Questioning the map-changing Democratic wave
Everything is brand new, just like last time
By Neil Stevens Posted in 1938 | 1958 | 1966 | 1974 | 1986 | 1998 | 2006 | Congress | Elections | Incumbency | Year Six — Comments (26) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Were the 2006 Congressional defeats the foreshocks of a map-shifting earthquake in the 2008 election, or were they just the same thing that normally happens in the sixth year of a Presidency?
I have examined the last seven sixth year midterm elections (Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Kennedy/Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, Bush) and the losses the President's party lost in both houses of the Congress, and I'm unconvinced that there was anything to learn long-term from the last election.
Read on for the details...
Here's a simple chart that sums it all up:
As we can see, President Bush was well within historical norms for his sixth-year drubbing, coming up average for his Senate losses but doing better than the three straight sixth year Presidents who lost exactly 48 House seats. Clinton got off easy, true, but already lost big in 1994, and every other President suffered. Yes, including Reagan. He lost eight Senate seats. Maybe I should say instead that Judge Bork suffered most from that sixth year election.
But look at what happened to the incumbent party two years later:
- Democrats held in 1940.
- Republicans lost a nail-biter in 1960.
- Democrats lost big in 1968, but only after their best candidate was shot.
- Republicans were in it, against all odds, late in 1976.
- Republicans held in 1988.
- Democrats lost a race even closer than 1960s in 2000.
So are we starting far, far behind in 2008? I think not. John McCain has at least as much chance to win as President Roosevelt, Vice President Nixon, Vice President Bush, and Vice President Gore did. And them's good odds.
Update: It also helps when John McCain is getting a head start on his rivals, who are off having their Cobra Civil War and all.
Questioning the map-changing Democratic wave 26 Comments (0 topical, 26 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
The New Deal was over by that point. The damage had already been done; it wasn't as though FDR created major new domestic programs during the war.
What's worse? Saying that we have a problem and we need to fix it? Or utilizing one's energies to convince themselves that things will turn out swell, despite evidence to the contrary?
I plan on donating, volunteering, and voting for all my local and federal Republican candidates.
All you do is incessantly talk about how "this will not end well" as your little signature line indicates. You contribute nothing, and the constant drum-beat of your comments about how terrible this election is going to be (as you claim, anyway) does not do anything whatsoever to help.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
I donate, volunteer, vote and otherwise help out as I've done since I could first vote.
And yes, I thank you profusely for actually going out there and helping. We need more people like that.
Dispelling unwarranted optimism is not a horrible thing. Far too many people ARE sitting back and letting the Dems walk over them because they are convinced that the Dems are not capable of doing it.
We should be hitting Obama hard on all fronts instead of sitting back with a bucket of popcorn and expecting the election to fall in our laps.
...doesn't mean that I or others think this election will be a cakewalk for McCain. I don't, and most people don't either.
I DO think that McCain has a realistic shot given his unique personal characteristics, and also due to Obama's radical roots and ivy league leftism. Those two reasons are also why I will be working extra hard to ensure that McCain gets elected, along with conservatives at the local, state, and federal level.
Constantly talking about how the GOP is going to get wiped out in a tidal wave does absolutely nothing to help. Your posts don't inspire anyone to do anything productive. Plus, I think they're off base.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
...is not "unproductive."
Things are looking bad now, and unless we realize this, then we won't correct for it.
If you think my view is off, then feel free to criticize me on the points raised...don't just dismiss it because opinions that are not optimistic bother you.
Where did your comment offer constructive analysis of "what we are doing wrong?"
Of course that begs the question I raised in my diary, of whether 2006 meant anything at all but that President Bush was in office six years, holding the House all six and the Senate for four. I just did the work and showed he's in line with historical trends.
I think the burden is now on you to prove that wrong, and that takes more than just doomsaying.
I have often talked about what we should do. Here's a bunch of things we can do: candidates should run AGAINST the corrupt portions of their own party; candidates AND grassroots should be willing to stand up to Bush when he is wrong, and not sacrifice their conservative values; we should ALL talk about why we should vote FOR Republicans and conservatism and not why we are the lesser of two evils; we should support good candidates in primaries; we should work to make the party stand for conservatism again and work even harder to convince people that we mean it.
