'94 MIDTERMS FLASHBACK: Preview and After-election Analysis

This has been a fascinating year to watch trends. In this final edition of the KI Briefing before the election, I want to review and identify which stats appear to be the most significant. At present, four major trends stand out: (1) national disapproval of President Clinton and congressional liberals, (2) regional growth for Republicans in the south, (3) high number of congressional open seats, and (4) evangelical turn out, while low in other segments.

(1) On Sept. 30th, we found:39%-33% nationwide plan to back Democrats in congressional races this fall; but 41%-34% of citizens who are politically active plan to support Republicans. 7 point lead. 47% of Democrats are willing to give someone other than the incumbent a chance.

In contrast, a later update (Oct. 14), showed: 73% disapprove of Congress's performance, up from 54% 6 mos. ago; 57% do not believe that Clinton should be re-elected (only 36% do); Only 54% believe that their own House member deserves re- election, while nearly half (49%) think most House members do not deserve reelection. The Republicans rated as doing a better job in all categories (foreign affairs, taxes, economy, deficit, and crime) except health care - and that within the margin of error (41-43%). 51% of the over 1,000 surveyed are likely to vote for a candidate that opposes Clinton.

* The latest USA TODAY/CNN poll reported that for the first time in 44 years, a plurality of the voters plan to vote for GOP candidates in the House by a 55-42 margin. By the way, this trend of an 8-13 point lead is consistent.

* A 10/20 WSJ poll found that less than 3 weeks from the election, the picture is darker for Democrats than a month ago. By a margin of 41-36%, registered voters plan to support Republicans; a month ago, Democrats held a slight lead of 39-36%. It gets worse among likely voters. Among LVs, the edge for Republicans is 44- 36% in House races. 8 point lead.

* In the south, voters plan to vote for a GOP candidate in the House by a 46-31 margin. And voters in open congressional seats favor GOP candidates by 43-31. Only 1 out of 4 people believe that the President keeps his word or has high ethics. (WSJ, 10/21/94). 80% of the voters support term limits.

Ten days before the election (Oct. 27), the polls showed a momentary halting. USA TODAY (10/27) featured its most recent poll, which showed purported gains by Democrats. The next day, The Wall Street Journal featured: "Some Democrats seem to Be Coming Back to Life." However, this is likely reflective of people making their final choices (normal tightening at the end), not necessarily a trend reversal. It does appear that Bill's Big Adventure to Syria may have stopped a total free-fall in the polls. Stopping a free fall is one thing; reversal is another. Still in late October, in congressional races, when the question is put to likely voters, a consistent (yea, verily, Whopping) majority - 53%-43% favor Republicans. 10 point lead. If that holds, Democrat gains must be temporary. Meanwhile, only 23% approve of how Congress is doing its job. 43% thought that "most members deserve re- election," while only 54% think their own congressman rates another term (No reversal: Identical to percentage above, from Oct. 14th).

One week from the election, trends become immaterial - except that for the last 7 weeks, the GOP has consistently held a 5-12 point edge among likely voters, despite some see-saw (still a gain for the GOP) among registered voters. All up to final commercials and turn out.

(2) Besides, national disfavor, regional shifts were evident as well, particularly in the south. On Oct. 17, we reported: When it is all over, it may well be that the lion's share of House pick ups for Republicans will be in the south. In FL for the first time ever, more Republicans than Democrats voted in the primaries, giving Jeb Bush a strong base of support. In 1941, only 2% of the congressional seats in the south were held by Republicans. At present, it is about 40% (48). Of the 125 southern seats, at the end of the elections, there may be as many as 64, with the two primary explanations for this secular trend being: (1) the south's repudiation of Democratic liberalism and humanism, and (2) the resurgence of conservative evangelicals to the public square in the past 25 years.

(3) Also many open House seats were key. From the Oct. 17th briefing we noted: "Of the 32 most endangered incumbents, all but three are Democrats. More than three times as many Democratic incumbents (49) as Republican incumbents (14) are in races in which the outcome is in serious doubt. Of the 101 competitive districts[ categories #1 and #2 above], considerably more are held by Democrats (73) than by Republicans (28). Freshmen members account for half the endangered incumbents. Of the 63 incumbents in competitive contests, 31 are freshmen. In that group, Democrats outnumber Republicans 23 to 8. In the 152 races that are competitive or bear watching, Democrats hold twice as many seats (100) as Republicans (51). The 32 incumbents in that category - 29 Democrats and 3 Republicans - are the most endangered members seeking re-election. Also in that category are 21 open seats that are too close to call. Democrats now represent 16 of those open seats; Republicans just 5."

