If the Republicans were to lose the house in 2014 with the current advantages they have and during midterms that would be a massacre of historical proportions. Obviously the party would rebound after that, that doesn’t make the ass kicking a good thing.
2010 had nothing to do with one party rule and everything to do with “holy shit there’s a black president.”
A black President which the public happily elected. They didn’t turn on him because they suddenly realized he was black. You can blame the economy or “structural reasons” as Jonathon Chait did, but the country didn’t suddenly go racist in 2010 and flip back to enlightened in 2012.
Do you think that midterm elections have as much turnout as presidential elections?
If not, then having a specifically passionate group could cause a large wave during an otherwise low turnout election right?
Wave elections aren’t caused by low turnout. 2006 and 2010 both featured higher turnout than usual and most importantly, independents overwhelmingly going for the opposition party.
Midterm elections are all about low turnout. The independents of 2010 were just Republicans calling themselves independent. They were motivated by the fact that America had gone ahead and elected a black president.
The idea that suddenly, in 2010, there was massive concern about government spending, a concern not evident in the least between 2000-2008, is just stupidity.
It is precisely because midterms usually have low turnout that a relatively high midterm turnout can result in a wave election. Usually, a relatively high turnout is mostly because of one particular demographic turning out in full, and compared to the anemic turnout of other demographics in a midterm, that can have a significant effect.