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.
"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.