Could 2006 Be Another 1994?

[Nym90]

I highly doubt that the Democrats could possibly gain as many seats as the Republicans did in 1994. There are just too many safe seats. There's really no way the GOP could drop under 200 seats in the House even under the worst of circumstances.

That being said, I do think that the Democrats have an excellent chance of taking the majority, even if it is a narrow one.

[memphis]

Don't forget that the Republicans knocked off quite a few "safe" seats in 1994. This election is going to be very interesting. Keep an eye on Northern suburbs.

[TeePee4Prez]

Don't forget that the Republicans knocked off quite a few "safe" seats in 1994. This election is going to be very interesting. Keep an eye on Northern suburbs.

Which seats in particular?

I can see PA 6, PA 8, NY 3, CT 2, and CT 4 as possible flips with outside shots for NJ 3, NJ 7, and PA 7.

[Boris]

1994 will never happen again.  Especially not in 2006; the Democrats are positioned to lose a small amount of seats in both houses.

C'mon Boss, we should at least be able to take down Santorum. But then Minnesota and New Jersey come into play, but with luck, their democrat-leanings will come into play and the Dems will be able to retain both.

Although, I will agree that anyone predicting 1994 in reverse is grossly overestimating the political competence and adeptness of the democratic party. We are talking about the party that has lost seven of the last ten presidential elections, you know.

[memphis]

1994 will never happen again.  Especially not in 2006; the Democrats are positioned to lose a small amount of seats in both houses.

C'mon Boss, we should at least be able to take down Santorum. But then Minnesota and New Jersey come into play, but with luck, their democrat-leanings will come into play and the Dems will be able to retain both.

Although, I will agree that anyone predicting 1994 in reverse is grossly overestimating the political competence and adeptness of the democratic party. We are talking about the party that has lost seven of the last ten presidential elections, you know.

In 1946, the Republicans took back the House after losing five presidential elections in a row. I don't think that presidential races going back decades are much of an indicator. I'll agree that the Dems can be a little weak in "adeptness," but nobody has been less politically competitant than the Republicans of late.

[Republican Michigander]

1994 will never happen again.  Especially not in 2006; the Democrats are positioned to lose a small amount of seats in both houses.

C'mon Boss, we should at least be able to take down Santorum. But then Minnesota and New Jersey come into play, but with luck, their democrat-leanings will come into play and the Dems will be able to retain both.

Although, I will agree that anyone predicting 1994 in reverse is grossly overestimating the political competence and adeptness of the democratic party. We are talking about the party that has lost seven of the last ten presidential elections, you know.

In 1946, the Republicans took back the House after losing five presidential elections in a row. I don't think that presidential races going back decades are much of an indicator. I'll agree that the Dems can be a little weak in "adeptness," but nobody has been less politically competitant than the Republicans of late.

The most important thing is individual candidates. If one party send a sacrificial lamb with no backing for a marginal seat, it takes a miracle to win. It's happened (Jack Brooks), but it's rare.

Lately both parties have been extremely inept. The Republicans are moving to the left on fiscal issues, and the Democrats go even further left. It's driving me (who is almost fiscally libertarian) up the wall.

[Defarge]

No, it won't.  But Democrats might... just might... win back one chamber or the other.

But knowing us Democrats, probably not

[dazzleman]

The Minority Maker
The clever GOP strategy for defeat in November.

Thursday, April 13, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

If Republicans lose control of Congress in November, they might want to look back at last Thursday as the day it was lost. That's when the big spenders among House Republicans blew up a deal between the leadership and rank-in-file to impose some modest spending discipline.

Unlike the collapse of the immigration bill, this fiasco can't be blamed on Senate Democrats. This one is all about Republicans and their refusal to give up their power to spend money at will and pass out "earmarks" like a bartender offering drinks on the house. The chief culprits are the House Appropriators, led by Committee Chairman Jerry Lewis of California and his 13 subcommittee chairmen known as "cardinals." If Republicans lose the House--and they are well on their way--Mr. Lewis deserves the moniker of the minority maker.

