(Not So) Scary Midterm Election Math

[McCamy Taylor]

If you are looking for energizing rhetoric, you have come to the wrong place. If you want to be told just how bad the Tea Baggers are for America---please look at some of my old journals. Here, this one ought to do the trick. The Right Wing Hates You! 13 Reasons to Get Out and Vote

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9099983

Ok, now that I have declared this a No fun zone here is some math . No, not Karl Rove’s “The Math”, the cheat sheet that allowed him to predict when the tabulated votes would not match the polls. I am talking solid numbers that I just calculated in my own head.

Methods: Compared presidential approval ratings with gains by party out of power in each of the nation’s midterm elections since 1934.

Results: No matter how much illegal (foreign) corporate money Karl Rove, the Kochs Brothers and the U.S. Chambers of Commerce did or did not throw at this election, the Republicans were always going to take back 50 House Seats and 5 Senate seats----unless Obama turned water into wine and miraculously raised his approval to the upper 60s or lower 70s.

Raw Data:

2006 GOP in the WH Dems +4 Senate +30 House Bush pop 37%

2002 GOP in the WH GOP picks up +1 and +7 Bush pop. 65% (9-11 effect)

1998 Dems in WH, GOP +0 and +4 Clinton popularity 70% (impeachment effect)

1994 Dems WH GOP +5 +56 Clinton at 45% pop.

1990 GOP WH Dems +1 +9 Bush Sr at 70% (Persian Gulf )

1986 GOP WH Dems +8 +7 Reagan at 46 % (Iran Contra)

1982 GOP WH Dems -1 +28 Reagan at 44%

1978 Dem WH GOP +3 +15 Carter at 50% (falling)

1974 GOP WH Dems +3 +51 Nixon/Ford at 55% (falling) (Nixon pardon 9-74)

1970 GOP WH Dems -3 +12 Nixon at 58% (steady)

1966 Dem WH GOP +4 +47 LBJ at 50’s (heading down from high after JFK )

1962 Dem WH GOP -3 +3 JFK 74%

1958 GOP WH Dem +16 +49 Eisenhower 56%

1954 GOP WH Dem +0 +19 Eisenhower at 61%

1950 Dem WH GOP +5 +28 Truman 40%

1946 Dem WH GOP +14 +57 Truman 32%

1942 Dem WH GOP +9 +47 Roosevelt 70%

1938 Dem WH GOP +5 +89 Roosevelt 50% (Still More Depression)

1934 Dem WH GOP -11 -114 Roosevelt ( Great Depression)


Note that the party not in power in the White House will (almost) always win seats in the House and will usually win seats in the Senate.

This rule has held true since 1938 except for 2002, when Bush was still riding his 9-11 popularity wave---and the nation was being spooked by threats of Iraqi WMDs. It did not hold true in 1934, because we were in the middle of the Great Depression, which voters blamed on Republicans.

Also note the popularity of the president is inversely related to the number of House seats the opposition will win. This is not a strictly linear correlation. As the presidential popularity rises over 60%, there is often (but not always) a further decrease in the number of House seats which the opposition will pick up.

In 1994, Newt Gingrich convinced his fellow Republicans that he was some kind of genius…because he knew his history. Note that Newt was a college history teacher before he went into politics. He knew that the GOP would gain Congressional seats, with Clinton at less than 50% popularity. He pulled one of the greatest political cons of the century by convincing his fellow Republicans that he had made it happen. They gave him power unlimited…and in 1998, he proved that his so called political genius was not all it had been cracked up to be, when he impeached Clinton, sent his popularity through the roof---and cost the GOP its expected gains.

Why do Americans use midterm elections as a referendum on the president? Who knows. It makes no sense to say I really hate that Obama as President, so I am going to vote for the Republicans in Congress. . Congress and the President are two entirely different things. Congress writes law and appropriates money. The president enforces the law and protects the nation from foreign powers. It makes even less sense to say I am lukewarm on Obama as president---and therefore I am going to stay home from this fall’s Congressional elections in order to punish him. But that is the way it is in the USA.

One thing I know for sure. If Karl Rove, the U.S. Chambers of Commerce and the Koch Brothers do not deliver more than 5 Senate seats and 56 House seats (the 1994 numbers) all those millions of dollars will have been for nothing. However, that will not stop them from bragging that they engineered an election upset with all their suitcases full of cash.

[dalaigh lllama]

1. The pattern sure holds true, doesn't it.

I just hope they don't gain enough seats to win either house.

[McCamy Taylor]

2. They should get the House and not the Senate if things go as usual.

If they get neither, it will be a major Democratic coup---and Rove's name will be mud forever. So, get out to vote if you think Karl Rove needs to retire from politics.

[Kolesar]

3. The gops are about half as popular as a party as they were in 1994

So Democratic candidates with a decent campaign and message have a much better shot at winning.

[bemildred]

4. "Past performance is no guarantee of future results."

Just as true in politics as in the stock market.

[SoCalDem]

5. There ARE some real variables this time around though

This is the first "off-year" election with a real presence of Facebook, Twitter, video-vigilantes and of course we have extra-added tweakiness of the teabag brigade this time around.

We also have the first black man residing in the WH, which has created stage 11 hemorrhoidal rage of all the racists (most of whom reside in republicanville)

We also have Fertilla, the Huntress of the North Pole gleefully tweeting 24-7, when she's not dragging that poor little baby of hers around in front of her adoring minions, as she revs up the hatred.

Combine those with the fact that many millions are unemployed, under-employed, scared to death of becoming unemployed....millions have lost homes...and all this has happened while bank-thugs take big bonuses after being bailed out with taxpayer money & there's a much more volatile atmosphere than at any other mid-term election in recent history

With these circumstances, anything can happen

and don't forget, our election system is not much different from when we all realized what a mess it is..back in 2000.

[Codeine]

6. "Fertilla, the Huntress of the North Pole"

Oh. Em. Gee.

:rofl: I am now your biggest fan.

[Upton]

7. Thanks for laying this all out..

I'm not sure a lot of folks understand that only twice has a midterm veered from the pattern of the party in power losing seats. And as you've already pointed out, there were circumstances that led to those exceptions.

Personally, I agree with the prognosticators in that the House is lost. My sincere hope is we keep the Senate, though I'm not particularly confident about that either..

[sabrina 1]

8. I think we will keep the Senate, maybe even gain seats.

I looked at the stats posted on Huffpo a few days ago, and posted them here http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9407623

If you look at the facts presented in those stats, we should definitely keep at least 51 seats, but there is a really good chance of gaining a few, possibly ending up with about 54.

The House is different. But some of the races are so close they could go either way. And if it's true that one third of registered voters still haven't decided, it could be better than it looks right now.