Coulter misstated midterm election history, declared Democrats will "go away as a party" if they don't achieve what would be historic gains in House
SUMMARY: On Fox News, Ann Coulter asserted that Democrats
"ought to be picking up 60 or 70 seats" in the House of
Representatives in this November's midterm elections or "they may
as well go away as a party." Coulter based her assertion about Democratic
gains on her false claim that "[t]he average of the midterm election
pickup since World War II is about 40 seats." In fact, since World War II, the average gain in the House
after a midterm election has been about 25 seats.
On the October 25 edition of Fox News' The Big Story with John Gibson, right-wing pundit Ann Coulter asserted that Democrats "ought to be picking up 60 or 70 seats" in the House of Representatives in this November's midterm elections or "they may as well go away as a party." Coulter based her assertion about Democratic gains on her false claim that "[t]he average of the midterm election pickup since World War II is about 40 seats," and claimed that because Democrats "lost seats in Bush's first midterm election," they "ought to be picking up 60 or 70" seats in the House, given what she said was the average. In fact, the average gain in the House for any party after a post-World War II midterm election is about 25 seats. Moreover, no party has gained "60 or 70" seats in any midterm election since World War II. With the exception of the 1994 election, neither party has gained more than 10 House seats in a midterm election since 1982, and the last time either party gained more than 40 seats in a midterm election was in 1974.
Coulter's appearance on the October 25 edition of The Big Story marks at least the fourth time since early August that she has appeared on Fox News making bold predictions that the Democrats will retake the House because of "historical precedent." Despite these claims, on the October 11 edition of Hannity & Colmes, Coulter said of the upcoming midterms: "I don't have a prediction."
Below is a chart illustrating the number of House seats gained (and by which party) in each midterm election since the end of World War II. According to data from the website of the Office of the Clerk for the U.S. House of Representatives, the average gain of House seats in a midterm election since World War II has been 25.47, not 40, as Coulter claimed:
|
Year |
Seat gains |
Party |
|
1946 |
55 |
Republicans |
|
1950 |
28 |
Republicans |
|
1954 |
19 |
Democrats |
|
1958 |
49 |
Democrats |
|
1962 |
2 |
Republicans |
|
1966 |
47 |
Republicans |
|
1970 |
12 |
Democrats |
|
1974 |
49 |
Democrats |
|
1978 |
15 |
Republicans |
|
1982 |
27 |
Democrats |
|
1986 |
5 |
Democrats |
|
1990 |
7 |
Democrats |
|
1994 |
54 |
Republicans |
|
1998 |
5 |
Democrats |
|
2002 |
8 |
Republicans |
|
Average gain: |
25.47 |
Despite Coulter's October 11 remark that "I
don't have a prediction" on the outcome of the 2006 elections, Coulter also
predicted a 60-seat Democratic gain in the House during an October 3 Fox News appearance and cited
"historical precedent" to predict the outcome of the elections on
August 9 and 31 appearances:
- On the October 3 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, Coulter asserted that "[t]he party out of power is supposed to be picking up 60 seats. This is their 1994 election" and that "this is the Democrats' year to win" because "Republicans can't keep winning everything."
- On the August 9 edition of The Big Story with John Gibson, Coulter claimed that "unfortunately, I mean, the Republicans can't keep winning every election. The fall elections will probably be a very good year for the Democrats. They ought to be just out of historical precedent, having nothing to do with George Bush, having to do with the war in Iraq."
- On the August 31 edition of Hannity & Colmes, Coulter said that "[t]his will be a disaster for America if the Democrats do take control of the House and the Senate. And I think just by historical precedent, it's very likely."
From the October 25 edition of Fox News' The Big Story with John Gibson:
JOHN GIBSON (host): Look, the election is what, whatever that number of days away, it's not very many. And here's the latest CNN/Gallup poll that -- USA Today/Gallup poll. Republicans are generally behind, and Democrats are generally ahead. Meantime, you notice a little surge in some races. What do you make of these polls? Just that it's close?
COULTER: Is this poll a generic?
GIBSON: Generally Republicans or Democrats in Congress.
COULTER: So it's not done seat by seat. I don't think that sort of poll means as much. Right?
GIBSON: It's a general view of Democrats versus Republicans.
COULTER: Right, I don't think that doesn't mean as much.
GIBSON: Why not?
COULTER: You need to do the [U.S. News & World Report senior writer] Michael Barone poll where you look at each individual race. I mean, people may say, "Because Republicans have been in office for a long time and have been winning everything" -- I mean, if the Democrats -- the point is, if the Democrats do not win 60 or 70 seats in the House, a dozen seats in the Senate, then they may as well, you know, go away as a party. This is their year. We've been winning everything. We can't keep winning everything.
