How Many People here Think 2010 Will be a Repeat of '94?

[Bullet1987]

The RW Machine on FOX News (with the help of other networks) is definitely trying everything it can to make 2010 be a repeat of '94. I haven't been following the Congressional campaigns though...I honestly don't even know how many seats are up for grabs and if it's as many as it was in 1994. But the Republicans would love nothing more than to have a REAL split. Right now they only have power because centrist Blue Dogs allow them to have power (thank Rahm and the DLC for that smart move *sarcasm*). But they know centrist Dems aren't a given and can be swayed by those in the Party. And how could they turn down the chance to call Obama a failure some more?

So to the folks who have been paying attention to this...what do you think will happen as of today? If the 2010 elections were held today, how many seats would we lose or gain in Congress?

[no_hypocrisy]

1. Depends upon the number of electronic voting machines without paper trails.

[OHdem10]

4. As long as you blame it on the machines and not our party, nothing

changes.

BTW, did Obama set those machines in his favor this past election?

Our Party had best prove to Media they can lead. Especially, those
on Capital Hill.

[RaleighNCDUer]

8. If a great many machines had not been rigged in this past election

Obama would have been elected with an overwhelming majority instead of the fairly narrow majority he got.

There WERE many, many instances of fraud this time, just as in the last two elections, but just as in 06, the enemies of democracy underestimated how much they would have to shift to throw the election to the republicans.

[Sebastian Doyle]

10. Ironic that someone from Ohio, of all places, would deny the reality of electro-fraud

Have you forgotten what Blackwell did to deliver a "victory" for the Chimp in 2004?

Obama was able to beat the fraud for one reason: Massive turnout. Electro-fraud only works in "close" elections, because if the "official" results are more than a few percentage points different from what the final pre-election polls (or exit polls) say, then the fraud will be obvious.

Unless something significantly improves between now and the 2010 election, that massive turnout isn't going to be there. Add that to the typical trend of the "opposition" party gaining seats in a mid-term, and there could be trouble even before you add in the electro-fraud damage.

REAL health care reform could guarantee a 2010 Democratic landslide, but will the idiots "inside the beltway" get that reality?

[OHdem10]

17. I do not deny fraud. My point is there are many more registered

Democrats in this country than Republicans. The Democrats
do not vote. I am merely saying we need to do something with
this party so rank and file realize they will have a stake
in the outcome. Come Rain, Sleet, Snow , even fire the
Gop will have their voters out. We need our rank and file
to believe in the Democratic Party. That is all I am saying.
If there are enough consistent turn outs in large numbers, the
Fraud will seem pointless.

One half the country does not vote.

[Sebastian Doyle]

19. "One half the country does not vote. "

You're definitely right about that. And it's the goddamned worthless DLC/Blue Balled Coward "centrists" who are to blame for it. When people feel that neither party represents them, they don't even bother to show up. Another reason why some significant progress (some of that change we were supposed to believe in) needs to happen before November 2010.

[WeDidIt]

2. Net gain of 2 Senate seats and 8 House seats for Dems

You heard it here first.

[vaberella]

31. Woah...Ambitious much. If you get this right I'll do something good for you....

:D I was donna say kiss your ass...but first that's not very sensible and rather crude. :rofl:

[SoFlaJet]

3. I think more like

2002 for the GOP...except for the dems this time around.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

5. It will be a bad mid-term, but probably without the result of 1994

We will probably retain a majority in the House, but smaller.

The mix of seats up in the senate makes losing the senate unlikely.

[TheWraith]

6. Not me, not by a long shot.

The situation isn't the same as 1994. Obama isn't Clinton, the GOP doesn't have Gingrich, and they're not going to have the failure of healthcare and passing of the Assault Weapons Ban to run on.

By the way, you can actually thank Dean for those Blue Dogs. He was the one who pushed to get conservative Democrats recruited for red districts.

As for how many seats are up, it's the same as any federal election: all of the House plus one third of the Senate.

[Zodiak]

12. Please show me where Dean actively recruited conservative Democrats

And also show me how he did it MORE than Rahm Emanuel and Shumer.

Otherwise, take it back....the 50 state strategy had nothing to do with electing Blue Dogs.