For weeks, the Republican Study Committee, a group of fiscally conservative Members, had been negotiating a spending outline with the House leadership. But when they finally struck a deal last week, Mr. Lewis refused to go along and threatened to defeat the budget on the House floor if Speaker Denny Hastert brought it up. With Democrats opposing the budget as a matter of party unity, GOP leaders gave up and left town for Easter recess without a vote on their budget blueprint for 2007.

[Sam Spade]

I feel like a lot of comments made right now in this thread lack the relevance of historical analysis, so I'll give a little with a recent example to back up the theory.

To Democrats:  Watch the CA-50 district closely.  It is a good example of a district the Democrats need to win in order to win back the House.

Challengers to House incumbents or House seats usually form three distinctive types:  First-tier challengers, second-tier challengers, and long shots.  First-tier challengers are usually top-notch candidates against incumbents in weak party-leaning or tossup CDs; second-tier candidates usually comprise of weaker challengers in these same CDs; third-tier candidates comprise everything else.

Historically, the number of first-tier challengers from each party who actually win House seats is no greater than 50%.  There is almost no election in modern times where this number is greater; if I'm wrong about one election, please let me know and I'll clarify the comment.

Rahm Emanuel, at present, is designating 21 seats as having first-tier Democratic challengers from a recent Washington Post article.  More conservative estimates place this number at 15 seats, so we can roughly place 15-20 seats in this category, depending on preference.

The Republicans have roughly 3-5 seats, depending on who you talk to, that fit this category.

So, all in all, the maximum Democratic gain we could see from first-tier seats would be roughly 7-10 seats, in my estimation.  It is also probable that the Republicans will pick up one or two House seats from their 3-5 first-tier seats, so we can factor this in.

Looking at long-shots, it is very rare that a long shot wins.  Jack Brooks in 1994 was a good example of this type, but in House elections, there are rarely more than 1-3 of these even in 1994-like years.

This means that, almost without a doubt in my mind, the Democrats will probably have to pick up somwhere in the range of 5-7 second tier seats in order to take back the House.  Depending on who you talk to, there are roughly 30-40 (sometimes 50) of these seats at present.

This is where CA-50 comes in.  It is one of these seats.  You have a former incumbent, who bowed out due to scandal in a CD that has swung Dem over the past 5-10 years, so that it has become a marginal 55%-45% GOP on balance.  In order for the Democrats to win back the House, they have to be successful in seats like this, seats which don't form the top tier of challengers, but rather the second tier.

It is a good test for exactly how strong this Democratic momentum could be or could not be come November.  It's not the perfect test, but it's a good first step.

[12th Doctor]

The Democrats could turn this into a 1994 reversal.  However, the Republicans still have a huge advantage when it comes to geography, in the House, Senate and Governorships.

The Democrats also lack star power.  One of the main reasons that the Republicans siezed power in 94 was because Gingrich and company went out and sought candidates who were pratically brand names in their states/districts, but were also outsiders in terms of politics, or were comparitively outsiders.  This is not nearly the case with the Democrats, who have or have had wide open primaries in several states.

Finally, the Republicans have one clear advantage that the Democrats didn't in 94... they can distance themselves from an outgoing president.  The Democrats were unable to distance themselves from Clinton, because Clinton was up for reelection in 2 years.  Not the case this time.

[12th Doctor]

1994 will never happen again.  Especially not in 2006; the Democrats are positioned to lose a small amount of seats in both houses.

C'mon Boss, we should at least be able to take down Santorum. But then Minnesota and New Jersey come into play, but with luck, their democrat-leanings will come into play and the Dems will be able to retain both.

Although, I will agree that anyone predicting 1994 in reverse is grossly overestimating the political competence and adeptness of the democratic party. We are talking about the party that has lost seven of the last ten presidential elections, you know.

The Democrats enjoy almost no advantage in MN.  In fact, state politics in there have been all Republican in the past six years.  Just because MN is not quite conservative enough (yet) to accept our Presidential candidates does not mena that they will not welcome slightly more moderate Repulicans.  Kennedy is such a Republican.

[minionofmidas]

If Republicans lose the House--and they are well on their way--Mr. Lewis deserves the moniker of the minority maker.

