The Democrats "Wave" - Historical Perspective

Didn't know this, but Krauthammer gives us the history.

According to the pollsters, pundits and pols -- Democrat and nervous Republican -- a great anti-Republican wave is a-coming. Well, let's assume major Democratic gains: between 20 to 25 House seats, and four to six Senate seats. The House goes Democratic for the first time in 12 years. The Senate likely stays Republican, but by such an excruciatingly small margin that there is no governing majority.

What to say about such a victory? Substantial, yes. Historic, no. Before proclaiming a landslide, one has to ask Henny Youngman's question: "Compared to what?'' (His answer to: "How's your wife?'') Since the end of World War II, the average loss for a second-term presidency in its sixth year has been 29 House seats and six Senate seats. If you go back to Franklin Roosevelt's second term, the House loss average jumps to 35. Thus a 25/6 House/Senate loss would be about (and slightly below) the historical average.

True, today there is far more -- and more effective -- gerrymandering as computer power and shamelessness both have grown exponentially. So fewer seats are competitive. But that is only true for the House. You cannot gerrymander the Senate. (Of course, the Democrats are trying even that, with their perennial push for two Senate seats for the 9-to-1 Democratic District of Columbia, which should instead exercise voting rights in the state of Maryland to which it is geographically, economically and culturally contiguous.)

So the blathering from the pundits and politicos about repudiation is in reality more like the normal swing of the voter. Guess after 6 years the public gets sick of the Administration's party irrespective of anything.

So when the results come in and the Democrats begin to crow, remember this: By historical standards, this is the American people's usual response to entrenched power -- a bracing and chastening contempt. Sixth-year presidents nearly always bring their parties down. (Republican overreaching on the Monica Lewinsky scandal made Clinton's sixth year an exception.) Moreover, this year, the out-of-the-blue Foley scandal interrupted whatever national momentum the Republicans had gained after successfully passing legislation on terrorist interrogation and detention, and thus refocusing attention on their strongest suit, the war on terror.

The election will be a referendum of sorts on Iraq. But it will be registering nothing more than uneasiness and discontent. Had the Democrats offered a coherent alternative to the current policy, one could draw lessons as to what course the country should take. But if either friends or enemies interpret the results as a mandate for giving up, they will be mistaken.

Iraq being such a strong focus really has distorted the reality of the US overall. The economic front is almost amazing in its vigor, which is finally starting to settle downward to the average citizen, has been viewed as a complete botch job by Bush. How that is appears to be related to gasoline prices and the fact that the lower levels of income aren't rallying to satisfy the liberals view that they should have been the first ones to benefit from a good economy. This completely ignores the facts that companies need to profit first in order to be stable enough to pass on benefits to the workers. You don't hand out big raises if you're uncertain about being in business next quarter.

The Dems better hope they have that wave, or they'll have to figure out what happened with that repudiation of the Repugs. No doubt the end result will be the same as in 2004 with the population being to stupid to know what is right. Hopefully, by now, the Repugs have figured out that the public is pissed that they aren't acting as expected with the limited government and limited spending. Though, I'm going to go out on a limb here and bet that neither party has learned anything.