Why did the Democrats lose so badly in 2010?

[Sir Mohamed]

I never quite understood why the Democrats lost so badly in 2010 midterm elections. I mean, really badly. Less than two years before President Obama got into office with unbelievable enthusiasm. How did it come so far? Democrats held 257 house seats, that’s ten more than the GOP currently holds. Meaning, they could have lost more than 35 seats and still maintain a majority. Why did it happen so fast? Such big losses are, if at all, more common in the midterm elections during a second presidential term, but not the first.

I often heard that it was due to the slow economic recovery in Obama’s first two years. However, I found an analogy in history that tells a different story: In 1932, during a great recession, a Democratic president was elected with great enthusiasm, Democrats won large majorities in congress and the administration consequently passed major reforms to battle the economic downturn. The public mainly blamed previous Republican administrations for the crisis. Very similar to 2008. But as it is well known, the US economy did just slightly improve until the late 1930s. The New Deal helped a lot, but it took WW2 to take the country entirely out of the depression. But unlike in 2010, the 1934 midterms saw practically no changes in congress (Dems even made minor gains), although the economy just slightly got better. The voters didn’t lose patience with FDR so fast; they even reelected him by a record margin in 1936 and further expanded the congressional majorities.

Didn’t low voter turnout play a bigger role? And the fact that Republicans were less obstructionist against FDR than Obama?

[Mr.Phips]

A very large part of why Dems lost so badly was that Obama allowed his people to take over the DNC and tear down the 50 state strategy that had served the party so well from 2005-2008.  With this infrastructure gone, most Democrats elected with its help had no support to help them withstand Republican attacks and onslaughts.  

Had the infrastructure that Howard Dean had set up in 2005 and 2006 remained in place, Democrats may have held their losses to a more normal amount (around 30 seats in the House).  Remember that Dems lost multiple seats that they should have been able to hold even in a bad year like FL-22, IL-17, TX-27, NY-24, NC-02, MN-08, etc.

[Bismarck]

People were ticked off over the affordable care act, the Wall Street bailouts, and the sluggish economy, plus the democrats new Obama coalition was made into a majority by low info voters who don't vote in midterms.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

People were ticked off over the affordable care act, the Wall Street bailouts, and the sluggish economy, plus the democrats new Obama coalition was made into a majority by low info voters who don't vote in midterms.

This is it to a T.

[Oakvale]

You had a perfect storm of -

1. Midterm election (inherently less favourable to Democrats)
2. Sluggish recovery
3. Republican base in a fever
4. Pendulum swinging back after outsized Democrat gains in the last two elections

A very large part of why Dems lost so badly was that Obama allowed his people to take over the DNC and tear down the 50 state strategy that had served the party so well from 2005-2008.  With this infrastructure gone, most Democrats elected with its help had no support to help them withstand Republican attacks and onslaughts.  

Had the infrastructure that Howard Dean had set up in 2005 and 2006 remained in place, Democrats may have held their losses to a more normal amount (around 30 seats in the House).  Remember that Dems lost multiple seats that they should have been able to hold even in a bad year like FL-22, IL-17, TX-27, NY-24, NC-02, MN-08, etc.

The Democrats won in 06/08 not because of the 50 STATE STRATEGY or whatever but because Bush was as popular as cancer.

[MasterJedi]

You had Pelosi on the news saying Obamacare had to be passed to know what was in the bill. Seemed like they rammed it through as well to most people.

[Bojack Horseman]

You had Pelosi on the news saying Obamacare had to be passed to know what was in the bill. Seemed like they rammed it through as well to most people.

No that was an out-of-context quote played by the media over and over and over again. We lost as badly as we did because our President is Black and that resulted in the chickens coming home to roost in the South. Combine that with health care, which resulted in everyone drawing effigies of Obama defaced to look like Hitler and the entire thing went to Hell.

If we'd elected Hillary in 2008, we would still control Congress today.

[IceSpear]

Because mostly old angry white people vote in midterms.

This is why the Democrats who think they'll landslide in midterms during a Republican president are silly. The old angry white people who vote in midterms are not going to suddenly start hating the GOP in most circumstances. 2006 was an aberration because Bush was SO godawful that even many of the old angry white people stayed home or voted D in protest.

[Pessimistic Antineutrino]

You had Pelosi on the news saying Obamacare had to be passed to know what was in the bill. Seemed like they rammed it through as well to most people.

