Statistikhengst
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #1
This is a beginning study of the statistics of all US-Congresses from 1855 to the present. There is a lot of information in this thread. It is not intended to support one party or another. This is pure history, nothing more and nothing less. Three important points at the end.
1854 was the first year that the Republican Party (GOP) competed on the national level in the mid-term elections, and 1856 was the first year that the fledgling party competed in the Presidential elections.
I have collected the BEGINNING data from 80 sessions of congress, from the 34th to the 113th, in excel table format. I say beginning data, for the numbers are the results of the congressional elections and those who were seated during the next legislative period. The numbers do not reflect any changes that may have taken place DURING a legislative period, changes such as party-switches, deaths or resignations.
You can see the entire table HERE. You can also see the table HERE AT BLOGSPOT.
Here is the table again, but only with mid-term elections.
And here is the table again, reduced to mostly 2nd term mid-term elections.
The table is too big and byte-intensive to post here.
Since 1855, in the US Senate, based on General Election results and mid-term election results, the Democrats have controlled the senate for 39 out of 80 sessions, while the Republicans have controlled the Senate for 41 out of 80 sessions. The Senate ended in a tie 3 times, which were of course broken by the sitting Vice President of the USA. The longest period of rule for any party in the US Senate was from 1955-1981, 13 uninterrupted Democratic majorities in the Senate. But the GOP also had two separate periods of 9 uninterrupted sessions of Republican majorities, from 1861-1879 and again from 1895-1913.
In the US House of Representatives, based on General Election results and mid-term election results, the Democrats have controlled the HOR for 43 out of 80 sessions, while the Republicans have controlled the HOR for 37 out of 80 sessions. The longest period of rule for any party in the US HOR was from 1955-1995, 20 uninterrupted Democratic majorities, or 40 straight years. But the GOP also had three separate periods of 7 uninterrupted sessions of Republican majorities, from 1859-1875, and again from 1895-1911 and from 1917-1933.
Already, in the first year in which the GOP was on the ballot, we ended up with a divided congress, with the Democrats having a majority in the Senate and the Republicans having a majority in the HOR.
Here are the Legislative sessions where the Executive (Presidency) and both Houses of Congress were all from the same party:
1857-1859 (Buchanan D, 2 years) Buchanan's party lost the HOR in the mid-terms of 1858.
1861-1869 (Lincoln and Johnson R, 8 years) but of course, the Civil War changed the composition of both Houses for the duration of and after the war.
1869-1875 (Grant R, 6 years) Grant's party lost the House in his second mid-term election, despite a massive landslide for him. Remember that detail.
1889-1891 (B. Harrison R, 2 years) but Harrison's party lost this House in the mid-term elections.
1893-1895 (Cleveland D, 2 years) but Cleveland's party lost both Houses of Congress in the mid-terms of his second term. However, Cleveland is the only president to serve two non-consecutive terms.
1897-1911 (McKinley, Roosevelt, Taft all R, 14 years) but Taft's party lost the HOR in the midterms of 1910.
1913-1917 (Wilson D, 4 years). Wilson's party lost the HOR during his successful re-election of 1916 and then lost the Senate in the mid-terms of 1918.
1921-1933 (Harding, Coolidge, Hoover all R, 12 years). Hoover hung onto to both the House and the Senate in the 1930 mid-terms, with just a R+1 edge in the Senate and an R+6 edge in the House.
1933-1947, 1949-1953 (FDR, Truman, both D, 18 years). Truman's party lost both Houses of Congress in what would have been the mit-terms for FDR's unprecedented 4th term in office, but since FDR died shortly after the inauguration and Truman served out virtually all of his term as President, the mid-terms of 1946 were essentially the mid-terms of a first-term Truman administration. Truman went on to recapture both Houses of Congress in the 1948 general election and held them to the end of what was essentially his second term in office.
1953-1955 (Eisenhower -R, 2 years). Eisenhower's party lost both Houses of Congress in the 1954 mid-terms and he then had to deal with an opposition congress for 6 of his 8 years in office.
