Will 2010 Be Another 1994?

Erik the Red

Rookie
Jan 11, 2010
2
2
1
Do you remember election day 1994? Though I lived on Long Island (as I do now), I was in Oklahoma at the time to attend my grandmother’s funeral. It was almost as surreal as that Orson Wells hoax when there were alleged UFO sightings everywhere. When I turned on the radio, it was as if another Democrat had gone up in smoke and some rookie Republican was taking his place. Ted Kennedy won, but only after the political fight of his life to that point. The People had become sick and disillusioned by the Donkey Party and, as evidenced by the election results, were ready for something different. The GOP tsunami had rolled in and they had a glorious opportunity to hold and build power for a long time.

Of course, we know the rest of the story. Not unlike a playoff baseball game where the visiting team is leading five to one in the bottom of the ninth with nobody on base, the relief pitcher gets sloppy and throws a fastball down the middle of the plate, only to see it launched into the upper deck behind left field. Then, because the enemy has finally seen a weakness, this pitcher gives up three singles in a row. Now the manger has no choice but to pull him and bring in the relief pitcher he had hoped to save for the next night. This is so he can face the home team’s big gun who is now at the plate. It is already five to two and the bases are loaded. Lo and behold, the big gun does the expected and hits a four hundred and fifty foot grand slam homerun into the parking lot, cracking a couple of windshields in the process. However, the crowd is oblivious to the damaged cars and are screaming their guts out as their players round the bases and are met by their jubilant teammates while, at the same time, the players, who just a few minutes earlier seemed to have the game in the bag, walk off the field with their heads down in total shock.

The same thing happened within a short couple of years to the GOP. They had their boots firmly planted on the back of the Democrats necks and were seemingly cruising down the tracks in a power they had not experienced in decades. The only ones who could mess it up were themselves. And that is what they did.

Did they learn from their mistakes? That remains to be seen.

In 2010, we have an election year where, again, there are a lot of Democratic constituents who are displeased with their representatives. Their voices have been ignored regarding such important topics as gay rights, abortion, and health care. For gay rights and abortion, this is more serious since these are subjects where these supporters were made promises during the 2008 campaign but have been dissed to this point. Regarding health care, many Democrats – particularly senior citizens – loudly and clearly voiced their disapproval of a government-run program yet nary a compromise was struck by their votees.

Some people will undoubtedly vote for their party member regardless of how lame of a job that person has done on their behalf. But you can be assured that many place credence on actual issues as opposed to personalities. In this age of financial crisis, a mentality of “what have you done for me lately” is growing by leaps and bounds. What I plan to do personally (it’s called ‘putting my money where my mouth is’) is to start in my own neighborhood and inform as many people face to face as are willing to listen how their Congressperson or Senator has voted on key issues that directly affect them. For those whose minds are already made up, I likely won’t get in the door in the first place. But for those who are either on the fence, who don’t generally follow politics closely, or who aren’t aware of many of the issues, raised eyebrows are inevitable. And why wouldn’t they be? Politics are very important because they touch everyone’s lives in some capacity, whether that person gives a hoot or not.

It rarely ceases to amaze me how there are so many who can quote a one hundred year old baseball statistic or who knows every word of Oprah’s book but can not tell me who their Congressperson is. This is something that needs to change. And when it does, real change will follow.

Happy 2010
 
don't you recall the bright young voters of 2008? They could tell you all about Mrs. Palin and the lies put forth but for the life of em they could not tell you who was on the ticket with the obamalama.. oh well, priorities ya know?
 
Don't see the anger yet.

Abramahoff and the Page scandal are still fresh in people's memories.

And there really hasn't been the insane level of entitlement on the democrat side there was in 94.
94 wasn't just about hillarycare. There was the bank, there was Jim Wright's book deal and the whitewash by the ethics committee. The whole Lincoln mess (No, Senator McCain, I have not forgotten that one).. It just piled on and on.

There was Madison Guarantee too. And the monks with all that money to spend on Presidential campaigns.

It will take a lot more than what we have seen so far to make that kind of change.


And there is also the reality that the banking crisis and the huge increase in unemployment took place on Bush's watch. I give Frank, Geitner, and Dodd much of the credit for that. But Bush is the man asleep at the switch.

It is a long 11 months. Eggs haven't even been laid yet.... lets not count chickens for a while yet
 
Baruch,

Unemployment has almost doubled and the national deficit almost quadrupled on Obama's watch - in just one year.
 
The anger is indeed there - fueled by widespread uncertainty as to what exaclty is coming.

If Brown wins the Mass. Senate race - watch out folks, the momentum is going to shift into ultra high gear - and 2010 could actually eclipse 1994.

