Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv
In order not to be accused of flaming or trolling, I had hesitated to post something I've seen a couple of times now.
"Since World War II, the party in control of the White House has lost an average 31 House seats and six Senate seats in the second midterm election of a president's tenure in office."
Therefore, this was a pretty average midterm election, in spite of Iraq and scandals. Perhaps the robust economy blunted the effect.
The Democrats definitely need some accomplishments in the next two years, because their support appears thin, as you said.
|
Marv, here are the stats....since WWII of congressional turnover in the mid-term election of presidents in the second of two ELECTED terms:
[quote]
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/..._elections.php
President ..............Year House seats Senate seats
Dwight Eisenhower 1958........-48...........-13
Ronald Reagan .......1996........-5.............-8
William J. Clinton ...1998........+5.............0
George W. Bush......2006........-29...........-6
...we can add some other second mid-term results:
Harry Truman ........1950*........-29...........-6
Gerald R. Ford........1974........-48...........-5
(This was the first federal election after Nixon resigned because of his role in the Watergate scandal, and his VP Agnew resigned to serve a prison sentence for his bribe taking
during his term as Maryland governor.)
*
Quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/02/we...ew/02PURD.html
War Means High Risk for Bush
By Todd S. Purdum
New York Times
Sunday 02 March 2003
WASHINGTON -- IN the ashen aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, President Bush committed himself and the nation to a global fight against terrorism that he warned would be long, shadowy and unconventional ~W and whose outcome might not be known for years.
Now, with hundreds of thousands of American troops poised to fight Iraq, Mr. Bush stands on the apparent eve of a far more conventional and concrete conflict, one on which he has wagered not only his historical reputation but his immediate political future, for better or worse.
By tying his presidency so closely to the goal of ousting Saddam Hussein, Mr. Bush has complicated the United States's relationships with some of its oldest allies, and narrowed the range of options through which presidents can shape their political fate ~W first and foremost by subordinating many of his domestic objectives to a probable war. He is acutely aware of the seriousness of the moment.
"We meet here during a crucial period in the history of our nation, and of the civilized world," <h3>Mr. Bush told a sympathetic audience at the American Enterprise Institute last week. "Part of that history was written by others. The rest will be written by us."</h3>
In the modern presidency, "foreign policy is more likely to defeat than re-elect a president," said Allan J. Lichtman, a historian at American University, who cited the examples of Harry S. Truman enmeshed in Korea, Lyndon B. Johnson undone by Vietnam and Jimmy Carter stymied by the Iranian hostage crisis.
"Even some of the greatest foreign policy triumphs are no guarantee, so in strictly political terms, he's taking a great risk going to war in Iraq," Mr. Lichtman said. "His biggest danger is the economy. No incumbent president has ever been re-elected during an election-year recession, and that's one of the most potentially perilous effects of this war."
No one knows this better than President Bush. Will a war plant the seeds of a more peaceful, more democratic Middle East, as Mr. Bush contends, or inflame anti-American feeling and spark terrorist attacks throughout the Muslim world? Or both?
"Success is wonderful for everything, respect, power, influence, everything," said Senator Richard C. Shelby, Republican of Alabama. <h3>"Failure, or getting bogged down, and you've got a very different problem. All the indications are they feel very, very confident."</h3> .....
|
<b>Oooops !</b>