• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Which President Was Rejected By Voters The Most In Their First Midterm?

Moderate Right

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 21, 2015
Messages
53,813
Reaction score
10,858
Location
Kentucky
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
President A, who lost 63 seats in the House and also lost ground in the Senate

or

President B, who lost around 35 seats in the House but gained seats in the Senate

This is an A or a B question. I'm not naming any names.
 

apdst

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
133,631
Reaction score
30,928
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
President A, who lost 63 seats in the House and also lost ground in the Senate

or

President B, who lost around 35 seats but gained seats in the Senate

A, obviously.
 

lwf

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 15, 2018
Messages
10,999
Reaction score
6,214
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Begging the question.

Which president was rejected by voters most in their first term? The one with the approval rating of 63% when he took office or the one with the approval rating of 42%?
 

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
President A, who lost 63 seats in the House and also lost ground in the Senate

or

President B, who lost around 35 seats in the House but gained seats in the Senate

This is an A or a B question. I'm not naming any names.

Answer: A. If you're just going by numbers.
 

Anagram

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2011
Messages
8,858
Reaction score
5,411
Location
St. Louis MO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
President A, who lost 63 seats in the House and also lost ground in the Senate

or

President B, who lost around 35 seats in the House but gained seats in the Senate

This is an A or a B question. I'm not naming any names.

Depends on what you go by. There might, say, be a bigger projected margin of votes nationally in between President B's party and the outsiders in his midterm than the other one, even though President B lost less seats. President B could make a convincing argument that this political geography doesn't really matter though, and absolute seat gains are all that matters. It comes down to what you care about more, raw votes or seats when deciding whether voters are rejecting the president.

Seats matter more for power of course. National house votes don't mean anything for elections. But when it comes to measuring how the public feels about the president, it matters a bit. And certainly raw seat gains aren't the be all end all. President B's opposition party might be coming from a higher starting point than President A's opposition. There would be more targets.

Certainly if President A's opposition won the same seats in the following election, you wouldn't be telling me it isn't a wave just because they didn't gain any seats.

It might be hard to argue that the Senate shifts are very meaningful if there are extraordinarily different maps between the two elections. In the following scenario for example:

President B only has to defend 9 seats and the other party has to defend 26. Eight of his seats were in states won by his own party, 7 of them by a significant to an overwhelming amount.

Meanwhile President A has to defend 19 seats carried by his party and the other party has to defend 18. If half of the opposing party's gains are in states that already overhwelmingly prefer the opposing party, are those pickups really comparable to President B's midterm where no corresponding seats are up for election?

You have to go into the weeds way more. Deciding what election is a bigger wave based only on contextless Senate pickups is a bad way to go about it. The map of which seats are up is everything.
 
Last edited:

Slavister

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 8, 2018
Messages
7,417
Reaction score
4,533
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
President A, who lost 63 seats in the House and also lost ground in the Senate

or

President B, who lost around 35 seats in the House but gained seats in the Senate

This is an A or a B question. I'm not naming any names.

Did President A or President B have a much better economy at the time?
 

haymarket

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
120,954
Reaction score
28,528
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
President A, who lost 63 seats in the House and also lost ground in the Senate

or

President B, who lost around 35 seats in the House but gained seats in the Senate

This is an A or a B question. I'm not naming any names.

What reeks worse.... a pile of dung that is 35 inches high or one that is 63 inches high?

I have a suspicion that BOTH are bad the once you hit a certain size - bad is simply bad.
 

Moderate Right

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 21, 2015
Messages
53,813
Reaction score
10,858
Location
Kentucky
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Begging the question.

Which president was rejected by voters most in their first term? The one with the approval rating of 63% when he took office or the one with the approval rating of 42%?

Ummmmmmmm. Obama's approval numbers were very low throughout most of his presidency, highlighted by the fact of the loss of over 1000 seats during his presidency to the Republicans. But, that didn't stop him from winning a Nobel prize before he had even done anything, based on expectations alone, which represents his 63% approval rating when he took office when he hadn't even done anything yet he could have an approval rating for.
 

Moderate Right

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 21, 2015
Messages
53,813
Reaction score
10,858
Location
Kentucky
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
What reeks worse.... a pile of dung that is 35 inches high or one that is 63 inches high?

I have a suspicion that BOTH are bad the once you hit a certain size - bad is simply bad.

So, you're saying that Obama was bad?
 

haymarket

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
120,954
Reaction score
28,528
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
So, you're saying that Obama was bad?

I am saying a loss is a loss is a loss.

If you lose the Super Bowl by one point or ten or thirty - you still lost the Super Bowl.

You lose control of the House - you lose control of the House.

Republicans looking for solace on this are foolish.

It has been on the news today that the percentage difference between Dem and GOP votes this time was nearly exactly what it was when the Republicans took that massive amount of seats. But gerrymandering which has occurred allowed the same percentage to reap almost twice the seats then as the Dems took this week.

So one has to look deeper than just the size of the number of seats lost or won to fully explain what happened.
 
Last edited:

Moderate Right

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 21, 2015
Messages
53,813
Reaction score
10,858
Location
Kentucky
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
I am saying a loss is a loss is a loss.

If you lose the Super Bowl by one point or ten or thirty - you still lost the Super Bowl.

You lose control of the House - you lose control of the House.

Republicans looking for solace on this are foolish.

It has been on the news today that the percentage difference between Dem and GOP votes this time was nearly exactly what it was when the Republicans took that massive amount of seats. But gerrymandering which has occurred allowed the same percentage to reap almost twice the seats then as the Dems took this week.

So one has to look deeper than just the size of the number of seats lost or won to fully explain what happened.

Oh. OK. I got it now. Obama lost the house and Trump lost the House in their respective midterms. So, it really wasn't a referendum on Trump at all, just the normal course of the minority party gaining seats in the midterms, as historically happens.
 

Diving Mullah

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
2,108
Reaction score
863
Location
Planet Earth
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
President A, who lost 63 seats in the House and also lost ground in the Senate

or

President B, who lost around 35 seats in the House but gained seats in the Senate

This is an A or a B question. I'm not naming any names.

Easy!!! the president is with the least amount Electoral vote and worst in popular vote

2018-11-08 17_46_40-Trump’s Electoral College Victory Ranks 46th in 58 Elections - The New York .jpg

Diving Mullah
 

haymarket

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
120,954
Reaction score
28,528
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Oh. OK. I got it now. Obama lost the house and Trump lost the House in their respective midterms. So, it really wasn't a referendum on Trump at all, just the normal course of the minority party gaining seats in the midterms, as historically happens.

Its amazing how you can just make up pure bs out of your own head and ignore what is actually said to you.
 

apdst

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
133,631
Reaction score
30,928
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
What reeks worse.... a pile of dung that is 35 inches high or one that is 63 inches high?

I have a suspicion that BOTH are bad the once you hit a certain size - bad is simply bad.

That would be president B.
 

Perotista

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 31, 2013
Messages
26,339
Reaction score
19,004
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
President A, who lost 63 seats in the House and also lost ground in the Senate

or

President B, who lost around 35 seats in the House but gained seats in the Senate

This is an A or a B question. I'm not naming any names.

President A also lost 6 senate seats along with the 63 house seats. Voters were angry with both the Democratic congress and the president for not listening to their wants and wishes when it came to the ACA. America as a whole at that time was against this legislation by an average of 55-35. 2010 was a rebuke of Obama's policies. Still Obama was liked by most Americans as a man. Independents voted 57-41 against the Democratic House candidates, America as a whole voted 52-45 against Democrats in the house. Obama went on to win reelection in 2012 because of his likability. Independents barely voted Republican in the house elections 50-49.

