Do midterms naturally favor Republicans or the party out of the presidency?

[100% pro-life no matter what]

So, who would have a midterm advantage with a GOP President?

[This account no longer in use.]

Midterms favour the party out of the presidency.

[Mr. Smith]

Republicans atm, since that's where the people that don't disappear and show up only for the President are.

[DS0816]

So, who would have a midterm advantage with a GOP President?

Refer to 17th Amendment of the 1910s.

Begin with 1914. End, as it was most recently the case, with 2014.

26 midterm election cycles.

Of those 26 midterm election cycles, the overall seat gains between both houses of Congress were won in 23 of those midterm election cycles by the White House opposition party. (The three which were won by the White House party were in 1934, 1998, and 2002.)

Republican President: Democratic midterm gains.

Democratic President: Republican midterm gains.

And typically the governorships come along. (If I have the numbers correct, there are 36 states which schedule their gubernatorial elections in midterm elections. And from the Top 10 most-populous states, this is the case in 9.)

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

2018, is gonna be different since Dems maxes out their Senate seats and GOP maxes out their Govs. We know Dean Heller has Kate Marshall, the treasurer in waiting, and Sherrod Brown and Baldwin are clearly vulnerable.

Dems should pick up IL & MI and NM Govs.  Then, history will tell us the rest.

[OSR stands with Israel]

1894- 1930: Republicans

1930-1994- Democrats

1994-Present: Republicans

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

We have had 3 landslide  midterms for outparty 2006, 2010 & 2014, due to change in economy, I dont expect Dems or GOP, in a first term administration make up significant ground in 2018. Even Dems may find it tough to pickup House.

[Sir Mohamed]

So, who would have a midterm advantage with a GOP President?

Refer to 17th Amendment of the 1910s.

Begin with 1914. End, as it was most recently the case, with 2014.

26 midterm election cycles.

Of those 26 midterm election cycles, the overall seat gains between both houses of Congress were won in 23 of those midterm election cycles by the White House opposition party. (The three which were won by the White House party were in 1934, 1998, and 2012.)

Republican President: Democratic midterm gains.

Democratic President: Republican midterm gains.

And typically the governorships come along. (If I have the numbers correct, there are 36 states which schedule their gubernatorial elections in midterm elections. And from the Top 10 most-populous states, this is the case in 9.)

You mean 2002?

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Midterms favour the party out of the presidency.

This, regardless of whether it's the president's first or second term.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Is this thread actively satirical or has the standard of discourse on this board really fallen so far?

[tpfkaw]

They have always historically favored the party out of the presidency. However, the more elections are polarized and become inelastic by race, income and age, the more they would tend to benefit Republicans (relative to Presidential elections) as opposed to "the party out of the presidency," since Republican-leaning demographics (white, middle or upper-class, middle or retirement-aged) tend to turn out more reliably.

Of course, that's not a universal; some Democratic-leaning demographics (e.g. postgraduate degree-holders, union members) turn out reliably, and teachers union members are probably the very most reliable group in terms of turning out for any and all elections, particularly single-digit turnout local ones.

[PAK Man]

Sometimes extenuating circumstances impact midterms as well. During Clinton's second midterm, Democrats broke even in the senate (they lost Illinois, Kentucky, Ohio, but gained Indiana, New York and North Carolina). In the House, Democrats had a net gain of 5 seats. This is mostly attributed to the Clinton impeachment and backlash against Republicans for pursuing it.

Likewise, in 2002, Republicans netted 8 House seats and 2 Senate seats. Bush was popular after his response to 9/11, which bucked the conventional wisdom here.

[Asian Nazi]

Midterms favor the party out of the presidency, though the current composition of each party's coalition serves to hurt the Democrats in midterms further (or, you could look at it as benefiting the Democrats during Presidential elections). 

