Congressional Elections compared to Presidential Terms, 1855-present

[Statistikhengst]

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 „I“s 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.

 

[Statistikhengst]

A friendly shout out to some folks who may really enjoy the information in the OP:
[MENTION=42916]Derideo_Te[/MENTION] [MENTION=40495]AngelsNDemons[/MENTION] [MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION] [MENTION=26011]Ernie S.[/MENTION] [MENTION=9429]AVG-JOE[/MENTION] [MENTION=45886]Mad_Cabbie[/MENTION] [MENTION=42649]Gracie[/MENTION] [MENTION=20412]JakeStarkey[/MENTION] [MENTION=25505]Jroc[/MENTION] [MENTION=38281]Wolfsister77[/MENTION] [MENTION=21679]william the wie[/MENTION] [MENTION=23424]syrenn[/MENTION] [MENTION=43625]Mertex[/MENTION] [MENTION=37250]aaronleland[/MENTION] [MENTION=36767]Bloodrock44[/MENTION] [MENTION=36528]cereal_killer[/MENTION] [MENTION=40540]Connery[/MENTION] [MENTION=30999]daws101[/MENTION] [MENTION=46449]Delta4Embassy[/MENTION] [MENTION=33449]BreezeWood[/MENTION] [MENTION=31362]gallantwarrior[/MENTION] [MENTION=24610]iamwhatiseem[/MENTION] [MENTION=46750]Knightfall[/MENTION] [MENTION=46690]Libertarianman[/MENTION] [MENTION=20450]MarcATL[/MENTION] [MENTION=20594]Mr Clean[/MENTION] [MENTION=20704]Nosmo King[/MENTION] [MENTION=43268]TemplarKormac[/MENTION] [MENTION=20321]rightwinger[/MENTION] [MENTION=41494]RandallFlagg[/MENTION] [MENTION=25283]Sallow[/MENTION] [MENTION=21357]SFC Ollie[/MENTION] [MENTION=18905]Sherry[/MENTION] [MENTION=43491]TooTall[/MENTION] [MENTION=25451]tinydancer[/MENTION] [MENTION=31918]Unkotare[/MENTION] [MENTION=45104]WelfareQueen[/MENTION] [MENTION=21524]oldfart[/MENTION] [MENTION=42498]Esmeralda[/MENTION] [MENTION=43888]AyeCantSeeYou[/MENTION] [MENTION=19302]Montrovant[/MENTION] [MENTION=11703]strollingbones[/MENTION] [MENTION=18988]PixieStix[/MENTION] [MENTION=23262]peach174[/MENTION] [MENTION=13805]Againsheila[/MENTION] [MENTION=20342]Ringel05[/MENTION] [MENTION=38085]Noomi[/MENTION] [MENTION=18905]Sherry[/MENTION] [MENTION=29697]freedombecki[/MENTION] [MENTION=38146]Dajjal[/MENTION] [MENTION=18645]Sarah G[/MENTION] [MENTION=46193]Thx[/MENTION] [MENTION=20614]candycorn[/MENTION] [MENTION=24452]Seawytch[/MENTION] [MENTION=29614]C_Clayton_Jones[/MENTION] [MENTION=18990]Barb[/MENTION] [MENTION=19867]G.T.[/MENTION] [MENTION=31057]JoeB131[/MENTION] [MENTION=11278]editec[/MENTION] [MENTION=22983]Flopper[/MENTION] [MENTION=22889]Matthew[/MENTION] [MENTION=46136]dreolin[/MENTION] [MENTION=19867]G.T.[/MENTION] [MENTION=19302]Montrovant[/MENTION] [MENTION=24208]Spoonman[/MENTION] [MENTION=20285]Intense[/MENTION] [MENTION=24122]racewright[/MENTION] [MENTION=5176]RetiredGySgt[/MENTION] [MENTION=44536]BobPlumb[/MENTION] [MENTION=46351]Shrimpbox[/MENTION]


Anyone who doesn't want to be on this occasional mention list: just let me know, I will drop the name immediately.

Thanks,

-Stat

Again, consider the OP a helpful resource, looking at 2014 and beyond.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

Politicians fighting over money is always a good thing - pork for political allies that goes uncontested because of a lack of scrutiny is bad.

Thus, divided bodies of government are helpful, because they provide oversight to spending.

 

[BDBoop]

Drop mine.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Politicians fighting over money is always a good thing - pork for political allies that goes uncontested because of a lack of scrutiny is bad.

Thus, divided bodies of government are helpful, because they provide oversight to spending.

