Midterm elections - history lesson - reality check

Tarnsman

[Tarnsman]

Time for a history lesson. The media, the Democrats and some Freebers want you to believe that somehow this election was different. No, the losses the GOP suffered WERE to be expected. Let us review, shall we?

President		Mid-term		Senate		House
Grant (R)		1870		-4		-31
Grant (R)		1874		-8		-96
Hayes (R)		1878		-6		-9
Arthur (R)		1882		+3		-33
Cleveland (D)		1886		+3		-12
Harrison (R)		1890		0		-85
Cleveland (D)		1894		-5		-116
McKinley (R)		1898		+7		-21
TR (R)		1902		+2		+9
TR (R)		1906		+3		-28
Taft (R)		1910		-10		-57
Wilson (D)		1914		+5		-59
Wilson (D)		1918		-6		-19
Harding (R)		1922		-8		-75
Coolidge (R)		1926		-6		-10
Hoover (R)		1930		-8		-49
FDR (D)		1934		+10		+9
FDR (D)		1938		-6		-71
FDR (D)		1942		-9		-45
Truman (D)		1946		-12		-55
Truman (D)		1950		-6		-59
Ike (R)		1954		-1		-18
Ike (R)		1958		-13		-48
JFK (D)		1962		+3		-4
LBJ (D)		1966		-4		-47
Nixon (R)		1970		+2		-12
Nixon (R)		1974		-5		-48
Carter (D)		1978		-3		-15
Reagan (R)		1982		+1		-26
Reagan (R)		1986		-8		-5
Bush '41 (R)		1990		-1		-8
Clinton (D)		1994		-9		-54
Clinton (D)		1998		0		+4
Bush '43 (R)		2002		+2		0
Bush '43 (R)		2006		-6		-28

(1) With only four exceptions, EVERY single President since Lincoln has lost seats in the House in the midterm elections. The only ones to buck the trend were the Roosevelts (TR because he was the mostly popular President EVER his first term, FDR because of the Depression), Clinton (because of Republican miscues during the Impeachment) and Bush '43 (because of 9/11). GW was bound to lose this one.

(2) Midterm years in bold are the dreaded "six year itch". I have marked 1966 as one in that LBJ was finishing out what would have been JFK's second term. GW is his sixth year. Losses in the midterm were almost certain.

(3) Wilson (1918), FDR (1942), Truman (1950) and LBJ (1966) all lost seats both in the House and Senate when the country was at war. McKinley (1898) gained Senate seats, but lost seats in the House. Guess the country had mixed feelings about thumping Spain. Bush '41 can also be considered in this group as the country was gearing up for Gulf War I. Another category that GW fits into

(4) In terms of serious setbacks in the midterms this one doesn’t even come close. 1894 ranks as the all-time thumping with an astounding 116 House seats and 5 Senate seats changing hands. 1994, 1974, 1966, 1958 (I thought everyone liked Ike), 1938 (so much for the New Deal being popular), 1946, 1930 or 1874 were much, much worse. So counting our blessings is in order.

(5) Voters don't like scandals and take it out on the party in power. Midterm years underlined are considered scandal midterms. 1994 is in the list due to the number of scandals in Congress plus the Clintons were hip deep in scandals as well. Foley, et al doomed the Republicans at the start.

(6) Voters don't like excess spending. The thumping the Republicans received in 1890 was a voter rebellion against the "Billion Dollar Congress". The same can be said about FDR's spanking in 1938 (New Deal overreach) and Clinton's in 1994 (attempted takeover of the health care system). With bridges to nowhere is it any wonder the GOP lost seats?

(7)The historical average is a loss of 3 Senate seats and 34 House seats for the President's party in the midterms. For the "six year curse" the averge is 6 Senate seats and 39 House seats. The 2006 losses fit the historical norms.

Given the political history of our nation and add in the fact that most of the races were decided by very thin margins all the hand wringing is unjustified. Time to dust off the jeans and get back into the fight. This little history lesson should remind you that in our Republic the political fortunes of the parties ebb and flow. So the next time a liberal gloats in your face, remind him or her that this wasn't 1994, 1946 or 1938 and it sure as heck wasn't 1894.

[ReleaseTheHounds]

Nice post and very informative... Regarding us thumping Spain and the people approving: that's back when the media was pulling for America in its foreign conflicts, and believed in our purpose and principles. Not sure we can ever count on that again.

[ReleaseTheHounds]

Oh, yeah: in 1958, Ike faced pretty big recession and a bunch of strikes back when labor was a real factor.

[ReleaseTheHounds]

W spent much of his political capital trying to press for Social Security Reform -- but even his GOP caucus in Congress wouldn't take it up seriously. It is only one of the most important issues of our time... one of the many "cans kicked down the road" by Bill Clinton and the Demos. They would prefer to see Social Security fall off the proverbial cliff rather than modify it to make it really work. In large measure, that's what W spent his political capital on. Seems foolish in retrospect, but it was one of the key issues he campained for in 2000 and 2004 and he pursued it. That's what leaders do, I guess.

