Philippa Kaur

Contrary to the expectations of many observers, the “red wave” stopped at the House of Representatives and only delivered the Republican Party a small majority. The Senate, though, will remain under Democrat control. So the US Congress will be divided until the 2024 election and the Biden administration no longer has the numbers to get its legislative programme through without a fight – or at least, negotiation “across the aisle”.

And that can be a problem for US governance – sustainable solutions to major policy issues need both congressional and presidential approval. A failure to provide answers for pressing issues will further depress public opinion about the government and democratic institutions.

From now until January 2024, presidential influence on lawmaking is largely diminished. To become a law, a proposed bill requires first the approval of both chambers and second the signature of the president. If the two chambers are unable to agree on a common version of a bill or if the bill is vetoed by the president, the proposed policy change is not enacted and the status quo prevails. The production of laws therefore needs a higher level of bipartisan support.

Divided government increases the chances of political gridlock and reduces the likelihood that presidential proposals will become law. It raises the chance of a government shutdown and corresponds to fewer acts of significant legislation per congress.

Two factors will make the next two years particularly difficult. The first stems from accelerating levels of polarisation among legislators. The second is the presence of presidential reelection concerns, if Joe Biden decides to run again in two years time.

Polarisation has reduced Congress’s capacity to legislate and, as a result, public policy is unable to adjust to changing economic and demographic circumstances. As the distance between the preferred policy of legislators, less legislation is created and eventually passes Congress. Policy debate is replaced with acts of obstructionism and acts of grandstanding, where politicians simply signal their policy position to their constituents.

Situations that combine polarisation, divided government and reelection motives of presidents reinforce these tendencies. Consider the 112th Congress after the first midterms during Barack Obama’s administration which ran from 2011 to 2013, or the 116th Congress which ran from 2019 to 2021, after the midterms during Donald Trump’s term of office. Like Joe Biden now, Obama and Trump faced a divided government after the midterms and both were up for reelection. The graph below shows that this resulted in particular strong falls in the number of new laws passed (25% for Obama, 22% for Trump).

The figure calculates the number of laws by congress. Switches from unified to divided government are highlighted in yellow.
Author calculations. Data: https://www.govinfo.gov/

Beyond the quantity of legislation, the shift from unified to divided government during the Obama era also influenced the type of legislation enacted. The laws that passed after the midterms in 2010 were more often related to public goods, such as defence or infrastructure, rather than private legislation. Moreover, the share of bipartisan co-sponsors on passed laws grew from 38% to 47%, while minority party support in voting climbed from below 40% to about 60%. The graph below demonstrates that approved laws became more complex (3% for Obama, 8% for Trump) as they had for example more exemptions built in to attract a degree of bipartisan support.

The figure calculates the complexity of laws, defined as the share of sentences with contingencies, by congress. Switches from unified to divided government are highlighted in yellow.
Author calculations. Data: https://www.govinfo.gov/

Legislative footprint of the next congress

The result of the recent midterms is likely to shape the legislative footprint of the government even more when compared to those historically comparable cases.

This is because of the extent of polarisation between the representatives of the two parties in the US Congress. As this polarisation keeps increasing, we believe that the drop in the number of new laws passed will be even sharper than in the previous cases. Growing polarisation reduces the policy space on which legislators are willing to compromise and thus leads to more gridlock.

This naturally translates into a high chance of government shutdowns as strongly partisan legislators are determined to undermine their opponents’ political agenda regardless of the costs. For example, the upcoming negotiations between Biden and House Republicans over raising the debt limit will be a particularly thorny issue.

Added to that, the democratic majority in the Senate and the possibility of a Biden veto makes the passage of partisan bills proposed by Republicans in the House virtually impossible. But the same thing cuts both ways – and Democrat-sponsored legislation that gets through is unlikely to include progressive social policy proposals on Bidens’ agenda – for example provisions that protect Roe v. Wade or ban assault-weapon sales.

There is also a likelihood that the quality of the legislation might deteriorate. Recent research suggests that excessive legislative activism by either side worsens the quality of laws. As this study investigates a period when congress was substantially less polarised (1973-1989), the currently much higher level and continuing rise of polarisation in the American public creates powerful incentives for legislators to demonstrate their activism to their constituents via the bills they propose. This will limit Congress’s ability to carefully improve submitted legislation.