1961-1969 (Kennedy, Johnson both D, 8 years).
1977-1981 (Carter D, 4 years).
1991-1993 (Clinton D, 2 years) Clinton's party lost both Houses of Congress in the 1994 mid-terms. Bush's electoral history vis-a-vis relations to the US Congress parallel the electoral history of Dwight D. Eisenhower.
2001-2007 (Bush 43 R, 6 years) technically, the GOP had both Houses of congress, but the Senate, which started 50-50, switched hands twice, then the GOP added seats in the 2002 mid-terms. Bush's party lost both Houses of Congress in the 2006 mid-terms. Bush's electoral history vis-a-vis relations to the US Congress parallel the electoral history of Ulysses S. Grant.
2009-2011 (Obama D, 2 years) Obama's party lost the HOR in the 2010 mid-terms. The coming mid-terms will be those within his second term of office. Unless the Democrats win both Houses of Congress, which seems very unlikely at this time, then Obama's electoral history vis-a-vis relations to the US Congress will parallel the electoral history of Dwight D. Eisenhower.
So, in the 160 years that will be the 80 sessions of Congress from 1855-2015, we have had 22 Presidents (12 R, 10 D) where the President's party ruled in both the Executive and both houses of the Legislative simultaneously for 92 of those 160 years, or 57.5% of the time. More specifically, the Democratic Party has had control of both the White House and both Houses of Congress simultaneously for 42 years and the Republican Party has had control of the White House and both Houses of Congress simultaneously for 50 years.
Now, having a lock on those two branches of government simultaneously does not guarantee suceess so does having split government guarantee failure. Eisenhower and Clinton ruled for 6 years each with an opposition congress and both got a lot done. Reagan never had the luxury of a complete Congress of his party, and yet, he got a lot done. Conversely, Jimmy Carter had a Democratic congress and his record is less than average. Ditto for Herbert Hoover.
The EXCEL table.
If you look at the excel table, it is in 25 columns, from A-Y. And it is in book format, meaning that the first four columns (President, Term, Congress, Years) are also the last four columns in reverse order. On the left side of the dividing bar (column M) are the stats for the Senate. On the right of the dividing bar are the stats for the House of Representatives. Everything is color coded: the party in control (Presidency, Senate, House) is shaded either light red (or orange) for Republican or blue for Democrat.
The margins (columns J and T): the margins reflect the pure difference between those whose names were listing on the ballot as D or R. The independents who caucused with one party or another are not in the calculations. For instance, in 2009, the Senate was comprised of 57 D, 41 R and 2 I. Those Is caucused with the Democratic Party, but the actual margin, at least for the beginning of that legislative session, was D+16.
The Swings/Swing %s (columns K/L and U/V): the swing is always a comparison between the margin of that cycle and the one before. Swings are possible for every cycle EXCEPT 1855, since there would be no previous cycle with a Republican Party to compare with. Swings, like margins, are listed as a + value.
-For like-party values, you subtract the margin from the previous cycle. For instance, in 1899, Senate had a +27 seat majority for the GOP. In 1897, the GOP had a +12 seat majority. This means that the GOP majority grew by +15 from 1897 to 1899. The Senate had 90 seats back then, so 15/90=16.67%. So, almost 17% of the Senate swung Republican between those two cycles.
-For opposing party values, you add the two numbers together for the later cycle: in 1933, with FDR's first election, the DEMS achieved a +196 seat majority in the House of Representatives. In 1931, after the Hoover mid-term elections, it was a +2 GOP majority: 196 + 2 = 198. So, the Swing was +198 for the DEMS. The House of Representatives had (and still has today) 435 Representatives. 198/435=45.52%. So, 45.52% of the House shifted in order to get to the 1932 election results.
With the color-coding, it is really easy to see which party controlled what House of congress and the Executive at any time in the last 160 years. This is one of the things that make this table to helpful for anybody, also for reference in the future. Lots of times, you will see swings for the opposing party, while the other party still held a majority. Go back to 1931 and 1933:
In 1931, based on the 1930 elections, the House swung +23.45% Democratic, leaving Hoover's party (the GOP) with a razor-thin +2 vote majority in the House. In 1933, the House Swung again to the DEMS, by +45.52%, and this time the House went DEM. So, within two cycles, the House swing by 69%. Wow. We rarely, if ever, see these kind of shifts anymore.