It is entirely possible that people think this way when they vote split-ticket. And apparently, they have been thinking this way for a long time, too.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Drop mine.

Done.

 

[freedombecki]

That's interesting, Stat. Unfortunately, with as much political corruption as there is today, one party has figured out a way to screw the people and take home treasury accumulations to family instead of spending it on things for the people, then running on the myth they are the party most interested in taking care of the people. Instead, they figured out a way to curse America in the most sinister way, and to get them out last time, we suffered a political rout of the impeachment committee by targeting them with lies and smarm. We are paying a price for internationalization that is drawing us toward what we threw off as tyranny in 1776. And we are paying a price for free speech that is nothing but calumny targeting good men and women.

 

[editec]

Mid term elections are proof-positive of the old adage that

Familiarity breeds contempt​

 

[Statistikhengst]

That's interesting, Stat. Unfortunately, with as much political corruption as there is today, one party has figured out a way to screw the people and take home treasury accumulations to family instead of spending it on things for the people, then running on the myth they are the party most interested in taking care of the people. Instead, they figured out a way to curse America in the most sinister way, and to get them out last time, we suffered a political rout of the impeachment committee by targeting them with lies and smarm. We are paying a price for internationalization that is drawing us toward what we threw off as tyranny in 1776. And we are paying a price for free speech that is nothing but calumny targeting good men and women.

Glad you like it.

Remember, the right to vote also our way of telling out elected officials whether we approve or disapprove of what they are doing.

Kudos for being the first since I have joined USMB to use "calumny", and correctly at that. But, I am not entirely sure what you mean. Are you saying that people are abusing free speech to the point where all they are doing is to libel/defame someone else, or are you saying that free speech is being eroded through constant attacks on the parts of other?

Glad you stopped by, thanks for your input.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Mid term elections are proof-positive of the old adage that

Familiarity breeds contempt​

I am sorry. That was hard to read. Can you make it a wee bit larger, perhaps?

 

[007]

Drop mine.

Ya, you can drop mine too.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Drop mine.

Ya, you can drop mine too.

Done.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That's interesting, Stat. Unfortunately, with as much political corruption as there is today, one party has figured out a way to screw the people and take home treasury accumulations to family instead of spending it on things for the people, then running on the myth they are the party most interested in taking care of the people. Instead, they figured out a way to curse America in the most sinister way, and to get them out last time, we suffered a political rout of the impeachment committee by targeting them with lies and smarm. We are paying a price for internationalization that is drawing us toward what we threw off as tyranny in 1776. And we are paying a price for free speech that is nothing but calumny targeting good men and women.

This makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[racewright]

Thanks interesting stuff---hope the future's sequences follow..

 

[iamwhatiseem]

A divided government is not the threat...a corrupt government is.
IMO - the government no longer represents the people. They represent special interest and big business.
As Benjamin Carson stated - "We have a 4th branch in government that is just as powerful, if not more so than the other branches - special interest branch" - He is exactly right. They are not elected, but they have enormous influence and EVEN WRITE LEGISLATION that is solicited through the other houses.
Also - a divided government is not as dangerous as a divided public.

 

[Mertex]

You are giving credence to the Republican myth that Democrats had control of the House and Senate for two years under Obama's first term. That is a fallacy, considering what was going on at the time with Franken, Kennedy, etc..



Many critics of the Obama administration often claim that the President has failed to accomplish anything even when he had a super filibuster proof majority in the Senate. Most mistakenly think that he had a sixty vote Senate for the first two years of his first term and that he squandered that opportunity.
Having a filibuster proof Senate majority was only possible under a specific set of circumstances. They began in April of 2009 when Senator Arlen Specter decided to switch from a Republican to a Democrat.
But for a while, Specter was the 59th Democratic Senator.
The 60th Senator, Al Franken of Minnesota, was locked up for months in recounts and legal challenges from a very close race with incumbent Norm Coleman. Finally, on July 8, 2009 after eight months of delays, Franken was sworn in as the 60th Democratic Senator (this includes the two independents who caucused with the Democrats). This was the first time Democrats had a filibuster proof majority since 1958.
But six weeks later on August 25, 2009, Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy passed away. Technically, it could be argued that the Democrats still had a filibuster proof majority since cloture involves 3/5 of sitting Senators (59 out of 99 is roughly 3/5). But the Senate was in summer recess at the time so it may not have mattered.

