Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (309869)	11/8/2006 8:36:45 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573439

If the argument was that "every 6th year president loses seats", then the post would have been cherry picking, maybe even intellectually dishonest. The data is enough to show the weaker claim that losing this many seats is not all that unusual for a 6th year president or a sign of total collapse. She said it isn't a "tsunami", and that's a quite reasonable statement. Ann did include the data about Reagan. "Even America's greatest president, Ronald Reagan, lost five House seats and eight Senate seats in his sixth year in office." Clinton gained a few seats in 1998 but the Dems lost 54 seats in 1992, so it was a rather unusual situation. Ann was, as usual, somewhat insulting in her other statements. I wasn't endorsing the whole article, I just picked what I saw as interesting facts from the article. FDR was in trouble because, despite all his efforts, the Great Depression was still grinding along. More like because of all his efforts.