No that was an out-of-context quote played by the media over and over and over again. We lost as badly as we did because our President is Black and that resulted in the chickens coming home to roost in the South. Combine that with health care, which resulted in everyone drawing effigies of Obama defaced to look like Hitler and the entire thing went to Hell.

If we'd elected Hillary in 2008, we would still control Congress today.

Only a third of Republican gains were from the South... they would still have taken over the House 220-215 if no Southern seat flipped in 2010.

[Mr.Phips]

2010 is extremely obvious- weakest point of employment combined with Obamacare/cap and trade anger.  The 2014 GOP wave is the harder one to explain, particularly as it is very rare for a party to get wiped out during both midterms of the same presidency.

Yeah, 2014 made even less sense especially given that the economy was quite good by that point.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

2010 is extremely obvious- weakest point of employment combined with Obamacare/cap and trade anger.  The 2014 GOP wave is the harder one to explain, particularly as it is very rare for a party to get wiped out during both midterms of the same presidency.

Yeah, 2014 made even less sense especially given that the economy was quite good by that point.

Because as the economy improved for some voters, they "could afford" to consider other issues. So rather then reap the rewards of the improved economy, they were drubbed over incompetence. This was just months after Obama essentially came out and said there was no ISIS strategy and called them the JV team. Their was also the botched Obamacare rollout, the ebola outbreak and the migrant children crisis. All of which powered the Republicans to victory. And also, the recovery was historically weak and therefore large swaths of voters did not benefit from it.

The Republicans had a very favorable map, better candidates and a much improved ground game as well.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You had Pelosi on the news saying Obamacare had to be passed to know what was in the bill. Seemed like they rammed it through as well to most people.

No that was an out-of-context quote played by the media over and over and over again.

So what if it was. Perception is reality in politics.

You also had the video recording of the guy telling his class about the con job they pulled when selling Obamacare to the public.

There was a general sense of misdirection because the case was never made that healthcare would help the economy and Unemployment was just dreadful in 2009 and 2010.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I never quite understood why the Democrats lost so badly in 2010 midterm elections. I mean, really badly. Less than two years before President Obama got into office with unbelievable enthusiasm. How did it come so far? Democrats held 257 house seats, that’s ten more than the GOP currently holds. Meaning, they could have lost more than 35 seats and still maintain a majority. Why did it happen so fast? Such big losses are, if at all, more common in the midterm elections during a second presidential term, but not the first.

I often heard that it was due to the slow economic recovery in Obama’s first two years. However, I found an analogy in history that tells a different story: In 1932, during a great recession, a Democratic president was elected with great enthusiasm, Democrats won large majorities in congress and the administration consequently passed major reforms to battle the economic downturn. The public mainly blamed previous Republican administrations for the crisis. Very similar to 2008. But as it is well known, the US economy did just slightly improve until the late 1930s. The New Deal helped a lot, but it took WW2 to take the country entirely out of the depression. But unlike in 2010, the 1934 midterms saw practically no changes in congress (Dems even made minor gains), although the economy just slightly got better. The voters didn’t lose patience with FDR so fast; they even reelected him by a record margin in 1936 and further expanded the congressional majorities.

Didn’t low voter turnout play a bigger role? And the fact that Republicans were less obstructionist against FDR than Obama?

Democrats won on similar demographics in 2006, an electorate controlled by traditional independents and working class swing voters and less by minorities (and Republicans did very well in both 2010 and 2014 with minorities Hispanics were 38% in 2010 and 35% in 2014).

The problem was that Democrats lost control of the economic argument because they focused on healthcare and failed to connect the two together. Thus creating the impression among those swing groups that the Democrats rather than creating jobs were ramming through a corrupt healthcare bill.

Also, it easy to forget now but the tea party was very popular in 2009 and 2010 because it combined a libertarian outrage at big gov't with an equally vocal opposition to the Wall Street bailouts. Since it was a rebellion against the GOP establishment, it helped to distance the Republicans from the Bush administration (the first signs of the GOP cracking at the seams began in 2007 when the base revolted against Bush over the immigration bill. Bush never had that problem before then and several primaries occured in 2008 cycle ousting incumbents over that issue. Another strand of the tea party came from the Ron Paul movement, which of course had no connection to Bush. There was no such rebellion in 1934.) Anyway the populism of the tea party and its opposition to the despised Bush era GOP, saved the Republicans from being weighed down by the unpopularity of Bush and allowed them to capitalize more fully on the vulnerablilities of the Democrats.

