Skjellyfetti wrote:They'll win 50-60 seats.
Pretty standard for midterm election of a first term President.
No, skelly.
Since WWII, the average midterm House loss has been 24.06 seats for the President's party. The average for the first midterm has been 25.6 seats. The average loss for the second midterm (there have been only five two term Presidents since WWII) has been 21.0.
Dem midterm losses during a Dem Presidency have averaged 29.7 seats. Repub midterm losses during a Repub Presidency have averaged 19.7 seats.
Presidents whose popularity was less than 50% at the time of the midterm averaged 33.8 losses in the House. Presidents whose popularity was above 50% averaged 12.8 losses in the House.
The President whose popularity was closest to Obama's at the time of the midterm election was Carter, whose popularity stood at 49% when his party lost 11 seats.
Anything approaching a 50 seat swing or more is called a wave election. There have been 4 to 6 since WWI, depending on how you count. There was one in 1946, in Truman's first term, in favor of the Republicans (+55), 1948 (not a midterm - coincided with Truman's re-election) in favor of the Democrats, 1994 in Clinton's first midterm in favor of the Republicans (+53), 2006/08 in favor of the Democrats (+30 in 2006 +21 in 2008), and 2010 will be a wave election in favor of the Republicans.
Why do you say stuff like that "...50-60 seats. Pretty standard for midterm election of a first term President???" I thought you did your homework and knew your stuff.
As a result they will have produced the stability necessary for robust economic growth and employment. 
