With less than two weeks left before the midterm elections on November 4, the polls show that the key races are very close which suggests that voters do not prefer one party over the other.
The polls also indicate that gridlock in Washington and jobs are the most important issues on the minds of voters.
To try to tilt the balance in their favor the parties have chosen different strategies on which to run their campaigns.
The Republicans are running a negative campaign of fear mongering by blowing dog whistles such as "the border", ISIS and Ebola at a time when a predominantly white party is seeking to counter the browning of the electorate by voter suppression and by gerrymandering the districts.
Their whole strategy is to campaign against an unpopular President and try to tie their opponents to him.
The Democratic candidates on the other hand are distancing themselves from the President and adopting the mantra of being "independent voices".
With the number of undecided voters now at about 10%, the campaigns are scrambling for every vote and are heavily focused on gridlock and bipartisanship but light on or totally ignore the issues that really matter like education, global warming, immigration and income inequality.
The question is what difference would it make if Capitol Hill fell under the full control of the Republicans? Since the House is likely to stay under GOP control as so few seats are contestable because of gerrymandering the issue turns on the fate of the Senate and what a shift in the balance of power to the Republicans would mean.
GRIDLOCK AND A DYSFUNCTIONAL GOP There is an argument that with control of the Senate Republicans would be more inclined to work with President Obama since they would have to defend their record in 2016 and also because more Republican Senators will be facing reelection than Democrats.
It is true that in the 1990's when Republicans controlled Congress there was compromise led by Newt Gingrich, Bob Dole and Trent Lott who worked with President Clinton to pass welfare reform and a capital gains tax cut.
But this argument ignores the rise of the Tea Party in the GOP.
The Tea Party wing of the Republican Party comprises radical right-wing ideologues who are not for consensus politics.
Their philosophy is not to change policies that they don't like such as amnesty, free social services and abortion; instead they just say no to them.
They do not compromise with their own party leadership let alone with President Obama.
After the GOP took control of Congress in 2010 after a Tea Party inspired victory when they energized the conservative base, talk of a 'grand bargain' (agreement to replace gridlock with compromise) soon receded into threats of a government shut-down and a credit default.
Another factor that militates against compromise is the fact that the GOP is now a divided party without a clear leader and a single vision.
The Tea Party is blamed for the rising tension between the pragmatic and ideological wings of the party.
This poses a dilemma for the President because it leaves the White House wondering how to deal with Congress on any divisive issue.
For example in 2013 Speaker Boehner canceled a vote on the House Republicans' plan to end the political impasse over the shutdown of the government as he struggled to find support with the conservative caucus in his party continuously pushing back.
If the GOP takes the Senate President Obama will have more than just Republican obstructionism to worry about.
REPUBLICAN AGENDA In a Republican controlled Senate their strategy was expressed by likely GOP Senate leader Mitch McConnell on June 19, 2014 when he told Republican donors that with the control of both chambers of Congress the Republicans would own the budget and could pass spending bills by placing riders on them as they would go after the Democrats on healthcare, financial services and the Environmental Protection Agency (THE NATION- What Mitch McConnell complained about to Roomful of Billionaires (Exclusive) by Lauren Windsor, August 26, 2014).
What the Senator is referring to is a little known tool which he could use to get his own way called 'reconciliation'.
This procedure would enable the Republicans to attach their priorities to budget legislation and pass it with only 51 votes since it is immune to filibuster.
If they win the Senate they would have the required 51 members.
So attached to budget bills would be tax cuts for the rich, tax subsidies for oil companies, and more tax loopholes for Wall Street.
People with pre-existing conditions could not get insurance, there would be no minimum wage increase, no extension of unemployment benefits and the country's infrastructure would continue to deteriorate.
Faced with such legislation on his desk President Obama could either sign the bills (loaded with policies he finds unacceptable) or he could use his veto pen and risk shutting down the government and possibly paying a political price.
A less troublesome outcome would be for the Democrats to hold the Senate.
But it does not help if their candidates distance themselves from the President on the stump.
DEMOCRATS ABANDON PRESIDENT OBAMA Democratic candidates are running from the President.
One is even afraid to admit whether or not she voted for him.
This strategy is counter-productive since it plays into the hands of the Republicans who argue that the country is on the wrong track because of the President's policies and needs a change.
Democrats allege that they are running as "independent voices".
But a lot of the Democratic Senators in battleground states supported the administration's policies which makes it impossible to run as an independent voice.
Furthermore guilt by association is not necessarily an effective ploy since the President's popularity is not necessarily a deciding factor in an election.
In 2012 Heidi Heitkamp won the North Dakota Senate race although President Obama lost the state by 21 points.
Also state issues and local ground games play a part.
Instead of running from the President Democrats should defend their support for the administration's record.
The reason is that the country is better off now than when President Obama first took office.
Thanks to the Affordable Care Act twelve million more people now have health insurance; this economic recovery is the quickest in recorded history and the unemployment rate is now 5.
9 % (lower than what candidate Mitt Romney had projected it would be at the end his second term had he won the presidency).
The fiscal deficit in dollar terms in 2014 is the lowest since 2008 and has been cut under President Obama by two-thirds as a share of the economy due to cuts in public spending and the healthcare reform law.
On the stump Democrats don't have to talk about the President since he is not on the ballot but they should run on the Democratic agenda, namely, preserving Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, raising the minimum wage, protecting the environment and providing education and healthcare for all.
The task of convincing the voters is helped by the fact that the other party has not offered any positive alternative plans.
The Democrats' forte is the administrations' record and agenda.
A platform that pushes these issues in addition to explaining why Republican control of the Senate will worsen the gridlock on Capitol Hill and put the progress of the past six years at risk is a better election winner than one that adopts an "independent voice" strategy.
Victor A.
Dixon October 28, 2014