Um... On That 2010 Election Blame Game Thingy... (From October 2010)

[WillyT]

Why Obama isn’t sweating the midterms
By Joshua Spivak - Reuters
OCT 7, 2010 09:02 EDT

<snip>

With the Democrats thought to be facing a tidal wave of voter anger, and Republican incumbent Senators already being swept out of office in record numbers, the one person who seems unconcerned is President Obama. He has good reason not to sweat: while conservative activists are hoping the 2010 result is a harbinger for the presidential election, history shows that even disastrous mid-term elections don’t say much about a president’s re-election chances.

It has become a cliché that the president’s party suffers defeat in their first mid-term election. With a few exceptions, most notably the Republicans in 2002, the president’s party invariably witnesses setbacks in that first national return to the voters. Sometimes the impact is modest, other times the impact is so severe that it costs the party in power control over the legislature. Everyone is quick to remember the Democrats disaster in 1994, when they lost 54 seats and control of the House for the first time in four decades.

But the same phenomena occurred in 1954 when the Republicans coughed back the House to the Democrats, and in 1946 when the Republicans took control after a gain of 55 seats. Similarly, before the 1982 election, the Republicans had a minority in the House, but it was large enough to make deals. But a decisive Democratic performance ended that. Practically every mid-term has examples, including a 60+ seat deluge to the Republicans in 1914 following Woodrow Wilson’s first term and a 50+ seat victory that gave the Democrats control of the House in 1910.

What is noteworthy about the mid-term debacles is that they rarely spell disaster for the president. Looking at the elections of the past, one can see that Clinton, Reagan, Nixon and Eisenhower all cruised to reelection, and both Truman and Wilson skated by successfully. Rather than be hampered by the opposition controlling one or both houses of the legislature, these chief executives were strengthened. It gave the president an easy foil to score quick political points.

<snip>

Link: http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2010/10/07/why-obama-isnt-sweating-the-midterms/

:shrug:

[mazzarro]

1. What about now - is he sweating yet? -- n/t

[WillyT]

2. I Don't Think He Sweats... Wouldn't Be... Pragmatic...

:D

:evilgrin:

:hi:

[Ruby the Liberal]

3. And we lost 63 seats. Biggest loss since Truman.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2010

[Scuba]

4. Too bad he disappointed many Progressives resulting in them staying home in 2010. n/t

[chill_wind]

5. Not only that, but

Here's more on the demographics on the voter turnout.

Putting rest certain favorite (old tired) narratives:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=439&topic_id=1676166

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2010/results/polls/#USH00p1