Here are some relevant quotes:

"Dean has established a well-earned reputation for tweaking the Democratic establishment, and he didn’t disappoint in his first months on the job at the DNC. He wanted to build a national party, and his plan is to use DNC cash to revive state party offices in all 50 states. Many rolled their eyes at the time — and still do, in fact — at DNC investments in rock-solid Republican states such as Idaho.

But Dean’s vision for expanding the party’s boundaries spread.

In the aftermath of 2004, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid also got the bug. They began recruiting moderate and conservative Democrats who could knock off Republican incumbents in unconventional districts."

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=F26DCC81-18FE-70B2-A82BACAEEA8A2BA7

I don't see Dean getting credit for the Blue dogs here

But I sure do see Emanuel getting credit for it here:

"According to Democratic candidates who ran for House of Representative seats in 2006, Rahm Emanuel, then head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, took sides during the Democratic primary elections, favoring conservative candidates, including former Republicans, and sidelining candidates who were running in favor of withdrawal from Iraq.

Appointed as head of the DCCC by then-House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Emanuel spearheaded the Democratic Party effort to regain control of the House of Representatives during the 2006 election cycle. Emanuel claimed credit for the Democratic takeover and was promoted to chairman of the Democratic Caucus, the fourth-highest ranking position in the House. But his election tactics have been criticized by progressive activists and former Congressional candidates.

According to his critics, Emanuel played kingmaker by financially supporting his favored candidates during primary contests with other Democrats. His critics say that this interference was in direct contradiction of a DCCC policy to "remain neutral" in party primaries."

http://www.truthout.org/article/special-report-democratic-house-officials-recruited-wealthy-conservatives

So please, tell me and PROVE that Dean favored conservatives over progressives, because I do not see it. The cynical side of me says that you are trying to rewrite history.

[TheWraith]

24. You're citing Politico and Truthout?

Two less credible organizations I can't think of.

Despite the desire of the blogosphere to lay all things good at the feet of Dean and all those bad on top of Emanuel, that narrative they're selling bears only the vaguest resemblence to reality. "Favored conservatives over progressives?" Moving the goalposts? Dean and Emanuel supported candidates who could win in districts where other Democrats couldn't. If you want to start purging for 100% ideological purity, you can look over and see where that got the Republicans. Emanuel isn't the boogeyman, and most of the people that he and Dean recruited to run in conservative areas are actually decent representatives--which is why Dean has been out front saying that the Blue Dogs have improved the healthcare bill.

Dean was smart enough to know that the kind of Democrat you run in Maine doesn't win in Nebraska. That's the simple facts no matter how much some armchair quarterbacks in the blogosphere want to avoid acknowledging it. And just because they don't fit your typical view doesn't even mean that they're bad Democrats. You'll notice that the people who are really being a problem are pre-existing DINOs in the Senate like Baucus, Nelson, and Lincoln, not the House Blue Dogs or any of the other people like Jim Webb who would qualify as a "conservative Democrat" under the definitions used by people here on DU.

[Zodiak]

27. Do you dispute what is in the sources?

Or does a broad-brush attack of the source suit you for the sophistry you seek? Of course followed by an attack on the blogosphere of which YOU ARE A PART OF?

You cited no sources at all yourself, so your fucking OPINION is supposed to be greater than two cited sources? You think too much of yourself, which is not a surprise when it comes to people who try to rewrite history.

Is this what you call debating? I call it throwing shit all over the place and hoping some of it sticks because you know you've been called on the carpet and cannot deliver shit.

I asked you to prove your assertions....so DO IT!

You fail horribly, as expected. Learn to debate somewhere other than romper-room because your miles of bullshit are not gong to allow you to rewrite history concerning Dean and Emanuel and 2006 on this site. You can blather about bullshit all you want, but your sophistry is hanging out for all to see.

And the funny thing is...you probably would not be defending Emanuel at Dean's expense if Dean was the Chief of Staff, would you? It's all about licking the boots of the administration. It's fucking disgusting and laughable at the same time.

[Sebastian Doyle]

22. Dean made wins in "red states" possible with his 50 state strategy

Emanuel and Schumer abused that advantage and made sure that weak "centrist" phonies ran for the seats.