Each midterm's demographics look very similar to the Presidential election six years earlier, which means that midterm voters are whiter and older than presidential voters.  But this only accounts for a very small amount of the overall variation, and more can be attributed to voters switching their support. 

[Virginiá]

I think there are a number of factors in this:

1. Voting patterns of the current generation of older people (who vote more reliably in midterms): As the Republican-leaning silent generation ages out of the electorate, older boomers (people who turned 18 during Kennedy/Johnson/Nixon admins.), who lean more Democratic, will fill the 60+ age bracket, will probably skew things a bit more Democratic than it is now, but probably not enough to equally counter the influx of Ford/Carter/Reagan/Bush boomers/genXers who lean more strongly Republican. So I think from 2016 to 2022 should be a little better for Democrats than it is now, but after that it will be somewhat more favorable for Republicans again.

2. Coalition/turnout: Who your voters are and how often they vote is important. The Republican party is comprised of older white voters who are more evenly distributed and have good turnout rates, which makes them more influential. Income level also helps them, as does the large amount of politically active religious voters. Democrats, in addition to white voters, have quite a lot of young people / minority voters, who both tend to vote less reliably in midterms (sometimes by a lot).

3. Distribution of voters: If we're talking about 'favor' as in who has an advantage in gains rather than total votes - Then geography is important too. Democratic voters tend to cluster in population centers which act as natural vote sinks. This gives Republicans an edge due the distribution of their voters. This is problem for Democrats is compounded by gerrymandering, but I consider that issue more of a cheat than a natural factor.

4. Who controls the White House: Because the out-party treats the president and his party as a punching bag with often successful results, the in-party tends to not do as well in midterms. People (sometimes ignorantly) tend to blame the president and his party for a lot of things that happen, whether or not they deserve the blame, and take it out on them at the polls.

This is one of the most consistent factors, but wouldn't necessarily mean doom for the in-party, as you can see from 1930 - 1994, with the Democratic coalition and other factors giving them solid control of Congress despite events arising that would normally have cost them control

--

There may be others I missed, but I think these primarily influence which party has the current midterm advantage

[Torie]

The correct answer all things being equal these days?  Both.

[Orser67]

Imo, Republicans probably get a small-to-medium bump in midterms, while the party in the presidency usually faces medium-to-large headwinds, especially in "sixth year itch" elections (though 1998 and 2002 stand as prominent exceptions). So I would say that they still "naturally" favor the party out of the presidency more so than Republicans.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Usually, 2nd term midterms have high turnover, yes if Trump is the prez, Dems will have a good 2018. However, if Clinton is prez, so many Gov elections are at stake for GOP, it may be a neutral year, unless a smoking gun is found in Benghazi and the GOP tells the Ameeican people after losing Senate, that there is enough circumstantial evidence for impeachment.

[Nichlemn]

We can't really tell until we see some GOP midterms. It does seem like GOP-friendly demographics are turning out higher, but maybe that's caused by the out-term effect?

[DS0816]

So, who would have a midterm advantage with a GOP President?

Refer to 17th Amendment of the 1910s.

Begin with 1914. End, as it was most recently the case, with 2014.

26 midterm election cycles.

Of those 26 midterm election cycles, the overall seat gains between both houses of Congress were won in 23 of those midterm election cycles by the White House opposition party. (The three which were won by the White House party were in 1934, 1998, and 2012.)

Republican President: Democratic midterm gains.

Democratic President: Republican midterm gains.

And typically the governorships come along. (If I have the numbers correct, there are 36 states which schedule their gubernatorial elections in midterm elections. And from the Top 10 most-populous states, this is the case in 9.)

You mean 2002?

Yes.

Sometimes I hit a wrong key when I submit a post from my smartphone.

Sorry. (It's handled.)

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I live in a state and Dems in IL, Ca and NY, in state assembly dont seem to have that problem like WI, Pa or MI where Dems lose a hole lot of seats in midterms. Kept solid majorties.