Remember, this historical perspective on Mid-Term Corrections. Gains or losses experienced by a new president's party in elections halfway through his first term are as follows:

Eisenhower, 1954 - Minus 18 in House, and Minus 1 in Senate; Kennedy, 1962 - Minus 4 in House, and Plus 3 in Senate; Nixon, 1970 - Minus 12 in House, and Plus 2 in Senate; Carter, 1978 - Minus 15 in House, and Minus 3 in Senate; Reagan, 1982 - Minus 26 in House, and Plus 1 in Senate; Bush, 1990 - Minus 8 in House, and Minus 1 in Senate.

As to House prospects and relative comparisons, one month prior to the election we observed: On the House side, it looks like just at 30 seats may change hands. Not the 40 to control the House. To compare, 18 times this century, over 30 seats changed hands in the Congress. The biggest losses were: 33 Democrats in 1980 (last "Contract with America"); 43 Republicans in 1972 (Watergate); 47 Democrats in 1966 (Vietnam); 75 Republicans in 1948 ; 55 Democrats in 1946; 45 Democrats in 1942; 71 Democrats in 1938; and 101 Republicans in 1932.

(4) On 10/20, we compared: More than any recent year, this may be an election decided by turnout.... polls report respondents evenly divided as to whether they would vote Democratic or Republican in congressional elections (shift from a month ago when the Democrats still had a slight lead). However, large numbers of Democrats are reporting that they are not planning to vote. That may well be the margin of victory in 50 close House and 10 close Senate races.

On Oct. 3, we reported: Turn out will be a key factor. Consider this. The turn out for mid-term elections has declined from 65% in 1900, to 50% in 1920, to the 40% region since. The only time the turn out has exceeded 50% since 1920 has been in 1960. In fact, the mid- term turn out has not been above 40% since 1970. A turn out of 35- 40% means that every new evangelical vote counts more. In contrast, voter turn out in the South, in the mid-terms has risen consistently from 20% in 1920 to 50% since 1968. Conservatives in those states (many of whom are now politically active Culture Warriors) can make a difference at the edges of any race.

Of course, we also optimistically speculated on Oct 10th: Under one scenario, more of the most powerful FDR liberals would be defeated than in any single recent election. One could argue that a philosophical repudiation had taken place if G. Mitchell (Sen. Maj. Leader), Jim Sasser (on-deck Sen. Maj. Leader), ... Chuck Robb, Harris (Jim Carville's health care creation) Wofford, Mike Synar, D. Rostenkowski, and Tom Foley (House Speaker; still trailing George Nethercutt in latest poll) were all defeated, while being replaced by Olympia Snowe, Bill Frist, Ollie North, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey, and other more conservative Republicans.

With many of the leaders of liberalism defeated, perhaps 1994 will become known as the Year of the Conservative Man, when compared to the 1992 returns which boasted "The Year of the [liberal] Woman. That, too is a turn-around worth noting to see if it is the beginning of a long-term trend. Furthermore, of the retiring Republican Senators, 2 of the 3 retirees (Danforth and Durenburger) are 66% of the 'moderate' Republicans willing to cut deals on crime and health care. With these retirees, if they are replaced by John Ashcroft and Rod Grams, the tone of the Senate is considerably more conservative - especially with ideologues North, Inhofe, & Santorum. Reagan never had it so well. ***