President B, has lost at the present 30 house seats with 13 more to be decided. Both lost the house which their party controlled. This 2018 election in my opinion wasn't so much about policy which the voters were angry at, it was all about Trump's obnoxious personality and his very unpresidential behavior. Independents are split on his policies, for some, against some. I don't have how independents voted in the house elections this year, but the overall congressional vote went to the Democrats 51.3% to 47.0% for the Republicans. This is with 13 districts pending. In 2016 Republicans won the overall vote 49.1% to 48.0%. A swing of around 3 points overall which resulted in the massive shift in House numbers and the Democrats gaining control. I'm sure independents went Democratic this time, by how much, we'll have to wait on more exit polls with the party breakdown.

I think 2010 was an election which rejected a single policy which remained as an albatross around the Democrats neck for the remainder of Obama. I think 2018 was rejection of Trump's persona, not necessarily his policies. Certainly not legislation since he has only one main success, his tax cuts. I also think Trump will remain an albatross around the GOP necks for however long he is president. Unlike Obama who recovered nicely for 2012 mainly because he was likable, Trump isn't. Being likable by America as a whole gets ignored. But being likable got Reagan past Iran-Contra and got Bill Clinton past his bimbo eruptions. Being disliked, when trouble occurs, the results may be more along the Nixon lines. He wasn't all that likable as a person either.
 

Grokmaster

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 8, 2017
Messages
9,613
Reaction score
2,735
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
President A, who lost 63 seats in the House and also lost ground in the Senate

or

President B, who lost around 35 seats in the House but gained seats in the Senate

This is an A or a B question. I'm not naming any names.

Obama campaign fail.jpg
 

TrumpTrain

Banned
Joined
Nov 9, 2018
Messages
419
Reaction score
146
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
President A, who lost 63 seats in the House and also lost ground in the Senate

or

President B, who lost around 35 seats in the House but gained seats in the Senate

This is an A or a B question. I'm not naming any names.

President A

A is for Obama, the Socialist Kenyan Pig
 

Grokmaster

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 8, 2017
Messages
9,613
Reaction score
2,735
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
President A also lost 6 senate seats along with the 63 house seats. Voters were angry with both the Democratic congress and the president for not listening to their wants and wishes when it came to the ACA. America as a whole at that time was against this legislation by an average of 55-35. 2010 was a rebuke of Obama's policies. Still Obama was liked by most Americans as a man. Independents voted 57-41 against the Democratic House candidates, America as a whole voted 52-45 against Democrats in the house. Obama went on to win reelection in 2012 because of his likability. Independents barely voted Republican in the house elections 50-49.

President B, has lost at the present 30 house seats with 13 more to be decided. Both lost the house which their party controlled. This 2018 election in my opinion wasn't so much about policy which the voters were angry at, it was all about Trump's obnoxious personality and his very unpresidential behavior. Independents are split on his policies, for some, against some. I don't have how independents voted in the house elections this year, but the overall congressional vote went to the Democrats 51.3% to 47.0% for the Republicans. This is with 13 districts pending. In 2016 Republicans won the overall vote 49.1% to 48.0%. A swing of around 3 points overall which resulted in the massive shift in House numbers and the Democrats gaining control. I'm sure independents went Democratic this time, by how much, we'll have to wait on more exit polls with the party breakdown.

I think 2010 was an election which rejected a single policy which remained as an albatross around the Democrats neck for the remainder of Obama. I think 2018 was rejection of Trump's persona, not necessarily his policies. Certainly not legislation since he has only one main success, his tax cuts. I also think Trump will remain an albatross around the GOP necks for however long he is president. Unlike Obama who recovered nicely for 2012 mainly because he was likable, Trump isn't. Being likable by America as a whole gets ignored. But being likable got Reagan past Iran-Contra and got Bill Clinton past his bimbo eruptions. Being disliked, when trouble occurs, the results may be more along the Nixon lines. He wasn't all that likable as a person either.

