Democrats Were Not Decimated Under Obama
January 12, 2017 By Taegan Goddard
Ron Brownstein: “Most analyses overstate the Democrats’ down-ballot losses under Obama because they only start counting after he took office in 2009. That denies him credit for the candidates he helped elect during his resounding first win in 2008. As I’ve written before, the fairest way to measure a president’s impact on his party is to compare its electoral position just before he first appeared on the ballot with its position just after the election to succeed him. That gives the president responsibility for any other officials initially swept in with him, the outcomes during his tenure, and the shadow he casts over the election to replace him.”
“Under that approach, we would measure Obama by comparing the Democrats’ standing after the 2006 election—just before his first race—with its position after November’s contest. Using that standard, Democrats will end the Obama era with 39 fewer House seats (233 to 194), three fewer Senate seats (51 to 48), and 12 fewer governorships (28 to 16).”
“Those losses are formidable, but hardly unique. Parties almost always lose ground elsewhere while they hold the White House.”
###
https://politicalwire.com/2017/01/12/democrats-not-decimated-obama/
= new reply since forum marked as read
It looks "decimated" to me.
That's a lot of ground to lose!
Time to shelve complacency and work on taking it back! 
I seem to wonder about the author of the article. 
