This is NOT 1994

[nadinbrzezinski]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

The Majorities the Republicans will have are not that large in the House.

(And they have to contend with the Tea party, a SIGNIFICANT minority)

In fact, early in the day I said that whoever had it, would be by NARROW margins... not the tsunami predicted.

But read this again, the tsunami did not happen and this is NOT 1994... now talking heads will try to make it so.

But it is NOT.

Now get back to work damn it.

[Prism]

1. I respct you, Nadin

I honestly do, as your perspective on history has often led me to research and read about areas of American history my own learning has missed or ignored. Your posts are a great resource for me, as someone who is interested in the whole breadth of history.

But.

You're kind of flailing around now for anything at all.

Tonight is what it is. We will take stock and recover and figure it out in the coming days. I hope. Unless our politicians offer the same old boring, ineffective, limp Washington D.C. explanations.

In this economy, people are done. Our people are done. Their people are done.

We need something . . . more. We, you and I and everyone else, need to dig into our history and find something else. We need a better inspiration and explanation. Because, tonight, we're all done.

Until tomorrow. When we aren't.

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. Just pointing out that this is NOT 1994

time will tell if THIS class will be a little less nutty than that one... I doubt it.

That is all

And the MEDIA starting with the AP is already saying, like clockwork, that this is worst than 1994, when it is not.

And tomorrow we need to get back to work, that is what it is.

[Prism]

6. No, it is 2010, and that is worse

In 1994 our economy had the luxury of Republican rule. We no longer have that luxury. Our country is flailing, lashing out in any direction, desperate for any kind of solution, and those who best convince they have answers will find the people in their favor.

The populists will win, no matter who they prove to be. The tea party have assumed the populist mantle. We can interpret that ghowever, but the fact remains. Whoever seems most out of touch loses.

The Democrats, as the ruling party, with their half measures, appeared the most out of touch.

We lose.

What are we going to do about that?

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. Get back to work like we always do

that is what we are going to do.

[Prism]

17. What, exactly, is that work?

Because we have been told the past two years have been spent working about this wonderland of recovery and reform.

Ok, that's all gone.

Now what does work entail?

Do we reset to 2006, 2004? Where?

You know what I'm getting at.

We've fucked up. Where is the point of repair at this point?

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. Well you have two options at this point

assume a fetal position, or organize... that is what you have.

I prefer the latter.

[Prism]

25. You realize those things weren't choices, right?

Welcome to the election! You're fucked, or you're fucked. Which do you decide?

You're ok with that? Because that is, no matter what the rhetoric or the ideals, ultimately where we ended up.

Do you have anything more, or just the old binary desperation?

[nadinbrzezinski]

28. Nah apparently you do

have a good day. Get some sleep.

You might get it why this is not AS BAD as it was in 1994... (Clue we still have the Senate, and a few Governor's Mansions for MAJOR states, we didn't on either in 1994... don't expect the media to point this out)

[Prism]

38. Momentum is a power unto itself

Political power doesn't always lend itself to hard statistics. It lends itself to impression, to feeling, to a shared perception.

I know you know this, and I can only hope you're in election mode at present.

Please snap out. We need you sooner rather than later.

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. I look at this with the eyes of what

happened in 1994 and what happened today.

It is NOT as bad. Not crumpets and tea, well some tea, but not as bad.

Media wil convince you it is worst... mark my words.

Who controls the senate? Who controlled it in 1994?

That is but one example.

And we need to get back to work... to keep the WH in 2012, keep the Senate in 2012, and REGAIN the house...

And perhaps OUR side will finally learn... if you vote like a republican...

[paulflorez]

35. Democrats can be populists as well...

"The tea party have assumed the populist mantle."

There are many populist issues that the Tea Party is on the wrong side of and the Democrats are on the right side of.

For example. Exit poll shows that majority of Americans blame the BANKS for our economic woes, followed by Bush and the Obama.

That is a populist vein just waiting to be tapped, and the TP will NOT tap it because they love their corporate overlords.

If Dem politicians don't tap it then liberals/progressives/democrats/whatever should crack that shit wide open.

[The Backlash Cometh]

2. Not to mention that those tea partiers will probably give us a few

sound bites in the next couple of years that might make the right cringe. For instance, Rove made a comment that Sarah Palin's decision to get involved with a reality t.v. show might not lead to an electable situation. So, there are independent minded people among them which will make for an interesting two years.

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. Those tea partiers are the problem

they will be hard to control...

And yes sound bytes will make ME cringe.

[GSLevel9]

1994 was 52 seats 2010 will be 65-67 seats. So...

wtf?

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. Look at the control

and the tsunami did nto happen, now did it?

Oh and I forgot, three states went Republican in 1994... not the same tonight.

[paulflorez]

37. Is the House the only part of Congress?

You forgot the Senate... remember?