The excel table that shows only mid-terms is interesting in that it more than not shows losses for the incumbent party and that is easy to see, based on the color coding: if the color in the margin/% columns is different than the stats columns for that House of Congress, then you know that the incumbent party suffered a loss. This doesn't mean that the incumbent Party necessarily lost that House of Congress, but at least took a hit within it's own ranks.
And you can make the same comparison between the Presidency and the Houses of congress: if the colors don't line up between the presidency and the margins/% for each House of Congress, then you know that the President's party suffered losses during the mid-terms. This table is probably the table that most will find interesting, since 2014 will be a mid-term year.
Here are all 40 mid-terms, with quick descriptions. In 38 of 40 mid-terms, the President's party has experienced losses, either major or minor.
1858 Buchanan (D), the GOP made gains in the Senate and picked-up the House.
1862 Lincoln (R), the GOP improved in the Senate, but the DEMS made gains in the House.
1866 Johnson (R), the GOP held both houses, but the DEMS made gains in both.
1870 Grant (R), the GOP held both Houses, but the DEMS made gains in both.
1874 Grant (R), the GOP held the Senate (with losses), but lost the House to the DEMS.
1878 Hayes (R), the DEMS picked up the Senate and made slight gains in the House.
1882 Arthur (R), the DEM picked up the House, but Arthur's party actually achieved gains in the Senate, going from a tied Senate in 1880 to a R +4 in 1882.
1886 Cleveland (D), the GOP held the Senate from 1884 but the DEMS made gains. The DEMS held the House from 1884, but the GOP made gains.
1890 Harrison (R), the GOP held the Senate, but the DEMS made gains. The DEMS picked-up the House, which they had just lost in 1888.
1894 Cleveland (D), GOP picked-up both Houses of Congress, with moderate gains in the Senate and extremely large gains in the House.
1898 McKinley (R), the GOP held both houses of Congress, made gains in the Senate, suffered losses to the DEMs in the House.
1902 Roosevelt (R), the GOP held both houses, the DEMS made slight gains in the Senate (1 seat) and the GOP made slight gains in the House.
1906 Roosevelt (R), the GOP held both Houses, made a +6 Seat gain in the Senate, but lost a lot of seats in the House.
1910 Taft (R), 22% of the Senate swung DEM, but the GOP still held the Senate. The DEMS flipped the House.
1914 Wilson (D), the DEMS held both houses and made gains in the Senate, but suffered losses in the House.
1918 Wilson (D), the DEMS lost the Senate to the GOP, which flipped 12 seats and ended up with a +1 seat majority. The GOP improved it's numbers in the House, which it had already flipped in the 1916 GE.
1922, 1926, 1930 Harding (R), Coolidge (R) and Hoover (R): the GOP held both houses through all three mid-terms, but suffered losses in both houses each time come mid-terms. 1930 is a statistically interesting year, where the GOP ended up with a +1 Seat advantage in the Senate AND a +1 seat advantage in the House.
----------------------------------------------------------
1934 - FDR (D) was the first year where the incumbent President's party held both houses of Congress and made substantial gains as well.
----------------------------------------------------------
1938, 1942 FDR (D), the DEMS held both houses of Congress, but suffered losses in both.
1946 Truman (D) first mid-term ever where the incumbent party, the President's party, lost both Houses in a mid-term. And both houses swung about 25% for the GOP. In 1918, Wilson also had a complete opposition congress, but had already lost the House in 1916. The mid-terms of 1946 were an epic battle between the two parties. The next time we were to see so much activity for a mid-term would be in 1994.
1950 Truman (D) the DEMS held both Houses of Congress, which they recaptured in the 1948 GE, but suffered losses to the GOP in both. In fact, the Senate was down to D +1 majority.