The average of the midterm election pickup since World War II is about 40 seats. They lost seats in Bush's first midterm election. So they ought to be picking up 60 or 70 seats, and I don't think they will do that because Americans do think that we have to win the war in Iraq.
From the October 3 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
COULTER: Midterm election. The party out of power is supposed to be picking up 60 seats. This is their 1994 election.
[...]
COULTER: The only thing that makes me pessimistic is the fact that this is the Democrats' year to win. Republicans can't keep winning everything. We already picked up seats in the midterm election. And if Democrats take the House and the Senate --
From the August 31 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:
COULTER: This will be a disaster for America if the Democrats do take control of the House and the Senate. And I think just by historical precedent, it's very likely. But people forget how bad the Democrats were, and they vote for them again. Right, Doug?
From the August 9 edition of The Big Story with John Gibson:
COULTER: And, unfortunately, I mean, the Republicans can't keep winning every election. The fall elections will probably be a very good year for the Democrats. They ought to be just out of historical precedent, having nothing to do with George Bush, having to do with the war in Iraq. We picked up an enormous number of seats in the last midterm election.
From the October 11 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:
SEAN HANNITY (co-host): Last question. Do you think -- do you have any prediction, House, Senate? Which way it goes? We're 27 days away.
COULTER: I -- it's the six-year election. Even [President Ronald] Reagan lost seats in the sixth year.
HANNITY: Prediction?
COULTER: Unfortunately, this is a very, very dangerous time for America, and I'm sorry about it.
ALAN COLMES (co-host): Good to see you conceding. By the way, Ann --
COULTER: I don't think it's going to be a good year for Republicans.
HANNITY: What's the prediction? They hold the House and the Senate, or no?
COULTER: I don't have a prediction.
they still lose. It is a brillant argument. But if the Democrats fail to take a house of Congress they should consider a major party shake up.
from 'has it both ways' Annie?
and make way for honest to God liberals.
I think the fact the Democrats have a very hard time in the entire South, the middle West, and most of the mountain and upper MidWest - moving left towards more liberalism is not a winner for them.
You can't win national elections with California, New York, Mass, and D.C.
I also dont like a 2008 scenario that could be shaping up. The Democrats win the house and Senate (which would generally be a good thing for the nation) but somehow we spend the next 2 years mired in partisan hearings and even impeachment. The nation would be brainwashed by the MSM and the Republicans into the mindset that the Democrats are partisan and are only interested in damaging and embarassing the Republicans. We would then be stuck with someone like McCain , a old, bitter, man with a anger problem. The Democrats need to find someone in the Clinton mold who can attact Southern voters the way he did and his charm as well. I fear Hillary and Barack are not them.
This is a liberal country. Southern and Midwestern outdoorsmen respect nature and a clean environment. The main difference between hunters and environmentalists is how they perceive each other not how they perceive nature.
Liberalism is based on the family model of caring for each other (compassion) and sense of community (empathy). Very Midwestern. I know I am a Midwesterner.
The Democrat's problem isn't with being too liberal, it's with not being authentic with their liberalism. By moving to the right they are perceived as being sellouts to their core values. Authenticity is the key.
You're missing the point, why many Southern Democrats left in the 80's and haven't returned. Issues important to them were better addressed by Republicans.......like it or not. Guns, God, Taxes, etc. There is a certain arrogance in the liberal wing of the party that turns people off, that is a fact.
I remember hearing this, it may or may not be true but is speaks to the core problem in the South and Midwest for the Democrats. When Dukakis was campaigning in Iowa in 1988, he was landing in his private jet and supposedly said "Hmm, I wonder what these hicks want to hear from me?".
Perception is very important, right or wrong. Unless the Democrats can figure out how to win many of those "Reagan Democrats" back, they will have a tough time - and moving left and liberal is exactly what they don't need.
Regaining the hearts and minds of American voters is a long haul and requires earnest devotion to hearing their concerns. It also requires adherence to honest values, yes liberals have core values. Values like mutual responsibility, sense of justice and fairness.
Authentic liberalism is patriotism.
I never questioned liberals values or patriotism. I was talking about winning elections. Your views may be pure and organic, and principled, I admire that. But just know the electoral consequences.
you were not questioning my values or patriotism. That never crossed my mind, but is odd that you brought it up.