Phases of divided government with reduced legislative activity have also been associated with positive reform of institutions such as the civil service. But the current environment – with the severe distrust in institutions and politics that prevails – makes such efforts unlikely.

This could become everyone’s problem. The divided Congress is likely to mean a reduced chance of policy agreement on issues such as climate change or the US approach to the Russia-Ukraine war. It’s that serious. More

The announcement by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that she will not run for another senior post opens the door for a new generation of national leaders in the Democratic Party.

Pelosi confirmed she was stepping down as Speaker of the House on Nov. 17, 2022, a decision that jump-starts a process that has long been desired by younger Democrats: generational change and with it, potentially, new ideas to take the party forward.

That shift to younger leadership was shelved in February 2020. Then – after poor performances by Joe Biden in early primaries – Democratic primary voters unified with astonishing swiftness behind his candidacy. The thinking was that a veteran party establishment official was needed to block Donald Trump and that the progressive agenda desired by some younger Democrats might pose too great an electoral risk.

Turnover in the youth-challenged leadership of the Democratic House and Senate caucuses has similarly been frozen since then, with all Democratic legislative leaders over 70. As a professor of public policy who served as an assistant to members of leadership in both houses of Congress, I understand why Democratic voters opted for stability in 2020. But now the coming change may be welcomed by Democrats and Republicans alike as an opportunity to pass the torch to a new, post-baby boomer generation with fresh ideas. Generational change may soon come on both sides of the political aisle.

Power as a means, not an end

Pelosi’s decision is both practical and timely. It comes as the Republicans retake the House with a wafer-thin majority and a divided GOP caucus at war with itself. Even former Republican speakers John Boehner and Newt Gingrich, Pelosi’s longtime critics, are acknowledging her historic accomplishments, while noting her legacy will now include stepping away while at the top of her game.

Pelosi rose to become the most powerful woman in American history and the most effective legislator of the 21st century. She accomplished this at a time when polarization in politics meant she has endured vilification from political opponents that has had a direct and violent impact on her family.

A key to understanding the Pelosi legacy is weighing what she chose to do with her power. As I have written elsewhere, some politicians seek power fundamentally as a means to an end. For them leadership posts offer the tools needed to improve citizens’ lives or to advance an ideology. Such figures can be seen across the political divide in Ronald Reagan, Barack Obama and Gingrich. You don’t have to agree with their politics to see that they sought power primarily as a means to change policy: They had active legislative agendas.

Other leaders, however, seem to seek out power as part of a never-ending vanity project.

The history of Pelosi’s two four-year speakerships – from 2007 to 2010 and then again from 2019 to 2022 – provide evidence that she had an action agenda. Pelosi is on record repeatedly insisting that when one gains power, one should use it – and risk losing it – to promote the national interest and protect the most vulnerable.

Her record bears out that approach. In 2008 through 2010, she pushed controversial measures through the House, including the TARP economic bailout, the stimulus package, the Affordable Care Act, and the cap and trade climate bill – risking her political capital and imperiling the Democratic majority in the House.

Similarly in 2022, she pursued an ambitious legislative agenda despite concerns that it might contribute to a Republican “red wave” in the midterm elections. That wave did not materialize, but historically small Republican gains were enough to mean she would lose the speakership of the House.

Managing imperiled presidencies

The longevity of Pelosi’s tenure is all the more remarkable given the fact that she worked alongside four different – and often troubled – presidencies. She first became House speaker in 2007 under the lame duck presidency of George W. Bush.

Nancy Pelosi looks on as President George W. Bush delivers the State of the Union address.
Rich Lipski/The The Washington Post via Getty Images

Then she served that role under Obama just before his “shellacking” in midterm elections; Trump through two impeachments and an insurrection; then Biden, saddled with bitter national divisions. The Pelosi speakership was the one constant as four different presidents dealt with national threats.

Yet Pelosi managed to work through a deeply polarized Congress scores of bills that impacted the lives of everyday Americans. Her legislative accomplishments include her stewardship of the landmark Affordable Care Act. She worked with Bush to rescue the American economy in the financial crisis of 2008 – when the Republican caucus refused to provide votes needed to shore up the economy.

