On the Trail: Is This '94? 5 reasons why this will be just like GOP revolution and 5 why it won't

WASHINGTON — There are two ways to look at any election cycle -- by comparing it to past cycles or taking it at face value. The problem for prognosticators is that we have to use both methods simultaneously.

History is my guiding principle on all things political, but I also believe that every election is an individual snowflake.

The similarities between this midterm cycle and '94 are striking, and yet the differences are stark. I've broken down this debate into reasons why the cycles are and are not similar.

1. One-Party Control: This is probably the single most important similarity framing this cycle. In order for a "change" election atmosphere to work for the minority party, the party in power has to be viewed as in control of everything. And right now it's clear that Republicans are in charge. Still, GOP partisans will argue that no one really controls the Senate without 60 votes, but that doesn't resonate with voters. A Republican is speaker of the House, a Republican is Senate majority leader and there's a Republican in the White House. And thanks to the controversy involving Terri Schiavo, the public presumably views the judiciary as skewing to the right.

Similarly, in '94, there was no denying that the Democrats were in charge. Democrats held all three positions.

2. Unpopular President: Like '94, this president has a job rating south of 45 percent. And because President Bush is a member of the party leading Capitol Hill, his problems are Congress' problems. The thing that ought to scare Republicans a bit more about this cycle, compared with how '94 should have scared Democrats, is that Bush's job rating is hovering just beneath 40 percent.

My thoughts exactly. However, I am a bit worried about the Presidential race for 2008. People like to switch presidential parties much more than Congress and House. Normally Republicans get 12 years before the switch, but not sure if we will get it this time. We might end up with a one term democrat and then switch back. It would be completely foolish to ever say we will NEVER have a democratic President again. I would say that it is possible to NEVER have a democratic house again especially if we do survive this round. Senate goes back and forth all the time. Your thoughts?

For one, if Hillary is the choice of the Dems ( and this looks to be getting to be close to sure ), then I think they have a long hard climb. Which is to say, your worries are premature.

SEE HERE :

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1722500/posts

40% of the electorate surveyed are DEAD SURE they won't vote for Hillary. Short of nominating an ax-murderer as the GOP candidate, I think the disadvantage lies with the Dems in 2008.

By 1990 enough states were controlled by republicans that the house districts could be Gerrymandered in the 1990 redistricting. We ended up with a majority of house seats either strongly Republican or about 54 to 46 percent Republican. There were a minority of seats that were 70 to 30 Democrat.

The Ross Perot situation prevented the Republicans from winning enough of those 54 to 46 seats to win the house. But Ross Perot was not the factor in 1994 that he was in 1992 and the Republicans won the house.

I would point out that prior to 1990 a majority of house seats were Gerrymandered Democratic. Even a Reagan landslide in 1984 could cause the Democrats to lose control of the house.

But the 1994 election had seats Gerrymandered enough that Republicans could win control of the house with only 48 percent of the total house vote.

In 1996 Bill Clinton won a major victory but the Gerrymandering caused the house to remain solidly in Republican control.

The year 2000 brought even better results for Republicans. They were able to Gerrymander even more seats. And they picked up seats in 2002. The media was surprised but not those of us who knew what was going on.

Now in 2006 the seats are still Gerrymandered Republican and Republicans can retain control even if they lose the total vote by 53 to 47.

I was amused in 1994 when Newt Gingrich took credit for the victory and sighted his contract with America as the reason. Newt had been involved with the RNC which had started in the mid 1960s with a plan to take control of a majority of state governments by 1990.

Newt was well aware of the progress. It had started in the mid 60s by recruiting attractive candidates for city councils and county commissioner races. By the time these candidates had climbed the ladder to state government the Democrats had few experienced candidates to take them on. When republicans started to win a lot of city and county government races the Democrats farm team stopped growing.

Nothing as far as Gerrymandering has changed since the last redistricting in 2000. Democrats need to win by more than 54 to 46 percent to take back the house while Republicans can lose the total vote count by 53 to 47 and still hold the house.

It is exactly like it was from the 40's until 1990. A Ronald Reagan could win 58 percent of the vote but the Democrats still held the house. Bill Clinton won in 1996 but the Republicans held the house.

In the things that count on election day.. like Gerrymandered Districts the Democrats have a huge hill to climb.

The media stupidly believes that it was Newt and his Contract with America and the dislike of government all in one hand that cost the Democrats the house in 1994. It didn't it was the Gerrymandering that gave the Republicans the house in 1994 and it will be the Gerrymandering that holds onto the house ... just like it did for the Democrats in 1984.

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.