[Dixie Yooper]

W spent much of his political capital trying to press for Social Security Reform

Social Security Reform was dead before 2003. The quote was made right after the 2004 election.

[goldstategop]

The President's party usually makes up its losses in the next election. Usually thumpings like this bring in a lot of "low hanging" fruit. There were brought in on the strength of a particular tide and then in the next election, they're washed right out. The most vulnerable Democrats in the House are all in GOP leaning districts. And they'll have to run on the party's liberal record, not on the scandals in the next election.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus

[LachlanMinnesota]

I appreciate the information...thanks for the research!

[ClaireSolt]

Your quote concerns his promotion of Social Security reform.

[ReleaseTheHounds]

Sorry, Dixie, he tried it twice. In the first term, he had Daniel Patrick Moynihan running the "regional meetings" to discuss Social Security -- all that effort ended after 9/11.

After 2004, he brought Social Security up as a priority for reform and it died. He couldn't get the Dems to discuss it. Pelosi freaked out when that goofy Dem from Florida made a frank proposal saying it would take HUGE tax increases and benefit cuts to cure Social Security. At least he was being honest. After he was spanked, the Dems refused to participate in a discussion and GOP Congressmen followed suit like the cowards they were/are.

[Dixie Yooper]

After 2004, he brought Social Security up as a priority for reform and it died

How can something die that is already dead? From what I recall, it wasn't even a blip on the radar screen, the second time he brought it up. There are so many other things he could have taken on that needed so much more attention, like the alien invasion crisis we now are afraid to face.

[ReleaseTheHounds]

You're right, but that blip on the radar screen is a $13 trillion unfunded liability awaiting our children and our children's children. But there are other things that are probably more important.... Let's ignore this one.

[LS]

True, but you're missing the gerrymandering that has occurred in the last 20 years. For Dems to take some of these seats (Foley, DeLay, Northup, etc.) was no small deal.

[LS]

I'm not pessimistic, and you are right that something to the tune of 11,000 votes accounted for about four seats, but the fact is many, many of these seats were safe: Foley, Hayworth, DeLay, and in many others, you had a slight GOP advantage that was squandered, esp. considering these were incumbents.

[SoFloFreeper]

bttt; where did you get the info for Hayes through Ike? I am surprised to see Ike lost so many in '58.

[Dixie Yooper]

Back in the 1930's there was a Socialist Tyrant by the name of FDR. When he failed to nationalize privately owned industry, he decided to create a doomsday device and called it Social Security. By dressing it up like a gift to everyone, he was able to sell it to congress. If not fed with more and more money from each generation, it will create an economic disaster that will result in a World War like no other that will bring on enough nuclear weapons to end all life on earth. If tampered with, the economic disaster will start even sooner. Eventually there will be no more money to feed it with and the disaster will start regardless of any actions taken.

[ReleaseTheHounds]

Northrup's seat was always Dem-leaning.

DeLay couldn't get his name off the ballot so his seat required a write-in (and a very complicated name at that, hyphenated something or other). How many write-in campaigns have worked throughout history?

The Foley Scandal came so late that his name couldn't be removed (why can't Florida and Texas be as nimble as New Jersey?????), so voters had to vote for Foley in order to vote for his replacement (Joe Negron).

While "no small deals" for Dems, the cards were well stacked against the GOP in those races.

[kabar]

Let's put this into futher context beginning with FDR [1938]. The Dems may have lost 6 senate seats and 71 House seats, but they retained control of the 76th Congress [1939-41] 69 Dem, 23 Rep and 4 other in the Senate and 262 Dem-169 Rep and 4 Other in the House. The Dems still retained overwhelming control. There was no shift in control. The Dems still controlled both Houses of Congress

In 1950 under Truman, the Dems lost 6 Senate seats and 59 House seats, but the 82nd Congress [1951-53] still remained in Dem hands. The Senate had 48 Dems, 47 Reps, and 1 other. The House also remained in Dem control, 234 Dems, 199 Reps, and 2 other. There was no shift in control of Congress. The Dems still controlled both Houses of Congress.

The 1958 elections saw the Reps lose 13 in the Senate and 48 in the House. The result was that the 86th Congress [1959-61] was comprised of 64 Dems to 34 Reps and the House 283 Dems to 153 Reps. Thus, the Dems increased their margin of control since they also controlled the 85th Congress. There was no shift in control. The Dems still controlled both Houses of Congress.

The 1966 elections saw a Dem loss of 4 in the Senate and 47 in the House. The 90th Congress [1967-69] had in the Senate 64 Dems to 36 Reps and in the House, 248 Dems to 187 Reps. There was no shift in control. The Dems still controlled both Houses of Congress.

