1994 elections

Could 2010 Be a Good Year for Democrats After All?

by: paulhogarth

Mon Apr 05, 2010 at 10:48

After months of watching Teabagger protests and a weak and ineffectual Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, it was clear that Democrats were going to get creamed in November.  But with Congress having finally passed health care reform, pundits are saying President Obama has gotten his "second wind" - and the conventional wisdom is being revisited.  Could it be the 2010 midterms will be a good election for Democrats, and Scott Brown's victory in Massachusetts was just their low point?  And was the media simply too eager to declare victory for Republicans, a premature pronouncement that will make them eat crow in November?  Granted, there's a lot Democrats have done - and can do now - to be in a better or worse position when voters have their say in seven months.  But in a rush to report a "rise-and-fall" story, the media ignored the demographic shifts which indicate we are now in a new progressive era - ending what had been a 40-year nightmare.
There's More... :: (3 Comments, 1022 words in story)

1994 and 2010, Part 3: The South

by: Chris Bowers

Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 14:00

The first part of this series discussed how Perot voters formed roughly two-thirds of the Republican gains in the national House popular vote from 1992 to 1994. While certainly there were multiple factors, including the 1994 health care debacle, polls strongly suggest that NAFTA was their primary source of Perot voter dissatisfaction with Democrats. While the bailout could potentially serve a similar function in 2010, we live in a more polarized era with nowhere near the same percentage of the electorate up for grabs as 1992-1994. As Such, a similar swing in 2010 is unlikely.

In the second part, we looked at how dissatisfaction with President Clinton among the American left was substantial, and led to low liberal and labor turnout in 1994. So far, the American left is significantly more satisfied with President Obama and the current incarnation of the Democratic Party. However, there are still worrying signs that Democrats will experience significant drop-offs in turnout in 2010.

This article looks at the third main piece of the puzzle for Republicans in 1994: southern whites. That year, for the first time, Republicans extended their strong performances among southern whites from the presidential level to the congressional level. Not only was this an essential in helping Republicans find enough seats to take over Congress in 1994, but it also gave their "revolution" enough stability to last for twelve years.

In terms of seats, 1994 was not dominated by the South
While the current incarnation of the Republican Party is heavily associated with the South, at least in terms of seats won, the Republican wave in 1994 was not disproportionately southern.

In 1994, the eleven states that once formed the Confederacy represented 28.7% (125 of 435) of the seats in the House. That year, 29.6% of the Republican net gain in House seats (16 of 54), came from those eleven states. In the Senate, only three of the nine Republican pickups were from former Confederate states. Fueled by southern whites in the South, and Perot voters everywhere else, 1994 was a national victory for Republicans, not a regional one.

Much more, including a cool historical graph, in the extended entry.

There's More... :: (21 Comments, 709 words in story)
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox