FDR 1938 lost 70 House seats - 6 senate seats......

[suston96]

His popularity? Oct 1938: 60%

1942: FDR lost 55 House seats - 9 Senate seats. His popularity early Sept. 1942: 74%.

Was reelected to 3rd and 4th terms in 1940 and 1944.

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

For what it's worth.......

[HughMoran]

1. The more you try to do in a bad economy

The bigger the backlash from the nut-jobs.

[reggie the dog]

4. not really

he had huge majorities while he was doing the new deal, towards wwii he had a smaller majority

[PlanetBev]

2. Thanks for posting this, suston

It's worth a lot...

[reggie the dog]

3. for what its worth

fdr never lost his majority. cool though that the democrats have had the first handicapped president, the first non protestant president, and the first non white president....

[FBaggins]

5. To be fair...

It helps when you start off with almost four times as many seats as your opponents. :-)

[Odin2005]

9. A good-sized chunk of his majority was Southern racist conservatives, though.

[pnorman]

6. Also of note:

In 1934, FDR had "political capital" FAR greater than Obama had in his own second yearr in office. Nonetheless, FDR waffled (ie: turned yellow) on giving support to Upton Sinclair in his bid for Governership of California.

There's been an awful lot of comparing the two, usually to the detriment of Obama. Most of it is either FALSE or irrelevant.

[SidDithers]

18. Well said...

and posters frequently overlook FDR's "progressive" interning of 120,000 Japanese Americans beginning in 1942.

Simple comparisons of complex men and women are almost always invalid.

Sid

[GoCubsGo]

7. Thanks for the perspecctive. n/t

[SunsetDreams]

8. Great Post, K&R

[mix]

10. For what it's worth,

FDR's accomplishments in his first term dwarf Obama's.

[FBaggins]

11. To repeat a variation of my #5...

I'm no apologist for the President, but I think it's obviousl that he would have accomplished quite a bit more if he had started with 300+ House members and 70+ senators.

[mix]

12. Obama didn't fight, he had majorities, and he caved. nt

[FBaggins]

13. As I said... my purpose wasn't to defend him.

I don't agree with every decision.

I'm just saying a QB looks better with all-pro linemen, receivers, and RBs around him.

[treestar]

21. Or had their been a real depression of the likes in the 30s.

Really not a fair comparison. The political will of the people was different. They were not as apathetic then, or as controlled by a pervasive media.

It would be better to compare FDR to Bush, who had carte blanche because of 911.

[totodeinhere]

14. So our losses on Tuesday were OK then because FDR had losses?

I don't think so. A lot of people are trying to sugarcoat this, but I agree with what President Obama said. We got shellacked.

[suston96]

16. Sorry, wrong logic.....

"So our losses on Tuesday were OK then because FDR had losses?"

Not what I said. Matter of fact, what I posted is that people thought those presidents were great but the people lashed out at the congresses serving concurrently.

People without jobs become very impatient. The times were right for the Repubs.

I do not buy that the "shellacking" had anything to do with President Obama, as the media and the bloggeries would have us believe. Obama did not control nor could he have controlled the economic disaster he inherited. An economy that simply crept along at snail's pace and unemployment that painfully dragged alongside is what did it.

Oh, and FDR and "his" congresses couldn't get unemployment under 15% up to 1940.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal

[FBaggins]

19. It's certainly not ALL the President's fault... but consider one thing.

The economy was really bad for the 2008 elections and we held both houses of Congress then... but it was Bush's party that paid the price. This time we got hammered. What has changed?

[suston96]

25. What has changed? In 2008 we increased margins in both houses.....

The tsunami this time was only in the House with a few seats lost in the Senate.

What difference does it make who controls what in the Congress? If obstruction is what it takes, Democrats can do that too. Maybe even better than the Repubs.

Uh, strike that last thought. Nobody does it - obstruction - better than the Repubs.

[craigmatic]

15. FDR didn't have to deal with faux news and 24 hour news cycles. Plus the dems still had control of

congress during most of those years.

[uponit7771]

17. FUCK FACTS!!!!! /saracsm

[treestar]

20. There were no term limits then

And more of a sense of don't change horses in midstream.

The voters had a longer attention span, too.

[suston96]

22. Another 'for what it's worth'.....FDR and Veterans.....

Cuz I post or quote it doesn't mean I agree with it. It's for historical content. It really happened......

Economy Act

The Economy Act, drafted by Budget Director Lewis Williams Douglas, was passed on March 14, 1933. The act proposed to balance the "regular" (non-emergency) federal budget by cutting the salaries of government employees and cutting pensions to veterans by fifteen percent. It saved $500 million per year and reassured deficit hawks such as Douglas that the new President was fiscally conservative. Roosevelt argued there were two budgets: the "regular" federal budget, which he balanced, and the "emergency budget", which was needed to defeat the depression; it was imbalanced on a temporary basis.<19>

Roosevelt was initially in favor of balancing the budget, but he soon found himself running spending deficits in order to fund the numerous programs he created. Douglas, however, rejecting the distinction between a regular and emergency budget, resigned in 1934 and became an outspoken critic of the New Deal. Roosevelt strenuously opposed the Bonus Bill that would give World War I veterans a cash bonus. Finally, Congress passed it over his veto in 1936, and the Treasury distributed $1.5 billion in cash as bonus welfare benefits to 4 million veterans just before the 1936 election.<20>

But go here and see more detail about what FDR did and that FDR realized he made a mistake with his Economy Act especially about the veterans pensions and benefits as the slashes had little effect on the budget.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_Act

Again, this is presented for historical value and this president and this coming Congress can see that some cuts do not work.

Veterans and Social Security? Best to leave them alone.

[Ter]

23. Two things:

1) If his popularity was 60% in 1938 and 74% in 1942, why did his party lose 70/6 and 55/9, respectively?

2) Obama isn't FDR. His popularity won't go that high. He will likely be re-elected, but not by monster majorities like FDR was.

[suston96]

24. Ah! That is the question.......

If his popularity was 60% in 1938 and 74% in 1942, why did his party lose 70/6 and 55/9, respectively?

Maybe, just maybe, presidential popularity has little, if not much to do with congress.

Maybe, people can discern when it is the president that has screwed up, or the congress or vice versa.

Maybe, the voters cannot wait for the next presidential election to vent their anger......

Maybe....etc.

[Carolina]

26. Obama is no FDR

[StevieM]

27. Maybe not. But it hardly seems fair to fault him for not being comparable to, arguably, the greatest

president in American history. Using that standard, only Lincoln could be considered a success.

We live in a country where you can't get much done without 60 votes in the U.S. Senate. That is the reality that Obama confronted. FDR had a bigger congressional majority, a bigger electoral mandate, no senate filibuster for most legislation and a greater national crisis to convince people of the need for radical change.

Steve