Major political swings fairly common

[30ashopper]

If Republicans win big on Tuesday, as polls suggest, it is far from clear how firm a foothold they will have. Voters hold unfavorable views of both parties. Republican leaders acknowledge they could easily be tossed in 2012, just as they were in 2006.

The country has seen similar gyrations before. Financial panic in 1893 set the stage for a series of sharp swings in the 1890s. Republicans won a landslide in 1894, picking up 135 seats, but then lost 48 seats two years later, despite Republican William McKinley's triumph in the presidential race.

Then, in 1910, labor unrest and divisions within the GOP cost the party 57 House seats that year and 28 in 1912. World War I and its aftermath created a period of almost continual seesawing, with only one election (1916) seeing fewer than 20 House seats changing hands.

A realignment similar to 1894, but to the left, came in 1932 when voters wracked by the Great Depression elected Franklin D. Roosevelt as president and tossed out 101 Republicans from the House and nine from the Senate. That election, the third in a series of big swings in party support that began in 1928, marked the start of a Democratic dominance of Congress that lasted for decades with few interruptions.

But until now there has been only one other prolonged stretch?from 1946 to 1952?in which either party lost more than 20 seats. A wave of post-war strikes and President Harry Truman's low approval ratings helped Republicans gain 55 seats in 1946, and their first House majority since 1928.

Two years later, voters reacted to a "do-nothing Congress" by tossing out 75 Republicans. The GOP regained the House in 1952, but lost control in the next election. That drought would hold until Republicans roared back in 1994.

Some involved in politics today wonder if the current volatility will become part of the country's political fabric. Changes in the U.S. electoral map, with Republicans increasingly controlling the South and the Democrats dominant on the coasts and the industrial Midwest, plus changes in the makeup of the two parties, have deepened the country's political divide over the past 40 years, they say.

Vote Hints at Historic Political Volatility - WSJ.com

 

[30ashopper]

Republicans should not get cocky over what's about to happen. People expect positive results. If they don't get it, it's "off with their heads" again in two years.

 

[AlphaCrab]

Interesting quote--puts things in a real historical perspective. So there is no such thing as the Tea Party effect? Or is the Tea Party just a current one-size fits all label for the disgruntled, extremist, Right wing of the Republican party, much like the John Birch Society in the 1960"s..

 

[30ashopper]

The Tea Party is predominantly made up of republicans who are angry about the big government policies of both Obama and Bush.

 

[30ashopper]

In the first week of January 2010, Rasmussen Reports showed Republicans with a nine-point lead on the generic congressional ballot. Scott Brown delivered a stunning upset in the Massachusetts special U.S. Senate election a couple of weeks later.

In the last week of October 2010, Rasmussen Reports again showed Republicans with a nine-point lead on the generic ballot. And tomorrow Republicans will send more Republicans to Congress than at any time in the past 80 years.

This isn't a wave, it's a tidal shift?and we've seen it coming for a long time. Remarkably, there have been plenty of warning signs over the past two years, but Democratic leaders ignored them. At least the captain of the Titanic tried to miss the iceberg. Congressional Democrats aimed right for it.

This is the continuation of a trend that began nearly 20 years ago. In 1992, Bill Clinton was elected president and his party had control of Congress. Before he left office, his party lost control. Then, in 2000, George W. Bush came to power, and his party controlled Congress. But like Mr. Clinton before him, Mr. Bush saw his party lose control.

That's never happened before in back-to-back administrations. The Obama administration appears poised to make it three in a row. This reflects a fundamental rejection of both political parties.

Scott Rasmussen: A Vote Against Dems, Not for the GOP - WSJ.com

A vote for republicans, or against the democrats?

 

[AndrewG]

I think there are a ton of moderates in the teapot. Many of my non-political friends & family members support them. Folks that traditionally refuse to pick sides are voicing favoritism to the right.

 

[Lynnie]

This is the continuation of a trend that began nearly 20 years ago. In 1992, Bill Clinton was elected president and his party had control of Congress. Before he left office, his party lost control. Then, in 2000, George W. Bush came to power, and his party controlled Congress. But like Mr. Clinton before him, Mr. Bush saw his party lose control.

That's never happened before in back-to-back administrations. The Obama administration appears poised to make it three in a row. This reflects a fundamental rejection of both political parties.


More than anything, I think this signifies the desire of the American people to have balance in our government. One of the brilliant aspects of our system, in my opinion.

 

[scooterbug44]

I thought it was the norm that the President's party lost seats in off year elections - so for all the Republican/tea bagger posturing, them winning seats isn't exactly a big achievement.

 

[30ashopper]

I thought it was the norm that the President's party lost seats in off year elections - so for all the Republican/tea bagger posturing, them winning seats isn't exactly a big achievement.

Depends on the numbers / size of the swing.

 

[Lynnie]

Not necessarily the norm, but you can see patterns in swings when one party has too much control or won't work with President......and vs.

It's exciting to watch unfold regardless of party affiliation, etc. I am going to be travelling tomorrow and might miss a large portion of the results in real time.