Midterm Elections Since 1936

[one...two...tree 2,762]

It's not unfair for Republicans to characterize the midterms as "historic," at least as far as the House is concerned. The GOP not only made massive gains, they'll enjoy their largest House majority next year in more than six decades. But as is my habit, I thought I'd put the elections in charts. Here, for example, are the midterms of the modern political era, with losses per cycle for the president's party (blue columns represent Democratic presidents, red columns represent Republican presidents).

You'll notice, of course, that the 2010 midterms were the worst for any incumbent president's party since FDR's drubbing in 1938. Also note, this chart only reflects the results of yesterday's elections through the available data. (Several House races have not yet been called, so the results may yet get slightly worse for Dems, though it does not appear they'll match the 1938 totals.)

On the other hand, Senate losses for the White House's party -- at this point, it looks like Dems have lost six seats from their majority -- were fairly mild by modern standards. Indeed, while Obama's House losses were greater than Clinton's, Clinton's Senate losses were greater than Obama's.

In some cases, the results are a little misleading, in part because the president's party went into a midterm cycle with smaller congressional minorities, and didn't have much further to drop.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/

[luckytxn 2,265]

No matter. Life is good today. The Socialists have been handed a huge spit in the face.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Yesterdays vote isn't surprising, people are fed up with the last 6+ years of politics. And in a few years it will shift again if things don't improve.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Yesterdays vote isn't surprising, people are fed up with the last 6+ years of politics. And in a few years it will shift again if things don't improve.

Yep. This was an anti-incumbency election period because of the lackluster economy. It doesn't matter what party is in power, if the economy is not robust, voters tend to place the blame on them. If this new GOP majority House doesn't deliver us into better economic conditions, they'll be in trouble as well. It's a bit unfair and reactionary, but that's been the trend for a long time.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Yep. This was an anti-incumbency election period because of the lackluster economy. It doesn't matter what party is in power, if the economy is not robust, voters tend to place the blame on them. If this new GOP majority House doesn't deliver us into better economic conditions, they'll be in trouble as well. It's a bit unfair and reactionary, but that's been the trend for a long time.

Exactly. Just like the last election was anti-incumbency. Now the ball is in the Republicans court, we'll see what they do or don't do. It is quite reactionary.

[luckytxn 2,265]

Exactly. Just like the last election was anti-incumbency. Now the ball is in the Republicans court, we'll see what they do or don't do. It is quite reactionary.

May be true if the GOP had taken the Senate too. They would have then put up or shut up but as it stands now they can do as they want in the house but the Senate can obstruct or vice versa. The GOP can blame the Socialists.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Exactly. Just like the last election was anti-incumbency. Now the ball is in the Republicans court, we'll see what they do or don't do. It is quite reactionary.

IMO, voters need to look beyond 2 or even 4 year election cycles, as some things take time before we see results. The Affordable Health Care Act is prime example as some of its key provisions won't take effect for several more years. Meanwhile, critics of the legislation have already vowed to repeal it or choke it off before it is fully enacted.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

IMO, voters need to look beyond 2 or even 4 year election cycles, as some things take time before we see results. The Affordable Health Care Act is prime example as some of its key provisions won't take effect for several more years. Meanwhile, critics of the legislation have already vowed to repeal it or choke it off before it is fully enacted.

Things do take time and government works slow. People are really impatient now. We want instant solutions and it's not going to happen fast enough to satisfy much of the population. I think it's hard for people to look that far ahead, I think many would like to see the ball rolling a bit quicker.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

May be true if the GOP had taken the Senate too. They would have then put up or shut up but as it stands now they can do as they want in the house but the Senate can obstruct or vice versa. The GOP can blame the Socialists.

On the contrary, the GOP will now have to show face and actually produce legislation in the House. They'll have to be specific and that's something that from first appearances Boehner is reluctant to do. Remember how he celebrated the GOP victory in the House yesterday but did not - like Newt did in 1994 - actually claim to have a mandate for the GOP's agenda. He actually said that we need to remember that the President sets the agenda. So, he's saying that while he's been handed the House with a lofty majority, he intends to defer to the President's agenda. That's some leadership to look forward to.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

On the contrary, the GOP will now have to show face and actually produce legislation in the House. They'll have to be specific and that's something that from first appearances Boehner is reluctant to do. Remember how he celebrated the GOP victory in the House yesterday but did not - like Newt did in 1994 - actually claim to have a mandate for the GOP's agenda. He actually said that we need to remember that the President sets the agenda. So, he's saying that while he's been handed the House with a lofty majority, he intends to defer to the President's agenda. That's some leadership to look forward to.

It sounds to me that he's trying to appease those who voted to get "government out of the way" by doing nothing. If the GOP thinks this Midterm victory is a mandate to do nothing, they are sorely mistaken. It's the economy and they've just been given 2 years to help fix it.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

It sounds to me that he's trying to appease those who voted to get "government out of the way" by doing nothing. If the GOP thinks this Midterm victory is a mandate to do nothing, they are sorely mistaken. It's the economy and they've just been given 2 years to help fix it.

And they best get on the ball and fix it since they claim to have all the answers. I believe in giving everyone a chance.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

I say good luck to them, since all our fortunes ride on their success. It is telling to see the RWN gloating when the over all results show many 'victories' were by the slimmest of margins not landslides. Petty is as petty does though, hopefully the newly elected show a bit more class and bust their humps in the interests of us all.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Good news! Don't worry, be happy!

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Good news! Don't worry, be happy!

I damn sure hope so!