Posted on 10/13/2010 4:49:10 PM PDT by Rca2000
Ok...so I am hearing some talk of how the races, both house and senate--and the governors too and such--are "tightening up". Some here are getting worried--that maybe the GOP and the Tea Party will NOT do too well in a couple of weeks IN fact---some here--and elsewhere--fear we will not even win the house....let alone the Senate!!
However....I am not too worried. I am not sure we will get "more than 100 house seats" as some say--but I expect 50-70 or so, and am hopeful for 12 senate seats too. The GOP STILL has a BIG edge in all of the "real" polls, for what that is worth.
I DO wonder....was it NOT a lot like this in 1994?? FR was not around then, nor was Fox, and the net was a new, and not that common thing for most yet. Still....I seem to remember that a week or two before the election--and am SURE that the night before...I heard pundits saying this like "I do not see that "wave the pubs are talking about coming" maybe a couple of dozen seats or so--but not the 36 or so we needed then.
We ALL know how THAT ended up, don't we?? The driving reason for 94 was "hillarycare" now--it is (again) healthcare--under Obama this time--AND THIS TIME--we have a MOVEMENT-the TEA PARTY!! Ocare, Cap-and-trade-illegals, and a lot of other crap--are the driving force of the TEA party. Yes--I know about fraud--but aren't our guys ready for that--for the most part??
When I hear that OVER 40% --4 in 10--of those who voted for--and supported Obama in 08--are now against him--I REALLY think this WILL be MORE than 1994--even with the SEIU, CAIR, ACORN and even the dead--trying to mess things up. If nearly half of the O voters would NOT again support him--that leaves his approval ratings at somewhere around 30%--the blacks, illegals, leeches and muslims--about the ONLY ones that are backing right now!!
And yeah...I know that O said--"even if my side looses--I am STILL going to do what I want--and pass my agenda through EO"!! That is NOT legal--or constitutional--and IF he tries that--going DIRECTLY against both congress and the voters---the price Obama and his party WILL pay--will be ASTRONOMICAL in 12!!and he will likely get bounced before then!!
SO..take heart people...remember that 16 years ago--much of the same was blathered about at this time...the R's are not going to do too well, no wave coming and such"...the rest is history...and ,with the Lord's grace will be ONCE AGAIN--and even a BIGGER wave this time--as many say not a wave--but a TSUNAMI!!
Yep Republicans were at 46 and Democrats were at 46%
Calling Field Marshal: up your alley.
IMO, the AWB was the driving force behind the 94 election results.
Remember, two weeks before Reagan won in the landslide of 1980, all the polls had the race as a “dead heat.”
Presidents almost always lose seats in the house at midterm.
Other than 2002, and I think one other time in the past 100+ years, have they gained.
In this climate? Only an fool would believe the Dems will keep the House.
Christie Todd Whitman was down by 10 points just days before her ‘94 New Jersey Governor’s election.
Here look at the bottom of the page and you will see a graph going from like 1950 to 2010 if you move your mouse along the graph it will give you the number at any given time when they had did polling!!!!
http://www.gallup.com/poll/127439/Election-2010-Key-Indicators.aspx
No, here is the real reason for the 1994 tsunami: Major League Baseball went on strike, there was no World Series, and twenty million jonesing fans took it out on the sob's in office.
And that's the truth.
In 1980, there were newspaper headlines the morning of election day indicating that the final polls showed it too close to call between Reagan and Carter.
I heard rumblings of Democrats getting ready to file recount lawsuits and other legal manuvers after the elections. So get ready for any close votes in any state or district to be challenged in court, if Democrats aren’t satisfied with the results.
I know it sounds crazy that Democrats could sue about vote fraud after the fraud in Minnesota allowed Al Franken to be selected, but, that’s how Democrats are.
Yes, it was close at this point in 1994... But also, the MSM was doing a complete “freeze-out” of The Contract and what the GOP was trying to do that year. We helped our son with a school project where he was tracking the MSM bias in political reporting: after it was announced in Sept. of that year, the NY Times DID NOT COMMENT ONCE on the contract or on the contract’s impact on the election right through the election cycle.
That’s a big difference this year, I believe: the Internet isn’t as compliant. You can’t bury the sorry record of Obama and his Dem cronies and lackies. The Genie is out of the bottle and will not be snuffed out again. The Great Silent Majority has come out of its slumber.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see movement on that issue (the new AWB and other gun control) after Nov during the lame duck session.
I remember 1994 quite clearly. Charlie Cook, etc. was mouthing something like 12-20 seats for the Pubbies. End tally was 59 seats!!! Folks, I caution you against anything the mainstream media mouths or prints. What’s a voter to do?? Get out to the polls on November 2, 2010 and vote to totally destroy the anti-American Democrat party. End of story!!!!
Michael Barone was the only one to come even close. He is now says its more like 1894. I think I heard something like 100 seats out of 350? Whereas in 1994 it was 56 out of 435.
That was in ‘93.
I remember how frustrating it was at the time trying to get accurate information. I didn’t have the internet, and the only other sources I had were the networks and the execrable and massively biased “Inside Politics” on CNN, USA Today, and the like (oh, and Rush Limbaugh). Still, I was able to make the sound prediction we would take the Senate. I didn’t expect us to get the House, but that we would gain enough to be an effective minority bloc (I didn’t think we could win simply from a logistical point of view, because it had been 42 years and the Dems were in control of a majority of line-drawing).
With respect to the Senate, where this year differs greatly from 1994 is that we only beat 2 incumbents that year (which on its face was a decidedly lackluster showing), the rest of our gains came from winning every open seat and the later 2 party switches. We’ve still never defeated more than 2 Dem Senate incumbents since 1980, so this election will come close to matching that when we took down 9 Dem incumbents in the general.
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.