There has been a fair bit of coverage of the mid-terms over here, with plenty of detail for those inclined to delve into it. Perhaps this is a reflection of the extent to which US politics is perceived, more than ever, as having an international dimension which is directly affecting so many people in so many places.
Here are a few of the items which, for whatever reason, I think have stood out from the rest of the UK mainstream coverage.
On the 'issues':
- South Dakota's rejection of a conservative harder line on abortion (an interesting counterpoint to Bob Casey's win in Pennsylvania with an anti-abortion stance);
- Missouri's rejection of a candidate who stuck with the epublican party line against stem cell research;
In terms of visibility:
- Joe Lieberman's victory as an independent in Connecticut;
- The voters' refusal to let go of issues like the Iraq invasion;
- The Republican loss in Florida over the Foley sex scandal.
The coverage also refers openly and repeatedly to government corruption as a significant factor. Clearly the damage done by episodes involving the likes of Rove, Libby, Abramoff and DeLay was both serious and lasting.
I am in no way qualified to judge whether the swing in the balance of power will prove beneficial or not. Superficially, it's tempting to characterise this as an unqualified victory for the Democrats and an opportunity for them to assert their values - but there are precedents to suggest that a weakened incumbent can actually lead to worse outcomes than one capable of executing (even unpopular) policy.
![[RSS Newsfeed]](/themes/sotto/images/valid-rss.png)
![[This is a Roller site]](/themes/sotto/images/roller-logo.gif){kind=logo}