1994 all over again? Wasn’t it 1980 all over again in 2004?
Glenn Reynolds quotes David Winston’s Roll Call article noting that Democrats seem to think “it’s 1994 all over again” and they’ll pick up enough seats in the fall elections to cause control of Congress to switch parties (as it did a dozen years ago).
While I acknowledge that the Republican Congress of 2006 has some of the same problems as the Democratic one of 1994, I note that the energy for serious reform, then as now, was in the GOP, albeit now within a minority of the majority party, rather than in a majority of the minority party as it was prior to the 1994 elections. (Winston suggests that the Democrats’ left-wing ideology will prevent a repeat of the 1994 shift in congressional control.)
Democrats who are now saying it’s 1994 all over again should bear in mind that, in the last days of the 2004 campaign, many were saying it was 1980 all over again, a year when a challenger would come from behind to oust the incumbent president of the United States.
Welcome Instapundit Readers!! While you’re here, take a moment to explore “the most reliably conservative gay blog on the Internet” where recently we offered our thoughts on Barbra Streisand, Andrew Sullivan (here and here) and the rabid left.
24 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
As near as I can tell, the Republican’s are out of favor for being insufficently republican. I can see that helping a moderate democrat presidential candidate, but not congressional Demos.
Comment by Captain Qwert Jr — May 10, 2006 @ 3:07 pm - May 10, 2006
Well put, Captain.
Comment by Mr. Snitch! — May 10, 2006 @ 3:18 pm - May 10, 2006
Yep, I agree. Bush’s popularity is tanking not because of the Dems, but because of the alienation of his base.
That will have very little effect on the local and state wide elections….unless the local guy is a RINO who has problems with his own base.
Comment by bjbarron — May 10, 2006 @ 3:34 pm - May 10, 2006
One thing we know for sure is that we wont know for sure until Wed morning this November, because the press will be beating the drums for the Dems until the cold light of dawn that day, skewing every poll, slanting every report.
Comment by moptop — May 10, 2006 @ 3:50 pm - May 10, 2006
I wrote about this some time ago (link somewhere, arghh!!) but through redistricting there’s little hope for dems. most seats are safe. also, the democrats have no agenda other than “get Bush” (come to think of it, um, nevermind…). the Republicans had the Contract. Democrats STILL stand for tax increases, spending increases, and weak on defense. they have a better shot oddly enough in ’08 at the white house than in ’06 and congress. As much as I am furious at the republicans, the dems offer only a worse alternative. until the dems act responsibly, or prove they can, they won’t govern. revenge, and that’s all they’re about right now, is not platform.
Comment by Rob Mandel — May 10, 2006 @ 4:09 pm - May 10, 2006
Bjbarron, you nailed it.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — May 10, 2006 @ 4:24 pm - May 10, 2006
moptop hits on my biggest thing about the media cheerleading for the Democrats. The main reason I’ve never worried about Bush’s “historic low” poll ratings is that they have consistently erred on the side of the Democrats time after time. Every election cycle they predict great wins for their chosen candidates and usually get it wrong. I have no more confidence in them than I do in any other PR organization, and that is the sad truth.
Comment by submandave — May 10, 2006 @ 4:31 pm - May 10, 2006
There does not seem to be very much incentive for moderates of either Party to run when the leadership of both are so dominated by the extreme sides of each.
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — May 10, 2006 @ 4:47 pm - May 10, 2006
#7 – The MSM haven’t caught on how self-defeating their constant drumbeat against Bush is.
Between elections, MSM negativity is the only news input that most people have. The polls – in addition to frequent over-sampling of Democrats – reflect that exclusive input.
Once the election approaches and the Republicans can FINALLY get their side of the story out – e.g., just how good the economy is, how bad Kerry is on defense, how Iraq really was necessary and is progressing, etc. – people go “Whoa! They have a point. I can’t believe I almost bought all that other media crap.” And lo and behold, the Republicans get a peak of support around, oh, Election Day.
If the media permitted real debate all along and were less negative, then Bush / Republicans would be a little higher in the polls all along – but, on the other hand, would NOT get wonderful “peaking” effects in the final weeks of a campaign – since people would be used to their arguments.
