boneyard bill
Veteran Member
Democrats just felt the "six-year itch." The six-year itch is the term given to the tendency of a political party that has held the White House for six years to suffer badly in the mid-term elections. You can trace it back at least as far as Eisenhower when Republicans lost heavily in 1958. The same happened in 1966 after six years of Kennedy Johnson. Then there's the famous "Watergate Congress" elected in 1974. From the time Nixon was re-elected in 1972, you could have predicted a Democrat sweep two years later even if you'd never heard of Watergate. There is one exception to the rule, and that is in 1998 under Clinton when Republicans made only modest gains. But that's because of 1994. Republicans had won such a huge victory is 1994 that there was little room left on the upside. About all they did was regain what they had lost in the presidential year of 1996.
Everyone has an explanation for the massive defeat of the six year itch in the year that it happens, and some of these seem obvious. Watergate is obvious. The Eisenhower recession seems like an obvious explanation for Republican losses in 1958. But no one has an explanation for why there always seem to be something wrong, like scandal or recession, in a president's second term. Moreover, the presidents themselves are not always unpopular when the sweep occurs. That certainly was the case with Ike and probably with Reagan in 1986 as well.
What happens two years later in the election following the six-year itch? The opposition party wins the White House. There is only one exception to this. That was in 1988 when Bush succeeded Reagan. This is the only time a Party has held the White House for three successive terms since the two-term limit was adopted. Moreover, while the White House changes hands, the election is typically by a wafer-thin margin. Nixon/Kennedy in 1960 was probably the closest. But Nixon/Humphrey was also very close as was Carter/Ford. And then there's 2000 when the popular vote went one way and the electoral vote the other. The only exception to this rule is 2008 where Obama's win, while not a landslide, was still a fairly comfortable margin. However, it should be noted that two of those close races are highly suspect. In a "fair" election Nixon might very well have beaten Kennedy as there were sufficient irregularities in Illinois and Texas to have turned those states around. The other, of course, was 2000, where the situation was so close that improper voting even in a state like New Hampshire would have produced the opposite result. So we shouldn't conclude that there is something magic about the close elections always going to the opposition. It wouldn't take much for the party in the White House to retain power including, sometimes, just an honest count.
So, while this election is certainly bad news for the Democrats, it shouldn't at all be unexpected. And it doesn't mean that the Democrats are going to be uncompetitive in 2016.
Everyone has an explanation for the massive defeat of the six year itch in the year that it happens, and some of these seem obvious. Watergate is obvious. The Eisenhower recession seems like an obvious explanation for Republican losses in 1958. But no one has an explanation for why there always seem to be something wrong, like scandal or recession, in a president's second term. Moreover, the presidents themselves are not always unpopular when the sweep occurs. That certainly was the case with Ike and probably with Reagan in 1986 as well.
What happens two years later in the election following the six-year itch? The opposition party wins the White House. There is only one exception to this. That was in 1988 when Bush succeeded Reagan. This is the only time a Party has held the White House for three successive terms since the two-term limit was adopted. Moreover, while the White House changes hands, the election is typically by a wafer-thin margin. Nixon/Kennedy in 1960 was probably the closest. But Nixon/Humphrey was also very close as was Carter/Ford. And then there's 2000 when the popular vote went one way and the electoral vote the other. The only exception to this rule is 2008 where Obama's win, while not a landslide, was still a fairly comfortable margin. However, it should be noted that two of those close races are highly suspect. In a "fair" election Nixon might very well have beaten Kennedy as there were sufficient irregularities in Illinois and Texas to have turned those states around. The other, of course, was 2000, where the situation was so close that improper voting even in a state like New Hampshire would have produced the opposite result. So we shouldn't conclude that there is something magic about the close elections always going to the opposition. It wouldn't take much for the party in the White House to retain power including, sometimes, just an honest count.
So, while this election is certainly bad news for the Democrats, it shouldn't at all be unexpected. And it doesn't mean that the Democrats are going to be uncompetitive in 2016.