One month later on September 25, 2009 Paul Kirk was appointed to fill Kennedy’s vacancy while the special election was going on. Even then this was only because Kennedy himself had requested that the Governor of Massachusetts change the law a week before he died to allow an appointment so the seat wouldn’t be vacant for the remainder of the year. Had he not done so it could’ve been argued that the 60 seat Democratic supermajority would have lasted about six weeks.

In November of 2009 Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, in a poorly run campaign, lost Ted Kennedy’s seat to Republican Scott Brown effectively ensuring the end of the filibuster proof Senate.

On Christmas Eve of 2009, the Senate voted to move forward with the Health Care Reform bill by 60 to 39 votes. As Vice-President Biden noted, it was a big deal.

On February 4, 2010 Scott Brown was sworn in signaling the end of the super-majority.

Depending upon which metric is used, Democrats had a super majority for roughly six months which includes the seven weeks between Franken’s swearing-in on July 8 to Ted Kennedy’s death on August 25 and the four months and nine days between Paul Kirk’s swearing-in on September 25, 2009 to his replacement by Scott Brown on February 4, 2010. This was just barely enough time to pass the biggest and most difficult health care legislation in generations; an event that would likely never have happened under any other circumstances. This also happened under the onslaught of every procedural obstruction the Republicans could put in its path.
The Democratic Super Majority Myth | 538 Refugees

 

[Statistikhengst]

You are giving credence to the Republican myth that Democrats had control of the House and Senate for two years under Obama's first term. That is a fallacy, considering what was going on at the time with Franken, Kennedy, etc..



Many critics of the Obama administration often claim that the President has failed to accomplish anything even when he had a super filibuster proof majority in the Senate. Most mistakenly think that he had a sixty vote Senate for the first two years of his first term and that he squandered that opportunity.
Having a filibuster proof Senate majority was only possible under a specific set of circumstances. They began in April of 2009 when Senator Arlen Specter decided to switch from a Republican to a Democrat.
But for a while, Specter was the 59th Democratic Senator.
The 60th Senator, Al Franken of Minnesota, was locked up for months in recounts and legal challenges from a very close race with incumbent Norm Coleman. Finally, on July 8, 2009 after eight months of delays, Franken was sworn in as the 60th Democratic Senator (this includes the two independents who caucused with the Democrats). This was the first time Democrats had a filibuster proof majority since 1958.
But six weeks later on August 25, 2009, Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy passed away. Technically, it could be argued that the Democrats still had a filibuster proof majority since cloture involves 3/5 of sitting Senators (59 out of 99 is roughly 3/5). But the Senate was in summer recess at the time so it may not have mattered.

One month later on September 25, 2009 Paul Kirk was appointed to fill Kennedy’s vacancy while the special election was going on. Even then this was only because Kennedy himself had requested that the Governor of Massachusetts change the law a week before he died to allow an appointment so the seat wouldn’t be vacant for the remainder of the year. Had he not done so it could’ve been argued that the 60 seat Democratic supermajority would have lasted about six weeks.

In November of 2009 Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, in a poorly run campaign, lost Ted Kennedy’s seat to Republican Scott Brown effectively ensuring the end of the filibuster proof Senate.

On Christmas Eve of 2009, the Senate voted to move forward with the Health Care Reform bill by 60 to 39 votes. As Vice-President Biden noted, it was a big deal.

On February 4, 2010 Scott Brown was sworn in signaling the end of the super-majority.

Depending upon which metric is used, Democrats had a super majority for roughly six months which includes the seven weeks between Franken’s swearing-in on July 8 to Ted Kennedy’s death on August 25 and the four months and nine days between Paul Kirk’s swearing-in on September 25, 2009 to his replacement by Scott Brown on February 4, 2010. This was just barely enough time to pass the biggest and most difficult health care legislation in generations; an event that would likely never have happened under any other circumstances. This also happened under the onslaught of every procedural obstruction the Republicans could put in its path.
The Democratic Super Majority Myth | 538 Refugees

Was that aimed at me?

The DEMS did have a majority in both Houses, but they did not have a Supermajority in the Senate. If you read the OP carefully, I stated very specifically that the data in the table is for the BEGINNING statistics. Go read it, it is defined there. I was VERY specific about this. Furthermore, I made no mention of super-majority anywhere in the OP.

It is just in the last 5 years that suddenly, for some reason, a super-majority appears to be the only majority in the Senate. But when Senate majority Harry Reid went nuclear (and rightly so), he proved that it is not necessary.

Hope that information helps.

 

[Mertex]

Was that aimed at me?

