ThatDamnedPanda
Posts: 6060
Joined: 1/26/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: servantforuse
In 1994, the republicans picked up 56 seats. Bill Clinton's approval numbers were better than Obama's . I think that Nancy Pelosi might be flying commercial again.
In the first week of December 1993, Bill Clinton's approval rating was 52%, the same as Obama's was the first week of December 2009. In the following months, Clinton was badly weakened by his poor handling of gays in the military and his disastrous bungling of health reform; Obama's shot at health reform will pass and be touted as a success by democrats next year. While teh new bill won't have helped anyone yet by that time, it won't have started to hurt anyone yet either, because the democrats have carefully timed the program to get the maximum electoral advantage. Instead of being damaged by the health care issue as they were in 94, the dems will get a boost from it. Probably slight, but a boost nevertheless.
In addition, the economy was weak and showing little or no sign of improvement in 1994; the way the democrats timed the stimulus program, the economy should be comparatively quite strong and growing in the later 2nd-early 3rd quarter of 2010. Surely you noticed the timing of the expenditures? That was no accident. People tend to let their bank accounts be their guide when voting - they pay attention to primarily two things, how well they're doing right now and what the trend line is. If the stimulus bill works the way it was intended, at the time of the 2010 midterms, most people will probably be doing better than they have in a couple of years and the trend will be positive, maybe even strongly positive. Unlike 1994.
And third, the 1994 midterms were marked by considerable scandal in the democratic-controlled House, which (rightfully) hurt the party very badly in the eyes of the voters. The House banking scandal and the Post office scandal were serious ethical failings, and in the case of the Post office scandal, criminal offenses as well. If I recall correctly, at least one democratic representative would up going to jail. People were outraged at democratic congressional leaders for allowing this to happen and for being way too slow to respond, and the republicans capitalized on it by painting the democrats as a party that could not be trusted and themselves as an ethical alternative. Given what we know now, there won't be anything like that for the republicans to grab hold of next year.
So, the perfect storm that came together in 1994 to give the republicans a 54-vote swing just isn't on the weather map this year. Typically, you'll see swings of anywhere from 5-8 seats all the way to 20 or so, with wider margins in particularly volatile times. 2010 won't be a 4 or 5-seat swing, I agree. It may well go 25 or 30. But if all goes the way it looks like it probably will, it's not likely to be much more than that. Best bet right now is that the dems lose ground in both chambers, but keep their majority in the Senate and probably in the House as well. If they lose the House, it won't be by much, and they'll get it back in 2012. You have to remember that as much as people still hate the democrats, they hate the republicans even more. That probably won't change anytime soon. Bush and Cheney made sure of that.
< Message edited by ThatDamnedPanda -- 12/22/2009 6:27:45 PM >
_____________________________
Panda, panda, burning bright
In the forest of the night
What immortal hand or eye
Made you all black and white and roly-poly like that?
|
Rep. Parker Griffith (D) of Alabama Is Announcing He Is... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread