Will 2006 be the Democrats 1994?

[zorkpolitics]

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).
In 1994 Democrats controlled all three power centers in DC: President , House (by 40 seats), and Senate (by 7 seats)
In 1994  there was an over reach by Clinton on Health Care. Perhaps Social Security will be an over reach by Bush?

So after 6 yrs of Bush do the Democrats have a chance for a huge shift in the House?  All they need is 15 seats to take control, less than 1/3 of the 54 seats the Republicans picked up in 1994. 

In my opinion no.   
Unlike 1994, in which a decade of growing Republicanism swept away Southern Democrats, there has been no growing Democratic movement in any region, rather a slow growth by Republicans.
Unlike 1994, computerized redistricting is much more sophisticated which has been  used to draw districts that are really incumbent protection schemes.  This has left only about 30 competitive districts among the 435 seats (excluding TX, only three incumbents lost in 2004 and only 3 open seats switched parties).

[Horus]

I think the Democrats will make gains, perhaps taking over the house. But it will be nowhere near 1994.

[Jake]

2008 may well be the Democrats 1994, but not 2006.  There are only a few GOP Senate seats that the Democrats could pick up, and there are only around 20 seats the Democrats can grab from the GOP.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Probably not, but it's too early to tell. We'll have to wait for the retirements to see what'll happen with the House, but the Senate looks tough for the Democrats.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The Senate is un-democratic - gives too much power to the small states.
The House is so gerrymandered in favor of Republicans that it's going to be impossible to win back without some retalitory gerrymandering.

[Akno21]

We need to gerrymander back, or push for some non-partisan group to do it. Some of the results are truly crazy, like the GOP has 18 Florida seats to the Democrats 7.

Being optimistic, we can pick up Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Nevada (?)...

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Here's my Senate ranking for top Democratic pickup possibilities.
1. Rhode Island
2. Pennsylvania
3. Tennessee
4. Montana
5. Virginia

[Moooooo]

Here's my Senate ranking for top Democratic pickup possibilities.
1. Rhode Island
2. Pennsylvania
3. Tennessee
4. Montana
5. Virginia

I agree with this for the most part.

1. Rhode Island - Agree
2. Pennsylvania - If Casey doesnt run its lights out for the Democrats in this race.
3. Tennessee - Ford probably isnt popular enough to win state-wide.
4. Montana - Schweitzer is our best chance at winning this seat, but he is now Governor and isnt gonna' run.  He barley lost against Burns back in 2000.
5. Virginia - If Warner runs we have a decent chance at picking up this seat, but Id still give the edge to Allen.  Plus, I dont think Warner is interested.  He is eyeing up a seat in the White House.

[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.   

[TeePee4Prez]

Here's my Senate ranking for top Democratic pickup possibilities.
1. Rhode Island
2. Pennsylvania
3. Tennessee
4. Montana
5. Virginia

I agree with this for the most part.

2. Pennsylvania - If Casey doesnt run its lights out for the Democrats in this race.
5. Virginia - If Warner runs we have a decent chance at picking up this seat, but Id still give the edge to Allen.  Plus, I dont think Warner is interested.  He is eyeing up a seat in the White House.

I think these are our two bests.  We ARE going to oust Rick Santorum.  I repeat. WE ARE GOING TO OUST RICK SANTORUM!  Unless God forbid John Street is the nominee, we have a fighting chance.

[zorkpolitics]

The Senate is un-democratic - gives too much power to the small states.
The House is so gerrymandered in favor of Republicans that it's going to be impossible to win back without some retalitory gerrymandering.

There is a best a slight gerrymander for the GOP.  Of the two party vote in 2004 the GOP had:
% President  % total Congress races  % House seats
51%                         51%                          53%

2% in the House is about 8-9 seats

[Keystone Phil]

Here's my Senate ranking for top Democratic pickup possibilities.
1. Rhode Island
2. Pennsylvania
3. Tennessee
4. Montana
5. Virginia

I agree with this for the most part.

2. Pennsylvania - If Casey doesnt run its lights out for the Democrats in this race.
5. Virginia - If Warner runs we have a decent chance at picking up this seat, but Id still give the edge to Allen.  Plus, I dont think Warner is interested.  He is eyeing up a seat in the White House.

I think these are our two bests.  We ARE going to oust Rick Santorum.  I repeat. WE ARE GOING TO OUST RICK SANTORUM!  Unless God forbid John Street is the nominee, we have a fighting chance.

Casey is your ONLY chance. Get over it!

[zorkpolitics]

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.

On the other hand the upper Miss valley (IA, WI, MN) has been trending a bit more GOP and they could provide some balance to the SW.

Overall I expect the next decades to follow the 1878-1896 era of close Presiential elections, rather than one party dominate as the GOP did from 1900-1928 GOP and the Dmeocrats from 1932-1964.

[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! 

[Defarge]

No.  By 2020 there will be a similar election cycle, but not 2006.

[ATFFL]

If the Democrats learn the full lesson of 1994 it could.  If they go into 2006 with Bush having taken a pasting on Social Security, or another domestic issue where he proposes a major plan, and then offer a set of popular ideas (See: America, Contract with) they can do it.

[Democratic Hawk]

I'd like to think that 2006 will be for the Democrats, what 1994 was for the GOP

Dave

[AuH2O]

No. Zero chance. The way the districts are drawn now, I would say it's something like a 1 in a billion chance Democrats pull off a similar sized win.

HOWEVER, they don't need a 1994 to take back the House, so maybe that's not such a great comparison after all.

Senate can't happen in '06... just not enough vulnerable Republicans for it to be mathematically possible.

[South Park Republican]

No. Zero chance. The way the districts are drawn now, I would say it's something like a 1 in a billion chance Democrats pull off a similar sized win.

HOWEVER, they don't need a 1994 to take back the House, so maybe that's not such a great comparison after all.

Senate can't happen in '06... just not enough vulnerable Republicans for it to be mathematically possible.

I agree, but unless this Social Security reform goes the way of Hillary Care 1994 then the Democrats won't really do that well, or it will be a wash like 1998. 

If the Democrats do gain froma Hillary-esque disaster for Bush it would probably be something like 1986 only this time the GOP looses the house but gains in the Senate or statehouses. 

[Verily]

Mostly amusing due to the bizarre assumption that social security reform (or domestic issues in general) would be the issue on which Bush would become unpopular. It really should be common knowledge by now that war presidents are initially very popular and then slowly and steadily decline in popularity as the war goes on barring outside factors.

Also, general humiliation for the conservative hacks, but what else can one expect from AuH2O?

A surprisingly good prediction from jfern. Swap Missouri and Ohio in for Tennessee and you have 2006.

[Gabu]

Also, general humiliation for the conservative hacks, but what else can one expect from AuH2O?

The funny part is that AuH2O always swore up and down that he was right at least 90% of the time.

Of course, he never gave examples of being right if you asked him.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I remember once when I called him a hack who never made a prediction more Democratic than the actual result turned out to be and his rebuttal basically was "I'm predicting Rendell to win."