Is It Better to Lose the White House?

Larry Sabato: “The surest price the winning party will pay is defeat of hundreds of their most promising candidates and officeholders for Senate, House, governorships, and state legislative posts. Every eight-year presidency has emptied the benches for the triumphant party, and recently it has gotten even worse. (By the way, the two recent one-term presidents, Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush, also cost their parties many lower-level offices, but in both cases this didn’t happen until they were defeated for reelection.)”

“Since World War II there have been eight two-term presidencies: Dwight Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama, plus the reasonable succession combos of Franklin Roosevelt-Harry Truman, John Kennedy-Lyndon Johnson, and Richard Nixon-Gerald Ford. Not a one has left his party in better shape that he found it, at least in terms of lower elected offices.”

FavoriteLoadingSave to Favorites
Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on LinkedInEmail this to someone
  • pisher

    Not if it means losing the Supreme Court–or never regaining it. Any more stupid questions, pundit?

    Not EVERYTHING is about getting more good jobs for politicians in your party. At some point, they are expected to actually do something for the people who put them in office, and that does often come with a price. So pay it, already.

    • Buford2k11

      the derp is strong in this one…

    • nycguy

      Frankly I think getting health care through was worth the annihilation of 2010. Even with the resulting decade of gerrymandered districts.There’s no point in getting a majority just to waste it doing nothing but trying to keep that majority.

  • mybostonjack

    This country would be the most awesome with…
    1) Progressive Democratic POTUS
    2) Liberal majority SCOTUS
    3) 60+ progressive Democratic senators
    4) Democratic majority in the House

    Too much to ask? Santa Claus are you listening?

  • Robbins

    Republican victory in 2016 means there is noone left to stand up to far right and tea party.

    Republican victory in 2016 offers danger of us becoming permeant one party country.Laugh if you want.But they gerrymandered the house that it is guranteed to be republican majority till at least 2022.Inless states change hands in 2018 and 2020 that majority may be republican for another decade.GOP wants to fix electoral votes in states dems can win like they did the house.

    Billionaries control corporations and thus the media.

    Supremem court has weaken voting rights and has given republicans leg up in ability to riase and spend money.Now republicans are out to completly destroy unions so dems will have no ability to compete in fund rasing.

  • S1AMER

    There’s a difference between how you leave your party after eight years, and how you leave the country. For the latter, give me a Democrat every time!

    Sabato, of course, is part of the pundit class, those people with good pay and good health insurance and pensions who regard politics solely as a sporting event in which points are scored. Damn all their hides!

    • embo66

      Well said!

  • matmanjohn

    hmmmm let me think about that. No. I think winning is better. What a stupid article.

  • refudiate

    Won’t be true for pugs if they win in 2016 because between gerrymandering and voter suppression, they cannot lose midterms the way Dems, who play it straight, do.