1954 Eisenhower (R), the GOP lost both houses of Congress, which it had just picked-up, to the DEMS. This was the second time in history that this happened.
1958 Eisenhower (R), the DEMS made gains in both houses of Congress, which they controlled since 1954. This makes Eisenhower the first president in history to have an opposition Congress for 6 of his 8 years in office.
1962 Kennedy (D), the DEMS hold both houses of congress, gain in the Senate, but lose seats to the GOP in the house (small: +1.15% swing).
1966 Johnson (D), the DEMS hold both houses of Congress, but suffer losses to the GOP in both.
1970 Nixon (R) the DEMS hold both houses of Congress, the GOP makes gains in the Senate, the DEMS make gains in the House.
1974 (3 months after Watergate, to note) Ford (R), the DEMS hold both houses of congress and make large gains in both.
Richard Nixon was the first president to start his term of office with a complete opposition Congress, and it stayed this way for his entire term.
1978 Carter (D), the DEMS held both houses, but the GOP made gains in a both, both swings of ca 6%.
1982 Reagan (R), the GOP held and made gains in the Senate. The DEMS held and made gains in the House.
1986 Reagan (R), the DEMS pick-up the Senate (16% swing) and make slight gains in the House. This makes Reagan the fourth Republican president in a row to leave office with a complete opposition congress (Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan).
1990 Bush (R), the DEMS hold and make slight gains in both Houses. This makes Bush the fifth Republican president in a row to leave office with a complete opposition congress (Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush) and the second to serve his entire term with an opposition congress (Nixon/Ford, Bush).
1994 Clinton (D), the GOP picks up both Houses of Congress in the largest Republican gains since 1946. Worst losses for the Democratic Party in the South ever.
1998 Clinton (D), both houses remain in GOP hands, the Senate remains completely unchanged, the DEMS make slight gains in the House.
2002 Bush 43 (R), the GOP holds both Houses and makes slight gains in both. Bush is the first Republican ever to experience this in a first-term midterm (or any mid-term, for that matter) and this is the second time this has ever happened at all, after 1934.
2006 Bush 43 (R), the DEMS pick up both the Senate and the House. Technically, the Senate is a tie, but the Democratic party, with two independents caucusing with them, take the majority. Bush's six years from 2001-2007 is the longest time that a Republican President had a Republican congress to support him since Harding/Coolidge/Hoover of the 1920s.
2010 Obama (D), the GOP picks up the House in a wave larger than 1994, but the Senate stays in DEM hands.
2014??? - wait and see.
Now, that was a lot of information, but as you see, there are only two mid-terms out of fourty where the President's party held and made gains in both houses: 1934 and 2002.
In the other 38 mid-term elections, there have been mixed results at best and more often than not, in a second term mid-term, large losses for the President's party.
2/40 = 5%. I would say there is a 5% chance that any incumbent president is going to make gains in both houses of Congress in any mid-term primary.
Now, thirteen of those 40 mid-terms were (or could be considered) 2nd-term mid-term elections, and in only one of them, 1998, did the President's party make improvements, and even in that case, still did not control the congress.
Some more details:
Take a look at the table and see that the number of seats switched (and the swing percentage as well) between elections was much larger in the distance past than today. From 1875-1939, in the House of Representatives, there was a shift of more than 100 seats 11 times: 1875, 1883, 1891, 1895, 1911, 1915, 1921, 1923, 1931, 1933, 1939. That's 11 times in 64 years.
Since then, in the next 74 years, it has only happened 4 times: 1947, 1949, 1995, 2010.
Most people believe that gerrymandering is making more and more seats non-competitive and therefore, we are seeing less shifts. I believe that this theory is correct.
So, what can we learn from this information?
1.) We have had divided government a lot more than most people realize.
2.) The statistical probability that the President's party suffers major losses in a mid-term election, especially in a 2nd term mid-term, is extremely high.
3.) Divided government is not necessarily a bad thing. See: Eisenhower, Clinton. Likewise, unified government is not necessarily good. See: Hoover, Carter.
So, before the pundits go blabbing their mouths off about the 2014 elections, know that history is on the side of the GOP in this election.