Most importantly, we need to figure out how to convince people that voting for a big government party that promises competent government is NOT better then a big government party that has shown its incompetence.
As for the trends, I addressed those aleady with examples of how mid-term elections CAN be portents for longer trends. I DO believe those trends are present. The wholesale rejection of the GOP (e.g. recent special elections, massive shifts in voter registration, the unpopularity with the President, &c.). The similarities with '30 and '32 are very much there.
I DO think that McCain has a shot, but I don't think he's taking advantage of his opportunities fully. Complaining might raise some hackles and convince people to change. Saying things aren't going to really go wrong and such definitely won't lead to positive change.
Comments like yours, constantly talking the negative, are the unrealistic viewpoint being expressed here.
Your constant pessimism is also detrimental to our chances, as it can easily depress activism if people take you seriously.
In fact your last line shows how completely out of touch your comments are with the facts. Red State's front page has been all Obama, all the time lately. Nobody's sitting and watching. We're attacking constantly. Try reading Erick's well-researched piece on Obama, ACORN, and the New Party, for example.
That's why nobody takes you seriously. Your comments stick out for how wrong they are on the facts.
If you believe that my viewpoints are unrealistic, then feel free to explain why.
I don't think they are out of touch -- it is the blindness to what we face that is more dangerous. With three special congressional elections that should have gone easily for Republicans going Dem, among other warning signs, saying that things just aren't that bad fly in the face of reality.
Convincing ourselves that we don't have a serious problem just allows these problems to continue unchecked.
I make my arguments based on facts and a look as to what is going on. Those arguments are not attacked for their content, but attacked on not being a cheerleading exercise. Irrational optimism is NOT productive at all.
And yes, I am VERY thankful that RedState goes after Obama. I am VERY thankful that they are going out and supporting challenges to corrupt GOP incumbents. But there is a lot that the GOP, as a whole, is not doing -- or even allowing to happen.
And no, I do not things will end well in November. And I am skeptical that enough will be done to change that. That isn't a matter of cheerleading or not, its about
McCain actually does have a decent shot at winning the Presidency. But to capitalize on this and improve his chances, you have to understand why he has a decent shot.
McCain has a decent shot because he is NOT perceived as a typical Republican. In matchup polls, he has consistently run 10 to 15 points ahead of a "generic Republican" when matched against Democrat candidates. He's almost perceived as an Independent or Fusion type candidate.
It's the GOP that has a problem, not McCain. The GOP, Bush in particular, is dragging him down, not the reverse. Until rank-and-file Republicans and conservatives see that, they won't know how to win.
Till now, too many conservatives have regarded McCain as some kind of traitor to the cause, and blame him for the mess the GOP is in. That type of scapegoating has to stop. McCain has every right to blame the GOP for hurting his chances of winning.
The rest of the GOP needs to take a cue from McCain, and also show they can give the country a fresh start, if at all possible. It means making some breaks, even symbolic ones, with past policies, to show that they too are interested in reform and change. They can't just talk different. They have to act different. They had a golden opportunity with the farm bill--but they blew it.
The rank-and-file have an opportunity too. Get rid of Don Young, and with that you will help show that you've had enough of earmarks and pork.
There are other things that make this year different:
First, in the Senate, there has been a relatively large number of GOP retirements. Quite a few of those seats are now in play for the Dems to win. In fact, in total, far more GOP seats are now up for grabs than Dem seats. The only Dem seat in trouble is Mary Landrieu.
Secondly, in just the last few months, the GOP has lost three special House elections in a row.
Thirdly, not since 1876 has an unpopular incumbent President been succeeded to the White House by someone from his own party. FDR in 1938, Eisenhower in 1958, and Reagan in 1986 were more popular incumbent Presidents back then, than Bush is today. On the other hand, when the incumbent President was highly unpopular--Ford in 1974--his party lost the White House in the next election, two years later.
The only reasons why McCain still has a shot at winning are: a) He is NOT perceived as a "typical Republican," so the GOP's troubles aren't automatically rubbing off on him; and b) Barack Obama is a hip intellectual urban black liberal, which is pretty exotic as Presidential candidates go.
