History suggests, but doesn’t dictate, a midterm power shift

If history shows anything about midterm elections, it’s that the sitting president’s political party often – but not always – has a tough night.

In 35 out of 38 midterm elections held since the end of the Civil War the president’s party has lost seats in the House, according to the Cook Political Report. And while the trend isn’t as pronounced in the Senate (where direct voting has been in play since 1913) it’s the rare midterm when a sitting president’s party picks up ground there.

This midterm, Democrats want those trends to continue. Republicans, of course, want 2018 to be an exception.

Two years ago, when Donald Trump rode an Electoral College win into the White House, Republicans took full control of Washington. The party holds a 23-seat advantage in the House and a two-seat advantage in the Senate, not including the tie-breaking power of the Republican Vice President.

Forecasters suggest those numbers could change on Nov. 6.

Many polls show that Democrats have a strong shot to win the House. But for a variety of reasons — including the number of Democrats up for re-election — the Senate is leaning Republican.

Republicans hope talk of a Democratic “blue wave” is fake news. And President Trump, in speeches and on Twitter, has referred to a coming “red wave,” suggesting his personal popularity will carry his party to big wins in Congress. A poll released in late September shows that 57 percent of Trump supporters don’t believe Democrats can retake the House.

A handful of historical exceptions to the trend of power shifting in midterm elections support that line of thinking.

Here are some basics about the politics of midterms:

Why are midterms often tough for the president’s party?

Political analysts point to two key factors – the end of a new president’s honeymoon and voter turnout.

“Basically, parties come in and then start disappointing people,” said Shaun Bowler, a political science professor and department dean at UC Riverside, via email.

“Promises are not kept, or scandals come about, and so supporters are not as keen on the incumbent any more,” Bowler said. “The opposition, on the other hand, is energized by those same things. Some scholars talk about ‘the costs of governing.’  Saying ‘no’ to people, or making missteps, causes irritation that leads to a loss of popularity and votes.”

But by the time the general election comes around the leader’s popularity — and with it, his or her political party — tends to recover, Bowler added. Opinion polls on governing parties around the world, he said, can be graphically represented by a “u shape” covering the span of a term in office.

“Popularity is high after the election, (then) declines a bit, and then recovers for the next general election.

“It’s not an ironclad rule/pattern, but it is pretty common,” Bowler said.  “And the ‘midterm loss’ in the US fits that pattern.”

In addition to voter mood, experts point to a second factor – voter turnout.

“When you have a new president coming into office, there are voters who haven’t been engaged before and there’s sort of a bandwagon effect,” said Marcia Godwin, a professor of public administration at the University of La Verne.

This was especially true in 2008, when President Barack Obama became the first non-white American President. Obama’s support was heavy on young people and people of color — groups who historically vote less in midterms.

“He came in with a large majority, and there were seats in Congress that flipped to Democrat as well,” Godwin said. “For the rest of his term in office, each midterm…  the Democrats lost seats.”

In midterm elections, Godwin said, those “occasional” voters just aren’t coming back to the polls. That trend could hurt the GOP this time, as some of the older voters who backed Trump two years ago were people who hadn’t been engaged in politics for some period. Their reliability in the midterm remains an open question.

But Godwin and other experts point out that midterm voters, in many years, tend to be older and whiter than general election voters. If that holds, it could help the GOP.

What’s been behind exceptions to the midterm power shift?

In 1934, two years after the election of Franklin D. Roosevelt, his Democratic party posted nine-seat gains in both the House and the Senate, expanding majorities in each chamber.

The country was still in the grip of the Great Depression, but historians note that voters might have been swayed by Roosevelt’s New Deal and the optimism that it might shift the economy.

In 1962, Democrat John F. Kennedy was in the White House and his party controlled both chambers of Congress — making Democrats seemingly ripe for a midterm power slide.

Instead, while the Democrats lost four seats in the House, they didn’t lose a majority. And in the Senate the Democrats gained four seats, expanding the party’s majority.

Historians note that the ’62 midterm was held weeks after the successful end of the Cuban missile crisis, and confidence in Kennedy was high.

More recently, in 1998, with a Democrat (Bill Clinton) in the White House, and the GOP in control of the House and the Senate, the results were a non-bloodbath for the Democrats. The president’s party picked up five seats, though not control, in the House, while Democrats and Republicans broke even in the Senate, leaving control of that chamber to the GOP.

Many attributed the Democrats’ relatively strong showing in the ’98 midterm to voter anger about the GOP’s push to impeach Clinton.

Finally, in 2002, two years after the election of Republican President George W. Bush, the president’s party had a strong midterm, picking up eight seats in the House, expanding its majority, and two seats in the Senate to take control of that chamber.

Experts note that the ’02 midterms were held 14 months after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, and the country was prepping for war in Iraq, giving the president’s party a strong boost.

If you’re counting, that’s a lot of exceptions to the midterm power shift. One in five of the past 20 midterms has resulted in either a gain or a stalemate for the party of the sitting president.

Why does it matter?

Checks and balances.

Though Democrats wouldn’t control Washington by winning the House this year, they could offer stringent oversight on the Trump administration. And Democratic wins in both chambers could alter legislation and federal court appointments.

If they control the House, Democrats “will be able to investigate administration policies and administration practices,” said Professor Robert Shrum, a long-time Democratic political consultant and director of USC’s Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics.

Conversely, gains for the Republicans in both chambers probably would spur Trump and the GOP to try to enact at least some of the legislation on immigration, taxes and the environment that’s been blocked by political opposition or in the courts.

Midterm power shifts have, at times, trickled upward to change the thinking in the White House.

In the 1990s, Shrum noted, GOP control of the House pushed Clinton to the right on issues such as welfare reform. And in 2006, when Democrats took control of the House, they effectively stymied the Bush administration’s domestic agenda and set up the political terms for the 2008 election.

But Shrum, among others, doesn’t see that kind of shift even if this year’s midterm gives Democrats some power in Washington.

“I don’t anticipate Donald Trump is going to change in any real way if Democrats take back the House or even the Senate,” Shrum said. “He doesn’t change. He is who he is, whether you like him or not.”

Shrum believes Democrats, if they control the House, might pass an ethics reform package, something that wouldn’t need support from the Senate or the president.

But he doesn’t see a Democrat-controlled House pushing for Trump’s impeachment unless there is evidence that the president worked with Russia to win his election in 2016.

“I don’t think it’s a very good idea in this country to start using impeachment (only because) you don’t like a president.”