Bull****. Voters were pissed at the Democrats that they were being kicked off of insurance plans that they liked, and doctors they wished to keep going to, after being LIED TO ABOUT IT, then BEING FORCED TO BUY INSURANCE, whether or not they chose to.
 

Perotista

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 31, 2013
Messages
26,339
Reaction score
19,004
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Bull****. Voters were pissed at the Democrats that they were being kicked off of insurance plans that they liked, and doctors they wished to keep going to, after being LIED TO ABOUT IT, then BEING FORCED TO BUY INSURANCE, whether or not they chose to.

We'll see. Trump's obnoxious personality isn't going anywhere. I would say most independents expect a president to act presidential, not as some WWE wrestler.
 

Perotista

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 31, 2013
Messages
26,339
Reaction score
19,004
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Trump is great. I love him. He is not obnoxious at all. Obama was the obnoxious one.

Two distinct personalities. Obama had a personality that most Americans deemed presidential. Trump's personality, his persona if you will is more suited for being a wrestler in the WWE than an occupant of the Oval Office. I don't think Trump supporters and Republicans in general realize how much Trump's uncouth personality and unpresidential behavior grates on and rubs folks the wrong way. The house results show this.
 

Slyfox696

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 8, 2013
Messages
11,235
Reaction score
7,406
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
President A, who lost 63 seats in the House and also lost ground in the Senate

or

President B, who lost around 35 seats in the House but gained seats in the Senate

This is an A or a B question. I'm not naming any names.
Considering President A's election came at a time of an incredibly poor economy (which occurred before his Presidency) when people were losing jobs, homes and retirement and President B got thumped during a time of a great economy (thanks, in part, to President A), and when considered the election map was incredibly favorable to President B's party, I would say President B was rejected at least as much as President A, if not more so.

Depends on what you go by. There might, say, be a bigger projected margin of votes nationally in between President B's party and the outsiders in his midterm than the other one, even though President B lost less seats. President B could make a convincing argument that this political geography doesn't really matter though, and absolute seat gains are all that matters. It comes down to what you care about more, raw votes or seats when deciding whether voters are rejecting the president.

Seats matter more for power of course. National house votes don't mean anything for elections. But when it comes to measuring how the public feels about the president, it matters a bit. And certainly raw seat gains aren't the be all end all. President B's opposition party might be coming from a higher starting point than President A's opposition. There would be more targets.

Certainly if President A's opposition won the same seats in the following election, you wouldn't be telling me it isn't a wave just because they didn't gain any seats.

It might be hard to argue that the Senate shifts are very meaningful if there are extraordinarily different maps between the two elections. In the following scenario for example:

President B only has to defend 9 seats and the other party has to defend 26. Eight of his seats were in states won by his own party, 7 of them by a significant to an overwhelming amount.

Meanwhile President A has to defend 19 seats carried by his party and the other party has to defend 18. If half of the opposing party's gains are in states that already overhwelmingly prefer the opposing party, are those pickups really comparable to President B's midterm where no corresponding seats are up for election?

You have to go into the weeds way more. Deciding what election is a bigger wave based only on contextless Senate pickups is a bad way to go about it. The map of which seats are up is everything.
You put a lot of work into a thread that clearly wasn't intended for it. Well done.

I think you also have to look at context. Obviously we're talking about Obama and Trump. When Obama took over, the economy was cratering, people were losing their jobs, their homes, their retirement. We were a war weary nation. After 8 years of Obama, our country was much less war weary, the economy was much stronger, we were near full employment and continuing on an upward trend.

Voters don't vote politicians, they vote themselves. Again, I know this thread is nothing more than useless partisanship, but it could foster a very real quality discussion, as you show. Throw in contextual factors and we could see much more than just simple partisanship and have a quality discussion about what America truly wants.

Anyways, good post.
 
Last edited:

MrPeanut

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 20, 2015
Messages
5,506
Reaction score
4,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
In order to answer the question I would have to have more context. Were both of this situations on a controlled playing field? Things like the economy, war, etc. should be factored in somehow.
 
Top Bottom