Does Midterm History Really Augur Big GOP Losses?

[endicom]

The American Spectator
David Catron
Oct. 18, 2018

he Democrats and the media tell us that midterm history portends large Republican losses in November. This factoid is firmly imbedded in the Beltway belief system and in the algorithms used by most political analysts, who predict that the Democrats will capture the House and perhaps the Senate as well. Forbes echoes the conventional wisdom: “Historically, The President’s Party Performs Poorly In the Midterms.” Like many things “everyone knows,” this is spurious rot. In reality, it’s unusual for either house to flip in the first midterm of a presidential administration and quite rare for power to shift in both houses of Congress.

While it is indeed common for the president’s party to suffer modest losses in a midterm election, this rarely results in congressional power shifts. Since World War II, only two elected presidents have lost both houses of Congress to the opposition party during their first terms: Eisenhower (1954) and Clinton (1994). These are also the only years in which the Senate has flipped during the first midterm of an administration. The House has changed hands more often, but this is not a regular occurrence. Since WWII, it has flipped in the first midterm of only three elected presidents: Eisenhower (1954), Clinton (1994), and Obama (2010).

More... https://spectator.org/does-midterm-history-really-augur-big-gop-losses/

[IsailedawayfromFR]

The media and the Dems are crying wolf once more.

Still, we need to remain vigilant.

This country cannot afford another Dem congress and a socialist as President.

[endicom]

This country cannot afford another Dem congress and a socialist as President.

"It's the socialism, stupid!," could be a motto.

That's why I would love to see the Dems get smashed in this election. A clear signal that we don't intend to be Venezuela Norte would be wonderful.

[corbe]

   I can understand Clinton and obummer losing their Congressional majorities in their first midterm, but Eisenhower losing his confuses me, sure LBJ and Rayburn were quite ruthless as the dem leaders but the only thing that pops for me was the McCarthy hearing and Eisenhower's segregationist policies in the South, which didn't vote for him anyway.
  Can anybody clear that up for me?

[endicom]

  ...Eisenhower's segregationist policies in the South...

Huh?

[corbe]

Huh?

   Opps, @endicom Thanks for bringing that to my attention, should read ANTI segregation policies.

[edpc]

Whether the House is retained or lost, the majority party will be in power by single digits.  The loss of seats in the House is going to happen.  Whether that results in a power shift remains to be seen.  What will be important, however, is where those seats are lost.

[Cyber Liberty]

   I can understand Clinton and obummer losing their Congressional majorities in their first midterm, but Eisenhower losing his confuses me, sure LBJ and Rayburn were quite ruthless as the dem leaders but the only thing that pops for me was the McCarthy hearing and Eisenhower's segregationist policies in the South, which didn't vote for him anyway.
  Can anybody clear that up for me?

Voters are not slaves to history.   

I think this "First midterm election = loss of seats for a President" has more to do with a new President's tendency to over reach.  Bill Clinton was a classic case of this, with the "Assault Weapons" ban and Hillarycare.

Did President Trump "over reach?"  I dunno. 

[edpc]

Voters are not slaves to history.   

I think this "First midterm election = loss of seats for a President" has more to do with a new President's tendency to over reach.  Bill Clinton was a classic case of this, with the "Assault Weapons" ban and Hillarycare.

Did President Trump "over reach?"  I dunno. 

After the election, Clinton hilariously tried to say he had a mandate, due to his electoral victory.  He was elected with 43%.  Trump had around 46%.  So, it’s inevitable some House seats will be lost, but it won’t be a revolution like ‘94.

[Cyber Liberty]

After the election, Clinton hilariously tried to say he had a mandate, due to his electoral victory.  He was elected with 43%.  Trump had around 46%.  So, it’s inevitable some House seats will be lost, but it won’t be a revolution like ‘94.