THERE WAS A favorite story that the Democratic Presidential candidate of the 1950's, Adalai Stevenson, loved to tell to people, especially his campaign staffers, to demonstrate how small his chances were. When he asked a farmer who was critical of President Eisenhower's farm policy "But why aren't farmers mad at President Eisenhower? the farmer exclaimed. Oh him? No one connects him with the Administration! Stevenson told the story to his associates to show how hard it was campaigning against the popular General.
The frustration felt by Adalai Stevenson was no doubt shared by another candidate, Bob Dole, in 1996. Running against a President in a time of peace and with a booming economy, Dole began the year with a deficit in the polls he was never able to erase. "Where's the outrage!" he muttered half a campaign slogan and half an expression of frustration that there was very little to criticize with Bill Clinton's success in besting the Congress, peace, and the booming economy.
With some perspective, it might be reassuring to both of these candidates that they were facing not the usual Presidents; they were facing highly unusual presidents. Presidents who had achieved a feat few others did. Eisenhower and Clinton had lost the House to the opposition party, something that would appear to be a rejection of their Presidencies, and then went on to win the Presidency two years later.
POOR ARTHUR
If running against a popular incumbent was tough, the situation Chester Arthur was in leading a divided party. Having taken back the House in 1880 with the election of James Garfield, his Republicans had lost the House just 2 years later in 1880. A party divided between the Mugwumps, or liberal Republicans who would rather support a Democrat than see a Republican from the Stalwart faction win. The Democrats were certain to run Grover Cleveland, the popular governor of New York. And without New York, and with no hopes of any state South of the Mason Dixon line, the Republicans stood to lose. Arthur was unable to obtain a nomination, a nomination which he did nothing to get and wasn't even sure if he'd accept if given because of his ill health.
In the end, Republicans swapped out Arthur and decided on James Blaine, a respected former Speaker of the House. But they failed to beat Grover Cleveland in the election of 1884. In the twilight of James Knox Polk's presidency, his Democratic Party struggled to recover from the beating they took from the Whigs in the 1846 congressional elections. They selected Lewis Cass, Senator from Michigan. Cass was a compromise candidate for the Democrats; he did not take a position on slavery but he proposed legislation that squatters in the West decide the issue for themselves... But no compromise was to help the Democrats in 1848...At that point the most important state, new York was divided between Hunkers and Barnburners. Hunkers were slavery supporters who hunkered for office. Barnburners were said they would burn the barn down to kill the rats, because of their strong abolitionist views, many Barnburners supported the Whigs or the Free Soil candidate, former President Van Buren, and the election went to the Whigs.
A "TWO YEAR DITCH?"
If the six year itch omen is well known, that is the now well established political trend that a President loses seats in the six year of a his Presidency, with only Clinton in 98 as an exception over the entire American Presidency...this is an omen that really hasn't been thought of as much. When a President loses the House, he often loses the Presidency. Losing enough seats to lose the House is a true omen. Only 3 Presidents Truman, Clinton and Eisenhower were able to survive the loss of the House to be re-elected President two years later.
But in a more fitting example to today's politics, only two Only 2 Presidents were able to hand the keys to the White House over to their own party after losing the house: Washington and Grant. Washington was able to secure the White House for his friend and Federalist John Adams despite the House being taken over by the new Jeffersonian Republicans in 1794. Grant was able to pass the White House to the Republican Governor of Ohio, Rutherford B. Hayes.. But both of those have serious caveats. Washington didn't technically have a party - he disliked parties and would not have considered himself a Federalist, and infect John Adams also considered himself a non-partisan in the manner of Lincoln and had a dislike for what he considered to be Hamilton's party.
Grant did see a Republican follow him. But only after his party lost the counted popular vote and won as a result of a protracted dispute. But if we count these examples, it means just 5 Presidents have been able to avoid the 2 Year Ditch. And if you look at these exceptions in terms of the current situation. Bush is not an incumbent, which eliminates three of the five examples. AndI think even in downtown Midland Texas, most would agree that comparing him to Washington or Eisenhower would be....yeah, okay, let's just not go there.
THE STATS
Let's look at the numbers. The House has been lost by Presidents thirteen times - in 1796. 1842, 1846. 1874. 1882 1890 1894 1910 1930 1946 1954 1994 2006. Now I want to be careful on how I define it. I define the 'loss' of the house as The President's Party was in control and the opposing party also took control.. There's a reason for this definition which I'll get into in a moment. Okay now to take the other side of this that means that 5 out of 13 times a President beat the trend.
(NOT COUNTING 1854...)
I need to define it that way because I am, and this may be a point of controversy with some, I am not including the 1854 election, in which after the Kansas Nebraska bill that opened up slavery into the territories, there would be a revolt against Democrats in the North and a new Party the Franklin Pierce who would see many of his Democrats lose and a New Republican party take as many as 46 seats from Democrats. Technically, Democrats became a minority party in 1854, but I will argue that they still held a plurality of Congress. 84 seats as compared to 62 for the Americans (know-nothings), 60 Whigs (or other Name but affiliated as Whigs) and 46 Republicans. This new Congress took almost six months to pick a Speaker, during which time a pro-Pierce Democratic Speaker remained in control. This third party, the Know-Nothings, held the balance of power and picked the new speaker. And some of the Americans or know-nothings sided with him on policy, meaning that Franklin Pierce had a reasonable amount of control over the House for the last two years of his Presidency, and in the divided House certainly he didn't face the same opponent that George W. Bush does in the 2006 Democrats.
Now let's look at the other side of this. It is a small sample. There are only so many instances of a loss of the House in a presidency, and since there are exceptions you can say the best case scenario is a 5 out of 13 - or 46%, which is not all that bad. (Of course part of the reason that there are less instances of the loss of the house is that some presidents came in to office with the opposite party already in control, and thus had nothing to lose.) And unlike the 6 itch year itch was has only one exception, the fact is there are several exceptions to the 2 year ditch trend, although these exceptions can be explained.
THIS CASE WILL BE NO EXCEPTION
But when you look at the men who broke the ditch, they share one of two situations. Washington, Grant and Eisenhower were heroes to the country whose influence might have been great enough to sway a few voters who were still expressing their discontent in the House election when this popular person was nor his successor was in the race. The other two, Truman and Clinton, who both had some popular appeal, shared a booming economy - Truman the surprisingly booming economy of 1948 and Clinton having the good fortune of facing reelection in the the go - go 90's. While the administration argues the economy is good, and it certainly isn't in recession, time will tell if this factor.
When you add the fact that you have an incumbent President with a low approval rating, and a war which all major GOP contenders favor and most Americans oppose, this begins to add some legs for this omen and presages little hope of reversal of this trend in 2008.
HAS AMERICA BECOME A SOUTHSIDE CHICAGO WARD
If there is such a 2 year ditch in politics, that is if Americans favor ditching the incumbent party 2 years after the midterms in which they elect the opposing Congress, then it may be the case that the GOP can't win in '08, or it least its so highly improbable that the battle to succeed Bush is a fool's errand and Giuliani and McCain and Romney can bash each other all they want. (Of course no one should stop working on campaigns due to reading this diary - you have to work as if this diary is untrue!) That would further mean that the action is in the Democratic primary. That America may have become like an urban Congressional District - the general is boring, and many Americans who don't normally participate in primaries should look at Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Biden and Richardson and what goes on in their states early next year. It may be their only chance to truly pick a President.