The 2006 election from a historical view

[ProfJohn]

Way too many of you seem to think that the Democrat victory Tuesday was some kind of ?historic victory? So in an effort to set the record straight, here are the FACT on 6 year elections since 1938.

1938
Roosevelt?s 6 year election. Roosevelt and the Democrats suffered due to his attempts to ?pack the court? and an economic downturn, despite the new deal package.
The net result was a pick up of 81 seats in the house for Republicans.
Republicans also picked up 6 seats in the Senate.

1948
Truman?s 6 year election. This was during the Korean war, and Truman saw his personal popularity drop.
Net result was a pick up of 28 seats for the Republicans.
Republicans picked up 5 seats in the Senate.

1958
Eisenhower?s 6 year election. There was a recession and the Soviets had launched Sputnik.
Net result was a pick up of 49 seats for the Democrats.
Democrats also took 13 Senate seats from Republicans. (This was also the year Byrd was first elected.)

1966
Johnson?s 6 year election. Vietnam and race riots across the country hurt the Democrats.
Net results a 48 seat pick up for Republicans.
Republicans only took 3 seats in the Senate.

1974
Ford/Nixon?s 6 year election. Watergate, no need to say more.
Net result was a pick up of 49 seats for Democrats.
Democrats picked up 4 seats in the Senate.

1986
Reagan?s 6 year election. Iran Contra hurt Republicans, but the strong economy and Reagan?s popularity helped them minimize losses.
Net result was a pick up of only 5 seats for Democrats
However, in the Senate Democrats picked up 8 seats, and re-took control of the Senate.

1998
Clinton?s 6 year election. Impeachment hurt the Republicans ability to connect with voters. Peace and a good economy helped the Democrats as well.
Net result was a Democrat pick up of 5 seats. The first time since 1934 that the party out of power failed to gain seats in a mid-year election. And the first time since 1822 that the party out of power failed to gain seats during a 6 year election.
Also factor in the fact that from 1992 to 1998 Republicans had already picked up 61 seats in 3 elections.

2006
Bush?s 6 year election. Iraq war.
As of now Democrats have picked up 29 seats with 10 undecided. Will most likely end up with a 34+ seat gain in the house.
In the Senate they picked up 6 seats.

So when taken in a long term historical view the 2006 election were nothing more than a typical six year election.
And in comparison to the 1994 election this election was rather tame. 1994 saw a shift of 54 seats, and the defeat of several MAJOR Democrat leaders, including the sitting speaker of the house, the first time the speaker lost reelection since 1860.

So enjoy your victory, but save us the ?it was a historic? victory comments.

BTW: Even with the loss Republicans STILL have 20 seats more today than when Bill Clinton was first elected. Thank you Mr. Clinton.
Republicans have gone from 167 seats in 1990 to nearly 200 today, a gain of 30 seats.

 

[miketheidiot]

d a m a g e c o n t r o l










I thought you were going to start posting less?

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
d a m a g e c o n t r o l

F A C T S

I have posted very little today, thank you
I am sure come Jan we will have lots to talk about. Until then Poli news should be rather sparce.

BTW: I thought of doing a damage control thread, point out how many pro-life Democrats got elected etc etc. But that would result in nothing but name calling.
I did create this because a few people seem to think that Tuesday was the greatest victory in election history.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Historical in the context of how this nation will change now. For a professor you have sincerely failed to read in between the lines.

Nevermind the numbers, the Democrats now have control of the House, Senate, and governorships in the United States. This is a huge swing of power for them and quite a big deal. Quit downplaying their success and just for once applaud them for what they were able to pull off. Your such a damn cheerleader for your side it's pathetic.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Historical in the context of how this nation will change now. For a professor you have sincerely failed to read in between the lines.

Nevermind the numbers, the Democrats now have control of the House, Senate, and governorships in the United States. This is a huge swing of power for them and quite a big deal. Quit downplaying their success and just for once applaud them for what they were able to pull off. Your such a damn cheerleader for your side it's pathetic.

The Republicans did almost the same exact thing 1994.

It IS a good victory, but it is not the 'historic' victory some of you want to beleive.

I'll quit down playing the results when the left quits acting like no one has ever won this many seats in a 6 year election.

 

[BoomerD]

Actually, I kind of have to agree (partially) with Professional John...This is something that does happen periodically. They discussed this the other night during election coverage. 2nd term president, in the midst of an unpopular war, the majority party tends to lose quite a few seats, usually to the point of losing their majority to the other side of the aisle. So, while it's NOT particularly historic in that aspect, it is still noteworthy, especially in light of the NEOCON agenda & propaganda they've been pushing for the past 6 years.

 

[Zorba]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
1966
Johnson?s 6 year election. Vietnam and race riots across the country hurt the Democrats.
Net results a 48 seat pick up for Republicans.
Republicans only took 3 seats in the Senate.