In 1974, the Reps lost 5 in the Senate and 48 in the House. The 94th Congress had 61 Dems, 37 Reps, and 2 Other. The House had 291 Dems and 144 Reps. There was no shift in control. The Dems still controlled both Houses of Congress.

In 1986, the Reps lost 8 in the Senate and 5 in the House. The 100th Congress [1987-89] had 55 Dems and 45 Reps. The House had 258 Dems to 177 Reps. The Reps lost control of the Senate and the Dems retained control of the House.

In 1998, the Reps lost 4 in the House. The 106th Congress [1999-2001] had in the Senate 45 Dems to 55 Reps and the House, 211 Dems to 223 Reps. The Reps retain control of Congress.

What we just witnessed in 2006 is historic. The Dems have taken over control of both Houses in a midterm similar to what the Reps pulled off in 1994. It is also sobering to remember that during the 62 year period 1933 to 1995, the Dems held control of the House for 58 years [except for the 80th Congress (1947-49) with 246 Reps, 188 dems, and 1 other and the 83rd Congress (1953-55)with 221 Reps, 213 Dems, and 1 other. During that same 62 year period, the Dems held the Senate for 52 years with the exception of 80th Congress, the 83rd Congress, and the 97th thru 99th Congresses. The slim, 12 year hold on the House by the Reps is a blip historically.

Given the political history of our nation and add in the fact that most of the races were decided by very thin margins all the hand wringing is unjustified. Time to dust off the jeans and get back into the fight. This little history lesson should remind you that in our Republic the political fortunes of the parties ebb and flow. So the next time a liberal gloats in your face, remind him or her that this wasn't 1994, 1946 or 1938 and it sure as heck wasn't 1894.

I agree it is not a time for handwringing, but it is also not a time for rationalization and clutching at straws. We have suffered a major, major defeat. It is not part of an ebb and flow when you look at the ramifications, i.e., a shift in control of Congress, rather than just numbers. Many of the Dem losses during midterms had little or no effect on their control of Congress since they had such overwhelming numbers. For example, in the 89th Congress [1965-67], the Dems controlled the Senate 68-32 and the House 295-140. Is it any wonder that the Dems consider control of Congress their birthright and the norm?

We shouldn't get discouraged but nor should we set unrealistic expectations. 2006 was a political earthquake and not a meter tremor in the political cycle. Fasten your seat belts, it is going to be a bumpy ride.

[fortheDeclaration]

I'm not pessimistic, and you are right that something to the tune of 11,000 votes accounted for about four seats, but the fact is many, many of these seats were safe: Foley, Hayworth, DeLay, and in many others, you had a slight GOP advantage that was squandered, esp. considering these were incumbents.

Yes, it was a combination of things that undid the Republicans, corruption charges, bad campaigns, detachment from the voters etc.

We can correct most of these and get back on tract.

While the Democrats cannot run as Democrats, we should be running as Republicans.

[LS]

I agree. It's important, however, to remember that politics usually, like most football games, is a game of "inches." The Senate was nearly held by a few thousand votes; and a shift of maybe 30,000 votes might have changed the house outcome. Or whatever, but the point is, it is always pretty close. That's why I was saying a year ago that we could actually aim for a 60 seat majority. In retrospect, it looks galaxies away, but if the Republicans who should have won, had won (Burns, Allen, Talent), and if those who stood an outside chance of winning had gotten some breaks (Santorum, Chafee, DeWine), well . . . . The point is, the difference between losing control and absolutely dominating is a handful of races, plus a very narrow margin in many other races.

I agree that BECAUSE it has now made Dems incumbents, and set us up for even more difficult 2008 defenses, it looks tough.

My sports analogy on this is that we were on the one yard line about to score, up 20-0, just before the half, and threw an interception that was run back for a TD, and now the other team thinks they have the momentum and all the advantages, and we, on the other hand, missed n opportunity to crush them.

[DarthVader]

My sports analogy on this is that we were on the one yard line about to score, up 20-0, just before the half, and threw an interception that was run back for a TD, and now the other team thinks they have the momentum and all the advantages, and we, on the other hand, missed n opportunity to crush them.

That was mine too! :-)

[LS]

I'm willing to do that; but I don't know that the voters particularly said they liked our message in places like AZ, where they were mixed (four anti-illegal initiatives passed, Hayworth and Graf lose, Napolitano wins). I don't think conservatives can just blow off the devastating defeats of Santorum and Burns and Talent.

I'm obviously not the guy to talk about this, given my poor predictions, but apparently the public is in one of its "cake and eat it too" moods, where it wants protection from terrorists without the necessary SOCIAL sacrifices (eavesdropping, Gitmo, profiling) to make it happen. I think that's the ONLY thing that can explain the outcome in a place like AZ---plus, as everyone mentions, chameleon Dems who will be "conservative" for about as long as it takes to call the first roll.