Deliver a Spanking

The Pittsburgh Tribune Review ^ | October 22, 2006 | Colin McNickle

[Sisku Hanne]

now THAT is pithy!

[meyer]

There is only one party that respects right-to-life, 2nd amendment rights, and God's place in public discourse ... and it isnt the gun-grabbing secularist pro-abortion Democrats!

Actually, there's two. But only one (hint - the Republicans) has a good chance of winning.

[ErieGeno]

Fellow Republicans and conservatives, do what you must on Nov. 7. But I, for one, refuse to yet again enter my polling place, vote for the usual GOP suspects...

Idiot!!!!

This clown is not as republican, liberatarian, or American as he claims to be?

He will probably welcome raised taxes and more terrorist plots against his loved ones just so he can 'spank' the the GOP while handing control to Pelosi, Kennedy, Frank, Reid, Durbin, Clinton, et al?????

Idiot?????

[WOSG]

Ed, just one (of many examples) of why your categorization misleads... both 1918 and 1930 are example of change of House control that led to change of White House control, so your data is amiss.

In 1930, the GOP had a huge wipeout:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_election,_1930

They lost 52 seats in a single election.
They still held the House, though so you count it in a "no change" box. However, after some special elections ..." This resulted in the new chamber having a Democratic majority."

In what box did you count 1930?

Then there is 1910:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_election%2C_1910
... the Democrats gained 58 seats and control of the House, presaging a White House takeover 2 years later.

And 1918, where the Republicans took a big lead in the House after a split House in 1916 election:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_election%2C_1918
... which presaged the 1920 blowout election of Harding.

Now 1950:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_election,_1950

1950: The Democrats lost 28 seats, another tough year that presaged the loss of the White House to Republicans in 1952.
but since the Democrats still held a majority, you count it as 'no change' ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_election,_1950

There is also the very good year the Dems had in 1958 that presaged the 1960 election:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_election%2C_1958

This is not to say that a Democratic House will inevitably cause anything in 2008, its what they do with that majority that counts. Both Clinton and Truman used the GOP majorities as scapegoats for their inaction and thereby helped save their own skin. But 2008 is a no-incumbent election, the stronger the Democrats are in this election, the stronger they will be in the run to the White House.


BUT LETS TALK ABOUT 1954...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_elections%2C_1954

The Democrats gained control of the House in 1954 AND HELD ON FOR 40 MORE YEARS! The assumption that change of control is a blip that can be recovered quickly is a myth.

That is the real danger here. Flippantly throwin away a majority that may take a generation to recover is a bad bad bad idea!

[photodawg]

Politics is about the power to implement your ideas, not just having ideas that never get implemented.



''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

Excellent point. That's why RR was the greatest.

[nopardons]

I was talking about the political naifs and barking moonbats on FR...of which there are a VERY vocal number. At no time did I reference Dem barking moonbats nor how many were in each party.

You appear to be having some difficulty comprehending the written English language. Pity that.....

[nopardons]

Spot on!

[edsheppa]

In both 1918 and 1930, the Rs held the House. The one midterm election in this time period when the House changed hands and the Presidency did next election was 1910.

Just so we're clear, here are your original words in #520

Wrong. A Dem House will make a Dem PResident in 2008 more likely ... there is historical precedent.

So are you changing your point then? It's the quantity of seats changing hands, not a change in political control of the House that indicates? Or did you simply misspeak in that post?

I'll be happy to research it, but I think you're missing an important point. *If* the Ds take the House this year, it will not be because they win a large number of seats by historical "swing" standards.

[nopardons]

bttt

[edsheppa]

I was talking about the political naifs and barking moonbats on FR

And I was talking *first* of the much more numerous moonbats on the left.

[nopardons]

HORSEFEATHERS !

[WOSG]

"In both 1918 and 1930, the Rs held the House. The one midterm election in this time period when the House changed hands and the Presidency did next election was 1910.

