There has been a strange feel to American politics in the wake of Barack Obama’s landslide last November. The magnitude of his victory, the new demographics it represented, and the moment it seized, all suggested a historic shift in the politics of America. But equally the scale of his ambitions and the immense difficulty of his inheritance — two quagmire wars, a trillion-dollar deficit, a steep and accelerating global recession — made many wonder if the irresistible force was bound to meet several immovable objects before too long. We all love an Icarus storyline; and we’d been waiting for some sort of soft or hard landing for a while.

And so last week’s elections — a small smattering of races across the country — were seized as some kind of insight into what was really going on. Finally, some real data — not polls but votes. Is Obama a liberal Ronald Reagan? Or a one-term blowhard? In today’s hyper-kinetic bloggy politics, we wanted instant results and instant judgments. And so we made them.

Unfortunately, only two races were for federal office, and the rest were gubernatorial races or very specific local initiatives. In the exit polls, voters emphatically stated that they were not voting on Obama. And the one consistent thing that appeared across the country was that incumbents lost — in both parties — and that the awful economy soured voters’ moods, so that they either voted against those in power or not at all.

So why does it seem as if Obama suffered a defeat? It wasn’t a huge surprise that an unpopular and uncharismatic Democratic governor in New Jersey went down. Nor was it a total shock that Virginia returned to the Republican fold. If you had asked most observers in September, they would have predicted as much. But what stung were two things: the low, low turnout of Democrats, and the shift of independents from Democrat to Republican in the voting booth.

To give an idea of the low turnout, in 2008, 3.7m people voted in Virginia; last Tuesday, fewer than 2m did so. The turnout was the lowest in 40 years. The reason was that Democrats mainly stayed home. The Obama base — especially the young and the African-American — was scarce on the ground. That’s not a huge deal a year after the draining and exhilarating election of 2008. But it worries Democrats who have to run in 2010 without Obama up for re-election — especially in the South or marginal seats.

But by far the more troubling trend was the shift of independents to the Republican column. They moved decisively towards the Republican party where only a year ago they had made the difference for Obama. More American voters now call themselves independent than either Democrat or Republican (although the collapse in the Grand Old Party’s numbers surpasses the Democrats by a mile) and so their movement is always worth watching.

The Republicans they backed, more importantly, were not of the hard right, Sarah Palin variety. Both New Jersey governor-elect Chris Christie and Virginia governor-elect Bob McDonnell emphasised local issues such as taxes and transport, rather than abortion or the national health insurance debate. And on these grounds, they won 58% and 63% of the independents respectively.

It’s too much to say that these were anti-Obama votes, especially since the exit polls explicitly showed they weren’t, and Obama’s favourables in both states are above 50%. It is not too much to note that independents are rightly alarmed by the massive debt accrued under George W Bush that has dramatically worsened during the recession under Obama. It’s unfair to blame the president for not cutting spending in the teeth of the downturn, but these voters are worried about the future.

They see deficits soaring long into the millennium and no real way to bring them down again. Obama’s signature current domestic initiative, health insurance reform, moreover, is not supposed to add to the deficit (in fact, the Congressional Budget Office says it will save money), but few believe that, and for good reason. And so this anxiety about debt — which fuelled the independent wave towards the Democrats in the final years of George W Bush — may now head in the opposite direction, if the Republicans can present themselves as an obstacle to bigger and more expensive government.

So this was, in many ways, a classic protest vote in a deeply troubled economic time. If Obama fails to address the fiscal situation as his primary task after health insurance, he risks the Democrats losing a lot of votes in next year’s mid-term elections. But equally, if the Republicans fail to present themselves as an adult party capable of avoiding divisive social issues and bringing back fiscal discipline, this glimmer could be lost for them as well.

That was why the by-election results in New York state and California, the only two federal races, scrambled the storyline of a simple Democratic setback. The Democrats won both — and added two more votes for health insurance reform. In New York, the Republican failure was stark — they lost a safe seat largely because of infighting.

The Republicans know in their bones that fiscal conservatism and fear of excessive government intervention is the way to beat Obama. The trouble is, their own record of fiscal probity is appalling, their more fanatical activists seem as hostile to the GOP establishment as the Democrats are, and the hardcore types that dominate the shrunken base also reflect some ugly racial and paranoid strains that discredit the entire party in the eyes of more moderate and pragmatic independents.

But that’s why, in a way, these mini-elections were good for both sides. They tell the Republicans to move off the social issues, calm their base and focus on spending and debt; and they tell Obama to grapple with the long-term deficit after health insurance reform. But they also warn the Republicans of the excesses of revolt, and Obama that the underlying mood has changed dramatically in a year — under the weight of a crippling recession and government growth.

The populism that accompanies such periods of distress and dislocation, of war and recession, can throw anyone out of office. Such populism can seize moments that can spiral easily out of control. In these emotionally turbulent months, the Obama calm may be as necessary as it feels inadequate to the temper of the time.

www.andrewsullivan.com

Times Recommends

• Strip away the figleaf and reveal naysayers
• Dave’n’George: there may be trouble ahead
• I do not accept that £64,000 a year for politicians is peanuts