I don't blame the DUmbass on this one. I bet Today actually did say what he claims. makes a much better background story for the donks's historic loss.
The deal is, the Social Security Act had nothing, zero, zilch, nada, to do with the Dems losing 81 seats in the House of Representatives to the (R)s in 1938.
The Social Security Act was some years earlier, and passed with a lot of strident noises in opposition, but the controversy was long over by November 1938.
The Dems lost 81 seats in the House to the (R)s in 1938 because of other issues; recovery from the Great Depression wasn't happening, nervousness about the international situation.....and cosmetic issues such as Roosevelt's court-packing plan. But mostly because the country was still mired in the Great Depression.
And the loss was inevitable--perhaps not to that degree, but
some loss was inevitable--simply because that's the way history rolls on, the party in the White House losing seats in mid-term elections.
And there's the natural law of things; all things seek an equilibrium, a balance, and Congress had been rather extremely lopsided one way for a few years. Just as at present.
Roosevelt in 1938 got involved in trying to "purge" recalcitrant congressmen--surprisingly, a number of his own Dems--and there was near-universal resentment about that, but the only races that public resentment affected were those of the congressmen involved, those voters sticking with their congressmen rather than the president.
Roosevelt utterly flopped in the purge; he couldn't even get rid of his own congressman in Hyde Park.
Passage of the Social Security Act some years previously played no part in the elections of 1938.