Do midterms naturally favor Republicans or the party out of the presidency?

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

2018 might.be a 1998, 2002 election. BALDWIN, Brown, Dean Heller and McCaskil will be targetted. Its possible Tester & McCaskill go down in defeat, Dems def Dean Heller. Dems would still have a majority tied Senate.

Dems pick up OH, Iowa and MI govs

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

1962 - What do you mean? Democrats lost 4 seats.

They gained 4 Senate seats. And I read somewhere that the House seats they lost were conservative Dems who didn't support Kennedy anyway. Basically, 1962 was the Democrats' 2002-national security issues at the forefront, popular sitting president albeit one elected narrowly, incumbent party does a little worse at the gubernatorial level where national security issues aren't salient.

Anyway, the poll asked whether midterms favor Republicans or the party out of the presidency, and I think the evidence is still in favor of the latter. It may seem like midterms favor the GOP recently more because they've been shut out of the White House. 2006 was pretty bad for the Republicans-lost House, Senate, and majority of governorships. They didn't even take a SINGLE House, Senate, or governorship from the Democrats. This was despite the fact that the economy was doing fairly well, and Democrats were more exposed in the Senate races because of how well they did in 2000. As for the point about turnout, it was higher in 2010 than in it had been in 2006...just saying (though admittedly 2014 was lower than both).

I will concede it's difficult to find a multi-term administration with worse back-to-back midterm results than Obama's, but Democrats were very exposed in 2010 (in House races) and 2014 (in Senate races).

As for 2018 with a Republican president, it could be analogous to 1970. It was a bad midterm election for Republicans overall, but they gained two Senate seats for no other reason than they had nowhere to go but up in that class. I could very easily see the same thing happening (it's the same class even).

[OSR stands with Israel]

1962 - What do you mean? Democrats lost 4 seats.

They gained 4 Senate seats. And I read somewhere that the House seats they lost were conservative Dems who didn't support Kennedy anyway. Basically, 1962 was the Democrats' 2002-national security issues at the forefront, popular sitting president albeit one elected narrowly, incumbent party does a little worse at the gubernatorial level where national security issues aren't salient.

Anyway, the poll asked whether midterms favor Republicans or the party out of the presidency, and I think the evidence is still in favor of the latter. It may seem like midterms favor the GOP recently more because they've been shut out of the White House. 2006 was pretty bad for the Republicans-lost House, Senate, and majority of governorships. They didn't even take a SINGLE House, Senate, or governorship from the Democrats. This was despite the fact that the economy was doing fairly well, and Democrats were more exposed in the Senate races because of how well they did in 2000. As for the point about turnout, it was higher in 2010 than in it had been in 2006...just saying (though admittedly 2014 was lower than both).

I will concede it's difficult to find a multi-term administration with worse back-to-back midterm results than Obama's, but Democrats were very exposed in 2010 (in House races) and 2014 (in Senate races).

As for 2018 with a Republican president, it could be analogous to 1970. It was a bad midterm election for Republicans overall, but they gained two Senate seats for no other reason than they had nowhere to go but up in that class. I could very easily see the same thing happening (it's the same class even).

Republicans only have able to do good in 1994 with that class

While Democrats crushed the Republicans with that class in 1958, 1964, 2006

[pbrower2a]

(Color based upon the Party of the President)

2014 -- huge R gains against a President with middling approval
2010 -- huge R gains against a President with middling approval, changing the majority party
2006 -- huge D gains against a President rapidly becoming unpopular, changing the majority
2002 -- slight R gain in the wake of September 11
1998 -- slight D gains, but not enough to undo the R majority
1994 -- huge R gains against a President with middling approval, changing the majority party
1990 -- slight D gains strengthening the D majority
1986 -- slight D gains strengthening the D majority
1982 -- slight D gains strengthening the D majority
1978 -- slight R gains but not enough to change the D majority.

If there is any pattern, Americans seem to like split government.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

I wonder if it's possible to measure if Republicans have a "bonus" when it comes to midterms when you factor in low Democratic midterm turnout.


Like, if there's a GOP President, Democrats will make decent gains as independents will turn towards them and their base will be motivated to turnout, but their base will still underperform compared to the Republicans' base.


So, in other words, is the Republican base more consistent in turning out (even when the mood is against them), and does this give the GOP a boost (or cushion)?

Is there any way we can try to measure that?

