Interesting post election coverage

[Cliff Hargrave]

First, the media seemed to report the Dems gain as a mandate on Iraq. Now many exit polls, and interviews, show that 3 out of 4 voters that voted for the Dems said corruption was the number 1 issue, not Iraq. It would have been interesting to see the election with the absence of Abramoff, DeLay, and the pervert scandals.

So was it a mandate on anything or just the way things usually go? Some history:

In Franklin D. Roosevelt's sixth year in 1938, Democrats lost 71 seats in the House and six in the Senate.

In Dwight Eisenhower's sixth year in 1958, Republicans lost 47 House seats, 13 in the Senate.

In John F. Kennedy/Lyndon Johnson's sixth year, Democrats lost 47 seats in the House and three in the Senate.

In Richard Nixon/Gerald Ford's sixth year in office in 1974, Republicans lost 43 House seats and three Senate seats.

Ronald Reagan lost five House seats and eight Senate seats in his sixth year in office.

During eight years of Clinton, Republicans picked up a total of 49 House seats and nine Senate seats in two midterm elections. Also, when Clinton won the presidency in 1992, his party actually lost 10 seats in the House

So do these elections really mean anything or is it just the way things go?

btw, does anyone have a site that lists each seat that changed hands?

[Dennis Monk]

Just goes to show that the media's spin on things.

[Erik]

I am glad you posted this. We can always count on you for some good sense. It's refreshing.


So do these elections really mean anything or is it just the way things go?
It might be common enough to send a message to a president who has been in office for a while not to get too comfortable. That may simply be it, though the context varies from president to president and time to time, of course.

That's a really good question, Cliff.