I count 9 occasions since 1934 in which the sitting president faced the midterm electorate viewed as a “wartime President.” Here is what history has to say about the fate of the majority.
Seth - - George "W' Bush's 2002 gain of Congressional seats seems like an outlier. It is not.
You need to factor in the John Malvo & John Muhammed: "DC Beltway Sniper" hysteria that preceded the election. in October 2002, ten random persons within the DC Triangle were killed by a sniper and several badly wounded. The media was wringing all the blood out of their broadcasts that they could. The Nation was on edge. As expected, voters moved to GOP as the party of responsibly defending the populace. Perhaps you were too young to remember or notice the populace's angst, but we oldsters saw it and recognized that we and other voters saw the need for GOP to continue to lead us through a difficult and dangerous time.
You yourself have pointed out that the incumbent President's party tends to lose seats in the midterms, war or no war.
The Democrats lost seats in 1938. No war then, at least for us.
The Democrats lost seats in 1946. No war then.
The Republicans lost seats in both 1954 and 1958. No wars then.
The Democrats lost seats in the House but gained in the Senate in 1962. We were on the brink of war but not actually in one.
The Democrats lost seats in 1978. No war then.
The Republicans lost seats in both 1982 and 1986. No wars then.
The Republicans lost seats in 1990. We were on the brink of war but not actually in one.
The Democrats spectacularly lost seats in 1994. No war then.
I would also respectfully point out that in many of your examples, other factors were at work. In 1974, for example, the War in Vietnam did not figure in the equation to any significant degree: it was all about Watergate and Ford's pardon of Nixon. In 1990, G.H.W. Bush's "Read My Hips!" blowoff of his pledge to enact "no new taxes" was the culprit. In Obama's two midterm elections, Democratic overreach was largely the culprit, especially in 2010 after the Democratic Congress rammed through ObamaCare.
So I am very surprised at this analysis, which seems...not as thoroughly thought through as what you normally write.
The purpose of this post is to simply convey data, noted in the beginning of the post.
Notice in ‘54, ‘62, ‘78, ‘86, ‘90, incumbent losses are MUCH milder and well below average than in the sample set within this post.
Quite clearly, the other side reaps a major benefit when able to campaign not only on traditional midterm dynamics, but also on the potential for prolonged conflict blamed on the administration.
At any measure, this post is for information only and to reference for future articles. It is already an uphill climb to expect the GOP to hold the House (window now open thanks to street riots) - but it’s all but guarantee that ANY new war will cost the majority.
If that was your intent--and I certainly apologize for missing that tidbit of context--it seems to me that presenting a more complete picture would have been helpful. I'll say it again: this isn't up to your usual standards, and that's a disappointment.
Also, not sure I agree with your conclusion, but that's a separate issue. I still maintain that there will be no "boots on the ground" and if so, no one will think of it as a war, since the US subtly expressing their displeasure with other countries in an air-to-mud mode is nothing new.
And I frankly do not find it particularly concerning. If the Iranians can barely threaten Israel with missile strikes, they have no chance against us.
No need to apologize, David. I greatly value everyone who supports my newsletter, welcome comments, and in no way think I have a 100% track record of getting everything right.
The thing I appreciate most about this platform is that its users are smarter and are capable of voicing disagreement intelligently.
If I can ever do anything for you, don’t hesitate to reach out.
You are most gracious, sir! :-) I will bear that in mind.
Reciprocally, I offer my expertise in history and associated subjects including but not limited to political science, economics and sociology. Also, my experience working for the Haze-Grey Navy for fifteen years.
I will never have your "drill-down" level of expertise--you already rival the great Michael Barone, my hero and patron saint of psephology--but I have been studying elections at a more macro level for nearly half a century. In case you're curious, I cut my teeth on a used copy of Kevin Phillips's The Emerging Republican Majority which I stumbled across at the Strand in downtown New York while studying at Columbia.
I think what Trump is contemplating is not entry into a conflict but whether a single strike will result in greater or lesser regional stability. If he is successful and keeps US boots off Iranian ground, I don't see it being a significant issue in the midterms. If it spirals out of control, it is likely to throw away all he worked for.
For it to be a positive development with respect to the midterms would be a miracle – it would not just need to be a successful strike but repudiate his strategy the same way his approach to tariffs has yielded tangible improvements for many Americans. We all thought minorities would never budge from the Democrat party… what if he managed to dislodge Jewish support from them as well? That's worth praying for.
The military man in me who watched this sort of thing up close wants to know who will be in charge of stability and peacekeeping once the regime is removed and significant chunks of the country are in ash, with weaponry left for the taking.