Do you see though, I was arguing from my liberal perspective and even you admired that. Authenticity is the key. So, I reiterate that I wish Democrats would go away and make way for honest to God liberals. At least they would earn the respect of the American people. From there I would be willing to take my chances with the electoral consequences.
I respect you and your opinions. For you, winning elections is not as important as your integrity. That is admirable, but if you brought that to either political party they'd probably throw you under the bus - sadly.
for a guy who just spent several posts telling us how the republicans pandered to certain elements to win elections. that is what you mean by issues important to them? for instance the republicans keep painting the democrats as wanting "to take your guns away", when all most democrats want to do is keep assault weapons out of the hands of criminals.
The problem is that average people all over the country don't want to elect people who are obviously superior to them. I suppose sadly that is where we are at. Right-wing talk radio only feeds that and I don't know when that could ever change. The partisanship that results from it is truly the biggest threat to our survival. In order for America to be great again, we need to stop that course.
Thank God, we didn't start out that way. Guys like Jefferson, Adams, Washington, Franklin, Madison were all tremendously intelligent elites. Men of such brilliance would be instantly poo-pooed by the masses today. We have definitely regressed with our last choice.
I really don't mind elite intellectuals and actually miss the days when they ruled reasonably. It would be nice to have a leader who has been around the world a few times, speaks a few foreign languages and knows which fork to use on each course at a state dinner (not on taco night, of course).
We are ruled at the hands of the lowest common denominator. I am not sure there is much that can be done about that in the short term.
The problem is that average people all over the country don't want to elect people who are obviously superior to them.
************************
That isn't the problem, the problem is that average people want to elect smart, intelligent, honest, trustworthy and honorable people - what they don't want are those that are arrogant, dismissive, elitists and look down on them because they feel superior.
arrogant, dismissive, elitists , these are all the traits that Bush and his administration possess. Too bad he/they didn't have the smarts to medigate those other annoying traits. Come on politicians are by nature egotistical and to some degree over confident , it takes both to assume that you can manage the world.
You are kind of on track. I think this kind of "arrogance" is greatly exaggerated by political operatives on the opposing side. The feedback loop that ensues usually only works to make the belief a self-fulfilling prophecy.
In every election I can remember, the guy who always won was the guy who was able to convince the average voter that the other guy was more elite and ergo "out of touch" than himself.
Perhaps we are both right. Politicians' images are manipulated by the opposing party (who know people will not elect an obvious superior) to make that politician appear arrogant, dismissive and pompous (which plays on average people's insecurities).
I have never met any presidential candidates, I have to rely on what is said by them and about them just like I assume you do. That reality is heavily massaged by both sides. We shouldn't accept that our perceptions are necessarily accurate. They have definitely been manipulated.
...and instead, we elected Bush. Go figure!
The nation wasn't ready for Dukakis and his detachment from the average American. Poppy Bush was much more in tune with and had so much more in common with us common folk. You know, the ones who had actually had the experience of seeing grocery scanners and such.
Don't forget bigotry and racism.
to that brother.
I wouldn't argue that many Republican candidates still appeal to the bigotry that exists in many hearts of Southern voters, that cannot be denied. It is reprehensible, but it wins them elections, sadly.
They pander as do the Democrats to their base and constituents all the time, feeding their fears and exploiting the other party.
However, there is also class warfare and reverse racism that exists with Democratic candidates as well, and this is equally as disguisting.
Both parties tend to play the class warfare card especially more than the race card. It is my hope that in the next two years some of this damage casued by the Partisans can be resolved. Its obvious that the Republicans however have been using the race card in this election witht he racist Harold Ford ad. its been at an alarming rate as well.
Which doesnt mean actually committing it only pointing it OUT. If you were police Chief you wouldnt arrest Bank Robbers you would arrest reporters who reported Bank Robberies.
The Dems have a very good electoral bloc. The big states like Cal, NY, Mass are solidly dem, they are a done deal. The GOP has a lot of small states. They lose any of them its over for the GOP nationally. Right now AZ is in flux its not that solidly red. The west is marginal not solidly red like the South. The GOP can no more compete by moving right in Cal than the Dems can by moving left in Mississippi. Since CAl has 55 electoral votes Mississippi has 6 why is it seen as a problem for Dems not for the GOP. The GOP has lost the popular election three of the last four times and won it ONCE. The Dems are not in big trouble the pendulum swung to the right in the 80's it will most likely swing left pretty soon. If the Dems get ahead of the power curve that is a good thing for them.
our boy tells us a story about dukakis "that may or may not be true". why not add a couple more to really reenforce your point. after all if they aren't true, what's the difference?
