Replies

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!

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.