Was it Inevitable?

[Skill and Chance]

Looking back to early 2009, was there anything that Obama could have done differently, short of fundamentally changing his ideology (i.e. not being a liberal) to avoid a Republican wave this year?  Was there any plausible path that would have led to a 1934 repeat for him and his party?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_1934

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_1934

Abandoning Health Care Reform after Scott Brown's win might have saved 10 or 20 House seats and a couple of Senate seats, but it would still have been a big GOP win. 

Maybe if instead of the stimulus, they had passed a bill in early 2009 providing funds for the federal and/or state governments to immediately hire the first 10 million+ people who apply for jobs?  The cost would be similar, and if you are a true Keynesian, which Obama probably is, then it shouldn't even matter what you are hiring them to do, but infrastructure improvements would have been ideal.  That's about the only scenario I can come up with, and I doubt it would have passed congress.

 

[Skill and Chance]

Have Norm Coleman win the MN senate seat.

That would have helped somewhat, but I think you would need much more drastic changes to keep Obama at 60%+ approval today for a 1934 repeat.

If you simply mean keeping GOP midterm gains in line with historical averages, then yes, that might have done it.

[Skill and Chance]

Alternatively, how about having the Dems win a couple more Senate seats in 2008, like GA and KY?  That would cut down dramatically on the highly unpopular wheeling and dealing because no one could hold out as "the deciding vote" on every single policy.

[Skill and Chance]

Maybe the better question then is why 2006 was only D+31 as opposed to D+65?  Bush had significantly lower approval than Obama's on election eve.

[Skill and Chance]

Maybe the better question then is why 2006 was only D+31 as opposed to D+65?  Bush had significantly lower approval than Obama's on election eve.

Because the result in an "average" year is a small Republican house majority.

Yes, but it's like 22X to 21Y R-D in an "average" year.  That alone is not enough of a deviation to explain a doubling of seat gains in a more "favorable" year for Dems than 2006 was for the GOP

Edit: Okay, it makes sense now.  In 2006 we started from "average" and ended up about 25 seats from average.  In 2010 we are starting from about 35 seats from average and ending up right about average.

[Skill and Chance]

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.     

[Skill and Chance]

I'll believe there has been a realignment when an incumbent president wins at least 40 states in his/her re-election attempt.  Alternatively, a tighter presidential re-election with massive congressional gains for the same party may signal a realignment (think 1948)

[Skill and Chance]

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.