Was Eisenhower worse down ballot for his party then Obama

[OSR stands with Israel]

Here was both parties strength in congress  in the election before Eisenhower and Obama vs election when they left office


GOP strength:  1950(election before IKE) vs 1960(election after IKE):

1950 house results: 199 seats
1960 house results: 175 seats

1950 senate results: Held 47 seats out of a total of 96 seats
1960 senate results: Held 36 seats out of a total of 100 seats

Dem strength : 2006(election before Obama ) vs 2016(election after Obama)

2006 house results: 233 seats
2016 house results: 194 seats

2006 senate results : 51 seats
2016 senate results : 48 seats


Also according to this(https://ballotpedia.org/State_legislative_elections,_2016) GOP lost 843 state legislative seats under IKE but Dems  lost 968 under obama.


Looking at this GOP clearly fared worse in the senate while Dems clearly fared worse in the state legislative elections but I feel the house is a tossup as while dems lost more seats under obama the dems started of in a better position so they had more ground to lose while gop in 1950 was already in a bad position(dems still controlled house despite them having control of the presidency for 18 years at the time) so im unsure about that.

[BuckeyeNut]

No. Ike's Senate losses are pretty bad, but unlike Obama, Ike was elected with a Republican minority in Congress. Obama lost the first Democratic House majority in over a decade.

[socaldem]

Here was both parties strength in congress  in the election before Eisenhower and Obama vs election when they left office


GOP strength:  1950(election before IKE) vs 1960(election after IKE):

1950 house results: 199 seats
1960 house results: 175 seats

1950 senate results: Held 47 seats out of a total of 96 seats
1960 senate results: Held 36 seats out of a total of 100 seats

Dem strength : 2006(election before Obama ) vs 2016(election after Obama)

2006 house results: 233 seats
2016 house results: 194 seats

2006 senate results : 51 seats
2016 senate results : 48 seats


Also according to this(https://ballotpedia.org/State_legislative_elections,_2016) GOP lost 843 state legislative seats under IKE but Dems  lost 968 under obama.


Looking at this GOP clearly fared worse in the senate while Dems clearly fared worse in the state legislative elections but I feel the house is a tossup as while dems lost more seats under obama the dems started of in a better position so they had more ground to lose while gop in 1950 was already in a bad position(dems still controlled house despite them having control of the presidency for 18 years at the time) so im unsure about that.

Very interesting.

I think the effect of gerrymandering at decimating Democrats in the House and, particularly, in state legislatures (Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, North Carolina, etc) should be noted.

Also, I'm not sure if it at all mitigates the Obama-era legislative losses, but, many of the Dem legislative losses are in low-population-density rural states. Meanwhile, in CA, where state senate districts and assembly districts are massive, Dems made gains.

The assembly went from 48-32 in 2008 to 55-25 in 2017. The senate went from 25-15 to 27-13.

So in California, that's 1.8 million new people represented in the state senate and about 3.15 million new people represented by Democrats in the state house.

[Virginiá]

Something important to note here is that based on the relevant maps and the prevailing politically environment, neither Ike nor Obama's parties were ever going to hold onto their gains long-term when those two came into office. Still, given the timing of Obama's losses, I'd say he was worse for Democrats than Ike was for Republicans.

However, one thing to keep note of is Ike's 1958 midterm, as the GOP lost 13 Senate seats in one election (AK's were new). Something not immediately apparent as well is that they came close to losing approx 19 Senate seats, with a number of races they won in '58 having small win margins. In other words, Republicans came close to losing the entire class. I consider such Senate losses to be of such a scale that it might make the losses under Ike at the federal level worse than Obama's. It takes years to recover from Senate losses like that, due to the staggering of elections.