Just so we're clear, here are your original words in #520

Wrong. A Dem House will make a Dem PResident in 2008 more likely ... there is historical precedent. "

Let me be clear:
- we agree on 1910
- in 1918, the Rs *gained control of the House* that the Dems had in 1916 (bare D majority)
- in 1930 the Ds *gained control of the House* (after special elections) that the Rep had in 1928.

So, you only counted "1" in the category of House change in control leading to White House victory, I count 3.

You can quibble with the data, but that sort of historical precedent is what I was speaking of.
I was also speaking of cases like 1958 and 1974, but you dont want to count those blowout elections since there was no change of control.

My bottom line is this: Pretending that a bad year for the GOP in 2006 will mean a good year for the GOP in 2008 is utter folly.

[edsheppa]

OK, I didn't know that about 1916 and 1930. I was going just on the pluralities and gains, not special elections and third part coalitions. It's kind of silly to rely on outliers of that kind as indicators.

But, please, I'm not quibbling with the data, just trying to analyze the historical precendents. Since you've brought up large vs. small changes, I gathered some more numbers. I classified midterm elections into three kinds based on the House seat change, expressed as a percent, of the then President's party and correlated that to the Presidency changing parties. The categories of change are VU (Very Unfavorable - Pres's party loses 20% or more), SU (Somewhat Unfavorable - Pres's party loses less than 20% but more than 5%), and NU (Not Unfavorable - Pres's party loses nore more than 5% or gains). There are 8, 11 and 8 elections of those types resp. From the data (which I'll gladly share), those seemed reasonable partitions. Here are the numbers. (PC is Presidency Changed Parties and !PC is the complement).

    PC  !PC
VU   2    6
SU   5    6
NU   3    5

So again, it doesn't look to me that history bears out the claim that strong midterm swings against the President's party result in the President's party losing the Presidency.

[edsheppa]

I forgot to say, although it's clear from the table, that weak swings against the President's party also don't seem to correlate with the Presidency's changing hands either.

[Doc91678]

Goebbels would have blushed had he seen that diatribe. Whomever wrote that is a good psychology major.

[WOSG]

wow, you are really digging. I think you've got me to at least a point of saying that whatever correlation there is, is weak. SU is worse than NU or VU... and you have to throwin incumbent vs non-incumbent elections to see that factor. Still, if you look at historical context, midterm trends can portend the next election ... so ...

can you at least admit that the data doesnt suggest any kind of 'bounce-back' effect like some 'cut-n-run' conservatives suggest? That is, if we let the Dems win in 2006, we'll do better in 2008. Can you see at least that such a claim is nonsense?

[edsheppa]

can you at least admit that the data doesnt suggest any kind of 'bounce-back' effect like some 'cut-n-run' conservatives suggest?

Not sure abot that. I've only looked at midterm correlation with next Presidential election. For the effect you're discussing, I think you'd have to look at correlations from each Congressional election to the next. I may do that although it is a lot of work.

Can you see at least that such a claim (D '06 leading to R '08) is nonsense?

No, I don't think it's nonsense in the sense that it's very arguable. Maybe I'm completely off base but I really do think they'd go crazy, Bush Derangement Syndrome and all that. The backlash against D nuttiness in 92/93 was real.

Well, let's hope it doesn't come to it.

[geopyg]

"And you get a Ross Perot voter."

And a Bill Clinton for president for 8 years.

[Badray]

Dear Reverend Tamzee,

We were ALL warned to clean up the page.

Your side trashed the board again within 20 minutes.

Your remarks are the ones that are intended to create a false impression. You might have been able to get away with it if they weren't captured before the mods removed them all.

Jim and I got suspended for defending the honor and dignity of a lady about whom some very crude remarks were made.

What Jim and I said was mild in comparison and was provoked. The attack on the lady was not.

Thank you for allowing me this opportunity to set the record straight