2010, you're no 1994.

[WilliamPitt]

Some Revolution
Why the 2010 election will not be a repeat of 1994.

Ed Kilgore
The New Republic

In political circles, Republicans and Democrats alike have begun comparing the 2010 election with the "revolution" that handed both the House and the Senate to the GOP in 1994. But how applicable is that analogy, really? On the surface, the comparison is plausible. In 1994, as now, a charismatic outsider took office amid general unhappiness with the record of his Republican predecessor. Then, as now, the president decided to make health care reform a signature issue despite widespread concerns about the economy, taxes, and federal budget deficits. And, as now, Republicans responded with an abrasive political strategy that energized their conservative base, at a time when Democrats were seemingly divided between centrists and liberals discouraged by the new president’s perceived centrist path.

It's impossible, however, to draw concrete conclusions from such superficial observations. A more disconcerting parallel for Democrats might be the scope of their recent winning streak. In the elections leading up to both 1994 and 2010, Democratic victories, particularly in the House, left the party somewhat over-exposed. In 1994, 46 of the 258 House Democrats were in districts carried by President George H.W. Bush in 1992. The numbers are comparable today, where 49 of the 257 House Democrats are in districts carried by John McCain, with only 34 Republicans in districts carried by Barack Obama. Similarly, if you apply the Partisan Voting Index, (PVI), which compares a district’s prior presidential results to national averages, you find that there are 66 Democrats in districts with a Republican PVI and only 15 Republicans in districts with a Democratic PVI--a similar situation to the 79 Democrats in Republican districts in 1994. Clearly, two straight "wave" elections have eliminated most of the low-hanging fruit for Democrats in the House, and created some ripe targets for the GOP.

But that's where the fear-inducing similarities end. The Republicans' 1994 victory in the House was also enabled by a large number of Democratic retirements: Twenty-two of the 54 seats the GOP picked up that year were open. By comparison, the authoritative (and subscription-only) Cook Political Report counts only four open, Democrat-held House seats in territory that is even vaguely competitive. That low number of open seats is significant because it limits the number of seats Republicans can win; if there is a similar wave of retirements in the offing for 2010, the signs have yet to materialize.

The 1994 parallels appear even more tendentious in the Senate. In 1994, Democrats lost eight of the 22 seats they defended, six of which were open. Republicans had only 13 seats to defend, and three of them were open. In 2010, however, the situation lopsidedly favors Democrats. Republicans have to defend 19 of their seats, seven of which are open. Meanwhile, Democrats have to defend 19 seats, only three of which are open. For Republicans to take the Senate, Democrats would have to lose eleven seats without picking off a single Republican. There’s no modern precedent for a tsunami that large.

More: http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/some-revolution

[Craftsman]

1. If decent Jobs do not come back 2010 could make us long for 1994

[alp227]

6. You mean before the republicans took back congress?

What do you mean? It turns out that when Republicans were controlling Congress while Clinton was in office (1995-2000) the economy was so much better, but when Bush came in the economy went into recession. Which party's fault is it really? I think it's silly how members of each party are blaming each other for this mess.

[JackRiddler]

11. Actually 1995-2000 and 2000 forward are the same economy...

One develops into the next, very logically, and the big trend if anything started in the 1970s with the adoption of what's now called neoliberalism as the response to the economic crises of that time. The strategy: deregulation, privatization, "free trade," military Keynesianism, breaking unions, corporate socialism, tax cuts for the rich and deficits rather than taxation, suppression of the poor via drug war, workfare and the prison complex. All without addressing the most pressing problems of our times: overconsumption, pollution, oil addiction. While usually identified as Republican, most of these policies were also carried out under Clinton and led to a 30 year stagnation in wages, the replacement of wages through credit, and, very logically, a series of bubble and burst phenomena that culminated in the present depression.

[Overseas]

18. Excellent points. Succinct way of describing the right wing hardball

we've been subjected to for the past quarter century at least-- and they're amping things up because the corporations know how many more of us are fed up with waiting upon the Grand Trickle Down. Many more have sunk in our boats waiting for that dang rising tide to lift us.

Privatization has been a monumental flop. But there's a strong cadre of tough corporations that will fight to keep it going. That is their job. They need to make the public forget about our soldiers being electrocuted in their showers.

I am surprised to hear people asking-- "tell me one thing the government can do better!" -- in a smug way. The real question should be-- show me one government service that has been privatized that is now run more cost effectively.

I honestly can't think of one that compares with the harm privatization has done. Privatization has destroyed our military and global reputation, and ravaged our individual health security by selling us broken insurance that drops us when we need it most and bankrupts us in our hours of greatest need; just to start with the top two.

