It’s all about expectations

November 7, 2006

Now here’s a GOP-friendly headline in the New York Times this morning: “For Democrats, Even a Gain May Feel Like a Failure.” It’s about setting expectations, and as the NYT’s Adam Nagourney sees it, Election Day is a good time to dampen hopes.

In most midterm elections, an out-of-power party picking up, say, 14 seats in the House and five seats in the Senate could call it a pretty good night.

But for Democrats in 2006, that showing would mean coming up one seat shy of taking control of both the Senate and the House. And it would probably be branded a loss — in the case of the House, a big one.

As Will Bunch put it, “Really, is there some program that automatically inserts the word “failure” in any story about Democrats…like if the Dems win 431 House seats, will the headline say ‘2006 Sweep Thwarted by Democratic Failure in 4 Races’?”

Indeed, one starts to get the sense that anything short of 35-seat gains will immediately be branded “Dems fall short again.” As Kevin noted the other day, it’s become increasingly common for conservatives to downplay, well in advance, anything short of an overwhelming Democratic tide. Charles Krauthammer noted, “Since the end of World War II, the average loss for a second-term presidency in its sixth year has been 29 House seats.” Ann Coulter added, “The average sixth-year midterm election, like this year, is much worse for the president’s party, which typically loses 34 seats in the House.”

It’s a nice try, of course, and I don’t doubt that plenty of media personalities will buy into this, but to set the bar that high is ridiculous.

National Journal added some much-needed context to this discussion by looking at the net pickups since 1970:

1970: +12D
1972: +12R
1974: +49D
1976: +1D
1978: +15R
1980: +34R
1982: +26D
1984: +14R
1986: +5D
1988: +2D
1990: +9D
1992: +10R
1994: +52R
1996: +3D
1998: +4D
2000: +2D
2002: +5R
2004: +6R

In other words, since the GOP takeover in ’94, the average change per cycle has been five seats. If Dems gain 15 today, that’ll be triple the recent average and the second most for either party in 24 years.

But what about elections in a president’s sixth-year? Kevin tackled that one as well.

1958: 49 seats
1966: 47 seats
1974: 49 seats
1986: 5 seats
1998: 5 seats

It’s obviously way too early to know what’s going to happen today, but the notion that double-digit Democratic gains is a failure is just wrong.

November 7, 2006 at 12:30 pm

was it four or five in 1998?

back when the idea that the dems might even win one house looked like a longshot (say, six months ago), i argued many times that i didn’t think it was in the dems interest to win a small amount of power given how badly the next couple of years are going to go: iraq will get worse, and we will almost certainly have a recession.

i still feel that way, but that’s neither here nor there. the point is that the highest expectation that existed six months ago is that the dems might, possibly, barely, squeeze out a win in the house.

so it’s not only that adam nagourney is a shithead, and not only that media narratives trump all: it’s that these people literally have no memories and don’t use google.

In looking at headlines this morning for leading comments, I particularly enjoyed abcnews.com’s

“Will America Have A Tantrum?”

Nice, huh?

Those childish voters. Whatever shall we do with them?

Well you go with the win you get, even if it ain’t the one you want. To coin a phrase. 🙂 I think things are just going to get worse for the Republicans the next two years and it’ll be mostly their own doing. The whole image of the party will be of corrupt, dishonest people.

It will be interesting to see what they say. Considering that most of the pundits differ on the pick-up and give ranges or wishy-washy predictions the expectations vary so widely, that labeling it a “disappointment” or “failure” may depend on who you talk to.

Since the end of World War II, the average loss for a second-term presidency in its sixth year has been 29 House seats.” Ann Coulter added, “The average sixth-year midterm election, like this year, is much worse for the president’s party, which typically loses 34 seats in the House.”

cue Jeopardy theme music
“I’ll take small, meaningless sample sizes for $800, Alex!”

Did you realize that the average person who eats a three-legged duck on a Tuesday dies of cancer?

Ooo, the grapes are sooo sour. Ah well, the neo-goons were already puckered up from kissing the monkey’s arse, so they’ll be ready for the taste of defeat.

I wonder what the Focks News headline will look like if dem damn Dems win?
“That other party takes the lead.”
“Democrats sweep Senate, terrorist celebrate.”
Or maybe they’ll let it all hang out:
“No, no, no! This can’t be happening!”

Or maybe they’ll keep doing what they’ve been doing all along and ignore the pesky facts altogether:
“Carbon Monoxide Detectors and You.”

Hey! we’ll take the fifteen seats and be darned glad to get them. Who defines success anyway? I’m sure not going to let the MSM do it. These are the guys who called Florida for Bush in 2000 so they could go home and go to bed.We’ll take the Democratic majority in the house and stop the deciderer form making stupid decisions. There is still 2008 to think about.

The Berlin Wall fell and it looked like at last a chance for a peaceful war, but two packs of wolves attacked us all–the terrorists and the Republicans.

I usually don’t correct my typos but this one is so Freudian and Republicanesque in its reverse of meaning that I must.

#9 should be The Berlin Wall fell and it looked like at last a chance for peace, but two packs of wolves attacked us all–the terrorists and the Republicans.