Don't blame Dean for the blue-balled cowards.

[xxqqqzme]

50. You are way off base - Dean did not recruit

blue dogs. Lay that disaster on the desk of the recruiter - devoted DLCer Rahm Emanuel. Rahm actually recruited blue dogs to run against progressive Democrats and refused to release DCCC funds to progressive candidates. You might want to ask the people who worked on Jerry McNerney's (CA-11) campaign how much 'help' they got from the DCCC in '06.

5776 Stoneridge Mall Road
#175
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Phone: [phone]

Or I can save you the trouble - NONE!

[Clio the Leo]

7. Read this if you haven't already....

"GOP Faces Multiple Hurdles as It Aims for a 1994 Replay"
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125495123152271693.html

[SoFlaJet]

9. link not available Clio...

could you copy and paste the highlights for us?

[Clio the Leo]

13. whoops, I boo booed the link, it's fixed now

here it is again...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125495123152271693.html

[rvablue]

11. Not even close. The GOP might have the distorting FOX on their side, but 1994 was void of

some other media entities that aren't going to allow the GOP to get away with it again.

Namely, this series of tubes exists and the RW echo chamber and smear machine can't pollute news of the day without being called on...by, oh, US! And Kos and TPM and Media Matters and, well, you get the picture.

There also weren't popular truth speakers like KO and Rachel and John Stewart to call liars, distortors and fear mongers to the mat.

So, no, it's not like 1994.....not one bit.

[Grinchie]

43. You actually think the RW have to do the work -- Man are you deluded

The Democrats have effictively castrated themselves and are about to eat their own testicles with a bit of Soy Sauce. The clusterfuck that has been the series of lame assed appointments, and frantic quickness to restart the Clinto regime from the first day after the election is not lost on the many of Democrats who watched in horror and the Clinton Gang manifested itself back into the Halls of power, only now working the levers of the Executive powers granted by Bush and the Patriot Act.

We watched as the previous administration was given a free lunch and a get out of Jail free card, while they supped at the table of the Federal Reserve to continue to stupid policies that led up to the Economic crash.

Then, we have the well played clusterfuck that is called Healthcare Reform, where the Democrats cannibalize each other to the point where people from both sides are literally digusted by the activities.

No, this is different this time. It's different because the Planet is out of time, and we can't let the assholes flounder around trying to come up with a plan. We need action on so many fronts, yet the Obama Administration is stuck in the Clinto mode of "Conversation" instead of Action.

Sorry folks, I lived through one Clinto administration, and I now recognize the debilitating blow the Clinto's did to America, to the point that we are feeling right now. Obama is taking advice from the "Experienced" ones, but he dowsn't realize that method is obsolete, unwanted, and makes him look like just another cowardly Corporate Whore.

[Armstead]

14. Both parties are screwing the pooch, so I think it's a toss up

The GOP is TOO beholden to their base and the Democratic Party is not beholden enough to its base.

The Democrats lack a unified voice or purpose, and so are not using their majority to set a clear Pro-American People Liberal/Progressive Populist Agenda. The party is still too beholden to the Corporate Oligarchs, so we get this veneer of nice talk while Wall St. continues to call the shots.

The GOP is capitalizing on the lack of clear Democratic Populism,and are trying to become the Faux Populists. But the teabaggers and other wingnuts are not in touch with the majority. BUT if enough moderate independents get turned off by the Corporate Socialism of the current Democratic policies, the GOP might make gains.

[ItNerd4life]

15. Won't be as bad as 94. Republicans don't have any leadership

or an overarching agenda like they did in 94. I think the Republican stupidity will allow us not to lose as many seats. However, we have to be careful of the federal deficit. If we don't start doing something about it, things will get worse.

[Prism]

16. Yes and No

Unemployment will probably still be in the shitter, so I think there is major potential for a bloodbath.

However, I don't think Congressional control will change. In 1994, Republicans had a somewhat coherent message/alternative with their Contract With America. This time around, they're wallowing in the incoherent crazy. An organized Republican party would be a little frightening given the economy.

Luckily, they're nowhere near.

