Home (Post) Mobile Authors Say Anything Register Login

Thursday, November 09, 2006

The Election in Context

From the ever-insightful Ann Coulter:

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.

Even America’s greatest president, Ronald Reagan, lost five House seats and eight Senate seats in his sixth year in office.

But in the middle of what the media tell us is a massively unpopular war, the Democrats picked up about 30 House seats and five to six Senate seats in a sixth-year election, with lots of seats still too close to call. Only for half-brights with absolutely no concept of yesterday is this a “tsunami” — as MSNBC calls it — rather than the death throes of a dying party.

During eight years of Clinton — the man Democrats tell us was the greatest campaigner ever, a political genius, a heartthrob, Elvis! — 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 — only the second time in the 20th century that a party won the White House but lost seats in the House.

Meanwhile, the Democrats’ epic victory this week, about which songs will be sung for generations, means that in two midterm elections Democrats were only able to pick up about 30 seats in the House and four seats in the Senate — and that’s assuming they pick up every seat that is currently too close to call. (The Democrats’ total gain is less than this week’s gain because Bush won six House and two Senate seats in the first midterm election.)

So however you cut it, this midterm proves that the Iraq war is at least more popular than Bill Clinton was.

In addition, consider this when you hear in the MSM about this Dem “landslide victory” and the Dems “mandate”:

The new Dem majority in the House is about the same as the previous Republican majority in the House, which was never characterized as either a “landslide” or a “mandate”. 

The new Dem majority in the Senate is now one seat, which is one-fifth of the previous Republican majority in the Senate.  Once again, the previous Republican majority was never called a “mandate” by the MSM.  Why is that?

Comments

right r108.
im sure it had nothing to do with any of the gop’s policies or anything. all current happenings can just be generalized to fit some historical template. no one is ever responsible for anything.
another gem from ann coulter, a frigggin idiot.


rasberry

Sparkie Arbuckle on November 10, 2006 at 04:55 am

Sparkie: I’m sorry you were unable to comprehend this post.  Obviously, Republican policies, or at least the way they were spun by the MSM, were responsible for this slight turnaround.  The point of the post was to counter the Dem disinformation that this was some sort of landslide or mandate.  Compared to comparable elections at other times in our history, it was a very small turnaround.  It’s real significance remains to be seen, as we don’t know how much more damage the Dems seek to do to this country, after what they have been attempting to do for the past six years.  Now that they are in a position to take credit for Republican accomplishments, I predict that the news from Iraq will magically improve, along with the reporting on the economy, probably starting in earnest in January.  Managing the news is much easier than actually doing anything, after all.


Leftie political philosophy, from a DU commenter:

It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. RUMOR IS TRUTH. The modern laws of media hype and political warfare have a useful tenet: Repeat ANYTHING or raise false concern over ANYTHING and it is likely to be planted in the conscious/subconscious of many voters.

robert108 on November 10, 2006 at 05:15 am

r108.
you are a hack and a liar. i’m not taking you up here becuase you are divorced from reality and your ‘eyes must be brown’.


rasberry

Sparkie Arbuckle on November 10, 2006 at 05:18 am

you are a hack and a liar. i’m not taking you up here becuase you are divorced from reality and your ‘eyes must be brown’.

Are you just incapable of reasoned disagreement?  You seem to rely solely on lame insults.  Get back to me if you have anything substantive.


Leftie political philosophy, from a DU commenter:

It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. RUMOR IS TRUTH. The modern laws of media hype and political warfare have a useful tenet: Repeat ANYTHING or raise false concern over ANYTHING and it is likely to be planted in the conscious/subconscious of many voters.

robert108 on November 10, 2006 at 05:42 am

r108. you are so divorced from reality that I guarantee if anything you advocate comes to fruition, it will cost the republicans even more popularity. your views are your views, but they are unhealthy for your party and they are extremist.
this election was this election. ike isn’t pres and neither is reagan. you and ann coulter are in denial. its ok.


rasberry

Sparkie Arbuckle on November 10, 2006 at 05:45 am

I think it’s very revealing that you consider supporting the founding principles of America to be “extremist”.  It shows your Marxist programming.  If you had your way, anyone who disagrees with you would be an “Enemy of the State”, no doubt.  Lefties have to lie; it’s all you have.  The truth doesn’t favor you.


Leftie political philosophy, from a DU commenter:

It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. RUMOR IS TRUTH. The modern laws of media hype and political warfare have a useful tenet: Repeat ANYTHING or raise false concern over ANYTHING and it is likely to be planted in the conscious/subconscious of many voters.

robert108 on November 10, 2006 at 05:53 am

r108. you advocate chritian based parenting laws. that’s what i meant by extremist.


rasberry

Sparkie Arbuckle on November 10, 2006 at 05:55 am

r108. you advocate chritian based parenting laws. that’s what i meant by
extremist.

Two things; I don’t especially advocate “Christian based parenting laws”, although I’m not sure what you mean by that term.  I advocate “parenting laws"(if any) that are voted on by the electorate.  In general, I want the govt to stay out of parenting entirely, so you are generally wrong, anyway, in your assertion.
It is also revealing that you regard Christianity as “extremist”.  It is the majority religion in this country, so it is hardly “extremist”, unless you have made up your own defintion, which wouldn’s surprise me.


Leftie political philosophy, from a DU commenter:

It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. RUMOR IS TRUTH. The modern laws of media hype and political warfare have a useful tenet: Repeat ANYTHING or raise false concern over ANYTHING and it is likely to be planted in the conscious/subconscious of many voters.

robert108 on November 10, 2006 at 06:33 am

That should be: “...wouldn’t surprise me.”


Leftie political philosophy, from a DU commenter:

It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. RUMOR IS TRUTH. The modern laws of media hype and political warfare have a useful tenet: Repeat ANYTHING or raise false concern over ANYTHING and it is likely to be planted in the conscious/subconscious of many voters.

robert108 on November 10, 2006 at 06:34 am
Page 1 of 1        

Post a Comment


Before commenting, please recite:

Grant me the serenity to ignore the trolls,
the courage to debate with honest opponents,
and the wisdom to know the difference.

Name   
Email   
URL   
Human?
  
 

Upload Image    

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Note: Notifications will only be sent to confirmed email addresses. Confirm your email address here.