Republicans also had a lot of their candidates for office were small businessmen and military vets with no political history and thus no Bush era votes to defend. Rand Paul, Ron Johnson and Adam Kinzinger come to mind. Still more came from the ranks of dissenting Republicans who opposed Bush era spending/establishment like Pat Toomey.   

The Republicans also managed to successfully bring the debt and size/power of gov't to the top of the discussion, which came as a surprise to many people who expected limited gov't conservatism was dead and buried by the recession. Finally, the plethora of economic and gov't issues, pushed social issues to the back burner creating substantial snap back for the Republicans in suburbs in New York, PA and Illinois.

[Lothal1]

Short rundown: The economy was still bad, despite the stimulus and bailouts. Obamacare was not rolled out well. In Maryland, the healthcare website didn't even work. The stimulus rallied the base and the unpopularity at the time of Obama and the bad economy ended the electability of many of the Democratic governors and their successors. This got Tom Corbett, Dan Snyder, John Kasich and many others elected. Finally, many Democrats don't vote in midterms.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

2010 is extremely obvious- weakest point of employment combined with Obamacare/cap and trade anger.  The 2014 GOP wave is the harder one to explain, particularly as it is very rare for a party to get wiped out during both midterms of the same presidency.

Don't forget the bank bailouts.

[Lothal1]

2010 is extremely obvious- weakest point of employment combined with Obamacare/cap and trade anger.  The 2014 GOP wave is the harder one to explain, particularly as it is very rare for a party to get wiped out during both midterms of the same presidency.

Yeah, 2014 made even less sense especially given that the economy was quite good by that point.

Well, in 2014, the Democrats had some very weak candidates, while the GOP did exactly what the 2012 autopsy said to do, and ran strong campaigns in states like Maryland, Colorado, Massachusetts, and Texas. Meanwhile, in the same states, the Democratic candidates ran one issue campaigns on abortion and other unappealing hot topic social issues.

[Mr.Phips]

2010 is extremely obvious- weakest point of employment combined with Obamacare/cap and trade anger.  The 2014 GOP wave is the harder one to explain, particularly as it is very rare for a party to get wiped out during both midterms of the same presidency.

Don't forget the bank bailouts.

You mean the ones engineered by the Bush administration?

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The GOP has had the House 16/20 years and the Dems which will include 2016 have held onto WH for 16/20 years and the Senate has been at parity 10/10 years.  2010 was bound to happen anyways.  But, when the Dems get back the SCRT this year, a legislative mandate from the House won't be necessary because Congressional Acts like Gun Control and Gerrymandering will be legislated once Garland is seated.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

The Citizens United ruling was a factor, but the biggest factor was the media's bias.

[publicunofficial]

Democrats were over-extended after 2006 and and 2008. They held a lot of deep red territory that they honestly had no business holding in the first place.

[WVdemocrat]

All it was, was turnout.

[muon2]

I never quite understood why the Democrats lost so badly in 2010 midterm elections. I mean, really badly. Less than two years before President Obama got into office with unbelievable enthusiasm. How did it come so far? Democrats held 257 house seats, that’s ten more than the GOP currently holds. Meaning, they could have lost more than 35 seats and still maintain a majority. Why did it happen so fast? Such big losses are, if at all, more common in the midterm elections during a second presidential term, but not the first.

I often heard that it was due to the slow economic recovery in Obama’s first two years. However, I found an analogy in history that tells a different story: In 1932, during a great recession, a Democratic president was elected with great enthusiasm, Democrats won large majorities in congress and the administration consequently passed major reforms to battle the economic downturn. The public mainly blamed previous Republican administrations for the crisis. Very similar to 2008. But as it is well known, the US economy did just slightly improve until the late 1930s. The New Deal helped a lot, but it took WW2 to take the country entirely out of the depression. But unlike in 2010, the 1934 midterms saw practically no changes in congress (Dems even made minor gains), although the economy just slightly got better. The voters didn’t lose patience with FDR so fast; they even reelected him by a record margin in 1936 and further expanded the congressional majorities.

Didn’t low voter turnout play a bigger role? And the fact that Republicans were less obstructionist against FDR than Obama?

Democrats won on similar demographics in 2006, an electorate controlled by traditional independents and working class swing voters and less by minorities (and Republicans did very well in both 2010 and 2014 with minorities Hispanics were 38% in 2010 and 35% in 2014).

The problem was that Democrats lost control of the economic argument because they focused on healthcare and failed to connect the two together. Thus creating the impression among those swing groups that the Democrats rather than creating jobs were ramming through a corrupt healthcare bill.