Hmm 1966 wasn't Johnson's 6th year...

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Zorba

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
1966
Johnson?s 6 year election. Vietnam and race riots across the country hurt the Democrats.
Net results a 48 seat pick up for Republicans.
Republicans only took 3 seats in the Senate.

Hmm 1966 wasn't Johnson's 6th year...

True, but it was the midterm in his second term in office since he took over in middle of Kennedy's term. So by historic measures most people call 1966 a 6 year election.
1974 wasn't a 6 year either, since Nixon was already gone as well.

 

[ntdz]

Interesting stuff...

 

[trenchfoot]

Nevermind the numbers, the Democrats now have control of the House, Senate, and governorships in the United States. This is a huge swing of power for them and quite a big deal. Quit downplaying their success and just for once applaud them for what they were able to pull off. Your such a damn cheerleader for your side it's pathetic.

whatever is being said to compliment the dems for their victories this election cylce is falling on the deaf ears of those located on the other side of the aisle.

they've been chased around the yard and spanked continuously with a rolled up newspaper for the last few weeks. their egos are bruised and now they're off in their corner licking their wounds, reminiscing of past glories and of the inevitable future glories to come, which is, imo, a very dangerous situation that needs watching and staying ahead of.

so, best to leave them alone in their misery and expect them to come out of this experience smarter, wiser and stronger.

they are, after all, and above all else, fellow americans.

 

[Wreckem]

BTW: Even with the loss Republicans STILL have 20 seats more today than when Bill Clinton was first elected. Thank you Mr. Clinton.

The dems took over 2 years early. Lets check back in 2 years..

Historically the house flips every fourteen years.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: tweaker2

Nevermind the numbers, the Democrats now have control of the House, Senate, and governorships in the United States. This is a huge swing of power for them and quite a big deal. Quit downplaying their success and just for once applaud them for what they were able to pull off. Your such a damn cheerleader for your side it's pathetic.

whatever is being said to compliment the dems for their victories this election cylce is falling on the deaf ears of those located on the other side of the aisle.

they've been chased around the yard and spanked continuously with a rolled up newspaper for the last few weeks. their egos are bruised and now they're off in their corner licking their wounds, reminiscing of past glories and of the inevitable future glories to come, which is, imo, a very dangerous situation that needs watching and staying ahead of.

so, best to leave them alone in their misery and expect them to come out of this experience smarter, wiser and stronger.

they are, after all, and above all else, fellow americans.

Shh...don't tell Dave that...

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

BTW: Even with the loss Republicans STILL have 20 seats more today than when Bill Clinton was first elected. Thank you Mr. Clinton.

The dems took over 2 years early. Lets check back in 2 years..

Historically the house flips every fourteen years.

Is that based on since we started?
We had Democrats in power for 40+ years. Followed by 12 with Republicans.
Whoever wins the White House in 2008 will almost certainly get the house as well.
So it might flip again.
We are very evenly split between Dems and Reps as a country right now.

 

[Siddhartha]

I have noticed the similarities between 1994 and 2006. Both election results were pretty much driven by one issue, taxes in 1994 and this year it was the war in Iraq.

Some people have written that this year's election results were also a response to the Republican's tax policies, governing style, and effectiveness but I think the WAR was the big issue.

The results of last Tuesday's election were not just something that happens every six years. It was the rejection of GWB, his war and his party. It would be political suicide for anyone to ignore or be in denial about this.

 

[trenchfoot]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
I have noticed the similarities between 1994 and 2006. Both election results were pretty much driven by one issue, taxes in 1994 and this year it was the war in Iraq.

Some people have written that this year's election results were also a response to the Republican's tax policies, governing style, and effectiveness but I think the WAR was the big issue.

The results of last Tuesday's election were not just something that happens every six years. It was the rejection of GWB, his war and his party. It would be political suicide for anyone to ignore or be in denial about this.

let me add that exit polls were also calling corruption in government as one of voter's biggest concerns.

 

[Painman]

one thing to consider is, how many of these "six year itch" midterm elections resulted in a complete switchover of party control in Congress?

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Originally posted by: Painman
one thing to consider is, how many of these "six year itch" midterm elections resulted in a complete switchover of party control in Congress?

Exactly ProfJohn fails to read in between the lines or analyze any of the data he so proudly posts. It's called analysis, and I'm amazed that you would even call yourself a professor because you fail to understand this basic concept. I feel sorry for your students.

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: Painman
one thing to consider is, how many of these "six year itch" midterm elections resulted in a complete switchover of party control in Congress?

The last time this happened was 1918 by the way...

