There are two theories that explain the out come of mid term elections. The first one is the theory of rise and fall of a regime and the second is the performance of the regime and the situation at the time of the election. Both the theories provide different analyses but you can also use a combination of the two for analyzing the outcome; this method is supposed to give better reasoning.
Analyzing the data for mid term polls in the last hundred years, the ruling party seems to have always lost, except in 1934. After 1940 the loss used to be 30 seats or more than 30 seats. In the midterm elections of 1946 the loss was as high as 46 seats.
According to the rise and fall of a regime theory, the strong performance by the presidential party in previous elections may cause a downfall in the midterm election. But this is more statistically correct than logically applicable. Generally the statistical details about the loss of the President's party in elections denote that the extent of the strong performance in the last election will decide the downfall in the present election.1 But the statistical details were the results obtained by applying statistical analysis to available data. Though all the mid term elections are similar to each other, each election will have its own significance. The significant factor changes from term to term. That significant factor will have an important place in analyzing the outcome of the midterm elections along with the standard issues. This year the war on Iraq and the policy of the government regarding it is supposed to be a deciding factor in the elections.
According to the rise and fall theory the strong performance by the presidential party in previous elections may cause a downfall in the midterm election. The strong performance of the president's party depends upon the information provided by presidential candidate about his future activities in power. The strong performance indicates the trust of the people in his policies and words. It is clear that two years period is not sufficient to deliver in all the fields. It can be difficult for the party in power to defend the delay. At the same time it is easy for the opposition party to criticize and exploit the situation in the form of votes polled.
The performance of George W. Bush in the last election can be termed as strong, because his party withstood an anti - incumbency wave and won a majority. Winning a second time shows greater expectations from the people and the party itself. It takes time to fulfill the promises made during the election campaigns and to materialize the wishes of the people. In the course of these things when the government has to face the midterm polls, generally the electorate compares the performance with the promises before electoral victory. The dissatisfaction due to the non - fulfillment of the promises results in mid term poll losses.
A number of reasons for the dissent of the people towards the party in power can be cited. The uproar about the nominal boss of US intelligence Negro Ponte's activities of pleasure, spying and making Iraqis write pro US articles by funding them, can be one of the number of activities which is capable of fixing the regime in trouble.1 The above-mentioned activities may not show direct affect on the people. When the electorate