Midterm elections - history lesson - reality check

Tarnsman

[Tarnsman]

Time for a history lesson. The media, the Democrats and some Freebers want you to believe that somehow this election was different. No, the losses the GOP suffered WERE to be expected. Let us review, shall we?

President		Mid-term		Senate		House
Grant (R)		1870		-4		-31
Grant (R)		1874		-8		-96
Hayes (R)		1878		-6		-9
Arthur (R)		1882		+3		-33
Cleveland (D)		1886		+3		-12
Harrison (R)		1890		0		-85
Cleveland (D)		1894		-5		-116
McKinley (R)		1898		+7		-21
TR (R)		1902		+2		+9
TR (R)		1906		+3		-28
Taft (R)		1910		-10		-57
Wilson (D)		1914		+5		-59
Wilson (D)		1918		-6		-19
Harding (R)		1922		-8		-75
Coolidge (R)		1926		-6		-10
Hoover (R)		1930		-8		-49
FDR (D)		1934		+10		+9
FDR (D)		1938		-6		-71
FDR (D)		1942		-9		-45
Truman (D)		1946		-12		-55
Truman (D)		1950		-6		-59
Ike (R)		1954		-1		-18
Ike (R)		1958		-13		-48
JFK (D)		1962		+3		-4
LBJ (D)		1966		-4		-47
Nixon (R)		1970		+2		-12
Nixon (R)		1974		-5		-48
Carter (D)		1978		-3		-15
Reagan (R)		1982		+1		-26
Reagan (R)		1986		-8		-5
Bush '41 (R)		1990		-1		-8
Clinton (D)		1994		-9		-54
Clinton (D)		1998		0		+4
Bush '43 (R)		2002		+2		0
Bush '43 (R)		2006		-6		-28

(1) With only four exceptions, EVERY single President since Lincoln has lost seats in the House in the midterm elections. The only ones to buck the trend were the Roosevelts (TR because he was the mostly popular President EVER his first term, FDR because of the Depression), Clinton (because of Republican miscues during the Impeachment) and Bush '43 (because of 9/11). GW was bound to lose this one.

(2) Midterm years in bold are the dreaded "six year itch". I have marked 1966 as one in that LBJ was finishing out what would have been JFK's second term. GW is his sixth year. Losses in the midterm were almost certain.

(3) Wilson (1918), FDR (1942), Truman (1950) and LBJ (1966) all lost seats both in the House and Senate when the country was at war. McKinley (1898) gained Senate seats, but lost seats in the House. Guess the country had mixed feelings about thumping Spain. Bush '41 can also be considered in this group as the country was gearing up for Gulf War I. Another category that GW fits into

(4) In terms of serious setbacks in the midterms this one doesn’t even come close. 1894 ranks as the all-time thumping with an astounding 116 House seats and 5 Senate seats changing hands. 1994, 1974, 1966, 1958 (I thought everyone liked Ike), 1938 (so much for the New Deal being popular), 1946, 1930 or 1874 were much, much worse. So counting our blessings is in order.

(5) Voters don't like scandals and take it out on the party in power. Midterm years underlined are considered scandal midterms. 1994 is in the list due to the number of scandals in Congress plus the Clintons were hip deep in scandals as well. Foley, et al doomed the Republicans at the start.

(6) Voters don't like excess spending. The thumping the Republicans received in 1890 was a voter rebellion against the "Billion Dollar Congress". The same can be said about FDR's spanking in 1938 (New Deal overreach) and Clinton's in 1994 (attempted takeover of the health care system). With bridges to nowhere is it any wonder the GOP lost seats?

(7)The historical average is a loss of 3 Senate seats and 34 House seats for the President's party in the midterms. For the "six year curse" the averge is 6 Senate seats and 39 House seats. The 2006 losses fit the historical norms.

Given the political history of our nation and add in the fact that most of the races were decided by very thin margins all the hand wringing is unjustified. Time to dust off the jeans and get back into the fight. This little history lesson should remind you that in our Republic the political fortunes of the parties ebb and flow. So the next time a liberal gloats in your face, remind him or her that this wasn't 1994, 1946 or 1938 and it sure as heck wasn't 1894.

[fortheDeclaration]

The Democrats got on the 'right' of a number of races and that was what made them successful.

The race that was suppose to represent America's desire to end the war in Iraq, with the far left Democrat winning the primary over the hawkish Liberman.

