Democrats pledge to pursue centrist agenda

As the scale of the Democratic party’s victory in the US mid-term elections became apparent party leaders moved swiftly to reassure Americans that they would seek to work with Republicans to pursue a moderate centrist agenda, and not lurch to the left.

Nancy Pelosi, who is set to become the next Speaker of the House of Representatives - and was attacked by Republicans during the campaign for her “San Francisco values” - pledged “to work together in a bipartisan way for all Americans.”

Rahm Emanuel, who ran the Democrats’ election effort for the House, declared: “we extend a hand of co-operation to the president, our colleagues across the aisle.”

The White House, meanwhile, signalled that it would look to work with newly elected moderate Democrats.

Tony Snow, the White House spokesman, said the election of a significant number of so-called “Blue Dog” conservative Democrats offered some “interesting opportunities” for co-operation.

“Energy, education, those are clearly things we can work on,” he said, adding that President George W Bush would continue to press for “comprehensive immigration reform.” There was no sign, though, of any compromise on Iraq, where the two sides remain far apart both in policy and rhetoric.

The influx of a new batch of moderate and culturally conservative Democrats, which will change the composition of the Democratic party in Congress, is one of the most significant results of the election.

Results now in show that Democrats swept away Republican candidates in the so-called “blue” (Democrat) states of the north-east.

But they also made big gains in the midwest – in Ohio, Indiana and Missouri – and made inroads even in deeply “red” (Republican) states further west, such as Colorado, Kansas and Montana, where the senate race remains on a knife-edge.

Democrats also picked up governorships outside their traditional strongholds.

In almost all these races, the Democrats ran on national issues, but chose candidates with local values, close in culture to the local community, with some, for instance, opposed to abortion. This appears to have been a winning formula.

Analysis reveals that the Democrats succeeded in nationalising the midterm elections, which are normally decided mostly by local issues and candidates.

Exit polls show 62 per cent of voters in House races said national issues determined their vote, against 33 per cent who cited local issues. In many instances, the Democrats were able to make the vote a referendum on President Bush.

Republican candidates talked frankly about the “headwind” from Iraq and the President’s low approval rating.

The polls also showed that 42 per cent of voters cited corruption and ethics as one of the most important factors motivating their vote – more than Iraq (37 per cent) terrorism (40 per cent) or the economy (39 per cent).

This suggests that there was a “values vote” in 2006, as in 2004, but this time in favour of the Democrats.

However, adding together Iraq and terrorism, Mr Bush’s conduct of the war on terror was clearly the single biggest factor in the result.

Surprisingly to some Republicans, a majority of voters motivated by the economy broke for the Democrats, likely reflecting the fact that the average worker’s wage has not risen much since 2001, in spite of impressive economic growth.

The elections also marked at least a temporary ebbing in the political power of the religious right in America. Voters in conservative South Dakota rejected by 55 per cent to 45 per cent a ballot proposal to introduce the nation’s strictest anti-abortion law, while voters in Missouri voted to back stem cell research.

Ballot initiatives to ban gay marriage passed in seven states, but Arizona became the first state in the US to vote down a constitutional ban on gay marriage.

Voters also backed initiatives to raise the minium wage in six states.