Posted on 10/07/2009 9:25:00 PM PDT by Steelfish
OCTOBER 8, 2009
GOP Faces Multiple Hurdles as It Aims for a 1994 Replay
By GERALD F. SEIB
A big question hangs over American politics: Could next year be 1994 all over again?
That was the year a bitter debate over health care led to a disastrous congressional election for Democrats, in which they lost 54 House and 10 Senate seats and ceded control of both chambers to the Republicans.
Things have started to look similar under Democratic President Barack Obama. His poll ratings slipped through the summer months, his party was damaged by a bruising health-care debate, and the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll shows the job-approval rating for the Democratic-controlled Congress has slumped to 22% -- almost precisely where it was at this time in the 1994 election cycle.
Combine that with the fact that a new president's party almost always loses seats in the first election after he takes office, and leaders of both parties now agree Democratic losses appear inevitable in the 2010 congressional election.
Even some high-profile Democrats, such as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd, face tough fights.
I think it will be a good year for the GOP, but it will not be as dramatic as the ‘94 turn around.
It will be strictly local, but from the group of GOP winners there will be the voices that will propel them to a nice victory in 2012...I sincerely hope.
A lot can happen between now and 2010. Traditionally, off-year elections are bad for the incumbent’s party. My gut feeling is...we won’t see another 1994, though the GOP will make gains in the House and Senate. Maybe enough to take the House back, but likely just a reduced Democratic majority in the Senate.
Keep in mind, my prediction is likely worth everything you paid for it. :-)
A few months ago, I would’ve thought we might take back as few as just a handful of Senate seats. Even in ‘94, it took a rash of Dem retirements for us to win it (we only beat 2 Dem incumbents, a weak one in PA who hadn’t even served a full term, and my Senator Sasser in TN who was about to be made Dem Majority Leader, and Frist, who beat him, would eventually get the job).
But we have 11 potential opportunities with Dem-held seats:
AR-Lincoln (trailing even 2nd tier candidates)
CO-Bennet (weak appointee)
CT-Dodd (trailing or tying all his R opponents)
DE-Open seat (liberal RINO Castle leads)
IL-Open seat (liberal RINO Kirk leads)
NV-Reid (trails all his R opponents)
NY-Gillibrand (if Pataki runs)
ND-Dorgan (if Gov. Hoeven runs)
PA-Specter (trails Toomey)
WI-Feingold (if Tommy Thompson runs)
and 1 more:
CA-Boxer (under 50%)
The fact that this article was written at all speaks volumes about the coming landslide. Too bad the GOP is unfit to govern...This could have been good news for freedom...
...so next year we’ll have to choose between Liberal Democrats who cram this crap down our throats and Republicans who want to help liberal Democrats cram this crap down our throats.
What a choice. :(
It's twelve, counting McCain.
Heh.
Bump for later reading
That's basically the dilemma I'm going over in my head. There's a good chance we'll see a shift in our direction towards the number of Republican held senate seats in 2010, but as it stands now I don't think we'll see an idealogical shift in the makeup of the Senate. In fact, going by the currently "likely" winners, the GOP caucus in the next Congress is likely to be a lot more liberal and willing to help Obama.
The SNL parody about Obama being a do-nothing President rings true so far because Obama can't get enough Republicans onboard his socialist schemes to make it sound "bipartisan". He has enough voters in both houses to pass it whenever he wants. But he doesn't want the RAT party to have the anchor around its neck and get all the blame for Obama's socialist agenda if the $hit hits in the fan. Obama knows if the laudrey list of liberal priorities like gays in the military get passed and voters don't like it, they'll be a backlash against the RATs.
This will change in the next Congress if the RINOs the RNC prefers win their races. I will concede that guys like Mike Castle very are likely the most "electable" Republicans in their respective states -- I just disagree with the RNC belief that they're "electable" because their values are Dem-like. They're polling best because they happen to be in the right place at the right time -- they're well known and powerful incumbent state officials running against weak and scandal-tainted RATs. Unfortunately there is no conservative farm team in those states.
Thankfully, at the moment we only have two Republicans in the Senate who do the RAT party's bidding the majority of the time -- the Maine twins (there are others like McCain who are backing stabbing a-holes and media whores but they usually vote the "right" way). That will change drastically with at least CT, DE, IL, NY (and possibly 2 or 3 others) likely to switch from RAT to RINO. The new "Republican" Senator will caucus with the GOP but vote similarly to the RAT they replaced. Olympia Snowe will get newfound allies for her dearly departed buddies like Arlen Specter. With 6 or 7 RINOs vocally endorsing Obama's far-left marxist schemes and arguing that its "bipartisan", Obama has a much better chance to get this garbage passed and brainwash the public into thinking its well-rounded, "thoughtful" legislation that has wide consensus.
I might even endorse some of the party establishment's so "moderates" in the general election, depending on the circumstance, but having ALL of them take office with no doubt be a disaster. Freepers of the "RINOs are acceptable if they run in blue states" mindset are in for a rude wakeup call. How they think we'd ever get a conservative majority by running liberals in 33 states I don't know, but the liberal wing of the Senate GOP is likely to be stronger and more influential on GOP policies than it has been in decades.
Seems alot of freepers cheerleading for RINOs have forgotten that running "electable" types like Jeffords in "blue states" led to the RAT takeover in the first place.
Are there no actual conservative Republicans who might become freshman senators next year?
Hurdles that will hurt Repubs making gains:
(1) the One Party Press
(2) McCain
(3) that few Repubs have a spine or can spell “leadership”
(4) that Repubs eat their own while Dems defend their own.
(5) ...I could go on, but its late and I’m tired.
In 1994, the GOP had more than just anti-Democrat sentiment going.. they also had a leader (Gingrich) to provide an agenda and proposed alternative. What does the GOP have to offer now? Boehner?
Better watch your state elections closely. They are sneaking foreigners in all over the place. At the very least to be spoilers.
it also depends on whether or not the GOP find there “SPINE”. If you have “spineless” Republicans like McCrap, Lesley Graham, Snowe, and Collins then it’s over.
I’m sorry but the last thing we need is a replay of 1994.
Hopefuly JD Hayworth (AZ)
Including myself a lot of people thought the GOP, and especially the Bush/Hasteret/Lott era would usher in change.
Not anymore. The GOP is the bad, but less, a bit, worse than the Democrats.
Let’s put it this way. The GOP never even had the sack to defund the NPR TV/Radio.
You know, I agree with that, but even in my district where Tom McClintock is a reliable conservative, he doesn’t give me, how shall I put it, a tingle up my leg.
I’m looking for some strong voices, who are attractive, faithful to their wives (or husbands), and can communicate with voters.
There just are many people like that, let alone, politicians.
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.