She also worked with the reluctant Trump administration to provide pandemic relief amid a global health crisis and in early 2022 shepherded through Congress the largest infrastructure investment bill ever.

Toughness leading a divided caucus

Profiles of Pelosi invariably comment on her toughness, a quality admired by both Obama and Boehner. She also led a Democratic caucus often divided by ideology, region, culture, identity politics and generational differences. Some on the left suspected her establishment ties. Critics on the right gleefully vilified her as some “San Francisco socialist.”

Even the professorial Obama confessed he sometimes felt hectored by her passionate advocacy. Republicans campaigned repeatedly on the simple pledge to “Fire Pelosi,” spending hundreds of millions on crude ads devoid of a legislative agenda.

One can disagree with her positions, however, while still recognizing that Pelosi has been a fierce and effective advocate advancing her majority’s agenda.

The record shows that her results-oriented approach has been consistent in its goals and clear in its principles. Such clarity has provided leadership to the nation in fractured times. Her singular focus on advancing her caucus’ legislative agenda has made her the key Democratic Party messenger of her generation.

She has now had the courage to step back, making way for a new leaders and new ideas. More

If US president Joe Biden was looking for an excuse not to run in 2024, he didn’t get it in the midterms. Democrats not only avoided the dreaded “red wave”, but also managed to retain control of the Senate, held Republicans to a razor-thin majority in the House, and swept key gubernatorial contests.

Despite once-in-a-generation inflation and Biden’s stubbornly low approval ratings, Democrats defied expectations and enjoyed the best midterms of any president’s party in decades.

Biden’s victory lap was made even sweeter by the defeat of the most high-profile Trump-supporting candidates, sparking widespread criticism of the former president from within conservative circles.

Nevertheless, Trump has announced his 2024 presidential bid as planned, officially launching the next election cycle on November 15 and throwing down the gauntlet to Biden – who has styled himself as the only candidate who can beat Trump.

What does all this mean for Biden? Will he – and should he – seek reelection?

Murmurs that Biden should step aside in 2024 have gone quiet for the time being. But don’t expect that to last. Two-thirds of voters indicated in exit polls that they prefer Biden not to run for reelection. Those voters included over 40% of Democrats, leaving many on the left grumbling that victories happened in spite of Biden not because of him.

Yet even if Biden’s approval ratings get a bounce, he can’t change his age. Biden, who turns 80 this month, is already the oldest president in America’s history, and his second term would take him to 86. Biden insists that he’s in fine shape. But voters may have other thoughts, especially given several recent flubs that seem to go beyond his usual penchant for gaffes.

Unsurprisingly, Biden has so far indicated that he will run in 2024, with a firm decision expected in early 2023. That sets up at least several months of Democrat introspection, guessing games and hypotheticals on who’s best positioned to lead the party. Although a direct challenge to Biden is unlikely, if he does opt to bow out, the contest for his successor would be a wide open field.

Here are Democrats most likely to vie for the nomination:

Kamala Harris

As vice president, Kamala Harris should be the clear heir apparent to Biden. While still a potential front-runner, Harris would need a serious rebrand to clinch the nomination. Harris’s approval ratings are even worse than Biden’s and many Democrats perceive her nomination as “party suicide,” especially against a potential Republican juggernaut like Trump or rising star Ron DeSantis.

Marginal candidate: the US vice-president Kamala Harris.
EPA-EFE/Shawn Thew

As the first woman and person of colour to rise to the VP office, Harris would also be a barrier-breaking president. Yet even in a Democratic party eager to diversify, Harris may lack the political acumen and appeal to win over a general electorate. The fact that Biden has filled her governing portfolio with low-priority, low-visibility agenda items won’t help her cause — and neither will her own reputation for gaffes.

Pete Buttigieg

A Harvard graduate and former McKinsey consultant who speaks eight languages, Pete Buttigieg, the former small-town mayor of South Bend, Indiana, came to national prominence during the 2020 presidential campaign. He’s since been a notably visible secretary of transportation, promoting Biden’s 2022 infrastructure bill around the country. An openly gay husband and father, Buttigieg would bring a different kind of diversity to the Democratic ticket, even as he struggled to win over crucial black voters in 2020.