If the GOP had nominated anybody else but McCain, or if the Dems had nominated a moderate Dem, the GOP wouldn't stand a chance.
"Barack Obama is a hip intellectual urban black liberal, which is pretty exotic as Presidential candidates go."
Might you want to go get a hotel room? that is such tripe...he is a black marxist/racist nothing more and nothing less.
Freedom of Religion NOT Freedom from Religion
as a positive to describe a potential POTUS....
I fear for our future
" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised
Just one more "hip", cool, happening, rad(? is this still used?), etc that ends up on the junk heap of bad ideas --
I can only pray that Obama is on that same junk heap of bad ideas 5 months from now -- and I hope that his supporters grow up -- or blow up -- or just sliver away -- because they scare me -- they really, really scare me.
Someone who has Ayers as a friend, Wright and Fleger as spiritual advisors, and Rezko as a money man has no business being a Senator to the US -- let alone POTUS.
M Penny
I'm pretty surprised to see myself acknowledging that the Democrats may be in the process of blowing what should be the easiest Presidential election in at least twenty years, but yes, I'd readily say that McCain has a roughly even chance of winning the White House.
The wave will come in the Congressional and gubernatorial elections. We're about to suffer massive losses downballot, which may well get worse in the next decade if Democrats have as much success in state legislative races as they will at the Congressional level. I can't say for how long those gains will last, but I'd be very happy if we have a chance to regain the Senate as early as 2012. As for the House, let's see who's redrawing the districts and whether the "Leadership" gets its act together.
Good thinking there. We need local activism, and candidates, ready to push hard these next two elections, if we want to be ready for the House elections of the coming decade.
which is pretty exotic as Presidential candidates go."
Gosh darn it all -- I thought we would looking for a leader of the free world, the POTUS, the leader of the greatest nation to exist on earth and not an interesting date for Friday night.
I am not looking for a fad. I did not buy a Pet Rock, a mood ring, or any of the other "hip/cool" things that came onto the market when I was a wet behind the ears youngster.
Intellectual? 57 states? sitting in a racist church for 20+ years, Souix Falls, Souix Rapids? where the heck was he anyway.
Obama gives a smooth speech when it is practiced. When he must speak off the cuff he is no more articulate than the next guy -- unless you belong to the Joe "well spoke" Biden camp.
I don't "exotic" for President of the US. We are not casting a porn movie or hiring a stripper.
Sure, on occasion I will try the unusual, exotic, or strange off the menu at the ethnic restaurant -- but when it comes to breakfast, lunch, dinner for most days of my life -- I want proven, reliable, trustworthy, and known.
Obama is not qualified to be POTUS. Anyone who thinks he is qualified to be POTUS isn't smart or responsible enough to exercise our precious voting franchise.
M Penny
Another way to measure this is popular vote. "Number of gains" might not be accurate, as it has factored in how badly the opposition party was doing before (like if the Dems go from 30 seats to 100, they are still doing terrible, but you would think they were dominating due to their 70 seat gain). On Wikipedia they have total popular vote numbers from around the country. What was good about the Dems in 2006 was it was the first time since 1990 that one party got a majority of ballots cast (in 1994, the Republicans had like 49.9%, in 2006 Dems had 52.0%).
Yes, I am aware of the irony.
The focus is a bit too narrow to say that because '06 fits a trend, that '08 must be nothing to worry about.
In 1938, though the Dems went on to keep Congress in '40, the liberals effectively lost control. The GOP was at near parity, nearly winning in '42 while a war was going on, and winning outright in '46 and '52. During that time the GOP and conservative Dems ran the show. The '38 election brought real change that lasted 20 years.
In '58, the left took over and never really gave up until the Reagan revolution. The GOP was smashed and lost almost any say in things -- and it is THAT which we are facing today.
If anything, the type of shift would be similar to what we saw in '18, when the Dem's were kicked out for over a decade big time, or even '30, which was but a portent for the election of FDR.
Remember, it was the time after '30 and '58, that the left made large and permanent strides.
This will not end well.