Historical context for Tuesday's elections Topic

contrarian23
Posts: 24139 (5)
Hall of Famer
1952 1
Hall of Famer

If, as expected, the GOP picks up seats in both the house and the senate on Tuesday, we will not doubt hear a lot of garbage about "voter mandates," "referendum on the Obama presidency," and so forth.

It is worth noting that the midterm elections during a President's 2nd term of office almost always swing dramatically for the opposition party.  This is not unusual:

1950 Elections (2nd term for Truman):
House GOP +28
Senate GOP +5

1958 (2nd term for Eisenhower)
House Dem +49
Senate Dem +16

1966 (technically 2nd term for LBJ)
House GOP +47
Senate GOP +3

1974 Elections (Nixon, although elections took place after his resignation)
House Dem +49
Senate Dem +3

1986 (Reagan)
House Dem +5
Senate Dem +8 (and took majority)

1998 (Clinton)
House GOP -5
Senate Unchanged
The 1998 elections are the only exception to this trend since WWII

2006 (Bush)
House Dem + 31
Senate Dem +6
 

11/2/2014 7:41 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
With the exception of 1986, the opposing party took the Presidency in the next election. Why would you not consider that a mandate?
11/2/2014 7:48 PM
contrarian23
Posts: 24139 (5)
Hall of Famer
1952 1
Hall of Famer
What an absurd question.

Why would anyone consider that a mandate?  If something is essentially inevitable, then it is most specifically NOT a reaction to any specific individual.  That's just what happens historically in this country.  It's not a mandate about anyone's policies, or about any administration's ability to govern.  The US electorate always shifts the balance of power.
11/2/2014 8:11 PM
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
Show
contrarian23
Posts: 24139 (5)
Hall of Famer
1952 1
Hall of Famer
If you want to say that, historically, in the midterm elections of a 2nd term president, the electorate always shifts the balance of power in Congress to the opposition power, then say so.

To imply that any outcome of Tuesday's election says anything relevant historically about the Obama presidency must first put it in that context.

I am sorry this is too difficult for you to understand.
11/2/2014 8:18 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect

First, I'm not saying anything.

2nd, I'm not having trouble understanding anything.

Finally, when the people say "We want change", what do you call it?

11/2/2014 8:24 PM
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
Show
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
I can't disagree.  The people are saying "We don't like how our government is working.   We want to change it." 
11/2/2014 8:56 PM
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
Show
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
Posted by contrarian23 on 11/2/2014 8:11:00 PM (view original):
What an absurd question.

Why would anyone consider that a mandate?  If something is essentially inevitable, then it is most specifically NOT a reaction to any specific individual.  That's just what happens historically in this country.  It's not a mandate about anyone's policies, or about any administration's ability to govern.  The US electorate always shifts the balance of power.
Why is the other party taking control "essentially inevitable"? If the party in power was doing a kick-*** awesome job, are you saying that they would still lose power because that's just the way it goes?

It sounds like you're just proactively making excuses for political fallout for Obama's second term failures.
11/2/2014 10:46 PM
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
His point is that there is always turnover, regardless of the decisions, successes, and failures of the prior administration. GOP taking back control of the senate was probably happening regardless of anything obama did or didn't do.
11/2/2014 11:23 PM
moy23
Posts: 13754 (0)
Hall of Famer
2 57 251 113
Prospect
Mandate or not who cares. The republicans will have both the house and the senate. Obama will have to flex those veto pen muscles w/o Harry Reid to block senate bills.
11/3/2014 12:01 AM
stinenavy
Posts: 4004 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 330 1
All Star
Predictions and thoughts:

Kansas SEN: R. Pat Roberts. As I said before, I'll believe deep red Kansas elects a non-R Senator when I see it.

Georgia/Louisiana: R's win both. Dems may win the first go-round, but they won't get the turnout for the run-off.

Iowa/Colorado: I'll say D's win both. This is more reliant on the blue trend of these states rather than the candidates. If the D's lose either it's a failure of the campaigns to adequately define their overly conservative (especially Ernst) challengers.

North Carolina: D. Kay Hagan. Looks like she's been able to do what Braley/Udall haven't been able to do, and define the challenger as too extreme.

Alaska: R. No one really knows much about this race, because it's Alaska. Took a minor miracle for the D to win last time, I don't see it happening again.

Arkansas: R. The state has been trending R for awhile now. Pryor's name isn't going to carry him any further.
11/3/2014 1:40 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Posted by moy23 on 11/3/2014 12:01:00 AM (view original):
Mandate or not who cares. The republicans will have both the house and the senate. Obama will have to flex those veto pen muscles w/o Harry Reid to block senate bills.
This is kind of what I was driving at.   Is shifting power a "mandate"?   Beats me.   But it is a commentary on how the public perceives an administration.
11/3/2014 8:21 AM
bronxcheer
Posts: 17259 (0)
Hall of Famer
298
Hall of Famer
prediction: gop house--+25
                    gop senate-- +5
11/3/2014 8:34 AM
12345 Next ▸
Historical context for Tuesday's elections Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.