How Unusual WERE the 2006 Midterms?
During these last few sweet weeks of victory's afterglow, the pages of DailyKos have seen quite a bit of discussion of the "Six-Year Itch" and the efforts of spinmeisters on several sides, either to devalue or enhance the Democratic Party’s congressional victory this year.
Jump below for the juicy facts!!
This diary in no way aims to pick bones with anyone else’s views nor to rain on anyone’s parade. Our family, I know, will long treasure that feeling of being lifted up by the tide of history on election night, which we have rarely had the opportunity to feel. Carter’s victory in 1976 was far too close an affair, and carried an inadequate depth of mandate. Clinton’s win in 1992 was weighted down by the asterisk called Perot, and revealed its weakness two years later in the Newtslide. So, while we all begin the effort that could lead to an even more glorious election night in 2008, I thought it might be useful to share a detailed analysis of the scourings of "six-year itch" elections past. It may be that another Kossak has presented this data, but I never noticed it done, and I very much wanted to see it! In any case, I believe that, as we approach closer to Jan. 3, it may serve us well to keep in mind what the historical record actually says.
The concept of the "six-year-itch" election is dependent upon a two-term presidency. The meticulous among us may split hairs over whether "combo two-termers" (e.g., Kennedy-Johnson, Nixon-Ford, Harding-Coolidge, etc.) count. For the purposes of this study, I shall assume that they do, at least in cases where there is no question that the same party controlled the White House throughout (thus, Lincoln-Johnson doesn’t make the cut). Thus, the universe of "six-year-itch" elections eligible for study include: 1794, 1806, 1814, 1822, 1834, 1874, perhaps 1902 or perhaps 1906, 1918, 1926, 1938, 1950, 1958, 1966, 1974, 1986, 1998 and 2006. Special consideration could be given to the unique circumstances of 1866, 1942, and 1946, but they do not seem to me to qualify as classic or even semi-classic "six-year-itch" elections.
Much was made, post-11/7, of the notion that the Democratic victory was weak by historic comparison. Whether the blame was to be put on vicious redistricting or on Dr. Dean, the simple evidence was plain: the raw shifts in partisan numbers in 2006 did not compare favorably with those of, say, 1958. But in rolling my way back through the decades, I noticed a striking pattern which certainly does point to our having entered into a rather special transition this winter. Let’s just take a stroll down the historic path. Fire up the way-back machine, but on low-key cruise control, so we can savor the scenery!
In 1998, the Republicans already controlled the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. Their itch to "get Bubba" led to a most unusual six-year itch result: they lost ground, and Speaker Gingrich. We did a lot better than that in 2006. Next stop in the mists of pre-history: 1986. We Democrats took back the Senate; but we already had the House. This year’s change has to be seen as more substantive and consequential. 1974, the Watergate election, simply increased Democratic majorities and inspired a brief flurry of reform-mindedness. No biggie, compared to 2K06! In 1966, the weight of Vietnam certainly helped fuel a Republican revival, but they did not recapture either chamber of Congress. In 1958, our party made advances that foreshadowed JFK and all that, but the Congress remained ours, as it had been since 1954 undid the last GOP monopoly (until Dubya Times). There are elections in the FDR-Truman years which simulate the actions of a six-year itch (1942, 1946, 1950), and one true itcher (1938), but, though there were some wild swings in seat totals, in none of these cases, save 1946, did the Opposition take control of the other end of the Ave. The 1946 flip was either a "two-year Truman itch" election, or a "fourteen year New Deal itch" one.
As some wise people have pointed out here at dKos, we Democrats are well-advised to look to the example of 1946. True, Dubya is no Truman and is not eligible to run again, but the horror of a McCain or Giuliani running against the legacy of the "Do-Nothing 110th" is not to be countenanced. Let us keep up the pressure on Speaker Nancy and Sheriff Harry to make sure the new Congress accomplishes things that benefit to broad swath of Americans and is desired by same. Likewise, we are all aware of the 1994 precedent. As in 1946, the newly-empowered Congressional majority opposed to the White House party, got drunk with their own righteousness. Alas, the Newtslide took twelve years to subside adequately that the swamp-draining on the agenda of Nancy and Company could begin. May our new Congressional leaders remain humble and guided by the grassroots and the netroots, and focused on the national, common good.
So, we have 1946 as a very imperfect comparison to 2006. How far back do we need to go to find a more worthy competitor with 2006 for the Awesomeness Crown of Six-Year-Itch-dom? Quite a-ways, it turns out. Only three of the "eligibles" before 1946 can even marginally qualify: 1794, 1822 and 1918. In 1794, only the House flipped from pro- to anti-Administration control. Not as impressive as 2006! In 1822, two years after Monroe’s nearly-unopposed re-election, no "party" had a majority in the House. No meaningful comparisons with 2006 can be made.
In 1918, the Republicans took clear control of the House, having had only a plurality in the Congress elected when Wilson sneaked through for a second term. The Speaker’s gavel changed hands that year, as did control of the Senate. This stands as the ONLY "six-year-itch" precedent in which the conditions of 2006 were essentially met: the party of opposition of the first six years took over the other end of the Avenue, and broke up the monopoly of power (I know, Daschle, post-Jeffords, but ..... I mean.... Daschle! transient and hardly oppositional). Pretty amazing that only one out of nearly a score of "itchers" saw what occurred this year.
What caused 1918? Wilson Fatigue? Well, there was a war winding down in November 1918, of course, but we seemed to be on the winning side then. And what followed after 1918? Two years later, Harding swept to a landslide presidential win, and the GOP dominance of the Roaring Twenties began. So, if 1918 has any force as a predictive indicator, 2008 could be a VERY good year indeed for Democrats, if we can but seize the opportunity. But hey, let’s do better than Harding/Coolidge/Hoover, and .... umm..... how ’bout no Teapot Domes, and no Depression, whaddya say?