 

[Thump553]

What happened was extremely historical for several basic reasons:

(1) The losses happened to a wartime President during wartime, when the President strenuously opposed and campaigned against the Democrats. GWB's campaigning I think, will be judged by impartial observers, to be a substantial cause in his loss in that he nationalized the race and steadfastly refused to change course in Iraq (although he was perfectly willing to change rhetoric, including adopting the totally bogus and nebulous benchmarking system, which even Rumsfeld couldn't explain).

(2) Through extensive efforts while the GOP was in control they cooked the books via gerrymandering, campaign finance "reform" (and much more sinister, if proven true, Diebold type scandals) to make it much more difficult to remove the sitting GOP majorities. This reason alone probably cut the swing in half.

(3) Gasoline and home heating fuel prices mysteriously fell drastically in the 90 days or so before the election, giving lower class and middle class voters the illusion of an improving economy. For some reason, I was hearing radio reports on NPR the day before the election that the allegedly gasoline surplus has now dried up, and gas prices are already on the march upwards again in my area.

(4) The election was a clear and unmistakable message from the voters that they reject the neocon's message and agenda. Look no further than Rhode Island for proof of this. Lincoln Chafee lost, despite the Chafee name (equivalent of Kennedy in MA, or Bush in TX), a 63% positive job approval rating, his break with the GOP in voting AGAINST entering the Iraq War, and his public pronouncement prior to the 2004 election that he personally was not going to vote for GWB. Chafee lost and the reason is simple. The populace accepted the (relatively sophisticated political reason, in my view) that Chafee must go because his win would strengthen the national GOP by retaining Senate dominance. Of secondary importance is that the national party did him no favors by supporting a neocon during a rather bruising primary.

Ironically, both in the razor thin victories in 2000 (actually a GOP loss, numerically) and 2004, each time the neocons claimed stunning victories and mandates. Why the change now, PJ?

In my state, there were nearly 50,000 new voters registered since mid-summer, when the conventional wisdom from both parties expected a maximum of 15,000. Clearly there has been an outpouring of interest by the disaffected and alienated.

I would bet 80-90% of we Americans are pretty much in accord with the founding fathers in that we distrust political parties and have no particular allegiance to either of the major parties. The people have spoken despite the best efforts of the GOP to prevent that, and they have said the government belongs to the people. We want a clean run and efficient government, without the extremist partisan views that have been continuously expressed by the GWB neocon administration since its inception. If the Dems are not perceived as delivering, their tenure may be very short indeed.

If nothing else, I sincerely hope this election cycle marks the death of neocon dominance, and a rebirth of the GOP, much as happened to it after Goldwater's disastrous loss in 1964. Do me a favor, though, no more Nixons, please. One Nixon and one GWB in a lifetime in more than any rational person, or this country, should be expected to endure.

 

[Jhhnn]

"Facts", ProfJohn?

Malarkey. The first shot of the Korean war wasn't fired until 1950, yet you claim it was already happening in 1948...

More like the usual rightwing revisionist history... and falsely attributing correlation as causation...

 

[jackschmittusa]

1948 was not Truman's 6th year, and it was not during the Korean War.

 

[filterxg]

Let's see what they do with the majorities before it's historic. Republicans in '94 was historic, not because they won, but because they held on and controlled the agenda for a decade.

 

[alchemize]

Dems don't like hearing that their new baby is ugly.

 

[fitzov]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne

Originally posted by: Painman
one thing to consider is, how many of these "six year itch" midterm elections resulted in a complete switchover of party control in Congress?

Exactly ProfJohn fails to read in between the lines or analyze any of the data he so proudly posts. It's called analysis, and I'm amazed that you would even call yourself a professor because you fail to understand this basic concept. I feel sorry for your students.

I don't think he's really a professor. I've seen some spelling errors from him that no professor would make, let alone a graduate.

 

[OrByte]

Looking past the sour grapes that this OP is riddled with, he does have a point. With that said, the election results may not be 'historical' when looking at the number of seats that changed hands but it is historical in that it is a complete rejection of everything the current congress and the current Administration has accomplished in the last 6 years. Americans voted for change. The majority of Americans didn't like the unilateral war with Iraq. The majority of Americans dont like the rampant corruption in our government system. Americans are suffering under higher economic burdens, and that played a factor as well. The majority of Americans dont care for the WoT drummming they get everytime the GOP wants to justify it's latest ursurption of civil rights. This election is a direct result of all of the above, and the voice of the majority of VOTING Americans could not be heard any more clearer than that. If you don't like it, then that is your issue. If you think I am wrong, then ask yourself a simple question; Why DID the GOP lose so badly?

When historians look back upon the Bush administration, the mid-term elections of 2006 will most definitely be viewed upon as a mandate on Iraq, a mandate on Republican congressional control, and most certainly a mandate on this admisitrations failed policies. In that, you could make a claim that this 2006 midterm election is historical. IMHO, this election cycle will be historical in that it put the breaks on what will soon be judged as the worst Presidency in US history.