Turn-out is key. It is worth remembering that in the 1960 presidential election, JFK won the popular vote by a narrow margin amounting to less than one vote per precinct. In a few vitally important states, close election outcomes could yield a pro-Choice Senate bloc, or veto-proof blocs. A few races are critical, particularly in the swing races in the states of VA, PA, OH, MN, OK, MI, TN, AZ, and NM. If 60% of the Baptists and Catholics in those states voted for pro-life candidates (if only about 40% turn out to vote), those races could go to Senators who would oppose the Clinton statism. This also has tremendous value for the future. If more liberals are thrown out than expected, the same trend will not likely end in 1994. If this trend continues, this may be the beginning of what John Fund calls, "The Revolution of 1994.." Fund, sounding much the same as the Kuyper Institute, observes, "The US is on the verge of a political earthquake similar to those that have rocked many nations since the end of the Cold War.... Absent a communist threat, voters will no longer put up with corruption, shoddy services and arrogance that have characterized their ruling elites. In America, the conventional wisdom until this month was that the midterm elections would be 'anti-incumbent' and a pox on both parties. Yes, a few old GOP bulls may lose, but the incumbents in trouble now are all Democrats. Why?" Part of Fund's answer (and our's) is that "a growing number believe requiring more personal responsibility would help halt the fraying of our moral fabric."

Tony Snow calls this, "The New Militant Center" in a PBS special this week, and predicts the end of politics as we have known it.

Nice Quote: "A nation at peace, with a growing economy, a shrinking deficit and a level crime rate is mad as hell and is not going to take it anymore."

* 17% for Coleman is an increase. Otherwise, North has had a consistent, narrow 1-3% advantage over Robb for six weeks. It could even be that control of the Senate will not be known until Nov. 9th or when a recount in a few close races is verified. The key states where turn out and evangelical turn out will make a difference are: TN (both), VA, PA, OK, and MN.

Earlier we noted that 9 races were in play - of which the Republicans had to win three of those nine to take over. One week prior to the election, it appears that Kennedy (MA), Feinstein (CA), and Lautenberg (NJ) are leaning toward retaining their seats. Also, Jim Sasser has a narrow lead over Bill Frist in TN #1 (Frist, however, does not know he is losing, as he recently loaned his campaign $1.5 M; not a token of concession.). If we take those 4 out (of course the seat in TN or NM could be darkhorses), then the Republicans best shots at winning are: North in VA, Thompson in TN, Santorum in PA, Inhofe in OK, and Grams in MN. These are all very conservative, and will determine how conservative the Senate, as well as the GOP Senatorial caucus, is. We still believe that the Republicans will pick up three of those, or some other combination to yield 51 Republican votes in the Senate, or perhaps 52. The worst case is that they will have 49. Call it 51 +/- one seat.

Extra points in close races will matter. We see the following as final factors. In TN, a good turn out is expected for 3 state-wide close races - which has the potential to drag Frist in. Evangelicals will make a difference here, and while the GOP is more motivated than in recent memory, the liberal constituencies are not thrilled. In the last month Fred Thompson's claim to have won the undecideds and independents is buttressed by his 4-1 advantage in fund-raising in October. Advantage GOP. The same is true in OK, with GOP supporters also having opportunity to pick up House seats. Slight advantage to the GOP. In PA, a few points from a strong pro-life coalition and a close gubernatorial race (as well as several competitive House seats) incentivizes the GOP. In VA, it is crazy. One should not discount Ollie's Army, and a "hidden vote" which does not help Robb. Despite all efforts, Ollie has a solid 35-40% base. He could pick up a few "closet" votes from Coleman defectors which could make the difference. Over the weekend, the Richmond Times/Dispatch endorsed North. In MN, Grams needs all the help he can get, plus some dissatisfaction with Wynia to win. Any of these could swing the balance of the Senate, and four out of five could be won by 1-2%.

Over the weekend, I was glad to see the McLaughlin Group agree with the sense of the Kuyper Institute. In handicapping the Senate races, these guys gave an average "8" prediction for "metaphysical annihilation" of the Democratic Party in the Senate. They rated 18 Senate seats as "safe", and warned that DE, MN, or WY could hold an upset for Republicans (but more recent polls show Roth in DE and Burns in MT safe). However, they predicted Republican pick-ups in OK, TN (#2), PA, MI, OH, ME, AZ, VA to make Bob Dole the next majority leader. Nice to see some agreement. The best possible upsets for Republicans are NM, TN, and OK.

