Why 2010 Will Not Be 1994

In the last few weeks, Republicans have put a new twist on their campaign of never ending fear. Now the Republicans are trying to scare Democrats into thinking that 2010 will be another 1994, meaning that the Democratic Party is poised for a sweeping defeat which will vindicate the Republican Party and show that they were right about Obama, Pelosi and Reid all along.

Republican talking points comparing the upcoming 2010 midterm elections with those in 1994 are, on the surface, somewhat persuasive. The basic Republican argument is that in both 1992 and 2008, a Democratic President and Congress was swept into power; in both 1993 and 2009 that Democratic President spent an awful lot of time on health care; we didn't like Clinton; and we don't like Obama. This outline is filled in with references to Democratic extremism, socialism and perhaps most absurdly, the alleged failure of the Obama administration to reach out to Republicans.

There are, however, numerous reasons why 2010 will not be another 1994. The first is that 1994 was only partially a response to frustration with Clinton, it was also an expression of anger at Democratic control of congress, which in 1994 was a far different issue. In 1994, the Democrats had controlled the House since Harry Truman brought his party to power in 1948. They had also controlled the senate for 30 of the 44 years since that 1948 election. Accordingly, the anger at the Democratic Party in 1994 was also a genuine coalescence of broad anti-government frustration. Today anger towards the Democrats is still concentrated in the Republican base. Presenting the Republicans as the anti-Washington party will be much harder 2010 as the Republicans will only be two years removed from being the insider party themselves. Moreover, the climate of scandals and insider deal making which permeated congress, and by extension stuck to the Democrats, is simply not as strong or widespread as it was in 1994.

The Republican Party is also in a very different position than they were in 1994. In 1994, they could relatively clearly present themselves as the party of change and reform, particularly with regards to congress. Today, Republican control of congress is not a distant memory and major congressional scandals such as those surrounding Ted Stevens, Tom Delay or Jack Abramoff involve Republicans at least as much as Democratc members of congress.

In 1994, the Republican Party largely unified behind Newt Gingrich and his Contract for America which was a concise, if misguided, summary of the change the Republican Party promised to bring if they came to power. Today, the Republican Party has nothing approaching the energy and originality which Newt Gingrich had in 1994. Instead the party has little to offer other than fear and anger.

The demographics of the two parties have changed as well. To some extent the same demographic change that made Obama's African roots far less of a negative in 2008 than they would have been a generation ago, will work to help the Democrats in 2010. As the country becomes younger, more educated and less white, the fortunes of a party whose base is among older and less educated white voters will not be good. Similarly, much of the Republican gains in 1994 were the final stage in the transition of the south from solidly Democratic to solidly Republican. In 1994, the Republicans were able to pick up more than a few seats in conservative southern districts where conservative Democrats gave way to more conservative Republicans. While Max Baucus, Blanche Lincoln and other conservative Democrats may be in the news a bit this week, they are a far smaller part of the party than they were in 1994.

In some respects, the Republican comparisons to 1994 are harmless because they will likely result in greater Democratic Party focus and energy on the 2010 elections. If the Democratic Party believes there is a danger of losing more than 50 seats in the house and 8 in the senate, as they did in 1994, they will almost certainly run a campaign that is far more aggressive than the lackluster 1994 Democratic campaign when the White House and the Democratic leadership in congress seemed to realize the extent of voter anger and frustration only after it was too late.

The Republicans intent is obviously not simply to see the Democratic Party work harder, but to throw the Democratic Party off of their strategy now and to put the Obama White House on the defensive. To view the defeat in 1994 as the result of pushing too hard on health care, to take one important example, is the precise wrong lesson to take from that election, but it is the one the Republican punditry would like the White House to believe. These next few months are critical for the Obama administration, and ignoring calls to slow down, based on inaccurate comparisons with 1994, will be essential to their success.

 

Comments

[Wallysmom]

Love the piece. Thank you for saying what I have been thinking each time I see Steele or some other Rethug talk about taking the election in 2010. Unless Americans collectively knock themselves in the head with hammers election night in 2010, I think the Democrats will prevail.

[ForObamaInDallas]

Great article.

In addition:

I think many Americans are tired of fear mongering. In 2004 we were still close to TheEventsO­fSeptember­Eleventh that the republicans were able to capitalize on that, "We'll keep you safe!" It was easier to keep in what we knew rather than let in something different that we didn't know.

2 years later the people got fed up with that. Nothing has been done but being kept at a heightened sense of fear (and people do get emotionally exhausted from that) and by 2008 many people woke up to look around and see their families were sick, they were bankrupt, and their parents have lost their life savings.

Obama's promise of hope, a shining beacon in the dark, is what helped to put democrats into the White House and congress. I have to admit, that unless they keep that beacon lit, we may lose a few democrats. But not like the defeat of 1994.

I think with a younger populace who grew up with republican strategies of winning at all costs and who are more open to a greater sense of community will know how to fight back against the fear, lies, and rhetoric of the right.

People can only take so much of the boogeyman in the closet - they'll soon walk over to the closet and open it up and LOOK inside to find that it was nothing but a suit.

[RobtBrock]

I do not believe that the voters, in 2008, handed anything to the Democrats (other than Barack Obama whose victory was a great personal achievement!). Instead, I think that the American voters collectively clobbered the Republican Party and rejected Republican ideas. For awhile. Now it is up to the Democratic Party to show that it has leadership ability once again. It is not coming easily.

[andygaus]

If the Democrats don't want it to be 1994, all Democratic candidates for Congress and Senate should have their own version of a Contract with America: they should promise to vote for public funding of campaigns, the one thing that might shift the balance toward actual popular representation and away from corporate control.

[roudy]

The American voting public handed the Democrats control of congress and the White House. With that control came an expecation and in fact a mandate to produce genuine reform on many fronts.

The complete failure of the Democratic party, with a big majority in both houses of congress, to effect any real meaningful change in any of the issues facing them including bankruptcy reform, credit card reform, the total lack of any attempt to disengage from the futile and wasted wars we are waging, the failure to have any real financial reform, and the abject failure of the Democrats to produce any real health care reform will probably see the loss of significant numbers of seats in congress and may cost them the White House in 2012 due to the widespread disgust of Democratic and Independent voters. Democrats are likely to abstain along with many independents, while some independents will vote Republican.

[Heru1]

So how does that translate into votes for the party that has done everything they can do to make the mandate fail? Answer: It does not. Try again.

[MrMike513]

Sorry, but the Republicans have in no way presented themselves as a viable alternative to Democratic failures. In most cases, the Repubs are the main reason for said failures, especially health care reform. I think I speak for many independents when I say that although I am disappointed with the failure of the Democrats to produce meaningful reform, voting for Republican candidates will do nothing to further the cause for reform, and I will continue to vote for the lesser of two evils - the Democrats.

[Royucker]

It never ceases to amaze my how egocentric the leftist are. The collapse of the Dems in the mid 90s and what will happen to them in the near future are much the same. Fortunately for the Republicans you guys are so sure that you have the only solution and are so engrossed in your own ideology that you consider any resistance to your policies merly as rooted in partisan politics. You keep missing the tripping point of your demise as you stare of at the hammer and sickle you wish to fly over our nation.
Your problem is, you can not get elected if you are truthful about you intentions. Liberals never run national campaigns as liberals. Even the great Obama,, as liberal as he is, masked his true nature by holding himself up as some kind of centrist/moderate “transformative” figure and continued to do so until after election day. Only then did he start to show his colors.
Face it; people do not want your brand of fix once they understand exactly what that is. We were sold a bill of goods with the boy wonder and now are finding the goods are not good and the bill is too high.
Remember the old fable about the lion and the mouse. Yes, the lion wanted the mouse to remove the thorn from his paw, but he never asked to have it stuck up his back side.
Good luck in 2010

[LCLA]

You are easily amazed.
The article makes a good case for the differences between 1994 and 2010, and you do not.
It is more honest to run on issues and positions than on labels and branding.

[Heru1]

You thought you were going to win the Presidential election too. You will lose again.

[LeftLeanWing]

"Face it; people do not want your brand of fix once they understand exactly what that is"

---
What you must face is that people do not want your brand of f--king it up; since they already know that's what you've done and would do again if you had the reins.

The 'fix' might not be perfect but the Republican screw ups were sublime.

[Wallysmom]

It's not only the Repub screw ups but the brand they're flashing... the looney brand.

[liberalOrgonian]

The repub in Washington have shown all of us they are on the take from big business. They have NO concern for our health, and are fine that 122 Americans die each day without health services. There dis concern for Americans is appalling, shocking and most defiantly revealing. They have become unwilling to let laws pass that would better our lives. Seems like they truly only care about themselves, and set themselves above laws. The cheat on their wives, they are rude in public, they encourage the worst behavior, folks screaming , racist hate fest with gun toting nutcases. They publicly defend these angry hateful crazys. They seem to revel in civil discourse, endorse the violence and feed the crowds with misinformation. They bring nothing to the table, instead they are hell bent to stop any progress in Washington.
They act like a team, which says they want to play, only to stand around picking their noses and calling fowls. They need to be removed from their role as obstructionist and sent home to there respective states. They have become an embarrassment to the people of the USA.

