Author Topic: if I were a Democrat, liberal, or primitive  (Read 2734 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline franksolich

  • Scourge of the Primitives
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 58694
  • Reputation: +3068/-173
if I were a Democrat, liberal, or primitive
« on: October 06, 2010, 08:32:35 PM »
You know, if I were a Democrat, naturally I would be bothered by the electoral prospects of Democrats, liberals, and primitives as they now stand, circa three weeks before the mid-term elections.  I would be bawling, and regretting, a lot.  I wouldn't like it at all.

However, unlike Democrats, liberals, and primitives, I would take the prospect of devastating losses somewhat more sedately, somewhat more calmly.

It's after all something Republicans have had to do all our lives.

It seems in iron-clad rule that the party in the White House loses seats in Congress in the first mid-term election of a presidency.  The only exceptions were George Bush in 2002 and Franklin Roosevelt in 1934; otherwise, since the beginning of the Republic in 1789, it's always been the case.

The first George Bush won the presidency in a landslide in 1988 (a landslide is defined as getting 55% or more of the popular vote; this was the most-recent presidential landslide).....but that didn't stop his party from losing seats in the mid-term elections of 1990.

Ronald Reagan first won the presidency in a landslide in 1980.....but that didn't stop his party from losing seats in the mid-term elections of 1982.

Lyndon Johnson won the presidency in a landslide in 1964.....but that didn't stop his party from losing seats in the mid-term elections of 1966.

Warren Harding won the presidency in a landslide in 1920.....but that didn't stop his party from losing seats in the mid-term elections of 1922.  (And Warren Harding was much more popular in his day, than il Duce Bo is in this day, by the way.)

And all the non-landslide presidents (excepting George Bush) in between, and before these, same thing.

And so if I were a disheartened Democrat, I would remember that; in fact, I would've remembered it ever since election night 2008.  It's just the way things go.  I would've understood two years ago that having won the White House, the Democrats were inevitably fated to lose seats in Congress in 2010, no matter how good or how lousy of a president il Duce Bo was to turn out during his first two years in office.

It happens.  It's the way history flows, the way the pendulum swings.

If I were a disheartened Democrat, I would brush the losses of 2010 away--since it happens anyway, and nothing can be done about it--and instead concentrate my hopes on the elections of 2012.  I would focus my energies on the future, rather than the inevitable can't-do-anything-about-it present.

As a lifelong Republican, I've had to look at elections this way.....all my life.

Which of course goes a long way in explaining why franksolich is so mellow, laid-back, no matter how any election turns out for his own party.  One can't go against the tides of history, and so one just flows with it, and waits until next time.....

"Next time" eventually comes.

I dunno why Democrats, liberals, and primitives don't adopt the same attitude; as their attitudes presently are, they're dooming themselves to perpetual rage and hate and gnashing-of-teeth, and one can't possibly have a very happy life, being that way.
apres moi, le deluge

Offline thundley4

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 40571
  • Reputation: +2222/-127
Re: if I were a Democrat, liberal, or primitive
« Reply #1 on: October 06, 2010, 08:43:08 PM »
That is the way sane. reasoning and logical people would look at it. Need I say more about why the DUmmies are so upset?

Offline BattleHymn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8750
  • Reputation: +974/-63
  • Not right, but not left, either.
Re: if I were a Democrat, liberal, or primitive
« Reply #2 on: October 06, 2010, 08:46:44 PM »
Frank,

Did you happen to see what the number for the largest amount of seats lots during a midterm was?

Offline Chris_

  • Little Lebowski Urban Achiever
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 46845
  • Reputation: +2028/-266
Re: if I were a Democrat, liberal, or primitive
« Reply #3 on: October 06, 2010, 08:48:31 PM »
Gallup has information on House seats going back to Truman.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/141812/avg-midterm-seat-loss-presidents-below-approval.aspx
If you want to worship an orange pile of garbage with a reckless disregard for everything, get on down to Arbys & try our loaded curly fries.

Offline franksolich

  • Scourge of the Primitives
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 58694
  • Reputation: +3068/-173
Re: if I were a Democrat, liberal, or primitive
« Reply #4 on: October 06, 2010, 08:52:16 PM »
Frank,

Did you happen to see what the number for the largest amount of seats lots during a midterm was?

The mid-term elections of 1894 were the Mother of All Mid-Term landslides; there were "landslides" in 1946 (R) and 1974 (D) and 1994 (R), but those paled when compared with the Mother of All Mid-Term landslides.

A Democrat having been elected president in 1892, the Republicans picked up 98-102 (I forget the exact number; it was somewhere in that narrow range) seats in the House of Representatives alone, in 1894.

Numbers for the Senate in 1894 were extraordinary too, but I dunno those numbers.