Somehow, Liberman's victory as an independent in a liberal state is going unnoticed by the WSM.

Had the Democrat won, it would have been labeled a great anti-war victory.

Bush is going to continue to do what he regards as his ultimate responsiblity protecting this nation.

To think otherwise is to do a great disservice to him.

He has not forgotten 9/11, and this election is not going to change that.

[LS]

I do not think he will waver from what he sees as his primary mission. That's why he booted Rummy, not because Rummy wasn't right or hadn't done his job, but because the Dems would focus on Rummy and hearings rather than having to deal with Iraq, which they will have to do now.

[ZULU]

This makes me feel better.

Send it to the White House.

NOW is the time for the Administration to show some guts with the Bolshevik Democrats when they try ramming through their agendas.

Unfortunately they still control the committees and they CAN cut off funds for the war effort if they really want to - but that might be political suicide if the Repubs surprise us and handle it properly.

[fortheDeclaration]

I do not think he will waver from what he sees as his primary mission. That's why he booted Rummy, not because Rummy wasn't right or hadn't done his job, but because the Dems would focus on Rummy and hearings rather than having to deal with Iraq, which they will have to do now.

I agree, so if the Democrats want to have a fight, they are going to get one.

Moreover, with Liberman in the Senate, we will have the upper hand regarding the war issue.

If the House pushes too hard, Liberman may caucus with us and give us back the majority.

[kabar]

It's important, however, to remember that politics usually, like most football games, is a game of "inches." The Senate was nearly held by a few thousand votes; and a shift of maybe 30,000 votes might have changed the house outcome.

It is about winning and losing and not the margin of victory. A few hundred votes in Florida decided the 2000 election. Those seats lost in the Senate will stay lost for another 6 years at least. You can't create the same conditions and circumstances in each election, which stands by itself. In 2008, we will have different players in the Senate races and a Presidential election. Incumbents have an inherent advantage, which is why it is so difficult to defeat them.

My sports analogy on this is that we were on the one yard line about to score, up 20-0, just before the half, and threw an interception that was run back for a TD, and now the other team thinks they have the momentum and all the advantages, and we, on the other hand, missed n opportunity to crush them.

A better one may be that we lost this regular season game and hope to beat them in the rematch. My point is that something very historic just happened. An incumbent President just lost both houses of Congress in a midterm. It only happened in 1946, 1994, and 2006 as best as I can determine. I find explanations that this is just part of the political cycle to be pollyanish and way off base. I guess I am old enough to remember when the Dems controlled Congress and the Reps were just bystanders when it came to making decisions. Internal Dem politics, the solid, conservative Southern Dems battling the liberal Dems, were what counted in a country that was essentially one party when there was a Dem President. The Reps were happy when a few crumbs were tossed their way.

We have lost some hard earned gains and squandered a real opportunity to cement our power base. It was hubris and a lack of cojones to use our power to achieve what we were sent to Congress for. We also lost two of our brightest starts, Santorum and Allen, who have all but been destroyed as a political force in the future. It was a very costly election.

[LS]

Don't count on Lieberman for anything. He will vote with the Dems on all important issues. He will vote with us when it won't matter.

[fortheDeclaration]

Don't count on Lieberman for anything. He will vote with the Dems on all important issues. He will vote with us when it won't matter.

No, regarding the WOT, Liberman is solid.

He even bucked his own Party on it.

He ran as an Hawk on the war and won.

I have no illusions about Liberman on other issues, but on defense issues regarding WOT, he is going to stand with the President.

The Democrats are not going to get anti-war legislation past in the Senate.

[LS]

I'm not minimizing it. But the closeness suggests that had we done things a little differently, we would be looking at a severe collapse of the Dems. And I'm not "Pollyannish." Quite the contrary, when I was predicting we would GAIN seats, my view was that ANYTHING short of gains would mean to the drive-by media that we had "lost." Spin is everything.

29-30 seats in the House, whatever we lost, is a lot, but it's no different than if we'd lost the House by 2-3 as far as the media is concerned. And in the Senate, even 1-2 losses probably would have meant we couldn't get our judges because of weaklings like Graham, Snowe, etc.

[kabar]

I'm not minimizing it. But the closeness suggests that had we done things a little differently, we would be looking at a severe collapse of the Dems.

Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. It is a loser's mentality to be consoled by the closeness of the loss or to speculate if only we could have made some slight corrections. Winning isn't everything, it is the only thing. The Dems used to use the same reasoning when they lost. They saw victory in defeat. To use your football analogy, the field goal try to win the game that went wide right spells defeat, whether by a few inches or a few feet.

And I'm not "Pollyannish." Quite the contrary, when I was predicting we would GAIN seats, my view was that ANYTHING short of gains would mean to the drive-by media that we had "lost." Spin is everything.

I read your predictions. Very logical and hopeful, but very wrong. Regardless of how the MSM spins it, the reality of who controls Congress matters much more. I could care less if the MSM spun a few losses on our side as a defeat as long as we controlled Congress or at least one house.

29-30 seats in the House, whatever we lost, is a lot, but it's no different than if we'd lost the House by 2-3 as far as the media is concerned. And in the Senate, even 1-2 losses probably would have meant we couldn't get our judges because of weaklings like Graham, Snowe, etc.

You are confusing how the media reports an event with reality. The media cannot change reality. If we had only lost the House by 2-3 seats, would it really matter in terms of the operation of Congress how it was reported. The media can have its own opinion, but it can't have its own facts.

[LS]

Actually, close does count, and proper analysis of elections is critical---it certainly is NOT "loser's mentality." That's crap.

In 1856, for example, the Republicans found that they had lost a very, very close election. And yes, they made some very slight corrections, identified only four states they needed to capture in 1860, and directed all their energies to those four, which they won, along with the presidency.

It would be a mistake to assume this was some monumental loss, or that the turnout model doesn't work---it can, it just didn't work well this time.

There are plenty of lessons to learn, but firing the coach, the quarterback, and the entire defensive line isn't one of them.

[kabar]

Actually, close does count, and proper analysis of elections is critical---it certainly is NOT "loser's mentality." That's crap.

I am not discounting analysis and learning from defeat. My point, in the context of this thread, was not to accept this defeat as part of the normal, historical political cycle. Any real analysis will show that this was an historic defeat rare in recent American political history. We lost control of both Houses of Congress in a mid-term, no matter how close some of the key races were.

It would be a mistake to assume this was some monumental loss, or that the turnout model doesn't work---it can, it just didn't work well this time.

There is where we disagree. It was a monumental loss and could prove to be a critical turning point in the political balance of this country in much the same way that 1994. A lot will depend on how the Dems consolidate their gains and what the Reps do about it. No incumbent Dem lost.

There are plenty of lessons to learn, but firing the coach, the quarterback, and the entire defensive line isn't one of them.

I certainly haven't suggested that. The Reps need to do some real soul searching about what we stand for as a party and the need more unity on key issues. We don't have the luxury of being in the majority any longer. I see key issues like comprehensive immigration reform being a divisive issue within the party damaging our future chances of regaining the majority.

The Dems are going to be on their best behavior initially preaching a bipartisan approach to problems and hoping to achieve a record of accomplishment for 2008. They want to show the public what a difference a Dem controlled Congress can make in getting things done. I hope we can respond to the challenge and not put nails in our own coffin.

[LS]

"The Dems are going to be on their best behavior initially preaching a bipartisan approach"

Let's hope not. Let's hope they fully reveal themselves. I think one of the lessons of 1994 is that Newt and the boys tried to go a little too fast---all of which, in principle, I supported, but not the timing.

On issues like spending and immigraion reform, especially in the Senate, a mobilized minority can actually outperform a "big-tent," undisciplined majority. This was the lesson the Dems taught us over the last six years---that by hanging together, they could thwart much.

Now, I fully appreciate the danger. In the worst case, they will consolidate properly, gerrymander when they can, name new, young Dems to replace those senators who die in office, block Bush's judges, and so on.

At some point, however, both parties are going to have to confront the twin evils of Islamofascist terrorists and illegals, and those will fuse together sooner rather than later. Whichever one fails to address these will be left holding the bag, just as the Republicans were in 1929.

[Tarnsman]

Correction: 2002 saw a +6 seat gain in the House for the Republicans.

Here is what one prognosticator was saying back in June
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/article.php?id=LJS2006060101

To Kabar

"What we just witnessed in 2006 is historic."

Oh, please. Unlike the examples you cite, the Republicans had a thin majority in the House with no "margin of error". They needed to run a flawless campaign and have favorite circumstances, neither of which they had. All the Dems had to do was run some candidates that "looked and talked" like Conservatives and rely on historical trends to win back the House. It is too early to tell if this election is a realignment. 2008 and 2010 will tell that. As far as the Senate goes, it has been a ping pong ball between the parties since 1980. The six seat loss is nothing unusual. Also the margin of victory in three of those six were razor thin. Swing of a couple thousand votes in one of those races and Republicans retain control.

Now to some of your examples.

1938
When Republicans and Democrats faced off for the 1938 midterm elections, it had been a decade since Republicans had done well in congressional elections. They had lost seats in both houses of Congress in 1930, 1932, 1934, and 1936, bringing their totals to a mere 88 in the House and 16 in the Senate. In the wake of Franklin Roosevelt's landslide reelection victory in 1936, it was an open question whether the Republican Party was capable of serving as a viable opposition party.

As FDR began his second term, his program was hardly complete. He aimed for a "Third New Deal" of further government economic controls and redistributionism, and seemed to have the votes in Congress to push it through.

Altogether, while there were few signs that Americans were ready to thoroughly repudiate Roosevelt or the New Deal, there were many signs that they were ready to rein the president in. An August 1938 Gallup poll showed that 66 percent of Americans wanted FDR to pursue more conservative policies.

When the election results were in, Democrats had lost six Senate seats and 71 House seats in what former Roosevelt advisor Raymond Moley called "a comeback of astounding proportions." Republicans nearly matched the Democratic national House vote total, 47 percent to 48.6 percent; if one takes into account overwhelming Democratic predominance in the one-party South, the GOP clearly led the House vote in the rest of the country. Democrats also lost a dozen governorships, including such crucial states as Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. (Sound familiar?)

Furthermore, Democratic losses were concentrated among pro-New Deal Democrats. Once the dust had settled, the Senate was about evenly divided between pro- and anti-New Deal forces, and the "conservative coalition" of Republicans and conservative Democrats was also solidified in the House, and started any given issue within range of victory. As political scientist David Mayhew has observed, the conservative coalition proceeded to dominate Congress for the next twenty years, until the election of 1958.

Political correspondent Arthur Krock held that "the New Deal has been halted; the Republican party is large enough for effective opposition; the moderate Democrats in Congress can guide legislation." In addition, "the country is back on a two-party system… and legislative authority has been restored to Congress." Republican spirits were revived, and the momentum of the New Deal halted.

The result in Congress was not a wholesale reversal of the New Deal but a stalemate in which Roosevelt was unable to make significant new departures, and indeed found himself in a defensive posture vis-à-vis Congress for the first time since assuming office. Congressional investigations began to embarrass the administration; Congress passed the Hatch Act (limiting political activity by federal employees) and Smith Act (cracking down on internal subversion) over FDR’s objections. For his part, Roosevelt offered no major new reform proposals in 1939 for the first time in his presidency.

If it makes sense to consider the 1930 midterm as the leading edge of the New Deal policy era, the midterm elections of 1938 clearly served as the endpoint of that era. Roosevelt was not rejected as Hoover had been—indeed he went on to win the next two presidential elections. But he never again dominated American domestic politics in the same way as before.

Andrew E. Busch, Professor of Government at Claremont McKenna College and an Adjunct Fellow of the Ashbrook Center.

1958
Quoting Professor Busch again, "the conservative coalition proceeded to dominate Congress for the next twenty years, until the election of 1958."

1974
The losses in this midterm sealed Nixon's fate by giving the Democrats a veto proof majority and leaving him with no allies in Congress. This election saw the election of the "Watergate babies":

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont)
Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Connecticut) elected first to the House
Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) elected first to the House
Sen. Max Baucus (D-Montana) elected first to the House
Rep. George Miller (D-California)
Rep. Henry Waxman (D-California)
Rep. James Oberstar (D-Minnesota)
Rep. John Murtha (D-Pennsylvania)

1986
You fail to note that the 8 seat loss in the Senate cost the Republicans control. Without Reagan's campaigning the losses in the House probably would be been worse. With the loss of the Senate, Reagan was forced to throttle back on any planned domestic programs in his last two years.

1998
This election I am sure will be regarded like 1938 in that it spelled the end of the Contract with America. Instead of gains, the Republicans lost seats, a dynamic Speaker and their way.

[kabar]

On issues like spending and immigraion reform, especially in the Senate, a mobilized minority can actually outperform a "big-tent," undisciplined majority. This was the lesson the Dems taught us over the last six years---that by hanging together, they could thwart much.