Special note: in the 47th Congress, there was a divided Senate, but the Democrats controlled that senate.
1854 was the first year that the Republican Party (GOP) competed on the national level in the mid-term elections, and 1856 was the first year that the fledgling party competed in the Presidential elections.
I have collected the BEGINNING data from 80 sessions of congress, from the 34th to the 113th, in excel table format. I say beginning data, for the numbers are the results of the congressional elections and those who were seated during the next legislative period. The numbers do not reflect any changes that may have taken place DURING a legislative period, changes such as party-switches, deaths or resignations.
You can see the entire table HERE. You can also see the table HERE AT BLOGSPOT.
Here is the table again, but only with mid-term elections.
And here is the table again, reduced to mostly 2nd term mid-term elections.
The table is too big and byte-intensive to post here.
Since 1855, in the US Senate, based on General Election results and mid-term election results, the Democrats have controlled the senate for 39 out of 80 sessions, while the Republicans have controlled the Senate for 41 out of 80 sessions. The Senate ended in a tie 3 times, which were of course broken by the sitting Vice President of the USA. The longest period of rule for any party in the US Senate was from 1955-1981, 13 uninterrupted Democratic majorities in the Senate. But the GOP also had two separate periods of 9 uninterrupted sessions of Republican majorities, from 1861-1879 and again from 1895-1913.
In the US House of Representatives, based on General Election results and mid-term election results, the Democrats have controlled the HOR for 43 out of 80 sessions, while the Republicans have controlled the HOR for 37 out of 80 sessions. The longest period of rule for any party in the US HOR was from 1955-1995, 20 uninterrupted Democratic majorities, or 40 straight years. But the GOP also had three separate periods of 7 uninterrupted sessions of Republican majorities, from 1859-1875, and again from 1895-1911 and from 1917-1933.
Already, in the first year in which the GOP was on the ballot, we ended up with a divided congress, with the Democrats having a majority in the Senate and the Republicans having a majority in the HOR.
Here are the Legislative sessions where the Executive (Presidency) and both Houses of Congress were all from the same party:
1857-1859 (Buchanan D, 2 years) Buchanan's party lost the HOR in the mid-terms of 1858.
1861-1869 (Lincoln and Johnson R, 8 years) but of course, the Civil War changed the composition of both Houses for the duration of and after the war.
1869-1875 (Grant R, 6 years) Grant's party lost the House in his second mid-term election, despite a massive landslide for him. Remember that detail.
1889-1891 (B. Harrison R, 2 years) but Harrison's party lost this House in the mid-term elections.
1893-1895 (Cleveland D, 2 years) but Cleveland's party lost both Houses of Congress in the mid-terms of his second term. However, Cleveland is the only president to serve two non-consecutive terms.
1897-1911 (McKinley, Roosevelt, Taft all R, 14 years) but Taft's party lost the HOR in the midterms of 1910.
1913-1917 (Wilson D, 4 years). Wilson's party lost the HOR during his successful re-election of 1916 and then lost the Senate in the mid-terms of 1918.
1921-1933 (Harding, Coolidge, Hoover all R, 12 years). Hoover hung onto to both the House and the Senate in the 1930 mid-terms, with just a R+1 edge in the Senate and an R+6 edge in the House.
1933-1947, 1949-1953 (FDR, Truman, both D, 18 years). Truman's party lost both Houses of Congress in what would have been the mit-terms for FDR's unprecedented 4th term in office, but since FDR died shortly after the inauguration and Truman served out virtually all of his term as President, the mid-terms of 1946 were essentially the mid-terms of a first-term Truman administration. Truman went on to recapture both Houses of Congress in the 1948 general election and held them to the end of what was essentially his second term in office.
1953-1955 (Eisenhower -R, 2 years). Eisenhower's party lost both Houses of Congress in the 1954 mid-terms and he then had to deal with an opposition congress for 6 of his 8 years in office.
1961-1969 (Kennedy, Johnson both D, 8 years).
1977-1981 (Carter D, 4 years).
