Will 2006 be the Democrats 1994?

[Frodo]

There are some parallels between 1994 for the Republicans and 2006 for the Democrats. 
Off  year elections often swing against the incumbents (a Democrat in 1992, a Republican in 2006).

they said the same thing of the 2002 midterms, when it was expected that Democrats would regain control of Congress....we all know how that turned out.....

You must be logged in to read this quote.

agreed.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

no one will really know for certain what caused the 1994 debacle, as many would point to the passage of the assault weapons ban, and NAFTA as would refer to the Clinton Health Care plan as you have. 

perhaps it would be more accurate to say it was a mixture of many reasons, rather than pointing to any one event. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

i'm inclined to agree with you, except remember that politics move in cycles -your current ascendant position is as likely to last as the New Deal coalition put together by President Franklin D. Roosevelt and consolidated in 1936.  Republicans made gains in the South in the aftermath of the 1968 implosion of the national Democratic Party, and are just now in the final stages of consolidating their hold on it -as seen in 1994, 2002, and 2004.  i imagine the final stage would be when Republicans take over the state legislatures of such deep south states like Mississippi and Alabama (which hasn't happened yet, BTW), and other southern states like West Virginia and Arkansas. 

we, on the other hand, are only in the beginning stages of taking over the desert Southwest, for decades assumed as a Republican lock since Barry Goldwater. Democrats are in a position to make gains in a region that is gaining in population in such states as New Mexico, Colorado, Arizona, and Nevada.  we already have control of the governorships in many of these states, and have taken the state legislature in Colorado, with New Mexico already in our pocket.  and since it is gaining in population, and has immense potential of swinging national elections the way the South has once it fully develops, it will be the springboard on which a new Democratic majority will grow.  it won't be immediately evident in 2006, or 2008, but it will happen.  your majority has lasted 40 years already -it won't last much longer. 

you ignore the danger at your own peril.   

[Frodo]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

we, on the other hand, are only in the beginning stages of taking over the desert Southwest, for decades assumed as a Republican lock since Barry Goldwater. Democrats are in a position to make gains in a region that is gaining in population in such states as New Mexico, Colorado, Arizona, and Nevada.  we already have control of the governorships in many of these states, and have taken the state legislature in Colorado, with New Mexico already in our pocket.  and since it is gaining in population, and has immense potential of swinging national elections the way the South has once it fully develops, it will be the springboard on which a new Democratic majority will grow.  it won't be immediately evident in 2006, or 2008, but it will happen.  your majority has lasted 40 years already -it won't last much longer. 

you ignore the danger at your own peril.   

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Good points, and I agree the SW has been trending Democratic, but its not guarenteed to continue.  If Hispanic voters trend ever so slightly more GOP, and if out migration from CA to NV, AZ, CO continues to lean GOP, the SW may not move that much more Democratic.

much of that shift among Latinos have been largely because of their personal liking of George W. Bush -who knows if that will continue after he leaves office in 2009?
 if Democrats shift the focus of political debate back to kitchen table issues like health care, Social Security, and so on, they will continue to make gains at the state and local level (which is where it really matters). 

and by the way, not all of the emigrants coming out of California are Republicans and conservatives -it can be argued that the fact that Nevada (for instance) is now a swing state is due to liberal Californians resettling in and around Las Vegas in recent years. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

true, and much of those gains have been largely concentrated in rural areas and newly developed suburbs that almost always trend Republican initially.  you need only look at Virginia, and see how much more moderate it has become since it voted for Richard Nixon in 1968.
 the suburbs around Washington, D.C. were initially quite Republican, but they matured and became more Democratic in recent decades -it happened in Arlington and Alexandria, and is happening in Fairfax County.  Loudon and Prince William counties are currently quite Republican, but, like Fairfax, once the suburbs mature with time, they will become more moderate and Democratic.  this same process will apply to Wisconsin and Minnesota.

Remember, both of these states are essentially Democratic, much like Virginia was prior to the turmoil of the Sixties.  and since they have had a strong tradition of liberalism, they will turn Democratic again far more quickly than Virginia is currently doing.  but we'll see.... 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

in other words, we are in the middle of a new Gilded Age?  interesting that you mention it, though that was the period when this country was in the throes of industrialization with the completion of the transcontinental railroad, and the growth of labor unions which created the foundation for the New Deal coalition under FDR....

-in other words, i hope you're right!