Was it Inevitable?

[J. J.]

The only even semi-recent exceptions are Post 9-11 George Bush (2002) and Post/Intra depression FDR (1934) as I recall. - Neither of wghich was a remotely "typical" scenario.

Also, 1962 with Kennedy.

Ok the first election Post-Assassination of a President - also a pretty atypical scenario.... (fortunately)

He wasn't assassinated until 1963, even after the local elections.

[J. J.]

The party in Power (ie the President's party) just about always takes it on the chin in the first midterm.

The only even semi-recent exceptions are Post 9-11 George Bush (2002) and Post/Intra depression FDR (1934) as I recall. - Neither of which was a remotely "typical" scenario. EDIT, and post Kennedy Assasinatiion in 1962

I think if Obama had made his stimulus more direct in it's job creation that would have helped.

The "stimulus" bill had a surprisingly small percentage of money that actually went to directly create jobs - it was basically a "Christmas tree" that the Dems hung every pet project they had been trying to fund for the last 20 years upon.

Some of these programs had legitimate merit, but they were not "stimulus" in the sense of getting folks back to work "now".

Given the depth of the recession and the fairly modest impact the stimulus bill actually had, I think the cake got baked pretty early on this one.

What did that guy from Arkansas keep saying "It's the economy stupid...?"

Kennedy was still alive for the yawner of an election that they had in 1962. Some other boring ones were 1970 and 1978. 1990, if you're counting the first midterm of a new President.

Actually, it didn't happen in 1934, 1962 and 2002, but the last two were after redistricting.

I looked at this late last year, and expected a "standard" loss to be about 28-29 seats, just a natural bounce back.  If it 15+ more, it is something more than natural.

[J. J.]

I wonder how much focusing on getting something with the words health care reform through to the detriment of it actually being a good bill, or other important things like the economy was? Obviously some brain-dead strategists were convinced that this would prevent a repeat of 1994. Well, tomorrow could be worse than 1994 for House Democrats.

I wonder if it wouldn't have been better for the Democrats as a party if Obama had lost to McCain in 2008.  Remember, in the Senate this was supposed to be a year for Democratic gains in a neutral environment.  If McCain were president, they would probably be pushing 300 in the House and 70 in the Senate after tomorrow.  If the Tea Party had come about in this scenario, it would be salivating to primary McCain out of office for compromising on something or another.  If a Dem were to beat him in 2012, they would have the majorities to pass stuff like single payer, EFCA, and a carbon tax at will.     

That what I was saying in September 2008.

If the pattern holds, you might see us looking at GOP gains like the ones we'll probably see today, in 2012, with a Republican president.

The scent or re-alignment is in the air, and this might look like 1930-36 for the Republicans.

[J. J.]

I wonder how much focusing on getting something with the words health care reform through to the detriment of it actually being a good bill, or other important things like the economy was? Obviously some brain-dead strategists were convinced that this would prevent a repeat of 1994. Well, tomorrow could be worse than 1994 for House Democrats.

I wonder if it wouldn't have been better for the Democrats as a party if Obama had lost to McCain in 2008.  Remember, in the Senate this was supposed to be a year for Democratic gains in a neutral environment.  If McCain were president, they would probably be pushing 300 in the House and 70 in the Senate after tomorrow.  If the Tea Party had come about in this scenario, it would be salivating to primary McCain out of office for compromising on something or another.  If a Dem were to beat him in 2012, they would have the majorities to pass stuff like single payer, EFCA, and a carbon tax at will.     

That what I was saying in September 2008.

If the pattern holds, you might see us looking at GOP gains like the ones we'll probably see today, in 2012, with a Republican president.

The scent or re-alignment is in the air, and this might look like 1930-36 for the Republicans.

The Republican party is less popular than the Democratic party, so any Republican victories are from Democrats snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

And yet they will probably take the House.

That is actually a sign of a re-alignment.  The old party allegiances break down and a new group comes in.

You saw this in the 1930's with Al Smith.  The Smith-types represented the pre-1930 Democratic Party.

Sbane, the only thing that can be said is that 2008 was not a re-alignment.

[J. J.]

I wonder how much focusing on getting something with the words health care reform through to the detriment of it actually being a good bill, or other important things like the economy was? Obviously some brain-dead strategists were convinced that this would prevent a repeat of 1994. Well, tomorrow could be worse than 1994 for House Democrats.

I wonder if it wouldn't have been better for the Democrats as a party if Obama had lost to McCain in 2008.  Remember, in the Senate this was supposed to be a year for Democratic gains in a neutral environment.  If McCain were president, they would probably be pushing 300 in the House and 70 in the Senate after tomorrow.  If the Tea Party had come about in this scenario, it would be salivating to primary McCain out of office for compromising on something or another.  If a Dem were to beat him in 2012, they would have the majorities to pass stuff like single payer, EFCA, and a carbon tax at will.     

That what I was saying in September 2008.

If the pattern holds, you might see us looking at GOP gains like the ones we'll probably see today, in 2012, with a Republican president.

The scent or re-alignment is in the air, and this might look like 1930-36 for the Republicans.

The Republican party is less popular than the Democratic party, so any Republican victories are from Democrats snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

And yet they will probably take the House.

That is actually a sign of a re-alignment.  The old party allegiances break down and a new group comes in.

You saw this in the 1930's with Al Smith.  The Smith-types represented the pre-1930 Democratic Party.

Sbane, the only thing that can be said is that 2008 was not a re-alignment.

I thin the jury is still out on 2008.  Reagan's GOP got smacked in 1982, but that didn't change the fact that 1980 was a realigning election.  2012 will determine whether 2008 was a re-alignment.  The bar is quite high though.  It would basically have to be Obama by 60/40 to confirm a 2008 re-alignment.  But Reagan rebounded from 37% approval, so I can't dismiss the possiblity that 2008 was the realignment yet.

Actually, the GOP gained in the Senate in 1982.  You had three years of increase in one house and well off the low in the other.

Unless you predicting a Democratic gain in either the House or Senate this year, the "2008 realignment" claim is gone.