William Safire returns to the NYT op-ed page to argue that Tuesday's results were pretty much par for the course, six years into a presidency. "[T]he result was only the average loss of House and Senate seats of the party in power midway in the second term of a president."

Really? The number of seats changing hands may track with historical comparisons, but the loss of control of both the Senate and the House, and the repudiation during a war of the president who staked everything on that war make it seem just a little bit different...

Comments

[John Burns]

They forget that they redistricted Texas and Florida to such an extent that there are several seats we will NEVER win. Had those seats been legitimately in play, the wave would have been a Tsunami.

[Mick]

I was unaware that only Florida and Texas had gerrymandered districts. And just for Repubs too. Learn something new everyday.

I cant find verification anywhere but heard from some pre-election talking head that if the Senate stayed with the Rs and The House changed hands that would be the first time ever. Maybe it was a mid term election stat or more likely I just mis-heard.

Anybody?

[Jeffrey Sykes]

“Rangel, Dingell and Frank.”

Has a nice ring to it.

[John Burns]

Mick - I heard that, too. Jeff Greenfield said it.

[Bubba]

....as if there were no Democrat-gerrymandered seats anywhere.....especially in NC.

[Bubba]

"Really? The number of seats changing hands may track with historical comparisons, but the loss of control of both the Senate and the House, and the repudiation during a war of the president who staked everything on that war make it seem just a little bit different..."

It's my understanding that only a minority of people polled by the AP listed the war in Iraq as an issue that affected their vote.

Here's what Larry Sabato reported earlier this year on some history of recent mid-term elections.

[John Burns]

Of course there are Democratically-gerrymandered seats. Gerrymandering is crippling our democracy. But the Republicans in Texas redistricted in the middle of a 10-year census period, and pretty much ensured the election of more Republicans than the state voting totals warrant.

Why must you people challenge everything jkust because a Democrat says it? It's true, documented irrefutable fact. Tom DeLay himself said it was designed to have that exact effect. It added about 10 seats to the Republican majority, and was considered ot be the firewall that would keep a narrowly-divided House in Republican hands.

That Democrats were able to change 29+ seats in such an environment, where almost every seat is permanently one party's or the other's, is testament to how big the wave really was.

[Jeffrey Sykes]

I agree with John that gerrymanering is bad for democracy. I would like to see a push to a non-partisan panel which draws the lines in our state.

Gerrymandering has been a part of our nation since its inception. The results of Tuesday's election, however, are proof that the populace is not ever content with politicians whose primary goal is to retain power.

Unless of course, they are North Carolina Democrats.

[Bubba]

"Why must you people challenge everything jkust because a Democrat says it?"

Wow! Paranoia strikes deep.

WHERE did I challenge the statement?

I added to it.