[Virginiá]

So, in other words, is the Republican base more consistent in turning out (even when the mood is against them), and does this give the GOP a boost (or cushion)?

Is there any way we can try to measure that?

I don't know about measuring it, but the Republican coalition (if you want to call it that, considering how racially homogeneous it is) is more reliable in general and it's better dispersed geographically to better affect election results. This is an advantage they always have, regardless of who is in the White House.

People who say it all depends on what party holds the White House at the time are leaving out a huge number of other factors in favor of a simple answer that just isn't that simple.

[pbrower2a]

The Republicans have a clear advantage in dark money in the last two midterm elections. But events mean much.

I see Barack Obama and Ronald Reagan almost as mirror images of each other... but neither could stop erosion of Congressional support for them.

Dubya was already looking like a disaster in 2006.

[jamestroll]

lol.. This thread may be interesting to bump now and may be interesting to bump after November 2018.

Remember in the 1980s midterms heavily favored Democrats because the most reliable voters (Senior Citizens) turn out the heaviest.

[Virginiá]

I mean, maybe I'm wrong and every midterm election will be an easy win for the party that doesn't control the White House, but I kinda doubt it. 2018 will be very telling, in all honesty.

I guess it depends on what you mean by an easy win. Historically, the "out party" almost always picks up seats. It's such a consistent pattern that it would be unwise to bet against it. The question is really how many seats. The fact that Democrats need to win the House PV in what is basically a landslide is a testament to how big the GOP advantage is.

[windjammer]

Not every midterm will be a massive wave for one party or the other. It also depends on other factors such as the map (which was the reason Democrats did so poorly in the Senate races in 2014), candidate quality, polarization, etc.

I mean, maybe I'm wrong and every midterm election will be an easy win for the party that doesn't control the White House, but I kinda doubt it. 2018 will be very telling, in all honesty.

The midterms are a referendum on the incumbent president. Not all will favour the other party as sometimes the incumbent president can be popular (2002 and 1998), but that won't be the case this time apparently.

[jamestroll]

I mean, maybe I'm wrong and every midterm election will be an easy win for the party that doesn't control the White House, but I kinda doubt it. 2018 will be very telling, in all honesty.

I guess it depends on what you mean by an easy win. Historically, the "out party" almost always picks up seats. It's such a consistent pattern that it would be unwise to bet against it. The question is really how many seats. The fact that Democrats need to win the House PV in what is basically a landslide is a testament to how big the GOP advantage is.

Also it depends on the coalition that Democrats get to get a house majority. We could win the popular vote by a couple points and win a house majority or if polarization is super super strong we may have to win it by 12 to 13 points to eke out a bare house majority.

[krazen1211]

The Republicans have a clear advantage in dark money in the last two midterm elections. But events mean much.

Hillary Clinton had a 2-1 money advantage in the 2016 election.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

Both. It will be interesting to see which way this one goes. Almost every group that gets out and votes reliably is now a Republican-leaning group. I think what could hurt Trump the most in next year's midterm is further losses among whites with college degrees, who always come out in big percentages to vote.

[MarkD]

Even though it's been more than a year since this posted, these are my thoughts exactly.

(Color based upon the Party of the President)

2014 -- huge R gains against a President with middling approval
2010 -- huge R gains against a President with middling approval, changing the majority party
2006 -- huge D gains against a President rapidly becoming unpopular, changing the majority
2002 -- slight R gain in the wake of September 11
1998 -- slight D gains, but not enough to undo the R majority
1994 -- huge R gains against a President with middling approval, changing the majority party
1990 -- slight D gains strengthening the D majority
1986 -- slight D gains strengthening the D majority
1982 -- slight D gains strengthening the D majority
1978 -- slight R gains but not enough to change the D majority.

If there is any pattern, Americans seem to like split government.

This is what I think will hold true for 2018 House elections. But the Senate is another story. The Dems have too many disadvantages going into next year's Senate elections, and I think they will inevitably lose 4 or 5 seats in Senate, even while they gain seats in the House.

[UncleSam]

Obvious answer is both, just like presidential elections favor both Democrats AND the incumbent president.

As for which trend is stronger, my guess would be the out-party factor, but I really think Democrats don't realize just how big their lead in national perception will have to be in order to win the house over gerrymandering + worst voter distribution + worse base turnout naturally (even if it gets boosted by Trump). I'd be surprised if Dems won the house winning the PV by less than 8 honestly, which is a massive win.