The average loss suffered by a party in power in the White House in the second mid-term of their term is 29 House seats.
Or take WLW in Cincinnati, where I went in late 1994 to do a story about the rise of conservative talk-radio hosts who had contributed no little to that year's stunning mid-term defeat of their Democratic bête noire Bill Clinton.
The GOP has cultivated the mid-term as their base of power over the last three decades, leveraging the 7 "D"s to make the 3 in 10 registered Republicans, and some disaffected independents who lean Republican, into a dominating political force.
More are fixated on their own party's fate in the mid-terms of 1994, when the Republicans stormed back and recaptured the House.
Approximately 2.5m Georgians voted, a figure similar to the mid-terms of 2010.
Like the Democrats last November, the president's party was thumped in the mid-terms of 1982.
Not even the sunny disposition of Ronald Reagan could stop his approval ratings plunging as he faced the mid-terms of 1982.
Well before November's mid-term shellacking turfed the Democratic majority out of the House, Obama-watchers wondered whether this president had the ideological flexibility to do what Bill Clinton did in the same predicament after the mid-terms of 1994.
Newt Gingrich, who led the Republican comeback in the mid-terms of 1994, told CPAC that he expected the Democrats to lose both the Senate and the House in the mid-terms.
For reasons I've never completely understood, the Democrats made little effort before the mid-terms of November 2010 to explain or to defend the law on which they had expended so much time, energy and political capital.
But it isn't difficult to imagine her saying, as our Prime Minister said on Monday, at a press conference meant to mark the "mid-term" of the Coalition, that "we can have arguments and still get the job done".