We have seen the same thing happen every time US forces are deployed to institute "regime change". We are promised that the citizens of the country are just waiting for a liberator to show up and set them free...democracy and parades are just around the corner!
It has NEVER happened yet and I don't see it happening in Iran either! Just more young Americans caught in a quagmire, whether it be in a jungle or a desert, while the Neocons and the MIC sit back and revel in their power and their profits!
I agree it seems unlikely the Shia muslims will get along with their Sunni neighbors, Ayatollah or not. Israel might think they will be better off if the Sunni nations like Turkey try to move in on Iran (same as they did with Syria), but in the longer term it seems like a recipe for disaster. Especially if you think the prophecies in Daniel apply to these times. (See https://foursignposts.com for a discussion on how the ram from Daniel 8:2–4 and Turkey the goat from Dan 8:5–8.)
I think if Trump comes out of this with a peace deal and the Republicans actually do something about election fraud they could potentially come out ahead. But if they fail to aggressively address the elephant (or in this case donkey) in the room, the demoncrats will steal their way to a House majority. The Senate is probably safe.
While reading your article I was surprised at the numerical consistency.
I considered that this may be a reason the deep state is trying to start and keep war going? Such thinking on their part may fail due to the awakening our citizens have experienced.
You are using a rhetorical construct - war - to measure very different periods. Your yardstick is also bent: Presidents' parties lose votes in almost all midterms. The question that you should ask is what were popular opinions about (1) having Americans be drafted for this particular fight and (2) whether the President was a good C-in-C for this particular fight. For FDR in 1942 the answer to both questions was YES. For Eisenhower in 1954 the answers were NO and YES. The answers for Trump right now are the same as those for IKE in 1954.
On votes and voting I defer to you because you are that rarest of all beasts - a genuine expert. I offer the Eisenhower comparison because the change in the leadership in the House (from Martin back to Rayburn) was not to curb defense spending but to increase it. That was, along with the dramatic increase in government sponsored mortgage loans, the spending that created the consumer spending that nostalgia now paints with rosy memories of the 1950s. Trump-Vance could be 12 years of America Firstism without a draft or immigration - what the 1952 to 1964 would have been if Nixon had not kept trying to bring his side in California's civil wars of that period into national politics. There is no way Vance will do that.
Seth - - George "W' Bush's 2002 gain of Congressional seats seems like an outlier. It is not.
You need to factor in the John Malvo & John Muhammed: "DC Beltway Sniper" hysteria that preceded the election. in October 2002, ten random persons within the DC Triangle were killed by a sniper and several badly wounded. The media was wringing all the blood out of their broadcasts that they could. The Nation was on edge. As expected, voters moved to GOP as the party of responsibly defending the populace. Perhaps you were too young to remember or notice the populace's angst, but we oldsters saw it and recognized that we and other voters saw the need for GOP to continue to lead us through a difficult and dangerous time.
You yourself have pointed out that the incumbent President's party tends to lose seats in the midterms, war or no war.
The Democrats lost seats in 1938. No war then, at least for us.
The Democrats lost seats in 1946. No war then.
The Republicans lost seats in both 1954 and 1958. No wars then.
The Democrats lost seats in the House but gained in the Senate in 1962. We were on the brink of war but not actually in one.
The Democrats lost seats in 1978. No war then.
The Republicans lost seats in both 1982 and 1986. No wars then.
The Republicans lost seats in 1990. We were on the brink of war but not actually in one.
The Democrats spectacularly lost seats in 1994. No war then.
I would also respectfully point out that in many of your examples, other factors were at work. In 1974, for example, the War in Vietnam did not figure in the equation to any significant degree: it was all about Watergate and Ford's pardon of Nixon. In 1990, G.H.W. Bush's "Read My Hips!" blowoff of his pledge to enact "no new taxes" was the culprit. In Obama's two midterm elections, Democratic overreach was largely the culprit, especially in 2010 after the Democratic Congress rammed through ObamaCare.
So I am very surprised at this analysis, which seems...not as thoroughly thought through as what you normally write.
The purpose of this post is to simply convey data, noted in the beginning of the post.
Notice in ‘54, ‘62, ‘78, ‘86, ‘90, incumbent losses are MUCH milder and well below average than in the sample set within this post.
Quite clearly, the other side reaps a major benefit when able to campaign not only on traditional midterm dynamics, but also on the potential for prolonged conflict blamed on the administration.
At any measure, this post is for information only and to reference for future articles. It is already an uphill climb to expect the GOP to hold the House (window now open thanks to street riots) - but it’s all but guarantee that ANY new war will cost the majority.