Rising star: Pete Buttigieg.
EPA-EFE/Caroline Brehman

Buttigieg’s erudite, wonkish reputation plays well within a demographic eager for a president with policy chops. At just 40 years old, he also resonates with a younger, urban, educated voter, though it’s unclear how he’d fare with other swaths of the electorate.

Nevertheless, Buttigieg was reportedly one of the most sought-after “surrogates” for Democrats campaigning in 2022. And, with several years of Washington service under his belt, Buttigieg may be better poised to parry criticism in this cycle that he lacks requisite governing experience.

Gretchen Whitmer

After holding onto the governorship in the swing state of Michigan with a double-digit win over a Trump-supporting candidate, Gretchen Whitmer’s stature within the Democratic party has continued to rise. A vocal advocate for abortion rights, she has also been one of the most visible Democrats confronting right-wing extremism. At the same time, Whitmer has managed to dodge the death knell label of “coastal elite,” and has leaned into her nickname, “Big Gretch.”

Reelected as governor of Michigan with a double-digit win over her MAGA opponent: Gretchen Whitmer.
EPA-EFE/Nic Antaya

Whitmer has little experience on the national stage, and she’s far from a household name. But she was reportedly shortlisted for Biden’s vice-presidential pick in 2020, and would likely appeal to electorates in critical “rust-belt” states in the midwest. But Whitmer did take considerable heat for her heavy-handed management of the COVID-19 pandemic, triggering outrage – and not just among Republicans.

Gavin Newsom

California governor Gavin Newsom had his own brush with pandemic politics, but survived a recall election in his home state by a wide margin in 2021. Newsom, who cut his teeth in business before pivoting to politics, has long been thought to harbour presidential ambitions. Formerly California’s lieutenant governor and San Francisco’s mayor, Newsom has a CV that, on paper, looks ready for prime-time.

‘Left coast’ contender: Gavin Newsom.
EPA-EFE/John G Mabanglo

An alleged strike against Newsom is that he’s too smooth and too “Hollywood.” As leader of California, a solidly “blue” or Democrat-voting state, he also doesn’t bring much to the national electoral math. Still, Newsom is positioned to raise his profile over the next year, with US$24 million (£20 million) in a campaign war chest and the political prominence that comes with running one of the biggest states in the country.

Amy Klobuchar

Amy Klobuchar, the senior US senator from Minnesota, won plaudits in the 2020 Democratic primaries for her pragmatic approach to politics. Rated as the “most effective” Democratic senator by a recent Vanderbilt University study, Klobuchar doesn’t dazzle in the traditional sense – and may even be seen as boring. Yet she’s earned a reputation for leadership, chairing both the Senate rules committee and the judiciary subcommittee on competition policy, antitrust, and consumer rights.

‘Most effective’ Democrat senator: Amy Klobuchar.
EPA-EFE/Shawn Thew

Klobuchar won’t be many Democrats’ first pick for president, even if one of her favourite lines in 2020 was that she’d never lost a campaign in her life (that streak ended when she withdrew from the nomination race, giving her support to Biden). Still, in a Democratic field without a clear frontrunner, Klobuchar — who has largely avoided big political missteps (although has been marred by accusations of mistreating her staff) – could become a viable candidate simply by process of elimination.

Bernie Sanders

At 81 years old, Bernie Sanders doesn’t exactly solve the Biden age problem. Although swapping out one octogenarian candidate for another might not seem viable, it’s hardly an impossibility. Sanders, a big-government liberal who identifies as a “democratic socialist”, not only has a cult following among his famed “Bernie Bros.” He also has the most crossover appeal to former Trump voters.

‘Democratic socialist’: Bernie Sanders.
EPA-EFE/Michael Reynolds

Sanders, who ran for president in both 2016 and 2020, has spent a lifetime championing efforts to tackle inequality through expanded entitlements. While a “last hurrah” run by Sanders might be more about making a point than winning, his celebrity is hard to discount. If Sanders chooses not to run, Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is the most likely successors to carry his mantle, while Senator Elizabeth Warren may also consider another run.

All moves now depend on Biden. He has said before that he would “not be disappointed” to face Trump in a rematch, and his recent response to critics who don’t want him to run was: “watch me”. For now, that leaves other presidential hopefuls – and the Democrats’ base – watching, and waiting. More