[GSLevel9]

5. dp

[democrat2thecore]

7. You're right - it's worse than 1994 - with much more to lose

We can't pretend. I can total numbers and put them in a column. I say it's worse because deep down many Republicans didn't want control of both houses going into the 2012 campaign. Obama cannot blame a do-nothing congress with both houses preventing progress. The Republicans - without the Senate - can say "They have the Senate and the White House." Honestly, to me this is worse (in the long-run) than if they had won both houses of the congress. It may sound weird to some, but I honestly believe that. Obama versus the obstructionists was taken off the table with our keeping the Senate. I know this is strictly political thinking, and not necessarily in the best interests of the country, but politics is....well...on my mind.

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. Let me see

we LOST NY, California and a few other states in the governor house in 1994...

And the control the RNC had was better...

We get back to work tomorrow... that is what we do.

[democrat2thecore]

14. I agree we get back to work . I just disagree with your analysis -nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

18. We can agree to disagree

I just think it is not that bad... not saying it is tea and crumpets... well tea maybe... but there are reasons why it is not that bad either, and the media is now doing the it is the LIBERALISM stupid... as predicted. And the 1994 will be, it is already, the media meme. I refuse to sink to their meme...

[NYC Liberal]

27. But the Senate will pass legislation that the Republicans

will block in the House. That is on them. And even if they had big majorities in both houses, they would STILL cry that Democrats were to blame for anything and everything.

[paulflorez]

41. How well was the "Obama versus the obsructionists" meme working out before?

I doubt it'd work very well even if Republicans took all of Congress.

The thing is, if Republicans had the Senate they potentially could have sent mob-rule legislation to Obama just to force him to veto it. The mob would be pissed at the President even if the legislation wasn't reasonable or was unconstitutional. With the Dems controlling the Senate, they can block legislation from going to him. They can also pass worthwhile legislation to him (if Republicans will bother to legislate anything worthwhile). The Dems are still the gatekeepers, and Republicans are now vulnerable to taking some of the heat for government action and the economy. Someone has to attack that vulnerability though.

[depakid]

9. No, it's much, much worse

Ironically, only thing the Dems had going for them this time around were the teabaggers.

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. We can argue all night

but I will point to Governor houses that are now in Democratic hands that were NOT in 1994.

And we have redistricting as well.

We get back to work, that is what we do.

[depakid]

19. Redistricting is one of the reasons why it's much, much worse

and I have every expectation that Obama will continue on his quixotic quest for bipartisanship- and be even worse with his corporate right pandering than Bill Clinton was.

Indeed, if Republicans are smart enough (and politically, they've proven to be over the years) then they'll nominate an ostensible competent and "moderate" in 2012, and Obama will be a one term president like Jimmy Carter.

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. i missed the Governor in Cali then

which I will remind you WENT republican in 1994, as well as NY...

[depakid]

24. California's meaningless to the national scene- as it's solid blue

Other key electoral states, not so much.

[nadinbrzezinski]

29. Right why the GOP has been trying to break it for YEARS

[depakid]

31. Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, etc

That's what you ought to be worried about.

[nadinbrzezinski]

33. Florida is not over

Jesus age, I get it, fetal position... NOW. I get it. It is over... why fight?

[Warren DeMontague]

16. Bull. Do you even *remember* 1994?

No, this is NOT "much, much worse".

[depakid]

22. I do indeed

and I warned time and time again- and early on that the administration and the Senate Dems were creating a 1994 type political dynamic.

And time and time again, I was ridiculed for these observations by "centrists," excuse makers and Obama 3d chess followers.

[nadinbrzezinski]

26. I agree with you the dynamic was there

but unless two senators switch parties, we still hold the Senate. We didn't in 1994 either.

That is why I am saying this is not as bad. It is not peaches and cream.. but there are a few DIFFERENT things.

We control the senate

We control a few Governor Houses that we did not that year.

[depakid]

30. Look at who the Senators that hold the balance for legislation are

Might as well be under Republican control for a number of issues.

And I think you can count on the Obama grovelling to them again and again.

[nadinbrzezinski]

32. Ok I guess I am going to bed

and get into a fetal position... is that the message I should take?

Here, running up the WHITE FLAG.

[depakid]

34. Just the reality of the situation

Doesn't mean going into a fetal position or anything of the sort.

That said, I'm not terribly optimistic that the Democrats have learned a single thing from this thumping. I expect to see more of the same acts and failures to act that led to this debacle in the first place.

Maybe they won't go out of their way to backhand or gratuitously insult their constituencies anymore- but even that I'm not convinced of.

[nadinbrzezinski]

36. I am not saying they will learn a thing either

but things are not as bad as they were in 1994... as I said not crumpets and tea, well some tea, but not as bad.

And the meme right now from media is that it is... when it is not. It really is annoying.