2018, maybe a start to bucking the trend if Hilary doesnt get into a criminal prosecution with FBI. And Dems pick up alot of Govs. After NM, IL and MI, it can be a neutral year.

If the worst come to past, Trump is prez, Dems will pick House

[Coolface Sock #42069]

Both, but probably Republicans more than the out-party. I am sceptical that Dems could really turn out that many supporters in 2018 with a Republican president. It is very possible that Republicans could, in that scenario, still pick up some Senate and House seats even while possibly losing a governorship or two.

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

Number of midterms where the Democrats did well despite holding the White House: 3 (1934, 1962, and 1998)

Number of midterms where the GOP did well despite holding the White House: 1 (2002)

Interesting that people still think midterms favor the GOP...

[pikachu]

I think the outparty effect is stronger, though I'm basing this mostly upon the 2006 experience, which really shouldn't have gone as disastrously for Republicans if their demographic advantage had worked out. (And, ofc, there are other factors such as presidential popularity and world events which matter a lot too.)

Both, but probably Republicans more than the out-party. I am sceptical that Dems could really turn out that many supporters in 2018 with a Republican president. It is very possible that Republicans could, in that scenario, still pick up some Senate and House seats even while possibly losing a governorship or two.

Even under very adverse conditions, if the Republicans can't make a net gain in thr Senate, it'd be shocking. House losses in 2018 under a GOP president are probably inevitable, since the GOP would likely max out their gains in 2016, while losing some governors is probably inevitable because of the map.

[Virginiá]

Number of midterms where the Democrats did well despite holding the White House: 3 (1934, 1962, and 1998)

1934 - This was part of the Democratic realignment following the Great Depression. Those were unexpected, unique circumstances that essentially took a blowtorch to the GOP. Plus that was over 80 years ago - The coalitions were not the same, and yes, that does make ALL the difference here.

1962 - What do you mean? Democrats lost 4 seats.

1998 - This is widely perceived to be a backlash against the Republican impeachment attempt. Though, Bill Clinton's approval ratings were around 66% through that election and the country was doing well, so those factors definitely helped. Once again, midterm successes are anchored to the hijinks of reality.

Interesting that people still think midterms favor the GOP...

NONE of the years above means anything really to the current GOP coalition's midterm advantage. In fact, their advantage is generally low turnout elections in general. Their voters tend to be better distributed (not packed into hyper-performance districts like Democrats), they consist mainly of white voters (something like 90% of the Republican party's voters are white), with a majority now I believe being older & more likely to vote. Add in churches and religious groups mobilizing voters and other factors and you get a more reliable base in terms of turnout.

The Democratic party's coalition is only 60% white. That 40% non-white voters are packed into certain regions/cities, making their voting power less effective and their turnout rates are pretty low (Asians/Hispanics typically < 49%, African Americans in 2012 were 66%, though) A lot of the Millennial generation hasn't aged enough to vote more regularly, so they also have low turnout rates. They also have somewhat of a ongoing tendency to cluster, if I recall correctly.

The problem is non-white voters also drop off substantially during midterm elections. So an already weakened voting bloc contributes even less in elections that matter. This kind of behavior leads to good presidential elections and terrible midterms. Until Millennials grow up and vote more/replace the older voters, this will probably be the norm for at least another decade.

So yes, midterms do favor the GOP at this time, but it won't necessarily favor them forever

[OSR stands with Israel]

Number of midterms where the Democrats did well despite holding the White House: 3 (1934, 1962, and 1998)

Number of midterms where the GOP did well despite holding the White House: 1 (2002)

Interesting that people still think midterms favor the GOP...

Two of the elections were before the realigning congressional elections of 1994. Before 1994 the Democrats controlled the house for all of the past 40 years, and the Senate all but 6 of the years just like before 1992 the Republicans were the dominant party for the presidency winning the 7 out of the past 10. 1992 and 1994 reversed the trends of the 40 years before those elections.