History never quite repeats

Obama's seemingly model married life has provided his enemies with far less personal material to work with. It has been his

exotic" background and name that the anti-Obama forces have concentrated on. The astounding number of Americans who want to believe (or are ignorant enough to believe) that Obama was not born in the US and that Obama is in fact a Muslim, is the result of both individual bigotry and well financed campaigns. Such personal attacks and rumour-mongering must be dispiriting for any president and create opportunities for your opponents.

How are the Republicans of today different from their 1994 counterparts? If one looks at the leadership figures in the Congress, and factors in the big difference that the Republicans did not win control of the Senate in 2010 as they did in 1994, the situation today looks much more moderate.

In theory, this means Obama will not be able to portray the Republicans as "extremists" as Clinton did with the Gingrich-led Republicans. On the other hand, negotiation should be possible. However, the Republicans may believe their electoral interests are best served by blocking Obama's proposals and not negotiating their way through new policy reforms (although following this tactic may well be over learning the lessons of 2009-2010 and may play into Obama's hands).

Although the leadership figures in the GOP are more moderate than their 1994 counterparts, the Tea Party movement is the Gingrich Revolution gone viral. In terms of a manifesto the Tea Party has focused on an anti-government and anti-taxation agenda. The Tea Party's "Contract with America" is far less concerned with social issues than the 1994 Republican Contract with America was. This focus reflects the incredible staying power of anti-government sentiment in America. However, a "tightening the belt" approach to the US federal budget in the case of a double-dip recession in America would be a brutal test of an overly simplistic approach to economics (the human costs of which I'd say would be very high).

The big lesson in the 2010 mid-term elections are that electoral volatility characterises current American politics much more than a realignment to the left, as many hoped was going to be the case after the 2008 elections. This volatility reflects the unreliable nature of parts of the Democrat voting bloc. Young people, Hispanics and poorer Americans are more likely to vote for the Democrats but less likely to turn out to vote than the core Republican voting blocs.

This means the Democrats are more likely to do better in presidential election cycles than in mid-term elections. However, I don't want to overstate the pulling power of the parties here: there seems to be a more noticeable pox on both parties in recent times. This creates a serious opportunity for an independent presidential ticket in 2012 (something like a Chuck Hagel/Michael Bloomberg ticket would be a real threat to Obama/Biden). Lastly, recent US elections should teach us to expect the unexpected.