Remember Folks: Only twice in history has a new President's party *not* lost seats in Congress

[berni_mccoy]

the first election after he came into office.

This was discussed by Rachel Maddow a couple of weeks ago.

Do not be dissuaded by the MSM predicting losses for the Democrats in the Fall. It's more than likely to happen. What is not likely to happen is a wholesale change in the majority.

[LynneSin]

1. I don't think it's going to be as bad as 1994

The Teabaggers are really coming across as a hate group and they are strongly identified with the republicans. As much as people want change they aren't going to want to put politicians associated with hate groups in office.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

2. I can almost see it.

Democrats lose a grand total of three seats in the House and one in the Senate. The media shouts to the four winds how the Republicans "trounced" the Democrats, "Is the Obama Administration Finished?" "The New Republican Revolution", "1994 All Over Again" etc etc etc.

[Pab Sungenis]

3. 1934 and ...when?

I can't remember the second time a sitting President gained in his first midterm.

[NYC Democrat]

6. 2002 I believe.

[Bicoastal]

9. Both shortly following national catastrophes, notice.

[mdmc]

27. yup

Tom Toles had a cartoon of Gore watching the returns yelling "More proof I won!"

[w4rma]

4. I think we can win seats if we don't let the blue dogs and the DLC drag us down. (nt)

[Toasterlad]

5. That's Right...Start Setting That Bar Low NOW

It's never too early to start laying the groundwork for a kick-ass spin job.

[berni_mccoy]

11. Facts are facts, whether you like them or not.

[zipplewrath]

13. We probably should define the bar at this point

I think most of us would be realistic and admit that a 60 seat majority was not going to be a long lived situation regardless. So just how low does it have to go before we can make the claim that Obama/Reid/Pelosi are "screwing up"?

In the House, how many seats are lost before it is a sign that the democratic party is off on a bender again?

Or is it less about seat counts and more about WHICH seats? Losing Kosmos or Grayson might be just a conservative district waffling over their previous choice. But what about losses in NJ, NY or MA?

[NNN0LHI]

22. Telling the truth is a spin-job?

Interesting.

Don

[Toasterlad]

23. Pretending It's Not the Democrats Own Fault That They're Going to Lose Big In 2010

is most definitely a spin job. Not that anyone will buy it.

We'll all know EXACTLY why the Republicans will control the Senate - and possibly the House - 2011.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

26. Understanding U.S. politics is the devil's handiwork.

Like public dancing, or the ability to do math.

[lunatica]

7. Just a reminder. Only one time in American history has an election NOT

gone to a white man. The mold has been broken. That in itself has already broken the trend of elections.

[hfojvt]

15. an election? Hardly.

I think it's funny how people act like the Presidential election is the only one that counts.

[lunatica]

18. I have no idea what you're talking about or what's so amusing to you

Maybe you can re-read my post. And the answer is yes. An election. To be even more precise, a Presidential election.

[hfojvt]

19. true or false

"Only one time in American history has an election not been won by a white man."

False - Senator Gladys Pyle (1938) white female
Mayor Carl B. Stokes (1967) black man
Senator Carol Mosely Braun (1992) black female
Representative Tammy Baldwin (1998) white female (1st in Wisconsin)
Representative Joseph Rainey (1870) black man
Senator Hiram Revels (1870) black man

your statement is only true if "an election" means "a Presidential election" as if all the other elections are not important enough to matter. Lots of voters think that way too as seen in the number of people who do not vote in the non-Presidential elections.

[lunatica]

20. So naturally you jumped to the obviously wrong conclusion

instead of using logic to figure out what I meant. Jesus! what a total waste of time this exchange was.

[kctim]

8. Very defining election

Big Democrat win = public option or even single payer in our very near future.
You are correct = country ok with current course.
Big Republican win = country not happy with current course.

Going to be a very interesting election.

[kestrel91316]

10. Well, the Teabaggers might well help change that statistic.

If they keep up with the crap, the Repukes are gonna see ANOTHER bloodbath like 2008.

[elocs]

12. I said the same before. Losing seats in an off year election for the party in power is not unususal

at all. Let the Republicans raise the bar so high that their election prediction will look like a failure even with a few loses of Democratic seats.

[LiberalFighter]

14. There were many in 94 that lost not entirely because the president was a Democrat.

Of the 34 that went down in defeat:

elected 1993 -- 1
elected 1992 -- 15
elected 1990 -- 2
elected 1988 -- 4
elected 1986 -- 4
elected 1982 -- 3
elected 1976 -- 1

elected 1964 -- 1 (Tom Foley WA, House Speaker)
elected 1958 -- 2 (Rostenkowski IL - Neal Smith IA)
elected 1952 -- 1 (Brooks TX)


The Republican Party was hitting hard on the Clinton Administration. There were the Whitewater hearings and Vincent Foster. The House Democrats were mired in the House banking scandal. Failure of HCR passage.

It is nothing like it was in 94.

[ashling]

16. Maybe Barack Obama is a Black Swan

The Black Swan Theory is used to explain the existence and occurrence of high-impact, hard-to-predict, and rare events that are beyond the realm of normal expectations.

I will henceforth refer to Barack Obama as The Black Swan :shrug:

[yurbud]

17. if they lose any, it's because they bowed to corporate Democrats to make health care reform

anything less than an unequivocal victory.

After months of the right screaming ''keep your gov'mint hands off my Medicare!'' what would have been a more obvious slam dunk than a Medicare buy in (the insured pay the cost) with subsidies for those who couldn't afford that?

Wouldn't even most on the right be glad to get that and see that it didn't necessarily add hugely to the deficit?

Instead, Democrats chose to alienate the activists they need in the fall and pass a bill that is not instantly digestible to the layman, so the Republicans are free to call it socialism when it is no more that than the Wall Street bailouts were.

[LWolf]

21. +1

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

24. It'll be the Republicans' election to lose.

[scheming daemons]

25. 2002 should have an asterisk.... it was because of the trumped up post-9/11 fear

[lpbk2713]

28. With assclowns like Boner, McConnell and Failin carrying their banner ...

the obstructionist Party of No is in for a major humiliation.