Did the 2014 election ring true with history?

[tarheel]

Historically, the midterm elections usually favor the party that doesn't have the White House. In particular, the party that holds it usually gets hit pretty hard in the 6th-year elections:

1918: Woodrow Wilson's Democrats lost both houses.

1938: Franklin Roosevelt's Democrats suffered huge losses, bigger than any they've had since. It ended up not mattering, since they'd already run up gigantic majorities in 1930, '32, '34 (that, in itself, bucking the 2nd-year tradition) and '36. Considering FDR's 3rd term in 1940 a start-over, and...

1946: The 6th year of the FDR/Harry Truman Administration, and the Democrats lost both houses. Since Truman ended up getting what amounted to 2 full terms, restart the clock at 1945, and, after Truman carried both houses back in '48...

1950: Truman's Democrats didn't lose either house, but took some big losses. The numbers weren't as significant as some of the names (Claude Pepper, Millard Tydings, Helen Gahagan Douglas). The Republicans took both houses in '52, lost them in '54, didn't gain enough back in '56, and...

1958: Dwight D. Eisenhower's Republicans got pounded, worse than any loss they've had since. It didn't matter much, as they already didn't have control.

1966: The 6th year of the John F. Kennedy/Lyndon Johnson Administration, and the Democrats lost big-time, although the huge majorities LBJ built up in '64 prevented a loss of control.

1974: The 6th year of the Richard Nixon/Gerald Ford Administration, and the GOP, already not having control, got clobbered. The Democrats elected that year became known as the Watergate Babies. They were mostly young guys, like Gary Hart; now, there's only 2 left in the House, both from California: George Miller and Henry Waxman; and 1 in the Senate, Patrick Leahy of Vermont.

1986: Ronald Reagan's Republicans lost control of the Senate (a lot of the guys he swept into office in '80 got found out and beat), and lost what amounted to a "working majority" in the House. Although Bill Clinton's Democrats lost both houses in '94, they actually gained in '98.

2006: George W. Bush's Republicans lost both houses. Bush called it "a thumpin'." (Not to be confused with 2010, which Obama called "a shellacking," although his Democrats retained the Senate.)

Aside from 1998, "sixth years" have been bad for the incumbent President's party. At election time it wasn't looking good. The Democrats needed a gain of 17 seats to take the House. In the Senate, they held an edge of 4 seats.

Was the 2014 election just a repeat of history?

 

[joG]

Historically, the midterm elections usually favor the party that doesn't have the White House. In particular, the party that holds it usually gets hit pretty hard in the 6th-year elections:

1918: Woodrow Wilson's Democrats lost both houses.

1938: Franklin Roosevelt's Democrats suffered huge losses, bigger than any they've had since. It ended up not mattering, since they'd already run up gigantic majorities in 1930, '32, '34 (that, in itself, bucking the 2nd-year tradition) and '36. Considering FDR's 3rd term in 1940 a start-over, and...

1946: The 6th year of the FDR/Harry Truman Administration, and the Democrats lost both houses. Since Truman ended up getting what amounted to 2 full terms, restart the clock at 1945, and, after Truman carried both houses back in '48...

1950: Truman's Democrats didn't lose either house, but took some big losses. The numbers weren't as significant as some of the names (Claude Pepper, Millard Tydings, Helen Gahagan Douglas). The Republicans took both houses in '52, lost them in '54, didn't gain enough back in '56, and...

1958: Dwight D. Eisenhower's Republicans got pounded, worse than any loss they've had since. It didn't matter much, as they already didn't have control.

1966: The 6th year of the John F. Kennedy/Lyndon Johnson Administration, and the Democrats lost big-time, although the huge majorities LBJ built up in '64 prevented a loss of control.

1974: The 6th year of the Richard Nixon/Gerald Ford Administration, and the GOP, already not having control, got clobbered. The Democrats elected that year became known as the Watergate Babies. They were mostly young guys, like Gary Hart; now, there's only 2 left in the House, both from California: George Miller and Henry Waxman; and 1 in the Senate, Patrick Leahy of Vermont.

1986: Ronald Reagan's Republicans lost control of the Senate (a lot of the guys he swept into office in '80 got found out and beat), and lost what amounted to a "working majority" in the House. Although Bill Clinton's Democrats lost both houses in '94, they actually gained in '98.

2006: George W. Bush's Republicans lost both houses. Bush called it "a thumpin'." (Not to be confused with 2010, which Obama called "a shellacking," although his Democrats retained the Senate.)

Aside from 1998, "sixth years" have been bad for the incumbent President's party. At election time it wasn't looking good. The Democrats needed a gain of 17 seats to take the House. In the Senate, they held an edge of 4 seats.

Was the 2014 election just a repeat of history?

There is a rythm in human affairs. We see them in business cycles, hair styles and clothing fads or innovation. And in this case all Presidents have the same set of rules defining how and when they can take difficult or easy decisions depending on the lags involved. So you would expect a certain regularity.