>
>That last is absolutely true. No "I'm not a witch" candidates, no "legitimate rape" candidates, etc.
>
>FWIW, heard a couple of interesting things yesterday. First, since WWII, every president who has had a Senate majority to lose in his year 6 midterm has lost it. Second, going back to FDR, average 6th year losses for the president's party are about 30 in the House (thought I heard 45 yesterday, but I don't know what time frame that was for) and 5.5 in the Senate. In the results I can find so far, looks like the Republicans are up 10 in the house, with a dozen or so still to be decided.
>
>Not surprising that in the Senate, the 6th year is particularly bad for the president's party, since that's when the folks elected along with his first victory come up.
>

Yes, in the sixth year, elections generally don't go well for the incumbent president, but there are 2 key points. Even in prior administrations where the 6th year didn't go well, this administration had bad losses in both 2010 "and" 2014. 28 Senators who voted for ACA are gone, and every R senator who won campaigned on either repeal or significant changes. Second, the wave of Republican victories in governor races. I'm not sure how much people realize how significant it is that you now have Republican governors in both Illinois and Maryland.

Those 2 pieces of information are more powerful than the statement Rachel Maddow must have repeated 100 times, that basically, "oh well, the incumbent president's party usually doesn't do well in year 6, so there's nothing significant here, it's now become common".

Again, this was not a mandate on any benefits of the Republican party. This was a resounding defeat of the current president and his party. I hold little hope that the Rs know what to do with this victory, but we shall see.