Regarding House races, we will also stick with our earlier count of net swings in the House, at 26-30. In the 10/22 Congressional Quarterly, 155 Democratic seats were rated as safe, with 133 Republican seats rated as safe. It seems just a tad too much for the Republicans to retake the House and Senate in one year. In 1992, 24 incumbents were dumped. Most of the Republican pick-ups will be in open seats (perhaps as many as 25 going to the Republicans). However, with the Republicans likely to lose 6-8 incumbents themselves, in order to top the 40 seat pick-up level necessary to retake the House, the Republicans would have to dump nearly 20 Democratic incumbents. Should they do so, that combined number would be higher than the 24 dumpees in 1992, and perhaps give the GOP the edge in the House. However, in the South, the GOP may pick up 15 seats (more than half of the above estimate from this region alone), giving them nearly half of the southern congressional seats (up from 2% in 1940).

Several Gubernatorial Races may help determine the level of conservative strength in the Senate. In MI, PA, and TN, turn-out for close races may give the Republicans the margin of victory in at least 3 states. Also the Bush Bros. in TX (Junior is up by 3 in latest poll) and FL (Jeb is tied with Chiles and has some momentum) can help House candidates.

Winners and Losers: Big Loser, of course, is Bill Clinton. Regardless of the exact numbers, unless there is some large change in the last 7 days of this election, the nation will vote to reject Clinton's version of change. Others Big Losers may be liberal incumbents (e.g., Foley, Sasser) who are bumped, and a few Governors. House committees may not change that much. Another big loser is Jim Carville, if Lawton Chiles and Harris Wofford lose.

Winners are the Obstructionists who gained favor by defeating big-government measures. Among these are Bob Dole, Phil Gramm and Newt Gingrich. Even though not the House Speaker, Newt may be one of the biggest winners, having built a loyal coalition (estimated by some to be near 100) in the House - a level of party loyalty not seen since LBJ. Newt's 100 may be more than the other House Republicans combined, almost making him the Father of a new political party. May be in 2000. Other conservatives who have run solid races are winners: North, Grams, Santorum, Thompson, Inhofe, Kyl, Ashcroft, Abraham. If North wins with all the opposition, he will gain instant respect (I believe it was the Prince who noted: "It is better to be feared than to be loved."). These will strengthen the backbone of the Senate, and any who lose from this group will be heard from again. Other winners are the Republicans who will be more visible as chairman of Key Senate Committees, and Majority Leader Dole, who will strengthen his prospects. A conservative scale is given below.

This leads to another set of observations. How will these 94 mid-terms effect: (a) prospects to take over after 96; (b) legislation; (c) alteration of Clinton agenda; or (d) Presidential election of 96.

Clinton, despite his protestations to the contrary will be damaged if the Senate has so many conservative Republicans, with the House being virtual-Republican. His "running against Congress" will not work as with Truman in '48; instead, he will be further rejected as incapable of bringing change. He will pass nothing to incite his liberal wing; and will not be able to move conservative enough (even with his talent for duplicity) to pass much. For the first time since WWII, an ideological party (with the 25 Senators above, being the highest and best organized caucus in the Senate) will trend conservative. If the Republicans, however, cave in (which is their unique talent), they will hand the 96 election to Bill Clinton. Might not happen this time.

In fact, a conservative movement may be growing. With as many gains in the Senate (even the Republicans only have 49 seats) and the House, it is just a matter of 2 years before they take over both chambers. Admittedly, some interpret '94 as a "kick out the incumbents" year, and expect that it will be done unto the Republicans in 96. We see things differently, however. In reality, this may well be the beginning of a long term trend, in which big government is rejected by the grass-roots first, and then trickle up.

Regardless of whether the Republicans have 49-52 Senators and 205 or 215 Representatives, the dynamics of legislation are dramatically altered. If the Republicans stick to their guns (and may have to, primarily in view of the 96 election) only marginal health care reform will pass. They may have enough votes to act on some of their "Contract" items, and welfare may have some moderate reform. Look for some slow sessions, which will not further ingratiate the Democrats with the voters. Phil Gramm sees it as halting the tax-and-spend machine in its tracks.

Of course, the presidential race has already begun. Phil Gramm and Bob Dole are the Republican front-runners for now, with either Quayle or Kemp challenging as an outsider and conservative. The time is ripe for a shrewd tea-leaf reader. If one would aggressively and consistently chart an ideologically conservative path, that one might be a republican standard-bearer. Still, the Republicans are better in Congress than in the White House for now.