And I will gladly adopt it in case it happens, though I don't think they're "well on their way".

[Nym90]

If Bush's approval ratins stay where they are, the GOP will lose the House and possibly the Senate as well, unless the Dems are totally incompetent (which is possible).

If the President can get himself consistently back over 40%, the GOP has a decent chance of keeping the House (50%) and would almost certainly maintain the Senate.

It's pretty much a certainty that the Democrats will gain seats in both chambers unless Bush somehow gets back above 50%, which seems highly unlikely at this point.

[dazzleman]

If Bush's approval ratins stay where they are, the GOP will lose the House and possibly the Senate as well, unless the Dems are totally incompetent (which is possible).

If the President can get himself consistently back over 40%, the GOP has a decent chance of keeping the House (50%) and would almost certainly maintain the Senate.

It's pretty much a certainty that the Democrats will gain seats in both chambers unless Bush somehow gets back above 50%, which seems highly unlikely at this point.

The Democrats need a positive message, and so far they don't have one.

That doesn't mean they can't make major gains, if the Republican position is bad enough.  But it does make it a lot harder.

I wonder what the effect of gerrymandering will be on the House.  There are fewer competitive seats than ever.

[Frodo]

Democrats will come up with a set agenda of policy items in due time -what I am more worried about is how they will use their majorities in Congress (if and when they get them).  To be sure, I want President Bush to be held accountable, but I don't want our desire for vengeance to define our tenure, or our Congressional majorities will not last past 2008.   

[dazzleman]

Democrats will come up with a set agenda of policy items in due time -what I am more worried about is how they will use their majorities in Congress (if and when they get them).  To be sure, I want President Bush to be held accountable, but I don't want our desire for vengeance to define our tenure, or our Congressional majorities will not last past 2008.   

I'm not sure they can come up with a positive message that will sell.

The left wing of the party has a stranglehold and is a tremendous liability, probably driving off more voters than they attract, and forcing the party to take positions that ensure minority status.

The Republicans really didn't have this problem in 1994.

I share your concern about what the Democrats would do if they won control.  They seem to have nothing but anger and vitriol, and no positive program.  They would just use their time to hound Bush, and it could very well backfire, costing them their majority and the presidency in 2008.

I'm a fatalist on these things at this point.  I think the Republican congress has been dreadful as of late, and, all other things being equal, deserves to lose its majority.  But I hate the Democrats so much that I fear what will happen if they gain control of congress.  I fear that a Democratic victory guarantees more terror attacks since they are so weak on defense and foreign policy, and have more hostility for the president than for those who seek to kill as many of us as possible.  Just as they were always more concerned for the 'rights' of criminals than for innocent victims of crime, they are more interested in protecting the 'rights' of terrorists who wish to attack us than protecting the lives of innocent Americans.

[nclib]

Just as they were always more concerned for the 'rights' of criminals than for innocent victims of crime, they are more interested in protecting the 'rights' of terrorists who wish to attack us than protecting the lives of innocent Americans.

Being too tough on terrorism harms innocent Americans indirectly (i.e. the PATRIOT Act).

[dazzleman]

Just as they were always more concerned for the 'rights' of criminals than for innocent victims of crime, they are more interested in protecting the 'rights' of terrorists who wish to attack us than protecting the lives of innocent Americans.

Being too tough on terrorism harms innocent Americans indirectly (i.e. the PATRIOT Act).

Yes, I know, it's so much more harmful than the Sept. 11th attacks.

I haven't heard any credible stories of any harm from the Patriot Act.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

1994 will never happen again.  Especially not in 2006; the Democrats are positioned to lose a small amount of seats in both houses.

C'mon Boss, we should at least be able to take down Santorum. But then Minnesota and New Jersey come into play, but with luck, their democrat-leanings will come into play and the Dems will be able to retain both.

Although, I will agree that anyone predicting 1994 in reverse is grossly overestimating the political competence and adeptness of the democratic party. We are talking about the party that has lost seven of the last ten presidential elections, you know.

