THE loss of the Senate and the Republicans’ increased majority in the House of Representatives has left the Democratic Party in disarray and the presidential ambitions of its leaders in tatters.

Last night Dick Gephardt, 62, the House Minority Leader, was the first to fall on his sword. Aides to the veteran congressman, who has harboured an intense ambition to run for the White House in 2004, said last night that he would be standing down as the Democrat leader in the House. He is expected to announce that decision today.

Democrats have not held the House majority since 1994. Mr Gephardt — who made an unsuccessful attempt to win the party’s presidential nomination in 1988 — was elected their House leader that year and has sought in vain to return it to Democratic control ever since.

It was not clear last night if he still intended to run for the presidency next time, but his hopes of gaining the Democratic nomination must have been all but extinguished after such a disastrous and historic loss of House seats. His colleagues, the liberal Nancy Pelosi, of California, and the more conservative Martin Frost, of Texas, had previously indicated that they would run for party leader if Mr Gephardt chose not to do so, setting up an intriguing battle.

The loss of the Senate has also dealt a terrible blow to the presidential hopes of Tom Daschle, now the outgoing Senate Majority Leader. He was clinging to the hope that Tim Johnson, the incumbent senator in Mr Daschle’s home state of South Dakota, had held off the Republican challenge from John Thune. The South Dakota race was seen as a proxy race between Mr Daschle and President Bush. Last night it had gone to a recount, which may take three weeks. Democrats meet next month to vote on their House and Senate leaders. By then a narrow victory in South Dakota may be too late for Mr Daschle.

He said last night that he would seek re-election as the leader of the Democrats in the Senate.

Both Mr Daschle and Mr Gephardt sought yesterday to blame the Democrats’ woes on the impact of a popular President amid the patriotic fervour of a post-September 11 America. “9/11 was a big factor in this election,” Mr Gephardt said. “It left people in the mood of wanting to support the President.” Mr Daschle said that the War on Terror and possible war in Iraq “precluded us from breaking through with the issues we wanted to talk about: the economy, education, healthcare, the issues that generally resonate for Democrats.”

Analysts also point to ineffectual, passive leadership, which has left the party with no clear policy stances.

Privately, many Democrats are incensed that both men have followed a disastrously cautious and defensive strategy. They accuse the party leadership of being so cowed by the President’s popularity that they have failed to challenge him on any big issues in a craven attempt to safeguard their own presidential ambitions.

“There has been a complete lack of clear vision,” Stephen Hess, of the independent Brookings Institute, said. “People didn’t see any difference between the Democrats and the Republicans on the key issues of tax and Iraq, so there was no impetus to vote for an alternative.”

Neither man, and consequently many House and Senate Democrats, opposed the President on his $1.3 trillion tax-cutting plan.

William Greider, a liberal commentator, said: “This problem is not about left-right ideology, but about the heart and guts to lead. Democrats have to learn the value of fighting and losing, for important ideals and principles.”

Yesterday’s electoral defeat also highlighted the lack of any credible candidates to challenge Mr Bush for the White House in 2004. “The Democrats are in disarray on that,” Carroll Doherty, of the Pew Research Centre, an independent polling organisation, said.

So desperate has the lack of a contender become that yesterday Gary Hart, whose 1988 campaign for the White House collapsed amid questions about his relationship with a model, said that he was considering running in 2004. Mr Hart, a former Colorado senator, said: “If you love the country and are motivated by public service, as I am, it is hard to sit on the sidelines.”

Other possible contenders include the telegenic, first-term North Carolina senator John Edwards, and John Kerry, from Massachusetts.

Al Gore is expected to announce his intention to run again. Seen as a “busted flush” after his defeat by Mr Bush in 2000, he has the advantage of having staked out opposing stances to the President’s on Iraq and the economy.

Democrats also note that in 1991 no clear contender had emerged to challenge another popular George Bush. Eighteen months later an obscure Democratic Governor from Arkansas was President.

Explore World News

• World Agenda

• Iraq News

• US & Americas News

• Europe News

• Middle East News

• Asia News

• Africa News

• Ireland News

Times Recommends

• Rio Tinto four held as China prepares case
• Diplomats must keep heads down and trousers up
• When in Rome should one make like Berlusconi?