The shattering of hope

The figures speak for themselves and show a big dent in two areas of traditional support for the Democrats: 57% of those over the age of 65 - representing 22% of all voters - supported the ­Republicans, and 64% of non-white college ­graduates voted Republican. These are worrying swings for a Democratic party which considers itself to be the model of moderation. As one of their senators put it as the results came in, this was "a real ass-whupping".

On the wider electoral front, Democrats lost seats in West Virginia, Montana, South Dakota, Arkansas, Colorado, Iowa and North Carolina, whereas Republicans held on to all the seats they were defending, including two closely run races in Georgia and Kansas. This led the Republicans to win their first majority in Washington DC since 2006.

Obama is not the first president to suffer a mid-term defeat in his second term in office, but he is the first to be so publicly rebuked not just by the voters but also by his own supporters. Several ­leading Democrat contenders refused his offers of support or endorsement for fear of damaging their own chances. This was very much a personal slap in the face from the people of the US, who showed very clearly that they had fallen out of love with their president's liberal policies such as free medical care. It leaves him in a parlous position as a lame-duck president who can only rule in a negative way by ­vetoing Republican measures - hardly a recipe for sound governance.

It also puts the president in a lonely place, rejected by his party and supporters and facing a hard slog to achieve a working relationship with the Republicans - who have already made it clear they are uninterested in making compromises or cutting deals to make things work. As Obama came to terms with his predicament on Friday, he attempted to make light of the situation, saying he was "anxious to get back to work" and claiming that he regarded his final period in office as "the fourth quarter", but this was just an attempt to put on a brave face.

In public, the White House team remains bullish, with vice-­president Joe Biden maintaining that "we're ready to compromise", but the reality is that the Republicans have no intention of supporting any legislation which smacks too much of Democratic political ideology. That means there is very little chance of getting the president's signature on anything considered to be too liberal or contentious, such as immigration reform, one of Obama's long-term aims.

In a TV interview, David Gergen, a former adviser to presidents Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, said: "What the Republicans are very likely to do is to go in two directions at once.

"On the one hand, they'll try and look as if they were co-­operative with the president. On the other hand, they are going to play hardball."

Leading the charge for the Republicans will be Mitch McConnell, who is expected to emerge as Majority Leader of the Senate, having run his campaign in Kentucky on maintaining the coal industry and supporting the right to own guns. Both are popular measures in Kentucky. He also made much of the fact that he was opposed to the concept of "big government" and believed that Obama's centralist tendencies had to be opposed for the good of the US. It was clearly a popular message and one which leaves him as the main man in the Republican camp.

A softly spoken politician whose demeanour masks a steely personality, McConnell is nobody's fool. Not only does he have to find a way of working with Obama and senior Democrats, but he also has to placate those on his party's right who have shown over the past two years that they are masters at prevarication and stalling, even if the result is gridlock. In the aftermath of the election, the signs were hopeful as McConnell pointed out that the situation was not unique, with previous presidents such as Clinton and Reagan having to work out compromise deals with the opposition.

"We'll see whether we can work with the president. I hope so," McConnell said. "We're going to pass legislation. Some of it he may not like, but this gridlock and ­dysfunction can be ended."

One of the main areas in which agreement might be reached is in the field of US foreign policy, where the Republicans have traditionally been hawkish and largely supportive of US initiatives which involve the country's security. For example, they backed Obama's decision to begin airstrikes in Iraq and Syria against the forces of the Islamic State (IS). McConnell has already let it be known that he is willing to promote further debate in the Senate on the issue at the earliest opportunity.

If so, it will probably allow Republicans to argue that too little has been done too late and that as a result IS has gained a foothold in the Middle East which will be difficult to dislodge. There is also a growing feeling that the moment might, in fact, have already passed and the US now has no option but to consider increasing the number of special forces on the ground and upping the number of training missions. Any change of policy, though, will depend on pushing through a new way of dealing with Syrian president Bashar al-Assad and supporting the forces that oppose him in the country's long-running civil war.

None of this will happen in isolation and much will depend on the powerful specialist committees which deal with foreign policy in the Senate and the attitudes of those who chair them. The most important of these will be Senator John McCain, who is expected to be given control of the Armed Forces Committee of which he has been a long-term member. A Navy veteran and critic of Obama's Middle East policy - he argued for a more aggressive policy against IS - his voice carries weight and it helps that he enjoys a healthy relationship with defence secretary Chuck Hagel.

On the equally important Foreign Relations Committee, the chairmanship will go to Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee, another critic of Obama's foreign policy. He has been vociferous about what he regards as an overly timid policy in the Middle East and weak handling of the threat from IS. He has also had harsh words to say about Obama's refusal to stand up to president Vladimir Putin of Russia.

The third of the foreign policy committees is the Intelligence Committee, which will probably go to Senator Robert Burr of North Carolina, another critic of the president keen to address the problem of IS attracting foreign fighters to its ranks. On the foreign affairs front at least, it promises to be a lively time.