Whew!

Of course what the Repugs fail to mention is the gerrymandering and other assorted cheats thrown in the way of Democrats this year. Without those, we’d probably be looking at a 200 seat landslide.

Although I’ll settled for a gain of 20 seats in the House, Democrats picking up 30 seats would be a dream come true, and it would guarantee that Rumsfeld would be gone by New Year’s Eve.

Being “only” 15 seats up in the House sure looks a lot better now than it did pre-1994.

Mark my words: in this high-tech era of illiteracy the Republican operatives, under the direction of Rovean edicts, know that the grand narrative is where it’s at. Saturate the airwaves and all other means of communication with “the” story that puts all other Americans who disagree with the way things ought to be, according to these Republicans, on notice that they are the losers in America. It is like an abuser weaving deception so the abused will continue willingly in the abuse. Sick stuff! -Kevo

In 1994 the Republican Party gained a majority of seats in the House for the first time since 1954. The Democrats regaining control of the House after ‘only’ 12 years would be devasting to Republicans. They were planning to have their own 40 year reign.

In 1986 the Democrats picked up 6 seats to regain the majority – the first time since 1918 where the Senate changed hands in a second term midterm. Republicans controlled the Senate from 1980-86 and the Democrats controlled 1958-1980.

It isn’t just the net gains. Democrats winning a majority is the big prize. This is nothing new to readers here, but will be downplayed by the liberal media.

#7 – TAIO: other possible Fox headlines –

“Did Dems steal the elections?”
“Dems win; Saddam death penalty in doubt”
“Can America take 2 years of Nancy Pelosi?”
“Harry Reid is majority leader – 3rd trimester babies under threat”
“Will gay marriage spread to MT, VA, MO and TN?”

Glad to see the site is back up after a second apparant attack in as many days.

But what about elections in a president’s sixth-year? Kevin tackled that one as well.

1958: 49 seats
1966: 47 seats
1974: 49 seats
1986: 5 seats
1998: 5 seats

To argue that the political climate in ’06 is anything like ’58 or ’66, or even ’86 or ’98 is crazy. It’s certainly quite like 1974, for sure. The people are rebelling against a president who thinks he’s above the law. I never thought I’d miss Dick Nixon. But come on, there’s been a heavy gerrymandering trend in the last ten years to make seats far, far safer than they were in ’74. And in every other year the people liked their presidents. If anything, comparing this race to any other or any supposed historical trend is just bonkers.

Oh yes, and numbers with such a high standard deviation do not make an average trend.

Kraphammer and Coultergeist selling garbage? Who’da thunkit?

I’m sure all the computerized gerrymandering is having an impact, and I’d sure like to see someone come up with a better method for drawing new districts than letting partisans do it. Maybe a computerized method that was based on a logical set of criteria that both sides could agree on.

Howard is right, if we can’t get Joe American’s head out of his ass, the coming financial failures will be blamed on the Democratic takeover.

The time is NOW to get the idea into everyone’s heads that the cleanup America has demanded will not be painless, and that the pain will NOT be the fault of the grownups who are going to be cleaning up the mess left by the retarded criminals. The pain, ALL OF IT, can and must be laid at the feet of the party which spent TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS invading Iraq for a pack of liars.

Keep it simple, repeat ad nauseum. “If the Republicans hadn’t wasted [insert current estimates] on Bush’s Iraq fiasco, we would have more for [insert item being bitched about]”

guarantee that Rumsfeld would be gone by New Year’s Eve

Rumsfeld’s future tenure and Bush’s will be the same length, unless Rumsfeld dies.

I am a bit dubious that the Iraq occupation will last another two years; things are already dire there, and won’t be improving. Bush will blame any collapse on the Democrats, of course.

Gaining control of any branch of the federal government is a victory. Congress would be nice, but all things considered, the House is certainly acceptable. And what appear to be gains at the state level shouldn’t be ignored.

That said, the D Party has a very long way to go to become a full fledged player at the Federal level. Many of their gains were due to the Rs undoing as as much as anything Ds did themselves. Had they been more efficient, more effective, in nationalizing this election, we would not be wondering about the outcome at this late date. The Rs gave them more than enough ammunition to make the badge “Republican” one that no one would want to wear.

For right wing pundits, the soft bigotry of high expectations applies to Democrats. Dems are held to higher moral, ethical and other political standards by the right. This in turn implies that Repubs, who always claim government doesn’t work anyways, are held to low expectations, which is why it’s so easy for Repubs to get off for incompetence and criminal behavior: what else do you expect from Republicans?

Dems to a higher moral?

So if I base my moral and ethical standards on Kennedy, Hillary or Bubba, I can drive my car into a stream with my girlfriend and call it in 9 hours later (and not help her out – killing her), play both sides to any issue (Port Dubai mean anything?) and make a ton of money by doing this – that is the ethic and political standard you WANT in office?

And it’s just as easy to kill the Replublicans, but don’t start with the Democrats are without warts, and all this high ethical/moral/political garbage, they are just as corrupt…

Comments are closed.