Again, though, I'd reiterate that after FDR, there was no easy way back for Republicans. Clawing back power at state/federal level in the 40s/early 50s didn't mean they had a shot, it just meant a literal generation filled with turmoil under Democratic presidential rule had weakened the party downballot, and imo it was always the case that a GOP president would allow Democrats to recover. That is usually how it goes. Ike was generally very popular during his tenure, and only somewhat less in 1958, which make their huge losses so interesting. I can only imagine what kind of carnage a truly unpopular Republican incumbent would have caused for the GOP.

[Skill and Chance]

Something important to note here is that based on the relevant maps and the prevailing politically environment, neither Ike nor Obama's parties were ever going to hold onto their gains long-term when those two came into office. Still, given the timing of Obama's losses, I'd say he was worse for Democrats than Ike was for Republicans.

However, one thing to keep note of is Ike's 1958 midterm, as the GOP lost 13 Senate seats in one election (AK's were new). Something not immediately apparent as well is that they came close to losing approx 19 Senate seats, with a number of races they won in '58 having small win margins. In other words, Republicans came close to losing the entire class. I consider such Senate losses to be of such a scale that it might make the losses under Ike at the federal level worse than Obama's. It takes years to recover from Senate losses like that, due to the staggering of elections.

Again, though, I'd reiterate that after FDR, there was no easy way back for Republicans. Clawing back power at state/federal level in the 40s/early 50s didn't mean they had a shot, it just meant a literal generation filled with turmoil under Democratic presidential rule had weakened the party downballot, and imo it was always the case that a GOP president would allow Democrats to recover. That is usually how it goes. Ike was generally very popular during his tenure, and only somewhat less in 1958, which make their huge losses so interesting. I can only imagine what kind of carnage a truly unpopular Republican incumbent would have caused for the GOP.

Given how popular and non-partisan Ike was, I find 1958 truly remarkable.  While the economy was in a recession, there was nothing world historically remarkable about it.  I guess the Democrats were just institutionally that strong coming out of WWII that they only needed the slightest wind at their backs to utterly dominate.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Something important to note here is that based on the relevant maps and the prevailing politically environment, neither Ike nor Obama's parties were ever going to hold onto their gains long-term when those two came into office. Still, given the timing of Obama's losses, I'd say he was worse for Democrats than Ike was for Republicans.

However, one thing to keep note of is Ike's 1958 midterm, as the GOP lost 13 Senate seats in one election (AK's were new). Something not immediately apparent as well is that they came close to losing approx 19 Senate seats, with a number of races they won in '58 having small win margins. In other words, Republicans came close to losing the entire class. I consider such Senate losses to be of such a scale that it might make the losses under Ike at the federal level worse than Obama's. It takes years to recover from Senate losses like that, due to the staggering of elections.

Again, though, I'd reiterate that after FDR, there was no easy way back for Republicans. Clawing back power at state/federal level in the 40s/early 50s didn't mean they had a shot, it just meant a literal generation filled with turmoil under Democratic presidential rule had weakened the party downballot, and imo it was always the case that a GOP president would allow Democrats to recover. That is usually how it goes. Ike was generally very popular during his tenure, and only somewhat less in 1958, which make their huge losses so interesting. I can only imagine what kind of carnage a truly unpopular Republican incumbent would have caused for the GOP.

Given how popular and non-partisan Ike was, I find 1958 truly remarkable.  While the economy was in a recession, there was nothing world historically remarkable about it.  I guess the Democrats were just institutionally that strong coming out of WWII that they only needed the slightest wind at their backs to utterly dominate.

Wiki 1958 senate page said The Eisenhower position on right to work issues galvanized unions and that caused a bloodbath for the GOP

[Beet]

1958 was a bloodbath that set the stage for the next 22 years of Democratic dominance at the sub-presidential level and 36 years at the sub-Senatorial level.

That being said, Obama was even worse. A great deal of it had to do with the Clinton/Obama Democratic party's abandonment of its populist roots, and another great deal had to do with cyclical unluckiness, a huge economic downturn in 2008. The GOP has now controlled Congress for 20 out of the last 24 years. During this time, economic inequality has gotten completely out of control.