There will be losses, the Presidential agenda will stall accordingly (so long GLBT rights! But this was more or less planned the minute DADT was thrown overboard). We'll get piecemeal progress, and 2012 will be "OMG, look at our slim majorities! See why I couldn't do anything?! Gimme monies!"

And most of us will just stare in disbelief.

It's their own doing at this point.

[otohara]

18. Now That State Opt Out Option

is now in play...I'm thinking 2010 will not be a repeat of 94.

Before yesterday - I was bracing for big losses.

[Robbins]

20. No

obama's approval is In the 50's.Clinton's approval went between 35 and 40 percent.They used Clinton to
attack Democrats.Since most of the Combative senate seats are In States Obama won(Nevada,Colorado,Illinois,New York,PA,Delaware,CT,NH,Ohio,NC) that won't quite be Republicans plan.
When Clinton beat Bush It was more a rejection of Bush's handling of Domestic than a rejection of
Republicans.The public has rejected Republicanism.They are giving Obama and Democrats Idol slogans to
run against them on.Except to hear Republicans as party of no.Besides RAS democrats lead In Generic
ballots even though some have It close.Democrats have been winning many of the 2009 Special elections.
The Media has been trying to paint picture of Democrats In Trouble but they are forgetting 2002 where
a thin popular Bush helped Republicans take back the senate after Jeffords defecting,and slightly
Increasing their majority In The House.And If Health Care reform with a Public Option with Opt out(and no trigger) passes that Is major victory for the Democrats.

I will keep saying this.Some blue dog Democrats from Districts Mccain won could be voted out(especially
In the South) but there are still a few Republicans who come from Districts Obama won who could be In
trouble.Republicans need obama to be at 1994 Clinton levels to make great gains In the senate.Don't forget Democrats have decent shots at winning senate seats in Missouri,Ohio,and NH.NC could flip to a
Democrat(remember this seat flips every 6 years between party.Plus Dole was more popular than Burr Is
now and was beaten) and Kentucky may not be a lost cause for It's open senate seat.Our most endangered
seats are Dodd,Reid,Lincoln,and Bennett(Delaware too If Beau Biden doesn't run) however recent developments may help save Reid and Dodd.

Also remember back In 2005 we were ahead In only 1 of the 6 seats that flipped In 2006,and few would
have thought 8 Republican seats flipping In 2008 were possible back In 2007.

[Jennicut]

21. No...Rethugs were polling higher in 1993 and the President (Clinton) was polling lower.

Not gonna happen. We may lose some seats but not the Senate AND the House.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

23. Hopefully In The NHL! LET'S GO RANGERS!!!!

[paulk]

25. I don't think so

The Republican brand is in the toilet, I don't see them getting it together to provide an alternative (however false) like their "Contract on America" in 1994. They may pick up some House seats because of the bad economy and off year election demographics, but I think we'll actually pick up seats in the Senate.

[damntexdem]

26. I don't think it will be that bad.

Clinton really did get caught shit-faced after HRC blew up on him then. I think Obama and the Dems will fare better -- especially if they can actually pass a credible HRC, even if it doesn't take effect by then. If they could somehow do a Medicare-for-all, or even for some non-aged, non-disabled, one that could take effect earlier, they really would be sitting pretty for 2010. Faux News and much of the MSM can hit all they want; but people will know and respond if they get something immediately affects their lives, or even promises to.

[Hello_Kitty]

28. It won't be the same as 1994. Different electorate.

Recently James Carville did an interview on NPR where he said something I found pretty shocking: If the electorate in 2008 were demographically the same as it was in 1992 (race and party affiliation) McCain would have won by a comfortable margin. In 2010 we will be looking at a different electorate than in 1994, and the GOP will probably be even less popular by then than it is now. Repubs have a bit of an advantage in that voters tend to be older, and whiter, in mid-terms so it's possible we will lose a few seats but I doubt it will be a bloodbath.

[johnaries]

29. Dems are unpopular, but Repugs are even more unpopular. nt

[Joe S]

30. Not me!

Especially if the econicks in!

[Arkana]

32. Not me.

1994 saw an organized Republican Party with clear leadership and no infighting.

Not the case here. Their one mantra seems to be "We hate that guy in the White House cause he's a Demmycrat and not white."

