Yeah, it's a mixed metaphor, but whatever. Let's go back 60 years and look at what happened to the Senate during a President's eight years. I'll only look at Presidents who served all eight years (also Presidents who died/resigned and then were succeeded by a VP). If the President has big coat-tails when he's elected to his first term, there's a bigger backlash six years later in the President's final mid-term. Big coat-tails in a President's first election = more backlash six years later.
More under the orange squiggle. It's not complicated.
Let's go back to the 1950s. I'm limiting this to Presidents who either served two full terms or died/resigned and were succeeded in office by a VP. So the President (or P+VP) had eight years in office (which adds up to two Presidential elections and two off-year elections).
I'm just looking at the numbers, not at the issues. Over the past 60 years, we've had several controversial wars, several recessions/depressions, a realignment in the South (which was Solid Democratic and now is Solid Republican), civil rights legislation, 9/11, and a whole pile of other issues. But for now I'm just looking at the numbers.
My question is this: How did the President's party fare in the Senate elections? And six years after a President was first elected, what kind of backlash against the President happened in the Senate elections?
Here's The List, Starting in 1952
.
Eisenhower (R)
In the elections in '52, '54, '56, '58, Republicans in the Senate won:
+2, -2, 0, -12
(net loss of -12 for the President's party).
Kennedy/Johnson (D)
In the elections of '60, '62, '64, '66, Democrats in the Senate won:
-1, +2, +2, -3
(net of 0 for the President's party).
Nixon/Ford (R)
In the elections of '68, '70, '72, '74, Republicans in the Senate won:
+5, +1, -2, -4
(net of 0 for the President's party).
Reagan (R)
In the elections of '80, '82, '84, '86, Republicans in the Senate won:
+12, 0, -2, -8
(net gain of +2 for the President's party).
Clinton (D)
In the elections of '92, '94, '96, and '98, Democrats in the Senate won:
0, -8, -2, 0
(net loss of -10 for the President's party)
GW Bush (R)
In the elections of '00, '02, '04, '06, Republicans in the Senate won:
-4, +2, +4, -6
(net loss of -4 for the President's party)
Obama (D)
In the elections of '08, '10, '12, '14, Democrats in the Senate won:
+8, -6, +2, -7* (net loss of -3 for the President's party so far, but possibly more or less after recounts or runoffs, so we don't know, but so far it's looking like -7)
Now Let Us Look at the President's Senate Coat-tails in Year Six
I'll start with the numbers above and I will sort it by the biggest coat-tails in the President's first-term (the first Presidential election) compared to what happened in the Senate elections six years later -- when the Senators who rode on the President's coat-tails had to run for re-election in a mid-term election at the end of a lame duck President's second term, which traditionally has no coat-tails. You'll see that the bigger the coat-tails at the beginning of the President's reign, the bigger the backlash in the final lame-duck election:
Gain/Loss in the Senate (6 years later)
Reagan +12, -8 (1980, 1986)
Obama +8, -7* (2008, but 2014 might be a different number)
Nixon/Ford +5, -4 (1968, 1974)
Eisenhower +2, -12 (1952, 1958)
Clinton 0, 0 (1992, 1998)
Kennedy/Johnson -1, -3 (1960, 1966)
GW Bush -4, -6 (2000, 2006)
I should note that Kennedy (1960) and GW Bush (2000) both won very close elections, with accusations of voter fraud by the losing side. Also note that sometimes Senators die or resign or whatever, and a new Senator is elected in a special election or appointed by the state's Governor, so the numbers might not add up exactly right if a Senator died and was replaced by an appointee from a different party.
The point I'm trying to make is this: If a President has broad coat-tails when he's first elected and his party gains a lot of seats in the Senate, then six years later when the President is a lame duck, that President's party is more likely to lose seats in the Senate.
And only Ronald Reagan had bigger coat-tails than Barack Obama in the last 60 years. So it's not surprising that Democrats lost some Senate seats. But in terms of overall numbers, Eisenhower was terrible for his party in his final lame duck election year.
Reagan and GWB were pretty bad, too.