The results of the United States House and Senate midterm elections on November 4, 2014 were a major setback for President Barack Obama. With his job approval ratings hovering at around 40 per cent, the President’s Democratic Party paid the price for his unpopular domestic policies at the polls.

The Democrats lost the US Senate to the Republican Party – having lost the House in 2010. The opposition also managed to gain additional seats in the House making theirs the strongest majority in the US Congress since World War II.

The press has – perhaps a bit prematurely – started to throw around terms like a ‘lame duck’ President. It implies that with no political motivation and limited political capital, President Obama will retrieve into a shell for his last two years in office.

For some historical perspective, two-term presidents often see their party lose seats in the Senate and the House after six years in the White House.

Dwight D. Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush had it no different.

Factors at the polls

So, what might have been some of the major reasons for his party’s undoing?

Firstly, a key factor was the much needed – yet much maligned – Affordable Care Act, commonly referred to as "Obamacare."

Where, on the one hand, Obamacare made healthcare more accessible for many Americans who previously could not afford or qualify for it, on the other, the legislation ended up making health insurance premiums more expensive for many other families. Those who benefited, did not show up to the polls to vote in as many numbers as those who felt the pinch in their wallets.

Secondly, many Americans are apprehensive about the influx of illegal immigrants into the US from the south of the border i.e. Mexico and Latin America.

And lastly, a more organised and energised Republican Party showed up this election season.

Obama’s opposition put up more moderate candidates who ran on a more pragmatic platform than the last time. African-Americans, Hispanic Americans, single women, and the young voters – the base that helped Obama win two years ago – do not traditionally show up as much during the mid-term elections.

To be sure, President Obama has presided over a six-year economic recovery after inheriting the worst recession in the US history since the great depression. Unemployment rate in the US is way down; the dollar has gained in strength; and the stock market is at an all time high.

Gasoline prices at the pump and America’s reliance on Saudi oil are at its lowest in years – thanks to record oil drilling on American shores. None of his economic successes, however, could help his party at the polls.

Traditionally in American politics, the President holds enormous sway on foreign affairs. If he finds his domestic agenda facing a challenge in opposition controlled Congress, would Obama choose to burnish his legacy on the international stage?

A reluctant warrior

On the international front, President Obama has come across as a reluctant warrior, in comparison to Bush. Obama ended two wars – in Iraq and Afghanistan – and avoided starting two more – against Iran and Syria.

Obama has resisted calls for strikes against Syria and Iran, despite influence by long time American allies in the region: Saudi Arabia and Israel.

The withdrawal of forces and aversion to war in the Middle East is in stark contrast to past experience in the region with the American military.

Many of Obama’s opponents have been against the full withdrawal of military forces from Iraq or Afghanistan. South Korea, Japan, and Germany are examples where the American forces are still in place since arriving 50 years ago.

Obama’s calculated approach to international conflicts has protected American interests and saved American treasury far more than the adventurism exhibited by his predecessor, President George W. Bush.

Working with willing partners in the region rather than landing boots on the ground; fighting terrorism with counter-intelligence rather than conventional warfare; and pursuing US self-interest – even when at odds with its closest allies in the region – have been some of the hallmarks of his approach.

A changing face of International conflict

Militancy in the Middle East is very different today from when Obama took office six years ago. Both in its organisation and its leadership, it operates under different objectives.

Not too long ago, asymmetric warfare was all the rage in the Middle East. But the recent rise of ISIS militancy over that of al Qaeda demonstrates a changing calculus on part of the militants.

The extremist forces in the Middle East have realised that the pay-off from asymmetric warfare pales in comparison to rewards likely from conquering land. It’s a separate matter that controlling land, like the Taliban did in Afghanistan, makes them easier targets for regime change from external forces.

The turn around in the militant mindset, nonetheless, can in no small measure be attributed to a war of attrition waged against the extremists that has reduced the al Qaeda threat over the last several years.

Judged by history

International challenges facing the US President during his last two years in office are steeper still. Across from him, Obama faces numerous heads of states that are no more enamored by him than his opposition back home.

History will judge him on how he deals with the ISIS, helps solve the Ukraine crisis, and furthers the two-state solution for the Palestinians in the Middle East. If he can resolve even one of those, he’d probably leave office with a passing grade.

In the long view, the challenges that America faces abroad present far greater stakes than those at home. If he is unable to find his feet overseas, then Obama’s image will be forever tarnished.

You could only hope that the recent drubbing at the midterm polls has offered the US President a reason to pause and take stock.

The risks to his legacy couldn't be higher.