Moving on, my random thought on this part of Sean Trende’s analysis of the 2014 Senate map:
Likewise, the tendency of the president’s party to fare poorly in midterm elections is so well-known as to require only an asterisk here: While the president’s party has lost House seats in all but two post-World War II midterm elections (1998 and 2002), it has gained or broken even in Senate seats in five (1962, 1970, 1982, 1998, and 2002). That’s somewhere between a third and a quarter of the postwar midterms, so our rule here is not really as “real” as it is for House elections.
To be honest, I don’t know whether 1998 or 2002 ‘count’ for anything. The 1998 results were skewed by Clinton’s impeachment; 2002’s, by the 9/11 attacks. Sure, I know, every election cycle is unique – but those two were particularly unique. Well. You know what I mean.
Moe Lane
Senate lags the House, those 6-year terms…
.
Senate is also less a ‘referendum on the POTUS’ than the House, and turns on broader issues… Unless it turns on an Alinskying of a particular candidate. (Todd Akin)
.
That said, it just means the signal is buried under more noise… But the long-term trends still point in the same direction as the House.
.
‘S gonna be a year for the history books.
.
Mew