That was the Massive Mother of Them All, in the 221-year history of this Republic.

apres moi, le deluge

Offline franksolich

  • Scourge of the Primitives
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 58694
  • Reputation: +3068/-173
Re: if I were a Democrat, liberal, or primitive
« Reply #5 on: October 06, 2010, 09:01:33 PM »
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_1894

Quote
The U.S. House election, 1894 was a realigning election—a major Republican landslide that set the stage for the decisive Election of 1896. The elections of members of the United States House of Representatives in 1894 came in the middle of President Grover Cleveland's second term. The nation was in its deepest economic depression ever following the Panic of 1893, so economic issues were at the forefront. In the spring, a major coal strike damaged the economy of the Midwest and Mid-Atlantic. It was accompanied by violence; the miners lost and many moved toward the Populist party. Immediately after the coal strike concluded, Eugene V. Debs led a nationwide railroad strike, called the Pullman Strike. It shut down the nation's transportation system west of Detroit for weeks, until President Cleveland's use of federal troops ended the strike. Debs went to prison (for disobeying a court order). Illinois' Governor John Peter Altgeld, a Democrat, broke bitterly with Cleveland.

The fragmented and disoriented Democratic Party was crushed everywhere outside the South, losing more than half its seats to the Republican Party. Even in the South, the Democrats lost seats to Republican-Populist electoral fusion in Alabama, Texas, Tennessee, and North Carolina. The Democrats lost 125 seats in the election while the Republicans gained 130 seats. This makes the 1894 election the largest midterm election victory in the entire history of the United States.
apres moi, le deluge

Offline BattleHymn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8750
  • Reputation: +974/-63
  • Not right, but not left, either.
Re: if I were a Democrat, liberal, or primitive
« Reply #6 on: October 06, 2010, 09:06:50 PM »
The mid-term elections of 1894 were the Mother of All Mid-Term landslides; there were "landslides" in 1946 (R) and 1974 (D) and 1994 (R), but those paled when compared with the Mother of All Mid-Term landslides.

A Democrat having been elected president in 1892, the Republicans picked up 98-102 (I forget the exact number; it was somewhere in that narrow range) seats in the House of Representatives alone, in 1894.

Numbers for the Senate in 1894 were extraordinary too, but I dunno those numbers.

That was the Massive Mother of Them All, in the 221-year history of this Republic.



Ah, 1894!  It slipped my mind that 1894 was a midterm and not a presidential election year.  I did a little studying of that election a few months back.  It seems to me that we are experiencing some of the same problems that we had way back when, that led up to that tsunami.



Offline franksolich

  • Scourge of the Primitives
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 58694
  • Reputation: +3068/-173
Re: if I were a Democrat, liberal, or primitive
« Reply #7 on: October 06, 2010, 09:08:58 PM »
This is the whole wikipedia reference to the Senate elections of 1894; of course in those days, state legislators rather than the public, selected U.S. Senators.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_1894

Quote
The U.S. Senate election, 1894 was a Republican landslide. It was in this election that future presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan failed to win a Senate seat in Nebraska.

That's all wikipedia says, the whole entire article.

At the moment, I can't find the exact numbers, but I recall they were large.
apres moi, le deluge

Offline BattleHymn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8750
  • Reputation: +974/-63
  • Not right, but not left, either.
Re: if I were a Democrat, liberal, or primitive
« Reply #8 on: October 06, 2010, 09:27:00 PM »
This is the whole wikipedia reference to the Senate elections of 1894; of course in those days, state legislators rather than the public, selected U.S. Senators.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_1894

That's all wikipedia says, the whole entire article.

At the moment, I can't find the exact numbers, but I recall they were large.

Frank,

This is what I found on the senate.gov website (what a train wreck that website is as far as navigational ease): 

52nd Congress (1891-1893)
Majority Party: Republican (47 seats)
Minority Party: Democrat (39 seats)
Other Parties: 2 Populist
Total Seats: 88
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
53rd Congress (1893-1895)
Majority Party: Democrat (44 seats)
Minority Party: Republican (40 seats)
Other Parties: 3 Populist; 1 Silver
Total Seats: 88
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
54th Congress (1895-1897)
Majority Party: Republican (44 seats)
Minority Party: Democrat (40 seats)
Other Parties: 4 Populist; 2 Silver
Total Seats: 90
---------------------------------

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/one_item_and_teasers/partydiv.htm

Unless I am interpreting this information wrongly, the 1894 Senate Wikipedia entry seems to be referring to the House election being a landslide. 