Privatization is ipso facto less efficient. The private shareholders need their profits and the Astoundingly Worthwhile CEOs need their multimillion-dollar pay packages, right off the top. That's 20% right there. We can line up for-profit insurance companies against Medicare and there's a glaring example. www.sickforprofit.com

Apparently, if we are seriously looking for government contracting fraud when we target ACORN, they are way small potatoes. We know already about billions wasted on the shoddy, reckless work that has been done by Cheney's Halliburton, KBR and the upstart Blackwater/Xe, but there are many others. I hadn't realized that established defense giants were on the list too.

POGO’s Federal Contractor Misconduct Database is a great place to start. At last count, it includes 87 instances of government contract fraud – federal and state – involving 43 contractors. You might want to focus on Lockheed Martin, which has 11 government contract fraud instances, or Northrop Grumman with 9 contract fraud instances including this $325 million False Claims Act settlement from earlier this year.

Bear in mind that, since 1994, ACORN has reportedly received a total of $53 million in federal funds, or an average of roughly $3.5 million per year. In contrast, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman respectively received over $35 billion and $18 billion in federal contracts last year. (Their totals since 2000 are $266 billion for Lockheed and $125 billion for Northrop.)

Congress should clamp down on contractor fraud and waste, but it needs to keep a sense of proportion. If ACORN broke the law it, should be punished; however, Congress also needs to crack down just as rigorously on the contractors who take an even larger share of taxpayers’ money and have committed far more, or far more egregious, acts of misconduct. POGO hopes the mentality behind bills like the “Defund ACORN Act,” combined with the new contractor / grantee responsibility database and mandatory misconduct reporting rule, reflects a new zero-tolerance attitude toward contractor misconduct.

http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2009/09/if-congress-attacks-the-mighty-oak-of-contractor-misconduct-it-shouldnt-just-settle-for-an-acorn.html

[WilliamPitt]

2. Interesting poll

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/09/premature_conflagration.php?ref=fpblg

[Proud Liberal Dem]

3. Nothing more than wishful thinking by the Pubs, "Teabaggers"

Absent some kind of cataclysmic downturn in the political fortunes of Obama and/or the Democrats within the next year that would force me to reconsider, I don't see the Pubs anywhere close to re-taking the House OR the Senate next year. Some seats might certainly switch hands, particularly in the House of Representatives but overall the Democrats should remain solidly in charge of both houses IMHO.

[Gman]

4. The supposed "check-kiting scheme" scandal in the summer of 1994

caused more damage than anything else. The scandal (which wasn't a scandal as the House members had what amounted to overdraft protection) took advantage of an anti-incumbent sentiment and exacerbated the losses for Dems. I've yet to hear Hannity mention this while he talks about taking back Congress next year saying, "It's withing reach!"

[ShortnFiery]

5. I hope some blue dogs are primaried by progressives.

:evilgrin:

[Overseas]

19. I do too.

[old mark]

7. The GOP lies to improve their image, then they start believing their lies.

I predict the Republicans will lose 10 more seats, and the idea will sink in to some of the remaining party members that they are on an unsuccessful course. This will serve to widen the split between the few remaining "real people" in the GOP and the snake handling Very Right who run the program. The "moderates" will leave again, maybe to form another party, maybe to bring the Dems further right.

The 2012 elections will be a disaster for the GOP that may nearly kill the elephant for good.

mark

[tridim]

10. Agreed, their only chance is to steal it.

I LOL every time the MSM claims the GOP is making a comeback. It's nowhere near reality, more like wishful thinking.

[Demeter]

12. The GOP Comeback Is as Much a Fiction as the Economic Comeback

and strangely enough, they are linked together. The decline of the economy killed the GOP like no other stupidity they committed could.

[grantcart]

8. k and r

[X_Digger]

9. Also, no pre-AWB scare as in '94

Clinton was on the record in 93 as endorsing Schumer's biased report that purported to show AWBs used in a disproportionate amount of crime.

[Stevepol]

13. Elections in the US are in the hands of ES&S. Precedents mean little or nothing.

[Winterblues]

14. Isn't that a Venezuela Company?

:shrug;

[Wetzelbill]

15. The demographics don't add up for the GOP

However he brings up a good point with the older voters. I doubt this will be a huge GOP victory though. I am thinking it'll be more likely a stalemate than anything.

on edit:

Waaaay early though, I may change my mind a year from now. :)

[placton]

16. Sorry Will - you are wrong

What Mr. Obama and They-Who-Have-No-Spines have done is eliminate the straight ticket enthused Dem voter. I've been a Dem longer than most - but will never vote a straight ticket again. No, I won't vote another party - no fool I. But:
-no more contributions to DSCC et al
-Mr. Obama will have to win (if he does) re-election without my vote.

I am sick of being treated to the proposition that "we have no place else to go." Been there, done that, got this.

[madokie]

17. Personally I'm not worried about loosing seats in either the house or senate

I think there is enough of us to see what the problem here is and it's not democrats, it's the lying thieving no good republicons causing the problems in our country.