The party out of power historically picks up seats in midterm elections.
Posted by The Kuhner Report, Checked
- Sources
- 5 support3 context
- Said
- 1 time·
- Confidence
- 85%
The Kuhner ReportOct 26, 2026
Multiple sources, including Reuters, AP, Britannica and Al Jazeera, show that midterms typically cost the president's party seats, which means the out-of-power party usually gains. The claim's dropped word "always" makes it a historical generalization, and sources note the trend is weaker in the Senate, where out-of-power gains are less consistent.
What was said
… They're insisting that the polling is off, that there's going to be no blue wave on November 3, that the Republicans are going to hold the House, and they're going to hold the Senate, and they're gonna defy history and historical precedent. Usually, the party that's out of power always picks up seats in the midterms. Democrats are out of power; they should pick up seats. It's a razor thin majority in the House to begin with, and it's quite close in the Senate. …
The Kuhner Report · · from the transcriptPost →What we found
Supports. Reuters reports that over the past 80 years the president's party has nearly always lost seats in the House, the Senate or both, implying the out-of-power party usually gains.[1]
Supports. AP reports that midterms are historically challenging for a president's party and that losses typically ensue; Al Jazeera finds the president's party lost House seats in 18 of 20 midterms from 1946 to 2022.[2][3]
Supports. Britannica and the Inquirer state that the party controlling the White House typically loses seats in midterms, and that out-of-power parties typically pick up seats.[4][5]
Context. The Senate does not follow the pattern as cleanly: Guardian Capital notes the president's party gained Senate seats in only seven of 23 midterms since 1934, and Khan Academy puts the Senate loss rate at about 70% versus 93% in the House.[6][7][8]
Context. The claim's extraction dropped the word "always" from the post, so the graded claim is the weaker historical-tendency version, which the sources support.
Sources
8 sources: 2 fact-checkers, 6 not rated
- 1The midterm downturnreuters.com · fact-checker · cited for: supports
- 2Republicans face a midterm reckoning of Trump's makingapnews.com · fact-checker · cited for: supports
- 3How the president's party has fared in every US midterm election since 1946aljazeera.com · not rated · cited for: supports
- 4United States midterm elections | Definition, History ...britannica.com · not rated · cited for: supports
- 5Six advantages for Democrats in the midterms ... and six advantages for Republicansinquirer.com · not rated · cited for: supports
- 6Why the party in power (usually) loses in the Housekrem.com · not rated · cited for: context
- 7Does the president's party usually gain or lose seats at the ...khanacademy.org · not rated · cited for: context
- 8Viewpoint: Midterm study notes - Guardian Capitalguardiancapital.com · not rated · cited for: context
Where this claim was made
Said in 1 published post
Related claims
- A sitting president has picked up seats for his party in midterm elections only twice in the last 90 years.Can’t tell
- The generic ballot polling average is plus 11 for Democrats.False
- Democrats will gain control of the House of Representatives in January 2027.Can’t tell
- The highest recorded midterm election turnout in history is approximately 50%.True
- Democrats are ahead in generic polling across the board.True