Yes, I meant to just leave out the bulk of your OP, no need repeating it, but I inadvertently deleted your name, sorry about that.

The DEMS did have a majority in both Houses, but they did not have a Supermajority in the Senate. If you read the OP carefully, I stated very specifically that the data in the table is for the BEGINNING statistics. Go read it, it is defined there. I was VERY specific about this. Furthermore, I made no mention of super-majority anywhere in the OP.

You're right about that. When I saw the 2 year majority, I immediately took exception because Republicans insist that Obama could have done a lot since he had control of both the house and senate for 2 years, but without a filibuster proof majority, it really doesn't matter who has a majaority.....especially when you have "blue dog" Democrats who seem to vote with Republicans most of the time. That he did have in time to pass ACA was a miracle.

It is just in the last 5 years that suddenly, for some reason, a super-majority appears to be the only majority in the Senate. But when Senate majority Harry Reid went nuclear (and rightly so), he proved that it is not necessary.

I don't know how they can have a super majority with just 56 Senators....before Reid went nuclear, you couldn't filibuster unless you had 60....

Hope that information helps.

I'm not sure I understand your statement above, about having a super majority in the Senate for the last 5 years....I probably am not reading it right.

 

[WelfareQueen]

Stat,


As usual very good information. One could almost infer from your data that American's like divided Government. My personal bias is that in the current political environment, whichever party is in the White House, there needs to be the check and balance of some opposition in Congress.

This is an excellent article from Larry Sabato, Ph.D who is one of the foremost political experts in the U.S. It largely agrees with your data. You might find it interesting.

Republicans Really Could Win It All This Year - Larry J. Sabato - POLITICO Magazine


Larry J. Sabato's Crystal Ball

 

[Statistikhengst]

Was that aimed at me?

Yes, I meant to just leave out the bulk of your OP, no need repeating it, but I inadvertently deleted your name, sorry about that.

The DEMS did have a majority in both Houses, but they did not have a Supermajority in the Senate. If you read the OP carefully, I stated very specifically that the data in the table is for the BEGINNING statistics. Go read it, it is defined there. I was VERY specific about this. Furthermore, I made no mention of super-majority anywhere in the OP.

You're right about that. When I saw the 2 year majority, I immediately took exception because Republicans insist that Obama could have done a lot since he had control of both the house and senate for 2 years, but without a filibuster proof majority, it really doesn't matter who has a majaority.....especially when you have "blue dog" Democrats who seem to vote with Republicans most of the time. That he did have in time to pass ACA was a miracle.

It is just in the last 5 years that suddenly, for some reason, a super-majority appears to be the only majority in the Senate. But when Senate majority Harry Reid went nuclear (and rightly so), he proved that it is not necessary.

I don't know how they can have a super majority with just 56 Senators....before Reid went nuclear, you couldn't filibuster unless you had 60....

Hope that information helps.

I'm not sure I understand your statement above, about having a super majority in the Senate for the last 5 years....I probably am not reading it right.

Yes, you are misreading me. The attitude has been that in order to pass anything, you need 60 Senators to invoke cloture and therefore negate a filibuster - that would be a Supermajority, which the DEMS had for only about 5 months, if I recall.

Again, in the OP, I made no mention of Supermajority (filibuster-proof) at all. Those are just the bare stats, the starting point of each legislative period. Were I to account for every small change in the Senate DURING a legislative term (resignation, death, illness, etc), the list would be way too long, and not only that, would not reflect the initial will of the people, who, for most of those 80 legislative periods, elected their Senators. What happened DURING a legislative session, they could not control. And so, for this reason, I left all the extra data alone. Not to mention it would have made the OP about 5 times larger than it was already. And in most cases where the Senate was firmly in one party's hands, the slight changes in it's composition did not affect majority-rule at all. Only in the case of a tied Senate could I have looked further, which I did, and even made a mention of the 47th congress and also a note in with the 2000 election, where the Senate was 50-50, then Jeffords left the Republican Party, etc...


And no, you cannot have a Supermajority with 56 Senators - Reid went nuclear through a parliamentary procedure to change the Senate rules, and that procedure cannot be filibustered and needs a normal absolute majority. Having done that, the Republicans gave up, knowing that he could invoke this procedure before every vote. Since then, he has not done it. What this also means is that the probability is very high that if the Republicans win the Senate, their majority leader will do the same thing, and probably sooner than later. I personally think that the filibuster needs to go into the trash can of history. It is not anchored into the US Constitution, but rather, is an arcane Senate rule that is long outworn. Time for the filibuster to go.