Our next Democratic President MUST NOT lose Congress after only two years

[derby378]

President Barack Obama is a classy guy. A real family man. An accomplished statesman and politician.

Unfortunately, he committed the same grievous sin that Bill Clinton committed in 1994. After only two lousy years, Obama helped scuttle Democratic control of the House and the Senate, just like Clinton. No real push to grow the party and consolidate control of Congress. No strategy to push back against the Tea Party movement, although Tim Kaine deserves a lot of blame for that as well.

While the Democratic Party undergoes some much-needed soul-searching and wandering in the desert for the next two years at the very least, maybe its presumptive leaders can actually formulate a long-term strategy for strengthening and preserving the long-term health of the party, not to mention a new sense of message discipline that the party can unite behind.

A lot of people say that the President is the leader of his or her political party. If so, our next Democratic President must take that sentiment to heart and grow the party, grow the party, grow the gosh-darned party.

[Takket]

1. We actually need a plan to win congress before we can make a plan to keep it

[derby378]

2. Hence, the two years wandering in the desert

Plenty of time to start retooling the party. Ditching the dead weight, refocusing the message on labor and working families, demonstrating that we can restore the middle class and some measure of financial security.

[uponit7771]

3. Or stamp out voter suppression and gerrymandering first? I'm so sick of that not being factored into

... the narrative of congress !!!

[Takket]

4. I have a feeling those things will only expand now

[guillaumeb]

5. The GOP cannot win without voter suppression. eom

[uponit7771]

11. +1, that's the way they win state and local level elections

[derby378]

6. You can only blame that so many times before it gets stale

In light of the disastrous campaign by Trump, I'm willing to say that there is a simple yet infallible test to prove that Hillary Clinton did something wrong during her campaign: she lost.

A drunken goat could have beaten Trump. Sure, Clinton beat him in the popular vote, but the votes weren't distributed in enough states. Why didn't we seal the deal in PA, OH, or even VA, which was Kaine's home state?

[uponit7771]

8. This sentiment makes no sense, blame cheating until it goes away. I don't understand the ....

... thinking here.

Its a tangible factor and a known factor calling it something else doesn't make it so

[delisen]

12. Uh Clinton/Kaine won VA

Drunken Goats just got the UK out of the EU, and is on the verge of winning east and Western Europe. Drunken Goats are winning the western world.

If we just want to win anyway we can, maybe we should be running Drunken Goat candidates----

[derby378]

13. My apologies - we did win VA

At least we have that. But we lost OH, PA, WI, and MI. Yikes.

[appal_jack]

7. Redistricting happens in census years.

The most essential recent action to fight gerrymandering would have been retaining Democratic control of Congress in 2010. As derby378 points out in the OP, Obama failed to do this, dismissing Dean from the DNC, turning his back on the 50 state strategy that had a whole lot to do with his own election, etc.

More info/history:
https://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/08/dean-absent-as-obama-introduces-his-pick-for-dnc-chairman/

-app

[uponit7771]

9. Not the illegal kind that's drawn to factor out certain voters. Blaming this on Obama is Obama ...

... bashing when there's ... KNOWN.... voter suppression involved.

Again, telling half the story isn't telling all the truth... I'm not a LIV

[frazzled]

10. They all lose

FDR lost 71 House seats and 6 Senate seats in the midterm of his second term.
He lost 55 additional House seats and 9 Senate seats in the midterm of his third term.

Harry Truman lost 45 House and 12 Senate seats in his first term; and 29 House and 6 Senate in his second.

Kennedy did best: he lost 4 House seats and gained 3 Senate seats.

LBJ lost 47 House and 4 Senate seats

Carter lost 15 House and 3 Senate.

Clinton lost 52 House and 8 senate seats in his first term, but gained 5 House seats and lost no senate seats in his second.


How did the Republicans do? Pretty much the same:

Eisenhower lost 18 House and 1 Senate seat in his first term; and lost 48 House and 13 Senate in his second.
Nixon lost 12 House seats but gained 2 Senate seats.
Reagan lost 26 House seats and gained 1 Senate seat in his first term; he lost five House and 8 Senate seats in his second.
Bush pere lost 8 House and 1 Senate seats.
GWB was a winner in his first term (which shows you just how crazy this is): he gained 8 House and 2 Senate seats his first term; lost 30 House and 6 Senate seats his second.

Obama? The Tea Party craze of 2010 (plus Bush's recession) lost him 63 House and 6 Senate seats (still better than FDR in his second term); and 13 House and 9 Senate in the second.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/mid-term_elections.php


It is not wholly the president who determines the wins or losses in Congressional races, though it is most common for the electorate to try to "balance" a Democratic presidency with a Republican Congress, and vice versa. Other factors intervene: redistricting, local politics, recessions, wars, etc.