Busch (2010) argued that Americans’ dislike for the healthcare reform bill started in the summer of 2009 through March 2010 when it became law, until election day in November 2010.
Notwithstanding significant institutional differences, The U.S. mid-term elections of 2010 may be a useful reflection point for explaining simple truths or commonalities about election results elsewhere.  Despite the Republican Party landslide victory in 2010, Busch (2010) found that House exit polls showed that 43% of voters had a favourable opinion of the Democratic Party, while 41% had a favourable opinion for the Republican Party; and that Republicans had this landslide victory because one in 10 who disliked the Democratic Party voted for it, whereas about three in ten (a quarter) who disliked the Republican Party voted for it.
And Caesar (2010) saw this electoral shift as ‘the Great Repudiation’ of Obama’s policy agenda, rather than an embrace of the Republican Party. For Americans, it was ‘the Great Repudiation’ that induced a high turnout of Republican voters.
What can Obama achieve with his minority government? Busch (2010) argued that (1) there is need to re-craft legislative strategy, be on the strategic defensive, and to effectively prevent any attempt to roll back successes of his first two years in office. (2) The new political environment will most certainly impact the 2012 presidential election, where both Obama and the Republican Party will remain wedded to the voters; which is how it should always be, and not merely when voters repudiate your party.
Obama has two mid-term election fiascos from which to gain strength and inspiration with his minority government, albeit that he is nearing completion of almost a year of this minority dribble. There is, indeed, after mid-term humiliations, the re-election of President Harry Truman in 1948 when all the political pundits wrote him off, and the spectacular re-election of Bill Clinton in 1996.
Both showed that after their mid-term defeats they returned with a political vengeance for electoral victory vis-à-vis confrontation and adaptation strategies. The alternative is to have what Truman called the “do-nothing 80th Congress”. And this is how Obama recently talked about his Congress, “If Congress does nothing, then it’s not a matter of me running against them. I think the American people will run them out of town…I would love nothing more than to see Congress act so aggressively that I can’t campaign against them as a do-nothing Congress” (Bloomberg). Nonetheless, Obama’s 112th Congress is gradually becoming another ‘do-nothing’ Congress.
Given these political developments in the U.S. and the institutional differences with Guyana, what now, that the November 28 elections are over? Here in Guyana, there is the political challenge facing the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) administration without a majority in parliament; there is talk about reasons for its minority status; whether it had to do with the party’s exposure; economic and social conditions of the country; the great repudiation; assessment of the policy agenda; or as the die-hard, race card holders who only function within the parameters of a ‘race/ethnic prism’, would say, that it all comes down to ‘race’.
What now, with a (PPP/C) minority government? There has to be a re-crafting of legislative agenda and strategy; how about when to energise constructive confrontation and adaptation action strategies; there also will be a place for compromises, but excessive compromises are symptoms of weak legislation and may undermine good governance; and when all the political rhetoric is over, would Guyanese see ‘a do-nothing’ parliament?
And now the combined opposition with a majority has full capacity to fulfil the numerous promises it made to the nation; and the people should hold them to these promises. Perhaps, if fulfilment of the promises materialises, then Guyanese will not have a do-nothing parliament. (Previously published in the media)