Deadlocked campaign may still end with a bang rather than a whimper

It all hinges on so little – perhaps eight swing seats in the Senate and two or three dozen genuinely competitive races among the 435 seats in the House of Representatives, which will be decided in these mid-term elections of 2002.

Thus far they might be dubbed the "stealth elections", struggling for attention and lacking a clear theme. They have crept up unnoticed amid a national debate dominated by the crisis over Iraq and renewed alarm over the terrorist threat.

Yet the mid-term elections on 5 November are the closest and least predictable in recent memory. The continuing high approval ratings of a Republican President – due largely, though not entirely, to a national instinct to rally behind a leader in time of war – masks a very different underlying reality.

American politics are split down the middle. The state of the game is not checkmate, but stalemate. The divide is not over economic circumstances, as is usual in politics, but over values. Across the board, America's liberals and conservatives are deadlocked. The mid-20th century was dominated by the Democrats, its later stages by the Republicans. Lately, the Democrats have clawed back the lost ground. The result is a tie.

The parity is apparent everywhere – in the closest presidential election in modern history and the chaotic dead heat in Florida; in the Senate, which split 50/50 in 2000 before a single Republican defection gave a wafer-thin edge to the Democrats; and in a House where Democrats need a gain of just six to wrest back control.

As a result, each of the four possible results is plausible. The Democrats could add the House to the Senate, or capture the House and lose the Senate.

Or the Republicans could regain the Senate and with it total control of Capitol Hill – or they could win back the Senate but surrender the House for the first time since 1994.

Much depends on the wider national debate. If President Bush manages to keep the headlines on Iraq and terrorism, then the Republicans are more likely to prevail. The Democrats must somehow switch the focus to issues that favour them: a faltering economy, soaring healthcare costs, and corporate malpractice.

Thus far they have failed – indeed, one minor mystery of American politics is how little Mr Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney have been damaged by the allegations surrounding their lucrative careers in the oil industry. Less than a decade ago, Bill Clinton was being tormented by daily stories about one obscure land transaction in Arkansas, in which he lost money.

Some changes are certain. For the first time since 1954, Strom Thurmond, whose 100th birthday is in December, will not be contesting a Senate seat from South Carolina.

Another notable departure will be Senator Jesse Helms, that curmudgeonly old conservative and scourge of global do-gooders, who is stepping down in North Carolina after a mere 30 years in the job. The contest to succeed him is probably the blue riband race of campaign 2002 – pitting Elizabeth Dole, wife of the former Republican presidential contender Bob Dole and a near-candidate in her own right in 2000, against Erskine Bowles, Bill Clinton's former White House chief of staff. The odds are good that a Dole will return to the Senate after a six-year absence.

Whatever the outcome, it will influence the presidential election campaign, the effective but unannounced kick-off date for which is 6 November. Between then and the very early months of 2003, the potential Democrat challengers to Mr Bush will have to make up their minds – not only Al Gore, but various eminent Democrats on Capitol Hill who are considering a White House run.

If the Democrats were to tighten their grip on the Senate, it would give Tom Daschle, the majority leader, a head start if he decides to throw his hat in the ring.

Were they to win the House, then Richard Gephardt, the minority leader who ran for the White House in 1988, will surely be tempted (though he might prefer the certainty of the Speakership to a gruelling uphill presidential campaign). But whatever he does, a Democratic sweep would automatically sharpen the profile of the party's other putative candidates.

A Republican triumph would have the opposite effect. With control of Congress and thus of the legislative agenda in the hands of his allies, Mr Bush would be largely able to frame the debate for 2004, boosting his re-election chances.

At this stage, with more than a fortnight still to go, the odds favour the Republicans. No longer do Democrats talk as they did in the summer, of picking up 20 or 30 seats by riding a wave of national outrage over accounting scandals, greedy CEOs, collapsing stock markets and shrinking pension plans. The smart money now says the Republicans will pick up a few House seats, and have at least an even shot of regaining the Senate. If so, they would buck a trend that held through most of the previous half-century, that the party which holds the White House loses ground in the mid-term votes.

But Las Vegas bookmakers should not pay out yet. In the mid-term elections of 1994, where the Republicans picked up a stunning 52 seats and Newt Gingrich was catapulted to fame, the impending landslide was not apparent until late in the day. The whimpering 2002 campaign could yet end with a similar bang.

Key points: What's at stake?

Why are the elections important?

Quite simply, everything is up for grabs and anything is possible. The Democrats could win the House yet lose the Senate. The Republicans could hold the House and win the Senate. The Republicans could even lose both houses. In addition 36 of the 50 states' Governorships are being contested.

What are the key issues?

In the national campaign, the Democrats are desperately trying to focus on the economy. The Republicans are trying to keep everyone looking at the war on terror and the purported threat of Iraq. At a local level there are all manner of issues: in Nevada, for instance, a planned nuclear waste dump features in campaigns.

Are the elections a pointer to the Presidential election of 2004?

Yes and no. Polls show George Bush still scores highly on personal performance. Traditionally, the incumbent loses some ground in the mid-terms.

Can we expect more farce, as seen in Florida during the Bush/Gore fight?

There already has been a repeat of such scenes – during the vote-off between Democrats Bill McBride and Janet Reno. In short, you can count on it.