Also, it easy to forget now but the tea party was very popular in 2009 and 2010 because it combined a libertarian outrage at big gov't with an equally vocal opposition to the Wall Street bailouts. Since it was a rebellion against the GOP establishment, it helped to distance the Republicans from the Bush administration (the first signs of the GOP cracking at the seams began in 2007 when the base revolted against Bush over the immigration bill. Bush never had that problem before then and several primaries occured in 2008 cycle ousting incumbents over that issue. Another strand of the tea party came from the Ron Paul movement, which of course had no connection to Bush. There was no such rebellion in 1934.) Anyway the populism of the tea party and its opposition to the despised Bush era GOP, saved the Republicans from being weighed down by the unpopularity of Bush and allowed them to capitalize more fully on the vulnerablilities of the Democrats.

Republicans also had a lot of their candidates for office were small businessmen and military vets with no political history and thus no Bush era votes to defend. Rand Paul, Ron Johnson and Adam Kinzinger come to mind. Still more came from the ranks of dissenting Republicans who opposed Bush era spending/establishment like Pat Toomey.   

The Republicans also managed to successfully bring the debt and size/power of gov't to the top of the discussion, which came as a surprise to many people who expected limited gov't conservatism was dead and buried by the recession. Finally, the plethora of economic and gov't issues, pushed social issues to the back burner creating substantial snap back for the Republicans in suburbs in New York, PA and Illinois.

Nice analysis. I would add that there were a lot of parallels in the public mood in 2010 and 1994. And like 2010, 1994 also featured a stunning victory for Pubs in the first midterm of a Dem president.

Though the recession of 1991 was mild compared to 2008, there was a similar sense that the new administration with a solid majority in Congress wasn't delivering enough on the campaign promise of jobs. Real GDP growth in 1993 and was less than people were used to in the 1980's and below the strong performance later in Clinton's presidency. The growth was also felt more in the tech sector leaving traditional workers behind. Compare that to 2009 which had negative real GDP growth and disappointment with the number of jobs for "shovel ready projects".

The second obvious parallel is with health care. Bold initiatives for reform of the health care market were rolled out in 1993 and 2009. Even though the job market may have been on people's minds, the extension of government into health care became one of the main talking points for the midterm elections. In neither midterm did the specifics of the health care plan really matter, Obamacare had no impact on anyone in 2010, but it was about the larger optics of government interference in private life. If economic growth had been more robust going into the midterms, I doubt that the health care narrative would have had as much traction with the voters.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

2010 is extremely obvious- weakest point of employment combined with Obamacare/cap and trade anger.  The 2014 GOP wave is the harder one to explain, particularly as it is very rare for a party to get wiped out during both midterms of the same presidency.

Don't forget the bank bailouts.

You mean the ones engineered by the Bush administration?

Yes, those. Whether fair or not, those were blamed on the Democrats.

[Mr.Phips]

2010 is extremely obvious- weakest point of employment combined with Obamacare/cap and trade anger.  The 2014 GOP wave is the harder one to explain, particularly as it is very rare for a party to get wiped out during both midterms of the same presidency.

Don't forget the bank bailouts.

You mean the ones engineered by the Bush administration?

Yes, those. Whether fair or not, those were blamed on the Democrats.

Then Dems should have been more vocal about who engineered those bailouts (and the Congressional.Republicans who also supported.them).

[Virginiá]

Is there even a way to truly know the main reasons behind that epic loss? I see a lot of decent suggestions here but it's all over the place. Perhaps a combination of them?

I think Obama/Democrats had/have a severe messaging problem. Democrats actually cut taxes for most people in 2009-2011 and I think some minor cuts after... but did people even realize this? The bank bailout - why were Democrats blamed for this? Nearly half the country in 2010 thought TARP was passed under Obama. This ignorance is a major failure on the part of Democrats. ObamaCare during a recession? Honestly that was the wrong time to introduce such a social program. He shouldn't have spent so much political capital on healthcare reform during a recession/recovery. It's really sad that Obama helped ruin our prior success for such a weak bill.

http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-number/was-tarp-passed-under-bush-or-obama/

I really like Yankee/muon2's take as well. I also believe that Obama accelerated (and later finalized) the Southern realignment as well - something that was always going to happen, but just happened faster for various reasons, with, imo, race included.

My lazy opinion: Perfect storm of numerous issues/mistakes by Democrats/Obama + state of economy