NEWS ANALYSIS: THE 1994 MIDTERM ELECTION

'94 VOTE: REPUBLICANS SEIZE
THE REINS OF DISCONTENT

By Gary Langer
Senior Polling Analyst
ABC News

Three themes dominated the 1994 election: Discontent with the economy,
dissatisfaction with the president and distrust of the government. Each drew
strength from the other; together, they toppled the Democrats from power.

The irony of 1994 is that these are the same issues Bill Clinton rode to
victory in 1992. Voters hired him to outperform George Bush, end gridlock -
and above all, to fix the economy in a way they could feel.

Tuesday his time ran out. Economic discontents, political dissatisfieds,
angry voters - all groups the Democrats won two years ago - voted Republican.

The economy comes first. It was the overwhelming issue in 1992, with 79
percent of voters saying it was in bad shape and 62 percent of them voting
for Democratic House candidates. There has been progress; this year 57
percent said the economy's in bad shape. But that's still a majority - and
this time precisely the same share, 62 percent, voted Republican.

What's the gripe? True, the economy is robust by most measures. But not in
the one that counts most - wages and salaries, which have been growing at
their slowest rate in decades, Many Americans feel like the proverbial
one-armed paperhanger - working harder, but earning less.

The 1994 exit poll proves the point: Forty-three percent of voters in fact
said they're "working harder and earning less." Even worse for the Democrats,
an overwhelming 75 percent said they're no better off today than they were
two years ago. And the more unhappy voters were economically, the more
Republican they voted - just the opposite of 1992. Voters seemed to say
Clinton and the Democrats have had their chance, and haven't delivered.

                               House Vote
                           1994          1992
                         Dem   Rep     Dem   Rep
Economy:      Good       63    37      22    78
              Bad        38    62      62   38

Own finances: Better     61    39      34    66
              Same       47    53      50    50
              Worse      36    64      72    28

IDEOLOGY - As much as it cut, the economy wasn't the only issue. Clinton was
elected as a "New Democrat," meaning not a liberal one. To the extent voters
feel the nation was sold a bill of goods, they expressed it Tuesday.

Conservatives, especially, staged something of an organized revolt. Highly
motivated, they showed up in much greater numbers, comprising 37 percent of
the electorate, up from 30 percent in 1992. And their vote was monolithic -
4-1 for House Republican candidates, 80 percent to 20 percent. The turnout by
conservatives was especially high in some hot races, including Senate races
in Pennsylvania and Tennessee.

Liberals naturally voted Democratic - but they made up just 18 percent of the
electorate, meaning there were two conservatives for every liberal voter.
Democrats can take some heart that they won moderates, 58-42 percent. But for
size and power, the conservative vote won the day.

PARTY TIME - Republicans did not turn out in greater numbers nationally (they
did in some states; see below) - but they voted in a stronger bloc: Only 8
percent of Republicans voted for Democratic House candidates, down from 15
percent in 1992.

Most important, though, are independents, the swing voters in any election.
Their size also was unchanged, at about a quarter of the electorate. But
their allegiance switched. After voting for Democratic candidates for the
House over Republicans by a steady 54-46 percent in the last three elections,
this year independents voted for Republicans, 56-44 percent.

                   Vote Among Independents
                        Dem     Rep
         1994           44      56
         1992           54      46
         1990           54      46
         1988           54      46

Another swing group is Ross Perot voters. They can go either way: In 1992,
asked who they'd have chosen if Perot hadn't run, those with a preference
split evenly between Clinton and George Bush. This year, however, Perot
supporters favored Republicans by a 2-1 margin, 67-33 percent.

Still, Perot's own clout shouldn't be overestimated. His voters made up just
13 percent of the electorate, down from 19 percent in 1992. And all voters
were asked if they "agree with Ross Perot on most issues." Just 15 percent
said they did.

CLINTON - Given the conservative turnout, it's no wonder Clinton's rating was
so dismal. Just 45 percent of voters approved of the job he's doing, while 51
percent disapproved.

It seems he just hasn't moved beyond his minority base. Among voters who
backed him in 1992 - 44 percent of Tuesday's voters - 82 percent approved of
his work. But among everyone else, 79 percent disapproved.