While not yet likely - it remains possible...
 
No. Unless something drastic happens with the economy in 2010 (unemployment hitting 13-14%), I don't think this is going to be a huge tsunami of Republican anger against the democrats, and I don't think the Dems have MUCH to fear. There will be some minor changes though.

-I'm betting Harry Reid will not be Senate Majority Leader in 2011.:eusa_whistle:
-I'm betting the Missouri seat up for grabs that used to be republican will be taken by Carnahan the Democrat.
-I'm betting the Blanche Lincoln looses her seat to a republican.:clap2:
-I'm betting that Dorgan's seat will go republican.
-I'm betting Dodd's seat will remain Democratic.
-I'm betting the seat in Ohio goes Democratic (hopefully Tim Ryan).:eusa_pray:

There's a few interesting races I'm going to love watching this year. Florida... comes to mind instantly because of the Rubio-Crist battle which just keeps getting uglier and uglier. Either candidate winning is going to alienate somebody. Crist winning would probably cause a redo of the 23rd district mess that occured in NY last year. Wouldn't be suprised if we have a third party candidate run if Crist wins the Republican nomination.

I imagine that Rubio will have a hard time selling himself to the moderates and democrats that Crist has always been able to rely on to win elections in a general election after the battle that he helped waged against the "moderate conservative traitor candidate".:lol:

Floridian democrats need to prepare to take advantage of this, and get a moderate, or atleast likeable candidate like that Jewish congresswoman (forget her name) from Broward County and run a smart hands off campaign and let the republicans rip themselves apart, like they did in the 23rd district.

My guess is all together Democrats will have around a 55-45 majority in 2011 in the senate, simply because there will be alot of loses, but there is hope in a few gains to be made as well. The margin of loss might be greater for Dems in the house, though.

I think the tea party dynamic will prove to be the most dangerous to republicans.

I think of the seats democrats gain in the house there are going to be more fiscal responsability and populist candidates, mostly coming out of the midwest. I think the south will go republican again.

Another good prediction to be made... Michael Steele won't be the RNC chairman come 2011 either.:lol:
 
Last edited:
I dont know why the Rs think that anyone will vote for them. its not like they wouldn't be doing the same exact thing the Ds are now
 
I dont know why the Rs think that anyone will vote for them. its not like they wouldn't be doing the same exact thing the Ds are now

Doesn't matter - party in power is the party held accountable.

And this momentum is different - there is a far more cohesive anti-leftist big government uprising that has been built up over the summer and into 2010.

The grassroots movement is real - and it's going to play out big time in the coming months. I am more confident of that than ever.

If Scott Brown pulls off his Senate upset, it will have a very significant impact the very next day - Dems will be running more scared than they already are.

Brown raised more than a $million dollars today - AWESOME.
 
Doesn't matter - party in power is the party held accountable.

Yes. This is true.

And this momentum is different - there is a far more cohesive anti-leftist big government uprising that has been built up over the summer and into 2010.

The grassroots movement is real - and it's going to play out big time in the coming months. I am more confident of that than ever.

That's a very simplistic summerization of what's actually going on right now. There is a legitimate movement within the tea party crowd that's against big government and they've been around for a long time, they're nothing new. Many of them are strongly for fiscal responsability, lower taxes, etc. I think they'll have a huge effect on the 2010 elections, but I don't think they'll change the dynamicsimply because they exist within both parties. There are many pro-fiscal responsability democrats that will be voting in 2010, democrats can keep them if they're mindful of their concerns.

There is also a movement within the tea party community that is more focused on the "radical liberal social agenda" then fiscal responsability. There's a group within this "grassroots movement" that's really taking advantage of the fiscal responsability mantra that's really working on the behalf the radical christian right.

That's what alienates someone like me, who's moderate on economic issues and believes in fiscal responsability but is very liberal on social issues.

Anyway, I see it this way this dynamic of the tea partiers (the social conservatives and "christian right" along with the birthers) are more of a threat to the republicans as they have no fear in tearing down their own to "purify" the republican party. The less socially conservative wing of the fiscal responsabiltiy crowd are what the Dems have to worry about the most because they span both parties.

If Scott Brown pulls off his Senate upset, it will have a very significant impact the very next day - Dems will be running more scared than they already are.

Brown raised more than a $million dollars today - AWESOME.

Probably. However, I don't believe they should. The Dems in Mass picked a pretty bad candidate, atleast in my opinion, and the republicans did a good job picking Scott Brown, because like I've said I like the guy and would consider voting for him if I lived in Mass and I'm a registered democrat. The big thing about politics in the early 2000s has been that people are becoming far more independant on both sides and feel far more comfortable now then in the past voting across party lines. Even Barack's election showed us this.
 
