Posted on 06/24/2010 6:29:27 AM PDT by randita
For House Democrats: More Favorable Terrain Than ‘94
Rhodes Cook, Senior Columnist June 24th, 2010
Editor’s Note: Following last week’s article by Prof. Alan Abramowitz comparing 1994 and 2010 on the basis of open seat races, noted political author and Wall Street Journal online columnist Rhodes Cook delves into the differences between the “political terrain” of 1994 and that facing Democrats today. His smart commentary and scholarly analysis serves as a call to look beneath the surface and he offers a much-needed glimpse at the partisan and regional factors which will make or break this year for both political parties. Those who want to see exactly where Republicans and Democrats will be fighting hardest, and why, will find this piece a definite must-read. - Larry J. Sabato
When the Democrats lost control of the House of Representatives in 1994, one of their main problems was the political terrain on which they had to fight. While many political observers find the present electoral environment to be eerily similar with that of 1994, not nearly as many House Democrats are as exposed as they were then.
Fully half of the Democratic seats in that strongly anti-incumbent, anti-Democratic election 16 years ago were in districts that had voted for the Republican presidential ticket in one or both of the previous two presidential elections. This time, just one third of Democratic seats are in similarly problematic territory.
(Excerpt) Read more at centerforpolitics.org ...
In 1994 the Generic Polling as per polling report.com on the last day before the vote actually had the Democrats up by 3 points. Latest Rasmussen has then down by 10.
Comparing this election coming to anything in the past is ludicrous beyond belief since the situation we are facing today is not nearly comparable anything in the past, nor has the anger been so evident as it is today.
16 years of democratic population growth. Welfare toddlers in 1994 are now eligible to vote.
True and there are a lot more illegals on the rolls also.
However almost none of the Dem candidates inspire much energy from the electorate. That subtracts a lot of votes.
I’m cautiously optimistic.
If the Republicans use the hammer of 10% unemployment effectively, they can win a lot of seats. Carville’s economy comments are still pertinent.
Comparisons like this are just as stupid as when they do it in sports, e.g. “Houston teams are 8-12 in playoff games at night over the past 30 years, so they’ll probably lose tonight”.
So what? That was then, this is now.
It’s some consolation to consider that PA-12 as it exists now may be a goner in 2012. PA is going to lose one congressional seat as a result of the census numbers and it’s widely speculated that PA-12 is the one that’s going bye-bye.
And, even if you accept the author's premise and employ his calculations based on the 1994 turnover rate in blue, purple and red districts, you end up with GOP gains of 45 seats.
That's not quite as many as in 1994 (56), but still enough to take control of the House.
And, as you point out, that's likely to be the floor -- rather than a ceiling.
There seems to be agreement among major pollsters that the GOP has a lock on gaining 25-30 seats at this point in time. Even Sabato (whom some claim is too liberal) has a projection of +32 for the GOP (and his projections are among the rosiest). There are a couple dozen more seats that are in the “lean D-tossup-leanR” categories. The GOP probably has to pick up about half of those to win the House. In this election cycle, that should be doable.
The Senate, however, is a much steeper climb. May not happen this year, but the GOP will be well positioned for 2012, esp. with Dear Reader’s favorability sinking like lead.
I believe about the rosiest projection one can make for the GOP Senate is +8. That's assuming they successfully defend NH and MO -- and there are no unpleasant surprises.
In order to gain a majority, they'd have to take two of three in CA, WA and WI.
And, of course, in the back of our minds is the awareness that the GOP is perfectly capable of screwing it all up. Especially, if they actually get elected...
SO, the real question is, are the folks that good at stealing elections, are they motivated? I’d guess they aren’t. Community Awareness and outreach programs are probably not bursting at the seams for volunteers. The Demorat base right now is queitly peeling off their Obama stickers...
Many offshoots of Reaganism with the GOP freshmen back then.
Today, we’re battling a serious RINO infection. Hopefully Conservatives and the Tea Party will fix that.
So those polls which show the Rep woth a 8-10 point lead in the Generic ballot are meaningless?
gut insticnt leads me to believe the Nov races will not go ALL out Republican. Republicans have no leadership, no message nada!
The Senate picture for the rats is worse than in 1994. They lost only 2 incumbents that year, they lost control because they lost every open seat.
We haven’t beaten more than 2 incumbent democrat Senators in one election since 1980. That will change in 2010.
They will lose the Senate or come close to it. And all but 2 of their losses will be in states that voted for Obama. That’s horrible for them.
The House may surpass the 230 Republicans elected in 1994. The races for Governor look good.
Stu Rothenberg recently wrote a column on how this is a Republican wave election not an “anti-incumbent” election. The democrats are the only incumbents in general election danger.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.