Why did the election turn out as it did in terms of balance of power beteen Democrats and Republicans?

Question

Please be descriptive

i meant "between"
sorry

Answer 1

to cut it short: Because of Bush.

the long answer is that people were fed up with bush and The republican congress. There was so much corruption and hypocrisies- not things that will get you elected- that The voters delivered such a strong message. Bush's mismanagement of well, just about everything got voters good and mad. And A lot of republicans did not vote because they had noone they wanted to vote FOR. So they didn't.

Answer 2

Actually, it really WASN'T all about Bush. Looking back through history, this happens every time to a two-term President. It happened to Clinton, it happened to Reagan - it happens all the time.

"The media have largely ignored the inherent disadvantage the Republicans face. Sixth-year midterms have gone poorly for two-term incumbents over the last 60 years. In the six "sixth-year-itch" midterms since World War II, the incumbent party has averaged a loss of six Senate seats, compared to an average of three in second-year midterms. In four of those six races, the opposite party won control of the House, and in three of those four years picked up 47 or 48 seats. One could predict a major uphill battle for Republicans based on these statistics alone." (continued at 1st link)

~*~*~

Republicans Out-Performed Sixth-Year Curse

by Kevin Combest
Posted Nov 13, 2006
The Republican losses in last week’s midterm elections continued an almost unbroken trend in U.S. politics: The party of a sitting President loses congressional seats in his sixth year in office.

Since the Civil War, the President’s party has lost an average of 47 seats in the House in his sixth year in office. Only President Bill Clinton confounded this trend, when Democrats picked up five seats in 1998, but failed to overturn a Republican House majority. (see 2nd link below)

Answer 3

A previous answer said it was not entirely about President Bush. Actually, it wasn't even partially about President Bush. It was about replacing members of congress that did not spend their time in office doing what they were sent there to do in the first place. The new members didn't win so much as the formers members lost.