Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Tarnsman
"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.

59 posted on 11/14/2006 4:22:18 PM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies ]


To: kabar
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.
60 posted on 11/15/2006 9:22:09 PM PST by Tarnsman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson