Redux of 1994 is Unlikely

[ccharles000]

By Nathan L. Gonzales

Having just lost the White House and facing smaller minorities in the House and the Senate, Republicans begin the 2010 election cycle in a remarkably similar position to where they were in 1993 — just one year before the GOP’s historic sweep of Congress.

At least on paper.

But while on the surface the landscape is similar, a closer examination of today’s Republican Party reveals significant weaknesses and a steeper climb back to the majority.

By the numbers, the GOP has an almost identical starting point in the House and the Senate as it did in 1993. Republicans held 176 seats in the House and 43 seats in the Senate at the beginning of the 103rd Congress, compared with 178 House seats and 41 Senate seats in the 111th.

With a volatile economy and President Barack Obama’s expansive recovery plans, some Republicans are sensing that the 2010 elections could be a replay of the 1994 GOP tsunami.

“A ‘yes’ vote on top of the stimulus vote could beat enough Democrats to get Republicans back into the majority,” former Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) said in a recent interview.

http://rothenbergpoliticalreport.blogspot.com/2009/04/redux-of-1994-is-unlikely.html

[Wetzelbill]

1. demographics are tougher for the GOP now

Plus 1994 was before they got all the power they ever wanted and completely blew it by nearly destroying the country. Now those same ideas don't resonate. It's hard to sound fresh and anti-status quo when you're running on ideas that are stale and proven failures.

[virginia mountainman]

2. Not to mention, talk of gun control..

I cannot believe that some are still pushing that, after our losses in 1994.

[villager]

3. I cannot believe that some are still single-issue obsessed that way, with so much of the world....

...falling apart...

[virginia mountainman]

4. Those that forget the past, are doomed to repeat it.

I got my fill of massive defeat back then, I learnt the lesson well.

I saw this issue turn many many, good people away from us, first hand and in person.

[Skittles]

6. good people don't think single issue

fucking stupid morons do

[virginia mountainman]

19. Damn straight...

Why does Finestien and McCarthy keep bringing it up?

[Yukari Yakumo]

21. One problem

Most people aren't that bright.

[Abq_Sarah]

22. Right... single issues like

The Constitution of the United states. I guess you'd have to be a "fucking stupid moron" to care about that.

[depakid]

7. They're not

and 1994 had nothing to do with assault weapons.

Paul Loeb describes the dynamic exactly as I remember it:

Think about 1994. Pundits credited major Republican victories to angry white men, Hillary's failed healthcare plan, and Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America." But the defeat was equally rooted in a massive withdrawal of volunteer support among Democratic activists who felt politically betrayed. Nothing fostered this sense more than Bill Clinton's going to the mat to push the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

Angered by a sense that he was subordinating all other priorities to corporate profits, and by his cavalier attitude toward the hollowing out of America's industrial base, labor, environmental and social-justice activists nationwide withdrew their energy from Democratic campaigns. This helped swing the election, much as the continued extension of these policies (particularly around dropping trade barriers with China) led just enough Democratic leaning voters in 2000 to help elect George Bush by staying home or voting for Ralph Nader.

No place saw a more dramatic political shift than my home state of Washington. In November 1992, Democratic activists volunteered by the thousands, hoping to end the Reagan-Bush era. On Election Day, I joined five other volunteers to help get out the vote in a swing district 20 miles south of Seattle. Volunteers had a similar presence in every major Democratic or competitive district in the state. The effort helped Clinton to carry the state and Democrats to capture eight out of nine House seats.

But by 1994 grass-roots Democratic campaigners mostly stayed home, disgruntled. In Washington State, there were barely enough people to distribute literature and make phone calls in Seattle's most liberal neighborhoods, let alone in swing suburban districts. Republicans won seven of our nine congressional races, and reelected a Senator known for baiting environmentalists.

The same was true nationwide.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-loeb/hillary-and-the-politics-_b_73957.html

[Median Democrat]

11. Well, Also 1994 and 2010 Are Not Presidential Election Years - Lower Turnout Is Certain

Many Democrats won by riding Obama's organizational coatails. However, in 2010, there is no unified get out the vote operation. Also, what about the conserva-dems. Will activists just give them a free pass in the primaries?

[Drunken Irishman]

5. I'll go on record right now and say Republicans lose even more seats in 2010.

[WI_DEM]

10. I like your enthusiasm, but I expect the GOP will gain seats in both the house and senate

especially if the economy isn't in a much better condition than it is today. Remember that jobless numbers are sometimes as much as six-months to a year behind the beginning of a recovery. If unemployment is hovering at 9 or 10% in November, 2010, it is only natural that the opposition party will gain some ground, but I doubt it will be another 1994.

[damonm]

12. Time will tell...

but I believe you to be utterly mistaken. The political tide is flowing the OPPOSITE direction as in 1994 - then the tide of Reaganism was still flowing high, and the GOP had a positive agenda. Now the Reagan tide has gone, and the Republicans have NOTHING but opposition to offer. Opposition loses elections.
Moreover, we've had plenty of opportunity to see what Republican rule creates - and people have soundly rejected it in not one, but TWO consecutive election cycles. Also, 1990 and 1992, IIRC, saw minor gains for the GOP as opposed to the shattering losses they've been dealt in 2006 and 2008.
No, we are looking more at a 1934 model as opposed to a 1994. The GOP needs to find something to stand for (that it hasn't already proven itself NOT to), and FAST, or it will be facing near-total irrelevance by 2012.