[Awsi Dooger]

33. No, the math doesn't work toward a bloodbath like 1994

The demographics have changed, pure and simple. The nonwhite vote has steadily increased, from 15% in 1988 to 25% in 2008. In a midterm the angry white conservatives will likely have more energy and turnout than blacks and Hispanics who support Democrats, but even at worst projection the GOP would need something like 62% of the white vote to approach 1994. For reference purposes, Republicans got 58% of the white vote in 1994, and 54% in the most recent midterm, 2006.

It's going to be a loss. I don't see how we can avoid dropping 10+ seats in the House, and likely some unexpectedly tough races in the South. The senate looks better, given the playing field. If we were trying to defend big numbers in the senate I'd feel much worse. The distribution works well for us. Too early to call in gov races. We desperately need max emphasis there. The GOP can only survive declining demographic prospects if they have a flock of popular governors to choose from. Cutting that supply line off is more vital than holding a handful of House seats or a senate seat here and there. Somehow, I don't think sites like this will realize it. Gov races are never allowed proper weight.

White females are a problem. We need to make inroads there. That's the one group that failed to respond to the big Democratic tide in 2006 and 2008. They are still apparently impacted by 9/11 and national security concerns, voting more conservative and happy to stay there. When James Carville emphasizes that if the 2008 makeup were like 1992, then the GOP would have won handily, he's talking primarily about white females, who supported Clinton heavily in 1992 and 1996, then moved to 50/50 in the Gore/Bush race of 2000, but since 2002 have become more dependably Republican.

Gas prices are a variable that no one has mentioned. There is a big chance the pump price will surge in summer 2010. If so, it's attached to Obama's approval rating. You never want to depend on a late approval uptick, approaching November.

But keep this in mind: In 1994 Clinton was unpopular and the prior Democratic president was Jimmy Carter. So there was a, "Here we go again...," aspect. The GOP benefited from extreme benefit of a doubt. That will hardly be the case in 2010, since Clinton's terms are viewed as a success and Bush 43 is an anchor toward any Republican resurgence.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

34. There are many conditions in place now that weren't in place in 1994.

We truly have an active netroots with information at our fingertips and we can transfer that information in seconds. Yes, the wingnuts have the M$M, but they don't have the numbers. Frankly, the demographics aren't in their favor. Not only is the GOP more disliked now than they were in 1994, the population is changing, and it doesn't look good for them. Will they win back some seats in 2010. Sure they will. But, will they win enough to overtake the House? No! The president and the Dems would have to fuck up so royally to bring about a sea-change of that magnitude. The only two issues that I'm very concerned about are jobs, usually the last of the economic health indicators to turn around, and Afghanistan. If the Dems can implement a plan that would address small businesses, homeownership, and jobs, they will do very well. But the president also needs to do something about Aghanistan.

If the election were held today, I'd guess that the Republicans could net 1 or 2 seats in fairly conservative districts currently in Democratic hands. I do think that McDonnell (R) will beat Deeds (D) in VA's governor's race. But Corzine will sqeak by in NJ.

[Perky]

35. Not me. the Pukes have nothing to offer. "Fiscal Discipline"???? ha

[ronnykmarshall]

36. We're DOOOOOOMED!!!

DOOMED I TELLS YA!

DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED!!

[Zynx]

37. I don't buy it. We will suffer losses, sure, but not of that order.

[WCGreen]

38. Totally differenet....

The districts were redrawn after the 1990 census and if took two cycles to work the new districts through to the public,

2010 will be the election that determines the make-up of the re drawling process...

[Awsi Dooger]

39. Good point

I intended to mention that aspect, but somehow forgot.

When I started following political math closely in '96, looking back at past elections, I was shocked at how many redrawn districts had survived in Democratic hands in 1992. Made no sense. In 1994 it was as much of a natural shuffling along partisan lines, as a tidal wave.

[tinrobot]

40. 2006 was the repeat of '94

[FVZA_Colonel]

41. I think it will ride on healthcare.

Even with the new opposition from that POS Lieberman, it will pass. And if it does, a great deal of pressure will be released.

[Grinchie]

42. The Democrats are mortally wounded corpses. 1994 would be merciful

Despite what the Cheerleaders and Propagandists portray here on DU, the majority of real Democrats are totally pissed off with the way the Obama/Clinton Administration devolved into the DLC Flavor of the month.

