Replies

I don't accept your information as relevant. In not a single one of those years did the house change hands.

With considerable effort I've got the actual information about the House changing hands in every midterm election since 1898 and similarly with the Presidency. Here it is.

                Presidency changed parties
                next election
                    Yes   No
House
changed     Yes       1    3
parties     No        9   14
in midterm

It looks to me like, based on historical precedent, a House change is three times more likely to indicate that the Presidency *won't* change hands than that it will.

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!