Question for the political science and history buffs in the room about The Great Romp.

[Montauk6]

I've heard comparisons between this recent victory with the Democrats and the GOP takeover of the legislature during Clinton's first term (remember the Republican Revolution, the Contract Out On America, etc.).

My question is whether this is a water holding comparison. For example, isn't it true that quite a few seats were gained AFTER the incumbents chose not to run? In hindsight, I find it hard to believe that Spencer Abraham of all people would've defeated Don Riegle for the Michigan seat in the US Senate.

Also, was there not a general disgruntlement about government that the GOP skillfully manipulated and exploited (in fact, a sub-question is wasn't the country still in recovery from the economic policies of Pappy Bush that carried over?) versus last week's definitive specific rejection of Republican policy on both the war and domestic front?

I'd appreciate any thoughts.

[happyslug]

1. First the GOP captured a LOT of State Legislatures in the late 1980s.

This permitted the GOP to gerrymander most states in favor of the GOP following the 2000 Census. The unpopularity of Bush Senior and the Popularity of Clinton kept most of the seats Democratic in 1992 but when Clinton passed the tax increase to reduce the deficient, the GOP exploited this in the pro-gerrymandered districts. Thus even BEFORE the 1994 election cycle started the GOP was in the Driver's Seat.

As to the "Contract with America" it was a continuance of the attack on Clinton's policy of Raising Taxes to reduce the deficient AND an attack on Clinton's proposal to provide National Health Insurance. Upper Middle Class and Working Class People had become scared about the costs of National Health Insurance do to the attacks on Clinton's Plan. The GOP "Solution" was to increase tax incentives to pay for Health Insurance. This sounded good even through it did NOTHING for the uninsured, but the Uninsured were mostly Democrats in Districts gerrymandered with as many Democrats as possible so to make as many GOP seats as possible. Thus the GOP gave up on the uninsured (If they ever had any thought to getting the uninsured health insurance).

The third factor was the overall Media attitude that 1994 was going to be a GOP year. This was stated almost as a given. One of the factors in any election is people want to vote for the Winner, thus if you are perceived to be the "Winner" even before voting take place, people will vote for you. If you are a supporter of a "Loser" you tend not to even get out and vote. The news report was always about how MUCH the GOP was going to win, not on WHY the GOP should win. THe GOP even attacked Clinton for only having won because Peroit had run in 1992, thus even Clinton was painted as a "Loser" by the GOP and this was spread by the Media.

Just my opinion of someone who lived through that election, but these three factors was why the GOP won in 1994. In the 1990 the GOP retained controlled of most the state Legislature so that they were even able to expand the number of pro-GOP seats after the 2000 Census (And bragged about "Expanding the number of seats the GOP controlled in the 2002 mid-term election, one of the few times the Party in power EXPANDED the number of Seats in the House).

The Gerrymandering is by far the most important. This is why who is your state Representative is so important. It is also so you how decisive this election is given that most House Seats are more pro-GOP than pro-Democrat. This election is a call by the Voters to END the war in Iraq AND to get this economy going. The call on the economy is more from the Working Class than the Upper Middle Class for the later is not yet hurting (Through many are hurting and voted their pocket books in the last election).

Thus the significance of this election is the gain by Democrats of traditional GOP groups, how long these groups will stay Democratic no one knows, but for now the Democrats are viewed as NOT being the GOP. For that reason the Democrats MUST show the Country what they are FOR in the next two years (Even if Bush vetoes what the Democrats pass).

[Gman]

2. It was the classic loss of seats for the party in the WH

in off year elections. The GOP was quite successful stirring up a lot of problems including faux alarm about Hillary's health care plan. Then they took advantage of a really minor issue about House members actually overdrafting checks from the House bank. They took these and a few other issues and stirred up a lot of discontent. They ran a text book national campaign with the Contract On America and the rest is history.

[wyldwolf]

3. 1994

Several things in play:

The proverbial straw the broke the camel's back was rubbergate or as it is officially called, The House banking scandal. Republican Minority Whip Newt Gingrich, along with 7 freshman Republicans referred to as the Gang of Seven or “The Young Turks,” made the strategic decision to publicize the scandal in an attempt to sweep lawbreaking congressmen, most of them Democrats, out of power.

This was just icing on the cake for a public who had grown distrustful of government. Democrats had run the show in Congress for most of the prior 40 years and the public took out their frustration on them.

(sources and further explanations available on request.)