1994 Republican Rout Is Casting Shadow in 2010

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/12/us/politics/12elect.html?ref=todayspaper

<snip>
WASHINGTON — The year was 1994. Congressional Democrats were battered after a failed fight to pass a health care bill. It was the first midterm election for a new Democratic president, Bill Clinton. By overwhelming numbers, Americans thought the country was heading in the wrong direction, had unfavorable views of the president and Congress, and said it was time for new leadership in Washington.

That fall, Republicans swept to power, capturing 9 seats in the Senate and 52 in the House.

<snip>
“Obama has done the same kind of overreach that Clinton did back then with the tax increases and the crime bill,” said Joe Gaylord, the Gingrich adviser who directed the 1994 takeover strategy, and who is now advising Mr. Gingrich on a potential presidential run.

“I was just looking at some survey data this morning, and in every area now — from health care to education to balancing the budget to foreign policy — the Republicans have a lead over Democrats, policywise,” Mr. Gaylord said. “That makes it very much like 1994.”

<snip>
Moreover, the Republican Party has a different image than it did in 1994. At that time, Republicans had been out of control of Congress for long enough that they were able to present themselves as the party of change. They were viewed unfavorably by just 39 percent of Americans. By contrast, 57 percent said in February that they had an unfavorable view of Republicans in a New York Times/CBS News poll.

<snip>
Democrats also have fewer seats to defend. In 1994, Democrats had 28 retirements, putting many districts on the table that otherwise would have been safe. Last week, Representative Bart Stupak of Michigan announced that he would not seek re-election, pushing the number of Democrats who are retiring this year to 20, equal to the number of Republicans who are retiring. The number is still relatively low, though not as low as Democrats would have liked.

Perhaps more significant, in 1994 Democrats headed into the fall campaign after passing a crime bill that included a ban on assault weapons. The bill led to a backlash among independent voters, particularly in the South, which many Democrats argue was as much a factor in Democratic setbacks as the health care debacle.

.........more

If any, the baggers candidates will siphon off Thug votes.

I do not see the Republicans winning the House or the Senate.

Perhaps if the Democrats did not fight back, they might get enough voters to win back the House? I don't think that is going to happen. I think the battles are going to get intense.

I have long memories of his establishmentarian tripe from the 2006 and 2008 cycles.

2010 is NOTHING like it other than that Democrats are in power.

The key will be energizing traditionally complacent voters for the Democratic majority to show up at the polls. It's a function of being in the majority already which has taken some of the steam out of Democratic voters. We need an energizing issue.

If he's so brilliant where's that 'permanent Republican majority' we used to hear so much about?

which has been deplorable, for the most part. It will simply be because the tea-bagger candidates are so wildly lame and crazy.

So we've got the corporatist status quo, and the whacko votes.

Can we get a voice of reason in there somewhere?

The numbers don't reflect the public opinions they keep pumping, and the Tea Party factional split in the Republican base is going to wreak bloody havoc for the GOP. Michael Steele isn't helping; his shenanigans have created a fundraising nightmare for the RNC.

So, yeah, I'll believe it when I see it.