Midterm elections - history lesson

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?

(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.

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.

Going back to 1860 skews the data and does not present a true picture of what has been the current trend since the days of FDR, a more recent and accurate picture of the trend line. Since 1931, the Dems, according to your data, have controlled the House 60 out of the past 65 years or 95%of the time. Since 1933, they have controlled the Senate 54 of the past 64 years or 84% of the time. You also fail to include the margin of control of both Houses by each party, which is a true measue of the extent of their control. The Dems had much larger margins of control on average than the Reps. This is far from being an "aberration." It is a trend.

The fallacy of your argument is that you are using old data to put forth your thesis that "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." Harvard and Yale used to dominate college football and the Celtics the NBA, but there is no guarantee that their fortunes are cyclical and that they will return to their former prominence in the future. I am sure you could go back to the 1890s and count up all the mythical national championships held by Harvard and Yale and conclude that they are among the elite football programs based on the championships won, members in the Football Hall of Fame, etc., but it really bears no relevance to today and the future.

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.

It is no more likely than the Dems staying in power in the House for another 40 years. We are not flipping a coin where you have an equal probability of either coming up heads and tails and that over a long period of time, they will be equal. There are other factors and variables that determine a political party's viability and ability to win control.

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.

Blacks are the Dems strongest constituency. They vote 85% and more for Dems in Presidential elections. There is no black Rep in Congress. If blacks start defecting in significant numbers from the Dems, then the Dems are finished as a party. That is not happening and whatever unhappiness there is has not translated into votes for the Reps. The next Congress will see blacks in prominent positions in the House with Rangel, Conyers, Hastings, Bennie Thompson, and Millender holding key committee chairmanships. The Dems also have rewarded the Jewish vote, their second strongest core constituency with powerful positions.

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.

There is no doubt that the Dem party is comprised more and more of minorities, which also happen to be our fastest growing part of the population. Whites are not a majority in California. Hispanics will make up 25% of our national population by 2050. Demographics will play a major role in future elections. The Reps are being portrayed by the Dems and MSM as the white people's party and as bigots and racists and rich.

Illegal immigration should be a winning issue for the Reps. It impacts heavily on blacks and unions in terms jobs. Most of the public supports enforcement first and no amnesty for illegals. However, the Reps have shot themselves in the foot by the WH and some RINOs like McCain support of "comprehensive immigration reform." I am sure they believe that pandering to the Hispanic population will win the votes in the future, but like prescription drug coverage, the Reps will get no credit for another anmnesty. Instead, it may result in the Reps being a permanent minority party. Hopefully, the Reps will stand strong against this amenesty. Even if they lose, the reality on the ground will not change and more and more Americans will believe their lying eyes than the Dem politicians' spin. When that happens, the Reps have a real opportunity to regain control using that issue.

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.

The change of control of Congress in a midterm by the party different from the one occyuping the WH is historic. It has only happened twice in the last 80 or more years. To pass it off as just part of the normal political cycle is just nonsense. We have just witnessed a significant shift in political power. I have never said it ensures Dem control for years to come, but it will be difficult to regain it. It is time for the GOP to do some self-analysis and sour-searching as to what we stand for as a party and what our political agenda should be. It is not time to take solace in the fact that since 1860 the "political fortunes of the parties are fairly evenly matched."

The parties switched power, yes, this is significant, but not as dire a picture as you paint based on history.

How many times have both Houses of Congress changed hands during a midterm to a different party than the President? Do you consider the 1994 election to be historic? I am not painting a dire picture. Howver, I am realistic enough to know that taking back the House will be very difficult.

The majority of new Democrats are "blue dog". This was not a democrat (liberal) win, this was brilliant strategery by Rohm (sp). He hand picked the most conservative candidates to play to the conservative mood in the country.

It depended on the race. The Dems who won in NY and CT were not "blue dog" Dems. Schumer and Emmanuel made some inspired choices for candidates. Webb, Sestak, Mitchell, and others were successful for a variety of reasons. I don't share your simplistic analysis that the Dems were all conservatives and this is the reason they won. In some cases like Northrup in KY, they were running in a Dem district, which had a history of close elections. This time Northrup came up short.