When those with liberal souls wake up and realize the Democrats are as complicit in the war crimes and the destruction of this country as the Republicans, we may have a hope to save this land from this endless descent into evil.
If the Democrats are unable to substantially gain seats in the House, they only have themselves to blame. And it goes directly to their ineptness, or their message, as the reasons why, if they indeed make only slight gains at all.
Bush and Co. have handed them control on a silver platter with their mishandling of Iraq, borders, runaway spending, cronyism, etc. If they fail to take advantage of that gift given them, well, they ought not blame the media or negative ads, or anything else - the responsibility falls squarely on their shoulders.
We need two strong political parties to keep watchful eyes on each other, not a runaway power hungry party and another just nipping at their heels for attention.
I don't think she is right that the Democrats will "go away" as a party if they don't make huge gains. It will be very disappointing for them to be sure. Who knows what will happen. I think Ann is fantasizing a little bit here.
I personally think that over time it may be better for the Democrats to lose. The Republicans didn't control Congress for 45 or so years, but when they finally achieved control, they were much more ideologically harmonious than the Democrats ever were.
The Democrats have become too diluted by trying to please too many often conflicting constituencies. Trying to appeal to wingnut evangelicals is only the most recent example. If Democrats win with their support, what was the point of winning anyway? If the Democrats win because Conservatives stay at home, what is the point? Won't Democratic control only energize those same Conservatives in future elections?
Democrats need to engage the Conservatives on their own turf. They need to turn Conservatives into at least reluctant liberals or moderates through intelligent debate. That takes a lot of time. I don't think anyone is even trying this. Liberals have just lazily written off Conservatives as unreachable. I don't believe that is the case. Anne Coulter and Rush Limbaugh create new Conservatives every day. Are Liberals doing anything comparative?
Losing or even not "covering the spread" isn't the end of the world.
I absolutely agree with that - all these little tents the Democrats foster for all their constituents, it only fractures them and marginalizes their message. Pandering to one group or another only alienates the others.
As far as Coulter is concerned , when I see her on TV now I turn it off. She is a disgrace and not worth my time.
Stay very uniformed. Shut the TV off when Ann Coulter comes on. Thats about as intelligent as most of the Oprah viewers which im sure you are one of.
Ann Coulter is no source of information for any reasonable person. Her schtick is to enflame, offend, garner publicity, hear herself speak, feed her ego and self importance - you could even say be provocative, but she is basically a cartoon.
When a pool hustler hears an opponent make grand statements of how badly he’s playing, and how bad he’ll get beat, it’s time to placate to them. Tell them how much they understand, and say “uh huh” a lot, and otherwise let him enjoy you playing, and taking his money.
So, Ann: I feel for you, it must be hard to face the tide as it consumes the deception that has been you carrier in the public’s eye.
Oh, ya: “Uh Huh,” “Uh Huh!”
Oh ya!
Happy Thoughts Ann;
Dan Grady
I wish both parties would go away
But I can understand the sentiment. We will always have 2 parties or so and since their members write the laws, the Democrats and Republicans will always enjoy unfair advantages over any other parties.
This system is self-sustaining. We are stuck with it.
There's one way to get rid of them...don't vote for them. There are other parties out there...vote for them and empower them against the status quo. Even if they don't win, at least you can say the crimes are not your fault.
wish we had more than a two party system in the US. I like the concept of the parliamentary democracies in other free countries. Open mind mentioned how the Democratic party tries to appease multiple competing constituencies. Multiple parties would allow us to select a party that more closely espouse our own individual views. Blacks wouldn’t be forced to default to the party that doesn’t actively recruit racists. These multiple parties work cooperatively with each other when it's mutually beneficial, but at the very least there is some representation of your perspective in government. As it stands now the two major parties pander (to use Tommy's favorite term) with rhetoric and false promises to get votes
and run-off elections would be a nice start.
All we have to do is vote for them. Enough people vote for them and the Big Two are out of power. The people of Uruguay did it...since the 1830's, two parties dominated the country, then the people voted in a thrird party leader and that all changed. Democracy does work, all we have to do is use our votes to make it work.
I will vote for a Dem who supports Guns, stopping illegal immigration, get a grip on foreign policy, and cares for family values.
Not one that would let his/her children go to school in a blanket or P.J.'s. Not one that wants to grant Amnesty to million of people who have no business being here. Not one that supports lenient penalties for child porn or sexxual predators. Not one that plays politics with our soldiers. (Bush and Kerry) Not one that wants to raise taxes instead of cleaning house.
the actual number (25%), plus the number she pulled out of her ass (45%), equal 65%, which falls within the range of 60 or 70 seats, in her demented manner of thinking.
that's actual number (25%), plus her anal number (40%). Fuzzy math.