If that was your intent--and I certainly apologize for missing that tidbit of context--it seems to me that presenting a more complete picture would have been helpful. I'll say it again: this isn't up to your usual standards, and that's a disappointment.
Also, not sure I agree with your conclusion, but that's a separate issue. I still maintain that there will be no "boots on the ground" and if so, no one will think of it as a war, since the US subtly expressing their displeasure with other countries in an air-to-mud mode is nothing new.
And I frankly do not find it particularly concerning. If the Iranians can barely threaten Israel with missile strikes, they have no chance against us.
No need to apologize, David. I greatly value everyone who supports my newsletter, welcome comments, and in no way think I have a 100% track record of getting everything right.
The thing I appreciate most about this platform is that its users are smarter and are capable of voicing disagreement intelligently.
If I can ever do anything for you, don’t hesitate to reach out.
You are most gracious, sir! :-) I will bear that in mind.
Reciprocally, I offer my expertise in history and associated subjects including but not limited to political science, economics and sociology. Also, my experience working for the Haze-Grey Navy for fifteen years.
I will never have your "drill-down" level of expertise--you already rival the great Michael Barone, my hero and patron saint of psephology--but I have been studying elections at a more macro level for nearly half a century. In case you're curious, I cut my teeth on a used copy of Kevin Phillips's The Emerging Republican Majority which I stumbled across at the Strand in downtown New York while studying at Columbia.
I think what Trump is contemplating is not entry into a conflict but whether a single strike will result in greater or lesser regional stability. If he is successful and keeps US boots off Iranian ground, I don't see it being a significant issue in the midterms. If it spirals out of control, it is likely to throw away all he worked for.
For it to be a positive development with respect to the midterms would be a miracle – it would not just need to be a successful strike but repudiate his strategy the same way his approach to tariffs has yielded tangible improvements for many Americans. We all thought minorities would never budge from the Democrat party… what if he managed to dislodge Jewish support from them as well? That's worth praying for.
The military man in me who watched this sort of thing up close wants to know who will be in charge of stability and peacekeeping once the regime is removed and significant chunks of the country are in ash, with weaponry left for the taking.
There’s ALWAYS a remnant.
We have seen the same thing happen every time US forces are deployed to institute "regime change". We are promised that the citizens of the country are just waiting for a liberator to show up and set them free...democracy and parades are just around the corner!
It has NEVER happened yet and I don't see it happening in Iran either! Just more young Americans caught in a quagmire, whether it be in a jungle or a desert, while the Neocons and the MIC sit back and revel in their power and their profits!
I agree it seems unlikely the Shia muslims will get along with their Sunni neighbors, Ayatollah or not. Israel might think they will be better off if the Sunni nations like Turkey try to move in on Iran (same as they did with Syria), but in the longer term it seems like a recipe for disaster. Especially if you think the prophecies in Daniel apply to these times. (See https://foursignposts.com for a discussion on how the ram from Daniel 8:2–4 and Turkey the goat from Dan 8:5–8.)
The monarch.
I think if Trump comes out of this with a peace deal and the Republicans actually do something about election fraud they could potentially come out ahead. But if they fail to aggressively address the elephant (or in this case donkey) in the room, the demoncrats will steal their way to a House majority. The Senate is probably safe.
The Senate would take 2020 on steroids to flip. I see no less than 51 GOP seats, no more than 57.
Trump is like no President we have had in over 100 years. He will change that landscape......IF we get some election reform.
While reading your article I was surprised at the numerical consistency.
I considered that this may be a reason the deep state is trying to start and keep war going? Such thinking on their part may fail due to the awakening our citizens have experienced.
You are using a rhetorical construct - war - to measure very different periods. Your yardstick is also bent: Presidents' parties lose votes in almost all midterms. The question that you should ask is what were popular opinions about (1) having Americans be drafted for this particular fight and (2) whether the President was a good C-in-C for this particular fight. For FDR in 1942 the answer to both questions was YES. For Eisenhower in 1954 the answers were NO and YES. The answers for Trump right now are the same as those for IKE in 1954.
I personally think the window is wide open for Trump getting the 1 in 8 gain… BUT a lot can happen between now and then.
On votes and voting I defer to you because you are that rarest of all beasts - a genuine expert. I offer the Eisenhower comparison because the change in the leadership in the House (from Martin back to Rayburn) was not to curb defense spending but to increase it. That was, along with the dramatic increase in government sponsored mortgage loans, the spending that created the consumer spending that nostalgia now paints with rosy memories of the 1950s. Trump-Vance could be 12 years of America Firstism without a draft or immigration - what the 1952 to 1964 would have been if Nixon had not kept trying to bring his side in California's civil wars of that period into national politics. There is no way Vance will do that.