[paulk]

14. the map doesn't favor the GOP in 2010

http://www.rollcall.com/issues/54_54/politics/29929-1.html

Six of the Republican seats held by incumbents are considered up for grabs - the Democrats can go on the offensive again.

[DrToast]

15. Agree. 2012 favors the Republicans, not 2010.

[Abq_Sarah]

23. If you look at history

It's likely they'll pick up a couple of seats, particularly in the house. The Senate, not so much. 2012 will be the election to look at in terms of large pickups on either side.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Optical.Catalyst]

9. Statistics on paper are one thing, but the voters know the truth about Republicans this time

With the ability to get the truth out through internet sites like the Democratic Underground, the average voter is much more informed about the true nature of the Republican Party these days. Illegal wars, torture, no bid contracts, spying through the Patriot Act, and manipulation of the legal system to achieve goals are all plain for the American people to see.

The obstructionist, hate filled Republicans will lose more seats in 2010, lose the Presidential election in 2012 and cease to be a viable political party after that.

It is our obligation to our country to hasten the replacement of the Republican Party with a new right of center party as soon as possible. No compromise with the Pukes! We must crush them at every turn in the legislative bodies and not let them have anymore input into running our country.

The Republicans had their chance, and they blew it.

[Abq_Sarah]

24. Actually, I'd be perfectly happy if the average American

Never knew this site existed. The majority of the country is not as far left as we are at DU.

[Optical.Catalyst]

26. ?

[wyldwolf]

13. the biggest differences beyond the issue IMO

In '94, the GOP had been laying the groundwork for their sweep through several years of gerrymandering.

We're not faced with dozens of retiring Democrats from areas that were trending red in '94.

The Christian Coalition, who had their biggest voter mobilization in their history in '94, is now on the downswing.

In the early 90s there was a decidedly anti-incumbent feeling in the country. Now, there is a decidedly anti-GOP feeling in the country.

[Drunken Irishman]

18. And the last Republican president wasn't a complete failure.

Remember, when H.W. Bush left office, he actually held an approval rating of +50%. Not even close to where his son was.

Even though Clinton won in 1992 by a fairly sizable margin, the Republican brand was not nearly as bad as it is today.

[ShadowLiberal]

20. Actually there's a bit of evidence of a possible anti-incumbent environment developing

Take a look at a few states where incumbents are polling very badly lately, off the top of my head.

-California's republican governor
-New York's democratic governor
-New Jersey's democratic governor
-Democratic senator Chris Dodd in Connecticut

All of those are incumbents who are getting the blame for a lot of bad things going on lately.

There are other incumbents also polling badly, like republican senator Bunning, and democratic senator Burris, but those two would be polling badly in any environment.

[Abq_Sarah]

25. Anti incumbent sentiments

Make a lot of sense. After all, who in the hell was it sitting in the congress over the years that helped get us where we are today? If there were anyone credible willing to challenge my congressmen, I'd consider voting against them in a primary.

[cwcwmack]

16. yeah...

pubs are split down the center right now between the wealthy, libertarians and the fundies...

[Proud Liberal Dem]

17. I have been worried about 2010 being like 1994 since Obama was elected

but I just really don't see it happening in 2010 and probably not in 2012 absent something happening with Obama and the Democrats in Congress that I can't even imagine right now. The GOP doesn't have a coherent unified vision or agenda, no charismatic (or at least rational) leadership, most people seemingly have bigger and more important things to worry about than their neighbor's bedroom activities and/or reproductive health, nothing they've been pushing (WHAT have they been pushing anyway?) seems to be resonating with with anybody- not to mention the whole blatant hypocrisy of their public diatribes against excessive government spending and deficits. In short, people wanted "change" from Bushian policies in 2006 & 2008 still apparently want "change" and all the GOP seems to be able/willing to offer is opposition to it, as well as anything that would improve the lives of anybody but them (and their cronies, of course). Not going to find a lot of people beyond the wealthiest 1% to rally around THAT flag. Their only other strategy pretty much boils down to sitting around listening to Rush Limbaugh and hoping and praying that Obama fails- believing that if and when he does, they'll be eagerly welcomed back into the halls of power by the American public. To believe that would happen, however, would require IMHO a severely delusional mind.

The best that they can probably hope for is maybe a few scattered house seats and quite possibly Chris Dodd's Senate seat due to some of the things that have come out about him recently. However, he may well be in a stronger position by next year if things begin improving for the average person. Also, Republicans are virtually extinct in New England right now. I'm not expecting a GOP tidal wave (or anything remotely like 1994) in 2010, however. I'm also going to go on the record here and predict that, absent some political catastrophe for Obama and/or Democrats in general or the emergence of some massively popular Republican Presidential candidate (i.e. Sarah Palin or Bobby Jindal- just kidding!), Obama will be re-elected to a second term.