Those who think this was lots worse than '94 are wrong...

[WI_DEM]

It was bad, don't get me wrong, but it wasn't too much worse than '94 and in some instances better.

In the Governor's races GOP had a net gain of 5 (IL, MN & CT look good for Dems to retain)--in '94 they had a net gain of 12.

In the Senate the GOP gained 6 seats--in '94 they gained 8 seats and the Senate switched hands from the Dems to the GOP--Dems will keep the upper chamber--and not by just a seat--final should be 53.

In the House, yes it is worse, but not dramatically so. In '94 when Unemployment was under 6% the Dems lost 54 House seats and control of the House. In '10 with unemployment at nearly 10% the Dems are projected to lose between 63-65 seats.

[denem]

1. +1 Add Citizens United and Fox into the mix,

but then again, they will still be around in 2012.

[emulatorloo]

2. Rachel Maddow did a historical perspective with charts last night.

The point being that it is NORMAL to lose seats in a midterm election after a Pres election.

Made comparison to '94 and reiterated, no that was MUCH worse.

At the end of her show, excellent if you can find it somewhere.

I sort of feel if all DU'ers watched Rachel Maddow show there would be less daily hysteria.

[ColesCountyDem]

3. '94 was MUCH worse! n/t

[Rageneau]

4. Difference was, in 1994, we had Clinton -- someone who knew how to fight the GOP.

Now, we have Obama, who still (unaccountably) seems to think the GOP are his pals.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

5. LMAO - and people here think Clinton was practically a Republican himself.

God this place spins heads.