[Warren DeMontague]

42. What specific Senators? What specific issues?

Seriously. I'm curious.

[Warren DeMontague]

40. By no means was this election anywhere near as bad, That said

the thing to watch for now is the spin saying that this is a result of some sort of "liberal over-reach" on the part of Obama.

I think it's very clear that, whatever the dynamics in play here (and how similar it is to 1994, or not: for one, Obama won a clear victory over McCain in 2008, whereas Clinton won a 3 way race with Poppy and Perot, which a lot of republicans used as an excuse to de-legitimize his presidency early on) a lack of enthusiasm on the part of the base; which I consider myself a member- was a big part of the mix.

Where we go from here, I think, is the question. I'll be curious to hear what Obama has to say tomorrow. If he gets up there and says some lame stuff about "Message received", I'm turning off the tv. Bush got a much more thorough rebuke in 2006, and the next day he came out, essentially flipped the country the bird, and proceeded to send a shitload more troops to Iraq.

[nadinbrzezinski]

48. That started last night

this was liberal over reach, message was sent, it was a blowout.

People need to get the facts FAST, and get back to work FAST...

Or go into the fetal position, their choice.

And I expect the DLC right leaning democrats to receive the message and the country to drift further right ward. I hate that, but that is exactly what I expect.

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. I have a sneaky people do not remember that far back

we lost major governor houses that year, that this year we did not. And the control (despite of AP) of the republicans is not solid. Depends on how many seats they still take, but it is far from solid.


Of course the Senate ALSO went Republican that year.

But I refuse to go into a fetal position.

[the redcoat]

12. It's gonna be closer to 1984 pretty soon... nt

[democrat2thecore]

15. +1

[Ter]

43. Do you mean the book or that election?

:)

[Ter]

44. 1994 facts:

The GOP House had 176 seats and the Democrats had 258. The GOP picked up 54 seats for a total of 230.

This year, the GOP had 178 seats and the Democrats had 255. The GOP pickup will likely be around 65, for a total of around 243.

As for the Senate, in 1994 they gained 8. This year...Well, we'll have to wait and see in Colorado and Washington. They can still tie that. How it's not as bad I don't see it. IMO it's much worse.

Fun fact: 1994 and 2010 both had extreme right Senate candidates lose. This year it was Sharron Angle. In 1994 it was Oliver North.

[1stlady]

45. 1994 was worse

If I'm not mistaken, didn't california go red? In 94, not only did was lose the house & the senate, we lost major gubernatorial races as well. So I agree with the OP, its not as bad as the media was predicting it to be, not a sweep as some in the media thought it would be.

[nadinbrzezinski]

47. Yes, california, New York

and a few others.

I am not saying this is crumpets and tea, well some tea, but people will fall quickly into the media meme.

[obama14]

51. Yes, 2010 is WORSE.

We lost more house seats in 2010
We are tied with 1994 in Senate Seats losses.
We lost at ton of State houses, and Governorships.

So whats the big deal with state houses and governorships? LOTS! They are redistricting in the next year.
They will carve up the districts to hold on to this majority for the next 10 years (i.e. until the next census).

They took Ohio, and Florida Gov back - we all know how that helps in an election.

This is all to destroy Obama in 2012.


But, but Obama can blame the republicans because they own the house.
No, the republican are in the best possible position. They know we own 2/3rds of government, and can still pin most problems on us. At the same time they can pick of scared Democrat's in the senate to help pass legislation that Obama will veto. They will keep doing it and who is going to get the blame? "The Bi-Partisan bill Obama keeps Vetoing". I can hear it now.

[Warren DeMontague]

54. Thank you for your concern.

Welcome to DU.

[nadinbrzezinski]

46. I know I am dense, but we have the senate

Now if Lieberman and Nelson switch...

[Autumn]

49. They are large enough.

When we had the majority it was a problem getting anything through without the republicans slicing and dicing,I give you the stimulus for an example, health care for another. They are still going to do that. Only more so. And the investigations haven't even begun, they got nothing else.

[nadinbrzezinski]

50. Actually the house passed much of that legislation

the Senate stalled and that is where a lot of the watering down came from.

I blame the Fillibuster for much of this... but that is just me... that and a President that did not know how you play the game. And you do not let them do it. You get your hands dirty... and of course Rahm Emanuel and the rest of the crew that I suspect really didn't want it.

[Autumn]

52. I agree with you completely on the

filibuster, and the President not knowing or perhaps not caring how to play the game. You don't play nice with people out to destroy you and what you stand for. And a lot of the watering down came from the top, that's where the buck stops on that. I'm not going to blame his advisers. He chose them. It ultimately rests on his shoulders.

[nadinbrzezinski]

53. I blame all of them

and historias will have fun writing of the US at the twilight of Empire...

Empires in decline do this shit, predictably...