We see nothing more than complete Corporate Asslicking weekly, and the speed of this capitulation, and the sloth of the Administration to do anythin meaningful, has alientated millions of people that looked at Obama as an Agent of change.

He has proven that he is far from that, and nothing more than another well spoken mastehead, with few ideas, and even less backbone. He hire Rahm Emmanual to be his enforcer, yet the Enforcer has his own agenda, and answers to other masters.

The Blue Dog's, arrogant and blatant have dug a very deep grave, and they will be the ones buried in it.

There is absolutely nothing that the Obama Administration or the Democrats can do to win back people like me, simply because they have violated the Trust with unmistakeable certainty and malice.

I'm sure they will do well with all the Corporate funding they can eat, but it's going to be tainted by the fact that many American like me are not going to play the game anymore, and the Government is not going to be finding it so easy to steal tax money from people that have decided not to work for a Government that spends all the money on War and Big Corporations without giving a little back to the populace.

They have control of the printing presses, but that's not going to last for long.

[benEzra]

44. I don't see it.

The DLC's "assault weapon" bait-and-switch is pretty much dead, so the gun issue is mostly off the table; there's a widespread recognition that the health care funding system is completely broken, and while there is disagreement about exactly what it should become, it can no longer be argued that the status quo is working; and Obama is IMO a less polarizing figure than Clinton was, and far less prone to finger-wagging. There is a lot of outrage over the Wall Street bailouts and the associated coverup of outright fraud by the banks and the Fed, but since those were originally Bush policies, I don't see the repubs gaining much traction there. There have been no Wacos under Obama, he's not stumping for more outsource-our-jobs trade agreements like Clinton did, and the general perception I see is that he's doing a pretty competent job.

So I don't see 2010 as another 1994. Will Dems gain or lose seats? I dunno, but I don't think it will be a debacle like '94.

[old mark]

45. Publicans put a lot on the line with the "repeat of '94" idea. But they

have around 20% of the electorate, no policies except obstruction and namecalling, a large number of Democratic figures in the public eye for positive reasons - not the negative publicity the Publicans are giving themselves.

This is NOT 1994 - don't mistake GOP's wishfull thinking for any sort of reality. Remember, these are the folks who believe in the 6,000 year old earth, sexism, racism, and corporate supremacy over the people. And they are proud of all of it.


mark

[GreenPartyVoter]

46. Could be. If healthcare reform turns out to be useless, I would be more likely to

put money on it.

[joeycola]

47. I think people expect action on health care-not in 2014 and also that

many will not be able to be included.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

48. '94 was a lot different.

The country had been trending to the right for the previous 14 years prior to 1994, with Reagan being rather popular, and Bush being elected after him. Perot was the fly in the ointment for his re-election bid, and Clinton didn't even reach 50% of the popular vote. 1994 was the culmination of what had already been happening combined with reaction to a President that probably didn't totally reflect the views of the nation at the time.

Going further, there's literally a political lifetime between now and the 2010 elections. Obama is still popular, GOP affiliation is now declining again after a brief surge earlier this year, the economy will be somewhat improved by this time next year - at least to the point of damping down any GOP aspirations, and they have yet to come up with any plans of their own to run on other than "We hate Obama" which is a strategy that doesn't work when the President is at least over 40% in approval rating. All said and done, I think the Democrats' 2010 prospects are a lot like the public option was a few weeks ago - in that the media is vastly exaggerating how the playing field has shifted against us.

[WI_DEM]

49. depends on who gets there voters out. In a low turnout election like midterms motivation is the key

and right now the GOP nut wing of 20% are motivated to come out. I'm not so sure about democrats.

[backscatter712]

51. Not gonna happen. The Republican party's reputation is in the toilet.

It'll take at least a generation before the American public forgives them for George W. fucking Bush.

[PVnRT]

52. Democrats are good at sntaching defeat from the jaws of victory

Otherwise, the final stake in the Republican coffin would have been delivered in 1976, or 1986, or 2008. Anyone who thinks that 1994 can't happen again is a fool wearing rose-tinted glasses.