|
It is more the norm than not that the new party in power loses the first midterm of a new president.
Everyone is trumpeting how many seats we lost in the House. "The Most Ever." "An Historical Loss." Etcetera.
But really? Did we?
I contend the abnormality was our back-to-back *big* wins in 2006 and 2008. In 2006, we were supposed to have modest gains in the House and mostly nothing in the Senate. Instead we won both and had big numbers up on the board. In 2008 we saw the first serious, decisive presidential win since St Ronald. Our numbers grew. In fact, we lost our ability to have the whole magilla not by electoral inadequacy, but by the natural process of aging and death.
In the process of putting up those big numbers, we saw a whole lot of tight races go our way. Those were races between the natural favorites - conservatives and repubicans - in their respective states and districts and Blue Dogs, some of whom became Democrats simply as a way to run against a crazy person who appealed to the local base. The winners of these races, if not the natural favorite, were surely not destined to hold those seats for very long, and they didn't.
This midterm was very predictable. The fact is, we did better than we might have. We held the Senate. That was supposedly in danger, too. True enough, we held it on some flukes. Mainly, I thank Christine O'Donnell for it. Had she not beaten Mike Castle, we likely would have lost our slim majority. But that's inside baseball stuff.
Back to the question. While we lost and lost quite soundly, did we, in fact, "get our asses kicked" or did we simply see a normal pattern play out?
I think this cycle was simply a correction back to a closely divided government, which is more the norm for the past many decades.
|