Offline franksolich

  • Scourge of the Primitives
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 58694
  • Reputation: +3068/-173
Re: if I were a Democrat, liberal, or primitive
« Reply #9 on: October 06, 2010, 09:29:51 PM »
Now, it seems to me the Republicans picked up more Senate seats than that, in 1894.

wikipedia has it separated in regards to the mid-term elections of 1894; those for the House and those for the Senate.  HOWEVER, it does, in both articles, say both were landslides.
apres moi, le deluge

Offline BattleHymn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8750
  • Reputation: +974/-63
  • Not right, but not left, either.
Re: if I were a Democrat, liberal, or primitive
« Reply #10 on: October 07, 2010, 12:35:26 AM »
The 1894 election winners were seated as the 54th Congress.  The 54th Congress had a composition in the Senate of 44R/40D, while the 53rd Congress had a composition of 44D/40R. 

1894 Senators would have been class 2.  1894 sent 10 Dems, and 16 Republicans to the Senate.    I do not know the party composition of the seats that were open under class 2.     

Also, I apologize for heading down such a long rabbit trail on your thread, but this subject just seemed to really grab hold of me tonight.   :popcorn:


Offline franksolich

  • Scourge of the Primitives
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 58694
  • Reputation: +3068/-173
Re: if I were a Democrat, liberal, or primitive
« Reply #11 on: October 07, 2010, 06:41:33 AM »
The 1894 election winners were seated as the 54th Congress.  The 54th Congress had a composition in the Senate of 44R/40D, while the 53rd Congress had a composition of 44D/40R.  

1894 Senators would have been class 2.  1894 sent 10 Dems, and 16 Republicans to the Senate.    I do not know the party composition of the seats that were open under class 2.    

Also, I apologize for heading down such a long rabbit trail on your thread, but this subject just seemed to really grab hold of me tonight.   :popcorn:

Don't worry about it; it's important for people to know, so as to make comparisons.

All the below are from wikipedia; these are not from all mid-term elections, only the mid-term elections taking place during a president's first term in office.  (Although generally the mid-term elections taking place during a president's second term in office, the president's party loses seats too, not just as often or as much.)

In 1920, (R) Warren Harding won the presidency in a landslide, but in 1922, the (D)s picked up 76 seats in the House, although the (R)s managed to keep a reasonable majority.

In 1924, (R) Calvin Coolidge won the presidency by a wide margin, but in the mid-term elections of 1926, the (D)s picked up 11 seats in the House, although the (R)s managed to keep a comfortable majority.

In 1928, (R) Herbert Hoover won the presidency in a landslide, but in 1930, the (D)s picked up 52 seats in the House, although the (R)s managed to maintain a thin majority.

In 1932, (D) Franklin Roosevelt won the presidency in a landslide, and in the first mid-term elections of his presidency, 1934, the (D)s picked up 9 seats in the House, padding their majority there.  (See George Bush, as follows, though.)

In 1944, (D) Harry Truman had won the vice-presidency by a good but not landslide margin, replacing Franklin Roosevelt the six months later.  In the first mid-term elections of his presidency, 1946, the (R)s picked up 55 seats in the House, taking over as the majority.

In 1952, (R) Dwight Eisenhower had won the presidency in a landslide, but in 1954, the (D)s picked up 19 seats in the House, winning the majority by a razor-thin margin.

In 1960, (D) John Kennedy had won--dubiously--the presidency by a hair.  In the mid-term elections of 1962, the (R)s picked up 2 seats in the House, which remained majority (D).

In 1964, (D) Lyndon Johnson had won the presidency in a landslide, but in 1966, the (R)s picked up 47 seats in the House, which remained majority (D).

In 1968, (R) Richard Nixon had won the presidency by a narrow margin, but in 1970, the (D)s picked up 12 seats in the House, retaining a comfortable majority.

In 1972, (R) Richard Nixon won the presidency in a landslide, but resigned in 1974.  The mid-term elections of 1974 were the first for his (R) replacement, Gerald Ford; the (D)s picked up 49 seats in the House, and it is from this "class" that much of the current Democrat leaders come (meaning these people are, uh, no longer young).

In 1976, (D) the Incompetent One won the presidency by a narrow margin.  In the mid-term elections of 1978, the (R)s gained 15 seats in the House, although the (D)s retained their comfortable majority.

In 1980, (R) Ronald Reagan won the presidency in a landslide, but in the first mid-term elections of that administration, 1982, the (D)s picked up 27 seats in the House.

In 1988, (R) George Bush won the presidency in a landslide, but in 1990, the (D)s picked up 7 seats in the House.

In 1992, (D) the Impeached One won the presidency in a three-way contest, well short of a majority; in the first mid-term elections of that administration, 1994, the (R)s picked up 54 seats in the House, for the first time in 42 years gaining the majority.

In 2000, (R) George Bush won the presidency in a close race; in the first mid-term elections of that administration, 2002, the (R)s picked up 8 seats in the House, the first time a sitting party had gained seats during a president's first two years in office, since Franklin Roosevelt in 1934.

One thing's for sure; il Duce Bo's no Franklin Roosevelt or George Bush.
« Last Edit: October 07, 2010, 06:49:16 AM by franksolich »
apres moi, le deluge