With the Midterm Elections of 2018 upon us in less than two weeks, it is time to analyze midterm election results in the first such elections after a new President has come to office, starting with Harry Truman in 1946 and all the way through to Barack Obama in 2010.
We are discussing 12 Presidents and how they were factors in the midterm elections which followed their entering the Presidency.
Six of the 12 Presidents entered that first midterm election with their popularity in public opinion polls under 50 percent—with the order of lack of popularity being lowest to highest the following—Truman, Reagan, Lyndon B. Johnson, Obama, Clinton, and Carter. Notice this list is all Democrats except for Reagan.
The other six Presidents were above 50 percent popularity at the time of the first midterm elections–from the highest to the lowest being George W. Bush, Kennedy, Eisenhower, George H. W. Bush, Nixon, Ford. Notice this list is all Republicans except for Kennedy.
The record shows that only George W. Bush and Kennedy saw the best results, with Bush seeing a gain of 8 House seats and 1 Senate seat, in the year after September 11, and Kennedy losing 4 House seats but gaining 2 Senate seats in the weeks after the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962.
And George H. W. Bush, Nixon, and Eisenhower midterms showed respectively 8 House seats and 1 Senate seat lost; 12 House Seats lost and 1 Senate seat gained; and 18 House seats and 1 Senate seat lost.
Only Ford, three months after taking over the Presidency, and with still a high public opinion rating of 54 percent, but the Nixon Watergate Scandal still reverberating with Ford’s pardon of Nixon, do we see a major loss of 48 House seats and 4 Senate seats lost.
Meanwhile, those six Presidents with a lower than 50 percent public opinion poll rating at the first midterm of their Presidency saw a much greater loss, with Carter having the smallest loss, 15 House seats and 3 Senate seats lost with a 49 percent rating.
Reagan, with a 42 percent rating, lowest except for Truman, saw a loss of 26 House seats but one Senate seat gained.
The other four Presidents—Johnson, Clinton, Truman, Obama—suffered far worse losses—with Johnson losing 48 House seats and losing 4 Senate seats, the same as Ford, who had ten points higher public opinion rating of 54 percent to LBJ’s 44 percent.
Clinton, Truman, and Obama, all Democrats,lost massively in seats in both houses of Congress—Clinton losing 54 House seats and losing 8 Senate seats; Truman losing 55 House seats and losing 12 Senate seats; and Obama losing 63 House seats and losing 6 Senate seats.
What all this leads to is the strong belief that Donald Trump, with 47 percent approval rating most recently, will see a major loss of House seats for sure, and the guess at this time, after much reflection, is that it will be between 40-45 seats. In the Senate, with the great Republican advantage in only having 9 seats open for election, and the Senate having a 51-49 Republican margin, the odds of the Democrats holding on to their seats and gaining two or more of the nine contested Republican seats would seem to lead likely to a 50-50 tie, meaning a one seat Democratic gain, but still a Republican controlled Senate at 50-50, whereby Vice President Mike Pence will still organize the Senate for the next two years. This so unless there is a move by Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski, who voted against Brett Kavanaugh, and has been attacked by her state’s Republican party leadership, to switch to Independent or Democratic support, and giving the Senate to the Democrats.
The Governorships generally follow Congressional results, and are extremely important for reapportionment of state legislative districts and US House districts after the Census 2020 population figures are tabulated, so having more Governors of one party over the other are crucial. At this point, it would seem likely that the Democrats will gain from 16 present Governorships by 10-11, and have 26-27 Chief Executives of states.
So overall, a Democratic gain to a majority of House seats to about 235-240 and 26-27 Governorships, but likely a tied 50-50 Senate, putting the results worse for Trump than for Reagan in the House and Senate, but not as bad as for Ford among Republican Presidents.
I will have at least two responses to this blog topic.
Ronald and I are in sync with what we figure will be the results.
* * * * *
When it comes to the U.S. House, I estimate the 2018 Democrats will win the U.S. Popular Vote with a margin between +7.50 and +10.00. Following their 2016 loss in the U.S. Popular Vote by –1.08, and with +3.59 historically gained seats for each nationally shifted percentage point, this would yield net gains between +30 to +39 (or +40) seats. So, the Democrats’ new majority would be 225 to 235. But, what can also help is if the 2018 Democrats receive more than +3.59 net gains with each nationally shifted percentage point—meaning, closer to +4.00 net gains on average—so that their new majority number would become closer to 240 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives effective January 2019.
* * * * *
When it comes to the U.S. Senate, I agree with 50/50. I have the map following this paragraph. What would help the Democrats is if they hold North Dakota. (Solid shades are party holds. Light shades are party pickups.)
http://www.270towin.com/2018-senate-election/aYX7Kl.png
* * * * *
With regard for the U.S Governors, I have seen numerous conservative estimates—figuring the Democrats would still end up with a minority number, like 23 or 24. But, with anywhere between an 8- to 11-point national shift for the U.S. Popular Vote for the U.S. House, an 8-point national shift would be enough to deliver a new majority count of governorships to the 2018 Democrats.
