Comments on: 2010 Will Not Be Like 1994

By: brandon adamson

brandon adamson — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 15:43:54 +0000

Also, unions are not nearly as strong as they were in the 80′s and 90′s. The reason why republicans can expect gains in 2010 is because of turnout. Many young liberals simply don’t vote in the mid term elections…they often aren’t even aware that such elections exist(I know zillions of these people.) 2006 was an exception to this because of the war in Iraq as well as a big media push to drive the republicans out of congress and because conservatives were so disappointed with Bush and republicans that they didn’t bother to show up. However, it will be a case of the tortoise and the hare. The democrats coming off their big wins in 2008 will be asleep at the wheel. Do you really expect all those first time voters who went for Obama to vote in an election when they have no idea who is even running in their district?
Now it could be that the numbers demographics of the country are trending democrat fast enough to offset a low percentage turnout(how many new hispanics turned 18 and became eligible for voting vs the number of WASPs that have died off in the last two years.)

By: BarryD

BarryD — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 20:25:14 +0000

“different way. After all, a significant part of the party’s turnout machine and a large percentage of its activists are social conservatives, who have been scared year after year into voting Republican on account of abortion. Now a Democratic majority has come closer to doing something to restrict the availability of abortion in one year than the GOP has done in 30. Catholic and socially conservative downscale voters, many of whom have economic populist or at least “moderate” views, might have a hard time remembering why exactly they vote for Republicans, and they might not bother this time.”

This I doubt. I just don’t see people who’ve voted GOP for 20-30 years switching that fast, without an active event (and refusing to cover abortions in subsidized healthcare isn’t such an event; it’s closer to the status quo).

IMHO, the biggest thing is the economy. In timing, the Obama administration is closer to Hoover than to FDR; in stimuls, they’re inadequate; in leadership, also inadequate. In fall, 2010, the economy is going to s*ck really, really hard for a lot of peole (i.e., those who are not in the top 10%), and the Obama administration is going to have done far more for Wall St. than for Main St.

The GOP will be well-positioned to take advantage of that anger (the fact that they’re far more pro-Wall St/f*ck Main St than the Democratic Party is mere truth, and irrelevent).

By: Daniel Larison

Daniel Larison — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 16:37:05 +0000

Interesting point. You may be right that this could depress turnout on the Democratic side, and it could definitely hurt fundraising. I doubt it would have an effect on the same scale. As pro-choice activists are discovering, their numbers and clout may not be as great as they (and a lot of conservatives) assumed them to be.

On the other hand, the Stupak amendment could be a problem for Republicans in a different way. After all, a significant part of the party’s turnout machine and a large percentage of its activists are social conservatives, who have been scared year after year into voting Republican on account of abortion. Now a Democratic majority has come closer to doing something to restrict the availability of abortion in one year than the GOP has done in 30. Catholic and socially conservative downscale voters, many of whom have economic populist or at least “moderate” views, might have a hard time remembering why exactly they vote for Republicans, and they might not bother this time. What the Stupak amendment is likely to do is to create primary challenges against its supporters from the left. That could help the GOP some, but it would come at the expense of seeing pro-life House members on the Democratic side getting purged from their party.

By: gas28man

gas28man — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 16:18:47 +0000

Consider this, though: though it is still developing, the Democrats have been confronted with a conundrum on the Stupak Amendment. In all, 23 Democrats voted in favor of it in the House, and the issue has the likelihood to inflame in the Senate and conference committee. Like NAFTA, Stupak is wildly unpopular with a significant segment of the Democratic base — in this case, women. Should Stupak make it into the final healthcare measure that the president signs, we could well have the analogue that drives a significant number of Democrats to stay home, not work the field and not work the phones as Election Day 2010 approaches.

By: JLM

JLM — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 06:48:19 +0000

SIR – the biggest contributor to the GOP sweep in 1994 was the number of retirements or vacancies in Southern seats. WIth the lost of multi-decade incumbents (in many cases), the ideological sorting was completed, with conservative Democrats replaced by even more conservative Republicans. Since the sorting is largely completed (save for the usual suspects of the Nelson-Landrieu-Bayh variety), to expect similar gains for the GOP is probably foolish, especially given the greater number of Senate seats in which Republicans will be playing defense next year.

I don’t think that Republicans can count on being able to nationalize another by-election so long as they present nationally as the Confederate party. What draws whoops from Tulsa and Birmingham and Columbia cuts less ice in, say, NY-23.