The economic component of Clinton's rating is powerful. People who say the
economy's in good shape, and those whose own finances have improved, approved
of his performance by a 2-1 margin. But people who say the economy's in bad
shape, and those who are worse off, disapproved by 2-1.

A president's approval correlates to his party's fortunes in midterm
elections, and none has been this unpopular since Ronald Reagan in the 1982
recession. But Reagan's party lost "only" 26 seats; Clinton's lost 52.

One reason: Reagan's unpopularity was more evenly distributed than Clinton's,
dipping only in the Northeast. Clinton's rating varied more by region - and
it fell lowest in the South, precisely where the Democrats were most
vulnerable. In the East 51 percent of voters approved of Clinton, and his
party lost only three seats. But in the South just 40 percent approved - and
the Democrats lost 19 of their House seats there.

                         East   West   Midwest   South
Clinton Approval          51     45      45       40
Democratic House Losses    3     15      14       19

RIGHT TURN - Southern voters' problems with Clinton were more ideological
than economic. Economic views were no more negative there than elsewhere. And
the South as a whole didn't have a surfeit of Republicans.

But Southern voters were more likely to be conservatives (41 percent,
compared to 35 percent in the rest of the country), more likely to be casting
their vote to show opposition to Clinton, more anti-incumbent - and far more
likely to identity with the religious right political movement.

Twenty-eight percent of whites in the South identified themselves as members
of the religious right, exactly twice their number in the rest of the
country. They voted 3-1 for Republicans.

IMPERILED - Other groups bear mentioning because they show how imperiled the
once-mighty Democratic coalition has become. Democrats keep winning large
shares of relatively small groups - such as liberals, blacks, Jews,
Hispanics, union households and liberals. But they're losing many of the big
groups in this country - whites, white Protestants, and in this election even
white Catholics, once a strongly Democratic group.

The erosion has been steady. In 1990 white voters favored Democratic House
candidates over Republicans, 53-47 percent. In 1992 whites split evenly,
50-50. This year whites voted Republican by 58-42 percent.

                            White Voters
                             Dem   Rep
                       1994 42    58
                       1992 50    50
                       1990 53    47

ANGER - Along with the economy and Clinton, the third prime factor Tuesday
was voter dissatisfaction with government. Fifty-five percent said the
country is headed off on the wrong track. Seventy-four percent said they
trust the government to do what's right "only some of the time" or never.
Seventy-nine percent disapproved of Congress. And 69 percent were either
dissatisfied or downright angry at the way the federal government operates.
Majorities in each one of these groups voted against the Democrats.

Again, a comparison to 1992 is instructive. Then dissatisfied and angry
voters favored Democrats for the House by 56-44 percent. This time they voted
Republican by 64-36 percent.

                                    House Vote
                                1994          1992
View of Government:           Dem   Rep     Dem   Rep
Enthusiastic/Satisfied        76    24      41    59
Dissatisfied/Angry            36    64      56    44

Similarly, in 1992 49 percent of voters said it would be a good thing to put
"all new" people in office; they voted 62-38 percent for Democrats. This time
bottom-line anti-incumbent voters, although now a smaller 38 percent of the
electorate, voted 70-30 percent for Republicans.

While the switches are striking, it is important to note that the 1992
election was a different contest, with a different electorate - a much bigger
one, among other things. It's an open question whether conservatives, for
instance, will stay motivated and will wield such clout in a larger pool of
voters.

RESULT - The results of the election clearly are a repudiation of Clinton and
his performance on the economy - where it counts, in wages. The 1992 election
didn't represent any broad endorsement of Clinton's political agenda; it
mainly was a cry for economic help. The 1994 election was another cry - one
saying that help has yet to be received.

By the same token, the exit polls indicate that neither should the
Republicans read too much into the mandate they've received. The voters
simply said it's their turn to try. And once you hold the reins of
discontent, as Bill Clinton has found, it can be a bumpy ride.

                                                         -------

That's the national picture. Here's a brief look at a few specific state
contests:

- TENNESSEE. First on the list because it's a classic example of Democratic
fortunes: They got creamed, losing two Senate seats and the governorship.
Among the reasons: Clinton's job rating was the pits in Tennessee, with just
39 percent approving, while 57 percent disapproved. And about half the voters
said both Democratic Senate candidates agreed with Clinton too often.

Republicans turned out big-time in Tennessee (Vice President Al Gore's home
state). They made up 39 percent of the voters, a plurality, up from 31
percent in 1992. Conservatives also made up a plurality, a whopping 46
percent. And voters were loaded for incumbents: Half liked the idea of "all
new people" in government, and the top issue in all three races was "time for
a change."

- PENNSYLVANIA. Like Jim Sasser in Tennessee, another incumbent senator bit
the dust in Pennsylvania - Harris Wofford. This race was closer, but again
conservatives were highly motivated, accounting for 37 percent of voters, up
hugely from 28 percent in 1992. Economic discontent was strong. And Wofford
didn't hold the center on his prime issue, health care. Just 24 percent of
voters said the health care system needs a complete overhaul; most favored
slower change, or none - and voted for Wofford's opponent.

-TEXAS. More of the same. Clinton is extremely unpopular - 59 percent of
voters disapproved of his work. Republicans numbered 40 percent of the
electorate. Forty-three percent were conservatives, the biggest ideological
group. And, like Gov. Pete Wilson in California, Republican George W. Bush
successfully made crime a top issue; he was preferred to handle it.

Texan Ross Perot endorsed the losing incumbent governor, Ann Richards. And,
in fact, Texans who approved of Perot did favor Richards over Bush, 54-42
percent. Problem was, most Texans - 55 percent - disapproved of Perot. And
they voted for Bush.

-VIRGINIA. An anomaly: If Republicans did so well, why did arguably the most
famous one, Oliver North, lose his bid to unseat damaged Democratic Sen.
Chuck Robb? One answer is that North had a major weakness of his own:
Fifty-nine percent of voters said his role in the Iran-Contra affair was a
factor in their vote, and they overwhelmingly opposed him. (Fewer, 42
percent, said Robb's personal life was a factor).

North expected help from the religious right and got it: Fourteen percent of
Virginia voters placed themselves in that group, and 84 percent of them voted
for North. But blacks made up as big a group - 15 percent - and voted even
more strongly for Robb.

- NEW YORK. The best-known incumbent victim, Mario Cuomo, ran into a buzzsaw
of discontent. Eighty percent of New York voters said the state's economy is
in bad shape. Sixty-three percent favored the death penalty, which Cuomo
opposes and his opponent, George Pataki, supports. Taxes and government
spending were the top issues, and more believed Pataki, not Cuomo, would cut
taxes.

As in many other states, conservative turnout was way up - to 34 percent of
the electorate, up from 25 percent in 1992. And ultimately Cuomo faced a
problem he simply couldn't resolve in this year of voter discontent:
Sixty-six percent of New York voters said he'd just been in office too long.

METHODOLOGY - This analysis is based on ABC's Election Day survey of 10,210
voters as they left their polling places. State samples included 1,700 voters
in Tennessee, 1,958 in Pennsylvania, 1,591 in Texas, 1,877 in Virginia and
1,639 in New York.

Jeff Alderman is director of the ABC News Polling Unit, Gary Langer is its
senior polling analyst and Dick Sheffield is research analyst. Consultant
Doug Muzzio of Baruch College assisted with Election Day exit poll analysis.

I loved reading this. I'm still surprised that North lost in 1994 in the midst of that tidal wave-- even after Sen. Warner rooted against him. The Fred Thompson poll had him up 46-40 prior to the election, and he won 60% of the vote. I'll dream tonight of November 2002 getting us closer to "metaphysical annihilation" of the Democrap Party.

Gimme a 'D'
Gimmie an 'O'
Gimmie an 'H'
What's it spell?

DOH!

Have you contributed any yet?

Free Republic is funded solely by donations from readers.
Donations and official correspondence should be mailed to:
Free Republic, LLC, PO Box 9771, Fresno, CA 93794

Support Free Republic by secure credit card.

Send PayPal direct to JimRob@psnw.com

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.

Kuyper Institute Weekly Briefing

Gimme a 'D' Gimmie an 'O' Gimmie an 'H' What's it spell? DOH! Have you contributed any yet?

Gimme a 'D'
Gimmie an 'O'
Gimmie an 'H'
What's it spell?

DOH!

Have you contributed any yet?