The American Spectator

Print Email

Text Size

Reader Mail

David Hogberg disagrees with an argument that I and several other prominent conservatives have made lately that it might be in the interest of the Republican Party to suffer a political loss in this year's congressional elections.

One reason I made this argument is because a Republican victory this year may lead to a much bigger loss in 2008. Conversely, a Democratic win this year may ensure that the White House stays in Republican hands.

We don't have too many data points to prove my point, but here are some examples.

In 1946, Harry Truman's popularity rating was down to 27 percent. That year, Republicans retook control of both the House and Senate. By using the Republican Congress as a foil, Truman was able to raise his approval rating to 39 percent by 1948, enabling him to win re-election that year.

In 1954, Dwight Eisenhower's popularity was at 62 percent when Republicans lost control of Congress. Two years later after having a Democratic Congress as a foil, his popularity had risen to 75 percent and won re-election easily.

In 1994, Bill Clinton's approval was down to 41 percent just before the election. Like Truman, he was able to use the Republican Congress as a foil and raise his approval to 55 percent by 1996 and also gained re-election.

Admittedly, these are all cases of incumbent presidents running for re-election, which Republicans won't have in 2008. Still, it does appear that losing control of Congress is worth about 13 percentage points to the president's popularity.

topics:
Education, Bill Clinton, Television, Islam, Environment, Movies, NATO, Immigration, Oil