How many of those 9 that lost State Legislatures and Governorships were had job performances that were actually well liked (even though the President himself may have been liked). I presumptuously assume nearly none.

I don't think its an invalid point. Just, but perhaps not as strong as it seems.

But Steyn's claim that you highlight is factually correct according to your data. Therefore, I don't see how you support a claim that Steyn "can rarely be bothered with facts".

I don't see what the problem is. Like Annoying Old Guy said, "Steyn's claim that you highlight is factually correct according to your data."

It seems to me that you just don't like him. Whoopdedoo.

I'm confused. What you Steyn wrote is factually correct.

What are you trying to say here? It's not clear. You don't like Steyn?

You could have saved yourself some typing and saved us some reading had you just come out and said that.

Truth of the matter is, mid-term elections have been bad for the party holding the Presidency going back at least 40 years. Examples-

66, 74, 78, 86, 94, and 06
Good years for the party holding the WH- 98 and 02
Don't know without me checking further- 70, 82, and 90.

Steyn is asserting the Clintons leadership was bad for the Democratic based on the losses in Congress and state elections. Then it was bad for George W Bush, Ronald Reagan and the Republicans etc etc. Are we forgetting the 2006 election result already or does everyone have their head in the ground like an ostrich still? I saw the train wreck coming. At least one prominent wizbang blogger , Lorie Byrd, disagreed with me at the time.

Using facts that don't support your main thesis, doesn't usually win you grading points. As the title of my post said- Steyn has failed to learn from history.

Bill, your animosity toward Steyn is apparently indifferent to the facts. Every word he said is true. He's as careful with his facts as anyone on the Right, including the Mistress of Footnotes herself, the great Ann Coulter.

Someone like Steyn cannot be careless with the facts. He's too popular and well-regarded; there are too many people hunting for his scalp. The same can be said for Rush Limbaugh, the Left's other major target.

The day someone manages to find a significant factual error or misrepresentation in a Steyn piece will be a very strange day indeed.

!982 was a terrible for Reagan in the House elections because the country was coming out of the most severe reccession in years. In fact, we haven't had a reccession like that (1982) in over three decades.

Steyn is asserting the Clintons leadership was bad for the Democratic based on the losses in Congress and state elections. Then it was bad for George W Bush, Ronald Reagan and the Republicans etc etc.

It would be a mistake to include 1994 in the other off year elections examples. The only thing they share in common are result (no pun intended) but the magnitude and far reaching effects of 1994 distinguishes that year from similar off year results.

Mr. Jempty;

The badness of the Clintons for the Democratic Party is Steyn's opinion, which may or may not be correct. He marshals facts in support of it, and those facts may or may not actually support his opinion. Those are quite legitimate issues. However, your claim is that Steyn has his facts wrong, which he does not.

!982 was a terrible for Reagan in the House elections because the country was coming out of the most severe reccession in years. In fact, we haven't had a reccession like that (1982) in over three decades

jpm100

I won't argue with your point. The catastrophically high interest rates in 1978-1980 and the very high commodity prices (not just oil) during the same period were devastating for many people. You are correct, the trouble started many years before.

The 1982 economic environment was exacerbated by Reagan/Volcker's determination to restrict the money supply and choke off inflation.

If you had half the talent that Steyn has you'd be worth listening to.

If it weren't for JT I'd be signing off of Wizbang once and for all.