Replies

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.

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."