In the Senate the Reps voted AGAINST the immigration bill 32-23. I wonder what the Senate Reps will do in 2007. Will they muster to 40 votes to prevent cloture on key issues or will another gang of 14 emerge? Will the Reps have the same gritty determination as the Dems did to block legislation or will they be afraid to do so and be labelled obstructionists? We shall see.

At some point, however, both parties are going to have to confront the twin evils of Islamofascist terrorists and illegals, and those will fuse together sooner rather than later. Whichever one fails to address these will be left holding the bag, just as the Republicans were in 1929.

You left out reform of the entitlement programs. Starting in 2008, the SS "surplus" starts declining meaning less revenue and by 2017, we will be paying out more than we are taking in. I hope the Reps hold firm and not arrive at another 1983 type solution for SS that just perpetuated an unsustainable system for a few more years. Medicare is in worse shape. The Dems hold on power is maintaining and increasing the people's dependence on government. They will resist any solutions that involve giving people more control. It is HOW these issues are addressed tht is important and not just coming up window dressing like Simpson-Mazzoli. Spin only goes so far and then it is either believe the politicians or your own lying eyes.

[LS]

Kyl has already said he thinks he can filibuster on immigration.

Like I say, the quickest route to fame and success as a person in the minority is to stand out by blocking the majority.

[wjcsux]

Thanks for the post. When the Pubbies took a beating during Reagan 1 (1982), he NEVER lost sight of his agenda, and what was good for the country. There is a lesson to be learned here.

[txhurl]

BTTT

[kabar]

Kyl is a good man and since he was just reelected, the perfect person to take on the Dems.

[kabar]

"What we just witnessed in 2006 is historic."

Aside from 1946 and 1994, can you cite another instance in the past 80 years when the party of a Presidential incumbent lost control of both houses of Congress in a midterm? Of course it is historic. Denial just ain't a river in Egypt.

Oh, please. Unlike the examples you cite, the Republicans had a thin majority in the House with no "margin of error". They needed to run a flawless campaign and have favorite circumstances, neither of which they had. All the Dems had to do was run some candidates that "looked and talked" like Conservatives and rely on historical trends to win back the House. It is too early to tell if this election is a realignment. 2008 and 2010 will tell that.

Whatever the reason, the Reps lost and they lost not only in Congress but in governorships and state legislatures. No Dem incumbent was defeated. You can prattle on and on about how slim the majorities of the victories were, but the results remain the same. Bush won by a couple of hundred votes in FLA, but the results of that victory changed the face of the government. The Reps have had a thin margin in the House ever since they took over in 1994 after 40 straight years of Dem control.

We will have to see how long it will take the Reps to regain the House. It took the Dems 12 years to regain it. The Dems now have the power of incumbency and can set the agenda. We are deluding ourselves if we believe that we can retake the House in two to four years. We will have a hard time holding on to what we have. The Dems think they have found the secret, i.e., run as moderate Dems with conservative values in GOP leaning districts.

As far as the Senate goes, it has been a ping pong ball between the parties since 1980. The six seat loss is nothing unusual. Also the margin of victory in three of those six were razor thin. Swing of a couple thousand votes in one of those races and Republicans retain control.

Since 1987, the Dems have controlled the Senate 10 out of the 20 years, with biggest margin being 14 compared to the Reps 10 not counting Jeffords who switched to Independent but caucused with the Dems. In 2006, the Dems gained six and lost no incumbent. A lot depends on who is up for both parties in 2008 and 2010 and who is considered vulnerable. Again, rehashing the victory margins in the Senate is irrelevant. Those seats won't come open for another six years.

1938--If it makes sense to consider the 1930 midterm as the leading edge of the New Deal policy era, the midterm elections of 1938 clearly served as the endpoint of that era. Roosevelt was not rejected as Hoover had been—indeed he went on to win the next two presidential elections. But he never again dominated American domestic politics in the same way as before.