I predict the Dimms will split in two and a superb opportunity (whether or not taken) will open for the Republicans to regain the majority in both houses by significant margins.

Dream on. It will be a struggle to hold on to what we have. The Dems will consolidate their gains in the 110th Congress. They control the agenda and what gets voted on. They will not be selecting gun control, abortion, flag burning, etc. value issues. They will put raising the minimum wage, targetted tax credits for things like college tuition, implementation of all of the 9/11 Commission recommendations, higher taxes on the rich, resolving the AMT problem, renewable energy sources, etc. on the agenda. Their committees will be investigating waste and fraud in Iraq, and a host of other issues to make the Reps look bad. The MSM will act as their megaphone.

They will protect their more conservative Dem freshman allowing them to vote no on certain issues so that they have some cover. We do the same with the RINOs. The Dems are not going to self-destruct. We must attack them and take the power back. They are going to use the power of incumbency to have what amounts to a two year campaign until 2008. We have to come up with some first rate challengers.

Going back to 1860 skews the data and does not present a true picture

The purpose of bringing in “data” from the nineteenth century is that over the last hundred forty plus years is that both parties enjoyed a long period of dominance. Both the Civil War and Great Depression were seminal events that altered the political dynamics of this country, which is why historians tend to start with those events when examining historical trends.
Since 1931, the Dems, according to your data, have controlled the House 60 out of the past 65 years or 95%of the time. Since 1933, they have controlled the Senate 54 of the past 64 years or 84% of the time.
You made some math errors. From the Civil War to the Great Depression (72 years) Republicans controlled the House 66% of the time, and the Senate 86%. In addition, Republicans controlled the Presidency for all but sixteen of those 72 years (78%). From the Great Depression until this year’s midterms the Democrats held sway in the House 79% of those 74 years and held the Senate 73% of the time. HOWEVER, Republicans continued their dominance over the Oval Office, controlling the Presidency for 60% of this time period.

But of course you want to exclude 1861 to 1933. Makes your argument about the “inevitability” of Democratic control of Congress for the foreseeable future more plausible. BUT why not window down the data even more? Why not start with 1980? The election of Reagan I am sure will be marked by future historians as a turning point in American politics. It is the start of “modern” American politics, no? Just looking at this twenty-six year period changes the whole dynamic of your argument. Since 1980 the parties have been pretty much at parity with Democrats controlling the House 54% of the time and the Republicans controlling the Senate 61% of the time. Now your argument for Democratic control for the foreseeable future seems pretty weak, doesn’t it? Oh, and the Republicans controlled the White House all but eight years out of the 26 (70%). In fact, over the 146 years since the Civil War Republicans have owned the White House for almost 70% of the time. If history holds, 2008 will have a Republican in the White House with a Republican controlled Senate. Democrats chances are little better than 50/50 for the House. Again the wild cards (the economy, Iraq and the unforeseen) will determine the next election given how close the electorate is. BTW 2006 exit polls had voters describing themselves as 47% moderate, 33% conservative and 20% liberal. That 47% is the moving target, and events will dictate how they vote.

Blacks are the Dems strongest constituency.
They used to be the Republicans strongest constituency. The Great Depression changed that. As you correctly point out they are now the lifeblood of the Democratic Party. Republicans have made attempts to reach out to the black community, mostly notably in the appointment of several blacks to positions in the government and courts. Of course, this is completely has been ignored by the media. Do you believe for a second that if Condi had been Clinton's SoS that the media wouldn't have sung her praises 24/7? Look how they fawn over Obama, (a freshman Senator who has done what exactly?) while they practically ignore the granddaughter of an Alabama sharecropper who has risen to one of the most powerful positions in the government. Of course, the media understands that without the overwhelming support from blacks that the Democrat party would have no chance in the elections. So they do their best to downplay and marginalize black Republicans.
As to Hispanics, they are notorious non-voters. In CA Hispanics comprise a third of the population, but in 2004 they were only 14% of the voters. Non-Hispanic whites (btw the census bureau counts Hispanics as white in the racial break outs) are still the largest voter bloc, even in CA. I am sure that in future the Hispanic community will be flexing its political muscles. As I posted before, the better economically Hispanics are, the more likely they are to vote Republican. Plus the Republicans have no intention of ceding the Hispanic vote to the Democrats. Which is why Senator Martinez is now the Chair of the RNC.

