During 19 the presidential elections held in the period from 1932-2004, the Dems held a stranglehold on the House and held the Senate most of that time. By 10 to 9, they also won a majority of the presidential elections during that period:
Franklin Roosevelt (D), four times
Harry Truman (D), once
Dwight Eisenhower (R), twice
John Kennedy (D), once
Lyndon Johnson (D), once
Richard Nixon (R), twice
[Gerald Ford (R), served under 3 years but was never elected]
Jimmy Carter (D), once
Ronald Reagan (R), twice
George H.W. Bush (R), once
Bill Clinton (D), twice
George W. Bush (R), twice
As I said, anyone who underestimates the ability of the Dems to consolidate and hold power is a fool. The notion that we will be able to easily defeat them in two years is equally foolish. They may be defeated, but not easily.
All I've seen in the new media is a plethora of fools urging people on the Right side of the political divide to throw power away in some vain pursuit of "sending a message." My point is that regaining power will not be a cakewalk.
Looking backwards too long will cause you to crash. This is something you are doing, to an extent, with the list you cite. The things that afforded the Democrats the stanglehold they once held are not the same now as they once were. Therefor your list is lacking at least that context.
The internet cannot apply to any but the last two and even then, the first was just the beginning. Make no mistake, this new age affects both major political parties in the strategies they seek to employ. Old tricks will fail for both.
Republicans needed a message sent, just like the Democrats need it now. Democrats need to be held accountable and their election win forces that in the media for the 2008 run up. This is a good thing for conservatives in the long run.
Which party controls things doesn't much matter when they are both willing to spend to the extent they both have and both are willing to ignore other reality based problems facing this nation.
George W ended the ignorance with his decision to remove Saddam once and for all. This decision was a full two presidential terms late but at least it finally took place. Who controlled Congress was the same so it was not the deciding factor, wouldn't you agree?
What is more important to you? Controlling the congress now or keeping the Whitehouse in 08? People will see better in 08 why removing Saddam was central to the war that has been waged upon us since Jimmah was president. The removal of Saddam may have lost control of congress for the short term but Iraq's success is afoot. The media arranged this and they are bing held to account more and more everyday, especially print media. Conservatism is on the rise as much today as it has been for the last 30 years and even the media cannot stop it no matter how much they try.
No one said it would be easy but you seem to have an attitude that everything is over for the next 60 years because of one second term mid term election. I must respectfully disagree in the strongest of terms.
Removing Saddam is an historic event that future generations look back to in ways similar to Reagan saying 'tear down this wall'. Much has already changed in Iraq to date and much more is to come. A huge leap forward is about to be made after Saddam is executed. When this happens the American people that were duped by the MSM will realize their mistake. What is left ( of the hard left) will not be able to vote in a President and I doubt they retain congress.
The only caveat I offer there is that the Republican Party had better hear.....and they better put forth candidates that are worth voting for. If the plan is to vote against the Democrat, 08 is a bigger loss than 06.
Saddam is about to swing and that is good for the entire world. Democrats will never be able to grasp that big picture and that wll be their downfall. This win will hurt them more than it will help them.