A Return to the Norm (All 2010 did was undo the two-stage Democratic wave of 2006 to 2008)

Nationa Review ^ | 11/05/2010 | Charles Krauthammer

[DoughtyOne]

Thank you for the correction. It seemed to me there would have been a lot fewer seats back then. It did occur to me that the Democrats may have held a lop-sided enough majority to have had in excess of 200 seats back then anyway.

When I stated this earlier, I was quoting a pundit who stated this during the last couple of days. I’m sure I heard it said more than once by more than one person too.

One of the terms they used, was the ‘last 120 years’ line.

It’s best to strike that down though, if it’s not true and I appreciate you doing it.

[wbill]

The turbulence was entirely created and sustained by the media

Yep. 2006 was an ugly campaign, at least where I live. Constant bombardment of negative propaganda. 2008 was even more so. My dad, who's seen his fair share of elections, said that it was the worst he'd ever seen, going back to the 50s.

This year? Not so much. Maybe a couple of commercials a night. Heasrd my first radio commercial on election day. Even the negative ones (all lib) were pretty muted.

Interesting, I thought, that libs win on hosility, and conservatives win on principles.

[Verginius Rufus]

I was going by The Statistical History of the United States which has the party affiliations for Congress up to 1970 (page 1083). I believe the House has been set at 435 maximum since the 1910 census (or maybe since 1912 when New Mexico and Arizona became states). It was briefly raised to 437 when Alaska and Hawaii became states, until the redistricting after the 1960 census.

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks for mentioning a good resource. I appreciate it.

Rush may be one of the places where I heard this 120 year line. Perhaps not...

I do know I heard it on FoxNews from someone.