To Democrats, this “peaking” effect I’m describing (that happened in 2002 and 2004, and will probably happen somewhat in 2006) is because the evil Darth Rove plays dirty tricks and writes hypnotic ads. Bosh. It happens because, in the final weeks of a campaign, many people are hearing the Republican side of the story for the first time.
Comment by Calarato — May 10, 2006 @ 5:14 pm - May 10, 2006
#8 “the leadership of both are so dominated by the extreme sides of each”
Just so I have a point of reference, would you confirm that you believe Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid to be “extreme.”
Comment by Ian S — May 10, 2006 @ 5:26 pm - May 10, 2006
Sen Harry Reid is a racist and a bigot –just look at the number of key staffers in his DC and Reno offices –the number zero comes to mind.
Bush is a veritable progressive by the count of Powell, Rice, Gonzales, Martinez, Minetta, etc.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — May 10, 2006 @ 5:53 pm - May 10, 2006
#11: Goodness. Such anger! Talk about unhinged! BTW, you forgot Alphonso Jackson in your list.
Comment by Ian S — May 10, 2006 @ 6:27 pm - May 10, 2006
The guy who talked about RINOs losing seats in Congress is on the money. I suggest you watch for it to happen, big time, out here in Arizona. Jim Pederson (d) and Jon Kyl (r) are going to have a slugfest over Kyl’s seat…
Meanwhile, I can only hope that we finally replace John McFuckinCain, who has REALLY begun to grate on my nerves the past year or so.
Comment by Michael Andreyakovich — May 10, 2006 @ 6:27 pm - May 10, 2006
Michael A in #13, I heard that Kyl leads in polls by comfortable margins.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — May 10, 2006 @ 7:13 pm - May 10, 2006
#13: You think Kyl is a RINO??? Wow!
Comment by Ian S — May 10, 2006 @ 7:19 pm - May 10, 2006
#14: Kyl should be vulnerable as a Rubber Stamp Republican but I doubt Pederson can beat him. Pederson doesn’t even seem to be running as a Democrat – his ads imply he’s an independent and there’s little evidence of his Dem roots on his homepage and none on his signs.
Comment by Ian S — May 10, 2006 @ 7:27 pm - May 10, 2006
Some of us are still partying like it’s 19-99…
The real question is: Will Newt Gingrich run for President?
Comment by California Conservative — May 10, 2006 @ 7:50 pm - May 10, 2006
“the press will be beating the drums for the Dems until the cold light of dawn that day, skewing every poll, slanting every report” Only if our election were determined by exit polls, then Kerry would be in the White House.
Comment by ic — May 10, 2006 @ 8:19 pm - May 10, 2006
I find it interesting that the Dems have to use Republican victories as virtual proof that they will be taking over in November. Doesn’t that seem to be a bit self-defeating?
Comment by RMS — May 10, 2006 @ 11:50 pm - May 10, 2006
Two more similarities between 1994 and today: before the election, the Democrats were sure they’d win. And Michael Barone saw them losing both times.
Comment by Stephen M. St. Onge — May 11, 2006 @ 2:01 am - May 11, 2006
I am a diehard republican, one of the 31%. But I would not vote for Newt Gingrich. You can’t spend a decade talking about low morals, Bill Clinton and dignity in the White House, and support a thing like Newt who abandoned two wives with serious illnesses and cheated with a staffer. The Female vote will not go that way. The news media is rehabilitating Newt so he will be the republicans choice and Hillary wins in a landslide. Stop the madness, Newt is not our future. Remember he resigned in disgrace in 1998.
Comment by Karen — May 11, 2006 @ 7:52 am - May 11, 2006
Newt is unelectable, but so is Hillary.
Comment by rightwingprof — May 14, 2006 @ 2:38 pm - May 14, 2006
Well said, Karen — and I once interned for Newt!
Comment by Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest) — May 14, 2006 @ 6:05 pm - May 14, 2006
A relevant and productive website.
Comment by wedding speeches — May 18, 2006 @ 6:24 am - May 18, 2006