[BarryS]

I wonder if the Dems win in 2010 by not losing seats or winning a few whether the pundits who are screeching will shut up or resign and find some useful work: like pushing green legislation.

[disgustedwithall]

Past time the author and D's get outside of NE Triangle AKA DC-NYC-Boston and meet the people. The D"s may well lose in 2010-beyond. Current;y D's reflect a 1.5 party system in DC. REAL issue is the D's have this one to lose and so far doing great job of that. REALITY is Obama-citizens have no party that supports and represents them. Obama has staff that reflects same, all are club members of revolving doors of the Triangle and D :"leadership" is NOT

[considerthis]

Well the "D's" as you call them, have one very very big advantage - They are not "R's". Until a viable alternative to the two party system is in place, the D's E for effort will trump the R;s F for flat out failure of the no principle

[Stefan Zeiss]

You left wing Dems should not get your hopes up. The fact of the matter is that the Democratic sponsored health care bill and the upcoming cap and trade are highly unpopular. The public option and all veiled attempts to give free health care to illegals will be shot down. Not to mention how mad people will be when they find out how this Crap and Trade legislation will increase their energy bill during high unemployment recession times. Most people now acknowledge that global warming is a scientific farce, especially when everybody sees Al Gore traveling in heavy carbon emitting private jets.

[considerthis]

Yeah - lets get some Bush/Cheney/Palin clones to run.

[bannorhill]

Lest we forget a $ 750,000,000,000 stimulus bill that passed without anyone reading it.

Just throw money at the problem. Who cares if it works.

[Heru1]

If you were as good at observing reality as you are at creating illusions, your party would not be such a loser.

[kev1000]

Us "left-wing Dems"? What about the right-wing Dems? And what about the Protestant Catholics?

[bannorhill]

If the economy and unemployment do not turn around there will be a change in Congress.

[Heru1]

Maybe Sarah Palin will save you in 2012 hahahaha

[Chickasaw962]

I was wondering if the New book on S. Palin might be banned in the libraries that she attempted to books ban from? that would be some poetic justice. I think alot of people are going to have surprizes in the next elections.

[billw8017]

There is nothing clever about the Republican strategy. It is purely negative and almost juvenile. If Democrats come out fighting, they should be able to make their case on the facts. Harry Truman campaigned vigorously in 1948, provoking his crowds to shout, "Give 'em hell, Harry!"

Truman said, "I am not giving them hell, I'm telling the truth, and they think it's hell."

[billw8017]

The revealing election is 2004. A very strong case can be made that Kerry should have won, but the vote was tampered with. The case is made in "Was the 2004 Presidential Election Stolen?" by Freeman and Bleifuss. They analyse polling data -- such as provoked the Ukraine to overturn one of its elections -- and examine complaints from election centers. Congressman John Conyers, Jr, writes the forward. It is absurdly naive to suppose American elections must be honest and that it was impossible to design a modern method of voting that could be confirmed.

The purge of the voter rolls in various states is something to think about. The accent was on the legitimacy of particular voters, an accent that would prevent some legitimate voters from voting. All the talk about voter ID is about making the vote as difficult as possible.

My point is this: The zeitgeist almost favors Democrats, but the vote is close enough that organization and a certain ruthlessness can make all the difference. Voters do tend to vote according to their expectations of the economy, and we can hope matters will be improving in 2010 -- it is more important that things should be improving than that things should be good -- but the vote will most likely be smaller and those least likely to vote are Democrats.

[billw8017]

Much is made of the importance of an administration's first 100 days. In point of fact and as you should expect, a President's second administration is smoother and more effective. Now, President Obama has a largely untested team and untested expectations. He does not have all his appointees in place but has several holdovers and holdovers who have gotten civil service slots. So, we have unfriendly leaks and the insertions of funny small print in Democratic initiatives.

To get the best advantage from a Democratic administration and a Democratic Congress, we need four more years. To oppose conservative Democrats in the primaries is fair and reasonable, but it is essential to act like a party and rally to the party when the chips are down. This kind of loyalty and consistency is what it will take to overcome the torrents of propaganda we can expect in the crunch.

[2morrowknight - Huffpost Blogger]

Great analysis. Very nice post.