The United States goes to the polls this Tuesday, November 3, to decide the future of Congress, but the country’s main newspapers do not fully agree on what issue best defines these midterm elections.
While The New York Times has highlighted citizens’ economic difficulties, USA Today has presented the elections as a referendum on Donald Trump. The Washington Post has focused on political unease and possible congressional investigations against the president, while Los Angeles Times has centered its analysis on the political strength of the president and concerns about the integrity of the electoral process.
The four interpretations, collected by journalist Brian Stelter in his CNN newsletter, make it possible to identify the main issues that have shaped the campaign and the political consequences the outcome may have.
The New York Times: the economy and the cost of living
The New York newspaper has chosen economic concerns as the focus of its election coverage.
Its front page highlights that worries about the economy have intensified during the final stretch of the campaign, when candidates try to convince voters that their proposals will improve their living conditions.
The price of food, housing, and fuel has featured in part of the political debate, especially among citizens who consider the evolution of their purchasing power insufficient.
The newspaper’s attention to these issues reflects the importance that household economics has in elections in which voters not only assess candidates’ proposals for Congress, but also the economic management of the Trump Administration.
USA Today: a referendum on Donald Trump
USA Today has condensed its interpretation of the elections into one idea: the elections have become a referendum on Trump.
Although the president is not among the candidates, the outcome will determine what ability he will have to push his policies during the final two years of his term.
A Democratic victory in either of the chambers would allow the opposition to exercise greater parliamentary control over the White House, while the continuation of Republican majorities would make it easier to process certain initiatives of the Executive.
The reading of USA Today puts the focus on the national dimension of elections that, formally, are contested in hundreds of constituencies.
The Washington Post: electoral discontent and the investigations into Trump
The Washington Post has highlighted in its coverage the dissatisfaction of voters and the possibility that the Democrats could push for congressional investigations into the Administration if they manage to regain control of the House of Representatives.
The newspaper thus links the electoral result with the institutional consequences that a new legislative majority could have.
The House has oversight powers over the Executive, including the possibility of calling appearances, requesting documentation, and promoting investigations through its committees.
The scope of those actions would depend on the parliamentary composition and the decisions that its future leaders adopt.
Los Angeles Times: Trump’s political strength, put to the test
Los Angeles Times has focused its coverage on the president’s ability to maintain his political influence in a context of growing electoral competition.
The outlet has presented the elections as a new test for Trump’s image of strength, while also gathering concerns about possible interference in the count.
This second issue takes on special relevance in the United States, where each state administers its own elections and the final results may take days to be certified.
Concerns about the integrity of the process must be distinguished from irregularities that have been effectively proven. The existence of fears or complaints in itself does not demonstrate an alteration of the scrutiny.