1991-1993 (Clinton D, 2 years) Clinton's party lost both Houses of Congress in the 1994 mid-terms. Bush's electoral history vis-a-vis relations to the US Congress parallel the electoral history of Dwight D. Eisenhower.
2001-2007 (Bush 43 R, 6 years) technically, the GOP had both Houses of congress, but the Senate, which started 50-50, switched hands twice, then the GOP added seats in the 2002 mid-terms. Bush's party lost both Houses of Congress in the 2006 mid-terms. Bush's electoral history vis-a-vis relations to the US Congress parallel the electoral history of Ulysses S. Grant.
2009-2011 (Obama D, 2 years) Obama's party lost the HOR in the 2010 mid-terms. The coming mid-terms will be those within his second term of office. Unless the Democrats win both Houses of Congress, which seems very unlikely at this time, then Obama's electoral history vis-a-vis relations to the US Congress will parallel the electoral history of Dwight D. Eisenhower.
So, in the 160 years that will be the 80 sessions of Congress from 1855-2015, we have had 22 Presidents (12 R, 10 D) where the President's party ruled in both the Executive and both houses of the Legislative simultaneously for 92 of those 160 years, or 57.5% of the time. More specifically, the Democratic Party has had control of both the White House and both Houses of Congress simultaneously for 42 years and the Republican Party has had control of the White House and both Houses of Congress simultaneously for 50 years.
Now, having a lock on those two branches of government simultaneously does not guarantee suceess so does having split government guarantee failure. Eisenhower and Clinton ruled for 6 years each with an opposition congress and both got a lot done. Reagan never had the luxury of a complete Congress of his party, and yet, he got a lot done. Conversely, Jimmy Carter had a Democratic congress and his record is less than average. Ditto for Herbert Hoover.
The EXCEL table.
If you look at the excel table, it is in 25 columns, from A-Y. And it is in book format, meaning that the first four columns (President, Term, Congress, Years) are also the last four columns in reverse order. On the left side of the dividing bar (column M) are the stats for the Senate. On the right of the dividing bar are the stats for the House of Representatives. Everything is color coded: the party in control (Presidency, Senate, House) is shaded either light red (or orange) for Republican or blue for Democrat.
The margins (columns J and T): the margins reflect the pure difference between those whose names were listing on the ballot as D or R. The independents who caucused with one party or another are not in the calculations. For instance, in 2009, the Senate was comprised of 57 D, 41 R and 2 I. Those Is caucused with the Democratic Party, but the actual margin, at least for the beginning of that legislative session, was D+16.
The Swings/Swing %s (columns K/L and U/V): the swing is always a comparison between the margin of that cycle and the one before. Swings are possible for every cycle EXCEPT 1855, since there would be no previous cycle with a Republican Party to compare with. Swings, like margins, are listed as a + value.
-For like-party values, you subtract the margin from the previous cycle. For instance, in 1899, Senate had a +27 seat majority for the GOP. In 1897, the GOP had a +12 seat majority. This means that the GOP majority grew by +15 from 1897 to 1899. The Senate had 90 seats back then, so 15/90=16.67%. So, almost 17% of the Senate swung Republican between those two cycles.
-For opposing party values, you add the two numbers together for the later cycle: in 1933, with FDR's first election, the DEMS achieved a +196 seat majority in the House of Representatives. In 1931, after the Hoover mid-term elections, it was a +2 GOP majority: 196 + 2 = 198. So, the Swing was +198 for the DEMS. The House of Representatives had (and still has today) 435 Representatives. 198/435=45.52%. So, 45.52% of the House shifted in order to get to the 1932 election results.
With the color-coding, it is really easy to see which party controlled what House of congress and the Executive at any time in the last 160 years. This is one of the things that make this table to helpful for anybody, also for reference in the future. Lots of times, you will see swings for the opposing party, while the other party still held a majority. Go back to 1931 and 1933:
In 1931, based on the 1930 elections, the House swung +23.45% Democratic, leaving Hoover's party (the GOP) with a razor-thin +2 vote majority in the House. In 1933, the House Swung again to the DEMS, by +45.52%, and this time the House went DEM. So, within two cycles, the House swing by 69%. Wow. We rarely, if ever, see these kind of shifts anymore.
