Why did the Democrats lose so badly in 2010?

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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).

[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.

FL-22: Klein voted for ObamaCare
NY-24: Republicans held that seat before the 2006 Dem Wave.
MN-08: Cravack wiped the floor with Oberstar in a debate.

No way should Dems should have lost TX-27 though I agree with you there.

I meant NY-25 rather than NY-24.  In FL-22, Klein voting for Obamacare shouldn't have been that big of a problem in a district that even John Dying Tree Kerry won.

[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.

FL-22: Klein voted for ObamaCare
NY-24: Republicans held that seat before the 2006 Dem Wave.
MN-08: Cravack wiped the floor with Oberstar in a debate.

No way should Dems should have lost TX-27 though I agree with you there.

I meant NY-25 rather than NY-24.  In FL-22, Klein voting for Obamacare shouldn't have been that big of a problem in a district that even John Dying Tree Kerry won.

The district had been held by a Republican for decades prior to 2006 when Clay Shaw lost and it was a fairly close district. Also, it was horrendous gerrymander.

Shaw held that seat due to personal popularity, not because it was a Republican district.  Klein should have been able to hold on even in 2010, especially against someone like Allan West.

[Mr.Phips]

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.

Well I'm sure Old Angry White People voted in mid-terms elections from 1954-1990 when the Dems held a majority in the US House from 1955-1994.

I agree with you about 2006 Bush W. was hated because of the Iraq War.

It was different angry old white people. Even into the late 80s, midterm elections favored Democrats and older voters were a Democratic voting bloc because the FDR generation was still around and still voting Democratic in large numbers.

Exactly.  I believe Seniors were the most Democratic voting bloc in 1988, going 63%-36% for House Democrats and splitting 50%-50% in the Presidential race.  Even in the 1990 midterm, Seniors were heavily Democratic.  The Seniors that came of age in the 1950s and 1960s are much more Republican and there are very few Seniors that remember the 1930s and early 40s still living.

[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.

FL-22: Klein voted for ObamaCare
NY-24: Republicans held that seat before the 2006 Dem Wave.
MN-08: Cravack wiped the floor with Oberstar in a debate.

No way should Dems should have lost TX-27 though I agree with you there.

That iteration of IL-17 was not the same one we have today, either. It's PVI was probably within a point of even. It was considerably further south than the current IL-17.

I think it was still like D+3.  The point is that more Democrats in favorable.enough districts should have been able to properly use the advantages of incumbency to hold on even in 2010.