The change of control of Congress in a midterm by the party different from the one occyuping the WH is historic
Maybe you should have taken a closer look at my table:

2006 Bush (R) - Republicans lose both the Senate (barely) and the House
1994 Clinton (D) - Democrats lose both the Senate and the House
1946 Truman (D) - Democrats lose both the Senate and the House
1918 Wilson (D)- Democrats lose both the Senate and the House
1894 Cleveland (D)- Democrats lose both the Senate and the House

Seems to happen lot more frequent than you stated.

We have just witnessed a significant shift in political power.
No, we haven't. A shift, yes. Significant, no. The Democrats hold on the Senate is by the good graces of Lieberman. He decides otherwise, and Republicans take control via the Vice President's tie breaking vote. Then there is Harry Reid's ethical problems (pocketing money on the sale of property he legaly didn't own, and his reputed ties to Jack Abramoff ). A little push by the IRS and/or Justice Department and his might be the shortest Majority Leader term ever. Of course, with the Democrats controlling the House it will be hard to imagine impeachment proceedings getting started, but if the stink is so bad they may not have a choice. Going to interesting to see how the ethically challenged Majority Leader is going to be able to control the Senate if he is under investigation. A more likely outcome is that Reid will be forced to step aside. Of course, if the rumors are true, resignation from the Senate might be part of a plea deal. Nevada has a Republican governor and governors have the power to appoint Senators. Your vaunted political shift rests on the good graces of a betrayed Democratic Senator and the outcome of possible criminal investigations into the conduct of the Majority Leader.

Then there is the selection of Trent Lott as the Minority Whip. That tells you that the Senate Republicans are preparing to put up a fight as Lott is touted as one of the best Senate tacticians around. The Democrats stymied the Republicans the last six years and I'd say some payback is about to happen. Nothing is coming out of the Senate unless the President and Senate Republicans want it to. The Democratic House can pass bills till the cows come home, but unless the Republicans in the Senate say yes, they're DOA. Going to be fun listening to the Dems and media howl while the Republicans use the rules of the Senate against this significant shift in political power you tout.

We now come to the House. The events of this week have shown that Speaker Pelosi has a tin ear when it comes to House politics, which does not bode well for the Democrats. There is even now rumblings that she might have to go. Not exactly how a significant political shift get started, now is it? You also have to factor in the fact that the Blue Dog Democrats will likely form their own bloc,and with an eye to re-election in 2008, they will side with the Republicans on issues they deem important to their conservative districts. With 203 seats, the Republicans only need to peel away 15 votes from the Democrats to defeat the Nancy boys in the House. Considering that 19 Democrats were elected in districts that went for Bush in 2004 (and are still considered Republican districts) this is very doable. Tax hikes and other liberal wet dreams are non-starters in the House. Then you have the black caucus, which finally has members moving into committee chairs, who will push for measures that will be at odds with the Blue Dogs and DLC Democrats. Nancy will have task of trying to herd cats. Going to be an interesting two years

Finally, Bush is still President and, even as a termed-out one, he wields the real significant political power. Without his support and blessing, nothing is going to happen given the size of the Republican minorities in the House and Senate. He wants funding for the war effort so he will make deals with the Democrats that suit his purposes, and will dig in his heels when they don't.

They control the agenda and what gets voted on.
Good. That "flushes" them out. No more "I have a plan". America finally gets to see what they want, what exactly are their programs. Too bad for the Dems that nothing they want will see the light of day for the reasons that I cited above.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

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