Posted on 05/11/2006 5:09:42 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued
Yeah, I distrust the government, it's run by Larry, Moe and Curly.
Immigration I think will contribute to a depresskon of GOP turnout in November, if the environment is as it is now. Of course, it depends on the district, and how things play out on a micro level.
>>
That's why I'm upset, the GOP eliminated the other choices too.
>>
Whaaa? I thought there was a primary. The voters eliminated them, not the GOP.
Thinking of 94. Let's take the converse. How many races that were definitely on the radar screen as being Dem vulnerable did the Dems end up winning. You guys think about it. In a sec I'll post my recollection.
"No matter how disenchanted they are with Republicans, genuine conservatives would recognize that the Left is totally anathema to anything conservative."
====
And that's the truth. Well said.
My memory is fading, but I doubt it was more than five seats. The biggest shocker that I remember on the flip side was when that GOP guy won in the Durham, Chapel Hill (sp) district, beating an entrenced incumbent, with little money, and little talent. Nobody suggested that seat was in serious play. He lost in 1996 to the previous incumbent, whom I think is still hanging around.
You mean David Price?
Ted Strickland also lost in OH-06.
Maria Cantwell lost in WA-01 and came back to win the WA Senate election in 2000.
Those are the Democrats who lost in 1994 who came back and were successful in politics later, I think.
Your loser, take-my-marbles-home mentality will help us to lose the House. Yes, the politicians have set themselves up for it, but you should be part of the solution, not part of the problem. Electing Rats is never, ever, ever, part of the solution.
1) Nebraska which was on the competitive list but never considered a tossup. 2) Maryland which was the same thing, with Bill Brock winning who ended up getting creamed. 3) New Mexico which got real close at the end, and at one point I think the polls were almost tied. 4) California which I believe Cook had as a tossup around this point in 94. 5) NJ where the same was true I believe and where polls were also very close I think for quite a while. 6) MA, where at one point Romney had a lead. 7) Virginia, where this time in 94 you probably would have bet on a GOP pickup, and maybe even more so at earlier points in that cycle when it seemed possible another GOPer would run.
Am I forgetting anyone else? Of the 8 seats the GOP picked up, I think AZ, ME, and OH were already considered more likely than not wins. TN (Thompson), OK, PA and MI would probably have been at best 50/50 from the Dem perspective. TN (Frist) was still not a likely win I don't think.
Where the GOP did much better than expected was in holding their own seats.
Ya, Price. The Cantwell and Strickland seats were definitely viewed as in play. Washington was more GOP then, and Strickland held a marginal to GOP leaning district. Those seats were heavily contested.
Yep, IL-05 was Rostenkowski and NJ-08 was Herb Klein who was a freshman. But you're right - 1994's very messy and on top of that I screwed up on NJ-08! What I did was average the GOP percentages of 1992 and 1996 plus half the Perot percentages. But, I must've mixed up the rows when I did NJ-08 because my figure is what NJ-09 would be. NJ-08 should be 43.3% GOP. The Polidata tables I'm using are a bit difficult to keep in order.
I realize the Dole/Bush I + 1/2Perot figures aren't nearly as neat as GWB 00 & 04, but I'm not really shooting for precision, just ballpark ranges. Still, that screw-up puts NJ-08 in a whole different range. So, I'll go double check them all now & get back to you in a bit!
The senate isn't the House. All those districts you mentioned had things in play. For example, Huffington in California had an illegal maid problem that popped out at the end, as I recall. Virginia had Ollie North no? What a mess that one was!
As I kept repeating for years: immigration won't be a serious election issue unless economy goes south. A I mean really bad economy, worse than 2002. Perhaps even worse than 1991.
You should use Bush 1988 as a baseline, with a bit of a minus factor. Parsing the Perot vote is wrong, because it was a protest vote, and more GOP leaning than not otherwise, particularly in the South. Of course, using Bush 1988 today would be ludicious. But not in 1994, when social issues were rather quiet.
I was quite interested in that myself, but I don't have a list to work with. I just remember a few such as Harold Volkmer in MO-06 (and Volkmer then lost the rematch with Kenny Hulshof in 1996). I have a table of the 1994 House results where I could pick out close races that went Dem, but that doesn't really help without a pre-election list of seats thought competitive.
Anyhow, I've gotta go double-check my earlier figures, so I'll BBS.
Just leave me alone, I'm voting for the Republican in my district. I'm not even in your state, let me be miffed.
Yeah, Price wrote a book about it. I may stil have it on hand. I had to study it for one of my classes.
There is also a primary for the general, that was the primary for the special. Confusing, no?
The Volkmer seat was in heavy play. His challenger was in a rematch. Volkmer was expected to lose, towards the end. Little Dixie just didn't have the clout it once did, demographically and was trending GOP even back then, discernably.
OK, do you want me to do that? I have the 1988 figures for the 1994 districts. Don't you think that would overstate the GOPness in light of what a flop Dukakis was? How much of a minus factor should I use? Going by 1988 would make NJ-08 a 54.5% GOP district, BTW. IL-05 becomes a 51.5% GOP district. Do you think that seems an accurate representation of the 1994 baseline?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.