The excel table that shows only mid-terms is interesting in that it more than not shows losses for the incumbent party and that is easy to see, based on the color coding: if the color in the margin/% columns is different than the stats columns for that House of Congress, then you know that the incumbent party suffered a loss. This doesn't mean that the incumbent Party necessarily lost that House of Congress, but at least took a hit within it's own ranks.
And you can make the same comparison between the Presidency and the Houses of congress: if the colors don't line up between the presidency and the margins/% for each House of Congress, then you know that the President's party suffered losses during the mid-terms. This table is probably the table that most will find interesting, since 2014 will be a mid-term year.
Here are all 40 mid-terms, with quick descriptions. In 38 of 40 mid-terms, the President's party has experienced losses, either major or minor.
1858 Buchanan (D), the GOP made gains in the Senate and picked-up the House.
1862 Lincoln (R), the GOP improved in the Senate, but the DEMS made gains in the House.
1866 Johnson (R), the GOP held both houses, but the DEMS made gains in both.
1870 Grant (R), the GOP held both Houses, but the DEMS made gains in both.
1874 Grant (R), the GOP held the Senate (with losses), but lost the House to the DEMS.
1878 Hayes (R), the DEMS picked up the Senate and made slight gains in the House.
1882 Arthur (R), the DEM picked up the House, but Arthur's party actually achieved gains in the Senate, going from a tied Senate in 1880 to a R +4 in 1882.
1886 Cleveland (D), the GOP held the Senate from 1884 but the DEMS made gains. The DEMS held the House from 1884, but the GOP made gains.
1890 Harrison (R), the GOP held the Senate, but the DEMS made gains. The DEMS picked-up the House, which they had just lost in 1888.
1894 Cleveland (D), GOP picked-up both Houses of Congress, with moderate gains in the Senate and extremely large gains in the House.
1898 McKinley (R), the GOP held both houses of Congress, made gains in the Senate, suffered losses to the DEMs in the House.
1902 Roosevelt (R), the GOP held both houses, the DEMS made slight gains in the Senate (1 seat) and the GOP made slight gains in the House.
1906 Roosevelt (R), the GOP held both Houses, made a +6 Seat gain in the Senate, but lost a lot of seats in the House.
1910 Taft (R), 22% of the Senate swung DEM, but the GOP still held the Senate. The DEMS flipped the House.
1914 Wilson (D), the DEMS held both houses and made gains in the Senate, but suffered losses in the House.
1918 Wilson (D), the DEMS lost the Senate to the GOP, which flipped 12 seats and ended up with a +1 seat majority. The GOP improved it's numbers in the House, which it had already flipped in the 1916 GE.
1922, 1926, 1930 Harding (R), Coolidge (R) and Hoover (R): the GOP held both houses through all three mid-terms, but suffered losses in both houses each time come mid-terms. 1930 is a statistically interesting year, where the GOP ended up with a +1 Seat advantage in the Senate AND a +1 seat advantage in the House.
----------------------------------------------------------
1934 - FDR (D) was the first year where the incumbent President's party held both houses of Congress and made substantial gains as well.
----------------------------------------------------------
1938, 1942 FDR (D), the DEMS held both houses of Congress, but suffered losses in both.
1946 Truman (D) first mid-term ever where the incumbent party, the President's party, lost both Houses in a mid-term. And both houses swung about 25% for the GOP. In 1918, Wilson also had a complete opposition congress, but had already lost the House in 1916. The mid-terms of 1946 were an epic battle between the two parties. The next time we were to see so much activity for a mid-term would be in 1994.
1950 Truman (D) the DEMS held both Houses of Congress, which they recaptured in the 1948 GE, but suffered losses to the GOP in both. In fact, the Senate was down to D +1 majority.
1954 Eisenhower (R), the GOP lost both houses of Congress, which it had just picked-up, to the DEMS. This was the second time in history that this happened.
1958 Eisenhower (R), the DEMS made gains in both houses of Congress, which they controlled since 1954. This makes Eisenhower the first president in history to have an opposition Congress for 6 of his 8 years in office.
1962 Kennedy (D), the DEMS hold both houses of congress, gain in the Senate, but lose seats to the GOP in the house (small: +1.15% swing).
1966 Johnson (D), the DEMS hold both houses of Congress, but suffer losses to the GOP in both.
1970 Nixon (R) the DEMS hold both houses of Congress, the GOP makes gains in the Senate, the DEMS make gains in the House.
1974 (3 months after Watergate, to note) Ford (R), the DEMS hold both houses of congress and make large gains in both.
Richard Nixon was the first president to start his term of office with a complete opposition Congress, and it stayed this way for his entire term.
1978 Carter (D), the DEMS held both houses, but the GOP made gains in a both, both swings of ca 6%.
1982 Reagan (R), the GOP held and made gains in the Senate. The DEMS held and made gains in the House.
1986 Reagan (R), the DEMS pick-up the Senate (16% swing) and make slight gains in the House. This makes Reagan the fourth Republican president in a row to leave office with a complete opposition congress (Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan).
1990 Bush (R), the DEMS hold and make slight gains in both Houses. This makes Bush the fifth Republican president in a row to leave office with a complete opposition congress (Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush) and the second to serve his entire term with an opposition congress (Nixon/Ford, Bush).
1994 Clinton (D), the GOP picks up both Houses of Congress in the largest Republican gains since 1946. Worst losses for the Democratic Party in the South ever.
1998 Clinton (D), both houses remain in GOP hands, the Senate remains completely unchanged, the DEMS make slight gains in the House.
2002 Bush 43 (R), the GOP holds both Houses and makes slight gains in both. Bush is the first Republican ever to experience this in a first-term midterm (or any mid-term, for that matter) and this is the second time this has ever happened at all, after 1934.
2006 Bush 43 (R), the DEMS pick up both the Senate and the House. Technically, the Senate is a tie, but the Democratic party, with two independents caucusing with them, take the majority. Bush's six years from 2001-2007 is the longest time that a Republican President had a Republican congress to support him since Harding/Coolidge/Hoover of the 1920s.
2010 Obama (D), the GOP picks up the House in a wave larger than 1994, but the Senate stays in DEM hands.
2014??? - wait and see.
Now, that was a lot of information, but as you see, there are only two mid-terms out of fourty where the President's party held and made gains in both houses: 1934 and 2002.
In the other 38 mid-term elections, there have been mixed results at best and more often than not, in a second term mid-term, large losses for the President's party.
2/40 = 5%. I would say there is a 5% chance that any incumbent president is going to make gains in both houses of Congress in any mid-term primary.
Now, thirteen of those 40 mid-terms were (or could be considered) 2nd-term mid-term elections, and in only one of them, 1998, did the President's party make improvements, and even in that case, still did not control the congress.
Some more details:
Take a look at the table and see that the number of seats switched (and the swing percentage as well) between elections was much larger in the distance past than today. From 1875-1939, in the House of Representatives, there was a shift of more than 100 seats 11 times: 1875, 1883, 1891, 1895, 1911, 1915, 1921, 1923, 1931, 1933, 1939. That's 11 times in 64 years.
Since then, in the next 74 years, it has only happened 4 times: 1947, 1949, 1995, 2010.
Most people believe that gerrymandering is making more and more seats non-competitive and therefore, we are seeing less shifts. I believe that this theory is correct.
So, what can we learn from this information?
1.) We have had divided government a lot more than most people realize.
2.) The statistical probability that the President's party suffers major losses in a mid-term election, especially in a 2nd term mid-term, is extremely high.
3.) Divided government is not necessarily a bad thing. See: Eisenhower, Clinton. Likewise, unified government is not necessarily good. See: Hoover, Carter.
So, before the pundits go blabbing their mouths off about the 2014 elections, know that history is on the side of the GOP in this election.
Special note: in the 47th Congress, there was a divided Senate, but the Democrats controlled that senate.