Not one that would let his/her children go to school in a blanket or P.J.'s. /// WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Not one that wants to grant Amnesty to million of people who have no business being here. /// THE IRONY IS THAT IT'S BUSINESS THAT BROUGHT THEM HERE TO BE SURE. SO WHY ISN'T BUSINESS STEPPING UP AND MAKING THIS ISSUE GO AWAY?? WHY ISN'T THIS GOVERNMENT ENFORCING EXISTING LAWS AGAINST THEIR EMPLOYMENT?? DAAAAAAAAAAA!!
Not one that supports lenient penalties for child porn or sexxual predators. // IMPLYING THAT A DEMOCRAT LIKE KERRY WOULD ENDORSE PLACATING TO PEDOPHILES??? THAT WOULD BE THE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP, REMEMBER???
Not one that plays politics with our soldiers. (Bush and Kerry) SHMUCK!! THAT IS WHAT THE PRESIDENT DID TO BE SURE, AND KERRY WOULD HAVE CORRECTED. THE "BANDAID PURPLE HEARTED REPUBLICANS" THAT ENDORSE WARS THEY DODGE, AND ENFORCE DRAFTS ON THOSE WHO SERVE FOR WARS THEY INVENTED FOR POLITICAL POWER, AND GREED!!
Not one that wants to raise taxes instead of cleaning house.// THE BUDGET SURPLUS THAT WAS HANDED OFF TO THIS REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP WAS ACHEIVED WITH A RESPONSIBLE TAX POLICY, I SURE THERE IS SOME GENERALITY THAT WILL MAKE $2 TRILLION DOLLARS.
evillib1727 / Friday October 27, 2006 01:44:11 PM EST - Reply to this comment / Flag this comment
I was going to respond to the post and mention the same scum-bag Republicans and their purple heart Band-Aids. I too wish there were a way to force those draft dodgers to serve since they're all for this war.
turn of the caps moron. Look, I am not excusing the Bush admin for thier pathetic attempt of runing a Nation. I am saying that if I can find a Democrat that supports some of my views, I will vote for them.
You are a very bitter person.
evillib1727 / Friday October 27, 2006 06:36:39 PM EST - Reply to this comment / Flag this comment
Vice President Al Gore!!
Senator Russ Feingold!!
THE CAP LOCK WAS FOR YOUR BENEFIT, SINCE YOUR COMMENTS WERE SO WACKED OUT.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
She says if the Democrats do good it will be because of Iraq and have nothing to do with George Bush. Hey Ann, you horses's ass, literally and figuratively, the Iraq war has EVERYTHING to do with George Bush. His political life will be largely definfed by the Iraq war. He is the one who got us into the Iraq war, or at least he was the figurehead. Is she trying something Orwellian here? A psy-ops thing? I think she's trying to plant the seed in the feeble minds of the troglodytes that George Bush is seperate from the Iraq war and is trying to get them to blame someone else like Donald Rumsfeld or Dick Cheney. Iraq and George Bush are intertwined Annie, like it or not. They are wound up together like a ball of rubber bands.
THANK YOU. njguy93@yahoo.com
that the notion of people fading into irrelevance resonates with Ann Coulter.
DO SOME!!! The Democratic Party has existed in this country since the 1860's . . . are you that feebleminded to think that because they somehow don't get a landslide in a MIDTERM election that they're going to just "go away"?
Founded the Democratic party in 1792 and it became the official name of the existing party of the common man in 1798 its the Republican Party that emerged around 1860 the Democratic party is quite a bit older relatively than the Republican Party.
as in, take the truth and apply the OhReally Factor (we use to call it the fudge factor) to get the results desired (even if they resemble the truth in no way.)
wants to take anybody's gun away. That's a canard promoted by the NRA. I don't know of any Dem or liberal who puts their kids in PJs to go to school. I don't know of any Dem or liberal who does any of the things mentioned in that inane post. You have listened to Michael Savage for too long. Get your head out of the sand and get to know some real people. Sheesh.
to that hank of hair and bag of bones Coulter either. She isn't worth the time. She has nothing of substance to say.
I hope that Ann Coulter is correct and the Ds pick up 60 seats. I look forward to seeing a D by the names of congressmen from Idaho and Wyoming.
Americans will no longer believe the lies of the worst President and Vice-President in the history of the United States.