The Democrats enjoy almost no advantage in MN.  In fact, state politics in there have been all Republican in the past six years.

Gee, it's an interesting definition that state politics are almost all Republican when the Republicans lose 13 House seats one election, like last election. Is it because of their whopping 68-66 majority in the State House? Despite the 36-31 Democratic majority in the State Senate?

Just because MN is not quite conservative enough (yet) to accept our Presidential candidates does not mena that they will not welcome slightly more moderate Repulicans.  Kennedy is such a Republican.

He's not moderate, he's a Bush clone.

[Keystone Phil]

Being too tough on terrorism harms innocent Americans indirectly (i.e. the PATRIOT Act).

Please get Dean or any other prominent Dem to say exactly what you said. I'd love to see how much the GOP would benefit by playing that clip. Even if there was an explanation that we're harmed "indirectly" it would seem like the Dems are saying the Patriot Act causes more harm than actual attacks. You'd get destroyed in that argument, too.

[12th Doctor]

1994 will never happen again.  Especially not in 2006; the Democrats are positioned to lose a small amount of seats in both houses.

C'mon Boss, we should at least be able to take down Santorum. But then Minnesota and New Jersey come into play, but with luck, their democrat-leanings will come into play and the Dems will be able to retain both.

Although, I will agree that anyone predicting 1994 in reverse is grossly overestimating the political competence and adeptness of the democratic party. We are talking about the party that has lost seven of the last ten presidential elections, you know.

The Democrats enjoy almost no advantage in MN.  In fact, state politics in there have been all Republican in the past six years.

Gee, it's an interesting definition that state politics are almost all Republican when the Republicans lose 13 House seats one election, like last election. Is it because of their whopping 68-66 majority in the State House? Despite the 36-31 Democratic majority in the State Senate?

Just because MN is not quite conservative enough (yet) to accept our Presidential candidates does not mena that they will not welcome slightly more moderate Repulicans.  Kennedy is such a Republican.

He's not moderate, he's a Bush clone.

Compared to the past in MN... that is "all Republican".  At any rate, the Almanac of American Politics would seem to suggest that Kennedy is center-right.

[Dave from Michigan]

the democrats don't really have much of a shot at any Michigan seats

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

1994 will never happen again.  Especially not in 2006; the Democrats are positioned to lose a small amount of seats in both houses.

C'mon Boss, we should at least be able to take down Santorum. But then Minnesota and New Jersey come into play, but with luck, their democrat-leanings will come into play and the Dems will be able to retain both.

Although, I will agree that anyone predicting 1994 in reverse is grossly overestimating the political competence and adeptness of the democratic party. We are talking about the party that has lost seven of the last ten presidential elections, you know.

The Democrats enjoy almost no advantage in MN.  In fact, state politics in there have been all Republican in the past six years.

Gee, it's an interesting definition that state politics are almost all Republican when the Republicans lose 13 House seats one election, like last election. Is it because of their whopping 68-66 majority in the State House? Despite the 36-31 Democratic majority in the State Senate?

Just because MN is not quite conservative enough (yet) to accept our Presidential candidates does not mena that they will not welcome slightly more moderate Repulicans.  Kennedy is such a Republican.

He's not moderate, he's a Bush clone.

Compared to the past in MN... that is "all Republican".

No, it's not. You seem to think there was once an overwhelming DFL legislature similar to Massachusetts that steadily erodes each election. Looking at the past results, that hardly the case, the Republicans are at their worst point in years actually.

At any rate, the Almanac of American Politics would seem to suggest that Kennedy is center-right.

He opposes ANWR drilling. On every other issue, he is identical to Bush. Right now Gary Bauer's PAC gives him a 95% rating for the current session, the one issue he voted against them being ANWR drilling, which also means he voted with Tom DeLay on every issue except ANWR drilling. Someone who is opposed to ANWR drilling and is hard right on every single other issue is not a moderate. So far, no one has told me one issue other than ANWR Kennedy does not toe the party line on.

[Reignman]

Gerrymandering.

[12th Doctor]

Gerrymandering.

Most of the Democrats who were defeated in 1994 were moderates.