It was a very opportune moment to learn not only the US mid-term elections’ structure and nature

but also the factual background of the different communities, sections in terms of their voting
behavior. Prof. Brisciana made an enlightening presentation about the surprising new elements and
faces in the very up to date U.S. mid-term elections. I really would not expect the so-called extreme
sides have a lot in common in the sense of voting behavior. The professor highlighted and presented
an unprecedented diversity in the electorate. She talked about the current situation both in the
congress and the senate such as the diffusion of the members belonging to the Democrats and the
Republicans then continued with the possible effects and consequences after the elections. The
diversity in the electorate was one of the main points which was indeed the most interesting part for
me. She portrayed the voting population by the religious, ethnic, racial and gender factors. The
professor combined these factors with some issues such as healthcare, the economy and tax cuts,
immigration and woman’s rights. To make us familiar to the elections in the U.S., she introduced us
to a number of terms such as “blue wave and red wave”, “bread and butter issues (also called
‘kitchen table issues’)” which is I first heard in this presentation and meaning that concrete problems
faced by ordinary people, especially the middle classes. And “incumbent”, “landslide”, “middle class
and working class” and so on. She mentioned some incidents and cases related to Donald Trump and
his plans for the elections in the background. For instance, the professor emphasized that Donald
Trump used the image of Florida shooting survivor in e-mail asking for donations but the point is here
that a link was put toward the end of the email for the receivers to donate to the campaign.

What about the seats in the House and in the Senate? The professor narrated the number of the
heads from the both sides which is House of Representatives: 237 Republicans (including 2 nonvoting
delegates) and 197 Democrats (including 4 Delegates), and 7 vacant seats. Senate: 51 Republicans, 47
Democrats, and 2 Independents, who both caucus with the Democrats but the point she made here
that the President’s party historically loses seats in a midterm election. And what about the portrait
of the congress? The professor especially here laid emphasis on the diversity that most members
identify as Christians, and other affiliations include Jewish, Muslim, Mormon, Buddhist, Hindu, Greek
Orthodox, Pentecostal Christian, Unitarian, Universalist, and Christian Science. 112 women (a record)
serve: 89 in the House, including 6 Delegates and 23 in the Senate. There are 45 African American
Members of the House and 3 in the Senate. This House number includes 3 Delegates. There are 46
Hispanics or Latinos (a record number) serving: 41 in the House, including 2 Delegates, and 5 in the
Senate. 18 Members are Asian Americans, Indian Americans, or Pacific Islander Americans (13
Representatives, 2 Delegates, and 3 Senators, a record). 2 Native Americans serve in the House. To
be more spesific, the professor drew attention to the things happening for the first time in terms of
diversity. For example, Rashida Tlaib is set to become the first muslim woman elected to U.S.
congress as well as Deb Haaland who is the first native American woman to run for congress.

With regard to voting behavior, the professor brought forward as she mentioned in the beginning
these that are religion, income, ethnicity, race, sex plus geographical location and age bracket. To be
more precise, she urged on farmers; an ease on pesticide rules keep them happy, business interests;
pro-immigration (=cheap labor) but enjoying Democrats’s deregulatory policies, corporate tax cuts
and encouragement of finance of electoral campaigns, the working class; socially-conservative
policies appeal to it, as overall wages seem to be rising. Many adhere to nationalist talk, millennials;
seem disapponted in Democrats. They may be navigating towards minor parties such as Working
Families and the Libertarians. Before the religious factor, the professor also highlighted a new factor
has arisen which is “cultural anxiety” and briefly that nearly two-thirds of the white working class say
American culture has “gotten worse” since the 1950s. And predominately, the professor attracted
some intruguing stats and surprising voting behavior in terms of religious factor. First of all, the
professor put forward that religion is basic to American life (even for the non-practicing). On the one
hand, the one of the most interesting parts for me is that voting patterns between jews and muslims
surprisingly similar. According to surveys, 50% of U.S. Jews and 80% of U.S. Muslims favor a two-state
solution, usually favored by Democrats. And on the other hand, even more surprising and interesting
how did some muslims voted? According to Pew Research, more Muslims voted for Trump than for
Romney in 2012: 74% for Hillary Clinton 13% for Trump, more than the 4.4% who voted for Romney
in 2012. To get into more, the professor presented some American Muslim citizens’ opinions and the
most epic one for me is the speech of Muslim journalist who voted for Trump. Briefly from her
explanation, “…the revelations of multimillion-dollar donations to the Clinton Foundation from Qatar
and Saudi Arabia, the influence of theocratic Muslim dictatorships, killed my support for Clinton. Yes,
I want equal pay…” Finally the professor added apart from these factors, Americans tend to vote
according to whatever demographic group, gender or with which they feel the strongest identity as a
matter of fact and suggested one solution which is a constitutional reform: electoral college reform
(proportionality) and an end to executive decrees.