By J. Randolph Evans – The dynamics of the 2010 General Election has everyone guessing about exactly what will happen on November 2, 2010. No one seriously doubts that Republicans will make some gains during the first midterm elections following the election of President Barack Obama. In part, history plays some role here.

Typically, the party out of power in the White House picks up seats in Congress in midterm elections. For example, between 1942 and 1994, the party in power in the White House lost seats in the House of Representatives in every midterm election with some losses in some elections reaching 50 or more seats.

In part, this historical pattern stems from the de facto “nationalization” of Congressional elections. “Nationalization” means that the election is a referendum on something common to all of the country (like the President or war or taxes) rather than being about individuals, personalities, or local issues.

Manage the “nationalized” election right and good things happen – President Clinton managed a 5 Democratic seat pick-up in 1998 and President Bush had an 8 Republican seat pickup in 2002.

Manage the “nationalized” election wrong and really bad things happen. Both Presidents Clinton and Bush proved that the failure to manage national issues leading up to the midterm can be devastating. President Clinton lost Democratic control of the House with a 54 seat loss in 1994; and, President Bush lost Republican control with a 26 seat loss in 2006. The difference is striking.

In reality, it is neither a Republican nor a Democratic thing – it is a change thing. Even President Ronald Reagan endured a 26 seat loss in the House during his first midterm election in 1982.

As a result, Presidents work really hard to localize midterm elections in order to avoid the risks of significant losses. As history proves, the difference between a nationalized midterm election and a localized midterm election can be huge.

So within this historical backdrop, the 2010 election comes with two very different sets of political dynamics at play.

First, to the surprise of political pundits, and the dismay of many conservative Democrats, President Obama has accepted the nationalization of the 2010 midterm elections as a referendum on his first two years in office.

There have been some pointed attempts by the President and the Congress to maneuver toward a “choice election” rather than a referendum election. Notice the many references by President Obama to House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH). The idea is to change the election from being an “up or down” vote on President Barack Obama to a choice between Barack Obama and John Boehner. So far, it is not working.

Indeed, the focus of the 2010 midterm election appears to be narrowing, not expanding. Today, this midterm election has narrowed from a referendum on President Obama’s overall performance to one largely focused on his handling of the economy.

For Democrats, this is not good news and they would know. After all, in 1992 Democrats defeated incumbent President George Bush with one simple but compelling concept – “it’s the economy, stupid.”

In that election, President Bush and his team insisted that the economy was fine. But average Americans knew it was not. Voters had friends who had lost their jobs; family members struggling to make ends meet; and, debts they could not pay.

Neither Presidential assurances of an improving economy nor a “summer of recovery” could alter the reality of the life experiences of average people. That was true in 1992 and it is true in 2010.

As a result, Republicans have high hopes for 2010 as political prognosticators ratchet up the possibilities for Republican gains, including gains large enough to retake control of both the House and the Senate. But, voters – especially conservative voters – have not been so eager for a return of Republican Congresses past. And so, re-energized Reagan conservatives eager to tap into voter frustration have challenged not just Democrats, but also Republicans.

Tea Party candidates have challenged and defeated Republican Party favorites in Republican primaries and caucuses in their bid to stop President Obama and incumbent Democrats. So far, the political casualties for “business as usual” institutional party favorites (of both parties) continue to mount. From Senate races in Alaska, Nevada and Delaware, to gubernatorial elections in Florida, South Carolina, and New York, Tea Party candidates have seized the moment.

All of this has made the 2010 midterm election much more unpredictable. Both the future of President Obama’s presidency AND the ultimate success of the Tea Party Movement (and correspondingly, the Republican Party) are now on the line. Both have passed on the safe bets and upped the ante. It might be a close election, but the real choices are worlds apart.