In the 1934 midterm during Roosevelt's first term, Democrats actually gained a significant amount of seats because they had several positive reforms they could point to. They helped bring down unemployment by passing big public works programs and banking regulations. In 1962, under JFK, Democrats were able to gain three Senate seats and lose just four House seats because they were able to help the economy recover from the 1960 recession. In 1998, in Bill Clinton's second term, Democrats gained seats because they had a positive record on the economy, creating a budget surplus, and ran a solid campaign that had to do with limiting Speaker Newt Gingrich's power and a Patient's Bill of Rights.
Most recently, in 2002, Republicans were able to gain seats under George W. Bush because they were able to keep voters focused on terrorism after the 9/11 attacks.
When the party holding the White House has no message or any record of accomplishments, the party does horribly. In 1994, in Bill Clinton's first term, Democrats failed to reform healthcare and had no message that would appeal to voters, resulting in the loss of the House and Senate for a decade. In 2006, in George W. Bush's second term, Republicans failed to privitize Social Security or get any other reforms done and they lost the House and the Senate.
What path will Democrats choose in 2010? It looks highly unlikely right now that there will be any more significant legislation passed but the stimulus back in February. If economy is creating lots of jobs by early 2010 and significantly brings down the unemployment rate by November, Democrats should be able to run on that. If unemployment is still above 9% in November 2010, Democrats wont have any accomplishments to present to voters. And the vicious cycle of obstruction and gridlock will continue
Comments are closed on this story.