I guess it is all relevant. The 76th Congress [1939-41]had 69 Dem, 23 Rep and 4 other in the Senate and 262 Dem-169 Rep and 4 others in the House. That is quite an operating margin by anyone's standards. The 77th Congress [1941-43] had 66 Dems, 28 Reps, and 2 other. There were 267 Dems, 162 Reps, and 6 others in the House. The 78th Congress [1943-45] had 57 Dems, 38 Reps, 1 other and the House, 222 Dems, 209 Reps and 4 other. Finally the 79th Congress [1945-47] had 57 Dems, 38 Reps, and 1 other and the House had 243 Dems, 190 Reps, and 1 other. Roosevelt and the Dems may not have been as dominant as they were in the 75th Congress [1937-39] where they held the Senate with 75 Dems, 17 Reps and 4 others and in the House 333 Dems, 89 Reps, and 13 other, but compared to what. No party could expect to hold that kind of dominance.

Quoting Professor Busch again, "the conservative coalition proceeded to dominate Congress for the next twenty years, until the election of 1958."

The Conservative coaltion consisted of Dems and Reps, but during the period 1939 to 1959 [thru the 85th Congress] the Dems held the House and Senate for 16 of the 20 years. This translates into real power when it comes to running committees, approving budgets, and setting the agenda. The Dems were in control 80% of the time.

You fail to note that the 8 seat loss in the Senate cost the Republicans control. Without Reagan's campaigning the losses in the House probably would be been worse. With the loss of the Senate, Reagan was forced to throttle back on any planned domestic programs in his last two years.

I was dealing only with midterms and not Presidential years. What really makes 2006 historic is that this change occurred during a midterm election.

The bottom line is that what happened in 2006 is rare and unusual. We will see if it presages another Dem era similar or perhaps longer than what happened with the Reps in 1994. The Dems have a number of things going for them in terms of demographics. With one in every three Dems being black or Hispanic and the fact that the minority population is growing faster than the population at large, there could be a significant shift to the Dems spilling over into the Rep suburban districts. The House will be much harder to regain than the Senate.

[Tarnsman]

Before claiming that this midterm is something more than it really was you might want to take a look at the following:

	HOUSE
Republican		1861	to	1875		14 years
Democrat		1875	to	1881		6 years
Republican		1881	to	1883		2 years
Democrat		1883	to	1889		6 years
Republican		1889	to	1891		2 years
Democrat		1891	to	1895		4 years
Republican		1895	to	1911		16 years
Democrat		1911	to	1919		8 years
Republican		1919	to	1931		12 years
Democrat		1931	to	1947		16 years
Republican		1947	to	1949		2 years
Democrat		1949	to	1953		4 years
Republican		1953	to	1955		2 years
Democrat		1955	to	1995		40 years
Republican		1995	to	2007		12 years
	SENATE
Republican		1861	to	1879		18 years
Democrat		1879	to	1881		2 years
Republican		1881	to	1893		12 years
Democrat		1893	to	1895		2 years
Republican		1895	to	1913		18 years
Democrat		1913	to	1919		6 years
Republican		1919	to	1933		14 years
Democrat		1933	to	1947		14 years
Republican		1947	to	1949		2 years
Democrat		1949	to	1953		4 years
Republican		1953	to	1955		2 years
Democrat		1955	to	1981		26 years
Republican		1981	to	1987		6 years
Democrat		1987	to	1995		8 years
Republican		1995	to	2001		6 years
Democrat		2001	to	2003		2 years
Republican		2003	to	2007		4 years

Since 1860 the numbers work out to the Democrats controlling the House 58% of the time, and the Republicans controlling the Senate 56% of the time. If anything the tables shows that the political fortunes of the parties are fairly evenly matched and that the long control by the Democrats of the House and Senate was an aberration. It is highly likely that we are in for a period like the 1870's to 1890's in which control of the House flipped back and forth between the parties. The Senate, as I posted before, has been a ping pong ball since the 1980 election and will likely remain so. 2008 favors the Democrats in both the Senate and House, right now. There are the unforseen wild cards which could sway the election in either direction. You cite black and Hispanic support for the Democrats, but blacks are increasing becoming unhappy with the Democrats and feel neglected and taken for granted. Hispanics, while voting in large numbers for Democrats, are not the bloc the blacks are. In fact, the better economically the Hispanics are the more they tend to vote Republican. Meanwhile, white males vote overwhelming Republican as do white married women. For all the talk of minorities, the white vote is still the 800 pound gorilla. Which is why the Democrats are playing with fire if they push the immigration issue too far, as well as possibly push the black vote further away from them. The dynamics of our political system are too complex and varied to be standing on the soapbox claiming that the 2006 vote is historic and ensures Democratic control for year to come.