Replies

“Bush’s reelection would’ve all but guaranteed continued Democrat domination of Congress. At best, we might’ve gotten to 190 in the House (our maxing-out point from the ‘50s) and perhaps mid to high 40s in the Senate.”

That is pure speculation on your part. There were a whole slew of reasons why the GOP took the House and Senate in 1992, and a lot of them still would be applicable even had GHW Bush won reelection in 1992. You had anti-incumbency after 50 years of Democrat control. You had the Post Office scandal. You had a higher than usual number of ultraliberals elected in conservative districts in 1992. You had the creation of dozens of black-majority districts, making surrounding districts far more difficult for white Democrats to hold. That the national mood had turned sour on liberal Democrats by 1994 is clear as day, and had Bush been reelected it wouldn’t have changed things very much—or are you suggesting that it was Billery’s fault that Mario Cuomo lost reelection?

I think the GOP would have regained the Senate in 1994 even had Bush been reelected, and that the House would have either gone GOP or at least had more Republicans than at any point in the last few decades. The GOP was just *due*. Just like it is likely that the Democrats would have won the House and Senate in 2006 even had Kerry beaten Bush in 2004, and that the Democrats were due to suffer hefty losses in 2010 even had McCain beaten Obama in 2008, I don’t think the results of the 1994 elections were attributable solely to Clinton’s overreaching.

The overriding factor here is that it would’ve been a 6th year election, and almost inevitably, it is a disaster for the administration. Given the counterbalance of scandals from the Democrats, at best, we might’ve seen it end in a wash (a la 1990), but I cannot see any way in which it would’ve ended in a majority for the GOP. Clinton’s election almost promised GOP gains, and his overreach and out-of-touch(ness) made it an absolute guarantee with national repercussions.

Actually, had Senate Democrats not retired in 1994, we might not have even won that (come close, yes). Some of those Democrats might not have even chosen to retire under Bush, and hence, they would’ve held it (David Boren, George Mitchell, Don Riegle) and Shelby & Campbell wouldn’t have switched parties with a GOP minority. We’d also probably have lost seats (Bill Roth in DE, the open Durenberger seat in MN, possibly the open Danforth’s in MO, Slade Gorton in WA), all 4 of which are now in Dem hands today, and hence would’ve resulted in a net loss of seats. Clinton really did cause that much of a game changer, as did Zero for his first two years.

BTW, I also disagree that Congress would’ve changed hands if Kerry had won in 2004. He would’ve been as viscerally unpopular, and add to that the shenanigans of his VP, Edwards. Virtually all our Senate wins from 2000 would’ve been preserved and we’d clearly have gained Governorships (Granholm would’ve been bounced in MI, ditto Napolitano in AZ, Vilsack in IA, Gilligan-Sebelius in KS, et al, and conversely, Bob Ehrlich in MD would’ve been saved).

Interesting thought but we really don't have a historical example of that. The Senate is more of an island (look at 1982 bad loss of House seats but essentially broke even in the Senate and in 1970 the GOP gained Senate seats cause we were "due" big time after 1964 and 1958) but having the White House almost always means losing House seats in the midterm. When the President's party has gained House seats it has been slightly.

The elections were that has happened in modern times are 2002, 1998, and 1934. And toss in 1962 when the House went from 437 back down to 435 and I think it was -2 dem but plus zero GOP and the rats gained in the Senate that year.

All of them had in common one thing, the President was very popular at the time. Bush in 2002 was popular (also we had favorable redistricting), Clinton during impeachment with the media telling everyone how great the economy was and how "it's just sex" was popular, Kennedy in 1962 was popular (and I have to think the rats had favorable redistricting with their vast state leg control, the map in Cali was a disaster that gave us 1/3 of the seats on half the vote). There were no Presidential approval rating polls in 1934 but it's safe to assume FDR was popular and the GOP was still hated and reeling.

We were due in 94 and liberals were disliked but anger at Clinton was the #1 motivating factor, without it could we really have won? What if Bush had another read my lips style blunder? Would Kerry have been popular in 2006? I don't think rats were due in 2006, maybe we could have had a 1998 type of "tie" but I really can't see the rats winning majorities without the Bush hate. Maybe Kerry would have been just as hurt by Katrina.

And in 2010 could we have benefited from the hatred of the rat congress if we had RINO McCain at the helm? What if McCain was working with them to pass watered down versions of the crap that Obama eventually passed? Would the tea party still have arisen? Maybe we could have gained in the House cause there was little room to go down after 06 and 08 but a big gain or gaining (and holding) all those Senate seats? I don't know. Maybe if McCain had pulled a sideways Truman and espoused strong Conservative values and vetoed everything but this is McCain we're talking about. Maybe if he died a year in and Palin took over.

If those midterms had gone as you propose it would have been unprecedented. If Obama loses I hope 2014 will break the usual mold. Lots of tasty Senate seats up, we should gain there even if Romney is in and isn't popular.