First off gentlemen strictly speaking it isn't Republican anger. Not out here between the mountains anyway. Out here it is everybody anger. I've met more (D) here in Ok ready to vote (R) for the first time in their lives than I've ever seen before.

2nd it took a lot longer than two years for the Reps to screw up. It took about six for the big government republicans - the one's Newt Used to call the tax collector's for the Great Society - to regain control of the Republican party Under G W Bush and even then it took some real doing to finally piss the populous off enough to get them thrown out on there ear which frankly they deserved. Not because a couple of them got caught trying to get it on with the wrong sex but because we didn't elect them so we could have Democrat lite we elected them to mind the store and keep their hands out of the till and then they started to act like Democrats. More new social programs more new entitlements etc etc etc. And of course while out of power the Dems pretended to be something they'd never been since before the Great Depression - fiscally conservative and enough people now having only a public school education bought that lie and gave the power back to them and we are of course looking at even more new social programs than we got from Bush more new entitlements more new taxes more new spending and even more debt.

And all tose people that bought the lie about Democrats being fiscally responsible and voted for them are feeling like they've been had and they don't like it one damn bit. Can the REpublicans pick up a lot of seats? Hell yes but that's going to depend on what sort of candidates they run against the Dems. If we run more big government REps we'll get hammered and we will deserve it.
 
The anger is indeed there - fueled by widespread uncertainty as to what exaclty is coming.

If Brown wins the Mass. Senate race - watch out folks, the momentum is going to shift into ultra high gear - and 2010 could actually eclipse 1994.

While not yet likely - it remains possible...

While I would like to see Brown win--let's face it. Can we really give the citizens of Mass. that much credit for having any brains? I don't trust them. After all, over the past decades they could never get away from electing senators with last names starting with a K--& of course very liberal democrats at best. Kennedy & Kerry--that's what we get from Mass. I don't expect any different this time around.

As far as November 2010--no other state is like Mass--whom elect senators--(kind of the like the U.S. Supremes) & are cemented into those seats for life--no matter what they vote for--:lol::lol:

Yes--in 1994 democrats lost 54 seats in the house. This while a popular President--Bill Clinton was President--& the economy was in good shape. Democrats in 2010 do not have a snow-balls chance in hell of surviving the overwhelming anger--coming from everywhere--that continues to build in this country.
 
Last edited:
OK oREO- YOU FUCKERS HAVE HAD SINCE 94 TI FIX THINGS, YOU FUCKED UP BIG TIME, NAH THEY WILL LOSE SOME YES, BUT NOT NEAR ENOUGH TO GIVE YOU INEPT MF'S BACK THE POWER, WHAT DO YA THINK
 
Gingrich had a coherent plan, message and strategy. Thus far, all there is is anger on the Right, and the Republicans don't seem to know how to capture and exploit it, at least not to the point of repeating 1994.
 
First of all as a Republican let me say that it would be nice to see a repeat of 1994 this year, but with Steele's leadership I somehow find that doubtful. What I do think you will see is the super-majority in both houses disappear and the House and Sentate over the next two years become basically stalemated. Further, it does not appear that Harry Reid is doing so well in Nv. at the moment and in that race especially it depends a lot on who the Republicans run against him. As for MA. even though it would a good change and I mean REAL change for that state to have a Senator that does not reflect the same old thing that has been in place for over 40 years, that is a large uphill climb and much depends on turnout. If the Democrats have an even close to medium turnout then I suspect that the seat will remian in Democrat hands. I have seen several posts now that are using the words, 1994 as the year the Republicans started to mess things up, would someone kindly tell me if this is the new talking point and if so, did the previous 2 years fall of the map and perhaps the 40 years prior to that? So then by that logic then can I credit the Republican party for being responsible for the economic boom for most of the Clinton years? All of those are kids of arguments do nothing and solve nothing other than to dismiss the obvious and that is, that both parties have a hand in the current disaster we are now faced with and no one hold the moral high ground on this issue. Now, as for 2010 compared to 1994, in 1994 the Republican party unified around a very focused message and focused person to take that message into the mid-terms thus resulting in sweeping changes. In 2010 while there is a great feeling for the need to sweep those in power out of office, there is so far as I can tell a lack of a unified message. Yes, I do believe there will be many swept from power, but it remains to be seen as of yet, just how many. A good place to start to see the difference is just to read about it would be here.

Republican Contract with America
 

Forum List

Back
Top