In 2014, the Democrats lost the U.S. Popular Vote by –4.09. Figuring, on the conservative side, that their net gains will be +1.33 governorships for each nationally percentage point, a national shift of 8 points, and winning the U.S. Popular Vote by +4, would be sufficient.
Considering the 2018 Republicans are poised to shift their margins in only 15 to 25 percent of the nation’s states—while the nine states from the 2014 Democratic gubernatorial column are in position to experience increased margins—this would deliver the U.S. Popular Vote, for U.S. Governors, to the 2018 Democrats.
My sense is the 2018 Republicans will win additional shifts in just two of the fourteen states—that is, Massachusetts and Maryland—which comprise the Top 20 populous states. (Nearly 70 percent of the nation lives in a state which ranks among the Top 20.) And where the 2018 Republicans are poised to garner additional shifts, because they have popular governors, come very notably from states which were won in pickups from their previous election cycle: Massachusetts (2014), Maryland (2014), New Hampshire (2016), and Vermont (2016). With Alaska in position to flip Republican, that would be a fifth state. The remaining ones: Arkansas and Nebraska, likely increases. Also: Idaho and South Carolina, perhaps with one or both.
It would not surprise me if the 2018 Democrats win the U.S. Popular Vote, for U.S. Governors, by a margin of +5. And this is what help deliver a net gain of +11 for the party to end up with a new majority of 27 governorships.
http://www.270towin.com/2018-governor-election/63j7.png
* UPDATE 10.25.2018 @ 10:00 a.m. ET *
We can add another state as a potential pickup for the Democrats: South Dakota.
“Tossup†is the rating, for Governor of South Dakoa, from Larry Sabato’s “Crystal Ballâ€: http://crystalball.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/2018-governor/ .
My revised list of likely pickups (if the 2018 Democrats were to end up with as much as 28 governorships):
17) Illinois
18) Michigan
19) New Mexico
20) Maine
21) Iowa
22) Florida
23) Wisconsin
24) Nevada
25) Ohio
26) Kansas — Tipping Point
27) Georgia
28) South Dakota
This is really good for the 2018 Democrats.
Ronald writes,
“The record shows that only George W. Bush and [John] Kennedy saw the best results, with Bush seeing a gain of 8 House seats and 1 Senate seat, in the year after September 11, and Kennedy losing 4 House seats but gaining 2 Senate seats in the weeks after the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962.â€
Let’s figure it out.
In 1960, John Kennedy won the U.S. Popular Vote by +0.17. The Democrats won the U.S. Popular Vote, for U.S. House, by +9.93. (Spread: 9.76.) In the midterm elections of 1962, the Democrats won the U.S. Popular Vote, for U.S. House, by +5.27. So, the 1960-to-1962 national shift was Republican +4.66. The 1962 Republicans won a net gain of +2. So, the 1962 Republicans won an average net gain of +0.42 seats with each nationally shifted percentage point (in their direction).
In 2000, with the split outcomes for U.S. President and U.S. Popular Vote, Democrat Al Gore held in his party’s column the latter with a margin of +0.51. The Republicans won the U.S. Popular Vote, for U.S. House, by +0.41. (Spread: 0.92.) In the midterm elections of 2002, the Republicans won the U.S. Popular Vote, for U.S. House, by +4.73. So, the 2000-to-2002 national shift was Republican +4.32. The 2002 Republicans won a net gain of +8. So, the 2002 Republicans won an average net gain of +1.85 seats with each nationally shifted percentage point (in their direction).
This is really dealing with numbers, with margins, and with comparing to the previous election cycle.
* * * * *
Interesting facts and trends:
According to wikipedia.org, it has been since the midterm elections of 1938 that there has been a recording of the U.S. Popular Vote for U.S. House. The U.S. House is on the schedule every two years—for both presidential and midterm elections—and there have been 78 years’ worth of past election cycles which also numbered 20 midterm cycles.
The year 2000 was the first presidential election, since the recording, in which the Republicans won the U.S. Popular Vote for U.S. House. (The Democrats won the U.S. Popular Vote, for U.S. House, even with the Republican landslides of Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, and Bush Sr. Basically, they were attributed to incredible winning margins by Democrats in the south.)
Since the year 2000, the margins spread for U.S. Popular Vote with respect for U.S. President vs. U.S. House have been less than 5 points. Here were those results:
2000
• U.S. President: Democratic (Gore) +0.51
• U.S. House: Republican +0.41
• Spread: [0.92]
2004
• U.S. President: Republican (Bush Jr.) +2.46
• U.S. House: Republican +2.64
• Spread: 0.18
2008
• U.S. President: Democratic (Obama) +7.28
• U.S. House: Democratic +10.60
• Spread: 3.32
2012
• U.S. President: Democratic (Obama) +3.86
• U.S. House: Democratic +1.16
• Spread: 2.70
2016
• U.S. President: Democratic (Clinton, H.) +2.09
• U.S. House: Republican +1.08
• Spread: [3.17]
Thanks, D, once again, for the updated analysis of political trends!